Yep. If multiple people can independently develop the same solution to the problem, then that would be a fairly strong argument that the solution is fairly obvious.
Everybody's got their anecdotal evidence. All of the Mac users I happen to know prefer browsers other than Safari. Looking down at my Dock.. I've already removed the Safari icon. And with Chrome coming to iOS, I'm going to look at it there too.
I can easily have a problem with that. The article doesn't say how much the cell phone affects the results. If it results in a 0.0001 swing (just picking a number out of thin air) in the reported BAC, then only those people who where 0.0001 + the existing margin of error away from the legal limit should be able to contest their judgement. But the people who were further away from effectively the new margin of error have no basis to contest the results.
in that universe at last, it was impossible to build a robot free from the 3 laws
Actually, it wasn't impossible, just that U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men didn't build them (generally). And only USR could build the positronic brains. Recall that in "Little Lost Robot", they'd built a robot with the first law modified to "No robot may cause harm to a human", dropping the "or through it's inaction..." clause.
Uh, why C02 when is was standardized in 2011? The headline is simply wrong. C11 isn't "On the way". It's already here, and has been here for > 5 months. You _might_ have an argument for C0B. (Long-running joke. C++0x was the next C++ standard, and there was a joke that they hoped that the x wasn't going to be a hex digit....)
I'm with most of the people here. Over sensationalized, and targeted at the wrong company. Why pester Apple about it when they are doing what they probably should and limit their legal liability. Why not complain to PRC and SCS to have them issue a statement that they will indemnify and hold harmless Apple with respect to this app. Then Apple wouldn't have a reason to pull the app, and the companies can still go after the alleged patent infringers. And the user can then get their updates (should the original developer choose to do any).
Except that tomorrow that little hobby application is suddenly used in an engineering project and a bridge falls down. Then they get upset at the developers because the answer was wrong.
Buffering is a way of speeding servers up immensely. Memory is orders of magnitude faster than disk, and piling RAM on and creating huge caches can only help performance.
Other way around. As described, you have the option to have it turned on for you. They are taking the default position of blocking certain segments of the 'net. I'm of the opinion that it should be the other way around. You ask to have certain sections turned off. Or even better, adjust your own firewall to do the same. No need for the ISP to get involved at all.
Except you're missing some parts. Tom builds and sells lorries. Tom likes lorries. Tom is telling everyone that his lorries are the best lorries. Tom expects everybody else to use his lorries. It costs Tom nothing to use his own lorrie. Tom does go grocery shopping in a lorrie. Why isn't Tom using one of his own lorries to do his shopping?
That's an assumption that the police didn't have reasonable grounds. All the OP talked about was that it happens that "a person is charged with one and only one crime, to wit: resisting arrest". Nothing about what preceeded that.
Here's a theory: one can be arrested for a fair number of reasons (such as they have reasonable grounds for suspecting one has committed certain offences). Resisting that arrest is also illegal. So once the person has been arrested, and further investigation has occurred, it may have been determined that the person did not in fact commit the offence (or insufficient evidence, whatever). As a result, there is no charge regarding the original reason why the person was arrested. However, resisting the legal arrest is itself illegal, and there may have been sufficient evidence to show that the "resist arrest" occurred so charges were laid for _that_ offence (and apparently subsequently found guilty).
Java doesn't get compiled down to machine code. It gets compiled into an intermediate bytecode which then needs to get interpreted by a Java VM. Yes, that Java VM may do some cool stuff like JIT compiling and such.
So if your Java VM is written in Java... that Java VM must itself be run within another Java VM. What's the second Java VM written in?
Get reasonably recent compilers. GCC 4.3 already had some of the C++11 stuff implemented, as did Visual Studio 2010. Move up to GCC 4.7 and Visual Studio 11, and you get more complete C++11 implementations (as well as Clang).
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. If multiple people can independently develop the same solution to the problem, then that would be a fairly strong argument that the solution is fairly obvious.
Everybody's got their anecdotal evidence. All of the Mac users I happen to know prefer browsers other than Safari. Looking down at my Dock.. I've already removed the Safari icon. And with Chrome coming to iOS, I'm going to look at it there too.
Why is this surprising? Thought that's how the military one was captured a little while ago...
