I've wiped my tail end with material which is far more accurate and less deserving than the provided link. As another poster replied, its basically a bunch shit for ignorant people to troll and sprew. Made worse, people who don't know any better may belive the truthful elements of his FAQ are the proper way to do things when in fact, he consistently picks the dumbest, worst possible way to do anything in C++, combined with half truths and boldface lies, and then deduces that C++ is a terrible language.
The only thing that FAQ proves is the author is an absolute fucking idiot.
I would like to thank you for writing answers to issues which simply do not exist. I'm sure some may have been willing to buy into his bullshit. It would appear he's been reading the horribly inaccurate and terribly misleading C++ FQA, which is full of bullshit and hand waving. Not to mention, it actively instructs coders to do things the worst possible way; and then espouses that's why C++ is broken. Which, of course, completely ignore the fact that no language can protect one from idiots.
I see in his follow up his response is, "oh...well... you didn't buy into my bullshit, so I'll have to do some more hand waving to see if I can yet confusing you into believing my bullshit."
I will repeat the assertion that the only thing STL brings to the table is generic containers.
Wrong. It brings generic containers and algorithms. But saying it like that somehow diminishes what it brings to the party. Its a lot like saying, "Pah - using doctors can ONLY save your life. Its no big deal."
As for reduced line count, the GP post is absolutely correct - assuming you're not counting the generated code associated with STL's template instantiation. Which frankly, is generally not considered for line counts. So if you have many different data types which must otherwise be tracked, in C, you have many different implementations of hand crafted code to handle all these different types - generally all doing the same thing. Or, you've generalized it (void * plus a magic/type in a structure) and thrown away the limited type safety provided by C. Or, you can replace all that, while adding additional type safety with fewer lines of code. Additionally, the STL implementation is far more likely to be much, much faster, not to mention bug free; especially for more complex containers and algorithms.
I'm going to come up short on providing additional reading. What got me looking at this was a documentary on the History Channel. Immediately afterwards I was able to Google and find additional material to read. Interestingly enough, the same documentary also speaks of the Qu'ran and other articles which were clearly in flux at the time. And according places it 150-200 years well after Mohammad's death. Which is further proof the Qu'ran is not as it has always been. Which is one of the staples of the religion.
IIRC, the professor in question teaches at one of the ivory universities. It would be fair to say his work is far from definitive; regardless, he has a very compelling history to share. This combines with the fact that the Qu'ran suddenly becomes not only readable but sensible after his translations, especially within cultural context, IMOHO, is very compelling.
For example, as for the grapes vs virgins, back then grapes had not only cultural significance but also religious significance. Grapes also provided for wine. As such, in the after life, you would be refreshed and replenished with grapes - not virgins. Accordingly, women were of little value back then. So which makes more sense? Eternal refreshment and health or a bunch of little valued women where materialism no longer makes sense? Having many wives was a point of material wealth, not of spirituality.
Why not say the same thing about Christians, who are working from a book known to have been edited for selfish political reasons on numerous occasions?
Hate to burst your bubble but all three religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are all founded on the same testaments and gospels. All three are considered religions of Abraham. What we call the Bible is a collection of articles which elders felt best represented the religion. Interestingly enough, some of the books which were excluded were central to the original author's belief systems. Such references still exist in the Bible today - but many people don't know what they mean because they were not actually included in the Bible. I'm sure the paradoxical view of the church elders will not be lost on you.
Without a doubt, there are many verifiable translation errors in Christianity. We know this because we still have a lot of original reference cannon material on which the modern Bible is based. For example, in the story of Noah's Ark the flood was regional and not global. Had it been global, a completely different word would have been used in the original text. Just the same, the core story is still accurately portrayed - more or less. So in one hand we have a book which is a fairly accurate representation of the original works; with errors. The bulk of the Bible and Torah is fairly accurate. The heart of its teachings is more or less there. In the other corner we have what is basically a completely wrong translation; which readily explains why much of it simply doesn't even make sense; within or without context.
In short, the Qu'ran is it self the definition of irony, as it both denounces and re-enforces the books on which it is based. And it denounces them because it says these books have been corrupted by man despite the fact the Qu'ran has been corrupted at a level unparalleled in any other religion known to man. Irony of irony.
Also, the Qu'ran's translation woes stem from adding/removing accent marks which can dramatically change meaning to words and phrases. Most of the translation errors in the Bible stem from the fact that simple cultural misunderstandings existed; or cultural context was simply ignored. The differences in the degrees of errors here are truly profound.
So long story short, I don't believe they are at all comparable in their degree of error.
Additional features does not make a language high level.
That's a silly statement at face value. I hope you'll look beyond the simplicity of that statement at face value. Which is to say, this is why C++ is a higher level language than C++ yet is still a relative low level language fairly compatible with C.
I have to strongly disagree with you there. C and C++ have NOTHING in common apart from the basic syntax.
Considering the languages were purposely designed to be largely compatible squarely means C++ is designed to be a fairly low level language. Its just that on the other end of the spectrum C++ brings to the table additional features which save a lot typing. Regardless, the new mechanisms are still fairly low leveled - yet more feature rich than C.
