no, what he's just saying is that if the right side can make the test fail, then the left will not be executed. In your example, he's just saying that it would then followup by checking the left side (which would cause the test to fail).
However, that is irrelevant, since (as you already pointed out) the C specification says that it can NOT be done that way. Left-to-right evaluation on a short-circuit operator is guaranteed.
But it is NOT the same answer, as it may generate a runtime exception. You seemed to missed that belmolis said that the C standard REQUIRES the compiler to generate a short-circuit evaluation. It is guaranteed by the language specification that every short-circuit operator be evaluated left to right. There can NEVER be a case where the right side is evaluated when the left side would have been sufficient to determine the outcome. Any compiler that does not follow this rule may be a C-like compiler, but it is not a compliant C compiler. It is not optional.
Nope, you are wrong. You only need to be aware that the call may be recorded, not who is doing the recording. And of course, that's only in a 2 party state. In a 1 party state, no notification needs to be given to the other person at all, so even if they don't say "this call may be recorded" you are still alright to record it.
I have a pretty popular first name (we've even had a US president with my name). Yet for >99% of my life, that name serves me perfectly well to distinctly identify me in most crowds. I'll gladly trade that very very minor confusion that occurs 1% of the time in exchange for not having a name people have to write down and then sound out just to say properly, not to mention not having to put a phonetic spelling on my business card.
I don't know whether a pen and paper would be considered illegal or not, but it would be irrelevant. You may be allowed to card count at a casino, but they aren't required to let you continue card counting. They've developed strategies to try an identify card counters, and once they suspect you of card counting, they'll simply ask you to leave. If you are sitting there with a pen and paper, you are only making it that much easier for them to identify you.
Good point, and that is also applicable to party oriented games. Guitar Hero and Rock Band make you go through the career mode to unlock all the songs, which is annoying if you have a party and want people just to be able to play whatever songs they are interested in, rather than which songs are in the next unlocked group.
Which leads to in important consideration. Yes, AMD and Intel hold patents vital to getting into the industry, but why did they cross license? That is simple: Intel had enough patents to have AMD by the balls, and AMD had enough patents to have Intel by the balls. Neither enjoyed being at the mercy of the other, so they came to a mutual agreement.
So now, fast forward to present day. Nvidia wants to get into the game. So how do they do it? Simple: they need to innovate and get patents on core technology before the other 2 do. Then they can agree to license it to one of the 2 to give them a competitive advantage. At that point Nvidia has half the necessary portfolio, and if things go well, the other will need to get their hands on the tech to stay competitive.
Why before? So we won't let the WANTED free, only because we don't yet know this person committed some other crime for which DNA was found.
That logic is no better than setting up random DNA check roadblocks everywhere. If we have to make sure an innocent guy that was wrongfully arrest didn't also actually commit a crime, then why not make sure everyone else that wasn't arrested (wrongful or not) isn't guilty of something too?
If you can use the DNA that was compulsorily taken from a non-yet-known-to-be-guilty person to prove they committed a crime, then you might as well just require all DNA for every person to remain on file whether they've been arrested or not. I say this because you'd already have a loophole in the system: you simply need to "arrest" everybody briefly on a daily basis and hold them just long enough to run their DNA against a database before "dropping the charges". Heck, you don't even need to do it daily. Just "arrest" them, take their DNA, hold it for whatever period would be legally allowed, and THEN drop the charges before promptly "rearresting" them on some other charge.
No, I don't think I missed any point, but I think you missed mine? Why did they add this clause to the EULA? You think they did it to stop you from looking at your firewall logs? Huh? What do they have to gain from that?
cdrguru made a relevant point. The most likely explanation for why they did this was to "protect" the privacy of their other users, since this is something like a bittorrent application. I was simply pointing out that since they can't actually protect anything, they should have just notified users of the shared info rather than pretending like they can legalese such shared info out of existence.
I also was not saying you shouldn't worry about the EULA or anything. I was saying why their approach to setting up the EULA was backwards.
The issue is privacy. Since they are "borrowing" user's bandwidth this exposes other users potentially personally identifying information to the first user.
Oh no. Is my computer broadcasting an IP address again?
Seriously, that's all the personally identifying info it should be sending out. And rather than trying to stop other people from looking at such info, they should do the EULA the opposite way. Simply inform each user that other users may be able to determine which content they are watching (which they should already be warning about anyway, even with the current restriction)
1) Umbilical cords attach to the placenta, not the mother directly, and the placenta comes out shortly after birth whether you want it to or not.
