After reading some of the replies, most people seem to take it for granted that C++ is inherently unstable. The main reason cited is memory leaks. Well, guess what, C++, if written properly, can have garbage collection. The answer is smart pointers. Specifically, check out the boost smart_ptr module. I find that if I wrap all calls to new in a shared_ptr or shared_array, my memory leaks go away. If I need bounds checking on an array, I'll use a std::vector class. And whenever type casting a class, I'll use a dynamic_cast, followed by an assert() of the result. Of course, there's always the possibility of introducing a memory leak when sharing pointers with another library, but at some point, you have to trust some code to be crash proof (like the.NET runtime or the JVM). In short, the key to safe C++ is smart programming techniques.
Also, this is intended to be run primarily under Linux, with the possibility of a Windows port later. Can anyone tell me how good the Mono class libraries are? I would think that, like GCJ, Mono is somewhat incomplete and/or buggy.
I've never met a Flash ad that I thought wasn't evil. What I consider evil in an ad is causing motion in your peripheral vision to divert your attention from the content of the page and toward the ad. (Of course, Flash ads can be a lot more evil than that if they use sound.) I suppose Flash ads could be completely static, or at least except when the user is mousing over them, but, like I said, I haven't seen one yet. Adblock is an absolute necessity for me.
Gmail isn't "plastered with ads"; I don't even notice them because they're just text. Compare that to the free Yahoo! Mail with picture adds that take up half the page. Gmail was one of the first webmail programs to make full use of AJAX, and it has a bunch of great features. So you're saying you main complaint is that they're not charging you money yet? Yeah, that makes sense.
I've heard of plasma, but I thought it was only near the surface of stars and other bright burning objects, not hanging out or going past earth.
Lately, my university library has been using plasma to display a boring slide show of "events" in the library that everyone ignores. Every time I see one of those, I see a $3000 bulletin board that I could be watching movies on. Interior decorators are evil.
Still, there are many not-for-profit mailing lists that may be seriously inconvenienced by this new development. Subscribers may have to get free email accounts (e.g. gmail) to continue to use them. Who knows, they may even see the light and leave AOL alltogether. (A guy can dream, can't he?)
And according to WP, the mundane environments, instead of Quake's fantastic ones.
You got that completely backwards. DN3D had great environments. There were huge canyons, alien spaceships, underwater environments, inner cities, and a lot more. I only played the Quake demo, but everything just looked like a dungeon.
I don't know of a single guard who would try to take down someone without really good cause. I sort of don't believe that these people actually exist - I think they're the fictional nemeses who lend bravado and excitement to our friends' exploits, a contemporary ghost or gang of bandits. Why? Because it's dangerous and stupid to confront anyone. They could have a knife, a gun, and then your life is over, and for what? the glory of tackling some punk with a camera (hint: there is none) to save a few windows? to protect a five ton spool of steel wire?
How about to pick a fight with a smaller, younger person to make yourself feel tough. Are you serious that you don't believe there are bad security guards out there? If so, you are in serious denial. Honest security guards like you claim to be are in the minority. Most of the ones I've met live to harass and intimidate. Maybe there's a difference between the kinds of guards that work on industrial sites and those that work at malls, but to say that bad security guards don't exist is extremely naive. I honestly think you need to come to grips with the nature of your profession.
There are no long queues in Disneyland or any American amusement park for that matter. You do have to wait in a lot of long lines, though. Except on the west coast, where you wait "on" them.;)
Re:For those of us who don't follow mozilla.org...
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
As a result SeaMonkey has a number of features that aren't present (by default or at all) in Firefox/Thunderbird, ranging from roaming profiles, to the dom inspector and javascript debugger
I haven't tried this JavaScript debugger, but Firefox comes with a DOM inspector. It's in the Tools menu. Last time I tried the Mozilla suite, the only significant feature it had that FF didn't was the HTML editor. That produced code that wasn't that great, and since I got serious about learning HTML, I have no need for it anymore. I don't see what could be so great about SeaMonkey.
It was a little worse than you made it sound. Brooks beat Sumner even after he lost conciousness until his cane broke. It took three years of recovery before he was able to return to the Senate. As a perfect example of the priviledged status and lack of accountability of politicians, Brooks' punishment was a $300 fine.
He also gave me an anecdotal story of a Harvard football player that injured his shoulder blade as the star quarter back. When they x-rayed him, they also found out that his head was mostly filled with water and the result was a severe lack of brain tissue. However, he was a 4.0 grade point average student.
The football program was paying someone to do his homework and take tests for him?
I really wish Wikipedia could be used as an academic reference.
Why would you want to do that?! Encyclopedias in general are not good academic references becuase they don't represent original work, but rather a collection and summary of information from other sources. If you find yourself citing Encyclopedia Britannica frequently in academic papers, you might want to consider improving your research methods.
