Erm, yes, C++ has local classes, however there is a "BUT" and it's a big one:
Local classes / structs do not have external linkage and therefore can't be used as template arguments. So, for functors etc., which is precisely where you'd want something like a local class (ie. because you really want a closure), they are useless.
Hence why we have Boost lambda. Expect, and I agree with the GP, the syntax ends up so horrible (due to the constraints of C++, not in any way the fault of the Boost devs) that you end up not using it. Not a lot of point in trying to do something because it is technically cleaner and neater if it ends up unreadable and therefore unmaintainable (for that, there is always Perl).
Reason I used _water_ as the example was that it is generally harmless whereas spraying chemicals etc. is not, and _is_ usually subject to controls.
And, yes, you could cause harm with just water if there is enough to flood etc.
The example was supposed to compare with wind-blown seed/pollen - ie. consider a bit of wind-blown water from spray irrigation.
Farmers don't generally have to erect screens to prevent irrigation spray blowing onto neighbouring fields, nor do they do it to stop seed blowing - but they should be doing it if the neighbouring farmer is then going to get sued for having that seed in his field.
If I breed a new strain of corn using traditional techniques is it my responsibility to make sure that doesn't fertilize anyone else's corn as well?
Not normally - but then you aren't suing those others for having corn fertilized by your corn are you ?
If you use a water sprayer to irrigate your land, is it your responsibility to make sure the water doesn't go onto my land ? Probably not. However, if you spray onto my land and then sue me for using your water, I ought to be within my rights to tell you it _is_ your responsibility to keep your water on your land.
So... by keeping the docs secret, even for commodity hardware which my competitors can get hold of, I cause my competitors a "major waste of effort".
Corollary: if I publish the docs, I help my competitors.
That is the core of the argument, and it is (AFAICS) valid. What we need to do is convince mfrs that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, rather than deny that the disadvantages exist.
They are free to distribute under V2 or later terms.
They are not free to change the licencing to "V3 or later" and exclude the V2 option. Under clause 1 of GPL (v2 - but v3 is similar) the requirement is: "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License".
Only the copyright holder can change the "version 2 of the License..." line.
Am I going to suddenly be able to infer the entire design of their hardware (or the source of the drivers they've written for windows), just because I have that knowledge?
No - but that isn't their argument.
Suppose you get an email from Ferrari saying their new API for their F1 car has control functions for a moveable floor.
Will that enable you to infer the entire design of their car ? - No.
No suppose Maclaren get that email. Will it affect the competition between them and Ferrari ? - quite possibly.
In both cases, I don't know enough to decide if the argument is completely valid - but both are credible.
However, in this wonderful special case, Word documents from later versions will not open in earlier versions, due to massive shifts in the way the document format works.
Rubbish.
Download the converter plugins from MS and you can load _and_ save the new formats.
If you don't know where to download them, and can't spare a minute on Google, then if your Office install is uptodate (ie. fully patched) then when try to open the new format in the old Office, it recognises it and tells you it needs to download the converter plugins... and then (IIRC) it does it for you.
And yes, it worked (for me). Months ago - right when I started getting.docx files in emails.
No, MS don't always get it right, but on backwards (and forwards) file format compatibility they are about as good as it gets.
Oh, and something else - not only can Word 2007 save in the old 2003 format, but you can set it to do so as the default.
There are so many ways round it that anyone who says they were forced to purchase after a trial Office 2007 just to get their files back is, frankly, a cluless luser paying the price for being incapable of RTFM.
So, rather than get it WRONG, they are leaving it out.
In the example I quoted, that is exactly what MS did - they left the type of the argument to Sin() undefined - ie. not "wrong", just left out. Just like ODF did.
Oh, and doesn't this show that if MS had opened up the standard for perusal BEFORE filing it (like ODF did), wouldn't we have avoided this problem?
Well, we could look at ODF to see. Take one problem, from the article:
First, let's take the trigonometric functions, SIN (Part 4, Section 3.17.7.287), COS (Part 4, Section 3.17.7.50) and TAN (Part 4, Section 3.17.7.313). Hard to mess these up right? Well, what if you fail to state whether their arguments are angle expressed as radians or degrees? Whoops
So where is this specified in ODF then ?
Oh, it isn't. Hence the existence of OpenFormula (and maybe other projects) to fix the deficiency.
