I didn't know NASA was covered by HIPAA. If you want NASA as culpable as this hospice, lobby for appropriate laws. ("Knock knock." "Who's there?" "HIPAA" "HIPAA who?" "I can't tell you that." - from my sister-in-law who's a nurse.)
The generic parts are optimized for a generic case. If there's something faster for a given type, you can write that specialization or partial specialization. To the limits of my knowledge, no more or less standard library is much more optimizable for given use cases.
Technically, you can do anything with sequential processing, an IF construct, addressable memory, and a WHILE construct. You don't need structs or functions. Programming in this way would be an incredible pain, of course. Similarly, I've never seen an implementation of inheritance and polymorphism in C that wasn't ugly and awkward-looking. (Encapsulation is in C, at the file level. Declare all the publicly available stuff in the
In other senses of "anything you can't do", you can't make C work like C++ in many ways. You can't have a max() function/macro that actually works in general. You can't get something to work like the C++ algorithms.
Consider C's qsort() against C++'s std::sort. They have the same output, but std::sort is more compact. To call qsort(), you need to pass in a pointer to the array, element size, array size, and a pointer to a comparison function. Off the bat, it's clumsier than std::sort, and easier to get wrong, and harder to understand given a quick read. However, it also does more indirection than std::sort, which is very like writing the sort function in the code, right there. The C++ sort is inherently more efficient, since it uses templates, not whatever can be cobbled up out of functions, pointers, and function pointers.
Parental behavior is more likely to cause child behavior than the reverse, and in my experience is likely to be more or less set before the child has a chance to behave or misbehave. Moreover, the children of more lenient parents learned decision-making and natural consequences earlier. My son's grades were a bit disappointing until he decided, for his own reasons, that he wanted to do well. He still has his own reasons in college, where I can't nag him.
The music industry does a lot of things, many but not all of which can be done easily nowadays. It gives advances to musicians. It provides sound editing ability. It encourages some. It's very corrupt, but it isn't useless, and I don't think modern music can thrive without some of the things. If you don't like that analogy, consider books. A great book is a product of a great writer and a darn good editor.
Forget the stuff about the artist driven to create. It is real, but it isn't complete. For every great movie-maker, there's hundreds of people who want to feed their families and pay their mortgages working on somebody else's creative vision. Art, in its various forms, would exist if it wasn't commercial. It wouldn't be the same, and it usually wouldn't be as good. There's plenty of obvious exceptions, but they're spread out over centuries.
I have favorite authors. I like them to make enough money that they don't have to worry about the day job, and also provide incentive to write more and better stories.
All of this was financially based on the fact that only the publishers could make good physical objects incorporating music and stories. Now that copying them is easy and almost free, they need to find other ways of getting revenue. For that matter, we need them to find other ways of getting revenue. I've heard various schemes, but none of them work as well as paying the author or musicians a cut of every copy somebody wants.
The purpose of copyright, in the US Constitution, is to promote the advancement of the useful arts by granting a limited monopoly. Like many things in the Constitution, it specifies a purpose and things the government may do to satisfy it, and does not get into details. Spreading the costs among many people, which is easy to do if copyright can be enforced, works for the purpose and is consistent with the means.
Were you using free or paid services to host? If free, then the host has very few obligations to you.
The DMCA process is not mandatory. It's a list of things a host can do to avoid being legally liable to anybody.
If they receive a notice, if they take down the material in the prescribed time and don't put it back up without going through the protocol, they aren't liable for copyright infringement. It doesn't mean they have to take the material down, only that they can be sued by the rights holder if they don't.
Similarly, if they provide the necessary information to the customer, and put the material back on receipt of a counter-claim, they aren't liable for any breach of a hosting contract with you. If you don't actually have a contract, there's no liability anyway, so no danger to the host in just pulling the material.
Free sites want to avoid legal issues at the minimum cost. This means that they will take takedown notices seriously if they appear valid, since they want to avoid legal troubles. Once they've done that, they aren't liable to anybody, and going through the process would be additional work. They also may practice preemptive takedowns, to avoid problems later. Check the terms of service; it probably says that the host has no obligation to host anything it doesn't want to. Paid sites may well have a contractual obligation to you (check your contract), and if you're paying them it's worth their while to follow the whole process.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. Don't rely on what I say. If this is important enough for you to act on, it's important enough to take to a real lawyer and get actual legal advice.
The reason the music industry thrived under those circumstances was that copies were inexact and difficult to make. Now that copies are exact and trivial to make, there'd be nothing stopping one record company from just offering what another one did. Individual large-scale piracy doesn't harm the business all that much, as far as I can tell, but large-scale commercial piracy would be another matter.
Similarly, if binaries were not protected, the only thing stopping people from mass copying would be DRM measures, and I don't want DRM any more attractive than it is. There are software binaries that are very expensive to produce and easy to copy, say Microsoft Office. Microsoft pays a great many people to support it and extend it. Right now, lots of people pirate it, but lots of places (enterprises in particular) have to buy many copies or licenses, or face expensive prosecution. If the binaries were not copyrighted, a business would buy one copy (not necessarily from Microsoft) and distribute it to everybody.
