Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta.

That's not nearly enough. I need three orders of magnitude more than that to power my flux capacitor.

Because you are little people.

The title does not need fixing.
Your idiotic laws do. Like instantly.

There's a "Left" in the US?

When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.

But you won't do anything to stop it.

They won't do anything to stop it either.

That's because C does not have arrays, they are just syntactic sugar for pointers. array[index] is another way of writing *(pointer + offset)
Therefore: a[5] == *(a+5) == *(5+a) == 5[a]

Some of us have been programming in C for 3 decades and have gained some sense of perspective. While the choice of using null-termination vs. explicit size may have been the correct one given the '60s and '70s state of the art, it is a poor one today.

Null-terminated strings have several serious deficiencies:
They cannot be used to store binary data, requiring another, redundant set of functions (with separate lengths)
Similarly, they cannot be used to store UTF-16
They are less efficient. In order to find the length of the string, get it's last character(s) or append to it, you must traverse it. If the string is long, parts of it may reside on pages that have been swapped out and touching them will trigger expensive IO operations.

There is a reason that every OO library uses a length+data for string objects

Direct profiting is not a part of a definition of fraud.

Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

-- http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

It sort of is.

That's OK, as long as you don't complain when somebody bigger/stronger/better-armed/better-connected considers your behaviour to be "disgusting bullshit" and will not sit idly and let it happen.

See above. Some day you will find yourself on the receiving side. And when that day comes (and it will), just remember that you have defined the rules of engagement and don't run crying to "Liberal" organizations to protect you.

As compared to:

As many as 600,000 Canadians (1 - 2% of the overall population) are thought to be at risk of anaphylaxis stemming from food and insect allergy.
-- http://www.aaia.ca/en/anaphyla...

So what's you point exactly? That marijuana is approximately 10,000 times safer than food?

As if selective prosecution is not prevalent in the US...

Mod parent up please, this opinion deserves higher visibility.