There's no equivalent to RIAA in C, there's also no equivalent to stack unwinding or many of the other C++ constructs which are central to good C++ programming.
Additional features does not make a language high level.
I'm currently working on a 200,000 line program which has exactly 9 'delete' statements in it and they're all in definitions of containers and magic pointers. I haven't seen a memory leak for years. Garbage collection? Who needs it?
In what way does that mean its a high level language? I do agree these are aspects commonly associated with high level languages but it doesn't change the fact that the magic is still taking place; albeit beneath the covers. You can do the same thing in C too. Does that suddenly mean C is a high level language too? Of course not.
If any thing, you post reiterates the virtues of C++ and modern coding styles but it does not elevate C++ to that of a high level language. Though I would say C++ is a higher level language than C++ - just not by much.
You need to remember the first C++ compilers were actually C front ends. Furthermore, many people have implemented C++ features in C - albeit without the syntactic sugar provided by C++. Though ultimately, I suppose it has more to do with how you define, "high level". After some quick checking, it appears some considering anything above machine language to be "high level".
Anybody who thinks "C++ is C with a few extra things" is very, very wrong.
And that's why I blame the schools. Its exceedingly rare to find a graduate who was not taught C++ is C with new style comments. They then gloss over objects. Fresh grads never seem to know some of the most important C++ fundamentals or aware there are many good books which explain how to avoid the majority of pitfalls.
If you find you are shooting yourself in the foot with C++, you have no one to blame but yourself. This is called ignorance of the language. Meyers' books really are not that big. Meyers' books are fairly easy reading, and they explain how to navigate or completely avoid the common minefields.
Time and time again I find those who complain about C++ are simply ignorant. And those who have consistently shot themselves in the foot are both lazy and ignorant. And if their schooling included C++ but did not include at least the fundamentals preached by Meyers, then you did not get your money's worth. Regardless, stop blaming the language.
This is not to say C++ is perfect. Its not. And contrary to popular belief I do not consider C++ to be much higher level language than C. Its basically C with a lot more features and capability, not to mention a larger standard library. And I believe this is also part of the problem. People believe C++ to be a high level language which should keep them clear of all the land mines. The problem is, C++ provides some high level features but is only slightly higher level than C. As such, the scale of potential mines is much larger.
Lastly, stop trying to use every feature C++ has to provide. Many of the more advanced C++ features are both powerful and easy to abuse and misuse. Concentrate of the basic language features (classes and templates), learn STL, read a couple of books, and its almost impossible to shoot yourself. Save the more advanced features for a latter date, when you are confident you have mastered the basics.
And what happens when the batteries are charged after a few hours and the vehicle remains parked. No bones about it, up north you must have some type of battery heater over and above that provided by the act of charging.
As someone above pointed out, a battery powered battery heater is obviously an option but even that by itself falls dramatically short in endless scenarios.
Completely untrue. The history of "marriage" clearly shows it existed long before religion become entangled. The simple truth is, the ring which women fawn all over is actually buying them like a horse. That's the standard. That's why engagement rings are typically of value. If you deflower your horse - I mean women - either before or after marriage, then the ring is hers to keep as compensation for his loss of market value. Nothing says love like, "with this ring, I own you bitch!" And that's why the actual marriage band is typically of value, so in case you prematurely die, she has some means to care for your heirs.
In other cultures, a wife is worth several horses or other livestock. And legally speaking, they often had less worth and legal standing than horses or livestock. Likewise, the higher the social standing of the women, generally the more a women is valued. Which is to say, a women's worth was equaled only to the social ladder, to which she extended to the husband. That is, of course, after you've paid a dowry to compensate for all those years of rearing a worthless women.
In more modern times, in order to strengthen the family unit's cohesion, religion became entangled. Despite all the things religion has completely screwed up, this is one of those things they got right. A strong family unit enhances a village/city and culture's stability; making for a healthy society. A healthy, stable society makes for rich church coffers and filled seats. Well, okay, they got it mostly right. So contrary to the church's historically greedy angle on marriage, it did bring tangible societal benefits. This of course ignores the fact, only those in good standing with the church were entitled to marry; to which I refer you back to the filled church seats and tithing.
Realistically, these days, marriage is very much entangled with religion. Historically it specifically means a man and a women. A marriage encourages children and a stable home life. And to a largely agricultural/hunter society, this is very important. It is because of this potential contribution I don't have a problem with society contributing something back; discounted insurance, inheritance, so on and so on.
Historically, even during Greek and Roman times, homosexuality was not only permitted but widely accepted. Just the same, same sex marriages were simply not permitted because it provided not societal benefit. Simply put, not matter how much you put two penises or two vaginas together you're simply not going to have children. Period.
Is it because there is no historical basis, no religious basis, and no societal benefit, why I don't endorse same sex "marriage." Just the same, I don't see a reason why they can't have some other legal procedure/classification (example, "a joining") which provides many of the same benefits; such as health insurance (no insurance discounts), and emergency legal rights with their partner. So no, I don't see this as being on equal footing with marriage but I don't see a reason to keep them completely out in the cold either.
