Sorry you must be confused. The thread about Saddam's capture was posted back in 2003 or so. This is the one about Libya and Gaddafi.
Wait, don't tell me you actually believe a grass-roots revolution led by the poor to topple an authoritarian leadership and it's elite minority is somehow sponsoring the interests of the powerful few?
Or perhaps you subscribe to hypocritical Russian politics where attacking a foreign sovereign state is always bad. Well, unless it's Georgia.
Or are you one of those dumb conspiracy theorists who thinks this was about oil or something?
The only self interest for the respective NATO countries involved in this was prevention of mass immigration to Europe if Gaddafi continued to make things worse in his country, but mostly this was the first bout of military action in a long while that was actually meaningful, just, and most importantly - succesful.
Well judging by the fact the BBC just posted a still from a live feed from Al Jazeera which shows someone who looks pretty much like Gaddafi being dragged through the street I'd say it's pretty much more reliable. It's further bolstered by the fact the kid who supposedly found him was shown waving round a gold plated desert eagle or similar. I doubt that's the type of expensive custom side arm that's just left lying around.
Unless Gaddafi is capable of coming back from the dead I think there's a fair chance he's gone.
Kamis is long dead, even Gaddafi's own Syrian based TV station accepted that.
"Maybe if the military used ALL the biofuel produced in the continental USA, it could continue to operate... in the continental USA."
Why would this be a suprising scenario to you? The US already uses far more oil than it can produce itself and it's military is perhaps the biggest consumer there. Why would biofuels be different?
Actually no, it's just the usual Apple fanboy trolls trying to stir FUD up about Android as always.
Like all the FUD about fragmentation, which they've suddenly gone silent about since iOS itself has become fragmented whilst not being designed from the outset to cope with it as well as Android was.
On that note, where's the iOS and Windows Phone source code? Oh wait, nevermind.
The genius of Apple marketing is that their fanboys are so addicted to their brand that they don't even have to do much, the fanboy troll army does most of their job for them nowadays.
To be fair, last time I used Google translate on my phone (about a year ago) I was suprised at how effective it was at supporting the most random of languages in terms of both input and output as both text and speech. I dare say they've made more progress in the last year, I wouldn't be suprised if they actually do support a hell of a lot of languages so whilst it's still down to supported languages, last time I checked that list was a pretty decent size spanning languages spoken by the vast majority of the world's population at least.
I don't know anything about these sites, but if it's just things like phone books then you can choose to opt out of them in the UK and by law companies must honour this.
There are some exemptions on what is classed as private date too however, it's not so much about protecting people from having their name stored by a company, but protecting them from having things like their date of birth, sex, religion, race, job, income, address and so forth.
I doubt Facebook is simply storing names judging by TFA, so I can't see how they or the data they hold would fall under any such exemption.
"IMO one of the worst things that could be done would be to hand over what is essentially a technical domain problem to a group of politicians. The UN, outside of maybe the Security Council and General Assembly which recognizes governments and countries and occasionally deploys "peacekeeping" forces, is pretty worthless."
This is another fine example of the ignorant scourge that plagues these kind of political debates. What are you on about handing over a technical problem to politicians? You are aware that the likes of the ITU, UNESCO and so forth are staffed by some of the formost experts in their fields? Not people who have any political standing, no, people who have worked themselves up from being average Joes to knowing something about the field in question.
The only part of the UN you hear about are the politicians sure, but there are far more people making the cogs turn doing things that make our increasingly globalised and interconnected world work together seamlessly in a number of ways - again, the examples I cited are pretty good demonstrations of this - telecomms, post, maritime, and air.
Right, but that's precisely my point. You're referring to a section of the UN that relies on simple majority vote, rather than the sections I pointed to which rely on international consensus to operate.
I quite agreed with you in my original post that the sections of the UN that don't work are those where consensus is not required and where vested interests can succesfully pursue their agenda like the US does with the WTO.
The problem with your argument is that you're then extrapolating this to imply the whole of the UN is like this which is simply wrong and as I said previously demonstrates little more than ignorance of the UN. It's populist tosh, it's completely false and simply plays to the xenophobic ultra-patriotic tea-party America mindset that's a disease on this planet.
