By your logic Adolf Hitler was as innocent as a new born, after all he didn't personally invade France or Russia and he didn't personally kill a single Jew, Gypsy or Homosexual.
I didn't say anything about actual rioters- they should certainly be punished.
Agitators should be punished for two offences in my opinion, firstly they should be punished as if they had committed the crim themselves plus they should be punished for corrupting the person or people who actually committed the offence.
People are influenced by other people and it's a nonsense to pretend they aren't and there and some little turds who take great delight in trolling other people and getting them to respond.
Words have power and free speach is no defence against mis-using that power.
I have to admit that my initial reaction was the same as yours.
And then I spent some time thinking about it.
First, riots on previous days had resulted in people being injured and even murdered, robbed and people's homes and business destroyed.
And then these guys come along and try to arrange more of the same, knowing full well the results of those riots.
Second, I got to thinking: who are the worst? The rioters who get caught up in the heat of the moment or the cowardly little turds at the back of crowd egging them on and hiding behind the masses?
My vote is the cowardly little agitators are considerably worse.
Thirdly part of the justice process -sadly too often neglected- is to protect society, punish the guilty and plain old fashioned revenge.
So on all those counts I think a custodial sentence is quite justified.
One of the 'men', Blackshaw , was obviously quite serious and even turned up for the riot- fortunately he was the only one. There was obviously serious intent there.
The other one did it as a drunken prank and took it down when he was sober the following morning- but the damage had been done. His posts had caused serious concern in Warrington and a police response. You might think being drunk is an excuse but it impacted lots of other people- and would you try the same excuse for a drunk driver?
My conclusion is that 4 years is harsh but not unreasonably so given their intent, what they did, the impact they had and the prevailing climate.
Lisp, the oldest language with GC, solved that problem a long time ago. Here's a simple example for opening a file and writing to it and ensuring all resources are released no matter what happens.
(with-open-file (s p:direction:output:if-exists:supersede)
(format s "Here are a couple~%of test data lines~%"))
Just because C++ can't/doesn't do it/makes it a pain doesn't make it universally true.
What is it with lazy/shitty programmers and the crutch of assembly languages?
If you can't be bothered/figure out how to programme by toggling switches on the front panel of a room-sized machine that requires the entire output of a small power plant to run then do the rest of us all a favour and stop programming.
What is it with lazy/shitty programmers and templates, classes, multi-threading.
If you can't be bothered/figure out how to implement all of the features of C++ you need using assembler then do the rest of us all a favour and stop programming.
The argument the article makes is the same as a C programmer claiming he can implement classes and instances in C using structs and pointers.
True, of course, but a real pain in the arse.
A class instance can be used to simulate *some* of the most basic features of a closure but none of the really useful stuff- and it's a pain.
If C++ supported closures you could replace the ~10 lines of C++ code in the example you linked to with 3- and you wouldn't need to create the clutter of a new class to just to create a closure.
They have two points, both of which you seem to have missed.
Firstly that it is impossible to effectively delete your Facebook account.
And second that people are not properly informed about the consequences of creating an account- i.e. that Facebook will make money by selling their personal information. This makes it impossible for them to make a proper decision about whether or not to use it.
That's funny because my first generation Mac Pro is still working fine after many years of service. During which I've replaced the graphics card, upgraded the RAM and added an SSD drive.
All the bench marks show the intel integrated graphics are signigficantly worse than the NVIDIA discrete graphics chip in the previous generation of MacBook Air.
So no, by modern standards, the intel graphics solution that's built into the cpu is still pretty dreadful. Intel have never managed to make a competetive gpu and that's still the case today.
As the graphics card will be at the far end of the thunderbolt connector (ie the display end) I don't see the problem.
You've completely missed the point. Don't think MacBook Pro, think the new Thunderbolt equipped MacBook Airs that lack a decent built in graphics card.
And to answer the summary's closing question: because it means I can carry an ultra-portable (MacBook Air) when I travel and plug it in at home to give it a much needed graphics boost for use at home.
We have this concept of due process and innocent until proven guilty.
The News of The World (and the police apparently corrupted by them and various politicians) are being investigated.
This silly prank has just made it much harder to obtain a conviction as the NotW staff can now claim any evidence in the mail servers has been compromised by hackers (assuming Lulzsec's claims are even true of course).
So unless you believe the authorities shoud just throw everyone in jail without bothering with such formalities as evidence and due process then what exactly is the excuse you are making for these idiots taking the law into their own hands?
Slashdot Mirror
The big, big problem with Design Patterns is that 90% of them solve problems in the design or implementation of the language.
The right answer would be to fix the flaws in the language (specifically C++ and Java) that require these kludges and work-arounds.
Not every convicted criminal will go through probation.
By your logic Adolf Hitler was as innocent as a new born, after all he didn't personally invade France or Russia and he didn't personally kill a single Jew, Gypsy or Homosexual.
You can run LOTRO inside Cross fire from Codeweavers (free two week trial available).
I run it on my MBA when I'm away from home.
Or you could run bootcamp, which is what I do on my Mac Pro at home.
If you like LOTR then the lore/back story in LOTRO will really appeal.
I didn't say anything about actual rioters- they should certainly be punished.
Agitators should be punished for two offences in my opinion, firstly they should be punished as if they had committed the crim themselves plus they should be punished for corrupting the person or people who actually committed the offence.
People are influenced by other people and it's a nonsense to pretend they aren't and there and some little turds who take great delight in trolling other people and getting them to respond.
Words have power and free speach is no defence against mis-using that power.
Modded down 2 points already.
