Nobody has observed high-energy ultraviolet photons naturally? Have you ever looked at the sun?

I thought Apple had already done this. Their cafeteria workers have been employees since the late 90s, give or take, and the folks who sit at the front desk are also employees. I had always assumed the security guards were as well, but apparently not.

OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.

First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).

And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.

It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.

Personally, I don't see that any of these things as compelling practical advantages, given that the kids already have dual Swedish and Belgian (and therefore EU) citizenship. If they were Moldovan and South Sudanese, that'd be a different story. Or if they were citizens of a country from which getting a visa to enter the US might be difficult in the future.

But most importantly I think this is one of those decisions that you just don't make primarily on a cost-benefit basis. It's not like deciding to join Costco or subscribe to Hulu. Citizenship entails responsibilities. If you want your kids to shoulder those responsibilities and feel allegiance to the US then it makes sense to get them that citizenship come hell or high water. But given that they already have two perfectly good citizenships from two advanced western democracies with generally positive international relations worldwide, I don't see much practical advantage in adding a third.

Still, I wouldn't presume to give advice, other than this. The poster needs to examine, very carefully, that feeling he has that maybe his kids should be Americans. The way he expresses it, "sentimental reasons", makes those feelings seem pretty trivial, in which case it hardly matters if they don't become Americans. After all, most other Belgians seem to get along perfectly well without being Americans too. But if this is at all something he suspects he might seriously regret not doing, or if it nags him in ways he can't quite put his finger on, he needs to get to the bottom of that in a way random people on the Internet can't help him with.

Exactly. My being sanctimonious would make you hypocritically self-righteous.

Funny you should say this: on my way to Kobe I met a lovely couple, that told me with much passion about the nice places I should visit in the city. They also told me about the great views around the hotel (not in Kobe but in the countryside near the sea) where I would stay later on. They seemed so strangely enthusiastic and vivacious, very non-Japanese-like. At the end, the gentleman revealed that they are Korean who comes to visit often to Kobe, Osaka and sometimes Tokyo.

I doubt very much they would love Japan so much had the people there been assholish towards them.

Question: are you Korean, or are you just making assumptions about Japan?

Incest is any kind of sexual activity with a close relative. What you describe is only a problem if such activity results in offspring. We've had contraception for a long time now, not to mention that not all sex is even potentially procreative in the first place.

The user's home directory (in Windows, that's %HOMEPATH%) is C:\Users\<username>. Documents is merely one of the subdirectories of that.

... with some food for thought.

The ending '-eous' or '-ious' is added to a noun to produce an adjective that means producing whatever that noun is. Something that is 'advantageous' produces advantage for example. Something which is ignominious produce ignominy (shame, embarrassment). Something that is piteous arouses pity in the onlooker.

I think you see where I'm going with this. The word the headline writer should have used is 'nauseated', although making users nauseous in the pedantic sense would certainly be a concern for the developers of any product.

The owners are perfectly free to donate as they please. If they like, they can have the corporation distribute all of its profit as dividends, and they can donate those. Problem solved.

You seem to believe that packages of rights are inseparable, which makes no sense, and you seem to think that a corporation should follow rules set by the owners. In fact, a corporation is not a naturally existing thing (it's much different from a partnership), and should function according to the laws governing corporations. If this turns out to be inconvenient for the people who would like to form a corporation that violates laws, then the people don't have to form a corporation. They can form a large partnership.

I can follow none of your other reasoning. Please order your thoughts better.

The paths of execution can be hard to determine. Deterministic does not mean easy to figure out.

It is entirely possible that different reasonable paths of execution will result in a different natural order of freeing objects. In that case, you can try to set things up so you can prove an order of destructing, or you can keep track of who's using the memory to see when it can be deleted, and if you're doing the latter you'll find it easier and more convenient to use std::shared_ptr.

I think we need to classify "illogical" beliefs better. A belief can be said to be illogical if it contravenes evidence, or when there's simply no evidence for it.

To give an example, a belief in Christianity would be supported by no objective evidence, but it can't be falsified either. A belief that one's own religion had been proven correct, or that other people's religions had been proven false, would contravene a whole lot of evidence.

Snowden's trial would not be a proper place to question NSA activities. If I break into somebody's house and find strong evidence that the homeowner murdered people (like shallow graves in the basement), I'm still guilty of breaking and entering.

I'm getting a real strong sense that lots of people think a fair trial would be one that acquits Snowden, rather than one according to the best practices of the US court system impartially applied.

Aside from the fact that the NSA has legal opinions that all of its official actions are Constitutional (I don't agree with them, but I can't clearly refute them), what more would a public trial reveal?

Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over. Your assumption of illegality seems to be based on your belief that Clinton was a criminal, which is similar to what judges refer to as novel legal reasoning.

You're also invited to say what Clinton did differently from her predecessors. We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.