pbraun wrote:

There are very valid reasons to use them outside of the constructor as well

I think the term 'as well' qualifies it really. IMHO it's fine to call the init() outside of the constructor as well, but seems foolish to not to call it at construct time - even if all it does is initialise the object to a NULL state.

Hahaha - yeah, good spot. Using the same criteria as everyone else, good ol' USA has 10 days mandated minimum holidays. Coupled with the excellent public healthcare & welfare system too. They've got it sooooo good over there... :~

So, if you cross your eyes you see faces on every 'potato ship' & 'popcorn/cottage cheese ceiling' do you? Is all of your local infrastructure made from popular food items, or just the things in the roofing/shipping areas? :confused: (Please forgive me if you are, in fact, about the same size as a beetle and these items make great substitutes for the ones us full-sized people use - I'm not intending to make fun of any physical challenges you may have had to overcome...)

Its hard to tell from text, but I was pretty sure snorkie was kidding - I ignored most of the joke answers, but responded to one just to be friendly, I guess. I did include the joke icon to indicate as such. If snorkie was serious, I would have expected some mention of what led snorkie to become a Scientologist and what prompted the feelings of faith that it engenders. As no effort was made to address any of the questions I posited, just a link posted to a quasi-religion invented by a Sci-Fi author, it seemed like a safe bet that it wasn't meant to be serious. You probably know snorkie better than I & if you believe that snorkie was actually trying to enlighten me, then I will persevere with trying to engage in discussion. The only sensible answers I got seemed to be from A.A. & Joergen Sigvardsson (edit - my mistake it's standgale, Joergen). I replied to A.A.: "... the most sincere, well thought out reply I have got so far. Thanks!". That was because A.A. was clearly trying to help out with the topic of the original post. I will eventually get around to replying to Joergen (edit - standgale, not Joergen), but as neither of us 'has' religion I wasn't convinced of the value in discussing our similar beliefs. I replied to you as you were the first person to respond & I wanted to reassure you & anyone else reading the thread that this was a genuine RFC - but really, believe what you like, I don't mind if you don't contribute anything useful to the discussion :) -- modified at 10:47 Wednesday 25th July, 2007

Not likely - i've seen 'The Wicker Man' - it wouldn't end well...

I can't believe you got voted '1' for that response! It seems to be the most sincere, well thought out reply I have got so far. Thanks!

Hmmm, I guess I would be flattered, except I had a real interest in the answer. You see, I posted in a genuine attempt to better understand my fellow man. I do understand that religion, like politics, it is often a sensitive subject to broach. I tried to phrase my question in a candid & non-inflammatory manner in the hope of getting some genuine responses & insight into the thinking of my peers. As I explained, I am not religious myself & from reading the message boards am aware that Code Project has an active community of vocal members, many of whom I would consider my intellectual equals. I would value input from anyone's perspective on this issue, I'm pretty broad minded. I am not trying to judge people here, more understand the emotional & intellectual decisions that shape peoples lives...

I concur...

Hey! I said that! No particular offence intended to Kyle, but it wasn't supposed to be bait to start a pointless argument (as I'm assuming the implication here is), but a genuine attempt to better understand my fellow man. I do understand that religion, like politics, it is often a sensitive subject to broach. I tried to phrase my question in a candid, but non-inflammatory manner in the hope of getting some genuine responses & insight into the thinking of my peers.

I just visited the soapbox for the first time today & I think its the right place to get some feedback on a question that has often troubled me: I am not a religious man, but when selecting a religion to follow, how do you choose which one is the 'right' one? They seem to be largely mutually exclusive & generally threaten dire punishment for anyone caught following a 'false' one. I would be worried that I had picked badly & despite all my hard work was only making things worse in worshipping a false idol. Is this the sort of issue that religious types wrestle with often, or do most people just take a hope-for-the-best attitude? :confused: Any comments gratefully appreciated...

Red Stateler wrote:

Isn't relativism beautiful? What a load of tripe.

Was this a mis-post, or am I reading it wrong? Seems like a complete non-sequitur - IS relativism beautiful? WHAT is a load of old tripe? It doesn't even seem related to the post I made about the suppression of dissent within democracies. WTF???

Of course dissent (even from Nazis) is good - it leads to a free & frank exchange of views. Should dissenters which have been qualified as bad be prevented from expressing that dissent - driving their views underground, away from the public scrutiny which would have exposed their 'bad' ideas as such? How could a dissenter's position be assessed to determine its goodness/badness? This seems like an untenable position to hold in a democratic society - suppression of dissent is foolish in the same way as steering a car with your eyes shut is. Chavez is clearly wrong to attempt to suppress criticism of his regime, as is Red Stateler to assert that there is such a thing as good/bad dissent. It is just someone expressing their POV, unless you live under religious extremism you are generally allowed to express your own POV wherever you live - even in the USA. Any democratic regime that can't withstand critique from its participating members is badly broken. (In fact, wasn't the USA formed largely by oppressed minorities seeking somewhere they could express themselves freely?) Ignore the lessons of history at your peril!

FWIW the same guy started with a purely heuristic approach & the machine won a world chequers tournament back in 1994. He was dissatisfied with the fact that it could be beaten & subsequently pursued this 'brute-force' approach instead, but way back in '94 demonstrated a working, winning AI which probably fits some of your definition's of machine intelligence a bit better...

I saw an episode of 'The Gadget Show' where they 'road-tested' a Victorinox Swiss Army Knife and a top of the range Leatherman multitool (two of the most popular camping-type knives sold in Europe). The Victorinox started sharper & the edge of each blade degraded at a similar rate, so it remained sharper throughout the (fairly extensive) tests. However, the blades don't lock like a Leatherman & every single tester sliced themselves with the Victorinox at some point. Personally, I use a Victorinox Swiss Army knife & have never cut myself - but then I never tried to use that tiny saw blade to actually cut down a tree...

John Cardinal wrote:

there is no other easy to say phrase or word that describes a US citizen.

:-> I guess it would break the 'kid sister' rule anyway :-O