That's why extra features use new flags, like, for example, -z, which isn't part of traditional tar. A --detect option to determine the right compression program (using file) wouldn't hurt usage in scripts.
One change I would actually support would be setting a standard option that tells the program it's being invoked by a script and to behave accordingly (with some standard behavior when invoked by a script). That would free up many of the scripting requirements currently induced.
However, it would require deprecating certain things. In the original poster's example, it would require deprecating most of the behavior of rm for a LONG time. So, while I like this idea a lot, it is *very* impractical.
I have had an idea for a while now that it would be really cool to have a really nice GUI-based source-code installer. This installer could parse the./configure --help to provide a list of options, could store your selections so they appear on the next compile the way they were on the previous compile (make adding a feature to a complex compile easy), and all in all make sysadmins and end-users alike much happier with installing from source.
Actually, I had this same idea myself. I don't kow how much time I've got to do it, but I'd like to see it implemented with wxWindows and made to work for Windows and Mac too. For Windows, I would expect it to require cygwin, since the gnu autotools require cygwin on windows anyway.
Ideally, the program would be configured to deal with the package manager on the system it runs. For example, if it's running on an RPM based system, it would make appropriate entries in the RPM database, so that the software could be managed after installation by the RPM tools. If it's running on Windows, it would make the necessary registry entries to put it in the add/remove programs dialog, and so forth.
Ultimately, assuming someone comes up with a wxKDE port or something, this tool would be easily portable to all of the modern GUIs, due to its usage of wxWindows.
As far as what makes the most sense, I suggest making it in C++, but using wxPython is probably a good compromise. I do not know python myself.
As far as time spent working on it, I can't promise a lot. I've had to leave several projects recently, and I hesitate to start a new one. BUT, I have a definite interest in this one that's not likely to change (at least one of the projects I've left recently was because I didn't need the tool anymore). If you're interested, or anyone else for that matter, please follow the link in my sig, click on teh Contact link in the navbar, and send me an email. I'll be happy to get it organized and setup on sourceforge.
besides. anybody, and I mean anybody could make the *> instead of *. mistake. its really easy to do, even if you know what you are doing.
You know, I would question the competence of someone who is going to rm -r * anything without proofreading their commandline. The command line of just about any shell available for Linux (yes, I use bash, and a lot of people hate it, and I don't give a shit) is VERY powerful. One of the biggest reasons it's so powerful is because it has been steadily evolving since 1969, rather than being completely rewritten every 5-10 years to make it easier for new users to handle. The simple fact is, any time you open a shell, regardless of whether or not you're root, you have now opened a tool on your computer which is comparable to opening up your closet and taking out a series of neurosurgical implements and tools. You *must* take it seriously.
That said, I don't disagree with having a shell targetted for users who don't want/need all the power of a regular unix shell, but also don't like GUIs (blind users come to mind, actually). I would love to see a project that made this happen, even if it just started as a.bashrc file that aliased away all the things that are dangerous.
"mv" doesn't move anything, it wstats the directory adding the new file inodes and removes their entries from their source directories (as a side effect).
What does it do when you move a file across partitions? (yes, I know the answer to that)
March 4th, 1989 was the day set forth that the government would start operating under the Constitution prior to that the government as we know it didn't exist and therefore cannot charge for freedom prior to that date.
Yet SCO thinks they can charge license fees for a 2.1 fork of the kernel? I figure by their own reasoning our government can charge them for freedom that existed before the government existed. Furthermore, how about charging SCO their portion of the bill for the revolution itself? Normally you pay a huge ton of money for the service, then a small maintenance charge for the rest of your life. SCO also owes LDS for providing them with a hell-free zone in which to operate. Let's see, what else do they owe....
Er. I really didn't realize the trouble that would cause, apologies.
I realize I've come late to the party, but I just wanted to point out that if I were you, I would't have offered apologies. I figure geeks are rare enough that it's completely irrelevant if any of the posters making their cracks thought you were a girl, because you're still worth marrying.:)
In any case, this jpu8086 guy came off to me as one of the bigger bigots on slashdot. Just to make sure this goes down somewhere in this discussion....
