Unless you're trying to work out how it MUST be rape, either
a) because the accusation cannot be allowed to be questioned, since that's telling a woman who claimed she was raped is wrong. b) because Assange must be evil, because WL only exposes hateful things done by the USA, not any other country.
False rape allegations happen a lot.
The girl has not accused him of rape. She wanted him to have a STD test, and asked the police if they could force him. A Swedish DA decided to take the case and press rape charges, though the girl denies being raped.
However elsewhere there are problems. Ie, G++ and MSVC++ implement things very differently, depending on the versions and such. Ie, the contents of the v-table, location of the v-table in the object, etc. You've got both a function pointer plus a "fixup" offset to account for multiple inheritance, or thunks, whereas most OS kernels prefer to just have a simple array of function pointers which are capable of being easily used from most any language that follows the CPUs ABI (including assembler). It works on Linux because for a very long time g++ was the only offering and the newer options intentionally remain g++ compatible, whereas elsewhere this may not be true at all.
It works somewhat on Windows as well as compilers there try to be drop-in upgrades to MSVC. And on OS X since they were using gcc before clang, and clang and gcc agrees on C++ ABI (though mixing libc++ with libstdc++ is not possible since they conflict on definitions).
C++ ABI is not a real problem anymore. They might not be as similar between platforms as the C-API but they are defined on each platform as much as makes sense for the platform.
Sounds like that goes back to the "lack of standard ABI" problem. C lets you specify exactly what you want explicitly, but C++ has no consistent ABI, you get different results depending on which compiler you use.
Not anymore. At least not on Linux. Intel wrote a C++ ABI for IA64 (Itanic), since it was the first of its kind it got adopted to a defacto ABI for all other architectures as well. This is what g++ has been using for over a decade, and what every other compiler is mimicking to stay g++ compatible.
Even a failed architecture can sow the seeds for good things in the open source world.
I don't think you actually mean "virtual classes" here. But yeah, if you have to implement classes in C, maybe you should have used C++. One of C++'s problems is that it builds on C, though, so the fact that you can do some things, particularly classes, better in C++ than in C shouldn't be a surprise: that's the itch they were scratching.
I mean virtual tables, which is the implementation side of virtual classes. The kernel uses virtual tables extensively to describe interfaces of modules and especially drivers.
The problem with C++ is that it's way too easy to write write-only code, because the language has so many features that nobody but language experts understand all of them. So we all program in different dialects, and then scratch our heads when we read other peoples' code.
Less so than C, especially as used in the kernel. Seriously read some of the Linux kernel and compare it with any good C++ project. The kernel loses BADLY. The manually implemented virtual classes are not pretty and not type safe, and neither are all the ugly macros needed to do things that would safe, automatic and easy to read in C++.
But but Fedora has been using it for years without issue! Oh wait, that's because no Admin in their right mind would use Fedora as a server. But but it is stable and secure. Oh wait, your high load servers keep corrupting the journald and journalctl can't read portions of it without trying to replace the who journal with a new one. But but you can install rsyslog to fix that! Yeah, because we ALL like having to beta test an unproven product in a production environment only to be forced in resorting to something else that actually works as intended.
I'm caring less about systemd and more about how shortsighted they were when they forced everyone to use journald. The fact that I have to configure rsyslog to have a working log that does not constantly get corrupted and restart a new log, erasing the old one is annoying and shows just how unproven this entire systemd implementation truly is.
Journald is is not forced. Like everything in systemd the services are modular, and you can use them or not. Debian for instance does not use journald.
I cannot believe that two known incompetent hacks with bad personalities can screw over a whole large tech-savvy community all by themselves.
I don't think it's that bad, they don't have to convince the entire 'tech-savvy community,' they only need to convince a very small subset of that community, the people who are writing init scripts for distros. And that subset is very small.
Systemd knows that very well. They've worked very hard to make init-script writers happy, and have been very responsive in making changes. If you look through the Debian mailing lists, you can see this......there's no need to blame the NSA or others. They're just following a useful principle: find the ones who have power to do what you want, then make them as happy as possible. The systemd people have done that.
You mean they took the people that actually have to deal with init scripts and made them happy? Instead of making something good that would make people using init scripts happy?
