krickle

I thought that was for infix expressions with order of operations?

I agree that it's not appropriate here, but in general; people do it because male forced envelopment victims get congratulated, male domestic violence victims that call for help are redirected to a hotline to confess as an abuser, males are ignored in legislation bringing more health care benefits to women, males are more likely to commit suicide, and males are less likely to succeed in lower education or matriculate into college. Also the prisons are full of men (who get longer sentences for similar crimes), where it's also a hilarious joke that they are raped because fuck criminals.

I wouldn't have replied but I hate that "what about the menz" trope. Men and women both have social problems, it wasn't appropriate to discuss men's issues here but that does not mean it is never appropriate. Maybe people need better filters than, "a discussion about gender is occurring, here is my two cents," but it's hard for people who care about these issues to find a good time simply because it's somewhat taboo to say men have problems at all. So they probably just don't mention anything until they really disagree with something being said.

We shouldn't allow disfunctional individuals to participate in our communities, but I think at the point where you photoshop nudes to damage someone's reputation, a therapist would be more appropriate than a lynch mob. I think that's why it seems childish to you, you know that shaming wouldn't make anyone change, it would just satiate our thirst for revenge.

Yes, well done. But I've a policy against arguing with trolls so I can't be baited.

Yes. I took some Coursera classes and it was better than reading the relevant Wikipedia articles in terms of how much I learned and retained. Net win for education IMO.

> not paying is stealing

> that's not how the law works

You are a hypocrite, you're just frothing at the mouth claiming anything you'd like even if it's self-contradictory. Coupled with the ad hominem attacks, we all know it is you that is the "monumental prick".

It would be nice if you had wrote about this dilemma without making a strawman argument.

It's a fact that DRM only inconveniences the paying customers. You of all people should know that. The laws preventing people from getting around it certainly aren't going to stop the one guy that rips a DVD and sends it out, but they are put to good use against the one guy that wants to help you use your Playstation hardware as you wish. Not to mention your phone. Or the guy selling you reasonably-priced watches from abroad. Their price segmentation is more important than the doctrine of first sale, right?

Nobody thinks a content provider should give it away for free, and many people arguing against copyright ridiculousness are also against piracy. Many people remark that maybe if the content providers weren't charging fistfuls for a shitty experience they might have better luck. Plenty of people would buy a movie DRM-free for $3 but don't feel entitled to download it.

These have facinated me for a while. I wish there was a nice open source implementation of the McEliece cryptosystem to try out.

That doesn't make it right.

I'm not "upgrading" to Lion ever. Their next software update will determine whether or not I buy a Mac again.

Why is "banging the beehive" not considered to be manipulating the market?

I first read about it on wingolog.org, and IIRC there was mention of an implementation of Guile using it. I think that supports your paper as evidence. Very cool technique, but I would rather give preference to integers and pointers.

Like what? I thought the GIL and GC forcing COW were the largest problems bar none.

Jailbroken iPhones have a way to reject requests to domains like Flurry. Regular iPhones not so much.

Your intended meaning was very clear since you used parenthesized qualifiers. IMO any argument on your usage is pedantic at best, but I would have put it as perceived and empirical/actual trustworthiness.

I think in that case it would be better to make it variadic on input arrays, like map(makeInterval, array, array.tail())

Techcrunch cannot be considered a reputable news source for far more reasons than that.

No, IDEs make you more productive. It's like declaring that your blue screwdriver is better than their red screwdriver.

I bet if you pay them what they expect to get from their own companies, they'll stop fucking around and get right on it.

No thank you, Christian Scientists are "experimental" enough. We don't need the Tim Ferrises of the world selling snake oil to parents (as medicine).

I see, I thought you were using the proxy as normal and had programmatically made new classes also. But you are creating an object and then setting its class to the proxy. Neat.

Ah, I misunderstood you. You're right that our own opinions aren't really relevant without a study.

Sexual selection has been observed in other animals. It's inaccurate to say that all men or all women are alike but it's not far fetched to think humans have certain behavioral trends.

I misread you as running the original method on the proxy object. But if you don't, aren't you missing methods you do want to track called from methods you don't?

This kind of stuff is awesome. I made a profiler for ObjC that did a similar thing, but by programmatically creating a new subclass and only profiling certain instances.

On your prevent instrumentation proxy methods; if the original method references ivars without using self.x or [self x] do you notice weird results?

This is why the Mac Gatekeeper is an awesome idea. Unfortunately they fucked up the implementation. Also they are the only CA so they can control who signs apps or not.

I want to switch to Android, but I fear needing to have constant vigilance over what I install. Like running a Windows install but forced to use Java as well.

However, it's still preferrable to Apple's draconian policies.

What the fuck? "For the crime of X and twelve counts of being falsely accused of Y we sentence you to ZZ years of prison." I never thought the legal system was fair, but comments about this case are revealing a whole new level of bullshit beneath the top layer.

Followed by the linguistic anonymity arms race!

Police have no reasonable expectation of privacy when interacting with the public. And isn't it the police themselves that claim "if you are doing nothing wrong..."? So monitoring private citizens' private communication is ok, videotaping a public interaction is not.