That might be the concept of a reference, but in reality a reference is NOT 'the type', it is a pointer that uses . instead of -> notation with a few compile time checks that are pretty easy to get around with casting.
To claim otherwise is just about as useful as defining a 'nocrash' macro and saying that programs that have it don't crash because that would be nonsense, after all, the nocrash flag is set!
*smirk* it isn't supposted to be NULL, but there is nothing stopping one from creating a NULL reference. I think the classic example was something like:
void foo(string& bar) {}
baz()
{
foo(string(NULL));
}
when one tries to access bar in foo, bar is a NULL reference.
While there might be a aesthetic difference in C++, functionally they are identical since a reference is just a pointer with some syntactical sugar to make it look like it isn't.
That is probably one of the major reasons to make a null pointer zero. Having to store an extra arbitrary value in a register every time you want to check a pointer would probably slow things down quite a bit.
Actually though I wonder if it might be an age/region thing. I have found it is mostly boomer-age evangelicals who push the whole 'child abuse makes you gay, gays are all pedophiles' thing. I do not here it from then younger crowd and have been hearing it less from the older crowd over the last decade or so.
*ponders* you have a point. I should be using softer nouns and not applying them nearly as broadly. Though you kinda jumped to a conclusion in assuming I was thinking of just Christians. This is something that seems human in general and I see it across religions.
That being said, I have personally dealt with evangelical sects that do specifically push the {gay=pedophile,gay=monster,gay=destroying society,gay=less then human monsters} imagery and these are often the people who go out of their way to remove openly gay people completely from wherever their children might interact. I've found the more moderate 'they are wrong and need to be saved' sects to be a bit quieter about it rather then pushing to outcast people.
That actually kinda makes my point. If children are exposed to homosexuals in a way that does not portray them as immoral monsters then they start seeing them as normal people and not immoral people.
Condensed.. it is important to these parents that their kids continue to see homosexuals as inherently immoral people. It is also important to them that their own children be so scared of these immoralities that if they are gay themselves they will keep it nice and repressed out of fear of being monsters themselves.
What would there be to explain then? If they don't know anything about sex or sexual relationships then one shouldn't really need to explain how something is differnt.
The big thing such parents worry about is that their children are exposed to gays that are not horrible monsters and thus the kids start seeing them as regular people... which the parents are trying very hard to prevent. These parents do not want to risk their kids seeing gays as people.. they want to see them unquestioningly as sick pedophiles that are destroying society, inhuman evil monsters that can not be related to.
THAT is why they don't want their kids exposed to gays in enviorments like this where they might actually *gasp* get along with them.
I've heard of people getting harrassed or banned for even saying things like 'BBL - gotta meet my gf for dinner'. So the type of casual statement that strait players would take for granted can be a minefield for GBLT ones.
Considering both kink and swinging can get you arrested (or at least cost your job and reputation), I would wager laws like this are designed to keep harassing all those 'perverts' now that the anti-sodomy laws are being struck down.
That is probably the big thing right there. Placing an add in a single's mag is the type of thing that can be dug up as 'dirt' later in life and can cost you your job if you are unlucky. So such customers care a great deal about discreetness.
True, but some big IT shops are going to have a serious issue with software that can override security features. Unless microsoft provides an 'enterprise' way to make SURE the policy IT sets is actually set, many customers will find some other way.
Abstraction is great, as long as it gives you what you need. As soon as it doesn't then you have a problem. So you can do more as long as you are only doing what the developer guess you will want to do. But the more layers of abstraction you have the more difficult it becomes to do anything else.
I could actually see someone picking up tradewars at some point and building a modern on-line game based off of it. Even something on the level of Pardus would get players and probably would be quite a bit of fun.
Though to take the example a bit further, I wouldn't even call this a hostile takeover, more like one exec secretly doing the paperwork to transfer the corp to another owner without telling the rest of the board.
I did something similiar to that years ago when I got fed up with doubleclick. I just installed a DNS server on my box and changed where their domain pointed ^_^
Balance yes, but by design the president is supposed to execute congresses's will, not impose it. Unfortunatly over the years people have seen the president more and more as the 'leader of the country' rather then 'person in charge of implementing the laws'.
Another element was that in the past there were people who it was 'ok' to be violent against. You had women, minorities, gays, etc.. so violence was mostly focused on people who society accepted as being targets. Society has lost those marks now though so violence is being heaped on people we pay attention to or, even worse, upper middle class white kids.
According to the DoJ, youth violence has been steadily dropping. What we are generally running into is more reporting of violence plus older people looking back at a nostalgic view of when they were young and selectively removing the violence that was around.
Slashdot Mirror
Initially no, but since creation of spyware is not, in and of it'self illegal, it would give someone somewhere a legal tool to shut them down.
Non-Industrial embedded developers are probably going to move away from linux (or at least the gnu bits) after GPLv3 anyway.