So, did ODF avoided this problem ? No - ODF still got right through to approval whilst still having this exact same problem as OOXML.
AFAICS, two ODF1.1 compliant spreadsheets could implement Sin() differently (eg. degrees vs. radians) and still be completely compliant with the standard.
No, we should just recognize that helicopters are not appropriate for most transportation (too expensive and too difficult to fly) and help the submitter of the article explore free or low cost alternatives such as walking, driving or "hosted" air travel.
It's more complicated than that - the submitter wants particular high-end features (like CMYK for professional print output).
In transportation terms, he's looking for a vehicle that can:
- transport several people / several tons of kit
- rapidly (>100mph)
- to / from endpoints without infrastructure (ie. no roads / runways etc.)
- over inhospitable terrain...but is not a helicopter.
Good luck searching. Most people just accept that they need a helicopter to do this job, and therefore you have to pay what a helicopter costs (or a V22 if you're feeling lucky / suicidal - IMO).
How can a normal fraudster use a credit card number to his personal gain? Does he get goods delivered to his house?
Buy services. Easier. Buy subscriptions to fake (or real) web sites - small amounts through a billing co., lots of victims won't even notice.
How does this help the fraudster ? Who gets the money ? - Website owner. How easy is it to set up a subscription porn website ? Not hard - look at how many there are. Fraudster just sets up the website and uses stolen cards to buy subs to it.
Anything purchased with it has an audit trail.
The police have already been shown to be incapable of following it.
Bates found that not only did thousands of the supposed porn buyers not go to get their porn; many of the sites had been set up purely for fraud. His checks were evidential tests that the UK police seem to have forgotten to take.
I don't really see where the EPA was that far off, just a normal person (other than grandma) doesn't drive a car optimally for gas mileage.
The ratings are supposed to be what a normal person would get - not an economy driver.
Someone who drives a car "optimally for gas mileage" should get a lot _better_ than the official figures - and in conventional vehicles, they do. If you have to drive hybrids "optimally for gas mileage" just to _match_ the official figures, then using the figures for comparison clearly _is_ unfair.
In the uk, both the golf and the prius are medium sized hatchbacks - but that is just marketing.
In actual size, golf is slightly shorter than the Prius, but in height and width they are near enough the same. The golf (tdi) is also quite a bit heavier - which should give worse mileage.
You indicate needing to put the pedal through the floor often.
Not "need" - just that I do. Point is that I _don't_ have to drive it carefully to get 50+ uk mpg from a relatively short commute into a city(exactly where the hybrid should do best).
Like the gun-control debate, comparing crime statistics across nations is notoriously prone to confirmation bias.
Which is why the better studies of crime stats look at trends in crime rates over time in the _same_ country. Obviously if porn leads to rape then increase in porn availabilty (in the same country) will lead to increase in rape (in the same country).
Except it didn't.
The actual incidence of violent sexual crime, however, could very well not show an easily observable statistical change.
In some cases it doesn't, but in some it does. Downwards. Statistically significantly downwards. (Kutchinsky etc.)
I do know, for example, that many people feel sexism is rife in Japan and that women are objectified to a much greater degree than in the US. Compared with other studies about porn, this would strengthen the old idea that porn leads to desensitization and objectification of women.
And you were doing so well - then you've fallen straight into the basic mistake of assuming correlation proves causation. It doesn't. Lack of correlation can disprove causation (see above), but you can't go the other way.
In the case of Japan, porn could only have become widely available after 1853(requiring technology such as printing, photography, etc.), so if porn causes sexism, women must have been more equal in Japan before that date than now. Oops... no they weren't (read some history on the shogunate).
Also, one would expect places where porn was banned to show less sexism (if porn causes sexism). Places like, say, Saudi Arabia...
FYI, my average for last month is 45.6 MPG. It includes typical rush hour traffic with some creep and stop driving and a long trip of 180 miles each way over the mountains. I drive an 02 Prius.
Guessing that's US MPG, which would be about 55 uk mpg.
I typically get about 52-54 mpg (uk), 52 off the last tank (which is more than a month), and that is on a shortish (10 miles each way) urban commute.
Assuming you're right on getting better miles on longer trips (I agree - it takes a quarter to half my trip before the engine is warmed up, which can't be good for mpg), then that makes our cars about comparable.
I drive a Golf TDI - not a hybrid, and slightly older than your prius. So that makes hybrid cars no better than dumb conventional cars.
