Big, big difference between explicit function references (known to have definitions elsewhere) and redefining the meaning of arithmetic primitives.
Stroustrup explicitly decided not to leave stuff out just because it was abusable. If there was a good reason for a feature to be in (and he was pretty strict on that), he wouldn't reject it because somebody would do something stupid and confusing with it.
And C++ stands as a monument to what you get when you follow that philosophy.
Notice that other languages since have tended to focus on a tighter coherent set of core features.
There are good features and there are bad features. If you don't like funky object features don't use them...
Because everyone writes code from scratch just for their own use?
This lame excuse for a extremely over-complicated language laden with bad features is simply ludicrous in the real world where 80+% of programming is maintaining code that somebody else wrote. Any feature that makes that harder, is a "misfeature".
Any language that allows the programmer to override the '=' operator is truly, verily, bad.
This is, to my mind, the most fundamental problem with C++: it is impossible to look at a page of code in isolation and know what it does, with confidence. Any of the operators could have been redefined to do anything. This is not a theoretical problem, I encountered a code base of horrors that a nerd who though he was God's gift to nerd-dom dreamed up, which had numerous standard operators reassigned to make the code he wrote "look elegant". It was impossible to analyze or maintain.
When the meaning of a simple programming construct is indeterminate, the language that supports it has failed disastrously.
This is what I miss most. At one time Yahoo and Google were competing in desktop search and you had two powerful engines to choose between.
And the way they dropped their desktop search application was infuriating - it was dropped with less than a week's notice, which was little publicized (I missed it) so you did not have a chance to save the installer (assuming it was complete in itself), and they did not open source the code base so that others could maintain it.
Now the best I have for Linux systems is Recoll, it seems. Pretty effective on common formats, but clunky, and no features to keep the index up-to-date. (If anyone knows something better, please tell me.)
Yes, there at least three levels of "second guessing", the first is harmless ("did you mean" suggestions) but usually stupid, these don't change your results; the second level is "improving" your search by deleting various terms from a multi-term query (how else to get specificity?) in the top list of results; the third level is deciding you really wanted to search for something entirely different, and searching on that instead. And all of this is in addition to their type-ahead suggestions, which prompt you for popular searches right from the get-go.
The (insane) premise seems to be 'of course you really want your search to return an ocean of 10 million hits, rather than narrowing down to 10 or 100 actually relevant ones'.
It is not a matter of property rights, atleast not in most states. In most states the state, or local government own the property that this is done on.
This is impossible. Long distance ground line systems cannot be constructed without easements of private property, a restricted but real form of abrogating property rights for the benefit of the private enterprise laying the lines.
The fact is communication companies get to use other people's property for free so that they can profit.
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually.
Thats 137 studies 'used" per day.
I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
The EPA employs 16,000 people full-time and contracts out work to many more, so that is 3 studies per employee per year. I fail to notice anything ridiculous about the number.
Do tell us, what is the "right" number of studies?
You can find "proof" of anything you want to on the internet, whether it be that the Queen of England is really a lizard..
Googling "Queen of England is really a lizard"... whoa! 16.9 million hits! The top one: Reasons The Queen Is A Bloody Lizard. Will wonders never cease...
Perhaps you should reply. Currently I would say on-lookers would conclude he decked you in a fight you jumped into, and then you ran away claiming you were "too proud to fight".
Between the CIA, which spied on Mandela and tipped the South African secret police off to where to grab him, and the Apartheid regime itself, every scrap of dirt about Mandela was vigorously publicized by the supporters of the regime for 30 years. I'm sure it would have pleased them that their efforts did not go unheard, that violent oppression still has its fans.
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Because those with power would never, ever use their power to punish people who say things they dislike?
If you spoke in the public square in days past those words would not be easily retrievable by anyone in the world, forever. Lack of anonymity then was fundamentally, profoundly different from now.
Hmm... perusing definitions of "espionage", both common and legal, they all have as a common element that the obtaining and disclosing of classified information is done on behalf of a foreign country.
I have never seen the U.S. government allege that Snowden was acting as a spy for any nation.
