I've had to work with plenty of graduates from "Java schools" who knew all about how a hashmap behaved, but no clue how to implement one.
They never learned one of the most basic data structures. So what? All that tells us is that "Java schools" are (predictably) bad at teaching people about computer programming.
It's been my experience that these sort of questions only come up in job interviews. Maybe you've worked in more academic (i.e., non-business) circles, but in my work from the kernel to the cloud, more abstract algorithm questions just never come up.
Maybe you should try programming something more complicated than a web interface. Textbook k-nearest-neighbor search has come up quite a few times in my career, along with related topics like maximum-likelihood decoding of FEC codes. Shortest-path search has not, but similar optimization problems and other graph algorithms have. These are classic examples because they are easy to describe, fairly simple to solve, and show up in a lot of different application domains. Other data structures show up in kernels: binary trees in the buddy allocator, B-trees in several filesystems, and anything protected by RCU.
I am attacking you because you're increasingly incoherent and foolish-looking. I pointed out that some leftist moron's analogy failed as an analogy. You felt the need to jump in with a snarky remark that assumed I didn't recognize it as an analogy, and you've gone (far) downhill from there. Case in point: "got to learn to read before Reagan". You let your temper get in the way, and posted your comment without even noticing such a blatant typo.
I don't know what you think "data structures" means, but it sounds like you got a second-rate lesson on them. Once you know how data structures work, pointers are pretty obvious and easy to pick up. The converse is certainly not true. How do you find the shortest path through a graph? How do you find the k nearest neighbors of a point?
Would you tell them to withdraw the cash money for their PC computer by entering their PIN number at the ATM machine? (Just be sure to check the LCD display to ensure that the amount is correct.) Then they can hook up their new PC computer to their IP protocol router and go!
I suggest that 1. should be data structures rather than pointers. The topics are obviously closely related, but pointers are something of an implementation detail that can wait until the student either wants to learn a pointer-based language or is more interested about the mechanics of how the computer executes code.
The legal standard to get a search warrant is called probable cause. In particular, the officer requesting the search warrant must demonstrate (to the judge or magistrate who signs the warrant) that facts and circumstances known to the officer give a reasonable person a basis to believe that a crime was committed there or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.
In this case, the police probably made the (no-brainer) argument that mobs of Black Bloc rioters do not spontaneously condense out of the air. They had to organize somewhere, their organizational efforts probably constituted conspiracy to break the law, and their phones and Facebook accounts almost certainly have evidence of that conspiracy.
If you want to change that legal standard, you'll have to make a more convincing argument that essentially whining and calling it overreach while demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the law actually says.
P.S. If my previous comment assumed you were more competent than you are, please let me know. You badly misuse the phrase "moving the goalposts", so maybe you really don't understand plain English.
Perhaps you should stop pissing yourself off, then. You pretended to misunderstand my very brief comment pointing out that this temporary ban is fundamentally different from firing a cannon into a crowd, and now you are throwing an increasingly whiny and hypocritical fit because you can't defend the analogy or yourself on the merits.
Do you want more Trump? The way you're behaving is the way you get more Trump. Making and defending ridiculous analogies only helps his side, as does your poutrage when someone points out that the original argument was so awful it was counterproductive.
And, again, I didn't move the goalposts. You did. Stop blaming others for your own immaturity and lack of focus.
If you don't want to be accused of derangement, don't say that others are acting that way, especially not about valid criticism of a moronic post that was apparently written by a disk-spinning coke fiend.
When I pointed out that the analogy was deeply flawed because the two things being compared were far more different than alike in any relevant way, that is an argument against both the content and the analogy. The guy who posted a paragraph of mostly incoherent drivel apparently thought the analogy was relevant because he opened his post with it. Your pretense to the contrary just makes you look worse.
You apparently are that deranged, because you are pretending to defend an awful analogy that you can't actually bring yourself to defend, while not excusing the slightest whiff of hyperbole.
The similarity ends at the ban and canister shot both being very indiscriminate, which for the point of this discussion makes the two essentially different. Firing a cannon into a crowd at a fair will kill people for being at a very public event. The temporary immigration ban will not kill people, and the affected people have no legal right to enter the United States, unlike the general right of the public to attend a fair.
Please explain how barring an alien's entry to a country is at all analogous to firing a cannon into a crowd.
