Now is there a chance they willfully broke the law? Sure. But I'm not one of those people who assume guilt until proven innocent.
By definition, you are willfully breaking the law if you intentionally do an action, and that action turns out to be illegal. It doesn't matter whether you knew it was illegal or not.
No. You can offend people (that's something _you_ do) and people can be offended (that's something those people do). We can always judge what is reasonable. It's unreasonable to say "your mother is ugly" and entirely reasonable to be offended by it. With the doctor performing abortions, it is unreasonable to be offended to a degree that you attack him.
With all the examples, we can judge how bad the offending or the being offended is, and usually you get punished by the law for going badly over the limits.
Just to clarify: That court decision said that using "fighting words" is illegal and you can get arrested for it. It doesn't say whether you would have an excuse for punching someone if that person used "fighting words" against you.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
There is a good reason why a Muslim shouldn't make pictures of Mohammed: Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to. So buy making a picture of Mohammed, a Muslim might go the wrong way in his religion and damage himself - that's why it is forbidden.
Non-muslims wouldn't be affected by that. There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall; it doesn't put their soul in danger. And caricature or insults are not a religious problem either. Sure, insulting Mohammed isn't nice to a Muslim, just like saying "your mother is ugly" isn't nice to anyone, and you shouldn't do it, but there is no offence to the religion.
And like every Slashdotter, you couldn't be bothered to look at the actual article, which would have shown a blatant misquote. He never said ""if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". Here is what the article actually said:
By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane. "If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said jokingly, throwing a pretend punch his way.
... aged 11, 13 and 15, I can assure you that the Minecraft experiences of even the youngest of them comfortably outweigh my own 25 years of software development experience. In their heads.
My grandson's parents thought he was a computer genius because he beat me playing "Sonic The Hedgehog". Well, he played it hour after hour, I played it the first time.
Parse his words carefully. He never admits that the NSA actually engineered the backdoor into the algorithm, he only states that he regrets supporting the algorithm after other people pointed out it was backdoored.
This is basically equivalent to the mealy-mouthed apologies you hear from young children after they've done something wrong but absolutely refuse to fess up about it.
And you don't understand what actually happened. There is no evidence and there never was evidence that the algorithm had a backdoor. There is evidence that _if_ the NSA had known about the possibility of a backdoor early enough, they _could_ have added a backdoor. There is no evidence that they knew about it early enough, and there is no evidence that they added a backdoor. The NSA _does_ know that nobody else added a backdoor. So they either added a backdoor, or they didn't and know there is no backdoor. There is no evidence either way.
So nobody has any evidence that they have done anything wrong. They supported this standard for too long, and there are two logical explanations for this: Either because they had added a backdoor and wanted to use it, or because they knew for a fact that there is no backdoor (because only the NSA could have added it and they know they didn't) and therefore knew that the algorithm was safe.
And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws.
Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.
No, Uber drivers are not uninsured. Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation.
Research yourself. Uber may pay if they are driving a passenger. However, at any other time the Uber driver will find himself uninsured. That includes for example hitting a pedestrian while on the way to picking up a passenger.
For Christmas, I received a box set with The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings on 56 CDs. So I connected my external CD reader, stuck the one CD in the internal drive, the second CD in the external drive, and...
iTunes imports the CD from the internal drive. When it's done, it imports the CD from the external drive. The previous version had no problems importing from two CDs simultaneously. Somehow that feature got lost between 11.0 and 12.0.
Nobody has discussed so far what the consequences should be.
If you create a device or gadget or whatever, and you know that people are not going to repair it, then all the parts inside should be designed to break around the same time. Because any part that breaks earlier than the others decreases the useful life of the device and therefore its value, while any part that has still a long working life when the device is thrown away is just a waste of money.
I never buy external hard drives. I buy internal drives and enclosures. Frequently it is cheaper and, in my experience, those external drives have not had screws to open them for years.
When you buy an enclosure, you have no idea what quality it is and whether it even works. If you buy an external drive, you have an enclosure that works. And in my experience, the prices for external drives used to be identical to internal drives.
That's why in cases of kidnapping the police may try to prevent you from handing over money.
