a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
may be true but
. If people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts
since the main problem isn't that they are poorly skilled, but that whatever their skill is it will serve unintended interests, this is plain bullshit and renders this issue:
Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.
... totally irrelevant. dictatorships aren't essentialy different to democracies in terms of efficiency. dictatorships are, however, more costly to maintain. you need a full police state for that. this is indeed bulky and error prone. with democracies you just buy off the media, hire some convenient political starlets every couple of years, and you're good. this is a far more maintanable explotation system. people even gets the illusion of freedom for free! cool!
i can understand that given the considerable effort you are putting into making your *opinion* look like an axiom. to deny a simple evidence you have thrown yourself into long explanations, performed query analysis, even made mad guesses about your conversation partner. you have obviously plenty free time, enjoy!
of juvenile rebuttals...
oh, that! well, i find your scornful comments pretty amusing! no visa can pay having the very same guy that postulates that in and join are equivalent because they yield same results in a particular case, telling you that you have no clue about relational algebra. can't get enough of this!:D
Not all IN sub-queries can be transformed into equivalent JOIN operations, but some (a lot?) can.
yeah, ok. you are pushing this really far, how about settling a bit.
first, try to think of the in/join issue as an illustrative example, which is what it was.
second, try to realize that means and results are not the same. my entire point in that "learn sql" thing was about finding the appropiate means for needed results. this constitutes, as i repeatedly stated, good design. which amounts for me to sound code (be it sql or whatever). it's difficult for me to imagine a reason for a senior developer with extensive experience in sql like you say to be (and i don't question that, absolutely) to disagree with that. haven't you seen loads of "braindead" queries and database schemas in your lifetime? i have. where the fcuk have you been working, pal?
definitely, in/join are not the same, but they may be equivalent in practice given some specific constraints. so what? didn't i already admit that? but relying on optimization is still a bad practice, in my view. *blaming* bad optimizers for anything is just an extreme form of self-deception. this is my opinion, you don't have to support it. but it's futile and silly to try to demonstrate your opinion is right, another is wrong.
It's 2012 we shouldn't rely on dumb products built by
i think this summarizes very well the basic distance between our POVs. this seems to upset you great lengths, but i could not care less! because it's not my problem as a developer/designer. it's the user's problem, if it's a problem at all. my code runs well on any engine because i trust no one. i never did, and have no regrets:-)
a business model based on selling binaries is nowadays moot if sales are not in the tens of thousands at least. if that's your business model, be happy to be on the pirate bay. it may help you succeed. every big seller is on p2p for a reason. grab the free reputation it provides and keep going.
if you don't want to go the wall mart way, you could change your business model. and if you have to change anything, change the right thing: forget copy protection, it's not only waste, it will be probably counterproductive. general directions: add value to yourself, your company and your sw (current well known options boil down to saas, support, service), target specific segments naturally predisposed/demanding to pay to feel some value (mac users spring to mind, for instance (hey, i'm serious!)), find strategic niches.
First of all: re-writing IN sub-queries with joins has *nothing* to do with learning SQL. If they're logically equivalent, there's no better way to write them in SQL.
if you say so.
actually they're quite different things. logically, JOIN will always produce a join, whereas IN will never do and only check for existence.
I never said JOIN and IN are *always* the same logical operation and if you took your time to read, instead of wasting it writing a lot of rubbish, you would have noticed there's an *if* up there.
But when they are the same logical operation (e.g. when you simply do an inner join without selecting any column from the joined table), any non-dumb query processor should be able to do such transformation and apply the same optimization technique.
I see you lack some basic education on the topic, so you may want to check out some facts by yourself. Simply download SQL Server 2008 R2 Express Edition along with the Adventureworks sample database and run the following T-SQL queries:
SET SHOWPLAN_ALL ON;
snipped: irrelevant implementation details
You will notice that query plans for all the three queries are exactly the same: with an inner join logical operation and using a hash match physical operation (because there are no useful indexes).
yeah, in a particular implementation it may well be. i told you already.
but IN and JOIN are still different things. you just demonstrated you know how to draw erroneous conclusion from query plans, and that you still don't understand the difference between IN and JOIN. which was exactly my point. thank you.
