I was surprised to find how clean Obj-C was. Eventually, I figured out that it's because of two things:
[1] The weird at first [receiver message] syntax makes it explicit that it is a message passing object model. I find that a natural and helpful model, rather than the procedural-like syntax of C++ and Java. The syntax helps me think in objects, with a clean visual and mental distinction between the Obj bits and the procedural bits.
[2] NextStep is a thing of beauty.
Against that, modern C++ has more modern and advanced syntax (lambda, templates). I'm not sure they make up for it. But rather than C++ I'd go for some other modern language (insert large list here).
Well, they are both tending towards line noise in my opinion, but doesn't the c++ version have a typo:) ? (auto &l should be auto &l1).
Personally, I find the Perl version a little clearer, but to a c++ geek, the familiarity probably makes the construct obvious and the Perl version ugly; a Perl geek draws the opposite conclusion.
Given that the guillotine was last used in France in 1977, and last used there publicly in 1939, it's not a sound that should be at all familiar, yet I suspect most of you can bring the sound to mind—courtesy of innumerable historical dramas and the dedicated efforts of Foley artists.
Backblaze tested the slower and cheaper STBD6000100, not the ST6000NM0024.
For their tests they note that the WD Red uses slightly less energy (which is important to them, when they have racks full of the drives) and also because it can lay down 1TB a day MORE than the Seagate. Again, a slightly different workload than most of us.
For them, the extra cost and power of the higher spec Seagate aren't worth it.
In summary: essentially equal performance (go to SSD if you need speed); essentially equal cost; slight edge on power to WD;
For reliability, no failures or pre-failures in 3 months of 24/7 operation.
I have an old mechanical watch. It requires winding once every two days, so I wind it every day. No big deal. BUT, it takes a few (10, 15) seconds to wind the watch. Can I charge the Apple Watch in under a minute? While wearing it?
Winding a mechanical watch and charging a cellphone/smartwatch are not quite as comparable as other posters have been making out.
The constitution provides for the process, which has been followed.
Of course, one might cynically note many other actions that appear to be against the law, yet go unprosecuted; or indeed laws that conflict with international obligations as established by treaty, or laws that conflict with the constitution.
It may also be to a company's financial advantage to guard their customers' data in this way, and I don't mean that it will get them more customers.
The cost of complying with requests for this sort of data is not zero, and may in fact be considerable. The Agencies may do it at their own cost, but you can bet they really want the cost out of their own budgets and into someone else's.
If a company really has no way to deliver the information, impossibilium nulla obligatio (no legal obligation to do the impossible), they have no compliance costs.
"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
Keeping the US safe is a clear and compelling interest that takes priority over a measly civil claim.
Ah, yes, "The ends justify the means". The trouble with that is that the means determine the end. If your means are corrupt, lawless and arbitrary, just what sort of outcome do you expect?
I believe this has been discussed previously: Matthew 7:16, 1 Samuel 24:13, Matthew 12:33, Luke 6:43, James 3:12
Right now, voting for someone named Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable Arthur Norman Michael Featherstone SmithNorthgot Edwards Harris MasonFrampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert 'We'll keep a welcome in the' Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin Tiger-draws Pratt Thompson 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter Pussycat 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mannering Smith could only be an improvement.
Have a small amount of C-4 explosive in the phone. If the phone is switched on when the velocity is greater than 30 mph *BOOM*.
The TSA will just love that.
And instead of airbags, we should also have daggers sticking out of our steering wheels, poised directly at our hearts. That way people will only be able to drive like assholes once.
Shame about that child stepping out in front of you.
As I recall, the sf author John W Campbell proposed a simple test for a 'clean' car. The designers would be locked in a room for an hour with the engine running.
I suspect that an electric car would pass that test easily; I'm less confident in the Mazda vehicle.
No, I'm saying you don't know. You can't trust the papers, and you can't trust your friends. It may well be that Internet censorship has wide support. It may equally well be true that it lacks massive popular support. Unless you, or someone else, does a properly conducted (and reproducible) survey, what you've got is no more than an opinion.
So you are taking the sample of people you speak to, your friends and colleagues (I'm guessing), and assuming that they are representative of the UK population as a whole.
That's not statistically valid. Tempting though it may be to assume that because the circle you move in appears to support something, doesn't mean that
practically everyone [else] welcomes government Internet censorship.
Nor does it mean the opposite. Without a proper statistical sample you really can't tell, one way or the other.
There is massive support for this kind of policy among the UK population. Perhaps not among young people in London, but practically everyone else welcomes government Internet censorship.
And you know this, why? Because of what you read in the papers or see on TV?
It all depends on the questions you ask. "Do you want to protect children from predators?" "Of course I do!". "See sir, another supporter of Internet censorship."