So next time you go pining away for old marriage principles, please keep in mind you just equated your wife to being a near useless piece of property whos only worth is a hole in the mattress, a cook, a maid, and a guardian for your heirs and bloodline; and at the end of the day, is still worth less than a horse or other livestock. The good news is, if she was not a virgin when you married her, a simple gold band is paying too much. Make sure you remind her of this fact when you present her ring.
Please keep in mind in most of my comments I've approached this from a historical perspective. Most of the above comments do not express my own views.
The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim.
The real answer for such contradictions is because Islam is learning an incorrect translation of the Qu'ran. That's also why various bits don't make any sense at all and why other parts contradict each other.
In the valid translation, Islamic martyrs are to be provided 72 grapes - not virgins. The basic tenets of faith appear to be correct but there are huge and never ending errors which permeates all facets of what most of the world calls the Qu'ran. And oddly enough, it explains why every forth or firth (sorry I forget) stanza makes not sense - usually even after one attempts to stop comprehension within the current context. Shock of shocks, with a valid translation, suddenly everything reads smoothly and, gasp, even becomes comprehensible.
When the entire basis of your religion is corrupted and incomprehensible, additional corruption to manipulate the masses goes had in had. That why so many religions have had a "priest cast" such that the ignorant masses wouldn't actually know what it is they are supposed to do. In doing so, they are able to obtain ultimate control. In this case, everyone has a copy of the instructions but the instructions are so fucked up, the "cleric cast" can supply their own meanings so as to completely control every aspect of their ignorant masses.
You might even have to feel sorry for Muslims. This might just be the ultimate fuck up of mankind to date. Literally. That of course assumes the mistranslation was in fact an accident.
And of course, the last shock, the professor performing the proper translation has of course received numerous death threats and has already been denounced by most Islamic states; despite the fact he has both the proper credentials and the research which validates which translations. And yes, several others have also stepped forward and independently validated small portions of the provided work.
The big battery packs on the Tesla need active cooling so they might be okay in the north.
Until you need to start moving again.
Most vehicles up north have block heaters which require them to be plugged in when the engine isn't running. It would not be too surprising to find a battery heater is also required.
are just a complex diversion if the goal is to go into orbit.
Not really. Remember a rocket carriers both fuel and an oxidizer. A ramjet uses atmosphere to obtain its oxidizer. Optionally, hybrid designs exist such that it switches to an on board oxidizer once the air becomes too thin. As rockets use the majority of their fuel to escape low high atmospheric densities, if one can spend the majority of their time accelerating without using on board fuel/oxidizer until absolutely required, TONS of fuel can be saved. Not to mention, it opens the door for much faster turn around given the relative simplicity (moving parts wise) of a ramjet.
In short, conceivably ramjets have the possibility to make orbital insertion, including higher orbits, faster, cheaper, safer with less pollution. While they may yet prove to be a "complex diversion", thus far they absolutely have a lot of unrealized potential.
They aren't the most complex moving object ever built, they aren't even close - an SSN or SSBN surpasses them easily. Or consider a CVN. As far as advanced goes, that's more a matter of opinion as anything else, but I will say NASA rarely takes any chances. They're actually pretty conservative when it comes to engineering.
I don't recognize all of the acronyms but my gut tells me your are confusing size with complexity or even logistics. Can you provide a little more detail to support your rational?
I'll grant the inspection, but not the removal/reinstallation - too high a chance of damage.
Not according to NASA. Saw that fairly recently in an interview by the people who actually do the work. I'll take NASA's word for it. Thanks. Considering they consistently find damage which visual inspections miss, their current approach of actually removing wire makes far, far more sense. Which oddly enough, is exactly why they take wiring out.
Wrong. They stopped removing them after every flight well over a decade ago and stopped disassembling them every time they were removed not too long after.
Since it has been a long while since I've seen something on this, I'll take your word for it.
So sayeth the Official NASA PR Spin. Some people even believe it.
Care to provide an alternative. I can't think of anything else which even comes close. Just because may be PR-based (not really sure), doesn't mean its not true.
They're exaggerating. Removing and replacing every inch of wire is a job that would take over a year.
That is true. Just the same, all wiring does get visually inspected and miles of wiring is removed and reinstalled/replaced after each flight. Likewise, large chunks of the shuttle's engines are also disassembled, inspected, repaired, and reassembled. Removal of large spans of wiring was instituted after it was discovered visual inspection alone had allowed worn wiring insulation to get past many rounds of visual inspections.
The shuttles are literally considered one of the most advanced engineering feats by mankind - if not the most advanced - even to this day. IIRC, the shuttles are also considered the most complex moving machines ever designed and built.
just wait until they end up having to pay extra to all the ISPs so that the voters can get to their own campaign websites.
You obviously don't known anything about how the government works. More than likely, that premium would be paid by tax payers, at a premium. They get a free ride via mail service too. In other words, everyone losses except for ISPs/Telcom/Cable, their CEOs, and the associated lobbyists.