So instead of both of those, please put your money to use and have a pizza payed for and delivered to my house. You will be added to my friends list on delivery of the pizza.
You don't really want to see the slashdot effect materialize as pizza, do you?
And they have done a few other things, like contribute code to the GPL, which is more than any other company I have seen. (Compaq? HP? Sun? Dell?)
I'd just like to point out that Sun gave us an entire office suite. Don't knock 'em too hard, they're really trying. They've got a lot of blocks to overcome, but they're coming around.
It was actually a joke. You said to name two times, and I only gave one name, but the name indicated that the US was both sides of the war. It was't a very funny joke, I realize....
How do you make an ejection seat that's NOT effective at 0 altitude and 0 speed?
Make it spring-loaded. Then it would depend on the plane's speed and airspeed and so forth to push it away from the plane. Otherwise, at zero speed the chair would shoot straight up, ad come back down on top of the exploding fighter.
Re:If you're going to hide the marines in the APC.
on
In-Flight Reboot?
·
· Score: 1
Why have the Marines there at all?
I'll bite, troll.:)
First, I'm not responding to what I think you're actually trying to say.:)
The Marines mission is to hold the beachfront (or whatever) while the regular forces land safely to invade (or whatever). Then, they are required to do the same while the army leaves. That's why they are "First in, last out." And that's why they're still there.
That sure is a big deal, considering what had happened on Japanese soil.
I'm curious, then. Do you think that less people would have died if we had't fire-bombed Tokyo and then nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? You're referring to a classic case of our military being used properly, in *defense*, like it's a bad thing. If we hadn't have fought back, do you think we would be in a better country right now?
The complaint was about a tacky and tasteless manner of speech.
So, would you enforce your subjective viewpoints on a man who has sworn his life to protect your right to utter this viewpoint?
I realize that my statement opens up a path I do not really want to trod on, but I think it's an important question. Fact is, there are people in this world who believe that the only way to solve some disagreements is through mass-murder and so forth (commonly called war), and due to this fact it is necessary for us to maintain a powerful military--powerful enough to deter someone from trying to solve their disagreements with us through methods we don't approve of. I think that having someone in the military say "the part that kills people" or whatever in a news article might well help to deter some warmonger from invading, ad is therefore a good thing.:)
The biggest problem with our military isn't actually the military itself, it's the civilians who think that sometimes the only way to solve a disagreement is to kill someone. Our war-ravaged history (internationally speaking, of course) stands testament to how many problems get solved that way, and how many people suffer and/or die as a result.
Re:Remarkably frank ...
on
In-Flight Reboot?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And by "our civilization" I don't mean the "kill 'em all" hicks that have suddenly made a comeback in the US. I'm talking about human civilization as a whole --- the thing that seperates us from mere animals.
I've got an ant farm you just have got to see.:)
Seriously, though, I'm all for respecting life, and I don't buy into this basic fact that sometimes you have to kill somebody. I think there's a better way. Besides that, I think the best way to depose Saddam Hussein would have been assassination. Why is assassination considered so dishonorable? Compared to thousands of innocents dying--the same innocents we were "liberating" I might add.
But showing respect for life and being direct about the function of a given subsystem on a plane aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You don't like it, but how do you know the guy who said it doesn't have respect for human life? In my experience (not small), most soldiers have a respect for life in general. They just put American lives above others, for whatever reason (most common reason: Americans are their family, who they love and want to protect).
Of course, that's unreasonable to ask. If we thought about that stuff all time, we wouldn't be able to live our lives normally. As human beings, we sometimes have to insulate ourselves from the darker side of our civilization. If you don't need that insulation, than I'd hate to meet you in person...
I agree, it's unreasonable to ask, but not for the reasons you gave. According to your reason it's ok to be a pussy-footed self-serving jackass with no compassion for his fellow human beings.
