However, my statement was essentially correct. The Wehrmacht's war crimes were mostly committed on the battlefield, or against prisoners of war and partisans. As far as the Holocaust goes, the worst that the Wehrmacht did was use slave labour, which is extremely bad, but not "the mass murders that the Nazi regime is most famous for".
Fuzzing over the details a bit, it helps to think of the SS as not being part of the German millitary. They were more like a Praetorian Guard/political police force. As such, they weren't brought up in the millitary tradition and codes of conduct. That's why it was them who carried out pretty much all of the horrible war crimes, and not the Bundeswehr.
(I'm sure the Bundeswehr did commit plenty of war crimes, but generally speaking, not the mass murders that the Nazi regime is most famous for.)
At the risk of being called a troll or something, the guards working the concentration camps probably thought they were protecting their homeland.
They probably thought they got a really cushy assignment, not having to serve on the front line.
But you're kinda right, in that the SS was built from the ground up on Nazi ideology. It would have been harder to persuade someone from the army to do what they did.
I'm quite fond of the mixture of a C++ backend with a javascript frontend that can be used over the web.
C++ has the advantage that, unlike C, there's less of an impedance mismatch between it and Javascript. Javascript is optimised for manipulating DOM-type structures which have a very natural expression in C++ and, with a small amount of template-assisted boilerplate, is fairly straightforward to bridge.
Mind you, I'm completely opposed to torture but I draw the line at giving enemy combatants (whether accorded POW status or not) access to our civilian judicial system.
There is precedent for that. For example, those tried under the millitary judicial system can't appeal to the civilian one.
Having said that, if the system set up to deal with them doesn't guarantee basic rights that any judicial system must, there should be some way to address that injustice.
Since I write C++ for a living, I have to ask, what's wrong with that line?
Consider the following code sequence:
QThingy *thingy = new QThingy();
justAboutAnything();
Just about anything can throw an exception in C++. When that happens, thingy will never get deleted, causing a memory leak and, if thingy owns a resource, a resource leak. The fix is to use a managed pointer, such as std::auto_ptr, boost::shared_ptr or QSharedDataPointer. This also applies to class members.
You might like to read Exceptional C++ by Herb Sutter. It goes into these issues in some depth.
Of course if possible I'd put it on the stack, but sometimes it can't be avoided..
Of course, thanks to multi-threading, stacks are smaller than they used to be. If you want to put a large object in stack scope, boost::scoped_ptr might be appropriate.
I've never had a problem with exceptions in Qt-using code on any platform.
Of course, some C++ "purists" hate it for that reason.
Well I'm a C++ language paralegal, and I don't hate Qt for that reason. I used to hate it because it didn't play nice with the standard library or third-party applications which did do things like throw exceptions.
Qt used to be full of this sort of thing:
QThingy *thingy = new QThingy();
You can safely assume that anyone who writes that today doesn't know C++.
So... how exception-safe is Qt these days? Can I safely use the STL or Boost and Qt in the same program?
I do realise that most Linux distros ship Qt with exception handling turned off, which is wrong on multiple levels, so obviously I'd have to compile it myself. And I'm aware that throwing non-fatal exceptions from a slot or event handler isn't what you want. Apart from that, is everything fine?
If it helps, think of "free software" as software that is not subject to the arbitrary whim of one vendor.
If Redmond tells you to upgrade, you upgrade or assume the risks of using unsupported software. With free software, you always have the option of buying support from someone else, or supporting it yourself.
There are many concepts of freedom. This is a legitimate one.
Ha. In Australia, we actually know what bacon is. Our bacon is the whole thing: The long streaky part and the medallion (which you incorrectly call "ham"), all attached in 30cm of fatty goodness.
The purpose of a schedule is to schedule and not to sell as a commodity.
The other purpose of the schedule, surely, is advertising. You want as many people as possible to know when your TV programmes are on, especially if, like the Nine Network, you're in the habit of shifting all of the good shows around during the graveyard shift.
While I agree with you, courts are not the appropriate venue to establish what constitutes good public policy. If this decision is upheld, then it's a matter for Parliament to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not be able to hear it, but the information isn't lost.
What's the bet that most of the 7,000 new open source projects were GNOME bindings for "Hello World"?
First off, thanks to the person who corrected this to "Wehrmacht".
I'm not saying that the Wehrmacht committed no war crimes. They did, and some of them were horrible.
