I've gotten Amber Alerts on my phone without using any data service. If the RF protocols that kind of emergency broadcast, I am sure they support more traditional ones as well.
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).
Do you always spout such vapid drivel when you decide to avoid a question? It makes me suspect you're not really interested in thinking for yourself or addressing criticism -- only in name-calling and self-congratulation.
Cole's thesis is that Islamic law forbids terrorism. The bailey version of the argument is that this is somehow relevant to modern life. The motte version is that there is textual support for this prohibition.
Personally, I think he knows that he is engaging in a motte-and-bailey argument. Did you realize what he did when you cited him?
The state wasn't going to offer a plea deal because the only thing that could have been changed was the sentence from death to life in prison without parole. I believe the prosecutors said as much. They were going for the death penalty, no exceptions.
Worked for me for the most part in Switzerland and Italy.
The only odd exception was a tech store clerk in Zurich who didn't speak English. I speak a smattering of Spanish and my wife conversational French, but he only knew German, Dutch, Italian, and Portuguese. Between seven languages, we couldn't find a common one (and for those that were similar to Spanish, I don't know enough Spanish for the overlap to be meaningful). Eventually, our Swiss friend found us and was able to help us find what we needed.
At least when the science doesn't unambiguously support the position they've taken to make their constituents happy.
What made the Qt4 breakage "a necessary evil" but also prevented them from adopting remotely modern C++ principles at the same time? Why was that breakage good, but making it practical for developers to adopt standard C++ practices could, and can, be so lightly set aside?
The sad thing is that Qt people are probably going to remain stuck in a 1990s mindset about C++ as long as people like you are willing to make apologetics for their misdesigns.
Non-iterator types? In *my* C++? It's more likely than you think!
As you point out, Qt 4 broke source compatibility in a major way -- so obviously it is not the kind of showstopper you suggest it should be. I would propose using idiomatic C++ design approaches, rather than sticking to architectural decisions that made sense 20 years ago before there was much consistency between C++ compilers. Nowadays, there is no good reason to prefer QString over std::string or std::wstring (and many good reasons to prefer the latter), and the same applies to every Qt container type. The Qt idiom of pass-by-copy-on-write-value makes runtime performance hard to predict, requires care in multithreaded use (do all types implement COW in a thread-safe manner?), and is very much at odds with the standard C++ library. Qt's efforts to make things "just work" end up hiding build-time, storage and execution-time costs, making it hard to figure out how to optimize code.
As you say, it is not Qt's fault that C++ took so long to really be a cohesive, modern language -- but it is Qt's fault that it continues on as if the state of C++ were the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago.
I haven't looked at Qt 5 -- does it still insist on duplicating the STL except with a horrible naming convention and poorly justified design changes, making it painful to use any non-Qt C++ library?
I don't have any presence on Facebook. If asked why not, I point out the similarities between Mark Zuckerberg and Satan's representative on earth.
However, my wife is on Facebook - she friends the children and handles any mass communications that must happen over there.
It's stupid if you're benchmarking relative efficiency -- it's not an efficient implementation (and you'll have no trouble finding explanations for why the Python and Java code they wrote, while simpler, is not efficient).
And this is why we should not teach CS101 in Java or Python. If they'd been forced to use C this whole experiment would have turned out differently.
Not at all. If you wrote your C in memory string handling as stupidly as they wrote the Python and Java you will still get worse performance in C (e.g. each iteration malloc a new string and then strcpy and strcat into it, and free the old string; compared to buffered file writes you'll lose). It's about failing to understand how to write efficient code, not about which language you chose.
The people who actually DO AI worry publicly about it.
People in the field are painfully aware of:
* The limitations of existing systems
* The difficulty of extrapolating from existing systems to general-purpose AI - things that look like easy extensions often aren't.
I did AI academically and industrially in the 1980's; at the time we were all painfully aware of the overpromising and underdelivery in the field.
Just say that fine revenue above police administrative costs goes somewhere else, so the people issuing the tickets don't directly benefit.
Since these are local/state offenses, the obvious place would be the state general fund.
There's potential for abuse, of course - states might have to specify maximum admin costs.
I bet the enthusiasm for local speed traps would drop way off under such a system. Sounds win/win to me.