It could be done. The current system is just too open for the kind of abuse described in the article.
Sure, it could be made more reliable, but you'd have to make some fundamental changes. First, you could only accept writing by experts who can prove their credentials. Second, you'd have to have a formalized peer review and editing process. This would cause a big delay between writing and publishing the articles. It would also limit the scope of the encyclopedia, and would greatly increase its cost. In other words, it would become a traditional encyclopedia. That niche has already been filled.
The strengths of Wikipedia are that it is more complete, it is up to date, and it represents a wide variety of viewpoints of many subjects. It's a great way to find a review of some subject and find references on that subject. Sure, it's not authoratative, but who really expects it to be? In my opinion, the best thing that could be done for it is to put a disclaimer prominantly displayed at the top of each page saying that it can be edited by anybody, changes are not reviewed before becoming visible, and no garauntee is made on the accuracy of the content. In other words, things you and I already know, but which the average joe might not. I don't think this will happen, because the people who control it seem to be too proud to admit that it might be inferior in any way to other encyclopedias.
Yes, everybody hates child porn. Let's all take a minute to hate pedophiles...
OK, now that we got that out of the way, maybe the reason this article might be of interest to you, is that this could be used as a precedent in other cases. Like copyrighted music, movies, and software. Also, if someone is doing reasearch on, say, racist material on the internet, they might be charged with producing "hate" propaganda because they backed up their research materials.
This seems to me like another case of courts not understanding computer technology. It reminds me of the idea that there is a fundamental difference between "viewing" and "downloading" something. Whenever you view something on the internet, you're actually downloading it and storing a persistant copy on your hard drive (unless you have caching turned off). By burning it onto a CD, he has simply transfered it to another medium. If he had left them on his hard drive, would he have been charged with production? Now, if he had made multiple copies, then it would be reasonable to assume that he intended to distribute them. My main concern is why courts must always make arbitrary distinctions between different storage media.
While this may be true of private companies, most large companies are public. The CEO is elected by the board. If you want to have a say in how a public company is run, you can buy stock in it. You wanting to have control of public companies you don't own stock in, is like me trying to tell you how to run your own household.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading some of the replies, most people seem to take it for granted that C++ is inherently unstable. The main reason cited is memory leaks. Well, guess what, C++, if written properly, can have garbage collection. The answer is smart pointers. Specifically, check out the boost smart_ptr module. I find that if I wrap all calls to new in a shared_ptr or shared_array, my memory leaks go away. If I need bounds checking on an array, I'll use a std::vector class. And whenever type casting a class, I'll use a dynamic_cast, followed by an assert() of the result. Of course, there's always the possibility of introducing a memory leak when sharing pointers with another library, but at some point, you have to trust some code to be crash proof (like the .NET runtime or the JVM). In short, the key to safe C++ is smart programming techniques.
Also, this is intended to be run primarily under Linux, with the possibility of a Windows port later. Can anyone tell me how good the Mono class libraries are? I would think that, like GCJ, Mono is somewhat incomplete and/or buggy.
Today that's not a problem, because you can hear them talking on their cellphones.
Actually, it's in beta. Want an invite?
I've never met a Flash ad that I thought wasn't evil. What I consider evil in an ad is causing motion in your peripheral vision to divert your attention from the content of the page and toward the ad. (Of course, Flash ads can be a lot more evil than that if they use sound.) I suppose Flash ads could be completely static, or at least except when the user is mousing over them, but, like I said, I haven't seen one yet. Adblock is an absolute necessity for me.
Gmail isn't "plastered with ads"; I don't even notice them because they're just text. Compare that to the free Yahoo! Mail with picture adds that take up half the page. Gmail was one of the first webmail programs to make full use of AJAX, and it has a bunch of great features. So you're saying you main complaint is that they're not charging you money yet? Yeah, that makes sense.
I can't even begin to figure out how they would identify her as a "pirate".
Maybe she wears an eye patch and owns a parrot.
you : making sense ::
eggplant : carnival
I've heard of plasma, but I thought it was only near the surface of stars and other bright burning objects, not hanging out or going past earth.
Lately, my university library has been using plasma to display a boring slide show of "events" in the library that everyone ignores. Every time I see one of those, I see a $3000 bulletin board that I could be watching movies on. Interior decorators are evil.
Still, there are many not-for-profit mailing lists that may be seriously inconvenienced by this new development. Subscribers may have to get free email accounts (e.g. gmail) to continue to use them. Who knows, they may even see the light and leave AOL alltogether. (A guy can dream, can't he?)
And according to WP, the mundane environments, instead of Quake's fantastic ones. You got that completely backwards. DN3D had great environments. There were huge canyons, alien spaceships, underwater environments, inner cities, and a lot more. I only played the Quake demo, but everything just looked like a dungeon.
So, again I ask, why is this *morally* wrong?
