"I suppose you like adding vector components manually, instead of doing v1 + v2?"
No , something like vectorAdd(v1,v2) would be a lot more readable and a damn site easier to grep for. Idiot. Then probably we should remove the operators for built-in types as well. After all, you could use functions like doubleAdd(a, b). As a bonus, you'd not get nasty surprises when mixing unsigned and signed integers. intGreater(a, n) would always give you the expected answer, even if a is negative and n is unsigned. If you'd want to compare in unsigned arithmetics, you'd use uintGreater(a, b) instead. And what dereferenePointer(p) does is self-evident, unlike *p. Also, removing all operators would greatly simplify the parser, because the only types of expressions it would have to parse would be constants, variables and function calls.
But I just see you signed your post with "Idiot." Thus I guess I shouldn't have taken it seriously anyway.:-)
IMHO shared_ptr is an acknowledge that Java got it right (there is no need for objects, references, pointers and smart pointers, one is enough).
I disagree. Java doesn't have shared_ptr. Java has GC. If anything, shared_ptr is an acknowledge that raw pointers (as inherited from the low-level C language) are simply not the ideal tool for high level programming. Which doesn't say anything about if Java got it right, or if it got it wrong in just another way that C. Note that shared_ptr is not the only smart pointer, which is more of a hint that "one size fits all" doesn't really work (which again can be seen as an argument against the Java model).
Ok, you may copy(!) my TV, and my DVDs. I don't have a gaming system, sorry. BTW, I'd like to have a copy of your copying device for physical items!:-)
Inconvenient Fact from the List: Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Wow, it's a good thing we are fighing in Iraq. I'd hate to see people selling counterfit CDs on my street corner. What this has to do with file sharing is anyone's guess, but it is a terrible fact.
It's obvious what this has to do with file sharing: You should always get your music through file sharing, because that way you are not in danger of accidentally buying a counterfeit CD and thus supporting terrorism.:-)
A space station at a planet with an apparently intelligent ocean gets strange visitors. Those are apparently real persons the people on the space station know, but not really. The story is told from the view of someone sent from earth to find out what's going on on the station.
Well, actually you can have RAID 5 on two disks. It's just that in this case, the parity data is exactly identical with the original data, and the result is usually called RAID 1.:-)
- There are two implementations... Block-striping meaning parity is also distributed per block over the whole array and single-disk parity.
Interestingly it's not really hard to see that there's no superluminal information transfer. All you have to do is to look at the system in the Heisenberg picture. See http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906007 for details.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Freedom is a limited resource, because one man's freedom is another man's restriction.
No, it's not. It doesn't take much work to find counterexamples. It's easy to restrict peoples' freedom without a corresponding gain elsewhere.
That's not a counterexample to the claim above. It would be a counterexample to the non-equivalent claim "one man's restriction is another man's freedom." However that was not the claim above.
Similarly, if a new service that provides public information that wasn't before available, say like Google's variety of services, then you can have a global increase in freedom.
That's not at all similar. If it is a counter example can be argued (it reduces a third party's ability to withhold that information from you), but unlike the previous one, it at least isn't logically unrelated to the claim.
The lesson here is don't try and build a product using GPL software because if RMS decides that you don't fit their philosophical outlook they will jerk they will change the license to make you conform to their ideal.
The licensing conditions of GPLed code you already obtained cannot be changed. If you received the code under GPLv2, you can use it under GPLv2 indefinitely. You might not be able to use newer versions licensed only under GPLv3, but it doesn't in any way change your rights on the GPLv2 code you already got. You could even fork the code for a separate GPLv2 branch.
Of course, neutrinos are fermions, thus you'll never be able to make lasers (or rather, nasers, because the "l" in "laser" stands for "light") for them, because the operation of a laser depends on the fact that bosons preferrably go into the same state, what fermions simply don't do at all (Pauli principle!).
(Note: Yes, I did get your joke, that's why I didn't make an argument on your comment's content, but the title contained that error which is independent from your joke.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's actually the point of design patterns. Design patterns are not invented, they are discovered.
