You should think of them not as training wheels but as safety belts. It does not matter how good you are at driving safety belt should be mandatory even for a F1 driver driving a van.
You are not upgrading computers to run the same version of the program at the same speed.You are upgrading because you are using a new version of the program which is doing vastly more on an operating system which is able to do vastly more and yes, indeed, some programmers are using a new framework witch makes abstraction layers over abstraction layers to do everything "universal", "reusable" and "future proof".
I agree that many programmers should now more about under the hood mechanisms but this is valid for everybody, including drivers, plumbers and electricians.
I think if Jobs was still here he'd have slapped people around, re-negotiated with Google, and quickly have a patch issued to revert the maps. We'll see if apple continues to stumble in this very un-apple like manner.
Are you speaking about Steve Jobs? He will just say you are in the wrong position.
Unfortunately it looks like she couldn't live with the results of her bad decision. I feel zero sympathy for this girl.
Than the punishment is adequate (barely), only a "cyber sentence" angainst a "cyber bully". Let's see how is he living with the result of his decisions.
There it's more to speak about the age, the impact of accessibility of very easy communication/sharing of feelings on the net for the young persons, education and others but this discussion will never end
My only problem is to accept the vigilante act or not, and if yes how trusty it is.
An "essential tool" as you said in the first comment implies that "must" be part of the full solution, a must have.
My problem with GM does not consist in fear of glowing green in the dark but is bunch of more long term problems:
1. Patents/monopoly of food../ is full of it
2. Effects on surrounding culture/nature
3. Posibility of a mistake
Selective breeding is having a risk also but is a risk mitigated by the time. The chance of something going wrong suddenly is much lower, and cand even give your body time to adapt in time.
Now let's say that somebody having almost a monoply in seeds, is playing with GM and screw up big time. How many people will be affected, what are your chances that your body adapts in few years.
All of this only for having a small tool, when the real problems of feeding the planet lays in corupt governments, inneficiency, wars, poverty and "don't give a shit as long as is no gain" attitude of the western world?
I did not see any consensus in any of the articles. Even the second one the most pro GM food warns that is not the "full solution". GM can be a small tool only (a dangerous one from ny point of vie for various reason).
In many places a tractor, a road and a water suply will make wonders. If you read also the articles you'll notice the biggest problem is not a resistant crop but the poverty that stops making investition in infrastructure.
Developed countries can generate their own food without problems, the developing countries despite their big not used places can not.
While some may have emotionally based reactions toward GM in general, the consensus is that it's an essential tool in the effort to feed the world's growing population.
The compelling reason for an invention is not necessarily money. In fact I could argue the great inventions came from obsession rather than running for money.
Letting aside the IP protection and the reason for it, many people are forgetting the real reason why iPad, iPhone are being so successful. It's not innovation, it's a well executed design with obsessive attention to the details, something the big companies nowadays are forgetting. Let's sell a half backed product, if it's sales well, we will support it further and maybe improve it as long it's not affect the sale of our new iteration of the same product with minimalist improvements.
And only because Windows is the prime target, dear Mac/Linux fanboys, those systems are by no means any safer. Just less interesting as a target
I heard this quote/excuse same time ago but I still do not believe it. Most of the servers are running Linux and a server it's a bigger target than a home computer. For the moment being Linux is safer.
The user space is more strictly enforced than a Windows machine. Looking historically Linux came from a server platform with strictly enforced security and move to a desktop/more user friendly distribution, and Windows started as a single user OS and goes to a more multi user platform. The legacy of both systems is still making a difference now. Not that Windows didn't made big steps but the legacy is still there.
Microsoft made a JVM called Java that was not compatible with the specifications of SUN.
Google developed a different kind of JVM that is not byte compatible with Java JVM, and they don't call it Java.
Microsoft is not selling a finite resource. It's selling virtual copies and IP blabla. Unless the UK have special demands to tweak their OS, Office that needs to be done outside UK there is no need to adjust price acording to exchange parity. Services costs will increase only if they are offshore (maybe the rupee is increasing or the wages in India).
Microsoft and the rest are not selling at a well defined price (production cost + x% profit) they are selling at the biggest price somebody is willing to pay. Seems that UK is willing to pay or somebody is thinking so from his sky high office with his helicopter view over the things.
You are forgetting the main driver in China. It's not money but the big centralized party.
Let's look into the future to see if the rich people will succeed in taking over the power (like in the west) or it will be the government keeping the power over oligarchs (Russia).
