Benj’s blog!

test

How do I return an object reference ?

+(BOOL) Foo:(NSObject *c) {
NSObject *foo = [[NSObject alloc] init]
c = foo;
return YES:
}

Why doesn’t this work?
[edit]

Well now I know +(BOOL) Foo:(NSObject **c) {
*c = [[NSObject alloc] init];
return YES:
}

I always forget multiple indirection ..

Well I’ve made some nice progress in ObjectiveC today. I decided to start with something simple; a “CSS Hex” <--> RGB convertor. I figured it would be a challenging problem, some simple parsing and interfacing with Cocoa UI elements.

Next weekend maybe I’ll be working on something a little more substantial!

The U.S. don’t have a leg to stand on.

The inspectors are clearly saying Iraq *IS* now co-operating (not complying .. ). Technically they were/are in violation of 1441, since they didn’t act “immediately”. Where is the justification for an immediate strike against Iraq? They are now complying!

Which is a better situation of compliance? Immense pressure from the international community via 300000soldiers on your borders but NO unnecessary bloodshed?
OR
A potentially bloody and horrible war.

Disarmament of Iraq is the objective.

Since all of this is carried out under the banner of the various resolutions, most recently 1441 then let the security council decide whether military action is now appropriate.

The only angle the U.S. have is that of a pre-emptive strike in the interest of self-defence? Well that’s fine if there is a credible threat? They can’t realistically go in under the pretence that they are upholding 1441, since the inspection regime is doing that and the security council have said military action is not appropriate.

Also what kind of precedent would this set? Pre-emptive strike with no evidence? Consider the case where Palestinian fundamentalists acquire some nuclear weapon (or more likely some chemical weapon). Citing the U.S’s strike on Iraq, they can claim pre-emptive self-defence.

No THANK YOU .. I don’t wish to live in a world like that.

Mr George Bush, Mr Tony Blair get a clue!

Colin Powell’s response are as I would expect; pressing continually the point that the Iraq co-operation was not immediate and there is still work to do. So what? Which is better, resolution with or without conflict? Also if the U.S. knows X,Y and Z to be the facts why do they not present the evidence the the inspectors? Perhaps they don’t have any ..

Whilst I accept it isn’t practical to give Iraq unlimited chances and/or time, given the sheer magnitude of the issue at the moment coupled with the pressure from the U.S. forces, I feel the diplomatic route should be pursued some over all costs. If UN1441 really was an ultimatum then it should have been worded a whole lot more carefully; “immediate co-operation” should have been defined.

BTW I wonder whether the irrelevance of the UN argument has some validity. The U.S. and U.K. are acting like rich kids with no friends i.e. they are buying the votes of the other members of the security council. If the vote succeeds, then it’s because it’s been “bought” and if it doesn’t there will be conflict anyway; either way there is an aspect of irrelevance!

Well …

Jack Straw shot up in my estimation - I never knew he was able to speak with passion! Why can’t they just accept the level of pressure needs to be maintained, whilst at the same time the UN inspectors are doing what they are doing? Saddam clearly co-operates in these situations ..

Hello Folks,nice site youre running!

In fact it’s nothing to do with the HTML comment, rather it’s the exclamation (or ping a.k.a. !). A construct like this .stopsafari { color: green; ! } seems to stop the CSS parser dead in it’s tracks :-(.

See an example without it … and one with it …

… we’ll see ! BBC interception of some official radio of Iran broadcast seems to say so!

Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage

Here’s the info …