| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments:
<0> But government surveillance cameras do not belong on private property
<1> quitting after this pack
<0> Certainly not by force
<1> $35 for patches
<2> but, it does back up another thing I said
<2> that at the legal limit you're less impaired than on a cell phone
<0> Well hell, I never denied that
<0> I think society's losing its patience with cell phone drivers too
<0> And deservedly so
<0> But that's not our argument
<1> hell yes, I am on my bike and see people almost hit me
<0> Yah, people on cell phones drive like ****
<2> http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone
<0> I'll use one every now and then in my truck, and I know I drive like **** with it too
<2> cell phone users less distracted than people with kids in the car
<2> I can't find the other link now, and I've got a 10am meeting
<0> Yah, but noidea, you're not reinforcing your original claim
<2> so, next time.
<0> Alright
<0> Just note that a lot of what you hear on both sides is BS
<0> So never believe anything until you see the data
<0> Always a good rule of thumb
<2> those are the studies.
<0> Well, a study isn't data, and those weren't studies I in any way disputed, and they didn't support your claim
<0> It's not enough for me to offer 1000 studies that I agree with. That's not supporting what I claim, that's offering more claims.
<2> they support a large part of my claim
<2> that people at .08 aren't dangerous
<0> No, your basic claim was that .08 is too low.
<0> And nothing in any of your pastes gave any data suggesting that it wasn't.
<2> I'll find that later.
<0> Just that cell phone users ****, and people with kids should watch the road more
<0> And whatever
<2> all drivers are distracted
<0> No, that's not true.
<2> there's been research showing that sleepy drivers are worse off than cell phone users
<0> And drunk driving is a totally unnecessary and wholly preventable distraction.
<2> people on any kinds of drugs
<2> so is a radio
<2> and a CD player
<0> Okay, yeah, and if you get in an accident because your radio's drowning out sirens, that's on you.
<0> And cities have laws against radios that are too loud
<2> no, flipping radio stations
<2> tuning radio stations
<2> changing CDs
<2> not just blaring it too loud
<0> Okay, don't be silly
<0> If someone changes a CD for ten seconds every five minutes in their car
<0> That's a far cry from demonstrating a state of impairment.
<0> And there's nothing to suggest that they can't pick a decent time in traffic to do what they're doing.
<2> I think there's been research into this too
<0> That's like saying that blinking is impairment
<0> Because you can't see while your eyes are closed
<2> showing people playing with their radios are right up there with cell phone users.
<0> Well, okay, sure, but obviously that's not a serious problem
<2> but, cell phone users are more impaired than people at .08
<0> None of this **** is proven, NI.
<0> You haven't offered any of it.
<2> and, remember, it's jail time at .08
<2> ummm, those 2 studies
<0> You can't just throw out twenty things and expect them to all somehow blob together anthropomorphously into some convincing linear argument
<0> Either you can prove that .08 is too low, or you can't
<0> And so far, you can't
<0> And that's that.
<2> we're leaving that for later
<2> I'm saying that .08 by itself isn't impaired.
<2> and going to bed.
<0> Night
<3> http://www.noidea128.org/sourcefiles/15949.html
<3> gets me: error C2679: binary '[' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'std::string' (or there is no acceptable conversion)
<0> I think it's just *iter or something
<3> line 19 is: cin >> stringVector[index];
<0> And use ++iter
<3> where index was was grabbed from a previous cin
<0> cin >> *iter
<0> Wait
<0> What the hell
<0> 19?
<0> cin >> stringVector[i];
<0> I guess
<0> Rather strange code, though
<0> You're better off with that getline, but the same thing goes, use stringVector[i]
<3> JBlitzen, ho you see i'm trying to make a vector with strings as indices.
<3> ratehr than integers.
<0> Okay, but that wouldn't be a vector
<3> s/ratehr/rather/
<0> http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/Map.html
<0> Use <map>
<3> no? what should i use
<0> I don't remember what data structure map uses, but it's ***ociative.
<0> So if you want something like
<0> m.insert("Fred", "Fred Thompson's house of wax");
<0> m.insert("Wilma", "asdfa df7asdfasdf7asd fas7d7asd fasdf8a8sdf8as8df ");
<0> And then be able to cout
<0> m.value_of("Fred");
<0> Or something
<0> map is your friend
<0> Note that my code in no way reflects the actual syntax
<0> I think map might use some sort of binary tree, but I'm not sure.
<0> Probably isn't set in stone anyway.
<0> A vector just uses a dynamically allocated array, which means that indexing it by "fred" would force it to search every item up to "fred" in order to find "fred".
<0> By using a more complex data structure, map can bring down that search speed tremendously, for instance via a binary tree (log 2 or whatever)
<0> er, log n
<3> JBlitzen, wow, thanks alot mate.
<0> I don't know if you understood any of that
<0> Ah, sure thing
<3> no, i did - i have done some programming before, just not c++ - so getting used to the syntax.
<0> nod
<0> Note that <set> is also a sorted ***ociative container, but it doesn't store pairs of keys/values
<3> learnt with PHP - which is so basica in comparison. like $array["foo"] = bar is totally legal.
<0> Just values
<0> Yah
<0> I should probably give you a quick explanation of why C++ doesn't allow that
<0> (Although you could overload the operator to do that in a custom cl***, and <map> very well might)
<3> if you don't mind..
<0> Are you familiar with switch blocks?
<0> switch (n)
<0> {
<0> case 1: fred...
<3> case:
<3> yeah
<0> case 2...
<0> Yah
<0> Well, they're very efficient in C++
<0> (All of this goes for C, too)
<3> ofcourse
<0> Because they're compiled down to bytecode that's indexed numerically
<0> When you do that wacky PHP stuff above, what's happening behind the scenes is a whole series of operations involving string copies, comparisons, sequential string searches, etc.
<0> It all takes a nightmarishly long time, that probably isn't too significant for a web page
<0> But it can take light years in a high performance application
<0> Imagine if the complexity of adjusting a monster's coordinate position in a game were multipled exponentially by a factor of 3
<0> You just kicked a game slated for 1500 ghz processors into the realm of 4500 ghz, which I don't think you reach outside of the NSA
<3> lol
<0> So, for the same reason switch requires numeric indexing
<0> Because, seriously, the number you p*** to is just converted via a quick algebra expression into a memory index
<0> And that's just banged into the memory offset, and with two CPU processes, it's done
<0> You can't compare two strings that fast, much less compare all the strings in a data set to find if any of them match your's
<0> And vector is designed to allow very fast random access
<0> So the two notions are totally antithetical
<0> Vector allows random access because it uses tricks of memory management to just slam your random element request to the right spot immediately
<0> When you ask a vector what's at index 24, you're actually just asking what's at the start of the vector + 24 bytes
<0> Or whatever
<0> And that's very easy for the processor to answer
<3> wow, thorough.
<0> In fact, that's pretty much all the processor does, just answer what's at whatever memory position.
<0> The same thing just doesn't work for strings.
<0> Imagine a randomly sorted dictionary
<0> Where "cat" comes right after "elephant" on the last page
<0> And you want to find the entry for "cat"
<0> In PHP, it might very well search every entry on every page until it reaches "cat"
<3> right, its not logical to sort through the whole list to find cat.
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
Module bcm43xx not found
#php
dj miskitin
#skype
#MissKitten
#teens
examanc
#linux
#mirc
apache forcetype pathinfo
|
|