You don't compile bytecode, you compile to byte code
I can't tell if you're just being obtuse, but: the developer compiles shader language to bytecode, and the graphics driver compiles bytecode to GPU native-code. Both of these stages qualify as compilation. (They're both level-reducing language-transformations.)
The entire point is that byte code is interpreted at runtime.
No. There's no way in hell that anyone's seriously suggesting running graphics code in an interpreter. Again, it will be compiled by the graphics driver. (We could call this 'JIT compilation', but this term doesn't seem to have caught on in the context of graphics.)
building native execution of the bytecode would be fastest
Why not call this what it is? It's compilation.
Especially since the bytecode is supposed to be hardware neutral, it is the compilation from bytecode that will have to do the aggresive optimizations to adapt to the target architecture. You can have very simple bytecode that doesn't need much processing, and while technically compilation is really compiled, but that wouldn't make sense here.
C++11 seems to be somewhat useable. However, before that it was a complete disaster. Every time I looked at it, I saw code bases that endlessly re-implemented data structures and storage management solutions. Even with the standard libraries, there were rarely systems without a lot of custom storage code. By it's own claimed abilities for code reuse, C++ was a failure before C++11.
That is how C++ is meant to be used. If you only need fixed standard data structures, you might as well use a higher level language. What something like C++ or C gives you is the ability to write your own data-structures, if you don't need that, they are probably overkill.
C++11 doesn't really change that. It just makes the custom data structures even more powerful, and slightly easier to write.
Not really. The are both from 1983, and work on C++ started in 1979 where work on Objective-C started in 1981. I would say they are equally old, and unlikely to have even influenced eachother before birth.
Exactly. There are many categories of planets, including but not limited to:
* Terrestrial planets
* Gas giants
* Ice giants
* Hot jupiters
* Superearths
And so forth. Why does the concept of another category, dwarfs, enrage people?
Really, the only categorization issue that I'm adamant about is that Pluto-Charon is called a binary. The Pluto-Charon barycentre is not inside Pluto, therefore Charon is not rotating around Pluto, the two are corotating around a common point of space between them. That's a binary.
I think it might be cultural. In Denmark and probably generally for Europe, I grew up with Pluto either never being mentioned as a planet or not said to be a real planet. I knew of Pluto from comic books and American media, so I always brought it up when we had any material on planets in school and Pluto was not mentioned. I was told over and over that Pluto was either not a real planet, or a planet but not like the others.
You can call dwarf planets, planets. Then we have growing number of planets in the solar systems many without proper names, that would be fun, but confusing, and they would still not be like the other planets.
That's bullshit, because the ISPs sold "all you can use" plans, then failed to deliver. The only reason the so-called "cost shifting" went on is because the ISPs outright lied about what they were selling to consumers. To imply that Netflix allowing customers to use what they've paid for is somehow wrong is just plain wrong-headded.
You're basically blaming Netflix for the ISPs mis-selling a service.
It is actually worse. The product they sell is the Internet and specifically all the content on the internet and netflix is a major provider of internet content. Their argument is blaming Netflix for giving them business... Think about that.
"We didn't get flying cars, but the future is turning out OK so far."
Flying cars have been produced for the last twenty years. Drivable aircraft for longer than that. The problem isn't technical, it's political. They can't license and regulate them. The Government systems are just too crude.
That is not the problem. You can fly one if you have a flying license or do it at low altitudes over your own private land. The problem is that they are a stupid idea, the power spend keeping the vehicle hovering is not spend moving it which makes the range ridiculous short, on top of a price set in hundreds if not millions of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're trying to work out how it MUST be rape, either
a) because the accusation cannot be allowed to be questioned, since that's telling a woman who claimed she was raped is wrong.
b) because Assange must be evil, because WL only exposes hateful things done by the USA, not any other country.
False rape allegations happen a lot.
The girl has not accused him of rape. She wanted him to have a STD test, and asked the police if they could force him. A Swedish DA decided to take the case and press rape charges, though the girl denies being raped.
