What they NEED to do is supervise what their kids are doing - not leave it up to the server - the kids will get around that SO quick.
All you're doing is giving a false sense of security.
Put the computers where the single parent can SEE the kids using them. And they can see each other. If you start hearing lots of giggling, check to see if they're looking at porn. Also, the kids will snitch on each other if they can see what they're doing.
... which again introduces extra code behind-the-scenes...
... which makes for crappy runtime performance...
... and this isn't new, and it isn't from Microsoft. Borland had the exact same thing in Delphi 1.0 for Windows 15 years ago - you could define a property, and an associated getter and setter (or just a getter, or just a setter), and it would work the same way.
... plus you're blocking the signal, so it needs to boost the power to the antenna. You want fried brainz with that?
If they *really* wanted to fix the problem, they'd increase the dollar amount of the fines. A $200 fine for cell phone use makes people think "gee, I'll save money bu getting an ear-piece."
And an 83% "attach rate" for seatbelts is LOW. Make it $300 a pop and watch people buckle up.
I write it without using any class syntax, and use a script to have the c pre-processor and some custom #includes to emit a java source file with it all wrapped nicely in a class. This way, my source code looks like c, and doesn't have the fugly long names.
Plus, even in the examples you gave, if you've been following this sort of thing on/., you've heard of people who have been sued - even if you're in the right, it still means $$$, which, if you're unemployed, sux double.
If you want to use "string_copy" or "string_print_with_format", just #define them using variadic macros (macros that take a variable number of arguments).
This way you don't incur the overhead of a function call to pass the arguments from your custom string_copy to strcpy.
In Java, since you don't have a preprocessor, you can't do that.
The solution, of course, is to use a script to invoke the c pre-processor to do any macro processing, and then invoke the java compiler to wrap the code in a class. It works, btw, but it would be nice if it were possible to do it natively.
Sure, but even c++ is no longer c++. The original goals that made c nice (simplicity, tiny language), and originally made c++ "a better c" for those who wanted "c with classes" are long gone with TR1.
I bought the TR1 book, and read it twice, just in case my first impression was wrong, and I still think "Good $DIETY, go on a diet!" It's not like you can't do object-oriented code in straight c (or even assembler - Borland wrote some nice stuff about how to do that in their Assembler manuals).
Oh well, maybe I'll read it a THIRD time if too many people throw rocks at me for this comment, but I think TR1 has cooties.
I agree that auto-boxing is retarded and a waste of resources.
[rant]
However, there's no need to make everything a class, and I'm not a big fan of requiring every piece of data to have a getter and a setter. It leads to a lot more code. Look at horrific php classes that people just add so many methods to "just in case", even though the derived object is only instantiated to perform a few functions, then destroyed - it's not like a long-running program, where you have to take into account a lot more potential interaction.
Well, how long is too long? Even in C code you can use long names without having to resort to MACROS to save typing.
Huh? Want to try that again??
BTW, the pre-processor does more than macro expansion. There's conditional #includes, for example. And there's the ability to override $defines with -D from the command-line. And doing some nice stuff with make.
I said "Tasers", not "Lasers". If you wanted to resist lasers, sure, enough "gold lame and tinfoil hats" would work - but you'd look like a nerd drag queen strutting her stuff in the Castro district.
... and making everything a class (oh - already did that one)...
... and StupidlyLongNamesForSoManyThingsThatItsNotFunny (which is one reason it really needs a pre-processor - terse but readable is better than verboseAlphabetSoup).
Posters said there were NO laws against it. I proved otherwise. It's binary - either there are or there aren't. It's like being pregnant - either you are or you aren't.
So admit that you're wrong. There ARE laws against it. And if you want to go by percentages, there's a country bigger than yours that has laws against it right on top of you. And there are other countries that also have similar laws. So eat crow, fatso.
I actually typed the whole thing into the 'puter a few decades ago (think DOS-era). That's one way to end up having it "on tap". It was the proof-reading that was a killer.
The way the earth is going, we may HAVE to terraform Mars AND Venus a lot quicker than we imagine - and it should be possible to terraform Venus - we just don't consider it any more because it's hot as all heck, but crashing enough iceballs into it should do the job... plus the gravity is better - we won't leak atmosphere nearly as fast as Mars.
A "gentlemen's agreement" between companies not to pilfer employees isn't a bad thing
It's still illegal.
Its bad enough with NDAs that keep you from working in your field of expertise... even if you're totally honourable and have ZERO intent of using the insider knowledge you gained.
According to the video, it's 3.6kg without any foam or lining. Ooph. By modern standards, 2kg is very heavy.
And that's not even getting into the performance problems it would have in an impact.
The performance on impact will be FANTASTIC. Think of the damage you'll do to the car that cuts you off in traffic. Your decapitated head should be able to go through the door and take out both front-seat passengers, then carom off the corner post and get any laggards in the back seat.
Trifecta if your headless torso takes out some pedestrians with your bike.
Don't you believe it. Even Mother Theresa admitted she hadn't read it all,
Professor at Dallas Theological asked 1st-year students how many had read the bible cover-to-cover.
Answer? ZERO.
Fast-forward 4 years.
Professor at Dallas Theological asked graduating students how many had read the bible cover-to-cover.
Answer? STILL ZERO.
There is nothing new under the sun...
The ignorance of the Bible by the average xian is only matched by the ignorance of the Bible by their leaders.
Slashdot Mirror
What they NEED to do is supervise what their kids are doing - not leave it up to the server - the kids will get around that SO quick.
All you're doing is giving a false sense of security.
