"Vote for me."

Except that's rapidly becoming non-viable, since over the past few decades, they've succeeding in capturing most of the money that exists and sequestering it so it's out of reach of the other 99% of us. Soon they'll have to find another approach if they want to continue capturing the money supply as they have been doing.

She's just upping her game, trying to become the worst American president in history. But she'll find that there's a lot of fierce competition for that title. Can she make it? Stay tuned ...

I see that the "Comment:" edit widget for this message does have the Hanzi and marked 'u' and 'o' characters missing. So the damage is done after you hit the Submit button. There's no excuse for this. None of those characters have any special meaning to the code, and text containing them can't do any damage to anything. If damage happens, it's the fault of the crappy software handling the text, not the fault of the creator of the text. The right thing to do is to correct the crappy software. Damaging the text is simply idiotic, and interferes with the main reason (communication between literate people) that Unicode was invented.

(And we might note that a significant fraction of the users of the Internet now consists of people who communicate via Hanzi text, or Arabic or any of the hundreds of other character sets that humanity uses to communicate. Damaging those folks' texts to avoid fixing your crappy software is a good way to tell them that you don't want them communicating with other people. This is rapidly becoming a commercially untenable position for people trying to "attract eyes" on the Net. ;-)

I don't know who told you C++ was an object-oriented language. It's not -- ask Bjarne. It supports many different styles of programming, object-oriented being just one of many, but it is in no way object-oriented. You can write large code bases without using a single object.

If, on the other hand, you have a safety feature that costs the manufacturer 10% of the cost of building the car and is far from standard in the marketplace, you are under no such obligation.

A car like this one though, that was not auto-driving despite the misleading summary, has no such requirement.

Except, of course, that it wasn't a self-driving car, simply a self-steering parking mode, and the driver had full control over the speed at all times. Le sigh...

unique_ptr<T> is normally preferred over shared_ptr<T> -- the former is zero-overhead compared to a pointer, while the latter has a reference count associated with it which has to be incremented and decremented. If you know two or more things will be using the pointer and you don't want to have to worry about ownership semantics, shared_ptr<T> makes a lot of sense. If you know only one will be using it, unique_ptr<T> makes more sense.

Hmmm ... That tempts me to try a test using a couple of file names on this machine that are two of the names for a Mandarin-English dictionary: .html and Ptnghuà.html (and also Pu3Tong1Hua4.html for systems that can only accept ASCII ;-). Those names aren't in any sense obscure or tricky; they're strings you'd expect to see in online discussions of text handling in various languages. If you can't handle at least these trivial Chinese strings, you've failed pretty badly. Of course, they look findin this Comment: panel, and will likely survive the Preview button.

Let's see how /. handles them ...

Nope; the 3 Hanzi characters didn't show at all, and only the à showed correctly in the second name. But both everything looks correct in this second editing widget. This proves that /. hasn't damaged the actual text in the Preview. Let's see what happens when I try to post it ...

Prove it. Prove that Fed's action have directly caused the recent bubble. So far the evidence that the cause was your child-raping activities is so much more plausible.

Also, anyone who provides links to Mises to explain something is a moron.

So you don't have anything to counter? Ok.

I actually know something about the material at hand. The meta-studies of sources reveal that most of the data about who initiated the conflict is BS: http://www.domestic-violence.m... see page 20 (table 5) and further. It turns out that men under-report it (duh) and so you can't rely on that data.

And even your article shows that men are more likely to inflict serious injuries or use weapons.

No, I haven't made it up. For example, see here: http://www.strengthenoursister... I've seen this number lots of times in various studies and have little reason to doubt it.

And 'initiated by women' is so fucking bullshit, that you should be ashamed of yourself and crawl back into your cave. If a woman berates his boyfriend for being drunk and he beats her in turn - that still is 'initiated by women'.

What a bullshit study. "Initiated by women" means nothing at all, when in 95% of cases only women suffer abuse. That's also the reason why there are no male home abuse shelters.