It's unreasonable to ask because those people are not my responsibility, and their problems are not automatically mine. I have my own kids to feed and my own family to take care of. My whole life is dedicated to serving that end, and other kids do not figure in. I have a limited amount of resources, and I must chose wisely how to use them to the most benefit of my family. In the process, I try to help out people as much as I can. Fact is, there's only so much I can do. If we all did our part, it would help greatly, but you must define "our part", and I do not define "our part" as sending all my spare change to Africa (or wherever your starving kids are located).
I guess what shocked me is that I'd assumed people in the military insulated themselves from the horror of what they are charged to do by casting things in terms of 'missions' and 'objectives' rather than killing and death. I'm surprised people can be so upfront and still deal with it.
I've been long under the understanding that the "objective" and "missions" talk was just about speaking precisely. Reason is, you don't want to kill the wrong people, or get killed yourself over a stupid linguistic misunderstanding.
I think it was said best in Patton, when what's-his-face-playing-Patton said "I don't want you to go out and die for your country. I want you to go out and make the other bastards die for their country."
But the question begs. You're obviously a civilian (as am I, although maybe not so obviously). What's makes you so goddamn special that you know what happens in war while the professionals have to hide themselves from it?
When I'm required to write in VB, "Option Explicit" is the first statement. It comes before the comments that describe the program. That's how important explicit declarations are to a *real* program, IMHO.
Dude, I hear you. I do the same thing, actually. I'm in much the same boat. My problem is that I learned ASP because the company I was working for used ASP. Now I'm free to use PHP, but I don't have the time to learn it.
VBScript sucks ass for real programming, but I must admit that I enjoy it as a web programming language. On the server, it kicks the ass out of Javascript on the client (NOT a fair comparison). But I've definitely found that OPTION EXPLICIT really helps a lot with managing variables. It still doesn't straighten out type problems. As a hack, though, I find that initializing the variables with null versions of what I intend to store in them works really well. There is a type structure buried in their, and it screws up newbie vbscript programmers who haven't learned type and probably never will, but if you initialize your variables you'll invoke this type structure and effectively type your variables.:) Happy day!
yuk. I can only agree with what Linux says in "CodingStyle":
I have to say that I agree/disagree with you.:) I like having certain basic types, in some languages, as part of the variable name. VBScript, for example, and javascript. Languages that have no firm type. Also, with C/C++, if I know I'm going to extern a variable, I stick the type on the name just so I don't have to keep opening source files to find out. But only basic types, and pointers. I disagree completely with doing this for functions, simply because (in C++ anyway) it totally fucks up as soon as you start overloading functions. Now it's not the same type anymore, but does the same thing, with the same name, with different args. For short-term temporary variables, I tend to either revert to the old single-letter names of the old school, or I prepend tmp to the variable name.
Other than that, I figure if the block of code is really long, I'm doing something wrong. But you should have to browse back to the variable declaration from time to time to check things because it gives you an opportunity to look at the other variables used and will raise questions, especially when you're having problems. I've found numerous problems just because I was scanning the variable declarations trying to figure out what type the variable I was working with was, but noticing other variables and saying "What the fuck is that one there for?", tracking it down, and finding the bug.
On the other hand, it's extremely readable to look at an if() statement and see what the basic types are, and see if you're using pointers in there.
If there is enough evidence that says you did it, you have to prove that the evidence is incorrect. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but enough circumstantial evidence can prove guilt incorrectly.
Technical differences make all the difference here.
To be convicted, iirc, a jury has to vote unanimously that you are guilty. In order to do that, every jurist is required to vote guilty only when they have absolutely no doubts that you did it. If they have any doubt at all, they are required to vote innocent.
Therefore, your defense only has to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. You do not have to prove innocence, you only have to show that there are other people who may be just as guilty with the same evidence, or something like that.
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.
This *is* possible in HTML, and was a possibility for it's use. However, IE won't render it, and well, IE's dominating the market still. (Though go read the browser wars post from yesterday, I kinda liked it).
Give me a link, I'm interested.
