Sweet, thanks for the work and reply.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
All I want to know for now is: How do I get to more stories? Because at the moment I can't get to the "next" page at all. Don't even know where to look.
Maybe related: tags are invisible for me, so maybe the buttons are too (FF36).
It takes a lot of desiccation.
I think GP's point is that a property struggle on the moon could result in armed conflicts back on earth. Ofc the countries involved in that spat won't be tiny dirt-laden ones you can brute-force into submission as GP suggests.... The 7th fleet won't mean dick against China and/or Russia: in this case it would invoke mutually assured destruction.
If anything what you're looking at here would be a cold war, or some serious and protracted negotiations, some sanctions maybe... soft persuasion. I doubt any shots would get fired.
A smooth talking charlatan surrounded by a load of suckers, that also exists.
The existence of the "prophet" muhammad is not in dispute. But we should still be free to critisize him.
I wonder whether kids starting to PC game now even know that once-upon-a-time games worked decently out the box. Whether they ever contemplate the possibility of a game working on the first day...
Is that even something they've ever seen before? I've been to the BF forums and from what I saw the answer is "No". There are plenty of fanboys in there who defend EA/DICE in this regard. Since, you know: "We *all* know games always have problems at release".
I wasn't going to post in this thread because honestly I believe topics like this are lose-lose. But then I read this and.... logic like this not only illustrates that exact point, but it also burns my neurons: if geeks agree, they're agreeing to being rapists. If they don't agree, they're just defending their misogyny (and hence are rapists). Glad to see this isn't a witch-hunt...
The burst was created en route about 6000 years ago: So actually it never happened.
(Please don't mod insightful)
In production software you don't always have the luxury of being able to switch to the latest and greatest in an instant.
In the case of C++(and others) as things change you have to update compilers, this often(read: always) means stricter requirements as the compilers improve (IOW: Newer compilers catch potential problems in your code better than older ones, and moan about it more). When you have a system of millions of lines of C++, this means you have to dedicate manpower (which you probably need somewhere else) to fixing all these "new" issues before you can upgrade all your compilers. This is good, but you can't always dedicate 100% of your time to it. Aside: For our stuff we turn warnings-as-errors on always, which maybe makes this task more difficult than it is for others, but we get to catch bad code a lot quicker.
My team only recently got to the point where all our stuff was in a state that we could start using the newer compilers and hence, standard. But we've been chomping at the bit to use C++11 for a long time. So yes, I do care. And yes, I think it's much better now.
Why do we care?
For one, lambda's make our lives, and code readability, SO much better. Especially when using the std algorithms.
We will definitely be utilising variadic templates in our shop as we tend to be template meta-programming heavy. We avoid re-work like a plague.
Personally I'm glad to see the new initialiser lists because we also stress TDD and nothing sucks more than not being able to set up test data easily and have it be readable. Almost always requires some instrumentation first.
> it tends to make people dizzy, because the inner ear doesn't agree with what you see
I won't claim this will work for all people, but motion sickness is something you can overcome by just getting used to it. During my initial stages of pilot training I hadn't flown that much in light aircraft and got airsick 2-3 times just flying normally, but I got used to it rapidly and ended up not even getting sick when doing spins, loops (not during training, obv.), etc.
While I agree this person seems... misguided, I do see a point in this.
Currently we "rehabilitate" people by putting them in a cage with a whole bunch of other sociopaths for decades and expect them to emerge as productive members of society. In doing so, we already are cruel by removing a substantial part of their lives from them (and probably get them raped, psychologically and physically abused, etc). They can never get that time back, no matter how productive they emerge, no matter how sorry they are, no matter that they'll never do it again, or that they've already been punished by being completely removed from normal society for an extended period of time. That life "time" is gone forever.
I'd actually be behind a concept similar to this GIVEN that the drugs don't put them in a state of agony, paranoia, hallucination, etc. (you know, stuff normally associated with the drugs she's talking about). Or in the case of a virtual world: If the person could live in some kind of prison-like world, still study, interact with others (hopefully non-sociopaths), etc....
Basically serve out their sentence without losing that much of their actual life. Then maybe this is a more humane thing to do. It certainly helps in the case where someone receives "8 life sentences", to make that sentence more severe than just one. My only concern: Could you really rehabilitate someone who has done something so bad as to receive a punishment that harsh? A THOUSAND years?! Isn't part of the point to remove lost causes like that from society? What you're essentially doing in that case is shortening the time-frame that we are all safe from these people.
Look at it like "free" SMS. You can SMS anyone on your contact list and they can all SMS you.
Moreover, marketing companies and people you never met can SMS you as well.
WhatsApp doesn't allow that, so in a way it's just cheaper (for us), with better (not perfect) checks against unsolicited messages than traditional SMS.
Here's a map of developing countries for your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
I think this more-or-less destroys your assertion, boet.
Agreed, we pay for each SMS, and BBM got us hooked on near-limitless chatting for cents, but was platform exclusive. With whatsapp no such problem.
Sending media/voice-notes is much slicker than MMS.
WhatsApp is a central place I can contact 99% of my contacts, they're not spread accross bbm/facebook/msn/hangouts/jabber/skype/blah blah blah. Around here, everyone has whatsapp, including my mom, dad, and grandfather... they have none of the others above.
With this kind of penetration and ease-of-use, group chats are a doddle. I'm on a friend-group that has been going for years.
Most importantly though:
I don't have to "add" people via some other means, invite them, know their username/bbm code/etc. This imho is what makes WhatsApp so pervasive (at least around here). If you add a number to your phone, you get the whatsapp user for free. No muss, no fuss. Yes I could use some other IM thing, persuade a lot of friends to use it too, but my contact list would be a fraction of what it is right now in WA, because I'd have to take the effort to "re-add" everyone that I already have saved in my phone.
"Yes your honour, but have you considered that by arresting me for killing peadophiles you're actually helping the peadophiles? You should set me free immediately so I can carry on breaking the law.... for the children".