I've never seen your definition of "shelfware" before. I've seen that referred to as "COTS" or "shrink-wriap" instead. "Shelfware" has always been stuff that gets paid for and never used, and sits on a shelf somewhere. It's one of the ideal cases for selling software and hardware: a customer who pays up front, never bothers support, and typically forgets about it so it isn't a consideration in the next purchase.
For a forum populated by lots of people on the autism spectrum, and more who just lack social skills in general, there's an awful lot of admonition to be a top-notch negotiator.
There are ways, specifiable in a style guide and easily checked, to write memory-safe code in C++. Therefore, if used with any intelligence, it will do memory checking.
No, they're not contradictory statements. You can write C++ that's as unsafe as any C, but you have alternatives. You can write code that's automatically range-checked unless the compiler decides it doesn't need it, and if you want to skip the range checking in favor of speed or something you can do that. You can handle memory with smart pointers, and at least std::unique_ptr is about as fast as a raw pointer. Still, if you have good reason to use a raw pointer, you can.
With C, you wind up using C-style arrays, raw pointers, and usually C-style strings all the time. With C++, these can easily be limited to where they're actually necessary, which frequently winds up being "never".
The prosecutor isn't going to go ahead if a critical witness is unwilling anyway. Lots of rapes and sexual assaults happen where the women would like to see criminal charges filed, but the prosecutor decides against it. It takes both the victim and the prosecutor to decide to testify.
Rape and sexual assault can be particularly hard crimes to prove in court.
You made two sweeping statements that are, in my experience, false (except for the tuition going through the roof - that I can confirm). A little support of your statements other than videos would have been more helpful. I recognize that I'm not going to learn much except from people who disagree with me, but I've found that many of them make the same old arguments, and I have to decide how to allocate limited resources.
Sex-change operations exist to match body to personality, and Indiana Jones definitely behaves like a man who's comfortable with his own body. The Doctor gets a new personality with every regeneration.
Who cares about the encryption? There's far too much data to monitor, and too few terrorists. We've known that some terrorists were likely to commit terror crimes, and have often been unable to stop them.
The gender decision was probably never consciously made. We just have had a string of male actors portraying the Doctor. We know that a Time Lord is not limited to one sex.
The fact is that different regenerations have been considerably different people, although with certain constant features. I've liked some Doctors more than others, and I'm going to give this one a chance.
For those of us who are a little older, there was a Sarah Jane Smith show.
However, I just don't see the problem. We know the Doctor mostly regenerates into male bodies, but the Master has already regenerated into a female one, so a female Doctor would be in canon.
Others have been in sufficiently many accidents that they can't afford insurance, and got caught driving without insurance and had their license revoked. This isn't a recommendation of driving ability either.
(she did with the email server as you and I would be thrown in jail if we did this)
Nope. You or I might lose our security clearances and/or our jobs, and it would definitely be a career-limiting move, but nobody was thrown in jail for inadvertent mishandling of classified information. Everyone who saw jail or prison time mishandled it deliberately.
Um, in my observation there is no left-leaning majority on Slashdot. There's a lot of libertarians and a lot of people who are generally right-wing. I doubt there's a majority of one political philosophy.
Also, in my experience, professors leave politics out of the classroom, and there are active (if small) conservative groups on campus. You're talking about a world I do not recognize.
Watching videos is time-consuming, and it looks less like working than surfing text websites does. If there's a point there, make it in text, and refer to the videos.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen your definition of "shelfware" before. I've seen that referred to as "COTS" or "shrink-wriap" instead. "Shelfware" has always been stuff that gets paid for and never used, and sits on a shelf somewhere. It's one of the ideal cases for selling software and hardware: a customer who pays up front, never bothers support, and typically forgets about it so it isn't a consideration in the next purchase.
It can work that way, or it can just screw the employee. There's a lot of people who work a lot harder than I do and get paid a lot less.
For a forum populated by lots of people on the autism spectrum, and more who just lack social skills in general, there's an awful lot of admonition to be a top-notch negotiator.
That isn't my experience. Of course, I usually deal with competent software people.
There are ways, specifiable in a style guide and easily checked, to write memory-safe code in C++. Therefore, if used with any intelligence, it will do memory checking.
No, they're not contradictory statements. You can write C++ that's as unsafe as any C, but you have alternatives. You can write code that's automatically range-checked unless the compiler decides it doesn't need it, and if you want to skip the range checking in favor of speed or something you can do that. You can handle memory with smart pointers, and at least std::unique_ptr is about as fast as a raw pointer. Still, if you have good reason to use a raw pointer, you can.
With C, you wind up using C-style arrays, raw pointers, and usually C-style strings all the time. With C++, these can easily be limited to where they're actually necessary, which frequently winds up being "never".
The prosecutor isn't going to go ahead if a critical witness is unwilling anyway. Lots of rapes and sexual assaults happen where the women would like to see criminal charges filed, but the prosecutor decides against it. It takes both the victim and the prosecutor to decide to testify.
Rape and sexual assault can be particularly hard crimes to prove in court.
You made two sweeping statements that are, in my experience, false (except for the tuition going through the roof - that I can confirm). A little support of your statements other than videos would have been more helpful. I recognize that I'm not going to learn much except from people who disagree with me, but I've found that many of them make the same old arguments, and I have to decide how to allocate limited resources.
Sex-change operations exist to match body to personality, and Indiana Jones definitely behaves like a man who's comfortable with his own body. The Doctor gets a new personality with every regeneration.
It appears that it is an unlikely feature of the Doctor's regeneration. What's the problem?
Who cares about the encryption? There's far too much data to monitor, and too few terrorists. We've known that some terrorists were likely to commit terror crimes, and have often been unable to stop them.
The Allied Type-X system was very similar to Enigma, FWIW, but the British weren't going to announce it as such and pay royalties.
There's one classic villain in Doctor Who with a distinguishable sex, and last I saw her she was female.
The gender decision was probably never consciously made. We just have had a string of male actors portraying the Doctor. We know that a Time Lord is not limited to one sex.
The fact is that different regenerations have been considerably different people, although with certain constant features. I've liked some Doctors more than others, and I'm going to give this one a chance.
For those of us who are a little older, there was a Sarah Jane Smith show.
However, I just don't see the problem. We know the Doctor mostly regenerates into male bodies, but the Master has already regenerated into a female one, so a female Doctor would be in canon.
In other words, you think the government should have no right to investigate someone without already having probable cause of criminal activity?
Others have been in sufficiently many accidents that they can't afford insurance, and got caught driving without insurance and had their license revoked. This isn't a recommendation of driving ability either.
That depends on the state. In California, such clauses are unenforceable. In Texas, you're screwed.
In states where you register for a party primary, it's a good guess. Not all states do that.
Nope. You or I might lose our security clearances and/or our jobs, and it would definitely be a career-limiting move, but nobody was thrown in jail for inadvertent mishandling of classified information. Everyone who saw jail or prison time mishandled it deliberately.
They're more modern than line editors.
Um, in my observation there is no left-leaning majority on Slashdot. There's a lot of libertarians and a lot of people who are generally right-wing. I doubt there's a majority of one political philosophy.
Also, in my experience, professors leave politics out of the classroom, and there are active (if small) conservative groups on campus. You're talking about a world I do not recognize.
Would you care to tell us what this "higher education" is that doesn't come from colleges and universities?
Actually, that was a bipartisan sort of thing. There was a bipartisan consensus in favor of the establishment and the Vietnam War.
Watching videos is time-consuming, and it looks less like working than surfing text websites does. If there's a point there, make it in text, and refer to the videos.