Since every individual has to make money somehow, "business" regulations are effectively the same thing as individual regulations. A guy who is the sole proprietor of a bodega is just as tied to a soda tax as Walgreens.
I don't know what the law says on this matter, but on a personal note, I have no problem with that guy (or Walgreens for that matter) ignoring the "soda tax" rules if they're also willing to give up limited liability.
Regulation is the price you pay for being a business and enjoying the benefits of being a business. If you want to opt out of being a business or being part of a business, that's your individual right. Of course, it's also your right to campaign against the "soda tax" or vote for candidate who oppose it, but we already knew that.
The term was "racist right". I think it's clear that Jeff was talking about a specific subsection of the amorphous mass that we call "the right", and was also not disputing that a bigoted subsection of "the left" also exists.
The people assigned to round them up might have had some second thoughts if they knew they were going into well-armed homes.
During WW2, the US could always find some soldiers willing to go up against well-armed (again, for the sake of argument) Japanese people.
The point I'm trying to make is that guns don't protect you from a government hell bent on violating your civil liberties as long as enough gun owners can be convinced that you are the enemy. Guns did not prevent the wholesale gutting of the 4th amendment. It does not prevent civil forfeiture. It did not prevent the war on drugs.
Right now, the presumptive presidential nominee for one of the major parties has come out in favour of building a wall to keep out Mexican rapists and deporting Muslims. Should the NRA do a publicity campaign encouraging Muslim-Americans arming themselves to defend themselves from a future Trump administration wanting to round them up and deport them, a far more credible threat than "zomg obama wants to take ur guns"? For consistency, I think they must, but they won't. The NRA was just fine with the last piece of gun control legislation passed in California (by Reagan!) when the goal was to disarm the Black Panther Party.
Probably very few, given that they were Japanese (a place with extremely tight gun control).
They were Americans. But okay, let's play along for the sake of argument. How it might have played out if they were armed and tried to defend themselves?
So you think the federal government is going to use tanks and guided missiles to put down an armed revolt in the US?
A more likely scenario is that the federal government will round up citizens and put them in concentration camps, and most gun owners will turn a blind eye or cheer the government on as they do it. Not that likely a scenario, of course, but it did happen in 1942.
I got exactly what you were trying to say. Many people do use inheritance in their template libraries. One common use case is to inherit a template class from a common non-template base class. Stepanov did not, because he believes that Simula-style inheritance is a mistake.
Indeed. Formatting numbers in iostreams is just painful.
Nonetheless, that stuff is old. I stand by my claim that C++ is trying to be less Simula-like as time goes on. I interpret it as a tacit admission from the C++ standards committee that maybe some of that early "C with classes" stuff was a mistake in retrospect.
Perhaps you should google what STL actually means. And then grasp why it does not need the virtual keyword (except for destructors).
It doesn't need the virtual keyword because Stepanov deliberately designed it that way.
The STL could have been designed like java.util collections, where LinkedList derives from AbstractSequentialList derives from AbstractList derives from AbstractCollection derives from Object. It was not. As Stepanov said in his interview on this very site, "I am still convinced that Simula/C++/Java style inheritance is unsound."
I considered saying words to that effect, but then I realised that I honestly don't know how often virtual appears in the parts of the library that nobody uses (e.g. std::locale). I could have grepped it to find out, but that seems like a lot of effort for an offhand Slashdot comment.
Most of modern C++ has been trying to be more like Java/C# like, not Perl like.
In one important respect, modern C++ is trying very hard to be less Java/C#-like. Simula's broken object model is still the answer to most problems in Java and C#, where C++ has come up with better answers. The use of the keyword "virtual" in the C++ standard library is far more rare than most people think. It doesn't appear in the STL at all (apart from things which derive from std::exception).
That they should rush in features that haven't been thought through? That they should put half-arsed or broken features in place just to say that they have?
A poorly specified one? That is literally JavaScript.
No, it isn't! JavaScript is a very well-specified implementation of all of Scheme, conveniently wrapped in a syntax which makes it as difficult as possible to actually use that Scheme implementation.
Haskell's unofficial motto is "avoid success at all costs", which is how it has remained pure and hipster. Haskell will always be the language of the future, in the sense that unless you work for a European bank you won't be using it yourself, but the new features in your favourite language will probably come from Haskell.
Avoiding success is a lesson that Rust has not learned.This is why Rust will become obsolete and Haskell will not.
I don't know what that person's argument was. My argument is that right now, decent entry-level earbuds cost me around $10 (that's AUD not USD). I don't really care what connector they use as long as it's mechanically robust, but I will not buy any device for which that quality of earbud costs more than that.
Second, if you want third party headphones, you don't need an adaptor:
Do any of these third-party headphones cost less than $10? Because when you have teenage kids, headphones/earbuds have to be cheap enough to be disposable given how often they get mangled, laundered, and lost.
Fine. Less hypothetical thought experiment: It's 1942, and Japanese-American citizens arm themselves to prevent the totalitarian government from rounding them up and putting them in internment camps.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is about what the podcast creator will get after Amazon takes its cut.
FTFY
Since every individual has to make money somehow, "business" regulations are effectively the same thing as individual regulations. A guy who is the sole proprietor of a bodega is just as tied to a soda tax as Walgreens.
I don't know what the law says on this matter, but on a personal note, I have no problem with that guy (or Walgreens for that matter) ignoring the "soda tax" rules if they're also willing to give up limited liability.
Regulation is the price you pay for being a business and enjoying the benefits of being a business. If you want to opt out of being a business or being part of a business, that's your individual right. Of course, it's also your right to campaign against the "soda tax" or vote for candidate who oppose it, but we already knew that.