I agree the UN has bad points, bad groupings- the fact countries like Iran and Libya were on the human rights panel was a complete fucking joke for instance, but that's not the point - the point is organisations like the ITU that rely on consensus and which would have to be far more of a blueprint for any UN organisation if not handled by the ITU itself work very very well - again, far better than unilateral US control and besides - even if you had a valid point, that the UN does follow in it's entirety the majority rule demonstrated in the link you posted, how is this better than the US' unilateral control involving censorship of gambling and so forth? Although I don't personally agree with it at least in the article you linked there's a fair argument that condemning religious hate speak has the goal of preventing unnecessary violence in the world - what does censoring foreign gambling sites, legitimate foreign businesses, or sites arbitrarily defined as piracy sites achieve for the world exactly other than decreased access to culture?
That doesn't wash under UK law, nor in most of Europe. It is against the DPA for a business to hold data on you unless there is a mutually agreed reason for them to do so between the two of you or unless they fall under one of the specific exemptions provided by the act such as for law enforcement, or health provisioning. Facebook falls under none of this, so without a doubt is in breach of British law and similar laws in much of Europe.
Whether anything will be done is a different story, our ICO is a toothless waste of space, so I imagine they'll be able to get away with it regardless.
Yawn, I've said it many a time, anti UN whinging about this is just stupid and demonstrates massive ignorance. The UN already objectively handles this sort of thing well with it's management of international telephony (ITU), international maritime standards (IMO), international air standards (ICAO), international post (UPU) and so forth. The fact you apparently don't realise this is a testament to the great job they do, have you never wondered why you can easily send post to different countries with no wonder about htf it's going to get there? have you never wondered why there's no problems with planes flown by people from different countries with different cultures, speaking different languages crossing tens of borders within a single flight? have you never wondered how painlessly you can make a phone call abroad despite the plethora of different national telecommunications laws, concepts, and technologies between countries?
The UN is perfect to this role, because unlike the US it means no single country can enforce anything, it means consent is required of all member nations to push through things like web blocking. That means no more arbitrary US censorship with ICE, no more arbitrary effective shut downs of other country's companies corporate sites because some Texas patent troll court wins an injunction the victim never knew was filed against them, no more ability of redneck states to shut down the likes of Antigua's online gambling industry domains simply because of their own ass backwards moral standards. That's of course before you go into the drama of the new buy your own TLD plan which destroys the hierarchial structure of DNS, is technical idiocy, but was allowed through because it means far more cash for ICANN's staff and directors to pocket.
Global consensus in a world with such vast disagreement meaning controversal stuff inevitably finds itself at least one veto, whilst mundane stuff that's pretty essential (like changes relating to DNS Security) passes easily is far more sensible than everything goes P2P, or everyone being forced to adhere to the lowest common denominator state of moral standards in the US.
As for WIPO, would now be a bad time to point out that WIPO worked well like this originally too, with poorer nations vetoing over the top IP protection for the pharmaceutical industry so that the suffering amongst their populace could afford medicine and the like too, but as a result of this, primarily the US, pushed this sort of thing into a new organisation - the WTO precisely so it could bypass the fairness that WIPO originally offered?
Yes, that's right, the UN isn't the problem, a minority of countries like the US is, which is precisely why it shouldn't retain control of ICANN. The only parts of the UN that don't work well are the parts that aren't truly representative of the global community - the likes of the security council, the WTO and so forth, though even these are still better than organisations controlled unilaterally like ICANN. This is why ICANN should be moved to a representative UN organisation like WIPO was before America gimped it, like the ITU, ICAO, UPU etc. thankfully still are
"AS far as DRM goes, it's the best. Valve could disappear tomorrow and I could still use all the games I have."
Yeah, if you never need to reinstall them from the original media. Try buying something like Dawn of War II in a shop as an actual physical disc only to find out you need Valve's permission to be able to actually play it. Try carrying out your right to sell your games second hand individually.
Besides, even what you said isn't true. Defcon, bought and installed from Steam doesn't even recognise through Steam's DRM that it's legit copy half the time for me anyway and that's whilst Valve are a live company, god knows there'd be any hope of playing it if they went bust.
Really, if that's the best DRM there is then we live in a pretty fucking sad world nowadays.
"As a side note, the data steam gets is showing more and more publishing house that they don't really need DRM."
Great. Now all we need is for companies to act on it, shame they aren't.
"Are you twelve? If you were older, I'd expect you to remember the days of Starforce, and of having to look up secret phrases in your manual (written in yellow ink on white pages to defeat photocopying)."
