Java solved it correctly -- just copy the pointer, instead of overloading the '=' operator. When you you see a simple statement like shown below in C++,

a = b;

you may be unaware that an assignment operator overloaded function may be lurking in there and the side effects that are caused by it. It would be worse if b were part of a function/method's arguments. It's just poor design -- add hacks to solve a problem and end up creating more problems.

That is the most complex solution presented here and that too for a simple problem. Let's face it, Python list comprehensions are not perfect and are useful only for the most common cases. So unless they update the syntax to accommodate this use-case (i.e., no double compute() or extra temp list), it's simply easier to write and maintain the code using the for loop.

Article I says, in part, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law".

Since the article says that no govt owns it, which is bullshit, I think (since the world is a democracy and not a plutocracy). And since the common man has no resources to go to the moon, let alone mine it and transport the minerals back to earth. Can we safely assume, the treaty favors businessmen of first-world countries who will use public resources to mine the minerals but keep the profits to themselves? In other words, the law is extremely unfair and biased.

What would be fair is all the govts divvy up the resources by country size, GDP and other means. Furthermore, while the miners should get the lion's share of the minerals, the citizens of all involved countries should also get rights to a fraction of the minerals mined.

Better yet introduce trial periods and reviews so that everyone understands that membership is not guaranteed and something to be respected/valued and help reduce feelings of self entitlement.

What is this, some kind of corp? These open source developers have been paid exactly squat. How dare you simply take their work for free and then kick them out once they no longer serve your purpose. What a complete ripoff!

I would be okay with the *firing* if the developers got paid in the first place. Otherwise, you have no right to abuse them.

Your solution is not practical either. If "orns" were a huge array, "mid" would consume a lot of time and memory. Instead, OP's solution with the large for loop is the best answer, although it looks ugly.

Although the language itself isn't truly, truly bad,

Any language that allows the programmer to override the '=' operator is truly, verily, bad. That makes the language over-programmable and a write-only language when trying to maintain other developer's code. Java may have fewer features, but that doesn't stop the developers from getting stuff done.

Due to the small structures and dense packing of RAM cells these days, this also discharges neighboring cells a little bit, but those aren't rewritten by the RAM controller... This attack however clears the cache between reads, so the same physical RAM cells are read over and over, and that depletes neighboring cells far enough to corrupt the data before it is rewritten by the refresh cycle.

Are you sure that's the case? If what you say is true, the adjacent rows would drain charge and the 'one' bits in the 'victim' row would become 'zero' bits. But what's happening is, 'zero' bits are changing to 'one.' How can that happen if reads deplete capacitors of neighboring rows? It could instead be related magnetic field interference between the rows... just my guess.

I would be happy with giving a single bonus if some EE engineers or physicists can explain how this exploit works. Right now we only know what it does -- flip bits in some memory locations by writing to other memory locations.

This is just Goodyear seeing that a bunch of people are gullible* enough to buy electric cars and hybrids. This gets them a piece of the action.

Goodyear does not specify typical power output of these tires. But let's say your tesla model S gives 300 miles/charge and adding these tires gives you a 330 to 360 mile range. Also, and more importantly, since you're running the car directly off a power source (tires), for 10%-20% of the distance, you're increasing battery life by not constantly charging/recharging it.

This removes the need for a shader language parser in the graphics driver. It still needs a compiler, unless you think the GPU is going to natively execute the bytecode. If you remove the compiler from a modern GPU driver, then there's very little left...

In compiler lingo, the source code to parse tree/bytecode converter is called the front end. The piece of code that takes the parse tree/bytecode and generates native machine code is called the back end.

So the new spec removes the compiler front end from the graphics driver, greatly improving performance. Only the compiler back end is present in the graphics driver.

I don't think it's entirely zero-profit for backers. If the project succeeds then I get a thing that I wanted that might not otherwise have been created.

Or you could have waited for the item to be available in stores and bought it, risk-free. Let other people take the risk.

Paying with equity would be illegal, and thus not such a great idea.

Perhaps, but profit sharing is common. For example, 30% of mobile app sales go to Apple or Google. In a similar fashion, 1% sales or 5% profit of all future sales of the kickstarted product should go to the backers. Without their collective risk-taking and investment in the creator's idea, there is going to be no product to be sold.

If you don't charge anything to the creators, even rich companies like Microsoft and Apple are going put up kickstarter pages for any product remotely risky. That is, making the backers pay (like in TFA case), for any risk involved.

And FYI, Kickstarter is not a donation platform as evidenced by the dozens of angry posts about "we want full refund."

Don't Kickstart something that seems like a good idea but has never been done before.

Terrible advice. The whole point of kickstarter is to invest in something new and risky. But right now the game is tilted towards fleecing backers. If the project succeeds, the creators become filthy rich but if it fails, the creators lose nothing whereas the backers get nothing for risking their micro-capital. It's a zero-loss game for creators and a zero-profit game for backers.

This would change if the backers were paid with equity -- say greater of 1% of total sales or 5% of profit of product being backed. If some products fail, while others succeed, there is a good chance backers won't lose money.

If 5% seems high, what about the 30% cut that Apple and Google take on games in iOS and Android? Unreal seems to be following ios and android, and before that, Playstation -- charging a percentage of sales as "platform" fees.

It's theft of time using drive-by advertising.