However, my statement was essentially correct. The Wehrmacht's war crimes were mostly committed on the battlefield, or against prisoners of war and partisans. As far as the Holocaust goes, the worst that the Wehrmacht did was use slave labour, which is extremely bad, but not "the mass murders that the Nazi regime is most famous for".
Fuzzing over the details a bit, it helps to think of the SS as not being part of the German millitary. They were more like a Praetorian Guard/political police force. As such, they weren't brought up in the millitary tradition and codes of conduct. That's why it was them who carried out pretty much all of the horrible war crimes, and not the Bundeswehr.
(I'm sure the Bundeswehr did commit plenty of war crimes, but generally speaking, not the mass murders that the Nazi regime is most famous for.)
They probably thought they got a really cushy assignment, not having to serve on the front line.
But you're kinda right, in that the SS was built from the ground up on Nazi ideology. It would have been harder to persuade someone from the army to do what they did.
C++ has the advantage that, unlike C, there's less of an impedance mismatch between it and Javascript. Javascript is optimised for manipulating DOM-type structures which have a very natural expression in C++ and, with a small amount of template-assisted boilerplate, is fairly straightforward to bridge.
I've never seen a new statement wrapped in a try block. That sounds excessive.
There is precedent for that. For example, those tried under the millitary judicial system can't appeal to the civilian one.
Having said that, if the system set up to deal with them doesn't guarantee basic rights that any judicial system must, there should be some way to address that injustice.
Consider the following code sequence:
QThingy *thingy = new QThingy();
justAboutAnything();
Just about anything can throw an exception in C++. When that happens, thingy will never get deleted, causing a memory leak and, if thingy owns a resource, a resource leak. The fix is to use a managed pointer, such as std::auto_ptr, boost::shared_ptr or QSharedDataPointer. This also applies to class members.
You might like to read Exceptional C++ by Herb Sutter. It goes into these issues in some depth.
Of course, thanks to multi-threading, stacks are smaller than they used to be. If you want to put a large object in stack scope, boost::scoped_ptr might be appropriate.
That's good to know, thanks.
Well I'm a C++ language paralegal, and I don't hate Qt for that reason. I used to hate it because it didn't play nice with the standard library or third-party applications which did do things like throw exceptions.
Qt used to be full of this sort of thing:
QThingy *thingy = new QThingy();
You can safely assume that anyone who writes that today doesn't know C++.
So... how exception-safe is Qt these days? Can I safely use the STL or Boost and Qt in the same program?
I do realise that most Linux distros ship Qt with exception handling turned off, which is wrong on multiple levels, so obviously I'd have to compile it myself. And I'm aware that throwing non-fatal exceptions from a slot or event handler isn't what you want. Apart from that, is everything fine?
Even if you do know what you're doing, it's still pretty painful.
Yes. Perl, in case you couldn't tell.
Lawyers also happen to be the people who make lawyers' lives difficult.
I'm reminded of it every day. Want me to send you some snippets of the code I have to maintain?
If it helps, think of "free software" as software that is not subject to the arbitrary whim of one vendor.
If Redmond tells you to upgrade, you upgrade or assume the risks of using unsupported software. With free software, you always have the option of buying support from someone else, or supporting it yourself.
There are many concepts of freedom. This is a legitimate one.
Mi estas feliÄa, ke la internacia lingvo estas ricevi lan horonon ke meritas. Dankon por vian subtenon, je la estonta televida amuzaÄo.
Nature is not the enemy, but she is hardly our friend. She will quite happily get rid of us to preserve herself if we screw up.
Indeed. As everyone knows, "Oracle" was originally the code name of a CIA project.
The Japanese call it Tsukuba, and from all reports, it's one of the most depressing places to live in the whole country.
I think you're underestimating the sheer bloody-headed stubbornness of most Australians.
I'd be interested in knowing how Git compares to Mercurial on Windows.
You should ask Google about "middle bacon", and then persuade your butcher to supply you with some.
Ha. In Australia, we actually know what bacon is. Our bacon is the whole thing: The long streaky part and the medallion (which you incorrectly call "ham"), all attached in 30cm of fatty goodness.
The other purpose of the schedule, surely, is advertising. You want as many people as possible to know when your TV programmes are on, especially if, like the Nine Network, you're in the habit of shifting all of the good shows around during the graveyard shift.
While I agree with you, courts are not the appropriate venue to establish what constitutes good public policy. If this decision is upheld, then it's a matter for Parliament to deal with.
Do you mind if we move the chairs out of the room before we start?