I said they were "really nothing [a]like" because it is a terrible analogy. It does more harm than help to whatever point Freischutz was trying to make.
The judge's order does not mention due process for immigration anywhere in the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW section. It only addresses due process at all when it discusses what is necessary for entry of a TRO. At any rate, due process arguments are disposed of by the plain language of 8 USC section 1182(f). The "by proclamation" bit there means he does not need an extensive study or comment period before limiting some or all entry by aliens to the United States.
The TRO is conclusory because it cites no arguments or evidence, appears to grossly misstate the role and extent of the parens patriae principle (which has only extended in US law to protecting citizens of the state, not mere residents), and accepts speculative harms to intangible and immeasurable things like "the operations and missions of their public universities" as irreparable. There is no way that such weak speculative harms can satisfy the public-interest and balance-of-harms tests that the judge cited, especially to carry such an overbroad restraining order.
Yeah, that link went to part of Cornell's law library. It is also the go-to web version of the US Code, because it is reliable (unlike the one from Congress, which timed out when I tried just now), and it has useful hyperlinks (last time I looked, Congress's copy did not).
A hunting license or permit is still a specific authorization, and several states do not issue them to non-immigrant aliens; Michigan and I think North Carolina tried to outlaw firearm permits for permanent residents but had that restriction thrown out by courts. That means those non-immigrant aliens do not have a Second Amendment right to possess or own firearms, which is why I said that the rights it recognizes do not extend to non-citizens generally.
After reading a lot more of the legal definitions and other parts of Chapter 8 of the US Code, I agree with Orgasmatron: Lawful permanent residents are not considered US nationals. I cannot find anywhere that calls them nations; the law generally refers to them as immigrant aliens who have been admitted for permanent residence.
Consequently, while I think it is unwise to bar permanent residents from entering the US, it is something that federal immigration law explicitly permits the president to do.
I reject your alternative facts. Non-immigrant aliens (i.e. temporary residents) need specific authorization to legally possess or carry firearms. You can read there the conditions for that authorization. States can, and some do, apply further restrictions on firearm possession by non-citizens, including permanent residents. Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington are among the states that default that to being a felony. (Why are liberal states such cesspools of repression?)
This whole thread is about the purported right to enter the United States, or the right to have other people enter the United States, or the authorization for the president to restrict entry by non-nationals. You were the one who tried to drag it off-topic by talking about the Second Amendment; I was trying to steer it back on course by returning to the immigration topic.
That's a speculative effect that doesn't count as a harm. Does Washington State have a cause of action against people buying food when they are visiting Oregon or Idaho but could instead be buying food across a state border in Washington?
The Second Amendment does not extend to non-citizens generally. None of the privileges of permanent residency do. The judge's order was vastly overbroad, in that only one of the sections it enjoined enforcement of could be even arguably read to apply to lawful permanent residents. People who are not US nationals have no right (human, constitutional, or otherwise) to enter the United States -- they may be granted that privilege, and federal immigration law authorizes the president to revoke that privilege as he sees appropriate. It was clear error for the judge to enjoin enforcement of the order beyond how it was applied to lawful permanent residents or other US nationals.
I do not think that helps the judge's order at all. The AG's motion says that the administration has changed its positions and has applied the executive order (EO) to cover lawful permanent residents, which I can believe. However, the judge enjoined all enforcement of Section 3(c) of the EO, as well as other sections that can have nothing to do with green card holders. According to Wikipedia and some lawyer named Mark Bradshaw, an injunction is only supposed to be issued if there is either "no other available remedy" (Wikipedia) or "the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear" (Bradshaw). I think the TRO as issued is a clear abuse of discretion.
Between the facts that the executive order on immigration is facially legal, that the movants (Microsoft et al.) cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the injunction is broader than necessary, can we agree that the court's order is deeply flawed?
I have seen a lot of claims that the order covered legal permanent residents, and assumed there was some factual basis for that (rather than Fake News, alternative facts, etc.).
Here is what looks like the relevant part of the executive order:
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
If it only says it covers aliens, how does it cover permanent residents?
Slashdot Mirror
They never learned one of the most basic data structures. So what? All that tells us is that "Java schools" are (predictably) bad at teaching people about computer programming.