You're all talking about C++ and not LINUS TORVALDS! Have you all LOST your MINDS!? ;-)
I guess C++ is more controversial :D
However elsewhere there are problems. Ie, G++ and MSVC++ implement things very differently, depending on the versions and such. Ie, the contents of the v-table, location of the v-table in the object, etc. You've got both a function pointer plus a "fixup" offset to account for multiple inheritance, or thunks, whereas most OS kernels prefer to just have a simple array of function pointers which are capable of being easily used from most any language that follows the CPUs ABI (including assembler). It works on Linux because for a very long time g++ was the only offering and the newer options intentionally remain g++ compatible, whereas elsewhere this may not be true at all.
It works somewhat on Windows as well as compilers there try to be drop-in upgrades to MSVC. And on OS X since they were using gcc before clang, and clang and gcc agrees on C++ ABI (though mixing libc++ with libstdc++ is not possible since they conflict on definitions).
C++ ABI is not a real problem anymore. They might not be as similar between platforms as the C-API but they are defined on each platform as much as makes sense for the platform.
Sounds like that goes back to the "lack of standard ABI" problem. C lets you specify exactly what you want explicitly, but C++ has no consistent ABI, you get different results depending on which compiler you use.
Not anymore. At least not on Linux. Intel wrote a C++ ABI for IA64 (Itanic), since it was the first of its kind it got adopted to a defacto ABI for all other architectures as well. This is what g++ has been using for over a decade, and what every other compiler is mimicking to stay g++ compatible.
Even a failed architecture can sow the seeds for good things in the open source world.
I don't think you actually mean "virtual classes" here. But yeah, if you have to implement classes in C, maybe you should have used C++. One of C++'s problems is that it builds on C, though, so the fact that you can do some things, particularly classes, better in C++ than in C shouldn't be a surprise: that's the itch they were scratching.
I mean virtual tables, which is the implementation side of virtual classes. The kernel uses virtual tables extensively to describe interfaces of modules and especially drivers.
The problem with C++ is that it's way too easy to write write-only code, because the language has so many features that nobody but language experts understand all of them. So we all program in different dialects, and then scratch our heads when we read other peoples' code.
Less so than C, especially as used in the kernel. Seriously read some of the Linux kernel and compare it with any good C++ project. The kernel loses BADLY. The manually implemented virtual classes are not pretty and not type safe, and neither are all the ugly macros needed to do things that would safe, automatic and easy to read in C++.
But but Fedora has been using it for years without issue! Oh wait, that's because no Admin in their right mind would use Fedora as a server. But but it is stable and secure. Oh wait, your high load servers keep corrupting the journald and journalctl can't read portions of it without trying to replace the who journal with a new one. But but you can install rsyslog to fix that! Yeah, because we ALL like having to beta test an unproven product in a production environment only to be forced in resorting to something else that actually works as intended.
I'm caring less about systemd and more about how shortsighted they were when they forced everyone to use journald. The fact that I have to configure rsyslog to have a working log that does not constantly get corrupted and restart a new log, erasing the old one is annoying and shows just how unproven this entire systemd implementation truly is.
Journald is is not forced. Like everything in systemd the services are modular, and you can use them or not. Debian for instance does not use journald.
I cannot believe that two known incompetent hacks with bad personalities can screw over a whole large tech-savvy community all by themselves.
I don't think it's that bad, they don't have to convince the entire 'tech-savvy community,' they only need to convince a very small subset of that community, the people who are writing init scripts for distros. And that subset is very small.
Systemd knows that very well. They've worked very hard to make init-script writers happy, and have been very responsive in making changes. If you look through the Debian mailing lists, you can see this......there's no need to blame the NSA or others. They're just following a useful principle: find the ones who have power to do what you want, then make them as happy as possible. The systemd people have done that.
You mean they took the people that actually have to deal with init scripts and made them happy? Instead of making something good that would make people using init scripts happy?
Wait. What is the difference?
Maybe it took a week to make a small hole, that's an important detail.
And what did it cost compared to firing a single armor piercing bullet?
We're running out of gaps.
Oh my god, soon we will have a gap gap.
You don't compile bytecode, you compile to byte code
I can't tell if you're just being obtuse, but: the developer compiles shader language to bytecode, and the graphics driver compiles bytecode to GPU native-code. Both of these stages qualify as compilation. (They're both level-reducing language-transformations.)
The entire point is that byte code is interpreted at runtime.