How long has GOP-backed and advised Harper been in power now? What happened? Was it tar sand greed?...
I think you are on to something. Right-wing extremist oil/energy money has been a potent factor in U.S. politics since the 1940s, witness the John Birch Society founded and run by Fred Koch. Its in-your-face craziness led to it being rejected by the Republican mainstream in the early 1960s, and then marginalized, but this very small group had enormous financial resources, and patience and has built up an enormous infrastructure to push their policies over the years, not just at the national level but in states around the country. It was an odd spectacle when the newly elected Governor Walker of Wisconsin took a call he thought was from Charles Koch and assured that citizen of Kansas that he was on board with his anti-union legislation program; evidently this resident of another state who could not cast a vote for him is Walker's real "constituent".
With the Tea party the John Birch Society in effect took over complete control of the Republican Party.
Just as the OIl Birchers have been taking control of the politics of states they don't live in, they seem to be pushing their politics in Canada too, no doubt with the assistance of much Canadian oil money. Farmers are being threatened with losing their farms in Nebraska so that a pipeline of Canadian tar-oil from tar sands project partly owned by the Koch brothers can get to Koch refineries in Louisiana.
Anyone opposing oil money will certainly get crushed, sooner rather than later.
According to this article lawn darts killed 4 people (3 of them children) and injured 6700 before they were banned. The article ranks them as the most dangerous toy.
But Barnham does not really scrutinize the issue at all. For all his discussion of "rigor" and error bars in the collection of estimates, it does not consider the various components of the CO2 estimates except for one, which is apparently where most of the high CO2 release estimate comes: the assumption that uranium will be extracted from rock with a uranium content of 0.005% or less. This is the "yellow coal" scenario - at this concentration, using once-through U-235 burning only (boosted by in situ produced actinide burning) as in current reactors, the uranium ore contains no more energy than does coal.
But this is not a likely source of uranium in the future. Seawater is. It contains 1000 times as much uranium as the "yellow coal" ore, and can be extracted at a much lower energy cost, and a lower dollar cost as well.
We can estimate the energy cost of uranium from seawater by considering how it is collected, by immersing special polymer fabrics in seawater, to which the uranium ions attach. Polymers exist that have shown the ability to collect over 10% of their mass in uranium, and may be substantially reusable. The energy cost (and dollar cost) of manufacturing the polymers, deploying them, and stripping the uranium from them is considerably lower than mining and refining "yellow coal" uranium ore. Estimates of current seawater extraction technology are actually lower than the peak spot price of uranium already seen.
Nuclear power opponents dismiss seawater uranium with the argument that it is speculative, since no one produces uranium from this source yet. There is a good reason for that. We haven't exhausted supplies of richer ore yet, and thus don't need it. The fact that no one yet mines uranium ore with a uranium content of 0.005% either somehow does not trouble them in making their projections (the lowest grade ore currently mined is about ten times more concentrated than that).
Nuclear plants definitely have a larger carbon cost to build. This is easily seen from the necessity of concrete containment structures - which produce a lot of carbon dioxide from the manufacture of cement (~6% of global CO2 emissions are from cement plants). Their high capital cost must reflect to some degree a high energy cost (and thus higher CO2 production cost) as well.
It is virologically impossible to spread smallpox with blankets. The whole story is mythology. The smallpox virus lives maximum 48 hours exposed to air and light. About enough time to move something 40 miles in pioneer days.
In the mid-twentieth century, there was concern for
inadvertent importation of variola virus into Great Britain
in raw cotton shipped in from tropical areas (22). Suspicion
was raised for this vehicle of importation after outbreaks
occurred in British workers who handled raw cotton.
An experiment was conducted to test the viability of
variola virus derived from smallpox lesion crusts found
in imported raw cotton (19). Viable virus was obtained
530 days from crusts stored in indirect light at room temperature.
Crusts stored at higher humidity (73% and 84%)
were viable until 70 and 60 days, respectively. Similar
results were obtained from a study in Bangladesh, which
found viable virus could be isolated from crusts stored at
lower temperatures.