Besides, if it takes an extra two seconds for your congressman's web page to render, who cares. They are already using services such as YouTube and Google Video to disseminate video messages, not to mention Face Book and Twitter. They are already riding on someone else's bandwidth so at the end of the day, they're really not that likely to be negatively affected at all.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
There are two ways to do long-running series:
I believe there is a happy medium to be found. But really, regardless of which path you pick, you still need to be consistent. Abrams not only ignores basic story arcs but consistently fails at even trying to be consistent; and that assumes he actually tries.
And for the record, I watched exactly one episode of Lost. I thought it was garbage and immediately saw he was following his standard formula. I never watched again and never looked back. I told my wife at the time it would end up exactly like it did. That's how consistently he fails at story telling. That's how consistent he is at following his formula.
It would seem Abrams is in dire need to reason some Shakespeare so as to learn about character development. "Be true to thyself", should become his character development creed. As is, its like he takes a "crazy pill", writes a story, and then re-uses character names and settings.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
J.J. Abrams has a consistent formula which rarely seems to fail from a commercial perspective. From an artistic perspective, it always seems to fall flat on its face leaving everyone completely unsatisfied and confused, like a recent ex-virgin wondering about what the hell just happened.
Formula: 1. Create an excellent concept. 2. Create interesting and varied characters. Usually horridly and obviously flawed. 3. Create an ever growing mystery for the audience; to wit you're sure the character flaws can feed. 4. Continue to build a mystery such that nothing makes logical sense, characters don't feed or develop in any meaningful way. Characters follow no logic and betray their character at every turn. Hopefully the audience will believe this has to do with the ever building mystery rather than a failing of the Abrams. Realistically, it has more to do with the fact there was never a real plan, story arc, or long term development by Abrams. 5. End the story in a completely illogical manner such that it punishes the audience for trusting Abrams beyond the beginning of step four; whereby it becomes very obviously not only is Abrams unable to deliver any substance, its plainly beyond his ability to do so. 6. People walk around scratching head wondering what the fuck just happened while trying to explore their own meaning in a story which never had any meaning from the beginning. All personal meaning is strictly coincidental as Abrams never delivered anything.
So for those who found meaning in Abram's effort, congrats! You found more than was ever provided, intended, or eluded. In short, it means you're more creative than Abrams. And if you didn't find meaning, congrats! You've been bitten yet again by Abrams' epic ability to fail at story telling. Even worse, his epic ability to destroy completely awesome story ideas.
Like nuclear war, the only way to win is to not play - anything in which Abrams participates.
Heh. If only it were true that technically superior products succeed, and inferior ones fail.
I've been repeatedly assured by/.'ers and others that the best product always wins with never an exception. Period. End of discussion. This is what we're all taught in economics too - so it must be true.
Realistically, nothing could be farther from the truth. The simply fact is, you are absolutely right. No reputable economists believes the world works that way. Furthermore, all branches of the government, save one, anti-trust, acknowledges markets and economies don't work that way.
The simple fact is, markets and economies are very, very, complex creatures. Without a doubt, the highest priced widget is rarely the best value or heck, even the best in any category. The simple fact is, if this were true, we would never need to advertise (outside of market introduction), advertisements would be completely ineffective, packaging would generally not matter, and everything would be drastically cheaper as a result. This also completely ignores emerging markets and/or emerging products within an established market; so on and so on.
The simple fact is, its extremely common for superior products to not be on top and to not be the highest priced item. This also turns on its ear the traditional definition of "value"; which is also traditionally taught. The fact this is true is one of the largest reasons competition can exist in a free market.
Long story short, if you know anyone who insists on paying the highest price for every item in any given category, they are without a doubt completely ignorant of how economics work. I can't tell you know many times I've seen people consistently insist the best value is always obtained by paying the highest price in a given product category. Sorry, the world just doesn't work that way.
Helicopters fly, can land or take off from a pad not much bigger than your average driveway, and can be less massive than most trucks. For most values of the word, they are "flying cars".
Helicopters have extremely high maintenance requirements and are extremely complex. Furthermore, relative to airplanes, they are extremely dangerous because of their flight profiles, cargo capability, physics of flight, skills required to fly, especially in emergencies, are slow flying compared to planes, are extremely fuel inefficient, and typically far noisier than planes. Not to mention, again relative to airplanes, helicopters (excluding something like an Apache or Cobra) are extremely fragile. And keep in mind, airplanes themselves are somewhat fragile so that's saying a lot.
Outside of specialized uses, helicopters make absolutely no sense what so ever. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly why you never see helicopters used for anything but specialized tasks (war, observation, medical, etc.). And of course, this is exactly why aircraft such as the Osprey exist as they address many, but far from all, of the issues with helicopters; namely fuel efficiency, cargo capacity, and speed.
Slashdot Mirror
I've wiped my tail end with material which is far more accurate and less deserving than the provided link. As another poster replied, its basically a bunch shit for ignorant people to troll and sprew. Made worse, people who don't know any better may belive the truthful elements of his FAQ are the proper way to do things when in fact, he consistently picks the dumbest, worst possible way to do anything in C++, combined with half truths and boldface lies, and then deduces that C++ is a terrible language.
