Only if you reject the concept, that taxes are your due share in being part of a society you profit from.

There is also a difference between possession and ownership: You earn a certain amount of money and possess it. The taxes are your dues, the rest is what you own.

I am missing any reference to mesh networking in the announcement. Come one, it feels like it has been already been decades, that mesh networking is supposed to come with the next release.

> Because of patriarchy, males are the dominant gender, and therefore it is not possible to be sexist against them. Somehow, they managed to make females the minority, even though there's more females than males. This applies similarly to race and sexuality.

You make it out as if it is a man against women thing, which it is not. It is about a society, which has internalised a male dominant role. Strangely enough, that does include women.

Many men profit from that, but also some men suffer from the very same system too. If you are a geek, and were looked down upon in school, because you were not the strong alpha male sporty man, then you have experienced part of that. Except that now, if you are working as a tech, earning a fair salary, you fit into the expectations again. Or If you are a father, who does want to parent your children instead of leaving it to your wife, then you experience it most likely too.

And that pressure, which is placed on you to conform to expected roles in society is coming from women and men, from your friends and family. No one is putting a gun to your breast, but you will hear more likely critical comments, instead of hearing support as when you confirm your "expected role"

Personally, I think that is worth changing, because I do not like experiencing that, and I do not want others experience more extreme forms of prejudice
  and that having more diversity in deciding positions (and others too) is a necessary part of breaking those prejudices.

> If that's the case, maybe it's the women that need to change?

So are you saying, men don't?

I do not see quite the logic conclusion from your first sentence. I would see, that men and women (society) has to change.

I would say, in that regard, he has good staff. They said, they acted on their own. As the record stands, Sanders can rightfully claim innocence in the matter, and they would possibly take all the blame, if it goes wrong.

If you are running into that issue often, consider the Pimpl-pattern.

As always, C++ doesn't take the decision away from you. If you cannot live with the overhead in runtime from one pointer indirection, you have to live with the other downside.

From my standpoint and experience, most compile time issues were due to people putting things into the headers out of convenience.
In order to save some forward declarations or pimpl implementations, things were put into the header, which caused constant recompiles,and long compile times.

If the Paris attacks happened every month in France, then the rate of homocides through guns would still be lower than the one in the US.

Also the same article states that
* they were not targeting either officials, but the party they were happening to call.
* and were ordered to delete the records, as soon as the involved parties were identified.

Sounds not quite like hiring a double-agent from an allied secret service.

Even if would take your explanation, what kind of mindset would shorten "this lousy excuse for a science" to "science"?

> On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.

Taking into account the amount of factual results produce, I would say, the Heartland Institute receives a disproportionate amount of money.

Science, it works in the sense, that for example, that it allows us to produce rockets, which got us to the moon.
If the Heartland Institute produces something similar, then I would consider it putting it in the same league as a single NASA administrator.

Renaming is O(filename), usually a single table entry. Deleting is probably more along the lines of O(filesize).
You have to keep track of the free blocks, too.

With the same application mix, an even distribution of load is not a good sign: You have to wake the sleeping CPUs more often, so they can't switch them to a deeper sleep mode, and probably, the scheduler is switching the threads between processors, which means more cache misses.

So, the load graph alone is not a good indicator. Of course, that doesn't make your observation any less valid.

Exactly for that reason, proving is done by deductive reasoning, not by testing.
You are working on a different abstraction level.

For proving, the number of variables or configurations are not a sensible measure of complexity.
There are seemingly simple equations, which haven't been proven for decades or even centuries,
and there are equations with an infinite number of scalars, which can take an infinite number of values,
which are well understood and proven from several different angles and used by undergrad students every day.

The same way it doesn't "take 100 years to" write code, which takes "every possible code path and input" in account,
it doesn't take it to verify it. Discovering an algorithm might take 100 years, but not writing the code.
Those are separate problems and usually one does the first, not the latter. Especially not in the cited case.

Writing correct code is about implementing an algorithm, which already considers "every possible code path and input"
and implementing it correctly. Software verification is purely checking, whether the written code matches the algorithm
is tedious and time-consuming and error prone in itself, but only takes a simple factor more time, which it took to write the code.
Automated verification is a totally different beast, because there is provably no algorithm for it.

To my understanding, that is the quintessence of the Gödel incompleteness theorems:
There are things, which are intractable for automated systems, which aren't for humans.

The size of the "solution space" is mainly important for testing, which seemed to have failed in the cited case.

> Most problems in automatic verification are either undecidable, or intractable.

Who was speaking of automatic verification?

Some things may be over-engineered. But in my experience, more often it is the case, that people rather re-invent the wheel,
than they bother to try to understand, what someone else has done, and how it is supposed to work.
And over time, it will bite. Usually not the one who wrote the code, because that person is gone, but the project in whole.
And no, I don't see a difference in "own code" and foreign libraries, from a "long" term perspective, it is the same.