Very true. People do seem to forget how blisteringly fast an Atom is compared with what we were using 10 years ago. If you want to do the same stuff, and most of us do, a netbook is very capable.
The articles author asks incredulously whether that means that he can;t even encrypt his email.
Strange as it may seem, email encryption is not all that common amongst anyone except geeks, professionals in certain fields and some of the more tech-savvy criminals. I suspect that this kid is none of these. Preventing email encryption was probably the specific reason this was included in the first place.
Here's a bigger problem - go to facebook.com. Log in. Notice how you get directed to an encrypted webpage? So he's still not allowed to use facebook. Or even use jut about any web browser (I guess some of the older version of Mosaic or Lynx might have been pre-https)
You'll notice that the story I am linking to and quoting is an AP story... would Slashdot then be required to pay these fees?
Yes! That's how the proposal works.
Reporting news takes time and costs money. The AP can't operate without an income. Traditionally it got its income from the newspapers that ran AP stories. It worked then. It doesn't work now. Why? Because sites like Slashdot can simply link to the AP report. They don't get a lot of revenue from this sort of thing. Slashdot does. Slashdot needs the AP a lot more than the AP needs Slashdot. They figure that the organisations that benefit from the service should pay for the service otherwise the service will no longer be viable. Is the service an anachronism that is no longer needed? Seems that if it were, Slashdot wouldn't be linking to their articles.
I don't call myself either. British politics isn't really divided on those lines.
Thing is the Liberal Democrats shouldn't let this sort of thing pass. You don't join a third party in what's essentially a two party system for power. It's a fluke that they have any influence at all. It remains to be seen if they actually use this influence for any good.
Hey, guys - we voted against the other lot for this reason.
Ah well. Hopefully the libs will decide to stick to one of their election promises and vote against this. If they don't then there's quite frankly no point in having the coalition in the first place.
Cameras are defeated with masks. Alarms are defeated by getting in and out quickly enough.
Not sure about how useful this is in actual detection and prosecution but I should think an expert witness could quite justfiably state that it is beyond reasonable doubt that they were in that vicinity at the time the mist was being released. If the police do have a suspect with the dye on them they can be reasonably certain they have the right guy and can start building a case.
But I agree. The police do have to catch the guy in the first place.
It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."
Do people really think that this was an order from the upper echelons of Universal, terrified that people may see how they overreacted? I just seem to have this image of a board meeting where the chairman says "Next on the agenda - our 1980's anti-piracy advertising is on youtube", and another board members scream "Oh my god! We must destroy it!"
Have them hold up their shields at partial arms-length in front of them, look through the hole at the target, and adjust the tilt until the bright spot on their own reflection where the sun shines through the hole is also aligned with the hole.
They have busted it twice now, and both times it was with two guys and small mirrors. Archimedes would have used large polished shields and have each held by a man.
An experiment in 1973 used 0.75 square metre polished brass mirrors and 70 Greek sailors and had considerably more success at 50m.
Whether it actually happened or not is up for speculation, but it seems that it was at least plausible.
Wasn't totally convinced by the steam cannon either:)
I only hear good things
on
Why Microsoft?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Microsoft is and always has had a good reputation as a place to work. A lot of the senior managers came up from the trenches and do care about the working environment.
I mean, say what you want about their business practices, quality of software and anything else, they've always come across as a good employer.
You'll use the template parameters on declaration and instantiation. Square brackets don't get used for declaration so no conflict there. For instantiation you're always going to follow with a template paramter anyway, so there's no conflict.
~ is much easier to spot than !.
That's not why it was chosen.
Why don't you blame the designer of the code you are using then, instead of blaming the language?
Any language that has a feature that causes more headaches than solutions, is not needed, and where most coding standards say "don't use this feature" strikes me as flawed.
You are not calling "baseclass->method()", you are calling "baseclass->method(data)".
I know. I was expecting to be calling the method I'd specified. It's not obvious which wil be called.
Perhaps you also want the computer to understand English to write the code for you?
Yes, but that's not possible. I'll settle for languages that make things less cryptic.
Well, I've used both. I don't consider Excel to be superior because that would suggest that it's actually any good at all. However, it loooks like the OO guys decided to clone every single annoyane and limitation of Excel (e.g. arbitrary table size limits, rubbish sort dialog). I seem to recall the Calc equivalents of Pivot tables being a bit rubbish too but perhaps they've fixed that.
If anyone thinks they're equivalent, they only want to do trivial things with their spreadsheets. This is actually okay. Most people do. For most people Calc is perfetly adequate.
Your third hand knowledge is a little out of date. Yes, British food was pretty bad in the 1950's. These days we do actually have some of the finest restaurants in the world.
However, all agree, British Airways food is amongst the worst.
To you, maybe.
