5,614 karma · joined January 2, 2011
So they're justified in acting recklessly around me because others act recklessly around them? If it's that much of a problem, they should walk.
If you like to be boiled in the summer and frozen in the winter, not to mention having to cycle on icy roads with no shoulder and sixteen-wheelers bearing down on you.
Anyway, if you do cycle, please don't make a habit out of blowing past pedestrians at full speed, and think twice about riding on the sidewalks.
That's how we interpret it. The problem is that we don't know what the rights-holder has in mind, and what that entity's willing to sue over.
Lawyers can be comically risk-averse. Comical, that is, until you see the kinds of things people actually sue over.
Also, France really needs to stop deporting Romani people.
Frankly, you're amazingly privileged being black in France compared to being an Arab or a Romani.
The arXiv focuses on physics, math, computer science, and similar, but it certainly seems to be what you're looking for.
> One of the first to respond to Semmelweis's 1848 communications was James Young Simpson who wrote a stinging letter. Simpson surmised that the English obstetrical literature must be totally unknown in Vienna, or Semmelweis would have known that the English had long regarded childbed fever as contagious and would have employed chlorine washing to protect against it.
And:
> Indeed, initial responses to Semmelweis's findings were that he had said nothing new.
But:
> In fact, Semmelweis was warning against all decaying organic matter, not just against a specific contagion that originated from victims of childbed fever themselves. This misunderstanding, and others like it, occurred partly because Semmelweis's work was known only through secondhand reports written by his colleagues and students. At this crucial stage, Semmelweis himself had published nothing.
Why didn't he publish until later? Who knows. The fact is, he didn't and it hurt his case.
And, if you read further, you see that Semmelweis simply went crazy later on, with people later on proposing causes from Alzheimer's to learned helplessness to PTSD. Not a good thing if you are insulting and argumentative to begin with and are proposing a new theory on top of it.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -- Karl Marx. Not a misquote.
My point is that religions seem prone to demonizing people as a quick and easy way to define themselves and maintain cohesion. Look at all the really nasty doctrinal splits through history.
Don't you dare say that it doesn't happen or that it doesn't matter. Don't you dare.
Now, in this case, confounding factors probably aren't a problem, but if 10x developers are one in a million or one in a billion, an anecdote about how someone, somewhere actually met one once isn't very helpful to the rest of us.
And, if you really need to represent codepoint 0 in strings, you can use Java's Modified UTF-8, where codepoint 0 is represented by the byte sequence 0xC0, 0x80. (This isn't valid UTF-8 because in straight UTF-8, every codepoint must be represented by its shortest possible representation.)
This is indeed a tradeoff. The only alternatives are to either store the length of the string explicitly somewhere (the Pascal solution is to prepend the string with a fixed-size length parameter, which can be as awkward as it sounds when you get to really long strings) or to do something nasty with the string's actual contents, such as saying that the last byte of a string has its high bit set.
I think the C solution is the most reasonable when storage is really tight, and more flexible than the Pascal method in general, but I agree that it's potentially dangerous and it's annoying to have a byte which you can never represent in a string.
Well, yes. That's the point: 0x00 is only ever used to encode codepoint 0. It never shows up anywhere else. That's precisely what the text you replied to means.
Or if they decide that they need more codepoints, so some invalid-but-possible UTF-8 byte sequences suddenly become valid.
You might also know Tom Jennings from having created Fidonet and having written the BIOS which became the basis for Phoenix Technologies BIOS.
Doesn't it cause oral cancer?
So it was great the same way Smalltalk and ITS were great: It was wonderful, but most of us couldn't use it, so it was worthless. Technical acumen doesn't matter if the result isn't out in a usable form.
So what do you want to happen?
And decades later, Iran still hasn't changed.
Reminds me of how ITS limited filenames to six letters per component, because they used six bits per character and six times six is thirty-six bits, or one machine word.
To this day, HAKMEM ('Hacks Memo') is still called that:
There's no recognized drug treatment for Autism/Asperger's[1], and I kind of question your skepticism towards therapy. What's wrong with getting help with things you could be doing better.
[1] The only drug treatments relevant are drugs used to treat comorbid conditions. http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/autism-treatment-overview
> Being intelligent does not a disorder make.
Nobody's saying it does.