Or just BBC protecting the British establishment. They don't want to alienate their core audience (the Brits) too much. "Hey, look that guy we arrested... the one everyone hates us for arresting... he was mean to his cat!!!"
But if we're talking about 2nd-tier superpowers like Russia destroying satellites they don't own, (destroying ones you do is bad enough...) that's Defcon 1+x.
You'd think so, but when they bombed the US oil pipeline during their invasion of Georgia, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans said anything. And that wasn't even their territory. What do you think are the chances that anyone will say anything if they destroy satellites which they deem to be spying on them?
Because that's not what's being discussed here. Spam filter is something you elect to have. Not being able to buy medication without prescription is something someone else elects for you to have. You don't have a choice in the matter.
Like, don't like it, it doesn't matter. Languages which create workarounds around this simply can't express everything computers do.
Computers can write past a boundary which they must obey. You can put in extra checks. The operating system can put in extra checks, but it doesn't matter.
There will be times when it will be necessary to do this when doing system programming. And any language which does not allow it cannot become a systems language. In fact, allowing this type of thing is necessary for Turing completeness.
Any language which doesn't allow it, will necessarily limit the scope of problems it can solve and it will need to be extended with external facilities which solve these problems and pretend that they are already solved "naturally". But these solutions will be created by hooking in libraries written in some Turing complete languages. Heck, even basic was "safe" until you wanted to do something to actual hardware. And at that point you had to peek() and poke(). Or you had to use libraries which did. And peek() and poke() is touching memory to which you don't have abstract access in the language naturally.
For someone with such a high user number, your age is showing. You are being ridiculous. Modern C++ (starting with C++11) has 3 types of reference/pointer types.
What difference does it make? An "accent", as such, is not normative speech. So if the British way of speaking is an "accent", while the American way is not, then the normative English is the American one.
There is one thing most of them agree on: the American dialect is ugly and stupid.
You are literally the first person ever to tell me this. And that includes all the anti-American crap people post on the Internet. So I am gonna call bull shit on this claim. In fact, I haven't heard anyone say "American dialect" in a very long time. On the other hand, people talk about a "British accent", when referring to the way Brits say things, quite a bit.
Only if you don't know anything about Esperanto. It attempts to have a 1-1 relationship between words and concepts. And I pointed out why that's a fool's errand.
That's funny. Why is it that every Russian wants to hide being Russian by pretending to be perennially British? "Oswald McWeany"? There is no "the West" as a form of political thought. That's modern Russian state's political mythology.
There is also no "proper" Russian language. The idea that anyone outside of Russia would object to learning Russian for political reasons is just weird. The only question is what is the better Russian to learn? Certainly the Russian Federation (with its population of only 145 million) does not have any more monopoly on normative Russian than UK has monopoly on normative English. Ukraine, for example, can develop its own version of Russian, as a state language, and instill it with different norms.
And while the methodology of secondary math education is better in Russia than it is in most of the US (education is simply not uniform in the US and cannot be compared as a whole rather than district-by-district), the French math education is competitive against Russia despite being quite different. Chinese secondary math/science education is almost identical in methodology to the Russian one, but, of course, it's in a different language.
They did by definition. The normative English is the one spoken in North America -- not the one spoken in the UK or any other former member of the British Empire. Don't let the name "England" confuse you. It's mostly a historical artifact. British English is no more normative English than the "Old English" is "English".
it is, itself very scientific in how it is put together
Which is why it's not a language. Languages needs to develop and to have concepts which are fused into one (by becoming interchangeable) or split into multiple ones (through increased subtlety).
Slashdot Mirror
Shut up, Hillary. No one believed then. No one believes you now.
Or just BBC protecting the British establishment. They don't want to alienate their core audience (the Brits) too much. "Hey, look that guy we arrested... the one everyone hates us for arresting... he was mean to his cat!!!"
But if we're talking about 2nd-tier superpowers like Russia destroying satellites they don't own, (destroying ones you do is bad enough...) that's Defcon 1+x.
