If you read his journal he never once said he was going to kill the president. He merely said he was hopeful that the president would die. These are completely different things. Is it a crime to wish death on someone? Or is it perhaps that he was contracting God to kill Bush that made it illegal?
It was obvious to me that this was meant as a joke. I'm suprised it wasn't taken that way by the authorities. I mean really, shouldn't they be looking for real threats (like terrorists)?
I didn't miss templates, I didn't mention them because I feel they are an extension to classes. My post was in response to a post that suggested there was nothing in C++ that wasn't in C that didn't have something to do with classes and inheritence.
I just thought of one important thing I didn't mention however, and that is name spaces. If you wanted a reason to basicly write straight procedural non-object-oriented C code in C++, name spaces alone could be reason enough to do that.
C solves the same problems as C++. It makes different methods of solution easier.
In many problems, the best solution is a procedural function. In some, it is an OO design. I've written polymorphic functions (badly, admittedly) in Fortran 77 with VAX extensions %REF and %LOC. C++ makes it *easier* to do this.
What do you mean nope? You didn't write anything that disagreed with me. The post I replied to said C and C++ solved different problems. I said they solved problems differently (as in they can both solve the same problems, but they can sovle them in different ways). If you are trying to say that C can solve problems the same way as C++ just because you could implement OOP in C, I guess you are technically right. Why in the world would you do that though?
One of the cardinal sins of the new C++ programmer is making *everything* an object. Makes the program impossible to debug.
Ok I can agree that it is overkill to make everything an object, but how does it make it impossible to debug?
Your first three are part of OOP [hint: Java has them too]
Sorry to break it to you pal, but you don't have to have classes to use these constructs, they work perfectly well with primitives and structs. Obviously they become much more useful in an OOP world, but they aren't part of OOP.
pass-by-reference is not a programming methodlogy either... it's just a function of C++.
No one said anything about programing methodologies. Your original post said: In fact I can't think of any other reasons to use C++ over C aside from classes and the various forms of inheritance.
I just stated some language features available in C++ that aren't in C that are potential reason to use C++ over C (that aren't related to classes and inheritance).
Robots are the future. You don't want to drive 100 miles to a remote server for physical access? Just leave a robot there to do the work for you. In a lot of ways, a remotely controlled robot is very much like an enhanced kvm. It can control the computer directly, but it can also switch out CDs for you, or replace faulty hardware. They can't be beat.
I don't think its a matter of it being too hard to offer them as HTML. Some documents look like crap in html format. Particularly documents with complex mathematical expressions. Besides, what is wrong with PDF? There are plenty of non-Adobe PDF viewers out there if you don't want to patronize Adobe.
So quite frankly, service degradation for one reason or another on Voip doesn't bother me, especially considering it costs a whole lot less.
Most of the prices I have seen suggest the price is about $29.99 USD a month for unlimited calling with most VoIP plans. I pay maybe $20 a month for unlimited local calling with a POTS line, and I don't have a long distance plan. The current VoIP offerings seem to only cost lest if you are going to be making a lot of long distance calls. You said you don't make a lot of calls in the first place, so I wouldn't think that it would be cheaper for you.
Quite honestly, my current POTS service sucks. 3/4 of the time when I pick up the receiver to make a call, I get a "we can not complete your custom call request at this time".
This is a different type of service degradation than you would see with VoIP. Traditional phone networks are circuit based, which means there are fixed number of circuits that can be in use, but when you have a circuit, you get all of the bandwidth in that circuit. In other words a phone network under heavy load denys access to more customers than it can handle gracefully. In comparison, a VoIP network under heavy load will continue to take on more customers, but all of the customers will probably see a degradation in quality.
Exactally. I was just pointing out that there is more to it than just making sure that the connection is secure. You have to make sure that the the secure connection is with who you think it is with.
My point wasn't that major US media sources and state-run Chinese media sources are on the same level. My point was simply that you should read every news article with skeptisism because all media sources can have ulterior motives.