Classical usage of the term "conservative" in the US was killed in the 70s by the religious right. We should probably come up with new terms.
Racist right? Like Stalin?
No, like Mussolini.
You keep on talking about the "right" [...]
The term was "racist right". I think it's clear that Jeff was talking about a specific subsection of the amorphous mass that we call "the right", and was also not disputing that a bigoted subsection of "the left" also exists.
Extremists are bad, mmkay.
The people assigned to round them up might have had some second thoughts if they knew they were going into well-armed homes.
During WW2, the US could always find some soldiers willing to go up against well-armed (again, for the sake of argument) Japanese people.
The point I'm trying to make is that guns don't protect you from a government hell bent on violating your civil liberties as long as enough gun owners can be convinced that you are the enemy. Guns did not prevent the wholesale gutting of the 4th amendment. It does not prevent civil forfeiture. It did not prevent the war on drugs.
Right now, the presumptive presidential nominee for one of the major parties has come out in favour of building a wall to keep out Mexican rapists and deporting Muslims. Should the NRA do a publicity campaign encouraging Muslim-Americans arming themselves to defend themselves from a future Trump administration wanting to round them up and deport them, a far more credible threat than "zomg obama wants to take ur guns"? For consistency, I think they must, but they won't. The NRA was just fine with the last piece of gun control legislation passed in California (by Reagan!) when the goal was to disarm the Black Panther Party.
Probably very few, given that they were Japanese (a place with extremely tight gun control).
They were Americans. But okay, let's play along for the sake of argument. How it might have played out if they were armed and tried to defend themselves?
What the 2nd does do, is keep things like police-state door-to-door roundups and executions from happening.
No it doesn't. Ask any American citizen of Japanese descent who was around in 1942.
So you think the federal government is going to use tanks and guided missiles to put down an armed revolt in the US?
A more likely scenario is that the federal government will round up citizens and put them in concentration camps, and most gun owners will turn a blind eye or cheer the government on as they do it. Not that likely a scenario, of course, but it did happen in 1942.
I know plenty of guys (mostly rednecks) with gun cabinets that have enough weaponry to knock out most any police station.
I bet Noriega's guys were better armed than your redneck acquaintances. Didn't help him much.
you don't grasp it ... but no problem.
I got exactly what you were trying to say. Many people do use inheritance in their template libraries. One common use case is to inherit a template class from a common non-template base class. Stepanov did not, because he believes that Simula-style inheritance is a mistake.
Indeed. Formatting numbers in iostreams is just painful.
Nonetheless, that stuff is old. I stand by my claim that C++ is trying to be less Simula-like as time goes on. I interpret it as a tacit admission from the C++ standards committee that maybe some of that early "C with classes" stuff was a mistake in retrospect.
Perhaps you should google what STL actually means. And then grasp why it does not need the virtual keyword (except for destructors).
It doesn't need the virtual keyword because Stepanov deliberately designed it that way.
The STL could have been designed like java.util collections, where LinkedList derives from AbstractSequentialList derives from AbstractList derives from AbstractCollection derives from Object. It was not. As Stepanov said in his interview on this very site, "I am still convinced that Simula/C++/Java style inheritance is unsound."
Scheme is a dialect of Lisp.
Scheme is a dialect of Lisp. Common Lisp is a dialect of Lisp. Scheme is not a dialect of Common Lisp.
I considered saying words to that effect, but then I realised that I honestly don't know how often virtual appears in the parts of the library that nobody uses (e.g. std::locale). I could have grepped it to find out, but that seems like a lot of effort for an offhand Slashdot comment.
It's a feature of C++ that's in the C++ standard.
Although it is officially deprecated, so it might not be in C++17.
Most of modern C++ has been trying to be more like Java/C# like, not Perl like.
In one important respect, modern C++ is trying very hard to be less Java/C#-like. Simula's broken object model is still the answer to most problems in Java and C#, where C++ has come up with better answers. The use of the keyword "virtual" in the C++ standard library is far more rare than most people think. It doesn't appear in the STL at all (apart from things which derive from std::exception).
That they should rush in features that haven't been thought through? That they should put half-arsed or broken features in place just to say that they have?
You mean like export? Or auto_ptr?
A poorly specified one? That is literally JavaScript.
No, it isn't! JavaScript is a very well-specified implementation of all of Scheme, conveniently wrapped in a syntax which makes it as difficult as possible to actually use that Scheme implementation.
Hand in your engineer card right now. For those who don't get the reference...
Haskell's unofficial motto is "avoid success at all costs", which is how it has remained pure and hipster. Haskell will always be the language of the future, in the sense that unless you work for a European bank you won't be using it yourself, but the new features in your favourite language will probably come from Haskell.
Avoiding success is a lesson that Rust has not learned.This is why Rust will become obsolete and Haskell will not.
C++ needed more features.
C++ needs more features to fix all the problems with the previous round of features.
Actually it says both, but if you're not an Ancient Hebrew, the slaughter, foreskins, and slavery don't apply to you. See Acts 15 for details.
I don't know what that person's argument was. My argument is that right now, decent entry-level earbuds cost me around $10 (that's AUD not USD). I don't really care what connector they use as long as it's mechanically robust, but I will not buy any device for which that quality of earbud costs more than that.
Second, if you want third party headphones, you don't need an adaptor:
Do any of these third-party headphones cost less than $10? Because when you have teenage kids, headphones/earbuds have to be cheap enough to be disposable given how often they get mangled, laundered, and lost.
Fine. Less hypothetical thought experiment: It's 1942, and Japanese-American citizens arm themselves to prevent the totalitarian government from rounding them up and putting them in internment camps.
How does that play out?