I'd like to point out, even though you're Anonymous Coward and you're not listening, that it's very possible to provide images in precise locations in html and still allow the page to shrink and expand for different browser sizes and different screen resolutions. In my professional opinion, web developers who don't account for this are lazy.:)
I'm sorry.. Just because you are lower income doesn't mean you deserve my money to pay for your children. That's what charities are for (like your local churches). The government shouldn't be in the job of supporting people who can't keep their reproductive habits in check. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't be allowed to keep them (There is this wonderful thing called ADOPTION that puts the children you can't afford into homes with people who CAN afford them.)
I do, actually, agree with you that it's not the government's responsibility to support kids. However, I definitely disagree (and you didn't respond to this) with the idea that you're not responsible for the future of society. It's irrelevant whether or not you have kids of your own, you need to make a contribution to the raising of the kids that are there now, to provide for the future. Just like the adults of previous generations made their contributions which you benefitted from (like it or not), you now owe that debt to society. If the only way you're asked to repay that debt is by providing money for families that need to feed their kids, consider yourself "getting off easy".
If you can't handle the responsibilities of being an adult in this society, perhaps you should consider looking for another society to live in. But you'll be hard pressed to find a society in this world that doesn't believe, as a whole, in taking care of its own.
I re-read my post, however, and realized that my first point came out totally incorrect. I was saying that HTML was originally designed for providing a cross-platform way to publish scientific and academic documents that could be read on any machine. That was its original purpose, and the world wide web is just a big bastard child of that purpose.
I could go into detail, but you're too much a asshole to be worth my time.
He would have been able to reencode his.wav or.flac files to any format needed in the future, and he would have been able to perform lossless conversion to new formats as the older ones become outdated, thus making his copies last "forever". The only time he *would* have had to redo his work would have been to resample the original recording at a higher bitrate (such as making a 32 bit float copy to replace an old 16 bit int copy). But if he made them as 32 bit float (check out Audacity for a good 32-bit float sound processor) in the first place, then they would have lasted a LONG time before newer techology rendered even the lossless copies obsolete. Instead, he's locked in to mp3, or he has to redo all of his work when formats change or are rendered obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why extra features use new flags, like, for example, -z, which isn't part of traditional tar. A --detect option to determine the right compression program (using file) wouldn't hurt usage in scripts.
One change I would actually support would be setting a standard option that tells the program it's being invoked by a script and to behave accordingly (with some standard behavior when invoked by a script). That would free up many of the scripting requirements currently induced.
However, it would require deprecating certain things. In the original poster's example, it would require deprecating most of the behavior of rm for a LONG time. So, while I like this idea a lot, it is *very* impractical.
I have had an idea for a while now that it would be really cool to have a really nice GUI-based source-code installer. This installer could parse the ./configure --help to provide a list of options, could store your selections so they appear on the next compile the way they were on the previous compile (make adding a feature to a complex compile easy), and all in all make sysadmins and end-users alike much happier with installing from source.
Actually, I had this same idea myself. I don't kow how much time I've got to do it, but I'd like to see it implemented with wxWindows and made to work for Windows and Mac too. For Windows, I would expect it to require cygwin, since the gnu autotools require cygwin on windows anyway.
Ideally, the program would be configured to deal with the package manager on the system it runs. For example, if it's running on an RPM based system, it would make appropriate entries in the RPM database, so that the software could be managed after installation by the RPM tools. If it's running on Windows, it would make the necessary registry entries to put it in the add/remove programs dialog, and so forth.
Ultimately, assuming someone comes up with a wxKDE port or something, this tool would be easily portable to all of the modern GUIs, due to its usage of wxWindows.
As far as what makes the most sense, I suggest making it in C++, but using wxPython is probably a good compromise. I do not know python myself.
As far as time spent working on it, I can't promise a lot. I've had to leave several projects recently, and I hesitate to start a new one. BUT, I have a definite interest in this one that's not likely to change (at least one of the projects I've left recently was because I didn't need the tool anymore). If you're interested, or anyone else for that matter, please follow the link in my sig, click on teh Contact link in the navbar, and send me an email. I'll be happy to get it organized and setup on sourceforge.
besides. anybody, and I mean anybody could make the *> instead of *. mistake. its really easy to do, even if you know what you are doing.