Maybe you should try programming something more complicated than a web interface. Textbook k-nearest-neighbor search has come up quite a few times in my career, along with related topics like maximum-likelihood decoding of FEC codes. Shortest-path search has not, but similar optimization problems and other graph algorithms have. These are classic examples because they are easy to describe, fairly simple to solve, and show up in a lot of different application domains. Other data structures show up in kernels: binary trees in the buddy allocator, B-trees in several filesystems, and anything protected by RCU.
I am attacking you because you're increasingly incoherent and foolish-looking. I pointed out that some leftist moron's analogy failed as an analogy. You felt the need to jump in with a snarky remark that assumed I didn't recognize it as an analogy, and you've gone (far) downhill from there. Case in point: "got to learn to read before Reagan". You let your temper get in the way, and posted your comment without even noticing such a blatant typo.
I don't know what you think "data structures" means, but it sounds like you got a second-rate lesson on them. Once you know how data structures work, pointers are pretty obvious and easy to pick up. The converse is certainly not true. How do you find the shortest path through a graph? How do you find the k nearest neighbors of a point?
Would you tell them to withdraw the cash money for their PC computer by entering their PIN number at the ATM machine? (Just be sure to check the LCD display to ensure that the amount is correct.) Then they can hook up their new PC computer to their IP protocol router and go!
When you argue that Python is dandy because whitespace can be something other than white, you are reinforcing the other AC's point.
Same for saying that if the user's favorite editor cannot make Python happy then the user should change what he or she likes and uses.
I suggest that 1. should be data structures rather than pointers. The topics are obviously closely related, but pointers are something of an implementation detail that can wait until the student either wants to learn a pointer-based language or is more interested about the mechanics of how the computer executes code.
I am not blaming you for anything I said or did. I only consider you responsible for your own ignorance, hypocrisy, petulance, and cluelessness.
The legal standard to get a search warrant is called probable cause. In particular, the officer requesting the search warrant must demonstrate (to the judge or magistrate who signs the warrant) that facts and circumstances known to the officer give a reasonable person a basis to believe that a crime was committed there or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.
In this case, the police probably made the (no-brainer) argument that mobs of Black Bloc rioters do not spontaneously condense out of the air. They had to organize somewhere, their organizational efforts probably constituted conspiracy to break the law, and their phones and Facebook accounts almost certainly have evidence of that conspiracy.
If you want to change that legal standard, you'll have to make a more convincing argument that essentially whining and calling it overreach while demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the law actually says.
P.S. If my previous comment assumed you were more competent than you are, please let me know. You badly misuse the phrase "moving the goalposts", so maybe you really don't understand plain English.
Perhaps you should stop pissing yourself off, then. You pretended to misunderstand my very brief comment pointing out that this temporary ban is fundamentally different from firing a cannon into a crowd, and now you are throwing an increasingly whiny and hypocritical fit because you can't defend the analogy or yourself on the merits.
Do you want more Trump? The way you're behaving is the way you get more Trump. Making and defending ridiculous analogies only helps his side, as does your poutrage when someone points out that the original argument was so awful it was counterproductive.
And, again, I didn't move the goalposts. You did. Stop blaming others for your own immaturity and lack of focus.
If you don't want to be accused of derangement, don't say that others are acting that way, especially not about valid criticism of a moronic post that was apparently written by a disk-spinning coke fiend.
When I pointed out that the analogy was deeply flawed because the two things being compared were far more different than alike in any relevant way, that is an argument against both the content and the analogy. The guy who posted a paragraph of mostly incoherent drivel apparently thought the analogy was relevant because he opened his post with it. Your pretense to the contrary just makes you look worse.
Which woman is that? The one who actually died five days before the executive order, but her son lied about it, apparently for political reasons?
You apparently are that deranged, because you are pretending to defend an awful analogy that you can't actually bring yourself to defend, while not excusing the slightest whiff of hyperbole.
The similarity ends at the ban and canister shot both being very indiscriminate, which for the point of this discussion makes the two essentially different. Firing a cannon into a crowd at a fair will kill people for being at a very public event. The temporary immigration ban will not kill people, and the affected people have no legal right to enter the United States, unlike the general right of the public to attend a fair.
Please explain how barring an alien's entry to a country is at all analogous to firing a cannon into a crowd.