I can easily have a problem with that. The article doesn't say how much the cell phone affects the results. If it results in a 0.0001 swing (just picking a number out of thin air) in the reported BAC, then only those people who where 0.0001 + the existing margin of error away from the legal limit should be able to contest their judgement. But the people who were further away from effectively the new margin of error have no basis to contest the results.
Yep. "Liar". The robot had gained telepathy and thus had to lie in order to prevent hurt feelings.
in that universe at last, it was impossible to build a robot free from the 3 laws
Actually, it wasn't impossible, just that U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men didn't build them (generally). And only USR could build the positronic brains. Recall that in "Little Lost Robot", they'd built a robot with the first law modified to "No robot may cause harm to a human", dropping the "or through it's inaction..." clause.
Uh, why C02 when is was standardized in 2011? The headline is simply wrong. C11 isn't "On the way". It's already here, and has been here for > 5 months. You _might_ have an argument for C0B. (Long-running joke. C++0x was the next C++ standard, and there was a joke that they hoped that the x wasn't going to be a hex digit....)
How about the Lensman series?
You've never heard of name-based virtual hosting for websites? There could be many, many domain names all behind the single IP....
I'm with most of the people here. Over sensationalized, and targeted at the wrong company. Why pester Apple about it when they are doing what they probably should and limit their legal liability. Why not complain to PRC and SCS to have them issue a statement that they will indemnify and hold harmless Apple with respect to this app. Then Apple wouldn't have a reason to pull the app, and the companies can still go after the alleged patent infringers. And the user can then get their updates (should the original developer choose to do any).
Um, you might want to do a little searching about Neal first. Neal does work with properly steel longwords, not rattan and foam stuff.
Except that tomorrow that little hobby application is suddenly used in an engineering project and a bridge falls down. Then they get upset at the developers because the answer was wrong.
Or Thunderbolt. Apple even has a TB monitor with an embedded ethernet port, as well as a power supply for the laptop.
Buffering is a way of speeding servers up immensely. Memory is orders of magnitude faster than disk, and piling RAM on and creating huge caches can only help performance.
You're thinking of caching, not buffering.
Other way around. As described, you have the option to have it turned on for you. They are taking the default position of blocking certain segments of the 'net. I'm of the opinion that it should be the other way around. You ask to have certain sections turned off. Or even better, adjust your own firewall to do the same. No need for the ISP to get involved at all.
Except you're missing some parts. Tom builds and sells lorries. Tom likes lorries. Tom is telling everyone that his lorries are the best lorries. Tom expects everybody else to use his lorries. It costs Tom nothing to use his own lorrie. Tom does go grocery shopping in a lorrie. Why isn't Tom using one of his own lorries to do his shopping?
You're thinking Trademark.
That's an assumption that the police didn't have reasonable grounds. All the OP talked about was that it happens that "a person is charged with one and only one crime, to wit: resisting arrest". Nothing about what preceeded that.
Can't say whether the apology is necessary or not as no details about the resisting arrest were not given.
Here's a theory: one can be arrested for a fair number of reasons (such as they have reasonable grounds for suspecting one has committed certain offences). Resisting that arrest is also illegal. So once the person has been arrested, and further investigation has occurred, it may have been determined that the person did not in fact commit the offence (or insufficient evidence, whatever). As a result, there is no charge regarding the original reason why the person was arrested. However, resisting the legal arrest is itself illegal, and there may have been sufficient evidence to show that the "resist arrest" occurred so charges were laid for _that_ offence (and apparently subsequently found guilty).
Is it just me, or does the logo look suspiciously close to Abstergo Industries' logo?
Java doesn't get compiled down to machine code. It gets compiled into an intermediate bytecode which then needs to get interpreted by a Java VM. Yes, that Java VM may do some cool stuff like JIT compiling and such. So if your Java VM is written in Java... that Java VM must itself be run within another Java VM. What's the second Java VM written in?
Huh.. I thought we were bad with VS2k5 ....
What are you going to write the Java VM in?
Get reasonably recent compilers. GCC 4.3 already had some of the C++11 stuff implemented, as did Visual Studio 2010. Move up to GCC 4.7 and Visual Studio 11, and you get more complete C++11 implementations (as well as Clang).