It is clearly better for society if you don't pay up, or if nobody pays up. However, it is better for you if you pay up. As a result, society will create and try to enforce rules that are better for everyone, when it is better for each individual to break these rules.
So maybe it is better if you (a) pay up the money, and (b) if you ever find the identity of a hacker hurting people pay someone to give them a good beating.
iPhones won't let you change the battery, and give you a hard time getting to the SIM card. Most other cell phones follow suit.
Replacing an iPhone battery is very simple: Take it to the store, hand over your cash, it gets replaced. And it's not much more than you would pay for a genuine battery if you could find one. (Admittedly it is much more expensive than a battery that looks exactly like a genuine one).
For replacing the SIM card, you need a tiny little tool that comes with every iPhone. I think a paperclip will do as well.
Case design in particular. Products used to be designed so you could take the covers off with screws or something and then replace them, for servicing. Now you have to break something more just to open it up to work on it.
When I upgraded hard drives on lap tops, I always used to buy external hard drives. Because they are cheaper, and you can copy the internal drive to the external one before you start work, and then just swap the drives. The last time I did this, to my surprise the case of the external drive had no screws!
No problem, because taking the drive in both hands and applying _just_ the right amount of force made the two parts of the case fall apart. I can not in my life imagine any of my grand children being able to do that. I cannot even imagine them taking the case away destructively without destroying the drive inside.
But the most frightening tool use by a complete tool that I've every seen was on a cookery program in the UK, where a woman who intended to run a restaurant kitchen tried to open a cocoanut by stabbing it with a twelve inch knife. Apparently the film crew stopped her because it was too dangerous.
Before the platters are up to speed, there is very little Bernoulli force holding the heads up. The above operation will crash the head and leave a nice big scratch.
And then your opponent finds an expert witness who examines the hard drive, finds the scratch, and explains to the court that it was most likely intentionally damaged. They don't need proof, just likelihood. And now you are stuck, because whatever your opponent claimed is on the drive, the court now assumes it was there before you destroyed it.
Personal insurance is based on averages. The average insured driver drives an average of insured miles. If some drive more, some drive less, that's fine.
But Uber drivers are a different category. An easily identifiable different category with a higher risk. There's no reason why an insurance should accept a high risk group for the same premium.
Here's what I think should happen: When the next big accident happens, a court should look at the actual facts and decide that in spite of how Uber wants to make it appear, they are indeed employing taxi drivers. And that they are completely responsible for anything that happens. And that any damage caused by a car driving for Uber has to be paid for from Uber's money.
What's the difference between using a car for Uber versus a really social person frequently carting around friends and family?
First, the difference is that your insurance doesn't cover it. The insurance company has the right to decide what they want to cover and what they don't want to cover.
Second, your driving changes. You are driving strangers which has its own risks. You drive lots of drunks which carries its own risks. You drive people who are not your friends so more insurance claims will be made. You are driving for money so you will be more in a hurry to make more money which increases the risk, and you will be driving in more risky places to make money.
But the biggest difference is that as a driver for money you have a lot more liability.
Just saying: It's not Dijkstra talking rubbish. Dijkstra is died 12 years ago. There is a handwritten article by Dijkstra which probably made sense in 1983 when it was written. In 1983 Dijkstra didn't know about C++. Stroustroup didn't know about C++ in 1983.
It's quite trivial in the quicksort algorithm to limit the stack size. Split the range you are sorting using a pivot element, then push the larger range on the stack and start again with the smaller range. So the new range is always half the size or less of the original range, and the stack depth is at most log2 (n).
Regarding a case like your memcpy example. An assembly version may still be warranted. A piece of software may need to optimize for the low end computers out there.
MacOS X has memcpy built into the operating system. At boot time, the OS determines the processor and copies a memcpy (and memmove, and memset) function optimised for that processor to a fixed memory location. If you copy megabytes, you will see it doing _very_ interesting stuff with cache prefetches and so on. C++ doesn't use these, unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
You are entitled to receive any radio waves that pass through your property.
Don't try this in a country where equipment for receiving radio waves needs to be licensed.