They will survive on Google advertisement and the executive bonuses will come from selling "I'm rich" applications on iPhone, Android and newly Windows Phone 7 market apps.
What is a malicios Javascript? I assume for them is a Javascript that takes advantage of your browser flaws. Good luck with analizing a language which have eval function.
You should just sand box the Javascript properly instead of adding an extra layer of bloatware.
The most of the time you want to overload const and not const returns are the operator overriding. With the rest of the cases you can simply make two different methods if you really want.
Besides the fact that you can make an automate tool to mark const/not const of a full library, you can just simple exclude java. libraries from your check for const.
As I said the runtime checks are nice to have, but compile time checks are trivial:
- when you have a const object parameter you can not call any method of that object that is not const or change any field of that object
- a const parameter can not be assigned to a not const variable
- when you are a in const method you can not modify any field (or call a function of that field that is not const) or call an internal method that is not const
- when you are in a const class you can not call any not const function or modify a field unless you are in the constructor
- only one exception for the fields that are marked as mutable (for example the hashcode for String that is calculated the first time you call hascode function and is considered as not really changing the state of the Object). Or your own example of buffers.
Any violation of the above rules gives a compilation error and not a runtime exception. The ideea is to catch the errors at compile time not runtime.
The const is a nice addition to the language, Java like or not.
When you are declaring a function checkList(const List aaa) you are saying that the function will not change the content of that List. Something you can not do in Java unless you are using Unmodifiable from Collections but then will be a runtime check and will be the responsibility of the caller.
The same const applied to a function will tell you that running that function will not change the state of the object.
You can even do something more than C++, apling const to a class is telling you that you have a Immutable class (like String) and you are forced to write all the not private functions as const.
Const looks like an elegant solution for common problems and can be implemented quickly as an extra check for the compiler (run time support nice to have). Ideally I would like to have const implicit and write noconst explicit for the parameters that I want to modify but that's too much of a change.
Slashdot Mirror
You should think of them not as training wheels but as safety belts. It does not matter how good you are at driving safety belt should be mandatory even for a F1 driver driving a van.
You are not upgrading computers to run the same version of the program at the same speed.You are upgrading because you are using a new version of the program which is doing vastly more on an operating system which is able to do vastly more and yes, indeed, some programmers are using a new framework witch makes abstraction layers over abstraction layers to do everything "universal", "reusable" and "future proof".
I agree that many programmers should now more about under the hood mechanisms but this is valid for everybody, including drivers, plumbers and electricians.
Now let's give each position an IPv6 address. Ooops!
Fingerprints are then compared using an algorithm that looks like O(n^2)
Why O(n^2) when a sorting algoritm can go to O(n log n)?
But there's no reason you need to endanger others with your manual driving
Citations please?
Common even NSA have bugs from time to time.
Unlike the hundreds of in-the-wild viruses on Android.
Citation needed? Further clarification, Google play or something else?
I think if Jobs was still here he'd have slapped people around, re-negotiated with Google, and quickly have a patch issued to revert the maps. We'll see if apple continues to stumble in this very un-apple like manner.
Are you speaking about Steve Jobs? He will just say you are in the wrong position.
Unfortunately it looks like she couldn't live with the results of her bad decision. I feel zero sympathy for this girl.
Than the punishment is adequate (barely), only a "cyber sentence" angainst a "cyber bully". Let's see how is he living with the result of his decisions.
There it's more to speak about the age, the impact of accessibility of very easy communication/sharing of feelings on the net for the young persons, education and others but this discussion will never end
My only problem is to accept the vigilante act or not, and if yes how trusty it is.
They are working fine until you look at the TV.
An "essential tool" as you said in the first comment implies that "must" be part of the full solution, a must have. My problem with GM does not consist in fear of glowing green in the dark but is bunch of more long term problems: ./ is full of it
1. Patents/monopoly of food.
2. Effects on surrounding culture/nature
3. Posibility of a mistake
Selective breeding is having a risk also but is a risk mitigated by the time. The chance of something going wrong suddenly is much lower, and cand even give your body time to adapt in time.
Now let's say that somebody having almost a monoply in seeds, is playing with GM and screw up big time. How many people will be affected, what are your chances that your body adapts in few years.
All of this only for having a small tool, when the real problems of feeding the planet lays in corupt governments, inneficiency, wars, poverty and "don't give a shit as long as is no gain" attitude of the western world?
I did not see any consensus in any of the articles. Even the second one the most pro GM food warns that is not the "full solution". GM can be a small tool only (a dangerous one from ny point of vie for various reason).