First of all: re-writing IN sub-queries with joins has *nothing* to do with learning SQL. If they're logically equivalent, there's no better way to write them in SQL.
if you say so.
actually they're quite different things. logically, JOIN will always produce a join, whereas IN will never do and only check for existence.
to some extent my point here was that instead into buying into some arbitrary optimizer you should ask yourself if you need a join or not. easy! once you are aware of this, you are in position of writing "good" sql without having to give a crap for optimizers or implementations. more in general I was hinting at database *design*. dumb design is the grandmother of all shitty queries and poor db performance in general. but then... you can always optimize it, hooray!:D
of course, the optimizer may want to choose to skip the actual join if it is not actually needed. that's just great. doesn't interest me (most of the time). and probably both forms will produce almost identical results in most engines. fine! but i really don't need to know, i just have to know sql... and how an (abstract) rdbms works.
Not only that, it seems you also fail to understand the basic philosophy behind the birth of the Relational Model. Through the algebra and calculus it provides a sound framework to build declarative languages that let database developers focus on what they want to do instead of telling the system how to (physically) do it.
that's a bold one, mr. bigshot. sadly you fail to realize there IS a conceptual difference between IN and JOIN.
and i could wildly guess that your erroneous assumption might well have to do with optimizer abuse.:-)
focus on what they want to do instead of telling the system how to (physically) do it.
that's exactly what you're getting wrong because you are making assumptions on optimized output. so you make yourself dependent on optimizers (which may be "braindead", remember?). because the physical results (and most probably the performances) happen to be the same in this particular scenario, you don't even spot the semantic difference. in your own words, you should focus on the question, which is if you need a join or not, and just tell sql. sql is your friend:-)
u just have to be smart, that is, now ur domain and take into account the consecuences of your design decisions. that's the hard part of any design. if u do it right u need not to care that much about your providers being dumbasess, or even full of shit (chances are they'll be). if u don't, then ur sw is crap anyway. quick! bitch optimize pleez!
i know such forward thinking is against this whole hot agile thing but at the end it is mandatory in the abc of any (serious)* developer, something not that much related to sql or optimization as to being a skilled problem solver, which is essentially the same as being a smart designer.
however, don't get me wrong: i've no problem with you wanting to buy any new problem whatsoever, no matter the price and no matter the reason. be my guest. even more: i wish you the best luck (and revenue) inventing all kinds of fancy problems to solve old problems. and, after all, you always can blame that "braindead optimizer".
And what's wrong with using an RDBMS with a non-braindead optimizer?
from a general database design point of view, everything. considering it is already a quite gratuituous limitation to tie yourself to any particular rdbms, relying on a particular optimizer is just an extreme form of self-mutilation.
it's true, however, that sometimes specific requirements of a problem will force you to rely on particular rdbms features, including but not limited to optimization. this could be what... 0,1% of the time?
and what's wrong with actually learning sql and understanding how rdbs' actually work?
What I'd like to know is how to tell if my key is a bad one or not. I don't mind throwing some CPU-time at the problem, but I don't see any info online for how to check your own key
all needed info is already in the article. you just have to do what they did, but include your key in the set and check if it shares "p" with any other. if it does, generate a new one but move your mouse like crazy this time (a good moment to enjoy some flash game, maybe).
the most stunnig part for me is still scanning the whole internets for keys. dude! maybe in near future there could be a trusted repository or service for this, dunno.
Disclaimer: I submitted the story and I am 100% in disagreement with Jaffe and I hope I did his argument some justice in my summarizing.
well, don't worry. there's no actual argument in Jaffe's speech, as far as I can tell. he just expresses his personal preference on games. even if he has had success in designing a particular sort of games, it's still just his personal taste. gaming is a huge and diverse topic, and I see no point in discussing personal taste, nor are there many meaningfull arguments to make about. (although reading different opinions in this thread is indeed interesting!).
for me, the appeal of a games is a mix of factors plus some wird magic to it. either they hook me or not, it's not the game type, the graphics quality, replayability, originality and so on. it's more how well those aspects fit together. ofc, this is just my preference! (for the record: I find Jaffe's titles just so-so, they may be ok and fun games but definitely not groundbreaking).
it's just natural for corrupt western countries to have agreements with corrupt 3d world nations. corruption is the coincidence.
So it is technically strange for him to be extradited so easily.
not the least, see above.
But whatever it is, it's a majority muslim country, so not a good destination/stopover choice for him.
with this i can fully agree. poor thing should have fled further away. after all it was just muslim fundamentalism chasing him, it's not like it was american imperialism who was afer him and there would be no safe place in the world to hide anyway.