Now is there a chance they willfully broke the law? Sure. But I'm not one of those people who assume guilt until proven innocent.
By definition, you are willfully breaking the law if you intentionally do an action, and that action turns out to be illegal. It doesn't matter whether you knew it was illegal or not.
No. You can offend people (that's something _you_ do) and people can be offended (that's something those people do). We can always judge what is reasonable. It's unreasonable to say "your mother is ugly" and entirely reasonable to be offended by it. With the doctor performing abortions, it is unreasonable to be offended to a degree that you attack him.
With all the examples, we can judge how bad the offending or the being offended is, and usually you get punished by the law for going badly over the limits.
Just to clarify: That court decision said that using "fighting words" is illegal and you can get arrested for it. It doesn't say whether you would have an excuse for punching someone if that person used "fighting words" against you.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
There is a good reason why a Muslim shouldn't make pictures of Mohammed: Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to. So buy making a picture of Mohammed, a Muslim might go the wrong way in his religion and damage himself - that's why it is forbidden.
Non-muslims wouldn't be affected by that. There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall; it doesn't put their soul in danger. And caricature or insults are not a religious problem either. Sure, insulting Mohammed isn't nice to a Muslim, just like saying "your mother is ugly" isn't nice to anyone, and you shouldn't do it, but there is no offence to the religion.
Fuck you retarded asshole.
And like every Slashdotter, you couldn't be bothered to look at the actual article, which would have shown a blatant misquote. He never said ""if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". Here is what the article actually said:
By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane. "If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said jokingly, throwing a pretend punch his way.
... aged 11, 13 and 15, I can assure you that the Minecraft experiences of even the youngest of them comfortably outweigh my own 25 years of software development experience. In their heads.
My grandson's parents thought he was a computer genius because he beat me playing "Sonic The Hedgehog". Well, he played it hour after hour, I played it the first time.
Parse his words carefully. He never admits that the NSA actually engineered the backdoor into the algorithm, he only states that he regrets supporting the algorithm after other people pointed out it was backdoored.
This is basically equivalent to the mealy-mouthed apologies you hear from young children after they've done something wrong but absolutely refuse to fess up about it.
And you don't understand what actually happened. There is no evidence and there never was evidence that the algorithm had a backdoor. There is evidence that _if_ the NSA had known about the possibility of a backdoor early enough, they _could_ have added a backdoor. There is no evidence that they knew about it early enough, and there is no evidence that they added a backdoor. The NSA _does_ know that nobody else added a backdoor. So they either added a backdoor, or they didn't and know there is no backdoor. There is no evidence either way.
So nobody has any evidence that they have done anything wrong. They supported this standard for too long, and there are two logical explanations for this: Either because they had added a backdoor and wanted to use it, or because they knew for a fact that there is no backdoor (because only the NSA could have added it and they know they didn't) and therefore knew that the algorithm was safe.
And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws.
Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.
No, Uber drivers are not uninsured. Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation.
Research yourself. Uber may pay if they are driving a passenger. However, at any other time the Uber driver will find himself uninsured. That includes for example hitting a pedestrian while on the way to picking up a passenger.
For Christmas, I received a box set with The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings on 56 CDs. So I connected my external CD reader, stuck the one CD in the internal drive, the second CD in the external drive, and ...
iTunes imports the CD from the internal drive. When it's done, it imports the CD from the external drive. The previous version had no problems importing from two CDs simultaneously. Somehow that feature got lost between 11.0 and 12.0.
Nobody has discussed so far what the consequences should be.
If you create a device or gadget or whatever, and you know that people are not going to repair it, then all the parts inside should be designed to break around the same time. Because any part that breaks earlier than the others decreases the useful life of the device and therefore its value, while any part that has still a long working life when the device is thrown away is just a waste of money.
I never buy external hard drives. I buy internal drives and enclosures. Frequently it is cheaper and, in my experience, those external drives have not had screws to open them for years.
When you buy an enclosure, you have no idea what quality it is and whether it even works. If you buy an external drive, you have an enclosure that works. And in my experience, the prices for external drives used to be identical to internal drives.
That's why in cases of kidnapping the police may try to prevent you from handing over money.