The only thing that FAQ proves is the author is an absolute fucking idiot.
I would like to thank you for writing answers to issues which simply do not exist. I'm sure some may have been willing to buy into his bullshit. It would appear he's been reading the horribly inaccurate and terribly misleading C++ FQA, which is full of bullshit and hand waving. Not to mention, it actively instructs coders to do things the worst possible way; and then espouses that's why C++ is broken. Which, of course, completely ignore the fact that no language can protect one from idiots.
I see in his follow up his response is, "oh...well... you didn't buy into my bullshit, so I'll have to do some more hand waving to see if I can yet confusing you into believing my bullshit."
Thanks.
I will repeat the assertion that the only thing STL brings to the table is generic containers.
Wrong. It brings generic containers and algorithms. But saying it like that somehow diminishes what it brings to the party. Its a lot like saying, "Pah - using doctors can ONLY save your life. Its no big deal."
As for reduced line count, the GP post is absolutely correct - assuming you're not counting the generated code associated with STL's template instantiation. Which frankly, is generally not considered for line counts. So if you have many different data types which must otherwise be tracked, in C, you have many different implementations of hand crafted code to handle all these different types - generally all doing the same thing. Or, you've generalized it (void * plus a magic/type in a structure) and thrown away the limited type safety provided by C. Or, you can replace all that, while adding additional type safety with fewer lines of code. Additionally, the STL implementation is far more likely to be much, much faster, not to mention bug free; especially for more complex containers and algorithms.
Not to mention, not only are there fewer lines but initialization can't be forgotten.
Thusly, but doing this:
MyClass m(foo, bar);
This is not only required, but can't be forgotten. Which, unsurprisingly, is a common source of errors among coders.
MyClassInitialize(&m, foo, bar);
Which means not only are you doing more with less code, but you also avoid a common problem of simply being human.
I'm going to come up short on providing additional reading. What got me looking at this was a documentary on the History Channel. Immediately afterwards I was able to Google and find additional material to read. Interestingly enough, the same documentary also speaks of the Qu'ran and other articles which were clearly in flux at the time. And according places it 150-200 years well after Mohammad's death. Which is further proof the Qu'ran is not as it has always been. Which is one of the staples of the religion.
IIRC, the professor in question teaches at one of the ivory universities. It would be fair to say his work is far from definitive; regardless, he has a very compelling history to share. This combines with the fact that the Qu'ran suddenly becomes not only readable but sensible after his translations, especially within cultural context, IMOHO, is very compelling.
For example, as for the grapes vs virgins, back then grapes had not only cultural significance but also religious significance. Grapes also provided for wine. As such, in the after life, you would be refreshed and replenished with grapes - not virgins. Accordingly, women were of little value back then. So which makes more sense? Eternal refreshment and health or a bunch of little valued women where materialism no longer makes sense? Having many wives was a point of material wealth, not of spirituality.
Why not say the same thing about Christians, who are working from a book known to have been edited for selfish political reasons on numerous occasions?
Hate to burst your bubble but all three religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are all founded on the same testaments and gospels. All three are considered religions of Abraham. What we call the Bible is a collection of articles which elders felt best represented the religion. Interestingly enough, some of the books which were excluded were central to the original author's belief systems. Such references still exist in the Bible today - but many people don't know what they mean because they were not actually included in the Bible. I'm sure the paradoxical view of the church elders will not be lost on you.
Without a doubt, there are many verifiable translation errors in Christianity. We know this because we still have a lot of original reference cannon material on which the modern Bible is based. For example, in the story of Noah's Ark the flood was regional and not global. Had it been global, a completely different word would have been used in the original text. Just the same, the core story is still accurately portrayed - more or less. So in one hand we have a book which is a fairly accurate representation of the original works; with errors. The bulk of the Bible and Torah is fairly accurate. The heart of its teachings is more or less there. In the other corner we have what is basically a completely wrong translation; which readily explains why much of it simply doesn't even make sense; within or without context.
In short, the Qu'ran is it self the definition of irony, as it both denounces and re-enforces the books on which it is based. And it denounces them because it says these books have been corrupted by man despite the fact the Qu'ran has been corrupted at a level unparalleled in any other religion known to man. Irony of irony.
Also, the Qu'ran's translation woes stem from adding/removing accent marks which can dramatically change meaning to words and phrases. Most of the translation errors in the Bible stem from the fact that simple cultural misunderstandings existed; or cultural context was simply ignored. The differences in the degrees of errors here are truly profound.
So long story short, I don't believe they are at all comparable in their degree of error.
No, that's not my argument. And as for the "abstraction", that's because you're using objects. That too can be done in C but is a PITA.
Additional features does not make a language high level.
That's a silly statement at face value. I hope you'll look beyond the simplicity of that statement at face value. Which is to say, this is why C++ is a higher level language than C++ yet is still a relative low level language fairly compatible with C.
I have to strongly disagree with you there. C and C++ have NOTHING in common apart from the basic syntax.