Just like how it's mathematically implausable that most are above average, "most" aren't "average or worse" either. About half will be above average and half will be below average.
in the sample [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10] (avg= 19/10=1,9) most numbers are "average or worse".
a good teacher is extremely hard to find. but once you've got to meet one... you actually start learning stuff. guess you'll believe it when you find one!
despite I write about the science of education and my wife is a former spectacular teacher,
our kids learn better from teachers other than us.
if your kids don't learn from you, but you are trying, there must be some communication problem. your kids are simply not receptive to you. if they don't have this problem elsewhere it's obvious the handicap is on your side. you could be trying too hard, or focusing too much on particular matters, or taking the whole thing too seriously. there could even be fundamental theory-vs-practice contradictions in your family, this causes confusion, distress, untrust, lack of interest.
anyway, i find it revealing that you both are specialized education professionals. explains a lot:-)
"Memory Leaks in Java are not objects that are not freed, but dangling references to data/objects that are no longer needed"
In Java terms that _is_ an 'object that has not been freed'.
this is not a leak in strict terms, memory that can't possibly be recovered because it's address has been forgotten. this memory is definitely lost until the process' death, no mather what. this can easily happen in c++ by simple mistake, but it's impossible (under normal circumstances) in Java (thanks to the gc). no address is ever forgotten without the memory pointed to being recovered. an object that "just isn't needed" can be discarded (at the programmer's discretion, of course) at any time during the process.
Sadly the Cult Of Garbage Collection has made many Java programmers far too lax about ensuring that everything is freed when it's no longer required.
i agree mainstream is lax about almost any resource, but again: "not freed when it's no longer required" is still not a "leak". precisely avoiding leaks is one of the main duties of the gc, and it does damn well at that. memory leaks are hardly a problem in any Java environment. ridiculously high memory requirements are (and cpu! and bandwith! and permanent storage!).
So explain to me how a memory leak could part of the coders problem? The language for development is Java, which should handle the memory automatically. It would sound more like a problem with the VM than the program itself. It is my understanding, that while possible, it is pretty hard to code a memory issue that the GC can't find.
It depends on what you consider a leak. Classic memory leaks are rare in Java, but sloppy code can always induce inefficient memory management, even in Java (as a matter in fact, specially in Java where bloated designs are mainstream). Add on top that memory is a scarce resource in phones, and that coding for them is by no means that straightforward as one could think, even in Java. There are plenty of opportunities to crash an app on such devices not involving any sort of leaks.
we should remind ourselves that there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately he made his money until a breakdown of his income is published.
likewise there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately his shop was shut down.
i can accuse you of causing me $500 million in lost revenue, just as easily. shouldn't I prove it? should a breakdown of your income be published in the meantime?
Cyberwar is a construct of politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money. War is war. This is not war.
so what is war? traditional war only exists in popular imagination, the movies and history books (remember who writes history?). war boils down to violence and there is plenty of it going on in the world, on many contexts: currency, financial speculation, plundering... each war has its own ends and means, and of course its victims.
as for the article... indeed "politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money" is often the case, but this is just zionist propaganda.
you must let others copy too!", which is a restriction that could have no weight or bearing in a no copyright world.
that is precisely what brings the no-copyright bubble into existence. why would you want exclusive copyright in a no copyright world, anyway?
be bubble, my friend!
"So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "
you got that utterly wrong. what you hold for their beliefs are just the blunt lies they made up to justify that or that. they stick to them because the very usefullness of these lies depends on them being held up against any odds (and on the media spreading them enough while silencing any contrary evidence). but those lies eventually get amortized, aren't useful anymore and get silently dropped or just forgotten... and replaced by fresh ones.
if you'd paid attention to any politician long time enough, what would strike you is that *all* of them deny themselves, and even abhor from ideas they themselves have championed, pretty often
"So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do? "
they do display intelligence. it's just their intelligence doesn't play in your favor, but in theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
to make matters worse, you just invented the term "flat tax". you mean "proportional".
There are a ton of legitimate uses for third party cookies, so over-blocking them breaks a lot of stuff.
really easy: http://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php
i didin't even get past the fist tutorial puzzle. this is way too dumbass even for a dumbass like me.
so, googies, here is my application:
arbitrarily limited component size: fail.
gui - geekish look : nice
gui - crappy responsiveness : fail
lousy mechanics : fail
embarrassingly idiotic animation : fail.
random behaviour on a logical puzzle: fail (cool for rpgs, though)
too pissed off to continue / evaluation aborted.
well, just the cool looks is not enough, guys.
it wasn't so hard, you should just concentrate in innovating what doesn't work, stick with what does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Machine_(series)
i guess my application is now accepted, but i couldn't care less.
a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
may be true but
. If people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts
since the main problem isn't that they are poorly skilled, but that whatever their skill is it will serve unintended interests, this is plain bullshit and renders this issue:
Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.