2) I'll quote from the wiki entry: "Shortly after birth, the reduction in temperature starts a physiological process which causes the Wharton's Jelly to swell and collapse the blood vessels within. This, in effect, creates a natural clamp, halting the flow of blood. This physiological clamping will take as little as five minutes if left to proceed naturally."
So, the cord will be cut off from blood flow automatically by the body. Well, what currently happens when we tie it off? Without bloodflow, it simply dries up and falls off by itself. Well, the same would happen automatically. So, really we just save ourselves from the inconvenience of having a big lump of dead placenta attached to the baby by a cord for a few weeks.
So, unless you can somehow make the case that the foreskin will fall off on its own, I don't think you've come up with a valid comparison there.
Actually my answer makes total sense, as long as you aren't too ignorant to understand it.
The way the program has worked up until now:
1) You signup for the coupon 2) If they haven't run out of coupons, then you get your coupon, otherwise you get put on the waiting list 3) When you do get your coupon, you have 3 months (from date of issue) to use it. 4) If you don't use your coupon before it expires, it's value goes back into the pool. If the pool has been depleted, that means the next person on the waiting list gets your coupon. 5) Once your coupon has expired, you are done. No second chances. You are SOL.
What this change in policy does is replace #5 with the following
5) Once your coupon has expired, you've lost your place in line. You now go back into the waiting list (but I'm not clear if you go to the head of the list or the end of the list). If there never becomes enough funds available to issue you a coupon, then you are still SOL.
Get it?
Now, lets say $100 million in coupons are expired. They issue new coupons to the waiting list in the amount of $100 million. Now pretend they revalidate your expired coupons. Suddenly there are $200 million in coupons that could be redeemed, but they only have $100 million left in the fund. Do you see a potential problem?
Because the problem is that they've only got a set amount of funding for coupons, and when your coupon expired they issued a new coupon to somebody on the waiting list. If they were to revalidate all the expired coupons, suddenly there will be the possibility of more coupons being redeemed than they have funding to cover.
Then you'd be pleased with the way Rock Band has done it. The same DLC library works in both Rock Band 1 and 2. The songs from RB1 can be exported for $5 and used in RB2 (except for 3 songs, which they couldn't secure the export rights for). The $5 is purely to pay for licensing fees, presumably because at the time RB1 was made Harmonix wasn't thinking ahead far enough to include such export rights into the original contract.
When Rock Band: AC/DC came out, the game included a code in the box which would be used to download all of the songs from the AC/DC game for use in RB2 (I'm not sure if they will also work in RB1, but I think so).
Presumably, by the time they licensed songs for RB2, they also secured export rights to all of those songs, so hopefully everything will work in RB3. The next Rock Band game to come out is going to be a Beatles game, and although they haven't detailed everything exactly, they have indicated it will work with existing RB games in some manner, so hopefully it too will allow exporting songs.
It doesn't matter if the student finds taking the notes away to be a loss. The point is that the law states the teacher has to have an intent to gain, or an intent to cause the victim a loss. The teacher's intent is not to cause the student a loss, but rather to prevent future students from cheating via access to those notes. Not exactly sure how that works, but whether or not it makes sense, that is the teacher's intent.
LOL. Some of you people are so hilarious, always trying to show off your legal acumen. I'd love to see you get any court anywhere to agree with you. That's like saying that since the teacher said you need to answer 60% of the exam questions correct or she will your for that exam, she's blackmailing you into answering correctly. Or if she said classroom attendance is mandatory for a passing grade, she's blackmailing you into attending class.
Let's look at your precious section 21 of the 1968 Theft Act.
If, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief:
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
I challenge you to show me where the teacher has an intent to gain, or an intent to cause the student to incur a loss? Furthermore, I'd suggest that the teacher has demonstrated reasonable ground for making the demand (she may not be correct in taking the notes to prevent cheating, but it isn't unreasonable for her to think it is), and the threat of a failing grade is also proper means of enforcing the demand (that's her job...to give you a bad grade if you don't complete the course requirements).
I suspect any judge would laugh you out of court (but not before "blackmailing" you with with further punishment if you don't pay your court costs in a timely manner).
I wonder how hard it would be for them to graft an RF output onto their device?
Well, I don't know how much is involved in doing so, but I can say that currently the HDHomeRun does nothing in the realm of decoding the signal. All it does is capture the broadcast stream, filter it down to the necessary subchannels, and then stream the raw MPEG data out over TCP/UDP packets.
On several occasions, I've bricked an entire computer (drives, CPU, case, and all) by pulling out all the cables. Of course, I was able to unbrick it by plugging the cables back in.
Slashdot Mirror
no, what he's just saying is that if the right side can make the test fail, then the left will not be executed. In your example, he's just saying that it would then followup by checking the left side (which would cause the test to fail).
