One thing I just read is that officers are happy to use them - sure you Americans are all concerned about the cops beating on you, but in more civilised countries the police are considering using them to replace their notebooks and reduce the amount of paperwork they have to fill out.
Everything they used to have to write down, back at the station, is now recorded on video so they just have to hand that over to the lawyers who will do the hard work of sorting it out for the jury. That is a huge win and something that means the police will want to use it.
If I was a copper, I'd be ecstatic about having to write out less documentation and do more policing. (hmm, a bit like, as a developer I am ecstatic when I get to actually code and not write up various solution, test, requirements and design documents!)
not really - "deems worth recording" isn't really the case.
Consider that police don't just walk around in the hope of finding bad things happening. They get sent places from the control centre, which in turn gets reports from the public via 999 calls or similar.
So the officers will be sent to deal with an incident, and will be expected to have switched their cameras on when they arrive - and its pretty easy to see if they didn't as they'll have no recording to match to the case incident.
The video will be used as evidence in any case the police bring, hence the concept of switching it on just before going to deal with an incident.
Its not for general recording in case they spot something, or to protect the police in case of complaint - though obviously a compliant is a case in itself, and the video would be used as evidence then too.
So really- the camera will be off when the officer is just walking the beat, or sat in his car, and turned on only when he gets to the scene of an incident.
no, they can turn them off. They are off most of the time until the officer 'interacts with the public' and then it gets turned on to record what he's doing.
As we see from Glass users, people don't like the idea of recording everything.
However, some don't trust the police and think they should be recording everything - more so we can check the police rather than check the people they record.
yeah but what about red/blue/black colourblindness?
My mate is colour blind and he worked for the rail industry.. on signalling. You may think "OMG WTF?!" but he can function in the real world, red is always the one at the top, green at the bottom and they're different shades of grey to him.
Anyway what is it in a predominantly geek users that they can't fucking search for tools to assist them with their disability.
All good in practice, but those site typically use javascript libraries (eg jquery) and they pull in the lib from the original site rather than host it themselves (does this help bandwidth, ie with caching of it?)
i guess you can simply whitelist these library links, but there seems to be so many of them nowadays.
maybe that's your attitude - but at all the large corporations I've worked everyone gave quite a damn about shipping quality product.
Sure, we had to deal with the bureaucracy but even in the small companies I've worked at, you had to deal with it - it was just closer to you (ie lareg company you have to justify things via paperwork, small company you have to justify things to the director)
very good point - if the startup has grown in usual startup ways, then they have a load of kids who are churning out crap code, continually "refactoring" and partying thinking they're the biz.
And now the people with money are going to make it into a real company with things like support and organisation. If the kids start to leave because the culture is turning into real life rather than a party then there's plenty of scope for career progression there - so you need to show you're adult and able to cope with the real world.
Like I fixed my fusebox that always blew by putting a nail in across the contacts. It never blows a fuse anymore.
(disclaimer: I didn't really. don't do this)
When it comes to highbrow bugs like this, everyone jump sup and down and demands to know what you're doing to stop the next one - ie stopping this bug from ever occurring again. What they really need to worry about is the next unknown bug that we will find. they are out there, we will find it in production one day, it will bite us, and no I don;t think there is anything we can practically do about it. When someone finds that bug, its too late.
A good analogy is that idiot who put explosives in his shoe. So now, rather than try to find explosive underpants or explosive baggage, we all have to take our shoes off at the airport, in case someone is stupid enough to try it again. The overflow bug here will be fixed, what we will see is a different bug. And we can all go crazy about the details all over again.
Its true that a set of 'commonly used' libraries would be easier to handle, and maybe we'd get more contribution and documentation.
But I'm not convinced they should be part of a standard for the language - I like something more responsive to changing needs. Boost works well for this, even if it is full of stuff I don't understand, let along have a use for:)
not really - what you need is to pick a few libraries and pull them in. Unlike other languages where you use what comes with your IDE, with C/C++ you are encouraged to find and use reusable libraries.
So if you want XML, get tinyXML and use that. If you want http - boost::asio or curl. Web Services (REST or SOAP?) gsoap or boost::asio or civetweb/mongoose, and so on.