How you drive makes big changes in your results.
Yep, if I drove mine for economy I'd get better mpg, but I don't - I don't race people at traffic lights, but I don't always stick to speed limits either and I do put the right foot through the floor on a regular basis when overtaking.
When driving the whole family (or, more accurately, when driving with wife in passenger seat) my driving style is a bit different, and I get close to 50mpg -within 10% of the golf, but from a large MPV (tdi again).
One, they didn't rape anyone, just made them do humiliating things.
Rape has been alleged, and given the other things carried out it doesn't seem too far fetched. Sodomy and torture (including torturing to death) is documented.
Whilst being sodomized or hung from your wrists (behind your back - strappado) until dead almost certainly do qualify as "humiliating things", I don't think many people would regard them as "_just_... humiliating".
Three, guess you don't like muslim/arab punishments?
Not really, although I note that sharia law seems to typically specify a trial first...
Physical security is not perfect - google "lock bumping" to see what I mean - but the physical security of banks has evolved to the point where it's just not worth it to try.
In all these, recent, cases people got through the physical security and got the money.
What stops them "getting away with it without being caught" is that it is far harder than it used to be to actually dispose of these sort of amounts without getting noticed and caught.
Getting through the security and getting the money isn't the problem. What you do with the truck load of money afterwards is - given that it's probably got gps trackers, marker dyes and who knows what else in it, and the note numbers are going to raise alarms at every major bank within hours (if not sooner, etc. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Local classes are definitely standard, section 9.8 I think.
Local _functions_ aren't in C++, but may be a GCC extension - which might be confusing you.
Erm, yes, C++ has local classes, however there is a "BUT" and it's a big one:
Local classes / structs do not have external linkage and therefore can't be used as template arguments. So, for functors etc., which is precisely where you'd want something like a local class (ie. because you really want a closure), they are useless.
Hence why we have Boost lambda. Expect, and I agree with the GP, the syntax ends up so horrible (due to the constraints of C++, not in any way the fault of the Boost devs) that you end up not using it. Not a lot of point in trying to do something because it is technically cleaner and neater if it ends up unreadable and therefore unmaintainable (for that, there is always Perl).
Reason I used _water_ as the example was that it is generally harmless whereas spraying chemicals etc. is not, and _is_ usually subject to controls.
And, yes, you could cause harm with just water if there is enough to flood etc.
The example was supposed to compare with wind-blown seed/pollen - ie. consider a bit of wind-blown water from spray irrigation.
Farmers don't generally have to erect screens to prevent irrigation spray blowing onto neighbouring fields, nor do they do it to stop seed blowing - but they should be doing it if the neighbouring farmer is then going to get sued for having that seed in his field.
If I breed a new strain of corn using traditional techniques is it my responsibility to make sure that doesn't fertilize anyone else's corn as well?
Not normally - but then you aren't suing those others for having corn fertilized by your corn are you ?
If you use a water sprayer to irrigate your land, is it your responsibility to make sure the water doesn't go onto my land ? Probably not. However, if you spray onto my land and then sue me for using your water, I ought to be within my rights to tell you it _is_ your responsibility to keep your water on your land.
So... by keeping the docs secret, even for commodity hardware which my competitors can get hold of, I cause my competitors a "major waste of effort".
Corollary: if I publish the docs, I help my competitors.
That is the core of the argument, and it is (AFAICS) valid. What we need to do is convince mfrs that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, rather than deny that the disadvantages exist.
They are free to distribute under V2 or later terms.
They are not free to change the licencing to "V3 or later" and exclude the V2 option. Under clause 1 of GPL (v2 - but v3 is similar) the requirement is: "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License".
Only the copyright holder can change the "version 2 of the License..." line.
At least, that is my understanding - IANAL etc.
So, remind me, why was it we needed all the secret documentation to write drivers then ?
Am I going to suddenly be able to infer the entire design of their hardware (or the source of the drivers they've written for windows), just because I have that knowledge?
No - but that isn't their argument.
Suppose you get an email from Ferrari saying their new API for their F1 car has control functions for a moveable floor.
Will that enable you to infer the entire design of their car ? - No.
No suppose Maclaren get that email. Will it affect the competition between them and Ferrari ? - quite possibly.
In both cases, I don't know enough to decide if the argument is completely valid - but both are credible.