Do you understand what the D in DRM actually is?
But regardless, no, I'm plenty old enough to remember that I could just slap my Quake CD in my drive, install it, take it out, and play it as, when, and how I wanted.
"Steam has some of the least obtrusive DRM on the planet."
Yes, if you think having to get Valve's permission to play a game you bought on a CD in a shop is unobtrusive, and having to install their software on your system, and having your ability to lend or resell your copy removed from you is unobtrusive too.
What the fuck is wrong with people on Slashdot now? 10 years ago you'd have been laughed off the site for defending such restrictive DRM, but now Valve has it's little fanboy army people like you actually get modded up. It really has become a bastion of dumb sheep who'd gladly give up their rights to their fanboy messiahs.
The fact that Steam's DRM wholesale prevents you selling a game on second hand?
The fact that Steam's DRM requires you to activate games to be able to play them?
Even console marketplaces don't do this - if the content is there to buy you can play it, none of this receiving a game, finding you have to install Steam to use it, being forced through a marketplace, and being forced to wait for Valve to give you permission to use your purchase if they haven't got their arse into gear by release day.
"It's not a lack of comfort -- I have over 15 years C++ programming experience."
You know, that's not all that special. You've only been using it since 1996?
It's also worth noting that using a language that long doesn't necessarily help you get better, the real question is what else you've been doing too. If you've only really been using C++ then you've not got any experience dealing with the quirks and changes to software development other languages provide. If you're stuck in your multiple inheritance ways then you're ignorant to what other options are available in other languages.
"Programming speed and maintainability are more important to me nowadays. "
It's important to most people, that's why, in general. there's very little use for C++ nowadays.
"but the implementation code ends up replicated all over the place. "
It sounds like you're just not very good at determining your inheritance trees. There's very few circumstances where you genuinely need something to be 'is a' and 'also a', there are however plenty of circumstances where you need something to be 'is a' and 'is like a' however. Your base class provides the 'is a' relationship, interfaces provide the 'also a' relationship. Can you give me some of the countless examples you no doubt have where multiple inheritance is necessary enough to be used throughout a program multiple times?
"I question your qualifications to judge C++ implementation architectures if you thing multiple inheritance is no big deal."
Right, and I question your qualifications to design applications full stop if you think multiple inheritance is important enough to be needed in every single application, and the applications it is used in more than once.
"but I deal with practical programming, not philosophy."
Yes, and the guy after you is going to have to deal with a maintainability nightmare.
What does being a martyr achieve in this case? It wont unite the pirates.
No, far better to reassert to the authorities that they do not control people in the digital age like they used to, that chasing pirates is laughably futile and that it's better to work with them and provide them with reasonable content at reasonable prices than against them in pointless litigation that's cost them far more pursuing than they'll ever hope to get back from it.
100,000 in a day isn't particularly great anyway on AT&T though, what happened to Apple having massive preorders that were supposedly newsworthy last week? Android sees around 300,000 activations on a normal day let alone near release, and the iPhone 4 (not the 4S) had just short of a million.
This seems to be an admittance that the iPhone 4S is a bit of a flop after all despite the pre-order hype. Certainly those sales figures are a little underwhelming compared to releases of previous iPhones.
But the real question is why the activation troubles this time? They handled a much higher load at the iPhone 4 release.
It kind of helped that at the time the internet was becoming commonplace it was doing so because of the.com boom and so governments were willing to accept it and the new economic brilliance it brought.
The problem for governments is by the time the bubble burst, it was too late for them, really when it came to controlling the net they were wrong footed by their own greed. They were too caught up in the economic benefits to realise it was changing the balance of power somewhat too until it was too late.
"Hell, NO! That's the main problem with Digg. Everybody can moderate, so moderation becomes commonplace. In Slashdot, you can't always moderate, and your possible number of moderations is limited. This makes every +1/-1 more valuable."
Except this isn't true, Slashdot's system is meant to be like this, but for a period of about a month or more I was getting 60+ mod points a day (4 lots of 15 replenished regularly through the day) and have had no mod points at all for about 2 years since then.
So it seems the system would randomly basically make people effectively permanent moderators for some time, and then perhaps never allow them to be moderators ever again.