... totally irrelevant. dictatorships aren't essentialy different to democracies in terms of efficiency. dictatorships are, however, more costly to maintain. you need a full police state for that. this is indeed bulky and error prone. with democracies you just buy off the media, hire some convenient political starlets every couple of years, and you're good. this is a far more maintanable explotation system. people even gets the illusion of freedom for free! cool!
I'm getting a bit tired
i can understand that given the considerable effort you are putting into making your *opinion* look like an axiom. to deny a simple evidence you have thrown yourself into long explanations, performed query analysis, even made mad guesses about your conversation partner. you have obviously plenty free time, enjoy!
of juvenile rebuttals...
oh, that! well, i find your scornful comments pretty amusing! no visa can pay having the very same guy that postulates that in and join are equivalent because they yield same results in a particular case, telling you that you have no clue about relational algebra. can't get enough of this! :D
Not all IN sub-queries can be transformed into equivalent JOIN operations, but some (a lot?) can.
yeah, ok. you are pushing this really far, how about settling a bit.
first, try to think of the in/join issue as an illustrative example, which is what it was.
second, try to realize that means and results are not the same. my entire point in that "learn sql" thing was about finding the appropiate means for needed results. this constitutes, as i repeatedly stated, good design. which amounts for me to sound code (be it sql or whatever). it's difficult for me to imagine a reason for a senior developer with extensive experience in sql like you say to be (and i don't question that, absolutely) to disagree with that. haven't you seen loads of "braindead" queries and database schemas in your lifetime? i have. where the fcuk have you been working, pal?
definitely, in/join are not the same, but they may be equivalent in practice given some specific constraints. so what? didn't i already admit that? but relying on optimization is still a bad practice, in my view. *blaming* bad optimizers for anything is just an extreme form of self-deception. this is my opinion, you don't have to support it. but it's futile and silly to try to demonstrate your opinion is right, another is wrong.
It's 2012 we shouldn't rely on dumb products built by
i think this summarizes very well the basic distance between our POVs. this seems to upset you great lengths, but i could not care less! because it's not my problem as a developer/designer. it's the user's problem, if it's a problem at all. my code runs well on any engine because i trust no one. i never did, and have no regrets :-)
a business model based on selling binaries is nowadays moot if sales are not in the tens of thousands at least. if that's your business model, be happy to be on the pirate bay. it may help you succeed. every big seller is on p2p for a reason. grab the free reputation it provides and keep going.
if you don't want to go the wall mart way, you could change your business model. and if you have to change anything, change the right thing: forget copy protection, it's not only waste, it will be probably counterproductive. general directions: add value to yourself, your company and your sw (current well known options boil down to saas, support, service), target specific segments naturally predisposed/demanding to pay to feel some value (mac users spring to mind, for instance (hey, i'm serious!)), find strategic niches.
First of all: re-writing IN sub-queries with joins has *nothing* to do with learning SQL. If they're logically equivalent, there's no better way to write them in SQL.
if you say so.
actually they're quite different things. logically, JOIN will always produce a join, whereas IN will never do and only check for existence.
I never said JOIN and IN are *always* the same logical operation and if you took your time to read, instead of wasting it writing a lot of rubbish, you would have noticed there's an *if* up there.
But when they are the same logical operation (e.g. when you simply do an inner join without selecting any column from the joined table), any non-dumb query processor should be able to do such transformation and apply the same optimization technique.
I see you lack some basic education on the topic, so you may want to check out some facts by yourself. Simply download SQL Server 2008 R2 Express Edition along with the Adventureworks sample database and run the following T-SQL queries:
SET SHOWPLAN_ALL ON;
snipped: irrelevant implementation details
You will notice that query plans for all the three queries are exactly the same: with an inner join logical operation and using a hash match physical operation (because there are no useful indexes).
yeah, in a particular implementation it may well be. i told you already.
but IN and JOIN are still different things. you just demonstrated you know how to draw erroneous conclusion from query plans, and that you still don't understand the difference between IN and JOIN. which was exactly my point. thank you.