However, in this wonderful special case, Word documents from later versions will not open in earlier versions, due to massive shifts in the way the document format works.
.docx files in emails.
Rubbish.
Download the converter plugins from MS and you can load _and_ save the new formats.
If you don't know where to download them, and can't spare a minute on Google, then if your Office install is uptodate (ie. fully patched) then when try to open the new format in the old Office, it recognises it and tells you it needs to download the converter plugins... and then (IIRC) it does it for you.
And yes, it worked (for me). Months ago - right when I started getting
No, MS don't always get it right, but on backwards (and forwards) file format compatibility they are about as good as it gets.
Oh, and something else - not only can Word 2007 save in the old 2003 format, but you can set it to do so as the default.
There are so many ways round it that anyone who says they were forced to purchase after a trial Office 2007 just to get their files back is, frankly, a cluless luser paying the price for being incapable of RTFM.
So, rather than get it WRONG, they are leaving it out.
In the example I quoted, that is exactly what MS did - they left the type of the argument to Sin() undefined - ie. not "wrong", just left out. Just like ODF did.
Well, we could look at ODF to see. Take one problem, from the article:
So where is this specified in ODF then ?
Oh, it isn't. Hence the existence of OpenFormula (and maybe other projects) to fix the deficiency.
So, did ODF avoided this problem ? No - ODF still got right through to approval whilst still having this exact same problem as OOXML.
AFAICS, two ODF1.1 compliant spreadsheets could implement Sin() differently (eg. degrees vs. radians) and still be completely compliant with the standard.
"Whoops".
You both missed the real last line, and it's a beaut - on the ad, the _second_ tick box on the response form:
"[ ] I'd just like a glossy reprint of this ad."
Now _that_ is knowing you target audience...
Beautiful marketing - probably not even allowed these days.
No, we should just recognize that helicopters are not appropriate for most transportation (too expensive and too difficult to fly) and help the submitter of the article explore free or low cost alternatives such as walking, driving or "hosted" air travel.
...but is not a helicopter.
It's more complicated than that - the submitter wants particular high-end features (like CMYK for professional print output).
In transportation terms, he's looking for a vehicle that can:
- transport several people / several tons of kit
- rapidly (>100mph)
- to / from endpoints without infrastructure (ie. no roads / runways etc.)
- over inhospitable terrain
Good luck searching. Most people just accept that they need a helicopter to do this job, and therefore you have to pay what a helicopter costs (or a V22 if you're feeling lucky / suicidal - IMO).
I can't wait to pay £400 for a Beta CPU and then get to endure 6 months of crashing until it gets patched
I can't wait to do a months of simulation work on it, and then finding you have to redo it because your results were invalid due to hardware bug.
Oh, wait, been there done that. Years ago. FDIV.
Nothing new here, move along...
How can a normal fraudster use a credit card number to his personal gain?
Does he get goods delivered to his house?
Buy services. Easier. Buy subscriptions to fake (or real) web sites - small amounts through a billing co., lots of victims won't even notice.
How does this help the fraudster ?
Who gets the money ? - Website owner.
How easy is it to set up a subscription porn website ? Not hard - look at how many there are.
Fraudster just sets up the website and uses stolen cards to buy subs to it.
Anything purchased with it has an audit trail.
The police have already been shown to be incapable of following it.
To quote from a uk press article on "operation ore": http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,
So place the trigger phone half a football field ahead, and run some cable (or use wireless on a different frequency) to the bomb.
Only difficulty now is how big is a "football field" - is that american football, aussie rules, soccer, imperial or metric...
I don't really see where the EPA was that far off, just a normal person (other than grandma) doesn't drive a car optimally for gas mileage.
The ratings are supposed to be what a normal person would get - not an economy driver.
Someone who drives a car "optimally for gas mileage" should get a lot _better_ than the official figures - and in conventional vehicles, they do. If you have to drive hybrids "optimally for gas mileage" just to _match_ the official figures, then using the figures for comparison clearly _is_ unfair.
The Golf is a smaller car sold as a compact car
In the uk, both the golf and the prius are medium sized hatchbacks - but that is just marketing.
In actual size, golf is slightly shorter than the Prius, but in height and width they are near enough the same. The golf (tdi) is also quite a bit heavier - which should give worse mileage.
You indicate needing to put the pedal through the floor often.
