eatitraw

Not just high acceptance rate, but 100% acceptance rate(or close to it).

Why fucking bother about courts at all? Just let them obtain the information they want without any hassle: they are professional and know the law.

Why do you refer to taxes in Russia as low? Could you please provide some comparison to other countries?

I live in Russia and I don't think taxes here are low.

I wonder: where did this pictures come from? It looks to me like someone cleverly designed them to accentuate the (possible) beauty and novelty of the new design.

Just look at the first five pictures at the blog post:

1) The left part shows just apple logo. The right one shows a man smiling.

2) The left part contains no pictures at all - just some text, and the right part contain a picture of a nice girl.

3) Both sides of the picture contain a girl smiling. But the girl on the right is definitely looks more open and bright. Heck, even the teeth on the right photo seems more white.

4 & 5) The fifth picture(ios7 collage) contains more smiling people than the fourth picture(ios6 collage).

I am pretty sure there is no coincidence.

I accused you of doing X on mondays. You could say "You know, in fact, I do X, but on tuesdays". Most hypocrites however will take your question as literally as possible and will just say: "No, I don't do X on mondays".

You see, people don't want to know if government has direct access(ok, they want, but it is not their primary concern), they want to know what happened.

It simply doesn't matter if google uploads data to government servers or government gets data from google servers by "directly accessing" them. I would even guess that the latter is simpler to implement and maintain.

I don't mean that google is happy to hand user data to government - they probably aren't - I want to know how many data governments gets.

You should definitely look into anarchy. I am serious. If you don't like government, find that sort of anarchy which fits your beliefs.

For me, there is libertarian anarcho-capitalism. If you are interested, I recommend you to start with the book "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" : http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp (it is available for fownload for free)

I love tmux and I use for my daily work.

I switched from screen after reading this awesome book: http://pragprog.com/book/bhtmux/tmux

Gary Johnson?

Why? It is several percents of current world population. As I point out in nearby comment, if you simply divide this number by 100, you'll get rate that is 4x more than individual murder rate.

The invidual murder rate doesn't seem to vary a lot across century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... (judging by US), and total world population was 4 times lower in the beginning of 20th century, so I guess the "government murders : individual murders" ratio may be even bigger.

And this is not counting sick sad stuff like unfair incancernation: nazi concentration camps, gulag in the USSR, camps in North Korea(where people may spend their whole life after they are born). For example, USSR government used capital punishment several times less often than imprisonment in gulag. Of course, on average gulag is better than capital punishment, but IMO - it is still government-made violence.

In modern Russia there are a lot of people suffering because court system is fucked up: 99%+ of court verdict are convictions(<1% acquittals). Of course, not all cases get in court(some get closed before), but it is not so difficult to fake evidence. This is not an officially and centrally declared violence, but still it is violence. Regular criminals rob random people too.

Ok, thanks, I added the book into my to-read list, so I'll read it when I have enough time.

My skepticism isn't unfounded: I remember watching some TED talk(I guess: by the author of this book -- I googled "Steven Pinker ted talk" but I didn't do any additional check). And this talk discussed rates of individual violence(IIRC, murder statistics or something like that), and I was wondering all the time why he excludes organized violence by governments/states in 20th century(and other too).

200 million is a serious number, and it can affect your stats significantly. If you "normalize" this number by year, you'll get 2 millions of people killed on average. 4x times more than individual murder rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

Well, I hope the book is better/clearer than his talk.

States killed around 200 million people in 20th century. Does your statistics on violence include these victims?

If some guy is bad it doesn't automatically makes Putin good. If democracy in other countries is not a real democracy, it doesn't make Putin a democratic president instead of bloody dictator.

Thanks. This is much clearer description of the problem.

Oh, this is so typical: call something a "danger to society" when actually it is a danger to you and your government.

Not only they think that "government == society", but also they think that "their government == society".

Sadly, when there is internet connection, the problem doesn't simply go away. In Russia, internet media are heavily censored too - so internet user has to make effort to obtain the information not biased in favour of Putin's government: there are only several "unbiased" regular online media(not counting social media like big social networks like facebook or twitter). It is much simpler to just turn on TV especially if you don't care much about politics.

The described reaction is extremely familiar to me. There were major protests in Russia during winter 2011/2012. The first protest event happened the next day after federal parliament elections(quite important event). So, after another 2 days I call my mother(she lives about 3000 km away from Moscow) and ask her if she heared about protests, and get the same reaction "What protests?".

Five days after the initial event, there was another: ~50 000 - 100 000 people gathered in the center of Moscow. Did the federal governmental media mention it? This time did, but very briefly, and understating the number of participants by order of magnitude.

I believe you should provide some evidence for such claims. Like I said the wikipedia entry(to which you linked) contains mixed data.

There are some positive data, like: "A study by Bernadi and Tuzzi finding that the communication of FC users displayed the characteristics of valid communication recorded that of its 50 subjects 13 had achieved “full and independent control of the method” while 37 “had reached a high level of independence”"

1) The editor(s)/photographer(s) probably wanted a nice photo for this post, like whole family being working together to the same issue. The mother may seem un-involved if both the son and the father would focus on the screen. Or maybe for some other reason it was just the most sweet-looking picture out of the series.

IMO, it is easily to get distracted while working in somewhat unfamiliar conditions. I can easily imagine that, if someone takes a photo of me coding in front of my laptop, I will end up looking weird and distracted because I would be nervous about camera.