You know, I would question the competence of someone who is going to rm -r * anything without proofreading their commandline. The command line of just about any shell available for Linux (yes, I use bash, and a lot of people hate it, and I don't give a shit) is VERY powerful. One of the biggest reasons it's so powerful is because it has been steadily evolving since 1969, rather than being completely rewritten every 5-10 years to make it easier for new users to handle. The simple fact is, any time you open a shell, regardless of whether or not you're root, you have now opened a tool on your computer which is comparable to opening up your closet and taking out a series of neurosurgical implements and tools. You *must* take it seriously.
That said, I don't disagree with having a shell targetted for users who don't want/need all the power of a regular unix shell, but also don't like GUIs (blind users come to mind, actually). I would love to see a project that made this happen, even if it just started as a .bashrc file that aliased away all the things that are dangerous.
"mv" doesn't move anything, it wstats the directory adding the new file inodes and removes their entries from their source directories (as a side effect).
What does it do when you move a file across partitions? (yes, I know the answer to that)
March 4th, 1989 was the day set forth that the government would start operating under the Constitution prior to that the government as we know it didn't exist and therefore cannot charge for freedom prior to that date.
Yet SCO thinks they can charge license fees for a 2.1 fork of the kernel? I figure by their own reasoning our government can charge them for freedom that existed before the government existed. Furthermore, how about charging SCO their portion of the bill for the revolution itself? Normally you pay a huge ton of money for the service, then a small maintenance charge for the rest of your life. SCO also owes LDS for providing them with a hell-free zone in which to operate. Let's see, what else do they owe....
Er. I really didn't realize the trouble that would cause, apologies.
I realize I've come late to the party, but I just wanted to point out that if I were you, I would't have offered apologies. I figure geeks are rare enough that it's completely irrelevant if any of the posters making their cracks thought you were a girl, because you're still worth marrying. :)
In any case, this jpu8086 guy came off to me as one of the bigger bigots on slashdot. Just to make sure this goes down somewhere in this discussion....
So instead of both of those, please put your money to use and have a pizza payed for and delivered to my house. You will be added to my friends list on delivery of the pizza.
You don't really want to see the slashdot effect materialize as pizza, do you?
And they have done a few other things, like contribute code to the GPL, which is more than any other company I have seen. (Compaq? HP? Sun? Dell?)
I'd just like to point out that Sun gave us an entire office suite. Don't knock 'em too hard, they're really trying. They've got a lot of blocks to overcome, but they're coming around.
It was actually a joke. You said to name two times, and I only gave one name, but the name indicated that the US was both sides of the war. It was't a very funny joke, I realize....
How do you make an ejection seat that's NOT effective at 0 altitude and 0 speed?
Make it spring-loaded. Then it would depend on the plane's speed and airspeed and so forth to push it away from the plane. Otherwise, at zero speed the chair would shoot straight up, ad come back down on top of the exploding fighter.
Why have the Marines there at all?
I'll bite, troll. :)
First, I'm not responding to what I think you're actually trying to say. :)
The Marines mission is to hold the beachfront (or whatever) while the regular forces land safely to invade (or whatever). Then, they are required to do the same while the army leaves. That's why they are "First in, last out." And that's why they're still there.
That sure is a big deal, considering what had happened on Japanese soil.
I'm curious, then. Do you think that less people would have died if we had't fire-bombed Tokyo and then nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? You're referring to a classic case of our military being used properly, in *defense*, like it's a bad thing. If we hadn't have fought back, do you think we would be in a better country right now?
The complaint was about a tacky and tasteless manner of speech.
So, would you enforce your subjective viewpoints on a man who has sworn his life to protect your right to utter this viewpoint?
I realize that my statement opens up a path I do not really want to trod on, but I think it's an important question. Fact is, there are people in this world who believe that the only way to solve some disagreements is through mass-murder and so forth (commonly called war), and due to this fact it is necessary for us to maintain a powerful military--powerful enough to deter someone from trying to solve their disagreements with us through methods we don't approve of. I think that having someone in the military say "the part that kills people" or whatever in a news article might well help to deter some warmonger from invading, ad is therefore a good thing. :)
The biggest problem with our military isn't actually the military itself, it's the civilians who think that sometimes the only way to solve a disagreement is to kill someone. Our war-ravaged history (internationally speaking, of course) stands testament to how many problems get solved that way, and how many people suffer and/or die as a result.
