The only real good argument for starting indexes at zero is that it's more efficient in some cases.
Or more specifically, it's more efficient in a low-level language with compile-time-fixed-length arrays. If your array isn't a fixed block of memory referenced by index+offset, there's no technical reason to have a zero-index. All you're left with is "we've always done it that way". (Which is a fair point considering the number of errors that would arise if people got confused switching from one to the other.)
For anyone and everyone. There can't have been a single army in history that wasn't involved in looting, indiscriminate killing, torture or rape. And no-one seems to complain that Call of Duty doesn't have an Abu Ghraib level....
But Marx's preconditions for the revolution were never actually met in any of the revolutions under the banner of socialism or communism (neither of which terms were Marx's anyway....)
I bet you're still waiting for a computer game where you get to sit in a helicopter and mow down unarmed Vietnamese rice farmers. Oh wait, would that be a double standard I hear?
Hopefully they'll truthfully portray the "freedom fighters" as also being cold blooded murderers who tortured, raped and killed innocent people as well.
That stinking murderer castro is one of them.
What, you mean just like the enthralling Abu Ghraib stage in Call of Duty 4?
Or the level in Ghost Recon 6 where you sneak in and kidnap an unarmed family in the middle of the night, then escort them on a plane to be tortured by a Middle Eastern dictator
Or perhaps the stage at the end of Medal of Honor where you play a British soldier charged with rounding up the Cossacks an Leinz to put them on trucks to the Soviet gulags. In particular, perhaps you are referring to the part where one of your fellow soldiers comments that the Russians haven't sent enough trucks, and that chorus of rifle fire you here as you are marching out to the final waypoint....
That's a bit much. If we want to compare Jesus with any 20th century figure, you want to look at Gandhi. If we believe any of the speeches attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were true (whether we believe the miracles or not) then they are the writings of a genuinely humble* pacifist. This would also explain why Jesus never hitched up with the various revolutionary groups -- his philosophy left no space for militancy.
* Yes, I know that it seems weird to call someone who reportedly claimed to be the son of God "humble", but either he was the son of God, or he was mentally ill (and was a humble man who just happened to genuinely believe himself to be the son of God), or he didn't actually ever say that, and it was just made up after him by someone else. (All this still assumes that the New Testament is essentially based on one genuine historical figure.)
When the Soviet Union collapsed they stopped buying Cuban sugar at subsidized prices. It was that massive economic crash that led to thousands of Cubans leaving crippling poverty. Their form of government doesn't work, they know that, that's why they are privatizing and moving to an open economy.
But do we know why it doesn't work? Remember that the USSR justified* their support as compensation for loss of trade due to the US embargo, and that with the fall of the Soviet Union, they went back to being artificially blocked from open trade. It is not possible to say beyond reasonable doubt that their form of government failed simply because of external intervention.
* Note, I say "justified" -- I'm not saying it wasn't in reality a means to buy military presence in the area.
Ah, I suppose that would be the emergency-room-based healthcare plan, brilliant.
What's your problem? It's the most efficient, effective and humane method of healthcare known to man! Leave it all till it gets chronic and then the tumor is so big that it's really easy to find, you see?
... and replaced it with another dictatorial, post-colonial government.
Sorry, nope. A "post-colonial government" in this context refers to the sort of government where the colonial upper classes break free of the control of the colonial power in order to retain power within their group. As a more recent example of the transition from postcolonialism, consider Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe got in on the ticket of dismantling the post-colonial land ownership structure, where pretty much every acre of the country was owned by a minority of rich white people. His regime has been a total nightmare and has done even more damage to the country than the previous post-colonial setup, but that doesn't make him "post-colonial".
My preferred adjective here would be "Stalinist", because it's not even communist -- just like Russia and China, it has ignored the notion of community control in favour of centralism. I'm also avoiding "soviet", because a soviet was a council, and centralist Stalinism restricted the soviets to a state of mere tokenism.
