A Snowden trial could... however as I recall, under evidence rules in the US his ability to showcase potentially illegal acts that only came to light due to his own classified leaks is not permitted.
[citation required] Besides, to prosecute him for leaking the info, it has to be introduced in evidence. And if they redact it too heavily, any jury will smell a rat. Either the redacted stuff is very relevant and embarrassing to the government, or it's not relevant at all, in which case why redact it
The government does not want this to come to trial. Snowdon knows this, and is tweaking their noses.
Even if it was illegal, that doesn't mean that jury nullification can't "fix" that, or that other defenses can't be mounted to justify the action. It's illegal to go through a stop sign, but who's going to convict someone driving through a stop sign to get someone who has stopped breathing to the nearest clinic or hospital?
It's not that hard. When another object is given ownership of the pointer, set a flag in your object to say so, so that you don't try to free it in the destructor.
Ditto if you have only a copy of the pointer - set the flag to say that it is only a copy.
All it takes is one bit. No need for reference counting, worrying about circular references, etc.
Another way is to only allow the object that creates the pointer to own the pointer, and other objects can only modify the data through access methods in the owning object. As long as the objects that own the data are destroyed after all the other objects, there's no chance of trying to access a non-existent pointer.
Once you're on the jury you can't be dismissed without cause. Jury nullification is not cause. And since lawyers aren't allowed to discuss it, they won't ask prospective jurors for their views on it.
In 1969 Morgentaler opened an abortion clinic in Montreal. He said that he applied for status as a model abortion clinic and proposed to the federal and provincial governments that abortions could be safely done outside hospitals. He recounts that neither the provincial nor the federal government was interested. Each said it was the other's responsibility. No one came to inspect the clinic. Instead, they sent the police. On June 1, 1970, Montreal city police raided Morgentaler's clinic and laid several charges of performing illegal abortions. The first case did not come to trial until 1973; in the meanwhile, women's groups organized in support of him and he continued to perform abortions. In 1973, the doctor stated that he had performed 5,000 safe abortions outside hospitals, demonstrating that a hospital setting was not necessary.
To summarize, between 1973 and 1975, Morgentaler was tried three times in Montreal for defying the abortion law; each time, he raised the defence of necessity, and each time he was acquitted. Each time, the jury took less time to reach their decision to acquit: at the third trial, they took one hour. This is called Jury nullification—the refusal of juries to enforce a law that they perceive to be unjust
The example I cited was from military law. Snowdon, being a civilian, will not be held to that standard. And yes, it would have to be taken as a whole, because his defense is that the public's need to know outweighed the promise to keep it secret.
Prosecutor: "You broke your oath."
Defense: "Here are all the reasons why someone might be justified to break their oath in such a situation." (pulls out the Snowdon revelations, demands to cross-examine those in the decision-making process).
Jury nullification is in play. We've had cases where the jurors were questioned by the judge as to why they weren't going to uphold their oath to base their decision solely on the law and the evidence, and basically admitted that while the law was clear, and that it was obvious the defendant committed the acts in question, finding the defendant guilty would, in their collective opinion, be a greater miscarriage of justice than the original offense.
"allegedly" violating it - he has not been convicted yet, and the presumption of innocence should prevail. We don't know if a jury would find sufficient cause, given the circumstances and the illegal acts that were being covered up, to find sufficient justification.
Kind of like "yes, I went through the red light, but I was carrying someone who had been shot and was bleeding profusely to the hospital as quickly as I could."
A 2 meter diameter sphere has a surface area of 12-1/2 meters. 6 layers of 125g fiberglass requires 10 kg of fiberglass matting and 14 kg. of resin. If it's good enough for boat hulls... probably less effort than pushing an empty shopping cart because most carts have crappy wheels.
1. Jury nullification is a possibility
2. Can he get a fair trial anywhere in the US, given that the entire pool of jury candidates has heard about him and his alleged acts (remember - he's still innocent until proven guilty, much as many people find that concept hard to swallow).
It's not like the US has that great a reputation for fair trials.
If you're the programmer, you should make the decision of who owns the pointer on the basis of performance and utility. This is one of the basics that you have to learn good habits around, that's all.
It's any variable naming conventions and comments that should relay the semantic information of use, ownership, and what happens when free() is invoked.
It's listed as a reward on the kickstarter site, so it's a reward. Same as if you make a donation to a charity and have a chance to win a car for participating, or donating to PBS and getting a jacket. And the rules are that promoters who fail to deliver on the rewards have to give the funders a 100% refund.
Perhaps you missed the fact that the OP has been "toying around" with the idea "since the early '90s." That's almost 25 years. Gotta be getting close to 50, if not more. Given a couple of years to get up to speed, they'll still be unhireable because there are plenty of people half that age who already more experienced.
Would you hire someone like that - someone who has been sitting on the fence for a quarter-century before even trying to learn it? Back in that period, Turbo C 2.0 was $100. Chicken feed in comparison to pretty much anything else, and certainly well worth it when a decent 286 PC was several thousand dollars.