And by "our civilization" I don't mean the "kill 'em all" hicks that have suddenly made a comeback in the US. I'm talking about human civilization as a whole --- the thing that seperates us from mere animals.
I've got an ant farm you just have got to see. :)
Seriously, though, I'm all for respecting life, and I don't buy into this basic fact that sometimes you have to kill somebody. I think there's a better way. Besides that, I think the best way to depose Saddam Hussein would have been assassination. Why is assassination considered so dishonorable? Compared to thousands of innocents dying--the same innocents we were "liberating" I might add.
But showing respect for life and being direct about the function of a given subsystem on a plane aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You don't like it, but how do you know the guy who said it doesn't have respect for human life? In my experience (not small), most soldiers have a respect for life in general. They just put American lives above others, for whatever reason (most common reason: Americans are their family, who they love and want to protect).
Our civilization is built on people having a measure of subtlety and tact.
Corporate speak sucks. So does newspeak. Americans have been notorious throughout history for being direct.
Of course, that's unreasonable to ask. If we thought about that stuff all time, we wouldn't be able to live our lives normally. As human beings, we sometimes have to insulate ourselves from the darker side of our civilization. If you don't need that insulation, than I'd hate to meet you in person...
I agree, it's unreasonable to ask, but not for the reasons you gave. According to your reason it's ok to be a pussy-footed self-serving jackass with no compassion for his fellow human beings.
It's unreasonable to ask because those people are not my responsibility, and their problems are not automatically mine. I have my own kids to feed and my own family to take care of. My whole life is dedicated to serving that end, and other kids do not figure in. I have a limited amount of resources, and I must chose wisely how to use them to the most benefit of my family. In the process, I try to help out people as much as I can. Fact is, there's only so much I can do. If we all did our part, it would help greatly, but you must define "our part", and I do not define "our part" as sending all my spare change to Africa (or wherever your starving kids are located).
PS: For extra credit, name two times that the (U.S.) military has defended the country.
The Civil War. (Think about it :) )
I guess what shocked me is that I'd assumed people in the military insulated themselves from the horror of what they are charged to do by casting things in terms of 'missions' and 'objectives' rather than killing and death. I'm surprised people can be so upfront and still deal with it.
I've been long under the understanding that the "objective" and "missions" talk was just about speaking precisely. Reason is, you don't want to kill the wrong people, or get killed yourself over a stupid linguistic misunderstanding.
I think it was said best in Patton, when what's-his-face-playing-Patton said "I don't want you to go out and die for your country. I want you to go out and make the other bastards die for their country."
But the question begs. You're obviously a civilian (as am I, although maybe not so obviously). What's makes you so goddamn special that you know what happens in war while the professionals have to hide themselves from it?
When I'm required to write in VB, "Option Explicit" is the first statement. It comes before the comments that describe the program. That's how important explicit declarations are to a *real* program, IMHO.
Dude, I hear you. I do the same thing, actually. I'm in much the same boat. My problem is that I learned ASP because the company I was working for used ASP. Now I'm free to use PHP, but I don't have the time to learn it.
VBScript sucks ass for real programming, but I must admit that I enjoy it as a web programming language. On the server, it kicks the ass out of Javascript on the client (NOT a fair comparison). But I've definitely found that OPTION EXPLICIT really helps a lot with managing variables. It still doesn't straighten out type problems. As a hack, though, I find that initializing the variables with null versions of what I intend to store in them works really well. There is a type structure buried in their, and it screws up newbie vbscript programmers who haven't learned type and probably never will, but if you initialize your variables you'll invoke this type structure and effectively type your variables. :) Happy day!
int Foo, *pBar, Flash, *pBang, Up, *pDown, etc;
yuk. I can only agree with what Linux says in "CodingStyle":
I have to say that I agree/disagree with you. :) I like having certain basic types, in some languages, as part of the variable name. VBScript, for example, and javascript. Languages that have no firm type. Also, with C/C++, if I know I'm going to extern a variable, I stick the type on the name just so I don't have to keep opening source files to find out. But only basic types, and pointers. I disagree completely with doing this for functions, simply because (in C++ anyway) it totally fucks up as soon as you start overloading functions. Now it's not the same type anymore, but does the same thing, with the same name, with different args. For short-term temporary variables, I tend to either revert to the old single-letter names of the old school, or I prepend tmp to the variable name.