Not that I can see that it really matters, the effective result is te same as digg anyway. Certain fanboys have enough followers that they're always modded up to +5 even when they're demonstrably and objectively completely and utterly wrong in what they say and are just spouting fanboy bs or whatever.
Meanwhile some smart people who post irregularly but when they do have something really really interesting to say are drowned out by said fanboys or whatever you wish to call them and their followers. I really don't see how this is any better- I'm not saying free for all is the solution, but I'm not convinced the current system is actually any better.
For what it's worth the last UK government commissioned an independent report into intellectual property and the report (known as the Gower's review) recommended that 20 years would be the best option, but that at very least it certainly didn't need extending beyond 50.
The government ignored it of course, and went for 70 years instead.
The 1980s called, they want their understanding of software back.
Much modern software, supported by modern OS' use available memory to cache as much stuff that can be cached to increase performance. If a piece of software is using a few hundred mb it's probably doing so for good reason, rather than wasting CPU cycles dynamically calculating everything whilst your few gb of memory sits completely unused.
Modern IDEs don't just provide a few text editor windows, they provide things like autocomplete, and it's far better to keep a cache of possible autocomplete options that's updated as code changes than it is to try and re-parse the entire code base to find out what those options are each time.
Times change, high memory usage doesn't necessarily mean bad software, it can sometimes be a result of the developers of that software choosing to accept higher memory usage to cut down CPU usage so that features can be added that just simply wouldn't be feasible if it was all dumped on the CPU every single time it's used.
This isn't to excuse all high memory usage apps, Firefox is an example where I'm not convinced it's all about caching, and seems to largely be a result of memory leaks because you can have 20 tabs open on an evening using a few hundred mb, leave the Window open, go to bed, come back the next morning and find it using a couple of gb. But oh wait, that's not possible, because it's a super efficient C++ program and only Java programs can end up using excessive amounts of memory right?
So what if President Assad has had over 2,000 civilians killed now? Hitler killed millions, why aren't you talking about him!!!! How dare the news engage in such anti-Assad trolling!
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry you must be confused. The thread about Saddam's capture was posted back in 2003 or so. This is the one about Libya and Gaddafi.
Wait, don't tell me you actually believe a grass-roots revolution led by the poor to topple an authoritarian leadership and it's elite minority is somehow sponsoring the interests of the powerful few?
Or perhaps you subscribe to hypocritical Russian politics where attacking a foreign sovereign state is always bad. Well, unless it's Georgia.
Or are you one of those dumb conspiracy theorists who thinks this was about oil or something?
The only self interest for the respective NATO countries involved in this was prevention of mass immigration to Europe if Gaddafi continued to make things worse in his country, but mostly this was the first bout of military action in a long while that was actually meaningful, just, and most importantly - succesful.
Well judging by the fact the BBC just posted a still from a live feed from Al Jazeera which shows someone who looks pretty much like Gaddafi being dragged through the street I'd say it's pretty much more reliable. It's further bolstered by the fact the kid who supposedly found him was shown waving round a gold plated desert eagle or similar. I doubt that's the type of expensive custom side arm that's just left lying around.
Unless Gaddafi is capable of coming back from the dead I think there's a fair chance he's gone.
Kamis is long dead, even Gaddafi's own Syrian based TV station accepted that.
"Maybe if the military used ALL the biofuel produced in the continental USA, it could continue to operate... in the continental USA."
Why would this be a suprising scenario to you? The US already uses far more oil than it can produce itself and it's military is perhaps the biggest consumer there. Why would biofuels be different?
Actually no, it's just the usual Apple fanboy trolls trying to stir FUD up about Android as always.
Like all the FUD about fragmentation, which they've suddenly gone silent about since iOS itself has become fragmented whilst not being designed from the outset to cope with it as well as Android was.
On that note, where's the iOS and Windows Phone source code? Oh wait, nevermind.
The genius of Apple marketing is that their fanboys are so addicted to their brand that they don't even have to do much, the fanboy troll army does most of their job for them nowadays.
To be fair, last time I used Google translate on my phone (about a year ago) I was suprised at how effective it was at supporting the most random of languages in terms of both input and output as both text and speech. I dare say they've made more progress in the last year, I wouldn't be suprised if they actually do support a hell of a lot of languages so whilst it's still down to supported languages, last time I checked that list was a pretty decent size spanning languages spoken by the vast majority of the world's population at least.