For a corporation to get your money without your permission, they must sue you and get the government to agree. The government can just tax you.
A corporation does not need to "get" your money to stomp on you, they merely need to deprive you of it. They can easily do that with lawsuits to bury you in legal costs. Such lawsuits are often meritless, but see if you can foot the bill to show this in a court of law.
And, no, the government cannot decide to levy an arbitrary tax on you as an individual. This sort of punitive private bill is covered under the constitutional ban on Bills of Attainder (which is interpreted more broadly in the U.S. than the meaning just of declaring someone guilty of a crime).
For a corporation to get your property without your permission, same thing. The government calls it eminent domain.
The government must pay you fair market value, not simply seize it.
All the government can do is to put me in jail, tax me or force me out of the country.
Zuckerberg could shut off my Facebook access.
He could also file a SLAPP lawsuit against you to make you life hell and bury you in litigation costs, ruining you financially, with his pocket change. And he could pay any number of anonymous individuals to harass you in many ways: anonymous death threats, have strangers follow you and your family around taking pictures (see how Brown & Williamson harassed Jeffrey Wigand), exhaustively research your background and publicize any "dirt" they can find. It doesn't even have to be real dirt - lots of things can be made to look bad, and they have a super-loud megaphone (that money=speech thing) that will drown you out as you try to clear your name.
Unscrupulous people with vast wealth at their disposal can destroy you if they choose.
No one's freedom is impeded by the prohibition for governments to compete with private interests. What we are talking about is not a bunch of people getting together to run cables. No — the talk is of coercing — at gun point (as all taxes are collected) — all of the town's residents (whether they want it or not) to pay for some Common Good[TM]. And that shall not be allowed to stand — not in a country, that calls itself free.
Oh I see, government itself is the enemy of freedom! If there were no government and no taxes we would all be perfectly free! Just look at, where is it now that has no functioning government? Someplace in Africa maybe? Boy are those people ever free!
Slashdot Mirror
Big, big difference between explicit function references (known to have definitions elsewhere) and redefining the meaning of arithmetic primitives.
Stroustrup explicitly decided not to leave stuff out just because it was abusable. If there was a good reason for a feature to be in (and he was pretty strict on that), he wouldn't reject it because somebody would do something stupid and confusing with it.
And C++ stands as a monument to what you get when you follow that philosophy.
Notice that other languages since have tended to focus on a tighter coherent set of core features.
There are good features and there are bad features. If you don't like funky object features don't use them...
Because everyone writes code from scratch just for their own use?
This lame excuse for a extremely over-complicated language laden with bad features is simply ludicrous in the real world where 80+% of programming is maintaining code that somebody else wrote. Any feature that makes that harder, is a "misfeature".
Any language that allows the programmer to override the '=' operator is truly, verily, bad.
This is, to my mind, the most fundamental problem with C++: it is impossible to look at a page of code in isolation and know what it does, with confidence. Any of the operators could have been redefined to do anything. This is not a theoretical problem, I encountered a code base of horrors that a nerd who though he was God's gift to nerd-dom dreamed up, which had numerous standard operators reassigned to make the code he wrote "look elegant". It was impossible to analyze or maintain.
When the meaning of a simple programming construct is indeterminate, the language that supports it has failed disastrously.
This is what I miss most. At one time Yahoo and Google were competing in desktop search and you had two powerful engines to choose between.
And the way they dropped their desktop search application was infuriating - it was dropped with less than a week's notice, which was little publicized (I missed it) so you did not have a chance to save the installer (assuming it was complete in itself), and they did not open source the code base so that others could maintain it.
Now the best I have for Linux systems is Recoll, it seems. Pretty effective on common formats, but clunky, and no features to keep the index up-to-date. (If anyone knows something better, please tell me.)
Yes, there at least three levels of "second guessing", the first is harmless ("did you mean" suggestions) but usually stupid, these don't change your results; the second level is "improving" your search by deleting various terms from a multi-term query (how else to get specificity?) in the top list of results; the third level is deciding you really wanted to search for something entirely different, and searching on that instead. And all of this is in addition to their type-ahead suggestions, which prompt you for popular searches right from the get-go.