It is clearly better for society if you don't pay up, or if nobody pays up. However, it is better for you if you pay up. As a result, society will create and try to enforce rules that are better for everyone, when it is better for each individual to break these rules.
So maybe it is better if you (a) pay up the money, and (b) if you ever find the identity of a hacker hurting people pay someone to give them a good beating.
iPhones won't let you change the battery, and give you a hard time getting to the SIM card. Most other cell phones follow suit.
Replacing an iPhone battery is very simple: Take it to the store, hand over your cash, it gets replaced. And it's not much more than you would pay for a genuine battery if you could find one. (Admittedly it is much more expensive than a battery that looks exactly like a genuine one).
For replacing the SIM card, you need a tiny little tool that comes with every iPhone. I think a paperclip will do as well.
Case design in particular. Products used to be designed so you could take the covers off with screws or something and then replace them, for servicing. Now you have to break something more just to open it up to work on it.
When I upgraded hard drives on lap tops, I always used to buy external hard drives. Because they are cheaper, and you can copy the internal drive to the external one before you start work, and then just swap the drives. The last time I did this, to my surprise the case of the external drive had no screws!
No problem, because taking the drive in both hands and applying _just_ the right amount of force made the two parts of the case fall apart. I can not in my life imagine any of my grand children being able to do that. I cannot even imagine them taking the case away destructively without destroying the drive inside.
But the most frightening tool use by a complete tool that I've every seen was on a cookery program in the UK, where a woman who intended to run a restaurant kitchen tried to open a cocoanut by stabbing it with a twelve inch knife. Apparently the film crew stopped her because it was too dangerous.
Before the platters are up to speed, there is very little Bernoulli force holding the heads up. The above operation will crash the head and leave a nice big scratch.
And then your opponent finds an expert witness who examines the hard drive, finds the scratch, and explains to the court that it was most likely intentionally damaged. They don't need proof, just likelihood. And now you are stuck, because whatever your opponent claimed is on the drive, the court now assumes it was there before you destroyed it.
Personal insurance is based on averages. The average insured driver drives an average of insured miles. If some drive more, some drive less, that's fine.
But Uber drivers are a different category. An easily identifiable different category with a higher risk. There's no reason why an insurance should accept a high risk group for the same premium.
Here's what I think should happen: When the next big accident happens, a court should look at the actual facts and decide that in spite of how Uber wants to make it appear, they are indeed employing taxi drivers. And that they are completely responsible for anything that happens. And that any damage caused by a car driving for Uber has to be paid for from Uber's money.
What's the difference between using a car for Uber versus a really social person frequently carting around friends and family?
First, the difference is that your insurance doesn't cover it. The insurance company has the right to decide what they want to cover and what they don't want to cover.
Second, your driving changes. You are driving strangers which has its own risks. You drive lots of drunks which carries its own risks. You drive people who are not your friends so more insurance claims will be made. You are driving for money so you will be more in a hurry to make more money which increases the risk, and you will be driving in more risky places to make money.
But the biggest difference is that as a driver for money you have a lot more liability.
Just saying: It's not Dijkstra talking rubbish. Dijkstra is died 12 years ago. There is a handwritten article by Dijkstra which probably made sense in 1983 when it was written. In 1983 Dijkstra didn't know about C++. Stroustroup didn't know about C++ in 1983.
Something that Dijkstra wrote in 1983, and a crap article that gives some examples of bad programming to show a bad point.
Part of Uber's billion dollar investment money well spent on marketing.
It's quite trivial in the quicksort algorithm to limit the stack size. Split the range you are sorting using a pivot element, then push the larger range on the stack and start again with the smaller range. So the new range is always half the size or less of the original range, and the stack depth is at most log2 (n).
Regarding a case like your memcpy example. An assembly version may still be warranted. A piece of software may need to optimize for the low end computers out there.
MacOS X has memcpy built into the operating system. At boot time, the OS determines the processor and copies a memcpy (and memmove, and memset) function optimised for that processor to a fixed memory location. If you copy megabytes, you will see it doing _very_ interesting stuff with cache prefetches and so on. C++ doesn't use these, unfortunately.