Considering the languages were purposely designed to be largely compatible squarely means C++ is designed to be a fairly low level language. Its just that on the other end of the spectrum C++ brings to the table additional features which save a lot typing. Regardless, the new mechanisms are still fairly low leveled - yet more feature rich than C.
There's no equivalent to RIAA in C, there's also no equivalent to stack unwinding or many of the other C++ constructs which are central to good C++ programming.
Additional features does not make a language high level.
I'm currently working on a 200,000 line program which has exactly 9 'delete' statements in it and they're all in definitions of containers and magic pointers. I haven't seen a memory leak for years. Garbage collection? Who needs it?
In what way does that mean its a high level language? I do agree these are aspects commonly associated with high level languages but it doesn't change the fact that the magic is still taking place; albeit beneath the covers. You can do the same thing in C too. Does that suddenly mean C is a high level language too? Of course not.
If any thing, you post reiterates the virtues of C++ and modern coding styles but it does not elevate C++ to that of a high level language. Though I would say C++ is a higher level language than C++ - just not by much.
You need to remember the first C++ compilers were actually C front ends. Furthermore, many people have implemented C++ features in C - albeit without the syntactic sugar provided by C++. Though ultimately, I suppose it has more to do with how you define, "high level". After some quick checking, it appears some considering anything above machine language to be "high level".
Anybody who thinks "C++ is C with a few extra things" is very, very wrong.
And that's why I blame the schools. Its exceedingly rare to find a graduate who was not taught C++ is C with new style comments. They then gloss over objects. Fresh grads never seem to know some of the most important C++ fundamentals or aware there are many good books which explain how to avoid the majority of pitfalls.
If you find you are shooting yourself in the foot with C++, you have no one to blame but yourself. This is called ignorance of the language. Meyers' books really are not that big. Meyers' books are fairly easy reading, and they explain how to navigate or completely avoid the common minefields.
Time and time again I find those who complain about C++ are simply ignorant. And those who have consistently shot themselves in the foot are both lazy and ignorant. And if their schooling included C++ but did not include at least the fundamentals preached by Meyers, then you did not get your money's worth. Regardless, stop blaming the language.
This is not to say C++ is perfect. Its not. And contrary to popular belief I do not consider C++ to be much higher level language than C. Its basically C with a lot more features and capability, not to mention a larger standard library. And I believe this is also part of the problem. People believe C++ to be a high level language which should keep them clear of all the land mines. The problem is, C++ provides some high level features but is only slightly higher level than C. As such, the scale of potential mines is much larger.
Lastly, stop trying to use every feature C++ has to provide. Many of the more advanced C++ features are both powerful and easy to abuse and misuse. Concentrate of the basic language features (classes and templates), learn STL, read a couple of books, and its almost impossible to shoot yourself. Save the more advanced features for a latter date, when you are confident you have mastered the basics.
A charger makes a pretty good heater
And what happens when the batteries are charged after a few hours and the vehicle remains parked. No bones about it, up north you must have some type of battery heater over and above that provided by the act of charging.
As someone above pointed out, a battery powered battery heater is obviously an option but even that by itself falls dramatically short in endless scenarios.
If only they had a battery powered heater.
I can only hope that comment was tongue in cheek. Obviously for short periods this is fine but there are many instances where more is simply required.
Because "marriage" is a sacred institution
Completely untrue. The history of "marriage" clearly shows it existed long before religion become entangled. The simple truth is, the ring which women fawn all over is actually buying them like a horse. That's the standard. That's why engagement rings are typically of value. If you deflower your horse - I mean women - either before or after marriage, then the ring is hers to keep as compensation for his loss of market value. Nothing says love like, "with this ring, I own you bitch!" And that's why the actual marriage band is typically of value, so in case you prematurely die, she has some means to care for your heirs.
In other cultures, a wife is worth several horses or other livestock. And legally speaking, they often had less worth and legal standing than horses or livestock. Likewise, the higher the social standing of the women, generally the more a women is valued. Which is to say, a women's worth was equaled only to the social ladder, to which she extended to the husband. That is, of course, after you've paid a dowry to compensate for all those years of rearing a worthless women.
In more modern times, in order to strengthen the family unit's cohesion, religion became entangled. Despite all the things religion has completely screwed up, this is one of those things they got right. A strong family unit enhances a village/city and culture's stability; making for a healthy society. A healthy, stable society makes for rich church coffers and filled seats. Well, okay, they got it mostly right. So contrary to the church's historically greedy angle on marriage, it did bring tangible societal benefits. This of course ignores the fact, only those in good standing with the church were entitled to marry; to which I refer you back to the filled church seats and tithing.
Realistically, these days, marriage is very much entangled with religion. Historically it specifically means a man and a women. A marriage encourages children and a stable home life. And to a largely agricultural/hunter society, this is very important. It is because of this potential contribution I don't have a problem with society contributing something back; discounted insurance, inheritance, so on and so on.
Historically, even during Greek and Roman times, homosexuality was not only permitted but widely accepted. Just the same, same sex marriages were simply not permitted because it provided not societal benefit. Simply put, not matter how much you put two penises or two vaginas together you're simply not going to have children. Period.