This is a huge advantage. If I want an embedded webserver in my code then I'll include civetweb in it and with 4 lines of code and 2 c files, I have my code answering http requests. It will be limited in functionality, but that's ok as my embedded server only has 40k added to it by doing this. If I want something much more featured, I'll use a different server library.
If I want JSON, I'll go grab a JSON library, good luck using JSON in your that didn't see fit to include a parser for it. I would like to see boost wrappers/reimplementations of many common libraries like XML or SQL, but... maybe one day I'll have a go at contributing one.
The only disadvantage to this is finding which library is the most suitable for you.
I don't know anyone (sensible) who wants GC or reflection.
Sure, there's a lot of hype about them (thankfully reducing as people realise they aren't the silver bullets they were promoted as) but they just aren't good - not when you have better in C++ in the first place.
There's a few features - variadac initialisation, new for loop, lambdas. They're nice... but as you say, nothing that couldn't be done with a little more typing. (strangely the types who complain that you have to type a little more text are the ones who have functions like the GetTextEffectCharacterIndexFromTextSourceCharacterIndex method of System.Windows.Media.TextFormatting.TextSource:)
They do prefer to deal with language features, the majority of which I don't think really add much to the language.
I mean, I'd rather have seen more string operations added to the STL lib than things like 'final' (though admittedly I did have a hard time going through the list finding an example of something that's not too useful).
I would really rather they spent a lot of time on the infrastructure to C++, like header files that everyone seems to dislike (I like them, if they act as a kind of interface, if they could only make private members tuck away in the cpp file, they'd be great), or more importantly - an ABI for C++ libraries so it could become as widespread as C is and we could write components that actually worked with other builds, no more compiling from source to ensure a fit, no more extern C wrappers around everything you want to call from something else. That kind of thing would make me happy - and I think is the thing thats really missing from C++, after all - boost can provide much of the language features anyone wants.
So the trick is to create the components so they do work in a totally isolated manner. If traffic lights v3 had a very specific specification then we could reuse them.
We do this at the moment with some libraries - openssl was used across the world because it was a drop-in library that did what it said it would do. (ok, it had a flaw, but bugs don't really count in this discussion of design). similarly webkit is used for web rendering and it works well, because it does what it says it will and is pretty much a closed box. Http protocol works because its specified - much like the way roads are (set minimum width, camber etc) so to use it, you just have to designed your component to fit inside those parameters.
That's what we need to encourage - not the idea of frameworks where you are bent to the framework design, but in pluggable libraries that are designed independently of whatever system you are going to use them in.
But people don't do this - a library will be designed to do what they need at the time and then gets modified to suit the next project and so on. No standards are published and so other systems that use it become intertwined with special cases.
But when you want coding to be implementation similar to construction, you have to understand that the design phase would suddenly become much more like the old Waterfall methods - where the entire system was designed, locked down, fully thought out and specified to the last detail.
That approach works for bridges because an architect will basically take an existing design and will tweak it for the specific customer requirements . Software isn't so mature it has such existing systems to work with (though I 'd say it could be by now, there is far too much reinvention or tools, languages and frameworks to allow this to happen in reality).
So today, coding is still part of the design phase. Hopefully once the system is designed, the concept of deployment to production is more analogous to construction (think pre-fab structures being craned into place), but I feel deployment in the software industry is still part of the design phase too.
OMG, and they dig it up out of the ground!!!! Who put it there, that's what I want to know. Which bastard put this unbelievably dangerous rock under my feet!?!?!?!! We need to know so we can sue them for the irreparable damage to the environment they caused.
AC posts ignorance and expects everyone to worship him. You didn't contribute anything but negativity to the discussion. You didn't even give a reason why his comment wouldn't work. You gave us nothing.
At least the OP had some interesting points that could be worth looking up on Google at the least that helped educate me a little.
You, gave me about as much information as your average (no, your below-average) politician.
