It is useful that every class has it, rather than only those you plan to use reflection on? If something can be exploited, it should only be available when explicitly requested.
Depression is an illness. An illness is not selfish. You cannot even decide to have or not have an illness.
Of course it doesn't help that people often call a normal sadness a depression. But that's just a misnomer, just like calling the common cold a flu is.
According to that definition, you are more free in a totalitarian dictatorship than in a democracy: In the totalitarian dictatorship you are free from the need to make decisions and you are free from having to form your own opinion.
Which is a strong hint that he wasn't free at the time when he made that decision, but rather has seen, rightly or wrongly, that decision as the only way out of his current situation.
And of course whether he is free (or even exists) after having done it doesn't depend on whether it was his decision or not.
I don't see how the advance of the display technology is in any way linked to the internet infrastructure, other than producing more demand for bandwidth. Indeed, I'm pretty sure display technology would have advanced even without the internet; the gaming industry was probably much more a drive to this.
Not to mention that displays are clearly not infrastructure, so it's irrelevant in this discussion anyway.
And no, I'm not government-worshipping. But I'm also not government-demonising or market-worshipping. There are things which are better done by the market, and there are things better done by the government.
The question of freedom on the internet is completely different from the question of a free market building the infrastructure. You think that if the Chinese government would one day decide to give internet infrastructure into private hands, it would allow free usage of that net? The government would certainly still maintain its Great Firewall, it would still control what people do online, and it would probably mandate that every ISP, to get/keep a license, has to provide a way for the government to listen.
On the other hand, you can build a government-supported infrastructure and still give complete freedom of what people do on it, just like in the U.S. you can drive to whereever you want when using state-built roads (well, assuming there's a road going to that place, of course).
Back then, there was very little optimization. The compiled code very much resembled the source code. Today, the compiled code may look very different from the source code. Not to mention constructs which only exist at compile time; good luck with decompiling C++ template code.
Yes, except reverse-engineering code or functionality would be explicitly legal.
And so would be any tricks to make reverse-engineering harder. Not to mention that reverse-engineering the compiled code is an order of magnitude harder than reading the source code even without explicit measures to prevent it.
That's "free for all". The only way to protect your work from having someone else copyright it then force you to pay for what you created is to copyright it first. If copyright (and software/business patents) didn't exist, then there'd be no GPL, no in fact, as the law wouldn't allow it, and not in theory, as it wouldn't be needed.
Without copyright, how would you force people distributing derived works to supply source code for it?
A world without copyright would be more as if everything were BSD licensed than as if everything was GPL licensed.
Slashdot Mirror
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/
Of course they could just have replied "we are not going to build a death star because we are not on the dark side of the force."
If those want something blown up, they'll not be content with a planet. They'll not do it below a suprnova.
It is useful that every class has it, rather than only those you plan to use reflection on?
If something can be exploited, it should only be available when explicitly requested.
Depression is an illness. An illness is not selfish. You cannot even decide to have or not have an illness.
Of course it doesn't help that people often call a normal sadness a depression. But that's just a misnomer, just like calling the common cold a flu is.
As far as I know, the highest possible penalty for murder in the U.S. is death penalty.
According to that definition, you are more free in a totalitarian dictatorship than in a democracy: In the totalitarian dictatorship you are free from the need to make decisions and you are free from having to form your own opinion.
Which is a strong hint that he wasn't free at the time when he made that decision, but rather has seen, rightly or wrongly, that decision as the only way out of his current situation.
And of course whether he is free (or even exists) after having done it doesn't depend on whether it was his decision or not.
No, his body is dead. He isn't. He is simply not here. You can't prove I am wrong.
And you can't prove that you are right.
And if you're right, you still can't proof that he is free now. For all you know, he might be in hell.
That one uses a right angle, while this one uses a pointed angle. That's wholly different!
Oh, the test was successful. More exactly, the test was successful in proving that it doesn't work. :-)
And of course, a true geek doesn't buy such a poster. A true geek produces it himself.
Reflect my geek? Who is my geek?
I don't see how the advance of the display technology is in any way linked to the internet infrastructure, other than producing more demand for bandwidth. Indeed, I'm pretty sure display technology would have advanced even without the internet; the gaming industry was probably much more a drive to this.
Not to mention that displays are clearly not infrastructure, so it's irrelevant in this discussion anyway.
And no, I'm not government-worshipping. But I'm also not government-demonising or market-worshipping. There are things which are better done by the market, and there are things better done by the government.
Oh of course, there's such a difference between the amount of censorship that can be done on DSL et al., versus fibre.
Yes, there is. But the other way round: Since you can send less data over DSL, it's easier to censor it.
The question of freedom on the internet is completely different from the question of a free market building the infrastructure. You think that if the Chinese government would one day decide to give internet infrastructure into private hands, it would allow free usage of that net? The government would certainly still maintain its Great Firewall, it would still control what people do online, and it would probably mandate that every ISP, to get/keep a license, has to provide a way for the government to listen.
On the other hand, you can build a government-supported infrastructure and still give complete freedom of what people do on it, just like in the U.S. you can drive to whereever you want when using state-built roads (well, assuming there's a road going to that place, of course).
The internet was developed by the free market? And I thought DARPA played a major role ...
Back then, there was very little optimization. The compiled code very much resembled the source code. Today, the compiled code may look very different from the source code. Not to mention constructs which only exist at compile time; good luck with decompiling C++ template code.
And so would be any tricks to make reverse-engineering harder. Not to mention that reverse-engineering the compiled code is an order of magnitude harder than reading the source code even without explicit measures to prevent it.
Oops, line 60 should of course read:
That's not true BASIC. True BASIC looks like this:
What about this:
That's "free for all". The only way to protect your work from having someone else copyright it then force you to pay for what you created is to copyright it first. If copyright (and software/business patents) didn't exist, then there'd be no GPL, no in fact, as the law wouldn't allow it, and not in theory, as it wouldn't be needed.
Without copyright, how would you force people distributing derived works to supply source code for it?
A world without copyright would be more as if everything were BSD licensed than as if everything was GPL licensed.
You know something has gone wrong with the web when prerendering reduces the amount of data transmitted.
No protocol can protect from someone having control of the end point.