In many places a tractor, a road and a water suply will make wonders. If you read also the articles you'll notice the biggest problem is not a resistant crop but the poverty that stops making investition in infrastructure.
Developed countries can generate their own food without problems, the developing countries despite their big not used places can not.
While some may have emotionally based reactions toward GM in general, the consensus is that it's an essential tool in the effort to feed the world's growing population.
Citation please
The compelling reason for an invention is not necessarily money. In fact I could argue the great inventions came from obsession rather than running for money. Letting aside the IP protection and the reason for it, many people are forgetting the real reason why iPad, iPhone are being so successful. It's not innovation, it's a well executed design with obsessive attention to the details, something the big companies nowadays are forgetting. Let's sell a half backed product, if it's sales well, we will support it further and maybe improve it as long it's not affect the sale of our new iteration of the same product with minimalist improvements.
And only because Windows is the prime target, dear Mac/Linux fanboys, those systems are by no means any safer. Just less interesting as a target
I heard this quote/excuse same time ago but I still do not believe it. Most of the servers are running Linux and a server it's a bigger target than a home computer. For the moment being Linux is safer. The user space is more strictly enforced than a Windows machine. Looking historically Linux came from a server platform with strictly enforced security and move to a desktop/more user friendly distribution, and Windows started as a single user OS and goes to a more multi user platform. The legacy of both systems is still making a difference now. Not that Windows didn't made big steps but the legacy is still there.
Microsoft made a JVM called Java that was not compatible with the specifications of SUN. Google developed a different kind of JVM that is not byte compatible with Java JVM, and they don't call it Java.
Microsoft is not selling a finite resource. It's selling virtual copies and IP blabla. Unless the UK have special demands to tweak their OS, Office that needs to be done outside UK there is no need to adjust price acording to exchange parity. Services costs will increase only if they are offshore (maybe the rupee is increasing or the wages in India). Microsoft and the rest are not selling at a well defined price (production cost + x% profit) they are selling at the biggest price somebody is willing to pay. Seems that UK is willing to pay or somebody is thinking so from his sky high office with his helicopter view over the things.
Thanks Apple, maybe now you'll push the monitor and tv makers to go over 1080 vertical resolution.
You are forgetting the main driver in China. It's not money but the big centralized party. Let's look into the future to see if the rich people will succeed in taking over the power (like in the west) or it will be the government keeping the power over oligarchs (Russia).
They will survive on Google advertisement and the executive bonuses will come from selling "I'm rich" applications on iPhone, Android and newly Windows Phone 7 market apps.
What is a malicios Javascript? I assume for them is a Javascript that takes advantage of your browser flaws. Good luck with analizing a language which have eval function.
You should just sand box the Javascript properly instead of adding an extra layer of bloatware.
The most of the time you want to overload const and not const returns are the operator overriding. With the rest of the cases you can simply make two different methods if you really want.
You don't need to do it the c++ way, just avoid the duplicates of const/noconst of c++ methods, a method is either const or not const.
Besides the fact that you can make an automate tool to mark const/not const of a full library, you can just simple exclude java. libraries from your check for const.
As I said the runtime checks are nice to have, but compile time checks are trivial:
- when you have a const object parameter you can not call any method of that object that is not const or change any field of that object
- a const parameter can not be assigned to a not const variable
- when you are a in const method you can not modify any field (or call a function of that field that is not const) or call an internal method that is not const
- when you are in a const class you can not call any not const function or modify a field unless you are in the constructor
- only one exception for the fields that are marked as mutable (for example the hashcode for String that is calculated the first time you call hascode function and is considered as not really changing the state of the Object). Or your own example of buffers.
Any violation of the above rules gives a compilation error and not a runtime exception. The ideea is to catch the errors at compile time not runtime.
The const is a nice addition to the language, Java like or not.
When you are declaring a function checkList(const List aaa) you are saying that the function will not change the content of that List. Something you can not do in Java unless you are using Unmodifiable from Collections but then will be a runtime check and will be the responsibility of the caller.
The same const applied to a function will tell you that running that function will not change the state of the object.
You can even do something more than C++, apling const to a class is telling you that you have a Immutable class (like String) and you are forced to write all the not private functions as const.
Const looks like an elegant solution for common problems and can be implemented quickly as an extra check for the compiler (run time support nice to have). Ideally I would like to have const implicit and write noconst explicit for the parameters that I want to modify but that's too much of a change.