First of all: re-writing IN sub-queries with joins has *nothing* to do with learning SQL. If they're logically equivalent, there's no better way to write them in SQL.
if you say so.
actually they're quite different things. logically, JOIN will always produce a join, whereas IN will never do and only check for existence.
to some extent my point here was that instead into buying into some arbitrary optimizer you should ask yourself if you need a join or not. easy! once you are aware of this, you are in position of writing "good" sql without having to give a crap for optimizers or implementations. more in general I was hinting at database *design*. dumb design is the grandmother of all shitty queries and poor db performance in general. but then ... you can always optimize it, hooray! :D
of course, the optimizer may want to choose to skip the actual join if it is not actually needed. that's just great. doesn't interest me (most of the time). and probably both forms will produce almost identical results in most engines. fine! but i really don't need to know, i just have to know sql ... and how an (abstract) rdbms works.
Not only that, it seems you also fail to understand the basic philosophy behind the birth of the Relational Model. Through the algebra and calculus it provides a sound framework to build declarative languages that let database developers focus on what they want to do instead of telling the system how to (physically) do it.
that's a bold one, mr. bigshot. sadly you fail to realize there IS a conceptual difference between IN and JOIN.
and i could wildly guess that your erroneous assumption might well have to do with optimizer abuse. :-)
focus on what they want to do instead of telling the system how to (physically) do it.
that's exactly what you're getting wrong because you are making assumptions on optimized output. so you make yourself dependent on optimizers (which may be "braindead", remember?). because the physical results (and most probably the performances) happen to be the same in this particular scenario, you don't even spot the semantic difference. in your own words, you should focus on the question, which is if you need a join or not, and just tell sql. sql is your friend :-)
sub-selects are SQL, dumbass.
you didn't even get it, didn't you?
u just have to be smart, that is, now ur domain and take into account the consecuences of your design decisions. that's the hard part of any design. if u do it right u need not to care that much about your providers being dumbasess, or even full of shit (chances are they'll be). if u don't, then ur sw is crap anyway. quick! bitch optimize pleez!
i know such forward thinking is against this whole hot agile thing but at the end it is mandatory in the abc of any (serious)* developer, something not that much related to sql or optimization as to being a skilled problem solver, which is essentially the same as being a smart designer.
however, don't get me wrong: i've no problem with you wanting to buy any new problem whatsoever, no matter the price and no matter the reason. be my guest. even more: i wish you the best luck (and revenue) inventing all kinds of fancy problems to solve old problems. and, after all, you always can blame that "braindead optimizer".
ok, now get back to nintendo.
And what's wrong with using an RDBMS with a non-braindead optimizer?
from a general database design point of view, everything. considering it is already a quite gratuituous limitation to tie yourself to any particular rdbms, relying on a particular optimizer is just an extreme form of self-mutilation.
it's true, however, that sometimes specific requirements of a problem will force you to rely on particular rdbms features, including but not limited to optimization. this could be what ... 0,1% of the time?
and what's wrong with actually learning sql and understanding how rdbs' actually work?
What I'd like to know is how to tell if my key is a bad one or not. I don't mind throwing some CPU-time at the problem, but I don't see any info online for how to check your own key
all needed info is already in the article. you just have to do what they did, but include your key in the set and check if it shares "p" with any other. if it does, generate a new one but move your mouse like crazy this time (a good moment to enjoy some flash game, maybe).
the most stunnig part for me is still scanning the whole internets for keys. dude! maybe in near future there could be a trusted repository or service for this, dunno.
Disclaimer: I submitted the story and I am 100% in disagreement with Jaffe and I hope I did his argument some justice in my summarizing.
well, don't worry. there's no actual argument in Jaffe's speech, as far as I can tell. he just expresses his personal preference on games. even if he has had success in designing a particular sort of games, it's still just his personal taste. gaming is a huge and diverse topic, and I see no point in discussing personal taste, nor are there many meaningfull arguments to make about. (although reading different opinions in this thread is indeed interesting!).
for me, the appeal of a games is a mix of factors plus some wird magic to it. either they hook me or not, it's not the game type, the graphics quality, replayability, originality and so on. it's more how well those aspects fit together. ofc, this is just my preference! (for the record: I find Jaffe's titles just so-so, they may be ok and fun games but definitely not groundbreaking).
Because Malaysia is not a corrupt western country but a corrupt 3rd world nation?
ftfy
Thing is Malaysia does not have an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia. It does have such treaties with other countries including the USA: http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/bd-bilateral_treaties
it's just natural for corrupt western countries to have agreements with corrupt 3d world nations. corruption is the coincidence.
So it is technically strange for him to be extradited so easily.
not the least, see above.
