No, the preprocessor in question is a full parser. If you can express the syntax you want with a formal grammar, the parser can handle it.
2,742 karma · joined February 18, 2008
The problem is how should he respond to that first question about kids? He can lie, and say that he doesn't have any, heading off the awkward situation, or he can tell the truth "yeah, I've got a couple of boys" or whatever. But if he tells the truth, he knows there's a good chance that he is going to get asked about his partner, and once again he has to decide whether he is going to lie or tell the truth.
The real problem comes from the fact that he is in the back of someone else's car, and he knows that violence against homosexuals is a depressingly common phenomenon. He doesn't know the driver, and hence can't know if they guy is going to be cool, or if he's going to decide that tonight's the night that he looks the passenger doors and drives off into the night to kill his passenger in some dark alleyway. Being less melodramatic, he could very easily find himself being dumped on the sidewalk halfway to his destination.
Hence the lies. But lies are tiring. You have to keep track of which ones you've told "Wait, did I just mention that I have to get up really early tomorrow to get the kids to school for a rehearsal? Damn - I told him I didn't have kids!" Anyway, that's what he's getting at.
My personal rule of thumb concerning pointers is that two-stars should never be seen except in the case where you want a function to be able to modify a pointer that was passed in as a parameter. That's it. If I get handled a module that has two-stars in it under any other circumstance, I refactor it. I do this because:
a) lots of people find it difficult to thing about pointers to pointers (although I've never understood why empirically I note that this is the case).
b) Having to dereference two pointers to get to the information that you want is not just slow because of extra work needing to be done, but also because you've just increased the need for doing a page change in memory, which on some architectures can be surprisingly expensive.
The system actually requires itself to be ethical. The ability to make things better for the paying users is dependant on the system having a lot of free users. Those free users have to be getting some utility out of the site, otherwise they won't use it. And without large numbers of free users, the paying services can't be offered!
Kaffee: It was oregano, Dave. It was 10 dollars worth of oregano. Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Yeah, but your client thought it was marijuana. Kaffee: My client's a moron that's not against the law. Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee, I have people to answer to just like you do. I'm going to charge him. Kaffee: With what? Possession of a condiment?
Your interpretation of mens rea is just way off. If I'm driving a propeller boat, and I kill a scuba diver that forgot to post the bouy signalling his presence, then I haven't commited a crime, because I was unaware, and could not reasonably be aware, that there was a scuba diver under my boat.
On the other hand, if there is a bouy, and I drive over the top without killing the diver, and it can be demonstrated that I was intending to harm the diver then yes, I can be convicted for attempted murder. Attempted murder mind you, and not murder itself. This requires that attempted murder be a crime. Back to our erstwhile smugglers, if there is a crime of attempted smuggling then yes, they should go down for it, as they were indeed attempting to smuggle. If the only crime on the books is actual smuggling, then they should waltz out of the courtroom.
At any rate, I was in Tallinn in June of this year, and the locals I talked to in bars and cafes were all very pessimistic about how the country was going. Maybe pessimism is just a cultural norm, but everyone that I asked felt that Estonia had gone backwards since the crash, and was still doing so...
I mean as an absolute first step, they should as a minimum report the problem by using the -in-app error notification system...
This is just a way of saying that the vast majority of individual photos don't represent a lot of creative work, and hence are a lot less worthy of protection. I would imagine that even a major photographer such as Ansel Adams wouldn't have more than a dozen photos earning good money more than a decade after the photo was first published.
My objection to steko's idea would be more that it is precisely the most important works that we are going to want to copy / create derivatives from, and yet these are precisely the works that will be the most able to perpetuate their protections.
I wonder how many people worrying about iOS-ification are:
a) running Lion, where the transition was still in mid-course, or
b) using a desktop, where the design decisions aren't so obviously right (my Mac Mini for example has a huge monitor, hence I'm less inclined to use full-screen apps)
In case a), there were definite weakness in Lion. Full-screen apps hadn't yet made their near-global appearance, and Spaces was ... weird. These problems have been shaken out in Mountain Lion. For b) it seems to me that OSX has been optimised for the laptop environment, where screen real-estate is limited. If you aren't using full-screen as your standard app config, you're missing out on some of what makes Mountain Lion a great experience).
When I compare all of this to the laptop I use at work, a Dell running Fedora, there is no comparison. My Mac is a far, far better development machine (well, aside from the fact that brew is weak sauce compared to a full-blown yum, but then this is not news). It's not a question of there being pros and cons on each side, my Mac is simply better for pretty much any metric I care to imagine.
Which is not to say that some people may not have genuine grievances with the current Mac platform. I just wanted to add my own personal experience - going from being mildly disappointed by Lion to completely wowed by Mountain Lion.
In short, I would answer your question with a question. Why can hardware violate a patent and software not?
In other words, the equation was created to help guide research, not to answer the question itself directly. As a guide to research, I think the equation remains highly relevant.
What follows is just an opinion:
The smaller you make the package, the harder it is to do active heat management with fans and big heat sinks. Apple spends a lot of R&D dollars on reducing the power usage of their computers - Macs are way more power efficient than their competitors.
Thinness is the authentic, unfakeable, consequence of all of that power management engineering. Competitors can't copy the look of an iMac without also investing heavily in design work to reduce power consumption.
In an ideal world, Apple could just publish power usage figures, but that doesn't really sell computers outside of the data center universe. Thin computers on the other handle are much more marketable, so Apple is using thinness as a marketing proxy for power efficiency.
Firstly, the vast majority (around 80%) of browsing on mobile devices is going through wifi. It turns out that at least in France, most people that use mobile devices seem to use those devices in areas where they have wifi available (at home, or in the office) most of the time. This of course means that as soon as you increase landline data speeds, you also increase mobile data speeds, because most mobile usage is routed through landlines.
Secondly, even when clients are out and about, they often have 3G coverage which is not too far off wifi speeds (a typical 3G connection has about a third of the bandwidth of a typical landline/wifi connection). OK, it's a third of the speed, but it's the same order of magnitude, and it only applies about 20% of the time.
What this means is that a mobile user is getting data at (100 * 0.8) + (33 * 0.2) = 86% bandwidth of a landline connection. This means that a 16% increase in landline bandwidth would be enough to balance out everyone moving to mobile devices. Landline bandwidth has of course improved a lot more than 16% in the last few years, and not everyone has moved to exclusively mobile device web-browsing. So yes, I think it's fair to say that the average bandwidth of web users has gone up, at least in France.
Make of that what you will, but my personal experience has been that Maps is actually pretty reasonable. In major cities it maybe isn't quite as detailed as Google maps, but then, you can always use Google Maps as a web app for that...
But you're dead right about the social tolerance aspect. My younger brother started a car detailing company - OK, it's not innovative or anything, but he was really looked down upon by the wives of some of his friends...
2) But even assuming you're one if the lucky few for whom Google provided public transport information, you can still use Google maps from the browser. You can even add an icon in Springboard for it, giving you full access to google itineraries. The only thing that has really been lost is street view.
All of which is to say that universities, even public universities, are not government entities in the same way that public schools are. It is far from clear to me that libertarians would support the idea of a private citizen working for a non-government organisation being compelled to hand over private communications by the government.
Of course I might be wrong about UVAs status, but I did a fair amount of searching, and could not find anything that would indicate that university employees were in fact government employees, and the information that I did find tended to support the idea that they were not. If I'm wrong about this, then the OP's position is easier to understand...