The (insane) premise seems to be 'of course you really want your search to return an ocean of 10 million hits, rather than narrowing down to 10 or 100 actually relevant ones'.
Wow.
Stunning ignorance and arrogance (from someone who cannot find the shift key).
Excavations of the ancestor of other primate lineages are quite common.
All you have to do is type "primate fossils" in Google or Bing and be buried in links to same.
It is not a matter of property rights, atleast not in most states. In most states the state, or local government own the property that this is done on.
This is impossible. Long distance ground line systems cannot be constructed without easements of private property, a restricted but real form of abrogating property rights for the benefit of the private enterprise laying the lines.
The fact is communication companies get to use other people's property for free so that they can profit.
Your link does not support your claim in any way.
Old lame stunt: the fake "supporting link".
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
The EPA employs 16,000 people full-time and contracts out work to many more, so that is 3 studies per employee per year. I fail to notice anything ridiculous about the number.
Do tell us, what is the "right" number of studies?
You can find "proof" of anything you want to on the internet, whether it be that the Queen of England is really a lizard..
Googling "Queen of England is really a lizard"... whoa! 16.9 million hits! The top one: Reasons The Queen Is A Bloody Lizard. Will wonders never cease...
Perhaps you should reply. Currently I would say on-lookers would conclude he decked you in a fight you jumped into, and then you ran away claiming you were "too proud to fight".
Between the CIA, which spied on Mandela and tipped the South African secret police off to where to grab him, and the Apartheid regime itself, every scrap of dirt about Mandela was vigorously publicized by the supporters of the regime for 30 years. I'm sure it would have pleased them that their efforts did not go unheard, that violent oppression still has its fans.
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
Because those with power would never, ever use their power to punish people who say things they dislike?
If you spoke in the public square in days past those words would not be easily retrievable by anyone in the world, forever. Lack of anonymity then was fundamentally, profoundly different from now.
Hmm... perusing definitions of "espionage", both common and legal, they all have as a common element that the obtaining and disclosing of classified information is done on behalf of a foreign country.
I have never seen the U.S. government allege that Snowden was acting as a spy for any nation.
So: no espionage.
See the difference?
How long has GOP-backed and advised Harper been in power now? What happened? Was it tar sand greed? ...
I think you are on to something. Right-wing extremist oil/energy money has been a potent factor in U.S. politics since the 1940s, witness the John Birch Society founded and run by Fred Koch. Its in-your-face craziness led to it being rejected by the Republican mainstream in the early 1960s, and then marginalized, but this very small group had enormous financial resources, and patience and has built up an enormous infrastructure to push their policies over the years, not just at the national level but in states around the country. It was an odd spectacle when the newly elected Governor Walker of Wisconsin took a call he thought was from Charles Koch and assured that citizen of Kansas that he was on board with his anti-union legislation program; evidently this resident of another state who could not cast a vote for him is Walker's real "constituent".
With the Tea party the John Birch Society in effect took over complete control of the Republican Party.
Just as the OIl Birchers have been taking control of the politics of states they don't live in, they seem to be pushing their politics in Canada too, no doubt with the assistance of much Canadian oil money. Farmers are being threatened with losing their farms in Nebraska so that a pipeline of Canadian tar-oil from tar sands project partly owned by the Koch brothers can get to Koch refineries in Louisiana.
Anyone opposing oil money will certainly get crushed, sooner rather than later.
He meant this yellow cake! That other stuff is just uranium ore.
According to this article lawn darts killed 4 people (3 of them children) and injured 6700 before they were banned. The article ranks them as the most dangerous toy.
Right now, nuclear is being hobbled by a myriad of lawsuits trying to prevent any nuclear power plant from being built anywhere.
Citation please? Just you because you believe it does not make it true.