Is it because there is no historical basis, no religious basis, and no societal benefit, why I don't endorse same sex "marriage." Just the same, I don't see a reason why they can't have some other legal procedure/classification (example, "a joining") which provides many of the same benefits; such as health insurance (no insurance discounts), and emergency legal rights with their partner. So no, I don't see this as being on equal footing with marriage but I don't see a reason to keep them completely out in the cold either.
So next time you go pining away for old marriage principles, please keep in mind you just equated your wife to being a near useless piece of property whos only worth is a hole in the mattress, a cook, a maid, and a guardian for your heirs and bloodline; and at the end of the day, is still worth less than a horse or other livestock. The good news is, if she was not a virgin when you married her, a simple gold band is paying too much. Make sure you remind her of this fact when you present her ring.
Please keep in mind in most of my comments I've approached this from a historical perspective. Most of the above comments do not express my own views.
The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim.
The real answer for such contradictions is because Islam is learning an incorrect translation of the Qu'ran. That's also why various bits don't make any sense at all and why other parts contradict each other.
In the valid translation, Islamic martyrs are to be provided 72 grapes - not virgins. The basic tenets of faith appear to be correct but there are huge and never ending errors which permeates all facets of what most of the world calls the Qu'ran. And oddly enough, it explains why every forth or firth (sorry I forget) stanza makes not sense - usually even after one attempts to stop comprehension within the current context. Shock of shocks, with a valid translation, suddenly everything reads smoothly and, gasp, even becomes comprehensible.
When the entire basis of your religion is corrupted and incomprehensible, additional corruption to manipulate the masses goes had in had. That why so many religions have had a "priest cast" such that the ignorant masses wouldn't actually know what it is they are supposed to do. In doing so, they are able to obtain ultimate control. In this case, everyone has a copy of the instructions but the instructions are so fucked up, the "cleric cast" can supply their own meanings so as to completely control every aspect of their ignorant masses.
You might even have to feel sorry for Muslims. This might just be the ultimate fuck up of mankind to date. Literally. That of course assumes the mistranslation was in fact an accident.
And of course, the last shock, the professor performing the proper translation has of course received numerous death threats and has already been denounced by most Islamic states; despite the fact he has both the proper credentials and the research which validates which translations. And yes, several others have also stepped forward and independently validated small portions of the provided work.
The big battery packs on the Tesla need active cooling so they might be okay in the north.
Until you need to start moving again.
Most vehicles up north have block heaters which require them to be plugged in when the engine isn't running. It would not be too surprising to find a battery heater is also required.
That's what I thought. I actually did Google several of the acronyms and most are completely ambiguous.
Thanks for playing.
are just a complex diversion if the goal is to go into orbit.
Not really. Remember a rocket carriers both fuel and an oxidizer. A ramjet uses atmosphere to obtain its oxidizer. Optionally, hybrid designs exist such that it switches to an on board oxidizer once the air becomes too thin. As rockets use the majority of their fuel to escape low high atmospheric densities, if one can spend the majority of their time accelerating without using on board fuel/oxidizer until absolutely required, TONS of fuel can be saved. Not to mention, it opens the door for much faster turn around given the relative simplicity (moving parts wise) of a ramjet.
In short, conceivably ramjets have the possibility to make orbital insertion, including higher orbits, faster, cheaper, safer with less pollution. While they may yet prove to be a "complex diversion", thus far they absolutely have a lot of unrealized potential.
They aren't the most complex moving object ever built, they aren't even close - an SSN or SSBN surpasses them easily. Or consider a CVN. As far as advanced goes, that's more a matter of opinion as anything else, but I will say NASA rarely takes any chances. They're actually pretty conservative when it comes to engineering.
I don't recognize all of the acronyms but my gut tells me your are confusing size with complexity or even logistics. Can you provide a little more detail to support your rational?
I'll grant the inspection, but not the removal/reinstallation - too high a chance of damage.
Not according to NASA. Saw that fairly recently in an interview by the people who actually do the work. I'll take NASA's word for it. Thanks. Considering they consistently find damage which visual inspections miss, their current approach of actually removing wire makes far, far more sense. Which oddly enough, is exactly why they take wiring out.
Wrong. They stopped removing them after every flight well over a decade ago and stopped disassembling them every time they were removed not too long after.
Since it has been a long while since I've seen something on this, I'll take your word for it.
So sayeth the Official NASA PR Spin. Some people even believe it.
Care to provide an alternative. I can't think of anything else which even comes close. Just because may be PR-based (not really sure), doesn't mean its not true.
They're exaggerating. Removing and replacing every inch of wire is a job that would take over a year.
That is true. Just the same, all wiring does get visually inspected and miles of wiring is removed and reinstalled/replaced after each flight. Likewise, large chunks of the shuttle's engines are also disassembled, inspected, repaired, and reassembled. Removal of large spans of wiring was instituted after it was discovered visual inspection alone had allowed worn wiring insulation to get past many rounds of visual inspections.
The shuttles are literally considered one of the most advanced engineering feats by mankind - if not the most advanced - even to this day. IIRC, the shuttles are also considered the most complex moving machines ever designed and built.
just wait until they end up having to pay extra to all the ISPs so that the voters can get to their own campaign websites.
