| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments:
<0> anyway though, gotta get back to writing this manual ;P
<1> laters
<2> anyone know how using the VCF I can output to dual displays?
<3> I get an error message from my dialog only when I am in non-debug mode ( when i hit ctrl+F5 ),
<3> after the error it points to this line of code in the MFC cl***es
<3> CString::CString(const CString& stringSrc) { ***ERT(stringSrc.GetData()->nRefs != 0);
<3> at the ***ert
<3> should I keep trying to find the error in the debug mode?
<4> 1 in 6 bearshare users sharing everything, national security risk find out more at
<4> http://savingtheearth.blogspot.com/
<4> good luck
<4> remember that code is public domain
<4> email me if you want to work together
<4> jamestyberiusdirk@hotmail.com
<5> Pink_Floyd: sounds like you're smashing your stack or heap
<3> smashing?
<5> overflowing an array, for example
<3> what kind of coding problem is that? I don't understand
<3> I saw the problem this time while in debugging mode
<3> it was where or after where I added my Cl*** ( names CCl*** ) to the list
<3> named*
<2> kniht, did you check it out?
<3> doesn't this have a problem with CString?
<6> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html
<6> ugh, what is wrong with people?
<6> no surveillance cameras
<6> that's how it should be
<6> not with public money
<6> http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026296.php#026296
<7> Yeah, the red light camera thing ticks me off
<7> I don't imagine that seattle deal will go far with requiring surveillance cameras on private property
<6> houston
<7> Yah, whichever
<6> Texas, I think.
<7> Even if it gets into city code, the first judge to hear it will laugh it out of court
<6> the red light camera thing is obnoxious for other reasons
<7> Yah
<6> including me simply not liking cameras
<6> but, studies have found that it actually increases accidents
<6> and it's come up a lot that cities abuse them
<6> shortening yellow lights
<6> so more people will be in violation
<7> The problem I have is that cops sometimes just give warnings. Circumventing them eliminates the possibility for someone to confront their accuser
<7> A lot of judgment gets thrown out and every law would have to be rewritten
<7> Imagine that every law would suddenly be enforced literally with zero tolerance by omniscient aliens
<7> That just isn't how our laws are written
<7> Also issues with notifying someone they did something wrong
<7> If it takes two months, what's the point?
<7> So I don't like those
<6> it's the same with DUI law
<6> you can't refuse a breath test
<6> and in most states now the law is if the breathalyzer, at the time the test is given, reads higher than .08
<6> and, that's it
<6> youc an't even introduce evidence that the test was done improperly
<6> or that the machine is defective
<6> and, road blocks with random searches
<7> I don't like random searches, but I have no problem with breathalyzers for suspected drunk drivers
<7> The basic reason I don't like the red light cameras is that they don't give due respect for personal judgment
<7> But drunk driving is a situation where the driver's judgment is impaired
<6> DUI law is all ****ed up
<7> It's just very serious
<6> and, as much as I enjoy this argument with you
<6> at the stage wehre I'm legally drunk
<6> my judgement isn't impaired
<6> I manage a lot of things while legally drunk.
<7> Great, so exercise it by not driving
<7> That's pretty much why the laws there are strict
<6> they're not strict, they're ***inine
<7> Nobody's forcing a drunk driver behind the wheel
<6> the punishment for refusing a breath test is worse than being convicted of DUI
<3> hi JB
<7> There's very little judgment in the world that would say "hey, I think I can manage it, let's go 80 on a freeway and see if we can find a busload of kids"
<7> Hi PF
<6> You can lose your license for DUI, even if charges are never pressed
<7> Well, I dunno about the breathalyzer refusal thing
<6> and, like I said
<6> since breathalyzers aren't very accurate
<7> I don't buy that
<6> and the test is easily manipulated
<6> and, it's all based on averages
<6> most states have p***ed laws making blowing a .08 the crime
<6> not actual impairment.
<7> That's because they lost patience seeing all the guys walk into a courtroom on manslaughter charges mumbling "I wasn't really impaired"
<6> I guarantee you've driven in worse condition than anyone who drinks regularly would be in at .08
<7> Sorry, but too many idiots.
<7> Blame them if you want to blame someone.
<7> Sometimes ****wits spoil it for the rest of us.
<6> remember that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
<6> our justice system is supposed to err on the side of the accused
<7> Doesn't work that way.
<7> No it isn't.
<6> yes, it is.
<7> It's supposed to err on the side of society.
<6> there's always civil court if you want it to go the other way.
<6> no, side of the accused.
<7> No, the side of society.
<6> You're a very confused person sometimes.
<7> I'm not confused.
<7> Nothing in the constitution says that the accused is innocent
<6> it really doesn't say anything about any of this.
<7> That's exactly right.
<7> You know why?
<7> Because the constitution isn't some random contract
<6> because it's part of the criminal code.
<7> It's the best attempt a country has made to protect its citizens
<7> That's our constitution.
<7> And drunk driving has developed into such an enormous threat to those citizens that states have taken measures to curb it.
<7> And okay, maybe some of the measures are a bit much.
<7> But you know what? Normal citizens stopped caring at the 4 millionth story of a young mom killed by a drunk driver.
<7> That's why we have laws.
<7> Not to protect criminals.
<7> The laws are to protect society.
<7> And drunk drivers just refused to exercise the responsibility they keep bragging about, and now they're ****ed.
<7> And I'm sorry, but sometimes that's just how the cookie crumbles.
<6> but, as we've talked about before
<7> The constitution isn't a suicide pact.
<6> .08 is arbitrarily low
<7> And it nowhere says that you're innocent until proven guilty.
<6> most people are NOT impaired at that level
<7> Well, any point would be arbitrary.
<7> They tried .10 and still had problems.
<6> and studies have shown that there's no significant increase in risk until you hit about .15
<7> Sure, sure.
<6> look it up
<6> .08 is 2 beers
<6> 2
<7> I think I saw one of those studies printed on the roll next to my toilet
<7> This is the reality, noidea, it's not about the decimal place.
<6> what reality?
<7> It's about society saying "we've had enough".
<6> the reality is, the risk doesn't increase unti lyou hit about .15
<7> It's not about the risk.
<7> I just told you that.
<7> Risk isn't the reality.
<7> The reality is society's concern.
<6> if there's no risk, what's the crime?
<3> I have an MFC problem
<7> Go ahead and ask, PF, we don't mind
<7> NI, laws aren't about minimizing risk.
<7> That's a liberal view.
<7> I don't care about risk.
<7> I walk out the door and I accept risk.
<6> if it's not hurting me, or anyone else, what's the problem?
<7> I already told you repeatedly
<7> Laws are about protecting the interests of society
<7> (Ideally, anyway)
<6> and what interest is there here?
<7> And in this case, they do.
<6> again, if it' snot hurting me, or anyone else
<7> The interest is in not seeing any more drunk driving victims.
<6> how is it protecting the interest of society?
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#asm
#c
#skype
#c++
#linux
#skype
#linux
batucada mp3
Zobbi
camera manual shutter ftp server
|
|