Put the computers where the single parent can SEE the kids using them. And they can see each other. If you start hearing lots of giggling, check to see if they're looking at porn. Also, the kids will snitch on each other if they can see what they're doing.
The overhead is bad enough in a compiled program - in a runtime-interpreted environment like Java*, it's a LOT worse.
*Java is interpreted, So before everyone flames - yet again - that it's "compiled" - do your research and get over it already.
Please take an "intro to practical law" class. You only have a right to a court-appointed attorney in CRIMINAL cases.
... plus you're blocking the signal, so it needs to boost the power to the antenna. You want fried brainz with that?
If they *really* wanted to fix the problem, they'd increase the dollar amount of the fines. A $200 fine for cell phone use makes people think "gee, I'll save money bu getting an ear-piece."
And an 83% "attach rate" for seatbelts is LOW. Make it $300 a pop and watch people buckle up.
I write it without using any class syntax, and use a script to have the c pre-processor and some custom #includes to emit a java source file with it all wrapped nicely in a class. This way, my source code looks like c, and doesn't have the fugly long names.
Here, let me fix that for you ...
95% of the world doesn't live in the US of A.
Plus, even in the examples you gave, if you've been following this sort of thing on /., you've heard of people who have been sued - even if you're in the right, it still means $$$, which, if you're unemployed, sux double.
I guess you missed the guy who got tasered to death at the Vancouver airport. Mentally ill, told to wait for 12 hours without food while his mother was outside trying to find him (she couldn't because they weren't letting him go, for some reason), or the ucla student tasered in the library, or the 11-year-old who was tasered at school ...
Demonstrators face rubber bullets, real bullets, clubs, tear gas, pepper spray, etc.
If you want to use "string_copy" or "string_print_with_format", just #define them using variadic macros (macros that take a variable number of arguments).
This way you don't incur the overhead of a function call to pass the arguments from your custom string_copy to strcpy.
In Java, since you don't have a preprocessor, you can't do that.
The solution, of course, is to use a script to invoke the c pre-processor to do any macro processing, and then invoke the java compiler to wrap the code in a class. It works, btw, but it would be nice if it were possible to do it natively.
Sure, but even c++ is no longer c++. The original goals that made c nice (simplicity, tiny language), and originally made c++ "a better c" for those who wanted "c with classes" are long gone with TR1.
I bought the TR1 book, and read it twice, just in case my first impression was wrong, and I still think "Good $DIETY, go on a diet!" It's not like you can't do object-oriented code in straight c (or even assembler - Borland wrote some nice stuff about how to do that in their Assembler manuals).
Oh well, maybe I'll read it a THIRD time if too many people throw rocks at me for this comment, but I think TR1 has cooties.
I agree that auto-boxing is retarded and a waste of resources.
[rant] However, there's no need to make everything a class, and I'm not a big fan of requiring every piece of data to have a getter and a setter. It leads to a lot more code. Look at horrific php classes that people just add so many methods to "just in case", even though the derived object is only instantiated to perform a few functions, then destroyed - it's not like a long-running program, where you have to take into account a lot more potential interaction.
[/rant]
So does the Pope.
Huh? Want to try that again??
BTW, the pre-processor does more than macro expansion. There's conditional #includes, for example. And there's the ability to override $defines with -D from the command-line. And doing some nice stuff with make.
I said "Tasers", not "Lasers". If you wanted to resist lasers, sure, enough "gold lame and tinfoil hats" would work - but you'd look like a nerd drag queen strutting her stuff in the Castro district.
Is he quitting? Will he leave all his stuff behind for garbage collectors to pick up? Or will he clean up after him by hand?
Unfortunately, his garbage collector is non-deterministic.
So admit that you're wrong. There ARE laws against it. And if you want to go by percentages, there's a country bigger than yours that has laws against it right on top of you. And there are other countries that also have similar laws. So eat crow, fatso.
I actually typed the whole thing into the 'puter a few decades ago (think DOS-era). That's one way to end up having it "on tap". It was the proof-reading that was a killer.
The way the earth is going, we may HAVE to terraform Mars AND Venus a lot quicker than we imagine - and it should be possible to terraform Venus - we just don't consider it any more because it's hot as all heck, but crashing enough iceballs into it should do the job ... plus the gravity is better - we won't leak atmosphere nearly as fast as Mars.
Next: Reactive Armour T-Shirt!!! I'll be RICH!!! (or dead).
It's still illegal.
Its bad enough with NDAs that keep you from working in your field of expertise ... even if you're totally honourable and have ZERO intent of using the insider knowledge you gained.
Hey, if it keeps the bullet from penetrating, it's got to be an improvement.
My question is - does it resist tasers? If so, I'd like to order one with "Go ahead, taze me, bro!"
That would be a HUGE seller for demonstrations, students in libraries, passengers at airports, etc.
Shhh. ... there are four ... and don't ask. They'll have to kill you BEFORE they tell you.
The performance on impact will be FANTASTIC. Think of the damage you'll do to the car that cuts you off in traffic. Your decapitated head should be able to go through the door and take out both front-seat passengers, then carom off the corner post and get any laggards in the back seat.
Trifecta if your headless torso takes out some pedestrians with your bike.
Don't you believe it. Even Mother Theresa admitted she hadn't read it all,
Professor at Dallas Theological asked 1st-year students how many had read the bible cover-to-cover.
Answer? ZERO.
Fast-forward 4 years.
Professor at Dallas Theological asked graduating students how many had read the bible cover-to-cover.
Answer? STILL ZERO.
There is nothing new under the sun ...
The ignorance of the Bible by the average xian is only matched by the ignorance of the Bible by their leaders.