Copyright law has its flaws, and has been taken to harmful extremes, but the base principle of spreading the author's costs and profits over everybody who wants a copy works pretty well in practice. In doing that, it does serve its Constitutional purpose in the US.
Really, all methods of estimating intelligence (which is ill-defined anyway) are full of bullshit. The big advantage of IQ tests is that they have a different sort of bullshit, and may find intelligence (or lack of it) in people who don't seem intelligent.
Some time ago, children who did badly in school were usually considered stupid, with the usual caveats for those who overcame that and went on to do neat stuff. When IQ tests were introduced into schools, they revealed that there were a lot of children who were doing badly despite being intelligent, and often helped get these students into environments that were better for them. (Then, of course, some schools tried classifying children on IQ and related tests, and putting them into different tracks, which shows that not all educators are actually intelligent.)
You have to be intelligent, in some sense, to score high on an IQ test. (You don't need to be competent; I've known MENSA members I wouldn't trust with a burnt-out match.) Some studies have found a modest correlation between IQ and success, with the correlation going away at higher levels of IQ. Another person I know underwent a cognitive evaluation, and one of the things in several pages of detailed discussion was an IQ score. The tests are useful in some circumstances. Just don't expect a single number to tell you everything.
Man, you don't know what the old COBOLs had (I know nothing of the evolution of the language in the past thirty years or so).
The data structures were laid out byte by byte, so it was possible to MOVE something to something else with totally different internal structure. Alternatively, MOVE CORRESPONDING with some of the subobjects named the same (and therefore moving) and some named something different in a hard-to-spot way.
A "paragraph" was a collection of one or more "statements" with a label attached. You could make this as fine-grained as you liked. You could then write PERFORM
And, of course, the "ALTER" verb to change labels of "GO TO"s.
I think I could have written great obfuscated COBOL, even better than what one of my colleagues wrote for production.
I'm not exactly an expert, which may be why anybody else who kinda knows Perl can figure out what I've written. Seriously, I don't play code golf (minimizing characters to write a program), and if I did I wouldn't put it into production.
How do you sneak a biased juror past the process? Either side can ask questions of potential jurors, and answering them falsely is perjury. Perjury is very likely a valid reason for a retrial, and the judge apparently didn't find that it happened. Either side can ask that a juror be removed for cause. I don't know how it is everywhere, but in my limited experience as a candidate juror each side could, at the end, name two jurors they just didn't want.
In other words, Samsung's lawyers have nobody to blame but themselves for letting this guy on the jury. What he'd already said should have been a flag that he might be biased, and it's Samsung's lawyers' job to find out.
If either party here qualified as a "little guy", I'd have a lot of sympathy for the one who couldn't afford to lawyer up properly. However, we're talking about two huge corporations, who have the money to hire excellent lawyers, and who should know how to handle lawsuits.
The technology field would have been completely different? Within months of the Apple II, both Radio Shack and Commodore were selling computers that you could just buy, take home, plug a few things in (the TRS-80, anyway, don't remember if you needed to plug anything on the Commodore Pet), and run. These weren't cases of "Gee, Apple made something new, we should copy"; they were cases of "Gee, you can actually make a small computer that people can use now".
If there were no Apple, small home computer technology would have been delayed by months, which would have essentially no effect by now.
What Apple did was popularize the WIMP interface (I think the MS-DOS-based ones were generally inspired by the Lisa), revolutionize on-line sales of music, and redefine several things (smart phones, tablets) into great successes that other people copied. I don't think Woz was involved in that.
Aside from your sense of entitlement, you aren't going to convince me that $99/year is HUGE in the first world, or for access to a place to make money, or that the people who charge that are "greedy dicks". It can be for hobbyists in less developed areas, of course, but I question how many have iDevices. People hoping to make money in less developed areas would find $99/year cheap to enter first world markets.
At a rough estimation, the chance that a rock coming at least that close will hit the planet about one in a thousand times. I'm not sure I like those odds.
We've got a selection bias here. Many charitable institutions are tied to churches or are in some other way explicitly religion-based. Then there are the other charitable institutions without obvious ties to religion. I know of none (there probably are a very few) that are openly and explicitly atheist.
First, lots of atheists don't feel like it's important to self-identify, since it almost by definition is a smaller part of the atheists' lives than the theists' lives. Second, there is a fair amount of anti-atheist bias in US society, so it's useful not to self-identify. Third, an avowedly atheist institution would likely run into bias problems with being charitable. It's a lot easier just to not talk about religion than to argue about it.
Naturally, charitable institutions without religious affiliation of any sort may well have been started by Christians, and many doubtless were. We can't just assume these are all due to atheists. This leaves an unknown and potentially large number of them that were started by atheists, and the only way we'd know would be to research the founders of each and every one in detail. Since there are a lot more Christians than atheists in the US, I'd expect most of these institutions to be started by Christians, but it's not something we're going to get numbers on.
If we go on the only numbers we've got, the ratio of nonreligious charitable institutions to ones that profess some sort of religion is a lot higher than the ratio of atheists to theists in the US. If you want to prove that Christians found charitable institutions more than atheists, proportionately, you've got a lot of work to do.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