I don't know anything about these sites, but if it's just things like phone books then you can choose to opt out of them in the UK and by law companies must honour this.
There are some exemptions on what is classed as private date too however, it's not so much about protecting people from having their name stored by a company, but protecting them from having things like their date of birth, sex, religion, race, job, income, address and so forth.
I doubt Facebook is simply storing names judging by TFA, so I can't see how they or the data they hold would fall under any such exemption.
"IMO one of the worst things that could be done would be to hand over what is essentially a technical domain problem to a group of politicians. The UN, outside of maybe the Security Council and General Assembly which recognizes governments and countries and occasionally deploys "peacekeeping" forces, is pretty worthless."
This is another fine example of the ignorant scourge that plagues these kind of political debates. What are you on about handing over a technical problem to politicians? You are aware that the likes of the ITU, UNESCO and so forth are staffed by some of the formost experts in their fields? Not people who have any political standing, no, people who have worked themselves up from being average Joes to knowing something about the field in question.
The only part of the UN you hear about are the politicians sure, but there are far more people making the cogs turn doing things that make our increasingly globalised and interconnected world work together seamlessly in a number of ways - again, the examples I cited are pretty good demonstrations of this - telecomms, post, maritime, and air.
Right, but that's precisely my point. You're referring to a section of the UN that relies on simple majority vote, rather than the sections I pointed to which rely on international consensus to operate.
I quite agreed with you in my original post that the sections of the UN that don't work are those where consensus is not required and where vested interests can succesfully pursue their agenda like the US does with the WTO.
The problem with your argument is that you're then extrapolating this to imply the whole of the UN is like this which is simply wrong and as I said previously demonstrates little more than ignorance of the UN. It's populist tosh, it's completely false and simply plays to the xenophobic ultra-patriotic tea-party America mindset that's a disease on this planet.
I agree the UN has bad points, bad groupings- the fact countries like Iran and Libya were on the human rights panel was a complete fucking joke for instance, but that's not the point - the point is organisations like the ITU that rely on consensus and which would have to be far more of a blueprint for any UN organisation if not handled by the ITU itself work very very well - again, far better than unilateral US control and besides - even if you had a valid point, that the UN does follow in it's entirety the majority rule demonstrated in the link you posted, how is this better than the US' unilateral control involving censorship of gambling and so forth? Although I don't personally agree with it at least in the article you linked there's a fair argument that condemning religious hate speak has the goal of preventing unnecessary violence in the world - what does censoring foreign gambling sites, legitimate foreign businesses, or sites arbitrarily defined as piracy sites achieve for the world exactly other than decreased access to culture?
That doesn't wash under UK law, nor in most of Europe. It is against the DPA for a business to hold data on you unless there is a mutually agreed reason for them to do so between the two of you or unless they fall under one of the specific exemptions provided by the act such as for law enforcement, or health provisioning. Facebook falls under none of this, so without a doubt is in breach of British law and similar laws in much of Europe.
Whether anything will be done is a different story, our ICO is a toothless waste of space, so I imagine they'll be able to get away with it regardless.
Yawn, I've said it many a time, anti UN whinging about this is just stupid and demonstrates massive ignorance. The UN already objectively handles this sort of thing well with it's management of international telephony (ITU), international maritime standards (IMO), international air standards (ICAO), international post (UPU) and so forth. The fact you apparently don't realise this is a testament to the great job they do, have you never wondered why you can easily send post to different countries with no wonder about htf it's going to get there? have you never wondered why there's no problems with planes flown by people from different countries with different cultures, speaking different languages crossing tens of borders within a single flight? have you never wondered how painlessly you can make a phone call abroad despite the plethora of different national telecommunications laws, concepts, and technologies between countries?
The UN is perfect to this role, because unlike the US it means no single country can enforce anything, it means consent is required of all member nations to push through things like web blocking. That means no more arbitrary US censorship with ICE, no more arbitrary effective shut downs of other country's companies corporate sites because some Texas patent troll court wins an injunction the victim never knew was filed against them, no more ability of redneck states to shut down the likes of Antigua's online gambling industry domains simply because of their own ass backwards moral standards. That's of course before you go into the drama of the new buy your own TLD plan which destroys the hierarchial structure of DNS, is technical idiocy, but was allowed through because it means far more cash for ICANN's staff and directors to pocket.