No, Google is an Irish company. If you look at which of the many companies that comprises Google worldwide, it is Google Ireland that does the majority of business with all the other countries in fact, this individual country's operation actually does all the selling of product in all the other countries too - that's why the tax bill is so low. See, if in France, a French salesman sells an advertising campaign to a French company, it is the Irish company that does it - otherwise the sale would (obviously) count as a French sale by French people to Frenchmen, and thus then be liable for all those taxes. But if the Irish company did the selling (nudge, nudge, honest) then the tax bill is massively reduced, especially as the licensing for this sale is managed by a different Irish company (only this one is registered in Bermuda.... hence the term "double Irish" - it requires 2 Irish companies, one registered elsewhere. These are Google Ireland Ltd and Google Ireland Holdings. One does all the sales, the other does all the licencing of IP to the other. Between them, I could happily say they do all of Google's business). A simple explanation
That's the problem - not some 'grey area' where you have to draw lines over which company does business in which country, or some amorphous global company doing business everywhere. Google is an Irish company that just happens to have a "subsidiary" in California where the CEO lives.
So Google Ireland acts as a conduit - in 2009 it turned over nearly â8bn, yet profits were only â45m.
Maybe the US system of allowing related companies be treated individually for tax purposes should be scrapped. Then Google Ireland, Google Bermuda, and Google would be considered together for taxation by the US taxman...and the US would start to receive tax that is currently held outside US borders.
because it has a stupid name, and it is getting all its cross-platform code ripped out to make it BSD-friendly.
Why not fund openSSL developers to do the same with the OpenSSL code, but including much of the cross platform options that has made it so ubiquitous. And without the silly name,
in fact, one day Facebook might decide to give every FB user a free WhatsApp account, "for their own convenience".
Suddenly WA gains several billion users, including those who do not use FB anymore. Share price goes up, Slashdot talks about it, Reality continues to give not one fuck.
I'd be more interested to know if one of those teeny tiny antennas actually work to receive the broadcasts, or if they're about as valid as a software patent.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing I just read is that officers are happy to use them - sure you Americans are all concerned about the cops beating on you, but in more civilised countries the police are considering using them to replace their notebooks and reduce the amount of paperwork they have to fill out.
Everything they used to have to write down, back at the station, is now recorded on video so they just have to hand that over to the lawyers who will do the hard work of sorting it out for the jury.
That is a huge win and something that means the police will want to use it.
If I was a copper, I'd be ecstatic about having to write out less documentation and do more policing. (hmm, a bit like, as a developer I am ecstatic when I get to actually code and not write up various solution, test, requirements and design documents!)
not really - "deems worth recording" isn't really the case.
Consider that police don't just walk around in the hope of finding bad things happening. They get sent places from the control centre, which in turn gets reports from the public via 999 calls or similar.
So the officers will be sent to deal with an incident, and will be expected to have switched their cameras on when they arrive - and its pretty easy to see if they didn't as they'll have no recording to match to the case incident.
The video will be used as evidence in any case the police bring, hence the concept of switching it on just before going to deal with an incident.
Its not for general recording in case they spot something, or to protect the police in case of complaint - though obviously a compliant is a case in itself, and the video would be used as evidence then too.
So really- the camera will be off when the officer is just walking the beat, or sat in his car, and turned on only when he gets to the scene of an incident.
no, they can turn them off. They are off most of the time until the officer 'interacts with the public' and then it gets turned on to record what he's doing.
As we see from Glass users, people don't like the idea of recording everything.
However, some don't trust the police and think they should be recording everything - more so we can check the police rather than check the people they record.
yeah but what about red/blue/black colourblindness?
My mate is colour blind and he worked for the rail industry.. on signalling. You may think "OMG WTF?!" but he can function in the real world, red is always the one at the top, green at the bottom and they're different shades of grey to him.
Anyway what is it in a predominantly geek users that they can't fucking search for tools to assist them with their disability.
All good in practice, but those site typically use javascript libraries (eg jquery) and they pull in the lib from the original site rather than host it themselves (does this help bandwidth, ie with caching of it?)
i guess you can simply whitelist these library links, but there seems to be so many of them nowadays.
maybe that's your attitude - but at all the large corporations I've worked everyone gave quite a damn about shipping quality product.