That might be the concept of a reference, but in reality a reference is NOT 'the type', it is a pointer that uses . instead of -> notation with a few compile time checks that are pretty easy to get around with casting.
To claim otherwise is just about as useful as defining a 'nocrash' macro and saying that programs that have it don't crash because that would be nonsense, after all, the nocrash flag is set!
*smirk* it isn't supposted to be NULL, but there is nothing stopping one from creating a NULL reference. I think the classic example was something like:
void foo(string& bar) {}
baz()
{
foo(string(NULL));
}
when one tries to access bar in foo, bar is a NULL reference.
While there might be a aesthetic difference in C++, functionally they are identical since a reference is just a pointer with some syntactical sugar to make it look like it isn't.
That is probably one of the major reasons to make a null pointer zero. Having to store an extra arbitrary value in a register every time you want to check a pointer would probably slow things down quite a bit.
Actually though I wonder if it might be an age/region thing. I have found it is mostly boomer-age evangelicals who push the whole 'child abuse makes you gay, gays are all pedophiles' thing. I do not here it from then younger crowd and have been hearing it less from the older crowd over the last decade or so.
*ponders* you have a point. I should be using softer nouns and not applying them nearly as broadly. Though you kinda jumped to a conclusion in assuming I was thinking of just Christians. This is something that seems human in general and I see it across religions.
That being said, I have personally dealt with evangelical sects that do specifically push the {gay=pedophile,gay=monster,gay=destroying society,gay=less then human monsters} imagery and these are often the people who go out of their way to remove openly gay people completely from wherever their children might interact. I've found the more moderate 'they are wrong and need to be saved' sects to be a bit quieter about it rather then pushing to outcast people.
That actually kinda makes my point. If children are exposed to homosexuals in a way that does not portray them as immoral monsters then they start seeing them as normal people and not immoral people.
Condensed.. it is important to these parents that their kids continue to see homosexuals as inherently immoral people. It is also important to them that their own children be so scared of these immoralities that if they are gay themselves they will keep it nice and repressed out of fear of being monsters themselves.
Kinda sounds the same to me.
What would there be to explain then? If they don't know anything about sex or sexual relationships then one shouldn't really need to explain how something is differnt.
The big thing such parents worry about is that their children are exposed to gays that are not horrible monsters and thus the kids start seeing them as regular people... which the parents are trying very hard to prevent. These parents do not want to risk their kids seeing gays as people.. they want to see them unquestioningly as sick pedophiles that are destroying society, inhuman evil monsters that can not be related to.
THAT is why they don't want their kids exposed to gays in enviorments like this where they might actually *gasp* get along with them.
I've heard of people getting harrassed or banned for even saying things like 'BBL - gotta meet my gf for dinner'. So the type of casual statement that strait players would take for granted can be a minefield for GBLT ones.
Considering both kink and swinging can get you arrested (or at least cost your job and reputation), I would wager laws like this are designed to keep harassing all those 'perverts' now that the anti-sodomy laws are being struck down.
That is probably the big thing right there. Placing an add in a single's mag is the type of thing that can be dug up as 'dirt' later in life and can cost you your job if you are unlucky. So such customers care a great deal about discreetness.
True, but some big IT shops are going to have a serious issue with software that can override security features. Unless microsoft provides an 'enterprise' way to make SURE the policy IT sets is actually set, many customers will find some other way.
Given how xenophobic the area is, attaching any crime to something foreign will get you reads.
Abstraction is great, as long as it gives you what you need. As soon as it doesn't then you have a problem. So you can do more as long as you are only doing what the developer guess you will want to do. But the more layers of abstraction you have the more difficult it becomes to do anything else.
I could actually see someone picking up tradewars at some point and building a modern on-line game based off of it. Even something on the level of Pardus would get players and probably would be quite a bit of fun.
If I had mod points.....
Though to take the example a bit further, I wouldn't even call this a hostile takeover, more like one exec secretly doing the paperwork to transfer the corp to another owner without telling the rest of the board.
I did something similiar to that years ago when I got fed up with doubleclick. I just installed a DNS server on my box and changed where their domain pointed ^_^
Balance yes, but by design the president is supposed to execute congresses's will, not impose it. Unfortunatly over the years people have seen the president more and more as the 'leader of the country' rather then 'person in charge of implementing the laws'.
Doesn't "necessarily have to"?
It is the president's job to do what congress says, not the other way around.
Another element was that in the past there were people who it was 'ok' to be violent against. You had women, minorities, gays, etc.. so violence was mostly focused on people who society accepted as being targets. Society has lost those marks now though so violence is being heaped on people we pay attention to or, even worse, upper middle class white kids.
According to the DoJ, youth violence has been steadily dropping. What we are generally running into is more reporting of violence plus older people looking back at a nostalgic view of when they were young and selectively removing the violence that was around.
Looks like he is going with 'recently practicing lawyer.'