You probably never grew up hearing about how great things were before Castro. You didn't grow up hearing about the stories and romanticism of pre-Castro Cuba.
What if we rebranded that as "pre-embargo Cuba"...? Can you be sure that the hardships faced in modern Cuba are the result of the leadership and not the outside world?
And you're of Cuban descent -- big deal. Your family were presumably in the privileged class for whom things were undoubtedly better. You're not going to listen to anyone not of Cuban descent? Fine. But remember, just being "Cuban" doesn't mean you understand everything and everyone in Cuba. I'm sure things are bad, but you can hardly expect anyone to take you seriously if you talk about the "romanticism" of Cuba when most people didn't even have access to plumbed water.
The status of PoW is very murky in civil wars. Do you want criminals to be protected from execution simply on the grounds they were arrested during a war? The crimes these people were accused of commiting happened before the war on an ongoing basis. They were commiting repeated crimes against the citizens of Cuba, and they were tried for that.
While you may argue that the trials were merely showtrials with a politically pre-determined outcome (I don't know enough on the issue to argue this one either way), these were at the very least superficially legitimate trials.
I, like Zontar, understand the "-gate" part. It was the actual event itself that I knew nothing about. And knowing what events we're talking about... that's what the summary is for!
...and yet I cannot imagine ever calling a woman an "asshole" (or even "arsehole" as it is in my part of the world). Let's face it: in English, all strong insults are gender specific.
You are revealing that your world view includes a large group of men who make collective decisions and carry them through like an organized men's political interest group - for example influencing or planting reporters to focus on such stories and then use the stories to undermine feminism. Such a group doesn't exist. That your worldview includes such a group anyway shows a clear us-versus-those-pigs mentality that is more likely the true reason that men are disregarding your views. I just followed your lead in psychologizing about people I don't know.
Strawman. You're ignoring the concept of "emergent behaviour". Several agents acting independently of each other can act the same way, establishing a pattern of behaviour. That behaviour starts to become the engrained norm. People do it without thinking about it. For many people, it is an automatic reaction to make the same oppositions that they see all the time on the news, on the internet or from their friends, and one of the automatic responses to feminism is a strawman. While some extreme feminists do indeed harp on about patriarchal society as though it's a conspiracy, the leading thinkers acknowledge it as a mindset, and they're looking to change that mindset.
Consider also that there wasn't any great conspiracy to treat black people as lesser human beings -- our ancestors just happened to be very, very racist and actually believed that the colour of your skin dictated your value as a human being. It took conscious and concerted effort to change that mindset, and it has taken and will take more conscious and concerted effort to give women truly equal rights to men.
Including a conscious and concerted effort not to overcompensate in certain areas given rise to claims of overprivilege.
It's not diluting feminism.. it's exposing it for what it has always been: bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives.
When feminists were asking for the right to vote, was that "bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives"?
When feminists were asking for the right to medical treatment without requiring spousal consent, was that "bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives"?
When feminists were (and still are) asking for the right to wage parity, was (is) that "bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives"?
There is a hardcore of militants that are often refered to as "feminazis", but they are not the mainstream of feminism -- far from it. Feminism is about stopping us guys using our massive societal privilege to ruin women's lives. Me, I want a wife that is my equal, not some subjugated slave.
The summary should contain enough information to make me know if I'm interested. Is it more time efficient for one person to write "the sexist tweet scandal infamously dubbed donglegate" or for thousands of/. readers to have to individually follow the link to another (very brief) article summary?
Simply put: if the average reader doesn't know what the summary is talking about, the summary is no use at all.
The last graphic design software project I saw on Kickstarter didn't get funded. It was a genuinely useful, clever idea, and it's a real shame that they didn't get funding, cos I for one would have loved the software to be available. But it didn't have the whizz-bang appeal of Star Citizen or Elite. I don't think this guy would get funded either...
having fw for both on the same device wouldn't be too bad - and then a way to run android apps in chrome(the other way doesn't matter as much).