I guess some cowardly little turds who spend their time trolling and winding other people have mod points today.
I think it quite reasonable for an employer to know whether a potential employee is a convicted thief or has a record of violence.
I do agree that these offences should become 'spent' after a period of time, for example ater 5 years of keeping out of trouble.
I have to admit that my initial reaction was the same as yours.
And then I spent some time thinking about it.
First, riots on previous days had resulted in people being injured and even murdered, robbed and people's homes and business destroyed.
And then these guys come along and try to arrange more of the same, knowing full well the results of those riots.
Second, I got to thinking: who are the worst? The rioters who get caught up in the heat of the moment or the cowardly little turds at the back of crowd egging them on and hiding behind the masses?
My vote is the cowardly little agitators are considerably worse.
Thirdly part of the justice process -sadly too often neglected- is to protect society, punish the guilty and plain old fashioned revenge.
So on all those counts I think a custodial sentence is quite justified.
One of the 'men', Blackshaw , was obviously quite serious and even turned up for the riot- fortunately he was the only one. There was obviously serious intent there.
The other one did it as a drunken prank and took it down when he was sober the following morning- but the damage had been done. His posts had caused serious concern in Warrington and a police response. You might think being drunk is an excuse but it impacted lots of other people- and would you try the same excuse for a drunk driver?
My conclusion is that 4 years is harsh but not unreasonably so given their intent, what they did, the impact they had and the prevailing climate.
Lisp, the oldest language with GC, solved that problem a long time ago. Here's a simple example for opening a file and writing to it and ensuring all resources are released no matter what happens.
(with-open-file (s p :direction :output :if-exists :supersede)
(format s "Here are a couple~%of test data lines~%"))
Just because C++ can't/doesn't do it/makes it a pain doesn't make it universally true.
Ditto, and more importantly, if I add a private data member why should I have to re-compile anything other than the class?
Private members are not even a part of the public interface!
If I add a new public function to a class why should have to re-compile all the old code that doesn't use that function?
Other languages can manage not to require that so why can't C++?
What is it with lazy/shitty programmers and the crutch of assembly languages?
If you can't be bothered/figure out how to programme by toggling switches on the front panel of a room-sized machine that requires the entire output of a small power plant to run then do the rest of us all a favour and stop programming.
What is it with lazy/shitty programmers and templates, classes, multi-threading.
If you can't be bothered/figure out how to implement all of the features of C++ you need using assembler then do the rest of us all a favour and stop programming.
*facepalm* indeed.
The argument the article makes is the same as a C programmer claiming he can implement classes and instances in C using structs and pointers.
True, of course, but a real pain in the arse.
A class instance can be used to simulate *some* of the most basic features of a closure but none of the really useful stuff- and it's a pain.
If C++ supported closures you could replace the ~10 lines of C++ code in the example you linked to with 3- and you wouldn't need to create the clutter of a new class to just to create a closure.
So C++ takes another step closer to Lisp (lambda functions) whilst completely missing the most important part (closures and higher order programming).
I look forward to C++ 2031 when they implement garbage collection but still require you to place and remove locks on memory ;)
*Ducks and runs for cover*
(+ x y z) is perfectly valid in Lisp
So (+ A (* B C) ( * A D))
is better style.
They have two points, both of which you seem to have missed.
Firstly that it is impossible to effectively delete your Facebook account.
And second that people are not properly informed about the consequences of creating an account- i.e. that Facebook will make money by selling their personal information. This makes it impossible for them to make a proper decision about whether or not to use it.
That's funny because my first generation Mac Pro is still working fine after many years of service. During which I've replaced the graphics card, upgraded the RAM and added an SSD drive.
You really should try checking your facts.
For hundreds of years written English managed perfectly well without having to sign-post everything with tags.
I certainly got the sarcasm inherent in the gp's post, indeed it was more effective without the silly sign-posting.
I'm not really sure how you manage to get from "[it] can't even handle two external screens" to "It [won't] handle ... an external graphics card".
I don't believe the former could you lead you to conclude the latter,
All the bench marks show the intel integrated graphics are signigficantly worse than the NVIDIA discrete graphics chip in the previous generation of MacBook Air.
So no, by modern standards, the intel graphics solution that's built into the cpu is still pretty dreadful. Intel have never managed to make a competetive gpu and that's still the case today.
As the graphics card will be at the far end of the thunderbolt connector (ie the display end) I don't see the problem.
You've completely missed the point. Don't think MacBook Pro, think the new Thunderbolt equipped MacBook Airs that lack a decent built in graphics card.
And to answer the summary's closing question: because it means I can carry an ultra-portable (MacBook Air) when I travel and plug it in at home to give it a much needed graphics boost for use at home.
Windows won because of the applications that were already available for it (Word and Excel) but not for OS/2.
It had nothing to do with the superiority of the Windows experience: in fact Windows 3.x is markedly inferior to OS/2.
We have this concept of due process and innocent until proven guilty.
The News of The World (and the police apparently corrupted by them and various politicians) are being investigated.
This silly prank has just made it much harder to obtain a conviction as the NotW staff can now claim any evidence in the mail servers has been compromised by hackers (assuming Lulzsec's claims are even true of course).
So unless you believe the authorities shoud just throw everyone in jail without bothering with such formalities as evidence and due process then what exactly is the excuse you are making for these idiots taking the law into their own hands?
They've just given the News of the World staff a get out of jail card.
Now they can claim anything the police find in their emails was placed there by 'hackers'.
Makes you wonder if these morons were being paid by Murdoch to cover up for him.