Other than that, I figure if the block of code is really long, I'm doing something wrong. But you should have to browse back to the variable declaration from time to time to check things because it gives you an opportunity to look at the other variables used and will raise questions, especially when you're having problems. I've found numerous problems just because I was scanning the variable declarations trying to figure out what type the variable I was working with was, but noticing other variables and saying "What the fuck is that one there for?", tracking it down, and finding the bug.
On the other hand, it's extremely readable to look at an if() statement and see what the basic types are, and see if you're using pointers in there.
If there is enough evidence that says you did it, you have to prove that the evidence is incorrect. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but enough circumstantial evidence can prove guilt incorrectly.
Technical differences make all the difference here.
To be convicted, iirc, a jury has to vote unanimously that you are guilty. In order to do that, every jurist is required to vote guilty only when they have absolutely no doubts that you did it. If they have any doubt at all, they are required to vote innocent.
Therefore, your defense only has to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. You do not have to prove innocence, you only have to show that there are other people who may be just as guilty with the same evidence, or something like that.
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.
This *is* possible in HTML, and was a possibility for it's use. However, IE won't render it, and well, IE's dominating the market still. (Though go read the browser wars post from yesterday, I kinda liked it).
Give me a link, I'm interested.
I'd like to point out, even though you're Anonymous Coward and you're not listening, that it's very possible to provide images in precise locations in html and still allow the page to shrink and expand for different browser sizes and different screen resolutions. In my professional opinion, web developers who don't account for this are lazy. :)
I'm sorry.. Just because you are lower income doesn't mean you deserve my money to pay for your children. That's what charities are for (like your local churches). The government shouldn't be in the job of supporting people who can't keep their reproductive habits in check. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't be allowed to keep them (There is this wonderful thing called ADOPTION that puts the children you can't afford into homes with people who CAN afford them.)
I do, actually, agree with you that it's not the government's responsibility to support kids. However, I definitely disagree (and you didn't respond to this) with the idea that you're not responsible for the future of society. It's irrelevant whether or not you have kids of your own, you need to make a contribution to the raising of the kids that are there now, to provide for the future. Just like the adults of previous generations made their contributions which you benefitted from (like it or not), you now owe that debt to society. If the only way you're asked to repay that debt is by providing money for families that need to feed their kids, consider yourself "getting off easy".
If you can't handle the responsibilities of being an adult in this society, perhaps you should consider looking for another society to live in. But you'll be hard pressed to find a society in this world that doesn't believe, as a whole, in taking care of its own.
You're wrong. Just accept that and move on.
You're a asshole, just accept that and move on. :)
I re-read my post, however, and realized that my first point came out totally incorrect. I was saying that HTML was originally designed for providing a cross-platform way to publish scientific and academic documents that could be read on any machine. That was its original purpose, and the world wide web is just a big bastard child of that purpose.
I could go into detail, but you're too much a asshole to be worth my time.
He can use MP3s many more places.
He would have been able to reencode his .wav or .flac files to any format needed in the future, and he would have been able to perform lossless conversion to new formats as the older ones become outdated, thus making his copies last "forever". The only time he *would* have had to redo his work would have been to resample the original recording at a higher bitrate (such as making a 32 bit float copy to replace an old 16 bit int copy). But if he made them as 32 bit float (check out Audacity for a good 32-bit float sound processor) in the first place, then they would have lasted a LONG time before newer techology rendered even the lossless copies obsolete. Instead, he's locked in to mp3, or he has to redo all of his work when formats change or are rendered obsolete.