Sure, we had to deal with the bureaucracy but even in the small companies I've worked at, you had to deal with it - it was just closer to you (ie lareg company you have to justify things via paperwork, small company you have to justify things to the director)
very good point - if the startup has grown in usual startup ways, then they have a load of kids who are churning out crap code, continually "refactoring" and partying thinking they're the biz.
And now the people with money are going to make it into a real company with things like support and organisation. If the kids start to leave because the culture is turning into real life rather than a party then there's plenty of scope for career progression there - so you need to show you're adult and able to cope with the real world.
Like I fixed my fusebox that always blew by putting a nail in across the contacts. It never blows a fuse anymore.
(disclaimer: I didn't really. don't do this)
When it comes to highbrow bugs like this, everyone jump sup and down and demands to know what you're doing to stop the next one - ie stopping this bug from ever occurring again. What they really need to worry about is the next unknown bug that we will find. they are out there, we will find it in production one day, it will bite us, and no I don;t think there is anything we can practically do about it. When someone finds that bug, its too late.
A good analogy is that idiot who put explosives in his shoe. So now, rather than try to find explosive underpants or explosive baggage, we all have to take our shoes off at the airport, in case someone is stupid enough to try it again. The overflow bug here will be fixed, what we will see is a different bug. And we can all go crazy about the details all over again.
Its true that a set of 'commonly used' libraries would be easier to handle, and maybe we'd get more contribution and documentation.
But I'm not convinced they should be part of a standard for the language - I like something more responsive to changing needs. Boost works well for this, even if it is full of stuff I don't understand, let along have a use for :)
not really - what you need is to pick a few libraries and pull them in. Unlike other languages where you use what comes with your IDE, with C/C++ you are encouraged to find and use reusable libraries.
So if you want XML, get tinyXML and use that. If you want http - boost::asio or curl. Web Services (REST or SOAP?) gsoap or boost::asio or civetweb/mongoose, and so on.
This is a huge advantage. If I want an embedded webserver in my code then I'll include civetweb in it and with 4 lines of code and 2 c files, I have my code answering http requests. It will be limited in functionality, but that's ok as my embedded server only has 40k added to it by doing this. If I want something much more featured, I'll use a different server library.
If I want JSON, I'll go grab a JSON library, good luck using JSON in your that didn't see fit to include a parser for it. I would like to see boost wrappers/reimplementations of many common libraries like XML or SQL, but ... maybe one day I'll have a go at contributing one.
The only disadvantage to this is finding which library is the most suitable for you.
PS. async in cpp?
There used to be a special version of the STL for games, EASTL which had a different implementation optimised for memory mainly.
So there's no reason not to use the STL, or a STL.
I don't know anyone (sensible) who wants GC or reflection.
Sure, there's a lot of hype about them (thankfully reducing as people realise they aren't the silver bullets they were promoted as) but they just aren't good - not when you have better in C++ in the first place.
There's a few features - variadac initialisation, new for loop, lambdas. They're nice... but as you say, nothing that couldn't be done with a little more typing. (strangely the types who complain that you have to type a little more text are the ones who have functions like the GetTextEffectCharacterIndexFromTextSourceCharacterIndex method of System.Windows.Media.TextFormatting.TextSource :)
They do prefer to deal with language features, the majority of which I don't think really add much to the language.
I mean, I'd rather have seen more string operations added to the STL lib than things like 'final' (though admittedly I did have a hard time going through the list finding an example of something that's not too useful).
I would really rather they spent a lot of time on the infrastructure to C++, like header files that everyone seems to dislike (I like them, if they act as a kind of interface, if they could only make private members tuck away in the cpp file, they'd be great), or more importantly - an ABI for C++ libraries so it could become as widespread as C is and we could write components that actually worked with other builds, no more compiling from source to ensure a fit, no more extern C wrappers around everything you want to call from something else. That kind of thing would make me happy - and I think is the thing thats really missing from C++, after all - boost can provide much of the language features anyone wants.
So the trick is to create the components so they do work in a totally isolated manner. If traffic lights v3 had a very specific specification then we could reuse them.