Because you piggy backed on a totally unrelated first post. Go ahead and mod me offtopic people, but you know it's annoying.
I believe you meant to say that in Korea, only old people drive cars...or don't drive cars...wait, nevermind.
I don't know of a single guard who would try to take down someone without really good cause. I sort of don't believe that these people actually exist - I think they're the fictional nemeses who lend bravado and excitement to our friends' exploits, a contemporary ghost or gang of bandits. Why? Because it's dangerous and stupid to confront anyone. They could have a knife, a gun, and then your life is over, and for what? the glory of tackling some punk with a camera (hint: there is none) to save a few windows? to protect a five ton spool of steel wire?
How about to pick a fight with a smaller, younger person to make yourself feel tough. Are you serious that you don't believe there are bad security guards out there? If so, you are in serious denial. Honest security guards like you claim to be are in the minority. Most of the ones I've met live to harass and intimidate. Maybe there's a difference between the kinds of guards that work on industrial sites and those that work at malls, but to say that bad security guards don't exist is extremely naive. I honestly think you need to come to grips with the nature of your profession.
There are no long queues in Disneyland or any American amusement park for that matter. You do have to wait in a lot of long lines, though. Except on the west coast, where you wait "on" them. ;)
As a result SeaMonkey has a number of features that aren't present (by default or at all) in Firefox/Thunderbird, ranging from roaming profiles, to the dom inspector and javascript debugger
I haven't tried this JavaScript debugger, but Firefox comes with a DOM inspector. It's in the Tools menu. Last time I tried the Mozilla suite, the only significant feature it had that FF didn't was the HTML editor. That produced code that wasn't that great, and since I got serious about learning HTML, I have no need for it anymore. I don't see what could be so great about SeaMonkey.
...FBI stands for "Female Body Inspector".
It was a little worse than you made it sound. Brooks beat Sumner even after he lost conciousness until his cane broke. It took three years of recovery before he was able to return to the Senate. As a perfect example of the priviledged status and lack of accountability of politicians, Brooks' punishment was a $300 fine.
He also gave me an anecdotal story of a Harvard football player that injured his shoulder blade as the star quarter back. When they x-rayed him, they also found out that his head was mostly filled with water and the result was a severe lack of brain tissue. However, he was a 4.0 grade point average student.
The football program was paying someone to do his homework and take tests for him?
Don't worry, it won't happen until they perfect male pregnancy.
I really wish Wikipedia could be used as an academic reference.
Why would you want to do that?! Encyclopedias in general are not good academic references becuase they don't represent original work, but rather a collection and summary of information from other sources. If you find yourself citing Encyclopedia Britannica frequently in academic papers, you might want to consider improving your research methods.
It could be done. The current system is just too open for the kind of abuse described in the article.
Sure, it could be made more reliable, but you'd have to make some fundamental changes. First, you could only accept writing by experts who can prove their credentials. Second, you'd have to have a formalized peer review and editing process. This would cause a big delay between writing and publishing the articles. It would also limit the scope of the encyclopedia, and would greatly increase its cost. In other words, it would become a traditional encyclopedia. That niche has already been filled.
The strengths of Wikipedia are that it is more complete, it is up to date, and it represents a wide variety of viewpoints of many subjects. It's a great way to find a review of some subject and find references on that subject. Sure, it's not authoratative, but who really expects it to be? In my opinion, the best thing that could be done for it is to put a disclaimer prominantly displayed at the top of each page saying that it can be edited by anybody, changes are not reviewed before becoming visible, and no garauntee is made on the accuracy of the content. In other words, things you and I already know, but which the average joe might not. I don't think this will happen, because the people who control it seem to be too proud to admit that it might be inferior in any way to other encyclopedias.
Yes, everybody hates child porn. Let's all take a minute to hate pedophiles...
OK, now that we got that out of the way, maybe the reason this article might be of interest to you, is that this could be used as a precedent in other cases. Like copyrighted music, movies, and software. Also, if someone is doing reasearch on, say, racist material on the internet, they might be charged with producing "hate" propaganda because they backed up their research materials.
This seems to me like another case of courts not understanding computer technology. It reminds me of the idea that there is a fundamental difference between "viewing" and "downloading" something. Whenever you view something on the internet, you're actually downloading it and storing a persistant copy on your hard drive (unless you have caching turned off). By burning it onto a CD, he has simply transfered it to another medium. If he had left them on his hard drive, would he have been charged with production? Now, if he had made multiple copies, then it would be reasonable to assume that he intended to distribute them. My main concern is why courts must always make arbitrary distinctions between different storage media.
Now I'm going to have nightmares.
Way to ruin the joke, douche bag.
While this may be true of private companies, most large companies are public. The CEO is elected by the board. If you want to have a say in how a public company is run, you can buy stock in it. You wanting to have control of public companies you don't own stock in, is like me trying to tell you how to run your own household.