Yes. This is my opinion. I also think that ! would make at least as much sense for destructors as ~ but look nicer:)
No major toolkit uses multiple inheritance. I don't know why you are bitching about it.
Because we don't all use major toolkits.
And that's how it's supposed to work. The opposite is not just possible.
If I call baseclass->mymethod() and mymethod is virtual, typically I expect it to call the subclass if baseclass is actually an instance of subclass. C# solved this problem by forcing you to be explicit about overrides.
It's necessary
I know it is. It's still an annoyance that I'd rather avoid.
That's the point of exceptions.
I thought the point was that it was obvious.
Oh yeah? you are the smart one to discredit all language designers that came before you? please show us the better way to do this.
Just because I can't come up with a better way doesn't mean there isn't one and it doesn't mean I can't consider it unwieldy.
Yes. You can do things very cleanly with goto if you know what you're doing. Here's an example
That sort of thing can't always be done though, and doesn't automatically unwind the stack or provide extra information. C++ style exception handling is so useful, I'm just sure there has to be a tidier way. I'd like something that looks more like switch/case but have no idea how this could be done.
That's highly subjective. I never had any problem reading template code that is well formed.
Well, if I see some well formed template code I'll let you know...
Because [] are taken for array
< > are used for greater than, less than and bitwise shifts. Square brackets would make more sense, and not require special handling when you nest them.
Arbitrary in what degree?
What does that parameter do in the operator overload? Which one is a preincrement overload and which is the postincrement?
You don't have to use multiple inheritance, if you don't like it. It's not mandatory.
Not all of us are lucky enough to only use our own code.
I've read all criticism there is online about c++, but I never saw anything about default parameters. What is your problem with them?
base class contains virtual mymethod(int param=0). Subclass contains virtual mymethod(). Calling mymethod() gives different results if you call it on the subclass or the baseclass.
What's so unwieldy in it? if it could be implemented in any way that is more efficient, it would.
Extra level of nesting and not immediately obvious where the code will jump to. Like I say, it's useful, but there has to be a better way to do this.
Honestly, I think almost all patents should be invalid because they're completely incomprehensible to someone skilled in the art. Sadly it seems that patent law doesn't work like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. People do seem to forget how blisteringly fast an Atom is compared with what we were using 10 years ago. If you want to do the same stuff, and most of us do, a netbook is very capable.
I even have Tomb Raider 2 installed on mine:)
Lynx has supported https for years.
The articles author asks incredulously whether that means that he can;t even encrypt his email.
Strange as it may seem, email encryption is not all that common amongst anyone except geeks, professionals in certain fields and some of the more tech-savvy criminals. I suspect that this kid is none of these. Preventing email encryption was probably the specific reason this was included in the first place.
Here's a bigger problem - go to facebook.com. Log in. Notice how you get directed to an encrypted webpage? So he's still not allowed to use facebook. Or even use jut about any web browser (I guess some of the older version of Mosaic or Lynx might have been pre-https)
You'll notice that the story I am linking to and quoting is an AP story ... would Slashdot then be required to pay these fees?
Yes! That's how the proposal works.
Reporting news takes time and costs money. The AP can't operate without an income. Traditionally it got its income from the newspapers that ran AP stories. It worked then. It doesn't work now. Why? Because sites like Slashdot can simply link to the AP report. They don't get a lot of revenue from this sort of thing. Slashdot does. Slashdot needs the AP a lot more than the AP needs Slashdot. They figure that the organisations that benefit from the service should pay for the service otherwise the service will no longer be viable. Is the service an anachronism that is no longer needed? Seems that if it were, Slashdot wouldn't be linking to their articles.
Which is why you don't use it. Twitter only makes sense if you know other people who use it.
I don't call myself either. British politics isn't really divided on those lines.
Thing is the Liberal Democrats shouldn't let this sort of thing pass. You don't join a third party in what's essentially a two party system for power. It's a fluke that they have any influence at all. It remains to be seen if they actually use this influence for any good.
Wouldn't stick. They can't reasonably claim that you might have known that key.
Either. The A stands for Act.
Hey, guys - we voted against the other lot for this reason. Ah well. Hopefully the libs will decide to stick to one of their election promises and vote against this. If they don't then there's quite frankly no point in having the coalition in the first place.
Cameras are defeated with masks. Alarms are defeated by getting in and out quickly enough.
Not sure about how useful this is in actual detection and prosecution but I should think an expert witness could quite justfiably state that it is beyond reasonable doubt that they were in that vicinity at the time the mist was being released. If the police do have a suspect with the dye on them they can be reasonably certain they have the right guy and can start building a case.
But I agree. The police do have to catch the guy in the first place.
It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."
Do people really think that this was an order from the upper echelons of Universal, terrified that people may see how they overreacted? I just seem to have this image of a board meeting where the chairman says "Next on the agenda - our 1980's anti-piracy advertising is on youtube", and another board members scream "Oh my god! We must destroy it!"