You'd think so, but when they bombed the US oil pipeline during their invasion of Georgia, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans said anything. And that wasn't even their territory. What do you think are the chances that anyone will say anything if they destroy satellites which they deem to be spying on them?
a traitor is in charge! Literally.
No, she lost.
Because that's not what's being discussed here. Spam filter is something you elect to have. Not being able to buy medication without prescription is something someone else elects for you to have. You don't have a choice in the matter.
metoo
I am talking about address types without modifiers (no const/volatile).
Like, don't like it, it doesn't matter. Languages which create workarounds around this simply can't express everything computers do.
Computers can write past a boundary which they must obey. You can put in extra checks. The operating system can put in extra checks, but it doesn't matter.
There will be times when it will be necessary to do this when doing system programming. And any language which does not allow it cannot become a systems language. In fact, allowing this type of thing is necessary for Turing completeness.
Any language which doesn't allow it, will necessarily limit the scope of problems it can solve and it will need to be extended with external facilities which solve these problems and pretend that they are already solved "naturally". But these solutions will be created by hooking in libraries written in some Turing complete languages. Heck, even basic was "safe" until you wanted to do something to actual hardware. And at that point you had to peek() and poke(). Or you had to use libraries which did. And peek() and poke() is touching memory to which you don't have abstract access in the language naturally.
For someone with such a high user number, your age is showing. You are being ridiculous. Modern C++ (starting with C++11) has 3 types of reference/pointer types.
Anybody else see a problem with that statement?
Yes. It was made. That's a problem.
Well, don't forget what the Money Python boys used to say.
Thanks for the info.
Weren't all video codecs MS has ever released free?
The Midwestern pronunciation was made normative by Walter Cronkite. It's the pronunciation all national news anchors are expected to have.
What difference does it make? An "accent", as such, is not normative speech. So if the British way of speaking is an "accent", while the American way is not, then the normative English is the American one.
Are you suggesting that Brits are better people who speak English and everyone must mimic them? Talking about a legend in your own mind....
There is one thing most of them agree on: the American dialect is ugly and stupid.
You are literally the first person ever to tell me this. And that includes all the anti-American crap people post on the Internet. So I am gonna call bull shit on this claim. In fact, I haven't heard anyone say "American dialect" in a very long time. On the other hand, people talk about a "British accent", when referring to the way Brits say things, quite a bit.
The normative English is the one spoken in North America.
Sez who?
Native English speakers outside of UK (aka the overwhelming majority of the native English speakers).
Only if you don't know anything about Esperanto. It attempts to have a 1-1 relationship between words and concepts. And I pointed out why that's a fool's errand.
Research papers are usually poorly written though. They aren't known for their prose.
It doesn't mean "French". It means as universally understood as French used to be. Don't take idioms literally.
Jesus, Hillary! Put down the Chardonnay. You've had enough.
In a free society, yes. But you have to be a country to be a free country. And you can't be a country if people can't talk to each other.
That's funny. Why is it that every Russian wants to hide being Russian by pretending to be perennially British? "Oswald McWeany"? There is no "the West" as a form of political thought. That's modern Russian state's political mythology.
There is also no "proper" Russian language. The idea that anyone outside of Russia would object to learning Russian for political reasons is just weird. The only question is what is the better Russian to learn? Certainly the Russian Federation (with its population of only 145 million) does not have any more monopoly on normative Russian than UK has monopoly on normative English. Ukraine, for example, can develop its own version of Russian, as a state language, and instill it with different norms.
And while the methodology of secondary math education is better in Russia than it is in most of the US (education is simply not uniform in the US and cannot be compared as a whole rather than district-by-district), the French math education is competitive against Russia despite being quite different. Chinese secondary math/science education is almost identical in methodology to the Russian one, but, of course, it's in a different language.
They did by definition. The normative English is the one spoken in North America -- not the one spoken in the UK or any other former member of the British Empire. Don't let the name "England" confuse you. It's mostly a historical artifact. British English is no more normative English than the "Old English" is "English".
it is, itself very scientific in how it is put together
Which is why it's not a language. Languages needs to develop and to have concepts which are fused into one (by becoming interchangeable) or split into multiple ones (through increased subtlety).