Global consensus in a world with such vast disagreement meaning controversal stuff inevitably finds itself at least one veto, whilst mundane stuff that's pretty essential (like changes relating to DNS Security) passes easily is far more sensible than everything goes P2P, or everyone being forced to adhere to the lowest common denominator state of moral standards in the US.
As for WIPO, would now be a bad time to point out that WIPO worked well like this originally too, with poorer nations vetoing over the top IP protection for the pharmaceutical industry so that the suffering amongst their populace could afford medicine and the like too, but as a result of this, primarily the US, pushed this sort of thing into a new organisation - the WTO precisely so it could bypass the fairness that WIPO originally offered?
Yes, that's right, the UN isn't the problem, a minority of countries like the US is, which is precisely why it shouldn't retain control of ICANN. The only parts of the UN that don't work well are the parts that aren't truly representative of the global community - the likes of the security council, the WTO and so forth, though even these are still better than organisations controlled unilaterally like ICANN. This is why ICANN should be moved to a representative UN organisation like WIPO was before America gimped it, like the ITU, ICAO, UPU etc. thankfully still are
"AS far as DRM goes, it's the best.
Valve could disappear tomorrow and I could still use all the games I have."
Yeah, if you never need to reinstall them from the original media. Try buying something like Dawn of War II in a shop as an actual physical disc only to find out you need Valve's permission to be able to actually play it. Try carrying out your right to sell your games second hand individually.
Besides, even what you said isn't true. Defcon, bought and installed from Steam doesn't even recognise through Steam's DRM that it's legit copy half the time for me anyway and that's whilst Valve are a live company, god knows there'd be any hope of playing it if they went bust.
Really, if that's the best DRM there is then we live in a pretty fucking sad world nowadays.
"As a side note, the data steam gets is showing more and more publishing house that they don't really need DRM."
Great. Now all we need is for companies to act on it, shame they aren't.
"Are you twelve? If you were older, I'd expect you to remember the days of Starforce, and of having to look up secret phrases in your manual (written in yellow ink on white pages to defeat photocopying)."
Do you understand what the D in DRM actually is?
But regardless, no, I'm plenty old enough to remember that I could just slap my Quake CD in my drive, install it, take it out, and play it as, when, and how I wanted.
"Steam has some of the least obtrusive DRM on the planet."
Yes, if you think having to get Valve's permission to play a game you bought on a CD in a shop is unobtrusive, and having to install their software on your system, and having your ability to lend or resell your copy removed from you is unobtrusive too.
What the fuck is wrong with people on Slashdot now? 10 years ago you'd have been laughed off the site for defending such restrictive DRM, but now Valve has it's little fanboy army people like you actually get modded up. It really has become a bastion of dumb sheep who'd gladly give up their rights to their fanboy messiahs.
The fact that Steam's DRM wholesale prevents you selling a game on second hand?
The fact that Steam's DRM requires you to activate games to be able to play them?
Even console marketplaces don't do this - if the content is there to buy you can play it, none of this receiving a game, finding you have to install Steam to use it, being forced through a marketplace, and being forced to wait for Valve to give you permission to use your purchase if they haven't got their arse into gear by release day.
"It's not a lack of comfort -- I have over 15 years C++ programming experience."
You know, that's not all that special. You've only been using it since 1996?
It's also worth noting that using a language that long doesn't necessarily help you get better, the real question is what else you've been doing too. If you've only really been using C++ then you've not got any experience dealing with the quirks and changes to software development other languages provide. If you're stuck in your multiple inheritance ways then you're ignorant to what other options are available in other languages.
"Programming speed and maintainability are more important to me nowadays. "
It's important to most people, that's why, in general. there's very little use for C++ nowadays.
"but the implementation code ends up replicated all over the place. "
It sounds like you're just not very good at determining your inheritance trees. There's very few circumstances where you genuinely need something to be 'is a' and 'also a', there are however plenty of circumstances where you need something to be 'is a' and 'is like a' however. Your base class provides the 'is a' relationship, interfaces provide the 'also a' relationship. Can you give me some of the countless examples you no doubt have where multiple inheritance is necessary enough to be used throughout a program multiple times?
"I question your qualifications to judge C++ implementation architectures if you thing multiple inheritance is no big deal."
Right, and I question your qualifications to design applications full stop if you think multiple inheritance is important enough to be needed in every single application, and the applications it is used in more than once.