Slashdot Mirror
I was surprised to find how clean Obj-C was. Eventually, I figured out that it's because of two things:
[1] The weird at first [receiver message] syntax makes it explicit that it is a message passing object model. I find that a natural and helpful model, rather than the procedural-like syntax of C++ and Java. The syntax helps me think in objects, with a clean visual and mental distinction between the Obj bits and the procedural bits.
[2] NextStep is a thing of beauty.
Against that, modern C++ has more modern and advanced syntax (lambda, templates). I'm not sure they make up for it. But rather than C++ I'd go for some other modern language (insert large list here).
Not to mention a decent amount of both classical and quantum physics and inorganic chemistry, at least to undergraduate level.
Personally, I find the Perl version a little clearer, but to a c++ geek, the familiarity probably makes the construct obvious and the Perl version ugly; a Perl geek draws the opposite conclusion.
I particularly like the mounds of broken sticks that accumulate on the sideline during the game, mostly broken over the head of an opposing player.
Has been known to result in injuries to players.
Given that the guillotine was last used in France in 1977, and last used there publicly in 1939, it's not a sound that should be at all familiar, yet I suspect most of you can bring the sound to mind—courtesy of innumerable historical dramas and the dedicated efforts of Foley artists.
For their tests they note that the WD Red uses slightly less energy (which is important to them, when they have racks full of the drives) and also because it can lay down 1TB a day MORE than the Seagate. Again, a slightly different workload than most of us.
For them, the extra cost and power of the higher spec Seagate aren't worth it.
In summary: essentially equal performance (go to SSD if you need speed); essentially equal cost; slight edge on power to WD;
For reliability, no failures or pre-failures in 3 months of 24/7 operation.
I can thoroughly recommend The New Science of Strong Materials or Why You Don't Fall through the Floor by J.E. Gordon, which even has a positive review by Bill Gates.
Finding something that is:
is challenging. Sapphire gets a pass for Hard and a (mostly) Transparent.
Winding a mechanical watch and charging a cellphone/smartwatch are not quite as comparable as other posters have been making out.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12. And the UDHR was ratified in June 1992 and signed into law by Pres. Bush.
The constitution provides for the process, which has been followed.
Of course, one might cynically note many other actions that appear to be against the law, yet go unprosecuted; or indeed laws that conflict with international obligations as established by treaty, or laws that conflict with the constitution.
(Yes, I know parent was being rhetorical).
The cost of complying with requests for this sort of data is not zero, and may in fact be considerable. The Agencies may do it at their own cost, but you can bet they really want the cost out of their own budgets and into someone else's.
If a company really has no way to deliver the information, impossibilium nulla obligatio (no legal obligation to do the impossible), they have no compliance costs.
Well, that didn't take long.
Brian W. Aldiss wrote a story about this many years ago.
"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
Woody Allen
Because the thought of a few million woolly mammoths blackening the skies, decimating crops and crapping on everything is even more terrifying.
True. The NSA, as a government agency, is obliged to follow the rules, in spirit as well as letter. Well said.
Keeping the US safe is a clear and compelling interest that takes priority over a measly civil claim.
Ah, yes, "The ends justify the means". The trouble with that is that the means determine the end. If your means are corrupt, lawless and arbitrary, just what sort of outcome do you expect?
I believe this has been discussed previously: Matthew 7:16, 1 Samuel 24:13, Matthew 12:33, Luke 6:43, James 3:12
Or roughly 100 knot seconds.
Right now, voting for someone named Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable Arthur Norman Michael Featherstone SmithNorthgot Edwards Harris MasonFrampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert 'We'll keep a welcome in the' Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin Tiger-draws Pratt Thompson 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter Pussycat 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mannering Smith could only be an improvement.
You're with the NSA, right?
Have a small amount of C-4 explosive in the phone. If the phone is switched on when the velocity is greater than 30 mph *BOOM*.
The TSA will just love that.
And instead of airbags, we should also have daggers sticking out of our steering wheels, poised directly at our hearts. That way people will only be able to drive like assholes once.
Shame about that child stepping out in front of you.
Meat, by Terry Bisson
I suspect that an electric car would pass that test easily; I'm less confident in the Mazda vehicle.
No, I'm saying you don't know. You can't trust the papers, and you can't trust your friends. It may well be that Internet censorship has wide support. It may equally well be true that it lacks massive popular support. Unless you, or someone else, does a properly conducted (and reproducible) survey, what you've got is no more than an opinion.
That's not statistically valid. Tempting though it may be to assume that because the circle you move in appears to support something, doesn't mean that
practically everyone [else] welcomes government Internet censorship.
Nor does it mean the opposite. Without a proper statistical sample you really can't tell, one way or the other.
There is massive support for this kind of policy among the UK population. Perhaps not among young people in London, but practically everyone else welcomes government Internet censorship.
And you know this, why? Because of what you read in the papers or see on TV?
It all depends on the questions you ask. "Do you want to protect children from predators?" "Of course I do!". "See sir, another supporter of Internet censorship."