Surely the other way round is trivial -- isn't the Android browser based on the main Chrome codebase?
Personally I think Chrome OS is redundant, and that Google should have made a non-touch UI patch for Android. I would love to "converge" my desktop and mobile experience... as long as it was based on a sensible UI, and not effing Metro....
Nope. It sounds like Chrome OS. It is a component of the Linux codebase that Google included in the Chrome OS codebase of their own volition, that included an exploitable bug that they did not catch in testing.
Most manufacture these days is simply the assembly of components. Do Acer get absolved of all responsibility if a batch of hard drives fails? "Not our fault, blame Hitachi"? Exploding iPhone batteries -- "Don't blame Apple, they didn't make it"?
I think you underestimate the size of the 'fly-over' parts of the United States of America. And the number of dying small towns that could use an influx of new people.
Exactly. Remote working is often overexaggerated as being people living alone on a mountain or in a forest, but it can move us back from all living in cities to living in nice mid-sized towns, and there is already enough capacity in towns in most of the developed world.
Maybe he speaks to many live, educated, human beings.
Yes, the zeitgeist is for intelligent people to drop in a few bon mots of another language. In fact, I'd say it's a sina qua non, a very important shibboleth that distinguishes the literate from the phillistine.
And as the partially-agentive-passive (get done etc) isn't a direct analogue of a classical Latin form, it's obviously stupid.
Seriously, when we stop pegging people as stupid simply because they speak actual real-life English, we'll find that the world contains far more people of intelligence than you ever imagined.
Slashdot Mirror
The only real good argument for starting indexes at zero is that it's more efficient in some cases.
Or more specifically, it's more efficient in a low-level language with compile-time-fixed-length arrays. If your array isn't a fixed block of memory referenced by index+offset, there's no technical reason to have a zero-index. All you're left with is "we've always done it that way". (Which is a fair point considering the number of errors that would arise if people got confused switching from one to the other.)
For anyone and everyone. There can't have been a single army in history that wasn't involved in looting, indiscriminate killing, torture or rape. And no-one seems to complain that Call of Duty doesn't have an Abu Ghraib level....
But Marx's preconditions for the revolution were never actually met in any of the revolutions under the banner of socialism or communism (neither of which terms were Marx's anyway....)
I bet you're still waiting for a computer game where you get to sit in a helicopter and mow down unarmed Vietnamese rice farmers. Oh wait, would that be a double standard I hear?
Hopefully they'll truthfully portray the "freedom fighters" as also being cold blooded murderers who tortured, raped and killed innocent people as well.
That stinking murderer castro is one of them.
What, you mean just like the enthralling Abu Ghraib stage in Call of Duty 4?
Or the level in Ghost Recon 6 where you sneak in and kidnap an unarmed family in the middle of the night, then escort them on a plane to be tortured by a Middle Eastern dictator
Or perhaps the stage at the end of Medal of Honor where you play a British soldier charged with rounding up the Cossacks an Leinz to put them on trucks to the Soviet gulags. In particular, perhaps you are referring to the part where one of your fellow soldiers comments that the Russians haven't sent enough trucks, and that chorus of rifle fire you here as you are marching out to the final waypoint....
That's a bit much. If we want to compare Jesus with any 20th century figure, you want to look at Gandhi. If we believe any of the speeches attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were true (whether we believe the miracles or not) then they are the writings of a genuinely humble* pacifist. This would also explain why Jesus never hitched up with the various revolutionary groups -- his philosophy left no space for militancy.
* Yes, I know that it seems weird to call someone who reportedly claimed to be the son of God "humble", but either he was the son of God, or he was mentally ill (and was a humble man who just happened to genuinely believe himself to be the son of God), or he didn't actually ever say that, and it was just made up after him by someone else. (All this still assumes that the New Testament is essentially based on one genuine historical figure.)