No. There's no way in hell that anyone's seriously suggesting running graphics code in an interpreter. Again, it will be compiled by the graphics driver. (We could call this 'JIT compilation', but this term doesn't seem to have caught on in the context of graphics.)
building native execution of the bytecode would be fastest
Why not call this what it is? It's compilation.
Especially since the bytecode is supposed to be hardware neutral, it is the compilation from bytecode that will have to do the aggresive optimizations to adapt to the target architecture.
You can have very simple bytecode that doesn't need much processing, and while technically compilation is really compiled, but that wouldn't make sense here.
That is how C++ is meant to be used. If you only need fixed standard data structures, you might as well use a higher level language. What something like C++ or C gives you is the ability to write your own data-structures, if you don't need that, they are probably overkill.
C++11 doesn't really change that. It just makes the custom data structures even more powerful, and slightly easier to write.
Objective-C actually predates C++
Not really. The are both from 1983, and work on C++ started in 1979 where work on Objective-C started in 1981. I would say they are equally old, and unlikely to have even influenced eachother before birth.
Actually, they use it for its dynamic binding and loading, but don't let facts get in the way of your FUD!
That and C++ was horribly immature at a time when Objective-C was not and the Next guys were developing NextStep.
I think they were contemporary. They were young and immature together. Both born in 1983.
BMW has anything to say about that
The funniest thing is that the BMW X-series are the big, heavy, stupid and inefficient ones.
First x86 SOC perhaps..
Exactly. There are many categories of planets, including but not limited to:
* Terrestrial planets
* Gas giants
* Ice giants
* Hot jupiters
* Superearths
And so forth. Why does the concept of another category, dwarfs, enrage people?
Really, the only categorization issue that I'm adamant about is that Pluto-Charon is called a binary. The Pluto-Charon barycentre is not inside Pluto, therefore Charon is not rotating around Pluto, the two are corotating around a common point of space between them. That's a binary.
I think it might be cultural. In Denmark and probably generally for Europe, I grew up with Pluto either never being mentioned as a planet or not said to be a real planet. I knew of Pluto from comic books and American media, so I always brought it up when we had any material on planets in school and Pluto was not mentioned. I was told over and over that Pluto was either not a real planet, or a planet but not like the others.
You can call dwarf planets, planets. Then we have growing number of planets in the solar systems many without proper names, that would be fun, but confusing, and they would still not be like the other planets.
That's bullshit, because the ISPs sold "all you can use" plans, then failed to deliver. The only reason the so-called "cost shifting" went on is because the ISPs outright lied about what they were selling to consumers. To imply that Netflix allowing customers to use what they've paid for is somehow wrong is just plain wrong-headded.
You're basically blaming Netflix for the ISPs mis-selling a service.
It is actually worse. The product they sell is the Internet and specifically all the content on the internet and netflix is a major provider of internet content. Their argument is blaming Netflix for giving them business... Think about that.
"We didn't get flying cars, but the future is turning out OK so far."
Flying cars have been produced for the last twenty years. Drivable aircraft for longer than that. The problem isn't technical, it's political. They can't license and regulate them. The Government systems are just too crude.
That is not the problem. You can fly one if you have a flying license or do it at low altitudes over your own private land. The problem is that they are a stupid idea, the power spend keeping the vehicle hovering is not spend moving it which makes the range ridiculous short, on top of a price set in hundreds if not millions of dollars.
I highly doubt that.
The silvermont generation have actually been decent. Just too bad they have shared naming with the shit that came before.
So the BMW 3-series did not come as cabrios?
It did. I think by a "long time" he meant the last 3-4 years.
I would say Windows 8 looks like it was designed in a Communist country but even the North Koreans have sence enough to copy Mac OSX.
And OS X is pretty damn retro these days. Still looks like early 2000s.
Since the core lines are meant to follow BMW numbering, I guess that means Atom now will too.
I wonder when Intel realizes BMW have introduced 2, 4 and 6 series in recent year ;)
They're more in line with current gui design. They want to appear a bit more modern i guess.
They look like hires versions of early 1990s icons to me, not modern in any way.
You seem to ignore psychology.
The problem is basically funding, highly trained professionals getting not enough resources to helt people.
You mean psychiatry. Psychology is a not a medical discipline and therefore treatment by a psychologist is actually alternative treatment.