Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It's the other way around actually.. (Score 2) 1020

She is a Christian SOCIAL democrat. All Swedish parties, including the Swedish "right-wing" are to the left of the US democrats.

The social democratic party are real socialists by the way, not something like Obama. So, no, I don't think the rest of the world views Swedish social democrats, even the Christian subset that might belong to the right of the social democratic party, as being particularly "right wing".
Unless the rest of the world is communistic...

Comment Re:I dunno man (Score 2, Informative) 298

I was going write something similar, so I'll just add some comments here instead.

I'm a bit peeved with all the comments alleging that a "girl can have consentual sex and change her mind the next day and it is accepted as rape in Sweden". This is not what the courts have decided, where in fact they do seem a lot more willing to acquit than convicted in hairy cases. Which might not necessarily be the worst of things.

I'll say though that the "Was she drunk, has she had many boyfriends, is she a slut?" is not regarded as a reason to acquit by the court, although the defense attorney might be too happy to trot out that line.

Comment Re:"Because You're Popular, You Get a Free Pass!" (Score 2, Informative) 298

Moreover, rape is absurdly loose in this country. You can have consensual sex with a girl, but she can still change her mind the next day and claim you "got her drunk" or "talked her into it". Personal responsibility pretty much goes flying out the door in such cases (precedents abound).

[citation needed]


But he allegedly had an "attitude problem" with women. That's not rape in my book. I don't care what the law says, it is simply immoral to prosecute a man for rape on such bullshit.

It depends on what the "attitude problem with women" consisted of. According to one woman, it was that it started off consentual but turned into non-consentual and that Assange had a problem with accepting that. Allegedly of course.

Comment Re:Why Go? (Score 1) 583

2) Because the JVM is aware of the runtime environment it is currently executing in, it has the capability to perform additional optimizations at runtime. The JVM has the capability to decide how best to convert the bytecode into inline native instructions based on available resources such as memory and CPU. C++ does not have this luxury. Once the C++ compiler generates it's executable code, that code is static and unchangeable.

I would just like to point out that this is not strictly true: There is nothing (standard-wise) preventing C++ code from being compiled for a JVM in exactly the same manner as Java. I think Clang + LLVM is able to do it?

Comment Re:What about C++? (Score 2, Informative) 583

Not really. By itself C++ is more portable than Java et al. In fact, the problem is rather that C++ is too portable (ie general)!

For example, for I/O there is the basic notion about files for example, but anything more specific (like, directories or how to get a list of files etc. And don't even mention graphical thingies!) the standard is completely silent, precisely too keep things as portable as possible.

That means if one wants non-general things, one has go outside the C++ standard. Preferably there is some other standard to follow then, such as POSIX, or maybe QT.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."