Free c / c++ compilers have been around since before the turn of the century as well. And you could just by a linux magazine complete with a distro and compiler toolchain in 2000 for $10.00 or so - no need to download anything on the slow connections of those days. There's no excuse for taking so long to decide to act.
What do I advocate? That the poster forget it. The poster has pretty much NO chance. There's already an over-supply of programmers, and not enough demand. If they've been futzing around since the early '90s (that's more than two decades) and haven't yet touched c, c++, or even java, they are already so far behind the curve and so close to 50 that by the time they get up to speed, they'll be unhireable.
Especially since there's a bunch of hungry millennials who can already eat the poster's lunch.
Unfortunately, this is ultimately just another "I want to change my field of expertise - how do I do it?" There is no short-cut, and in this industry 40 is the new 60.
"And for the love of God, please do NOT use raw pointers."
Raw pointers are great. I have never, and will never, use a so-called "smart pointer." It's easier to just keep track of who owns what. And TR1 sucks. So does template meta programming. Ditto for the "Gang of Four."
If you go through the comments, you'll see that they apparently don't have the right to do that.
"Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward.
Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
So for those who invested in return for a reward, they're entitled to a 100% refund. Not 20%. Seeing as the company behind this has other assets and doesn't plan to close its doors, giving back only 20% doesn't cut it. If the IP has value, it should be sold, along with the rest of the business, to make the refunds happen. And judging by the number of people who are demanding a full refund or that they liquidate their business, this will get ugly.
Java has a similar syntax to c/c++. And it provides an easier way to get started without shooting yourself in the foot too often. This way, with less frustration and time wasted on the details, he can learn both in just a bit more time than just c++.
Slashdot Mirror
A Snowden trial could... however as I recall, under evidence rules in the US his ability to showcase potentially illegal acts that only came to light due to his own classified leaks is not permitted.
[citation required] Besides, to prosecute him for leaking the info, it has to be introduced in evidence. And if they redact it too heavily, any jury will smell a rat. Either the redacted stuff is very relevant and embarrassing to the government, or it's not relevant at all, in which case why redact it
The government does not want this to come to trial. Snowdon knows this, and is tweaking their noses.
Even if it was illegal, that doesn't mean that jury nullification can't "fix" that, or that other defenses can't be mounted to justify the action. It's illegal to go through a stop sign, but who's going to convict someone driving through a stop sign to get someone who has stopped breathing to the nearest clinic or hospital?
It's not that hard. When another object is given ownership of the pointer, set a flag in your object to say so, so that you don't try to free it in the destructor.
Ditto if you have only a copy of the pointer - set the flag to say that it is only a copy.
All it takes is one bit. No need for reference counting, worrying about circular references, etc.
Another way is to only allow the object that creates the pointer to own the pointer, and other objects can only modify the data through access methods in the owning object. As long as the objects that own the data are destroyed after all the other objects, there's no chance of trying to access a non-existent pointer.
Once you're on the jury you can't be dismissed without cause. Jury nullification is not cause. And since lawyers aren't allowed to discuss it, they won't ask prospective jurors for their views on it.
You might not bet your future on it, but Dr Henry Morgentaler did, 3 times:
In 1969 Morgentaler opened an abortion clinic in Montreal. He said that he applied for status as a model abortion clinic and proposed to the federal and provincial governments that abortions could be safely done outside hospitals. He recounts that neither the provincial nor the federal government was interested. Each said it was the other's responsibility. No one came to inspect the clinic. Instead, they sent the police. On June 1, 1970, Montreal city police raided Morgentaler's clinic and laid several charges of performing illegal abortions. The first case did not come to trial until 1973; in the meanwhile, women's groups organized in support of him and he continued to perform abortions. In 1973, the doctor stated that he had performed 5,000 safe abortions outside hospitals, demonstrating that a hospital setting was not necessary.
To summarize, between 1973 and 1975, Morgentaler was tried three times in Montreal for defying the abortion law; each time, he raised the defence of necessity, and each time he was acquitted. Each time, the jury took less time to reach their decision to acquit: at the third trial, they took one hour. This is called Jury nullification—the refusal of juries to enforce a law that they perceive to be unjust
How about this:
The thing about witch hunts is that sooner or later we're all witches to someone with an agenda.
And everyone has an agenda.
This guy just made himself the target of trolls everywhere. Boasting about this will prove to have been a very poor choice.
I doubt it. These guys look like lamers even to other trolls.
Prosecutor: "You broke your oath."
Defense: "Here are all the reasons why someone might be justified to break their oath in such a situation." (pulls out the Snowdon revelations, demands to cross-examine those in the decision-making process).
Jury nullification is in play. We've had cases where the jurors were questioned by the judge as to why they weren't going to uphold their oath to base their decision solely on the law and the evidence, and basically admitted that while the law was clear, and that it was obvious the defendant committed the acts in question, finding the defendant guilty would, in their collective opinion, be a greater miscarriage of justice than the original offense.