But Barnham does not really scrutinize the issue at all. For all his discussion of "rigor" and error bars in the collection of estimates, it does not consider the various components of the CO2 estimates except for one, which is apparently where most of the high CO2 release estimate comes: the assumption that uranium will be extracted from rock with a uranium content of 0.005% or less. This is the "yellow coal" scenario - at this concentration, using once-through U-235 burning only (boosted by in situ produced actinide burning) as in current reactors, the uranium ore contains no more energy than does coal.
But this is not a likely source of uranium in the future. Seawater is. It contains 1000 times as much uranium as the "yellow coal" ore, and can be extracted at a much lower energy cost, and a lower dollar cost as well.
We can estimate the energy cost of uranium from seawater by considering how it is collected, by immersing special polymer fabrics in seawater, to which the uranium ions attach. Polymers exist that have shown the ability to collect over 10% of their mass in uranium, and may be substantially reusable. The energy cost (and dollar cost) of manufacturing the polymers, deploying them, and stripping the uranium from them is considerably lower than mining and refining "yellow coal" uranium ore. Estimates of current seawater extraction technology are actually lower than the peak spot price of uranium already seen.
Nuclear power opponents dismiss seawater uranium with the argument that it is speculative, since no one produces uranium from this source yet. There is a good reason for that. We haven't exhausted supplies of richer ore yet, and thus don't need it. The fact that no one yet mines uranium ore with a uranium content of 0.005% either somehow does not trouble them in making their projections (the lowest grade ore currently mined is about ten times more concentrated than that).
Nuclear plants definitely have a larger carbon cost to build. This is easily seen from the necessity of concrete containment structures - which produce a lot of carbon dioxide from the manufacture of cement (~6% of global CO2 emissions are from cement plants). Their high capital cost must reflect to some degree a high energy cost (and thus higher CO2 production cost) as well.
It is virologically impossible to spread smallpox with blankets. The whole story is mythology. The smallpox virus lives maximum 48 hours exposed to air and light. About enough time to move something 40 miles in pioneer days.
I'm sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Infectivity from smallpox contaminated fabrics has been documented after more than a year. Not mythology at all.
Here is the key paragraph:
For a corporation to get your money without your permission, they must sue you and get the government to agree. The government can just tax you.
A corporation does not need to "get" your money to stomp on you, they merely need to deprive you of it. They can easily do that with lawsuits to bury you in legal costs. Such lawsuits are often meritless, but see if you can foot the bill to show this in a court of law.
And, no, the government cannot decide to levy an arbitrary tax on you as an individual. This sort of punitive private bill is covered under the constitutional ban on Bills of Attainder (which is interpreted more broadly in the U.S. than the meaning just of declaring someone guilty of a crime).
For a corporation to get your property without your permission, same thing. The government calls it eminent domain.
The government must pay you fair market value, not simply seize it.
All the government can do is to put me in jail, tax me or force me out of the country.
Zuckerberg could shut off my Facebook access.
He could also file a SLAPP lawsuit against you to make you life hell and bury you in litigation costs, ruining you financially, with his pocket change. And he could pay any number of anonymous individuals to harass you in many ways: anonymous death threats, have strangers follow you and your family around taking pictures (see how Brown & Williamson harassed Jeffrey Wigand), exhaustively research your background and publicize any "dirt" they can find. It doesn't even have to be real dirt - lots of things can be made to look bad, and they have a super-loud megaphone (that money=speech thing) that will drown you out as you try to clear your name.
Unscrupulous people with vast wealth at their disposal can destroy you if they choose.
Yes, just like the rest of us.
No one's freedom is impeded by the prohibition for governments to compete with private interests. What we are talking about is not a bunch of people getting together to run cables. No — the talk is of coercing — at gun point (as all taxes are collected) — all of the town's residents (whether they want it or not) to pay for some Common Good[TM]. And that shall not be allowed to stand — not in a country, that calls itself free.
Oh I see, government itself is the enemy of freedom! If there were no government and no taxes we would all be perfectly free! Just look at, where is it now that has no functioning government? Someplace in Africa maybe? Boy are those people ever free!
Wish I had mod points. This comparison vaporizes the feeble excuse offered by the poster to defend the corrupt practices in the U.S.