However, that is irrelevant, since (as you already pointed out) the C specification says that it can NOT be done that way. Left-to-right evaluation on a short-circuit operator is guaranteed.
But it is NOT the same answer, as it may generate a runtime exception. You seemed to missed that belmolis said that the C standard REQUIRES the compiler to generate a short-circuit evaluation. It is guaranteed by the language specification that every short-circuit operator be evaluated left to right. There can NEVER be a case where the right side is evaluated when the left side would have been sufficient to determine the outcome. Any compiler that does not follow this rule may be a C-like compiler, but it is not a compliant C compiler. It is not optional.
I see. It's just like a fan blade. Once it gets moving so fast it actually appears to move very slowly (or even backward). Right?
Nope, you are wrong. You only need to be aware that the call may be recorded, not who is doing the recording. And of course, that's only in a 2 party state. In a 1 party state, no notification needs to be given to the other person at all, so even if they don't say "this call may be recorded" you are still alright to record it.
I have a pretty popular first name (we've even had a US president with my name). Yet for >99% of my life, that name serves me perfectly well to distinctly identify me in most crowds. I'll gladly trade that very very minor confusion that occurs 1% of the time in exchange for not having a name people have to write down and then sound out just to say properly, not to mention not having to put a phonetic spelling on my business card.
I don't know whether a pen and paper would be considered illegal or not, but it would be irrelevant. You may be allowed to card count at a casino, but they aren't required to let you continue card counting. They've developed strategies to try an identify card counters, and once they suspect you of card counting, they'll simply ask you to leave. If you are sitting there with a pen and paper, you are only making it that much easier for them to identify you.
http://www.oxygenpod.com/index.php
P.S. They also sell it on planet Spaceball
Good point, and that is also applicable to party oriented games. Guitar Hero and Rock Band make you go through the career mode to unlock all the songs, which is annoying if you have a party and want people just to be able to play whatever songs they are interested in, rather than which songs are in the next unlocked group.
Which leads to in important consideration. Yes, AMD and Intel hold patents vital to getting into the industry, but why did they cross license? That is simple: Intel had enough patents to have AMD by the balls, and AMD had enough patents to have Intel by the balls. Neither enjoyed being at the mercy of the other, so they came to a mutual agreement.
So now, fast forward to present day. Nvidia wants to get into the game. So how do they do it? Simple: they need to innovate and get patents on core technology before the other 2 do. Then they can agree to license it to one of the 2 to give them a competitive advantage. At that point Nvidia has half the necessary portfolio, and if things go well, the other will need to get their hands on the tech to stay competitive.
That logic is no better than setting up random DNA check roadblocks everywhere. If we have to make sure an innocent guy that was wrongfully arrest didn't also actually commit a crime, then why not make sure everyone else that wasn't arrested (wrongful or not) isn't guilty of something too?
If you can use the DNA that was compulsorily taken from a non-yet-known-to-be-guilty person to prove they committed a crime, then you might as well just require all DNA for every person to remain on file whether they've been arrested or not. I say this because you'd already have a loophole in the system: you simply need to "arrest" everybody briefly on a daily basis and hold them just long enough to run their DNA against a database before "dropping the charges". Heck, you don't even need to do it daily. Just "arrest" them, take their DNA, hold it for whatever period would be legally allowed, and THEN drop the charges before promptly "rearresting" them on some other charge.
I know that (you will see that if you reread my post), but that isn't personally identifying info.
No, I don't think I missed any point, but I think you missed mine? Why did they add this clause to the EULA? You think they did it to stop you from looking at your firewall logs? Huh? What do they have to gain from that?
cdrguru made a relevant point. The most likely explanation for why they did this was to "protect" the privacy of their other users, since this is something like a bittorrent application. I was simply pointing out that since they can't actually protect anything, they should have just notified users of the shared info rather than pretending like they can legalese such shared info out of existence.
I also was not saying you shouldn't worry about the EULA or anything. I was saying why their approach to setting up the EULA was backwards.
Oh no. Is my computer broadcasting an IP address again?
Seriously, that's all the personally identifying info it should be sending out. And rather than trying to stop other people from looking at such info, they should do the EULA the opposite way. Simply inform each user that other users may be able to determine which content they are watching (which they should already be warning about anyway, even with the current restriction)
anywhere? FYI: You can't get pregnant from oral.
1) Umbilical cords attach to the placenta, not the mother directly, and the placenta comes out shortly after birth whether you want it to or not.