No , something like vectorAdd(v1,v2) would be a lot more readable and a damn site easier to grep for. Idiot. Then probably we should remove the operators for built-in types as well. After all, you could use functions like doubleAdd(a, b). As a bonus, you'd not get nasty surprises when mixing unsigned and signed integers. intGreater(a, n) would always give you the expected answer, even if a is negative and n is unsigned. If you'd want to compare in unsigned arithmetics, you'd use uintGreater(a, b) instead. And what dereferenePointer(p) does is self-evident, unlike *p. Also, removing all operators would greatly simplify the parser, because the only types of expressions it would have to parse would be constants, variables and function calls.
But I just see you signed your post with "Idiot." Thus I guess I shouldn't have taken it seriously anyway.
I disagree. Java doesn't have shared_ptr. Java has GC. If anything, shared_ptr is an acknowledge that raw pointers (as inherited from the low-level C language) are simply not the ideal tool for high level programming. Which doesn't say anything about if Java got it right, or if it got it wrong in just another way that C. Note that shared_ptr is not the only smart pointer, which is more of a hint that "one size fits all" doesn't really work (which again can be seen as an argument against the Java model).
It doesn't matter if it is left blank, because it's the right that matters, not the left.
By the things behaving in a way described by those rules.
Ok, you may copy(!) my TV, and my DVDs. I don't have a gaming system, sorry. :-)
BTW, I'd like to have a copy of your copying device for physical items!
Inconvenient Fact from the List: Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Wow, it's a good thing we are fighing in Iraq. I'd hate to see people selling counterfit CDs on my street corner. What this has to do with file sharing is anyone's guess, but it is a terrible fact.
It's obvious what this has to do with file sharing: You should always get your music through file sharing, because that way you are not in danger of accidentally buying a counterfeit CD and thus supporting terrorism.The t is very unstable and quickly decays. Therefore it didn't survive long enough to make it to the front page.
Eye all ways use a spell chequer. That way eye no four sure that their are know miss takes in my spelling!
Exactly. After all, there's a reason why he's named Lucifer.
A space station at a planet with an apparently intelligent ocean gets strange visitors. Those are apparently real persons the people on the space station know, but not really. The story is told from the view of someone sent from earth to find out what's going on on the station.
Use RAID 666! There can be up to 26 disk failures without any adverse effect!
That's actually simple to remember: RAID 0 gives you zero redundancy.
Well, actually you can have RAID 5 on two disks. It's just that in this case, the parity data is exactly identical with the original data, and the result is usually called RAID 1.
Isn't single-disk parity RAID 3?
Are you sure you failed it? I've heared F is the new A.
HeisenBERG! It's E, not U!
Sorry, but I've seen that mistake far too often here.
Interestingly it's not really hard to see that there's no superluminal information transfer. All you have to do is to look at the system in the Heisenberg picture. See http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906007 for details.
That's not a counterexample to the claim above. It would be a counterexample to the non-equivalent claim "one man's restriction is another man's freedom." However that was not the claim above.
That's not at all similar. If it is a counter example can be argued (it reduces a third party's ability to withhold that information from you), but unlike the previous one, it at least isn't logically unrelated to the claim.
The licensing conditions of GPLed code you already obtained cannot be changed. If you received the code under GPLv2, you can use it under GPLv2 indefinitely. You might not be able to use newer versions licensed only under GPLv3, but it doesn't in any way change your rights on the GPLv2 code you already got. You could even fork the code for a separate GPLv2 branch.
You mean he works for THEM?
You think so? For not being a game, some people (esp. polititians) are very good at playing it.
"founded four years ago with the lofty dream of building a stairway to heaven" :-)
I guess no one would have wanted to walk up there anyway
Both are bloated monsters. EDLIN is all you should ever need!
He also didn't complain about RCS.
Of course, neutrinos are fermions, thus you'll never be able to make lasers (or rather, nasers, because the "l" in "laser" stands for "light") for them, because the operation of a laser depends on the fact that bosons preferrably go into the same state, what fermions simply don't do at all (Pauli principle!).
(Note: Yes, I did get your joke, that's why I didn't make an argument on your comment's content, but the title contained that error which is independent from your joke.)