We do this at the moment with some libraries - openssl was used across the world because it was a drop-in library that did what it said it would do. (ok, it had a flaw, but bugs don't really count in this discussion of design). similarly webkit is used for web rendering and it works well, because it does what it says it will and is pretty much a closed box. Http protocol works because its specified - much like the way roads are (set minimum width, camber etc) so to use it, you just have to designed your component to fit inside those parameters.
That's what we need to encourage - not the idea of frameworks where you are bent to the framework design, but in pluggable libraries that are designed independently of whatever system you are going to use them in.
But people don't do this - a library will be designed to do what they need at the time and then gets modified to suit the next project and so on. No standards are published and so other systems that use it become intertwined with special cases.
But when you want coding to be implementation similar to construction, you have to understand that the design phase would suddenly become much more like the old Waterfall methods - where the entire system was designed, locked down, fully thought out and specified to the last detail.
That approach works for bridges because an architect will basically take an existing design and will tweak it for the specific customer requirements . Software isn't so mature it has such existing systems to work with (though I 'd say it could be by now, there is far too much reinvention or tools, languages and frameworks to allow this to happen in reality).
So today, coding is still part of the design phase. Hopefully once the system is designed, the concept of deployment to production is more analogous to construction (think pre-fab structures being craned into place), but I feel deployment in the software industry is still part of the design phase too.
what point?
seriously, you contributed nothing. If you were going to add to the conversation, you would have.
"unbelievably dangerous and radioactive fuel"
OMG, and they dig it up out of the ground!!!! Who put it there, that's what I want to know. Which bastard put this unbelievably dangerous rock under my feet!?!?!?!! We need to know so we can sue them for the irreparable damage to the environment they caused.
oh wait...
AC posts ignorance and expects everyone to worship him. You didn't contribute anything but negativity to the discussion. You didn't even give a reason why his comment wouldn't work. You gave us nothing.
At least the OP had some interesting points that could be worth looking up on Google at the least that helped educate me a little.
You, gave me about as much information as your average (no, your below-average) politician.
No, Google is an Irish company. If you look at which of the many companies that comprises Google worldwide, it is Google Ireland that does the majority of business with all the other countries in fact, this individual country's operation actually does all the selling of product in all the other countries too - that's why the tax bill is so low.
See, if in France, a French salesman sells an advertising campaign to a French company, it is the Irish company that does it - otherwise the sale would (obviously) count as a French sale by French people to Frenchmen, and thus then be liable for all those taxes. But if the Irish company did the selling (nudge, nudge, honest) then the tax bill is massively reduced, especially as the licensing for this sale is managed by a different Irish company (only this one is registered in Bermuda.... hence the term "double Irish" - it requires 2 Irish companies, one registered elsewhere. These are Google Ireland Ltd and Google Ireland Holdings. One does all the sales, the other does all the licencing of IP to the other. Between them, I could happily say they do all of Google's business). A simple explanation
That's the problem - not some 'grey area' where you have to draw lines over which company does business in which country, or some amorphous global company doing business everywhere. Google is an Irish company that just happens to have a "subsidiary" in California where the CEO lives.
So Google Ireland acts as a conduit - in 2009 it turned over nearly â8bn, yet profits were only â45m.
Maybe the US system of allowing related companies be treated individually for tax purposes should be scrapped. Then Google Ireland, Google Bermuda, and Google would be considered together for taxation by the US taxman...and the US would start to receive tax that is currently held outside US borders.
because it has a stupid name, and it is getting all its cross-platform code ripped out to make it BSD-friendly.
Why not fund openSSL developers to do the same with the OpenSSL code, but including much of the cross platform options that has made it so ubiquitous. And without the silly name,
there's open source, and then there's open source that only works using Microsoft products.
Its the latter they're releasing; the products, and the candy to make you buy more of them.
in fact, one day Facebook might decide to give every FB user a free WhatsApp account, "for their own convenience".
Suddenly WA gains several billion users, including those who do not use FB anymore. Share price goes up, Slashdot talks about it, Reality continues to give not one fuck.
ah, but the whole point of it is that each subscriber rents an individual antenna - hence the legality of the whole operation.
I'd be more interested to know if one of those teeny tiny antennas actually work to receive the broadcasts, or if they're about as valid as a software patent.
If they do, then fine - carry on.
If they don't... then its just a scam.