When the Soviet Union collapsed they stopped buying Cuban sugar at subsidized prices. It was that massive economic crash that led to thousands of Cubans leaving crippling poverty. Their form of government doesn't work, they know that, that's why they are privatizing and moving to an open economy.
But do we know why it doesn't work? Remember that the USSR justified* their support as compensation for loss of trade due to the US embargo, and that with the fall of the Soviet Union, they went back to being artificially blocked from open trade. It is not possible to say beyond reasonable doubt that their form of government failed simply because of external intervention.
* Note, I say "justified" -- I'm not saying it wasn't in reality a means to buy military presence in the area.
Ah, I suppose that would be the emergency-room-based healthcare plan, brilliant.
What's your problem? It's the most efficient, effective and humane method of healthcare known to man! Leave it all till it gets chronic and then the tumor is so big that it's really easy to find, you see?
... and replaced it with another dictatorial, post-colonial government.
Sorry, nope. A "post-colonial government" in this context refers to the sort of government where the colonial upper classes break free of the control of the colonial power in order to retain power within their group. As a more recent example of the transition from postcolonialism, consider Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe got in on the ticket of dismantling the post-colonial land ownership structure, where pretty much every acre of the country was owned by a minority of rich white people. His regime has been a total nightmare and has done even more damage to the country than the previous post-colonial setup, but that doesn't make him "post-colonial".
My preferred adjective here would be "Stalinist", because it's not even communist -- just like Russia and China, it has ignored the notion of community control in favour of centralism. I'm also avoiding "soviet", because a soviet was a council, and centralist Stalinism restricted the soviets to a state of mere tokenism.
You probably never grew up hearing about how great things were before Castro. You didn't grow up hearing about the stories and romanticism of pre-Castro Cuba.
What if we rebranded that as "pre-embargo Cuba"...? Can you be sure that the hardships faced in modern Cuba are the result of the leadership and not the outside world?
And you're of Cuban descent -- big deal. Your family were presumably in the privileged class for whom things were undoubtedly better. You're not going to listen to anyone not of Cuban descent? Fine. But remember, just being "Cuban" doesn't mean you understand everything and everyone in Cuba. I'm sure things are bad, but you can hardly expect anyone to take you seriously if you talk about the "romanticism" of Cuba when most people didn't even have access to plumbed water.
The status of PoW is very murky in civil wars. Do you want criminals to be protected from execution simply on the grounds they were arrested during a war? The crimes these people were accused of commiting happened before the war on an ongoing basis. They were commiting repeated crimes against the citizens of Cuba, and they were tried for that.
While you may argue that the trials were merely showtrials with a politically pre-determined outcome (I don't know enough on the issue to argue this one either way), these were at the very least superficially legitimate trials.
I, like Zontar, understand the "-gate" part. It was the actual event itself that I knew nothing about. And knowing what events we're talking about... that's what the summary is for!
"Retard" may not be sexist, but it certainly is offensive to those with learning disabilities.
...and yet I cannot imagine ever calling a woman an "asshole" (or even "arsehole" as it is in my part of the world). Let's face it: in English, all strong insults are gender specific.
"white meat"
Well, don't they say that human flesh tastes like chicken...?
You are revealing that your world view includes a large group of men who make collective decisions and carry them through like an organized men's political interest group - for example influencing or planting reporters to focus on such stories and then use the stories to undermine feminism. Such a group doesn't exist. That your worldview includes such a group anyway shows a clear us-versus-those-pigs mentality that is more likely the true reason that men are disregarding your views. I just followed your lead in psychologizing about people I don't know.