Not "need" - just that I do. Point is that I _don't_ have to drive it carefully to get 50+ uk mpg from a relatively short commute into a city(exactly where the hybrid should do best).
Like the gun-control debate, comparing crime statistics across nations is notoriously prone to confirmation bias.
Which is why the better studies of crime stats look at trends in crime rates over time in the _same_ country. Obviously if porn leads to rape then increase in porn availabilty (in the same country) will lead to increase in rape (in the same country).
Except it didn't.
The actual incidence of violent sexual crime, however, could very well not show an easily observable statistical change.
In some cases it doesn't, but in some it does. Downwards. Statistically significantly downwards. (Kutchinsky etc.)
I do know, for example, that many people feel sexism is rife in Japan and that women are objectified to a much greater degree than in the US. Compared with other studies about porn, this would strengthen the old idea that porn leads to desensitization and objectification of women.
And you were doing so well - then you've fallen straight into the basic mistake of assuming correlation proves causation. It doesn't. Lack of correlation can disprove causation (see above), but you can't go the other way.
In the case of Japan, porn could only have become widely available after 1853(requiring technology such as printing, photography, etc.), so if porn causes sexism, women must have been more equal in Japan before that date than now. Oops... no they weren't (read some history on the shogunate).
Also, one would expect places where porn was banned to show less sexism (if porn causes sexism). Places like, say, Saudi Arabia...
FYI, my average for last month is 45.6 MPG. It includes typical rush hour traffic with some creep and stop driving and a long trip of 180 miles each way over the mountains. I drive an 02 Prius.
Guessing that's US MPG, which would be about 55 uk mpg.
I typically get about 52-54 mpg (uk), 52 off the last tank (which is more than a month), and that is on a shortish (10 miles each way) urban commute.
Assuming you're right on getting better miles on longer trips (I agree - it takes a quarter to half my trip before the engine is warmed up, which can't be good for mpg), then that makes our cars about comparable.
I drive a Golf TDI - not a hybrid, and slightly older than your prius. So that makes hybrid cars no better than dumb conventional cars.
How you drive makes big changes in your results.
Yep, if I drove mine for economy I'd get better mpg, but I don't - I don't race people at traffic lights, but I don't always stick to speed limits either and I do put the right foot through the floor on a regular basis when overtaking.
When driving the whole family (or, more accurately, when driving with wife in passenger seat) my driving style is a bit different, and I get close to 50mpg -within 10% of the golf, but from a large MPV (tdi again).
In the first strip he talks about how hard it is to kill someone with a .22. A .22 is used in the Virginia Tech massacre.
.22 he would probably have been stopped a lot earlier, and would have killed far fewer people with his shots.
As was a 9mm semi-auto glock. Which would be a lot easier to kill someone with.
Had the perp at VT _only_ had a
Be careful if trying to explain that to anyone whilst at work though...
I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this.
They might not respond much, since anything they say is likely to get them fired...
One, they didn't rape anyone, just made them do humiliating things.
... humiliating".
Rape has been alleged, and given the other things carried out it doesn't seem too far fetched. Sodomy and torture (including torturing to death) is documented.
Whilst being sodomized or hung from your wrists (behind your back - strappado) until dead almost certainly do qualify as "humiliating things", I don't think many people would regard them as "_just_
Three, guess you don't like muslim/arab punishments?
Not really, although I note that sharia law seems to typically specify a trial first...
Physical security is not perfect - google "lock bumping" to see what I mean - but the physical security of banks has evolved to the point where it's just not worth it to try.
Banco Central, Fortaleza, Brazil. 2005. approx $70M
Northern Bank, Belfast 2004 - £26M
Securitas depot, UK, 2006 - £53M
Iraq central bank, 2003 - $1Bn
In all these, recent, cases people got through the physical security and got the money.
What stops them "getting away with it without being caught" is that it is far harder than it used to be to actually dispose of these sort of amounts without getting noticed and caught.
Getting through the security and getting the money isn't the problem. What you do with the truck load of money afterwards is - given that it's probably got gps trackers, marker dyes and who knows what else in it, and the note numbers are going to raise alarms at every major bank within hours (if not sooner, etc. etc.
That was because they _needed_ a script so they could do:
renamefiles txt jpg
on the commandline.
On windows you don't need the script at all - just type the command
ren *.txt *.jpg
Why would you write a whole script to save typing a couple of * characters on the commandline ?