But whatever it is, it's a majority muslim country, so not a good destination/stopover choice for him.
with this i can fully agree. poor thing should have fled further away. after all it was just muslim fundamentalism chasing him, it's not like it was american imperialism who was afer him and there would be no safe place in the world to hide anyway.
Just like how it's mathematically implausable that most are above average, "most" aren't "average or worse" either. About half will be above average and half will be below average.
in the sample [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10] (avg= 19/10=1,9) most numbers are "average or worse".
a good teacher is extremely hard to find. but once you've got to meet one ... you actually start learning stuff.
guess you'll believe it when you find one!
despite I write about the science of education and my wife is a former spectacular teacher,
our kids learn better from teachers other than us.
if your kids don't learn from you, but you are trying, there must be some communication problem. your kids are simply not receptive to you. if they don't have this problem elsewhere it's obvious the handicap is on your side. you could be trying too hard, or focusing too much on particular matters, or taking the whole thing too seriously. there could even be fundamental theory-vs-practice contradictions in your family, this causes confusion, distress, untrust, lack of interest.
anyway, i find it revealing that you both are specialized education professionals. explains a lot :-)
"Memory Leaks in Java are not objects that are not freed, but dangling references to data/objects that are no longer needed"
In Java terms that _is_ an 'object that has not been freed'.
this is not a leak in strict terms, memory that can't possibly be recovered because it's address has been forgotten. this memory is definitely lost until the process' death, no mather what. this can easily happen in c++ by simple mistake, but it's impossible (under normal circumstances) in Java (thanks to the gc). no address is ever forgotten without the memory pointed to being recovered. an object that "just isn't needed" can be discarded (at the programmer's discretion, of course) at any time during the process.
Sadly the Cult Of Garbage Collection has made many Java programmers far too lax about ensuring that everything is freed when it's no longer required.
i agree mainstream is lax about almost any resource, but again: "not freed when it's no longer required" is still not a "leak". precisely avoiding leaks is one of the main duties of the gc, and it does damn well at that. memory leaks are hardly a problem in any Java environment. ridiculously high memory requirements are (and cpu! and bandwith! and permanent storage!).
So explain to me how a memory leak could part of the coders problem? The language for development is Java, which should handle the memory automatically. It would sound more like a problem with the VM than the program itself. It is my understanding, that while possible, it is pretty hard to code a memory issue that the GC can't find.
It depends on what you consider a leak. Classic memory leaks are rare in Java, but sloppy code can always induce inefficient memory management, even in Java (as a matter in fact, specially in Java where bloated designs are mainstream). Add on top that memory is a scarce resource in phones, and that coding for them is by no means that straightforward as one could think, even in Java. There are plenty of opportunities to crash an app on such devices not involving any sort of leaks.
airless vacuum
wow, must be damn low on oxygen that vacuum out there!
It also shows the complete failure of law-enforcement when it comes to commercial hacking.
it also shows the braindeadness of site value assessment based on traffic.
we should remind ourselves that there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately he made his money until a breakdown of his income is published.
likewise there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately his shop was shut down.
i can accuse you of causing me $500 million in lost revenue, just as easily. shouldn't I prove it? should a breakdown of your income be published in the meantime?
Cyberwar is a construct of politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money. War is war. This is not war.
so what is war? traditional war only exists in popular imagination, the movies and history books (remember who writes history?). war boils down to violence and there is plenty of it going on in the world, on many contexts: currency, financial speculation, plundering ... each war has its own ends and means, and of course its victims.
as for the article ... indeed "politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money" is often the case, but this is just zionist propaganda.
you must let others copy too!", which is a restriction that could have no weight or bearing in a no copyright world.
that is precisely what brings the no-copyright bubble into existence. why would you want exclusive copyright in a no copyright world, anyway?
be bubble, my friend!
"So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "
you got that utterly wrong. what you hold for their beliefs are just the blunt lies they made up to justify that or that. they stick to them because the very usefullness of these lies depends on them being held up against any odds (and on the media spreading them enough while silencing any contrary evidence). but those lies eventually get amortized, aren't useful anymore and get silently dropped or just forgotten ... and replaced by fresh ones.
if you'd paid attention to any politician long time enough, what would strike you is that *all* of them deny themselves, and even abhor from ideas they themselves have championed, pretty often
"So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do? "
they do display intelligence. it's just their intelligence doesn't play in your favor, but in theirs.
should read: "Universal Literature Increasingly Replaced By "The Walking Dead" episodes". FTFY.
someone asking such a question should definitely not be concerned with education whatsoever.