I said they were "really nothing [a]like" because it is a terrible analogy. It does more harm than help to whatever point Freischutz was trying to make.
The judge's order does not mention due process for immigration anywhere in the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW section. It only addresses due process at all when it discusses what is necessary for entry of a TRO. At any rate, due process arguments are disposed of by the plain language of 8 USC section 1182(f). The "by proclamation" bit there means he does not need an extensive study or comment period before limiting some or all entry by aliens to the United States.
The TRO is conclusory because it cites no arguments or evidence, appears to grossly misstate the role and extent of the parens patriae principle (which has only extended in US law to protecting citizens of the state, not mere residents), and accepts speculative harms to intangible and immeasurable things like "the operations and missions of their public universities" as irreparable. There is no way that such weak speculative harms can satisfy the public-interest and balance-of-harms tests that the judge cited, especially to carry such an overbroad restraining order.
Yeah, that link went to part of Cornell's law library. It is also the go-to web version of the US Code, because it is reliable (unlike the one from Congress, which timed out when I tried just now), and it has useful hyperlinks (last time I looked, Congress's copy did not).
A hunting license or permit is still a specific authorization, and several states do not issue them to non-immigrant aliens; Michigan and I think North Carolina tried to outlaw firearm permits for permanent residents but had that restriction thrown out by courts. That means those non-immigrant aliens do not have a Second Amendment right to possess or own firearms, which is why I said that the rights it recognizes do not extend to non-citizens generally.
After reading a lot more of the legal definitions and other parts of Chapter 8 of the US Code, I agree with Orgasmatron: Lawful permanent residents are not considered US nationals. I cannot find anywhere that calls them nations; the law generally refers to them as immigrant aliens who have been admitted for permanent residence.
Consequently, while I think it is unwise to bar permanent residents from entering the US, it is something that federal immigration law explicitly permits the president to do.
I reject your alternative facts. Non-immigrant aliens (i.e. temporary residents) need specific authorization to legally possess or carry firearms. You can read there the conditions for that authorization. States can, and some do, apply further restrictions on firearm possession by non-citizens, including permanent residents. Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington are among the states that default that to being a felony. (Why are liberal states such cesspools of repression?)
This whole thread is about the purported right to enter the United States, or the right to have other people enter the United States, or the authorization for the president to restrict entry by non-nationals. You were the one who tried to drag it off-topic by talking about the Second Amendment; I was trying to steer it back on course by returning to the immigration topic.
Declining to allow someone to enter the United States is really nothing like firing a cannon into a crowd.
Just for the record.
That's a speculative effect that doesn't count as a harm. Does Washington State have a cause of action against people buying food when they are visiting Oregon or Idaho but could instead be buying food across a state border in Washington?
The Second Amendment does not extend to non-citizens generally. None of the privileges of permanent residency do. The judge's order was vastly overbroad, in that only one of the sections it enjoined enforcement of could be even arguably read to apply to lawful permanent residents. People who are not US nationals have no right (human, constitutional, or otherwise) to enter the United States -- they may be granted that privilege, and federal immigration law authorizes the president to revoke that privilege as he sees appropriate. It was clear error for the judge to enjoin enforcement of the order beyond how it was applied to lawful permanent residents or other US nationals.
I do not think that helps the judge's order at all. The AG's motion says that the administration has changed its positions and has applied the executive order (EO) to cover lawful permanent residents, which I can believe. However, the judge enjoined all enforcement of Section 3(c) of the EO, as well as other sections that can have nothing to do with green card holders. According to Wikipedia and some lawyer named Mark Bradshaw, an injunction is only supposed to be issued if there is either "no other available remedy" (Wikipedia) or "the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear" (Bradshaw). I think the TRO as issued is a clear abuse of discretion.
Any TRO must "describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required." Thus, when a court issues one, it specifically is not an all-or-nothing decision.
Between the facts that the executive order on immigration is facially legal, that the movants (Microsoft et al.) cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the injunction is broader than necessary, can we agree that the court's order is deeply flawed?
I have seen a lot of claims that the order covered legal permanent residents, and assumed there was some factual basis for that (rather than Fake News, alternative facts, etc.).
Here is what looks like the relevant part of the executive order:
If it only says it covers aliens, how does it cover permanent residents?