I am pretty sure that if someone wanted to fake it(even unintentionally), he would pick more "realistic" photo.

2) Just saying it wasn't validated doesn't mean it can't (and doesn't) work. Of course there is a link to wikipedia entry, but there are mixed data, and far from the claim "It doesn't work, plain and simple" (to which you agreed).

30-40 years ago it was mainstream to deny intelligence in non-human animals. But now, there are evidence that animals are intelligent: crowns learning to use tools, dolphins passing mirror test, parrots learning to count objects(and doing a lot of ther cool stuff).

> Yet a democratically-elected government made a decision in the name of the people to replace this park with a shopping mall.

So what? If yours "democratically-elected government" orders you("in the name of the people", of course) to kill jews, will you comply?

> are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.

So what? When majority votes, does it protect personal interests of someone else?

> e.g. Art. 20.4 of the German Basic Law – does the Turkish constitution have a similar provision?

You have so much subordination to government-made law, so even if you would really want to overthrow tyrannic government, you would stop because there is no law allowing you to revolt?

I understand the problem with non-atomicity, but it has nothing to do with thread-safety of calc().

Executing non-threadsafe function, and threadsafe function simultaneously is not a threadsafe operation. But the article says nothing about such situations, it places no restrictions on such situations. The thread-safe requirenment is for const-functions.

I am probably not a good explainer, so here is the link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14127379/does-const-mean-...

In Russia, LiveJournal is popular and serious blog platform.

Doesn't matter: any sequence of calls for calc() from any number of threads will always yield the same result.

Mutating m1 non-atomically is completely unrelated here, because non-const functions may be not threadsafe. You should just ensure that const functions are threadsafe.

calc is bitwise const function and therefore is perfectly threadsafe: http://herbsutter.com/2013/05/24/gotw-6a-const-correctness-p...

Threadsafety(in this context) means that any sequence of calls of const-functions from any number of threads will have the same result. In your case there is a single const function, and you may call calc(0) from several threads and it always will return the same value. So it is pretty threadsafe.

> In both cases its wrong to mutate the object in the const member, Its just in C++98 no one _explicitly_ told you that.

How so? You cannot mutate a data member(without placing mutable before it) in const member function. It is a compiler error. Pretty explicit IMO.

The point of the article is that you should ensure thread-safety when you mutate mutable(sounds funny, I know) members in const methods.

Awesome talk by Herb Sutter in "C++ and Beyond" "You don't know [blank] and [blank]": http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/C-and-Beyond-2012-Herb-Sutter...

As you can guess it is about const and mutable, and Herb speaks about this feature(or problem -- depending on how you see it).

C++98: const == logically const

C++11: const == thread-safe

Try refreshing/reopening a couple more times. Worked for me.

Well, in fact, they can't. I am pretty sure, there are many regimes that you can consider dictaroship, and they haven't solved these problems.

Dictatorships can do a lot of nasty things, but they cannot solve such problems. They may _look_ like they are able to, and they may _pretend_ that they solved these problems(especially if problems aren't easily noticeable by an average citizen. Take heavy heroin abuse as an example), but no, they can't and won't solve them.

Two questions:

1) No species on earth "wants" to die. Every living organism has defence systems that it will try to prevent/repair any damage made to it.

Even more, (some) plants communicate and use signaling system to warn their neighbours about threats. Clearly, any species try to avoid death

How do you define "does not want to die"? 2) What about carnivorus species? Do they "allowed" to eat meat? If they are allowed, why humans can't? And more specifically, why you can't?

If this is true:

> The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment

Is it a state-occupied (compulsory) education system that does so? IMO, it is. For example, many(most? vast majority of?) people go to college to get a diploma, not to get actual education. The system sucks and doesn't deliver any actual value(in terms of knowledge or personal growth, not in terms of signaling to the market), so no wonder that people don't view education as an investment.

I wonder, is it possible that something like this may happen after beginning of the internet era?

Like this. Year 2050, some guy accidentally discovers an abandoned site, which is created in 2010. There is a blog, which sparks this future anonymous guy's interst. The guy discovers a link to instagram on this , and then finds out that this website was quite popular back in 2010s, but gone defunct in 2020s. The full photo archive is available though. Curious, this guy downloads the whole archive and encounter amazing photo collection of cats and food on this account. The copyright law is different in 2050, so the guy decides to sell pictures on an world-wide digital auction...

Or maybe it will be no different: a real estate agent finds a small box filled with SD cards and then sells it on a local auction.

Actually I use bash for my daily work, so I run zsh from bash:

zsh -c 'vimdiff =(ls /bin) =(ls /usr/bin)'

A couple of similarly useful features, and I'm swtiching to zsh. But now I am too lazy to make proper configuration.

I like process substitution feature in zsh. In bash you can write:

vimdiff <(ls /bin) <(ls /usr/bin) [ It is an example. In real world, I use this feature for comparing outputs of one version of program with another one ]

And this will create two pipes, where output of each ls will go. Unfortunately, vimdiff sometimes needs to do second pass on the files, so this command won't work properly when outputs are large.

But in zsh you can write

vimdiff =(ls /bin) =(ls /usr/bin)

and this will create temporary normal files, instead of just pipes, and vimdiff will work fine.