The post I was replying to seemed to be indicating that the information shouldn't be trusted simply because it came from a state-run media outlet in a communist country. My argument is that you shouldn't fully trust any news story regardless of source. Most news articles at least have some sliver of truth to them, and it is up to the discerning reader to decide what to believe.
Well I for one would laugh if they single out "Power Point." Last time I checked that was just one of many different computer presentation programs. Or perhaps they are suggesting that Microsoft has special skills at warping the legal system?
It is true that there are pauses in phone converstations, but you need a constant reserved bandwidth if you are going to be able to provide a quality connection. You can attempt to overcome packet loss and lag with buffers, but that doesn't lend itself well to a two-way communication. The result is something that often ends up sounding more like a CB radio conversation.
I don't think so. I don't recall ever posting about this before, but I may have. I have always felt this way, so it is possible I posted similarly at another time.
By the way, does anyone know why my post got modded troll? I wasn't trolling. I really feel that way.
Packet switched networks weren't designed for continuous constant bit rate data streams. Why use them for that? Sure the Internet is unregulated, so you can use it for free, but you lose any kind of quality of service guarantees. That is why the connection seems flaky to you. If you ever get a good connection, that would be more a function of luck than a quality VoIP implementation.
No matter how well you try to set up VoIP, if the Internet is used at all you will have to risk performance hits. The only way to enforce a quality connection would be through regulation of some sort, which would come at a cost.
I still don't think a debate is effective with more than two people. Inviting all of those listed, and giving them all a chance to speak would really cut down on the number and scope of the questions that could be asked. Hence my belief that we should change the system to give every party a chance to be in the final two.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read his journal he never once said he was going to kill the president. He merely said he was hopeful that the president would die. These are completely different things. Is it a crime to wish death on someone? Or is it perhaps that he was contracting God to kill Bush that made it illegal?
It was obvious to me that this was meant as a joke. I'm suprised it wasn't taken that way by the authorities. I mean really, shouldn't they be looking for real threats (like terrorists)?
Good point, I hadn't realized that (I admitedly don't use templates).
I really don't see why you feel that "const" does not belong in the "real world of programming." There is nothing complicated about it.
I didn't miss templates, I didn't mention them because I feel they are an extension to classes. My post was in response to a post that suggested there was nothing in C++ that wasn't in C that didn't have something to do with classes and inheritence.
I just thought of one important thing I didn't mention however, and that is name spaces. If you wanted a reason to basicly write straight procedural non-object-oriented C code in C++, name spaces alone could be reason enough to do that.
C solves the same problems as C++. It makes different methods of solution easier. In many problems, the best solution is a procedural function. In some, it is an OO design. I've written polymorphic functions (badly, admittedly) in Fortran 77 with VAX extensions %REF and %LOC. C++ makes it *easier* to do this.
What do you mean nope? You didn't write anything that disagreed with me. The post I replied to said C and C++ solved different problems. I said they solved problems differently (as in they can both solve the same problems, but they can sovle them in different ways). If you are trying to say that C can solve problems the same way as C++ just because you could implement OOP in C, I guess you are technically right. Why in the world would you do that though?
One of the cardinal sins of the new C++ programmer is making *everything* an object. Makes the program impossible to debug.
Ok I can agree that it is overkill to make everything an object, but how does it make it impossible to debug?
Your first three are part of OOP [hint: Java has them too]
Sorry to break it to you pal, but you don't have to have classes to use these constructs, they work perfectly well with primitives and structs. Obviously they become much more useful in an OOP world, but they aren't part of OOP.
pass-by-reference is not a programming methodlogy either... it's just a function of C++.
No one said anything about programing methodologies. Your original post said:
In fact I can't think of any other reasons to use C++ over C aside from classes and the various forms of inheritance.
I just stated some language features available in C++ that aren't in C that are potential reason to use C++ over C (that aren't related to classes and inheritance).
- Exception Handling
- Function Overloading
- Operator Overloading
- New/Delete
- Inline Comments
- References (and pass by reference)
- Others I'm sure
C solves DIFFERENT problems.No, C solves problems differently.
A naughty pair of robots who constantly flash each other.
Do you think he invisioned the web back when he invented the Internet?