"but I deal with practical programming, not philosophy."
Yes, and the guy after you is going to have to deal with a maintainability nightmare.
You're thinking of Thailand.
Cambodia is where you go for kids. Ask Gary Glitter.
What does being a martyr achieve in this case? It wont unite the pirates.
No, far better to reassert to the authorities that they do not control people in the digital age like they used to, that chasing pirates is laughably futile and that it's better to work with them and provide them with reasonable content at reasonable prices than against them in pointless litigation that's cost them far more pursuing than they'll ever hope to get back from it.
100,000 in a day isn't particularly great anyway on AT&T though, what happened to Apple having massive preorders that were supposedly newsworthy last week? Android sees around 300,000 activations on a normal day let alone near release, and the iPhone 4 (not the 4S) had just short of a million.
This seems to be an admittance that the iPhone 4S is a bit of a flop after all despite the pre-order hype. Certainly those sales figures are a little underwhelming compared to releases of previous iPhones.
But the real question is why the activation troubles this time? They handled a much higher load at the iPhone 4 release.
Yes, Newell also said he hated DRM yet his company is the peddler of some of the worst DRM on the planet.
What Gabe says, and what his company does, are often completely different. Anything he says is largely meaningless.
It kind of helped that at the time the internet was becoming commonplace it was doing so because of the .com boom and so governments were willing to accept it and the new economic brilliance it brought.
The problem for governments is by the time the bubble burst, it was too late for them, really when it came to controlling the net they were wrong footed by their own greed. They were too caught up in the economic benefits to realise it was changing the balance of power somewhat too until it was too late.
If multiple inheritance is a big deal for you then the chance are you're not architecting your code well at all.
Oh and no, multiple inheritance is not the whole point in using C++ over C#, the need to work at a lower level is.
"Hell, NO! That's the main problem with Digg. Everybody can moderate, so moderation becomes commonplace. In Slashdot, you can't always moderate, and your possible number of moderations is limited. This makes every +1/-1 more valuable."
Except this isn't true, Slashdot's system is meant to be like this, but for a period of about a month or more I was getting 60+ mod points a day (4 lots of 15 replenished regularly through the day) and have had no mod points at all for about 2 years since then.
So it seems the system would randomly basically make people effectively permanent moderators for some time, and then perhaps never allow them to be moderators ever again.
Not that I can see that it really matters, the effective result is te same as digg anyway. Certain fanboys have enough followers that they're always modded up to +5 even when they're demonstrably and objectively completely and utterly wrong in what they say and are just spouting fanboy bs or whatever.
Meanwhile some smart people who post irregularly but when they do have something really really interesting to say are drowned out by said fanboys or whatever you wish to call them and their followers. I really don't see how this is any better- I'm not saying free for all is the solution, but I'm not convinced the current system is actually any better.
For what it's worth the last UK government commissioned an independent report into intellectual property and the report (known as the Gower's review) recommended that 20 years would be the best option, but that at very least it certainly didn't need extending beyond 50.
The government ignored it of course, and went for 70 years instead.
The 1980s called, they want their understanding of software back.
Much modern software, supported by modern OS' use available memory to cache as much stuff that can be cached to increase performance. If a piece of software is using a few hundred mb it's probably doing so for good reason, rather than wasting CPU cycles dynamically calculating everything whilst your few gb of memory sits completely unused.
Modern IDEs don't just provide a few text editor windows, they provide things like autocomplete, and it's far better to keep a cache of possible autocomplete options that's updated as code changes than it is to try and re-parse the entire code base to find out what those options are each time.
Times change, high memory usage doesn't necessarily mean bad software, it can sometimes be a result of the developers of that software choosing to accept higher memory usage to cut down CPU usage so that features can be added that just simply wouldn't be feasible if it was all dumped on the CPU every single time it's used.
This isn't to excuse all high memory usage apps, Firefox is an example where I'm not convinced it's all about caching, and seems to largely be a result of memory leaks because you can have 20 tabs open on an evening using a few hundred mb, leave the Window open, go to bed, come back the next morning and find it using a couple of gb. But oh wait, that's not possible, because it's a super efficient C++ program and only Java programs can end up using excessive amounts of memory right?
So what if President Assad has had over 2,000 civilians killed now? Hitler killed millions, why aren't you talking about him!!!! How dare the news engage in such anti-Assad trolling!