2) I'll quote from the wiki entry:
"Shortly after birth, the reduction in temperature starts a physiological process which causes the Wharton's Jelly to swell and collapse the blood vessels within. This, in effect, creates a natural clamp, halting the flow of blood. This physiological clamping will take as little as five minutes if left to proceed naturally."
So, the cord will be cut off from blood flow automatically by the body. Well, what currently happens when we tie it off? Without bloodflow, it simply dries up and falls off by itself. Well, the same would happen automatically. So, really we just save ourselves from the inconvenience of having a big lump of dead placenta attached to the baby by a cord for a few weeks.
So, unless you can somehow make the case that the foreskin will fall off on its own, I don't think you've come up with a valid comparison there.
Exactly, and I was able to figure that out without even RTFA.
Actually my answer makes total sense, as long as you aren't too ignorant to understand it.
The way the program has worked up until now:
1) You signup for the coupon
2) If they haven't run out of coupons, then you get your coupon, otherwise you get put on the waiting list
3) When you do get your coupon, you have 3 months (from date of issue) to use it.
4) If you don't use your coupon before it expires, it's value goes back into the pool. If the pool has been depleted, that means the next person on the waiting list gets your coupon.
5) Once your coupon has expired, you are done. No second chances. You are SOL.
What this change in policy does is replace #5 with the following
5) Once your coupon has expired, you've lost your place in line. You now go back into the waiting list (but I'm not clear if you go to the head of the list or the end of the list). If there never becomes enough funds available to issue you a coupon, then you are still SOL.
Get it?
Now, lets say $100 million in coupons are expired. They issue new coupons to the waiting list in the amount of $100 million. Now pretend they revalidate your expired coupons. Suddenly there are $200 million in coupons that could be redeemed, but they only have $100 million left in the fund. Do you see a potential problem?
Get it?
Because the problem is that they've only got a set amount of funding for coupons, and when your coupon expired they issued a new coupon to somebody on the waiting list. If they were to revalidate all the expired coupons, suddenly there will be the possibility of more coupons being redeemed than they have funding to cover.
And you have the nerve to call other people clueless idiots?
Then you'd be pleased with the way Rock Band has done it. The same DLC library works in both Rock Band 1 and 2. The songs from RB1 can be exported for $5 and used in RB2 (except for 3 songs, which they couldn't secure the export rights for). The $5 is purely to pay for licensing fees, presumably because at the time RB1 was made Harmonix wasn't thinking ahead far enough to include such export rights into the original contract.
When Rock Band: AC/DC came out, the game included a code in the box which would be used to download all of the songs from the AC/DC game for use in RB2 (I'm not sure if they will also work in RB1, but I think so).
Presumably, by the time they licensed songs for RB2, they also secured export rights to all of those songs, so hopefully everything will work in RB3. The next Rock Band game to come out is going to be a Beatles game, and although they haven't detailed everything exactly, they have indicated it will work with existing RB games in some manner, so hopefully it too will allow exporting songs.
It doesn't matter if the student finds taking the notes away to be a loss. The point is that the law states the teacher has to have an intent to gain, or an intent to cause the victim a loss. The teacher's intent is not to cause the student a loss, but rather to prevent future students from cheating via access to those notes. Not exactly sure how that works, but whether or not it makes sense, that is the teacher's intent.
LOL. Some of you people are so hilarious, always trying to show off your legal acumen. I'd love to see you get any court anywhere to agree with you. That's like saying that since the teacher said you need to answer 60% of the exam questions correct or she will your for that exam, she's blackmailing you into answering correctly. Or if she said classroom attendance is mandatory for a passing grade, she's blackmailing you into attending class.
Let's look at your precious section 21 of the 1968 Theft Act.
I challenge you to show me where the teacher has an intent to gain, or an intent to cause the student to incur a loss? Furthermore, I'd suggest that the teacher has demonstrated reasonable ground for making the demand (she may not be correct in taking the notes to prevent cheating, but it isn't unreasonable for her to think it is), and the threat of a failing grade is also proper means of enforcing the demand (that's her job...to give you a bad grade if you don't complete the course requirements).
I suspect any judge would laugh you out of court (but not before "blackmailing" you with with further punishment if you don't pay your court costs in a timely manner).
Well, I don't know how much is involved in doing so, but I can say that currently the HDHomeRun does nothing in the realm of decoding the signal. All it does is capture the broadcast stream, filter it down to the necessary subchannels, and then stream the raw MPEG data out over TCP/UDP packets.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/i_am_under_18_button
On several occasions, I've bricked an entire computer (drives, CPU, case, and all) by pulling out all the cables. Of course, I was able to unbrick it by plugging the cables back in.