A trial would answer all those questions - but we can't bring the government perps to trial for some reason.
Everyone and their dog who owns a TV knows about jury nullification.
"allegedly" violating it - he has not been convicted yet, and the presumption of innocence should prevail. We don't know if a jury would find sufficient cause, given the circumstances and the illegal acts that were being covered up, to find sufficient justification.
Kind of like "yes, I went through the red light, but I was carrying someone who had been shot and was bleeding profusely to the hospital as quickly as I could."
It would be nice if we could get rid of stories like this and all those stupid kickstarter "gimme money to build this cool new thing" ads.
A 2 meter diameter sphere has a surface area of 12-1/2 meters. 6 layers of 125g fiberglass requires 10 kg of fiberglass matting and 14 kg. of resin. If it's good enough for boat hulls ... probably less effort than pushing an empty shopping cart because most carts have crappy wheels.
1. Jury nullification is a possibility
2. Can he get a fair trial anywhere in the US, given that the entire pool of jury candidates has heard about him and his alleged acts (remember - he's still innocent until proven guilty, much as many people find that concept hard to swallow).
It's not like the US has that great a reputation for fair trials.
Is he a traitor, or was his whistle blowing justified?
The real problem is that he could be both at the same time.
Same as in the military, if you disobey a direct order and that disobedience ends up saving lives, you can still be charged with disobeying a direct order.
It is a truism of engineering: Nothing scales linearly. Not even hamster balls.
Never said it did. However, hamsters also don't scale linearly to the size of humans - if they did, they wouldn't be able to move.
If you're the programmer, you should make the decision of who owns the pointer on the basis of performance and utility. This is one of the basics that you have to learn good habits around, that's all.
It's any variable naming conventions and comments that should relay the semantic information of use, ownership, and what happens when free() is invoked.
It's listed as a reward on the kickstarter site, so it's a reward. Same as if you make a donation to a charity and have a chance to win a car for participating, or donating to PBS and getting a jacket. And the rules are that promoters who fail to deliver on the rewards have to give the funders a 100% refund.
Perhaps you missed the fact that the OP has been "toying around" with the idea "since the early '90s." That's almost 25 years. Gotta be getting close to 50, if not more. Given a couple of years to get up to speed, they'll still be unhireable because there are plenty of people half that age who already more experienced.
Would you hire someone like that - someone who has been sitting on the fence for a quarter-century before even trying to learn it? Back in that period, Turbo C 2.0 was $100. Chicken feed in comparison to pretty much anything else, and certainly well worth it when a decent 286 PC was several thousand dollars.
Free c / c++ compilers have been around since before the turn of the century as well. And you could just by a linux magazine complete with a distro and compiler toolchain in 2000 for $10.00 or so - no need to download anything on the slow connections of those days. There's no excuse for taking so long to decide to act.
Consider that in the last 30 years, the only two periods when c wasn't #1 was when c++ demoted it to #2 (1995) and java demoted it to #2 (2010).
As for the horrible gui, neither c, c++, nor objective c has a native gui (cocoa is just a library).
Is java dying? At #2, I think not.
Now, I much prefer c to java - java is over-verbose - but there are ways around that as well.
And there's the fact that Minecraft was developed in Java and it was sold for $2.5 billion. There's still big money in using the #2 language.
What do I advocate? That the poster forget it. The poster has pretty much NO chance. There's already an over-supply of programmers, and not enough demand. If they've been futzing around since the early '90s (that's more than two decades) and haven't yet touched c, c++, or even java, they are already so far behind the curve and so close to 50 that by the time they get up to speed, they'll be unhireable.
Especially since there's a bunch of hungry millennials who can already eat the poster's lunch.
Unfortunately, this is ultimately just another "I want to change my field of expertise - how do I do it?" There is no short-cut, and in this industry 40 is the new 60.
"And for the love of God, please do NOT use raw pointers."
Raw pointers are great. I have never, and will never, use a so-called "smart pointer." It's easier to just keep track of who owns what. And TR1 sucks. So does template meta programming. Ditto for the "Gang of Four."
"Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward.
Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
So for those who invested in return for a reward, they're entitled to a 100% refund. Not 20%. Seeing as the company behind this has other assets and doesn't plan to close its doors, giving back only 20% doesn't cut it. If the IP has value, it should be sold, along with the rest of the business, to make the refunds happen. And judging by the number of people who are demanding a full refund or that they liquidate their business, this will get ugly.
Java has a similar syntax to c/c++. And it provides an easier way to get started without shooting yourself in the foot too often. This way, with less frustration and time wasted on the details, he can learn both in just a bit more time than just c++.
Actually not bad advice, if the poster wants to get into OOP.
Objective-C is the obvious choice if you also want to make money developing for Mac OS X
With Apple switching to swift, you'll be learning an orphan language. Best bet is to learn c, then c++. This way you get the basics first.
However, if you think you're going to make money developing for OSX starting from zero, seriously, what universe do you think you're in?