You obviously don't known anything about how the government works. More than likely, that premium would be paid by tax payers, at a premium. They get a free ride via mail service too. In other words, everyone losses except for ISPs/Telcom/Cable, their CEOs, and the associated lobbyists.
Besides, if it takes an extra two seconds for your congressman's web page to render, who cares. They are already using services such as YouTube and Google Video to disseminate video messages, not to mention Face Book and Twitter. They are already riding on someone else's bandwidth so at the end of the day, they're really not that likely to be negatively affected at all.
There are two ways to do long-running series:
I believe there is a happy medium to be found. But really, regardless of which path you pick, you still need to be consistent. Abrams not only ignores basic story arcs but consistently fails at even trying to be consistent; and that assumes he actually tries.
And for the record, I watched exactly one episode of Lost. I thought it was garbage and immediately saw he was following his standard formula. I never watched again and never looked back. I told my wife at the time it would end up exactly like it did. That's how consistently he fails at story telling. That's how consistent he is at following his formula.
It would seem Abrams is in dire need to reason some Shakespeare so as to learn about character development. "Be true to thyself", should become his character development creed. As is, its like he takes a "crazy pill", writes a story, and then re-uses character names and settings.
J.J. Abrams has a consistent formula which rarely seems to fail from a commercial perspective. From an artistic perspective, it always seems to fall flat on its face leaving everyone completely unsatisfied and confused, like a recent ex-virgin wondering about what the hell just happened.
Formula:
1. Create an excellent concept.
2. Create interesting and varied characters. Usually horridly and obviously flawed.
3. Create an ever growing mystery for the audience; to wit you're sure the character flaws can feed.
4. Continue to build a mystery such that nothing makes logical sense, characters don't feed or develop in any meaningful way. Characters follow no logic and betray their character at every turn. Hopefully the audience will believe this has to do with the ever building mystery rather than a failing of the Abrams. Realistically, it has more to do with the fact there was never a real plan, story arc, or long term development by Abrams.
5. End the story in a completely illogical manner such that it punishes the audience for trusting Abrams beyond the beginning of step four; whereby it becomes very obviously not only is Abrams unable to deliver any substance, its plainly beyond his ability to do so.
6. People walk around scratching head wondering what the fuck just happened while trying to explore their own meaning in a story which never had any meaning from the beginning. All personal meaning is strictly coincidental as Abrams never delivered anything.
So for those who found meaning in Abram's effort, congrats! You found more than was ever provided, intended, or eluded. In short, it means you're more creative than Abrams. And if you didn't find meaning, congrats! You've been bitten yet again by Abrams' epic ability to fail at story telling. Even worse, his epic ability to destroy completely awesome story ideas.
Like nuclear war, the only way to win is to not play - anything in which Abrams participates.
Heh. If only it were true that technically superior products succeed, and inferior ones fail.
I've been repeatedly assured by /.'ers and others that the best product always wins with never an exception. Period. End of discussion. This is what we're all taught in economics too - so it must be true.
Realistically, nothing could be farther from the truth. The simply fact is, you are absolutely right. No reputable economists believes the world works that way. Furthermore, all branches of the government, save one, anti-trust, acknowledges markets and economies don't work that way.
The simple fact is, markets and economies are very, very, complex creatures. Without a doubt, the highest priced widget is rarely the best value or heck, even the best in any category. The simple fact is, if this were true, we would never need to advertise (outside of market introduction), advertisements would be completely ineffective, packaging would generally not matter, and everything would be drastically cheaper as a result. This also completely ignores emerging markets and/or emerging products within an established market; so on and so on.
The simple fact is, its extremely common for superior products to not be on top and to not be the highest priced item. This also turns on its ear the traditional definition of "value"; which is also traditionally taught. The fact this is true is one of the largest reasons competition can exist in a free market.
Long story short, if you know anyone who insists on paying the highest price for every item in any given category, they are without a doubt completely ignorant of how economics work. I can't tell you know many times I've seen people consistently insist the best value is always obtained by paying the highest price in a given product category. Sorry, the world just doesn't work that way.
Helicopters fly, can land or take off from a pad not much bigger than your average driveway, and can be less massive than most trucks. For most values of the word, they are "flying cars".
Helicopters have extremely high maintenance requirements and are extremely complex. Furthermore, relative to airplanes, they are extremely dangerous because of their flight profiles, cargo capability, physics of flight, skills required to fly, especially in emergencies, are slow flying compared to planes, are extremely fuel inefficient, and typically far noisier than planes. Not to mention, again relative to airplanes, helicopters (excluding something like an Apache or Cobra) are extremely fragile. And keep in mind, airplanes themselves are somewhat fragile so that's saying a lot.
Outside of specialized uses, helicopters make absolutely no sense what so ever. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly why you never see helicopters used for anything but specialized tasks (war, observation, medical, etc.). And of course, this is exactly why aircraft such as the Osprey exist as they address many, but far from all, of the issues with helicopters; namely fuel efficiency, cargo capacity, and speed.