Strawman. You're ignoring the concept of "emergent behaviour". Several agents acting independently of each other can act the same way, establishing a pattern of behaviour. That behaviour starts to become the engrained norm. People do it without thinking about it. For many people, it is an automatic reaction to make the same oppositions that they see all the time on the news, on the internet or from their friends, and one of the automatic responses to feminism is a strawman. While some extreme feminists do indeed harp on about patriarchal society as though it's a conspiracy, the leading thinkers acknowledge it as a mindset, and they're looking to change that mindset.
Consider also that there wasn't any great conspiracy to treat black people as lesser human beings -- our ancestors just happened to be very, very racist and actually believed that the colour of your skin dictated your value as a human being. It took conscious and concerted effort to change that mindset, and it has taken and will take more conscious and concerted effort to give women truly equal rights to men.
Including a conscious and concerted effort not to overcompensate in certain areas given rise to claims of overprivilege.
It's not diluting feminism.. it's exposing it for what it has always been: bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives.
When feminists were asking for the right to vote, was that "bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives"?
When feminists were asking for the right to medical treatment without requiring spousal consent, was that "bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives"?
When feminists were (and still are) asking for the right to wage parity, was (is) that "bullshit, victimology and letting women use their massive societal privilege to ruin innocent men's lives"?
There is a hardcore of militants that are often refered to as "feminazis", but they are not the mainstream of feminism -- far from it. Feminism is about stopping us guys using our massive societal privilege to ruin women's lives. Me, I want a wife that is my equal, not some subjugated slave.
The summary should contain enough information to make me know if I'm interested. Is it more time efficient for one person to write "the sexist tweet scandal infamously dubbed donglegate" or for thousands of /. readers to have to individually follow the link to another (very brief) article summary?
Simply put: if the average reader doesn't know what the summary is talking about, the summary is no use at all.
The last graphic design software project I saw on Kickstarter didn't get funded. It was a genuinely useful, clever idea, and it's a real shame that they didn't get funding, cos I for one would have loved the software to be available. But it didn't have the whizz-bang appeal of Star Citizen or Elite. I don't think this guy would get funded either...
having fw for both on the same device wouldn't be too bad - and then a way to run android apps in chrome(the other way doesn't matter as much).
Surely the other way round is trivial -- isn't the Android browser based on the main Chrome codebase?
Personally I think Chrome OS is redundant, and that Google should have made a non-touch UI patch for Android. I would love to "converge" my desktop and mobile experience... as long as it was based on a sensible UI, and not effing Metro....
Well, sort of. I expect them to do their due diligence.
And at the software level, due diligence means "testing".
True, but all I'm saying is either the ChromeOS team screwed up something in the kernel, or the kernel was already exploitable.
The kernel was already exploitable. But the ChromeOS team failed to catch it in testing.
So, it sounds like Linux.
Nope. It sounds like Chrome OS. It is a component of the Linux codebase that Google included in the Chrome OS codebase of their own volition, that included an exploitable bug that they did not catch in testing.
Most manufacture these days is simply the assembly of components. Do Acer get absolved of all responsibility if a batch of hard drives fails? "Not our fault, blame Hitachi"? Exploding iPhone batteries -- "Don't blame Apple, they didn't make it"?
I think you underestimate the size of the 'fly-over' parts of the United States of America. And the number of dying small towns that could use an influx of new people.
Exactly. Remote working is often overexaggerated as being people living alone on a mountain or in a forest, but it can move us back from all living in cities to living in nice mid-sized towns, and there is already enough capacity in towns in most of the developed world.
Or in the event where I can pay off the local police... That might work too.
But didn't you try that before, John?
Maybe he speaks to many live, educated, human beings.
Yes, the zeitgeist is for intelligent people to drop in a few bon mots of another language. In fact, I'd say it's a sina qua non, a very important shibboleth that distinguishes the literate from the phillistine.
And as the partially-agentive-passive (get done etc) isn't a direct analogue of a classical Latin form, it's obviously stupid.
Seriously, when we stop pegging people as stupid simply because they speak actual real-life English, we'll find that the world contains far more people of intelligence than you ever imagined.