You run your servers at 1600x1200? Let me guess: Windows Server 2003? The high res allows you to better manage all of your GUI interfaces?
As for your original question, I imagine that 1600x1200 would probably be possible on any display even if you had to use scroll bars.
Robots are the future. You don't want to drive 100 miles to a remote server for physical access? Just leave a robot there to do the work for you. In a lot of ways, a remotely controlled robot is very much like an enhanced kvm. It can control the computer directly, but it can also switch out CDs for you, or replace faulty hardware. They can't be beat.
I don't think its a matter of it being too hard to offer them as HTML. Some documents look like crap in html format. Particularly documents with complex mathematical expressions. Besides, what is wrong with PDF? There are plenty of non-Adobe PDF viewers out there if you don't want to patronize Adobe.
Isn't/Shouldn't adware be illegal? It's garbage software of the worst sort.
So quite frankly, service degradation for one reason or another on Voip doesn't bother me, especially considering it costs a whole lot less.
Most of the prices I have seen suggest the price is about $29.99 USD a month for unlimited calling with most VoIP plans. I pay maybe $20 a month for unlimited local calling with a POTS line, and I don't have a long distance plan. The current VoIP offerings seem to only cost lest if you are going to be making a lot of long distance calls. You said you don't make a lot of calls in the first place, so I wouldn't think that it would be cheaper for you.
Quite honestly, my current POTS service sucks. 3/4 of the time when I pick up the receiver to make a call, I get a "we can not complete your custom call request at this time".
This is a different type of service degradation than you would see with VoIP. Traditional phone networks are circuit based, which means there are fixed number of circuits that can be in use, but when you have a circuit, you get all of the bandwidth in that circuit. In other words a phone network under heavy load denys access to more customers than it can handle gracefully. In comparison, a VoIP network under heavy load will continue to take on more customers, but all of the customers will probably see a degradation in quality.
Exactally. I was just pointing out that there is more to it than just making sure that the connection is secure. You have to make sure that the the secure connection is with who you think it is with.
It really makes picking up when you're on a secure site easier.
I'm sorry, but just because the site uses SSL doesn't mean they are who you think they are.
The author of the article is just jealous because I'm going to get millions from Nigeria, and he isn't!
My point wasn't that major US media sources and state-run Chinese media sources are on the same level. My point was simply that you should read every news article with skeptisism because all media sources can have ulterior motives.
The post I was replying to seemed to be indicating that the information shouldn't be trusted simply because it came from a state-run media outlet in a communist country. My argument is that you shouldn't fully trust any news story regardless of source. Most news articles at least have some sliver of truth to them, and it is up to the discerning reader to decide what to believe.
As opposed to the corporate-run media in the US? You should never trust any media outlet completely.
Well I for one would laugh if they single out "Power Point." Last time I checked that was just one of many different computer presentation programs. Or perhaps they are suggesting that Microsoft has special skills at warping the legal system?
Now we can make free calls to WOPR's backdoor!
It is true that there are pauses in phone converstations, but you need a constant reserved bandwidth if you are going to be able to provide a quality connection. You can attempt to overcome packet loss and lag with buffers, but that doesn't lend itself well to a two-way communication. The result is something that often ends up sounding more like a CB radio conversation.
I don't think so. I don't recall ever posting about this before, but I may have. I have always felt this way, so it is possible I posted similarly at another time.
By the way, does anyone know why my post got modded troll? I wasn't trolling. I really feel that way.
Packet switched networks weren't designed for continuous constant bit rate data streams. Why use them for that? Sure the Internet is unregulated, so you can use it for free, but you lose any kind of quality of service guarantees. That is why the connection seems flaky to you. If you ever get a good connection, that would be more a function of luck than a quality VoIP implementation.
No matter how well you try to set up VoIP, if the Internet is used at all you will have to risk performance hits. The only way to enforce a quality connection would be through regulation of some sort, which would come at a cost.
I still don't think a debate is effective with more than two people. Inviting all of those listed, and giving them all a chance to speak would really cut down on the number and scope of the questions that could be asked. Hence my belief that we should change the system to give every party a chance to be in the final two.