Have them hold up their shields at partial arms-length in front of them, look through the hole at the target, and adjust the tilt until the bright spot on their own reflection where the sun shines through the hole is also aligned with the hole.
I did wonder about aiming. I like that idea.
They have busted it twice now, and both times it was with two guys and small mirrors. Archimedes would have used large polished shields and have each held by a man.
An experiment in 1973 used 0.75 square metre polished brass mirrors and 70 Greek sailors and had considerably more success at 50m.
Whether it actually happened or not is up for speculation, but it seems that it was at least plausible.
Wasn't totally convinced by the steam cannon either:)
Microsoft is and always has had a good reputation as a place to work. A lot of the senior managers came up from the trenches and do care about the working environment.
I mean, say what you want about their business practices, quality of software and anything else, they've always come across as a good employer.
You'll use the template parameters on declaration and instantiation. Square brackets don't get used for declaration so no conflict there. For instantiation you're always going to follow with a template paramter anyway, so there's no conflict.
~ is much easier to spot than !.
That's not why it was chosen.
Why don't you blame the designer of the code you are using then, instead of blaming the language?
Any language that has a feature that causes more headaches than solutions, is not needed, and where most coding standards say "don't use this feature" strikes me as flawed.
You are not calling "baseclass->method()", you are calling "baseclass->method(data)".
I know. I was expecting to be calling the method I'd specified. It's not obvious which wil be called.
Perhaps you also want the computer to understand English to write the code for you?
Yes, but that's not possible. I'll settle for languages that make things less cryptic.
Well, I've used both. I don't consider Excel to be superior because that would suggest that it's actually any good at all. However, it loooks like the OO guys decided to clone every single annoyane and limitation of Excel (e.g. arbitrary table size limits, rubbish sort dialog). I seem to recall the Calc equivalents of Pivot tables being a bit rubbish too but perhaps they've fixed that.
If anyone thinks they're equivalent, they only want to do trivial things with their spreadsheets. This is actually okay. Most people do. For most people Calc is perfetly adequate.
Up from "zounds, 'tis truly autumn" to "gadzooks, 'tis quite pleasant"
Your third hand knowledge is a little out of date. Yes, British food was pretty bad in the 1950's. These days we do actually have some of the finest restaurants in the world.
However, all agree, British Airways food is amongst the worst.
To you, maybe. Yes. This is my opinion. I also think that ! would make at least as much sense for destructors as ~ but look nicer:)
No major toolkit uses multiple inheritance. I don't know why you are bitching about it.
Because we don't all use major toolkits.
And that's how it's supposed to work. The opposite is not just possible.
If I call baseclass->mymethod() and mymethod is virtual, typically I expect it to call the subclass if baseclass is actually an instance of subclass. C# solved this problem by forcing you to be explicit about overrides.
It's necessary
I know it is. It's still an annoyance that I'd rather avoid.
That's the point of exceptions.
I thought the point was that it was obvious.
Oh yeah? you are the smart one to discredit all language designers that came before you? please show us the better way to do this.
Just because I can't come up with a better way doesn't mean there isn't one and it doesn't mean I can't consider it unwieldy.
Yes. You can do things very cleanly with goto if you know what you're doing. Here's an example
That sort of thing can't always be done though, and doesn't automatically unwind the stack or provide extra information. C++ style exception handling is so useful, I'm just sure there has to be a tidier way. I'd like something that looks more like switch/case but have no idea how this could be done.
That's highly subjective. I never had any problem reading template code that is well formed.
Well, if I see some well formed template code I'll let you know...
Because [] are taken for array
< > are used for greater than, less than and bitwise shifts. Square brackets would make more sense, and not require special handling when you nest them.
Arbitrary in what degree?
What does that parameter do in the operator overload? Which one is a preincrement overload and which is the postincrement?
You don't have to use multiple inheritance, if you don't like it. It's not mandatory.
Not all of us are lucky enough to only use our own code.
I've read all criticism there is online about c++, but I never saw anything about default parameters. What is your problem with them?
base class contains virtual mymethod(int param=0). Subclass contains virtual mymethod(). Calling mymethod() gives different results if you call it on the subclass or the baseclass. What's so unwieldy in it? if it could be implemented in any way that is more efficient, it would.
Extra level of nesting and not immediately obvious where the code will jump to. Like I say, it's useful, but there has to be a better way to do this.
There is a Linux port. And it has several features mising from Java.
It's actually a pretty good language.
True. But how do you overclock them?
It doesn't give me the choice though. It can't. Once someone else in the team uses these features, I'm obliged to use them as well.
Honestly, I think almost all patents should be invalid because they're completely incomprehensible to someone skilled in the art. Sadly it seems that patent law doesn't work like that.