NULL is often (void *)0, which is *technically* valid on some architectures (OS notwithstanding). It's just so unlikely a result that it's safe to use.
BZZT (perhaps they meant specifically the automatic parent resolution?)
BZZT -- The page even had "nested classes" listed separately and a note linked from the words "inner classes" explaining the difference. Obviously if "nested classes" in on the preceding line, you should realize that "inner class" in not being used as a synonym for "nested class".
You also see a lot of programs written by people who don't know the difference between big- and little-endian systems, so they try to do "clever" things like calculating array locations by performing boolean addition between ints and pointers.
Huh? Adding an int and a pointer is perfectly well defined and could easily be used to calculate an array location. That is, it is defined by the standard, and must work on any system. And what do mean by boolean addition?
Both Objective Caml and SML (using, say MLton) can be compiled to ELF executables for the x86.
Anyway, native-code compilation versus bytecode compilation isn't a property of a language, it's a property of an implementation. The GNU Compiler for Java exists.
These were pretty arbitrary examples: there are plenty of options for native code executables besides C/C++.
Yes, But the difference in that case is that malloc happens at a known point. You can intentionally place such actions in non-time critical sections of your program. The problem the OP was refering to is that with garbage collection, the garbage collection could occur during a time-cirtical section. Something which you as a programmer could avoid otherwise.
But garbage collection likewise only occurs when memory is allocated*! Code that could call the garbage collector is not inserted between every statement or something. That would be absurd. Thus, don't allocate memory during a time-critical section.
*This isn't entirely true, but the other cases aren't relevant to this discussion.
I have yet to find a time where I would need to strip out the DRM unless to share with the masses.
Suppose your main computer (that you play music on) runs Linux but you have a spare Windows machine or Mac that you can use with iTunes. Gee, that scenario was terribly hard to think up.
OK, I don't know much about audio formats, but something seems goofy here on general principles.
Suppose I have AIFF data (or whatever lossless format) that came from an AAC file. Now I use that data to come up with a new AAC file that would produce the same AIFF data if so converted. This must be possible in principle, since the AIFF data came from an AAC file. This new file must be aurally indistinguishable from the original, since it yields the same uncompressed audio (which is essentially what gets played, right?).
The only way we have a problem is if it is computationally infeasible to create an AAC file from AIFF data in this manner, but this would surprise me. Or perhaps no one has written a tool to do this.
I understand that there can be unavoidable loss going, for example, from AAC to CD to MP3, since AAC and MP3 discard different information. I don't see a problem in principle going from AAC to CD to AAC.
The April 1985 $ echo newsletter announces that changes will be made to the agreements, and is available here (see page 5).
The August 1985 $ echo newsletter announces that changes have been made to the agreements, and is available here (again, see page 5).
There is a neat trick for dealing with a biased coin in a coin toss:
- Flip twice.
- Discard the pair of throws if it's both heads (HH) or both tails (TT).
- Count HT as heads, and TH as tails.
(I think this idea was from John von Neumann.)
Applied to the current situation: Flip twice, once starting H down, once with T down.
Um, no. If you want to use von Neumann's procedure, you should flip it twice under the same conditions. Your suggestion would bias the sequence towards TH, which counts as tails.
If you call a function many times, it will be in the cache most of the times that it is called. If you do not call it many times, any cache miss that might occur when it is called has negligible performance impact.
Inlining functions will increase code size because some functions will be inlined in many places. Increasing code size will generally increase cache misses simply because it occupies more space in the cache.
Are they TRYING to taunt the SEC into investigating? What could be a more foolish move, when you're doing a pump-n-dump scheme, than to make loud (possibly perjurous) threats in the face of the very people who have the ear of the SEC?... What could possibly be more stupid or suicidal?
Re:What a bunch of assholes.
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
Your analogy is flawed. Punching a rude person in the face is not like using a jammer. Spraying pepper spray wildly around the area is like using a jammer. The reason people think, correctly, that you're an incosiderate asshole for wanting to use a jammer to deal with incosiderate assholes is precisely because there is nothing about using a jammer that limits its effects to incosiderate assholes.
This is almost exactly how it works on eBay. The person with the highest bid wins the item for a price a small increment higher than the second highest bid. The difference is trifling.
If only there were some sort of... interface whereby the user could invoke programs using the keyboard, perhaps by typing commands. I suppose you could wait only the user enters a complete line to process the commands.
Seriously, though, how many programs do you regularly start? If, using one level of folders to hold icons, you still manage to clutter two desktops with programs you regularly start, you need help. Otherwise, you should simply recognize that removing programs you use infrequently from the desktop will make it easier for you overall, even if you don't like the start menu.
Going by average number of distinct sexual partners (and presumably there are other objective metrics that would work as well), gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and heterosexuals are more promiscuous than lesbians. It is a bit misleading to say that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals when it is so easy to split homosexuals into two groups with vastly different levels of promiscuity.
The reason for this should be overwhelmingly obvious: on average, men desire to be much more promiscuous than women do. The promiscuity of gays and lesbians simply reflects the relative desired promiscuity of men and women. Since heterosexual sex requires both a man and a woman, the promiscuity of heterosexuals falls between that of gays and lesbians.
I see no reason to dislike homosexual men more than heterosexual men simply because the latter are unable to be as promiscuous as they would like. If you believe that heterosexual men would not be as promiscuous as homosexual men if women desired promiscuity as much as men, I respectfully suggest that you are delusional.
That is quite debatable. A good number of politicians feel differently.
In any case, it's a question best decided by the Supreme Court. So why not let them?
All branches of the federal government, not just the judicial, have a duty to abide by the Constitution. The fact that the judicial branch may strike down unconstitutional laws is not an excuse for creating them in the first place.
The issue you have encountered is that word order in a query affects the ordering of search results. For example, math does returns different results than does math, but does for math returns the same results as does the math, because both are of the form "does [ignored word] math".
I obviously didn't explain in enough detail, but I'm right.
As you note, the samples are self-selected, not randomly selected. While self-selected samples can roughly substitute for random samples in some circumstances, this is not one of them. The fact that the huge number of competitors from the US is more than can be accounted for by population differences is a tip-off that self-selection has skewed the samples. There must be a reason why people from the US are more likely to compete, and this reason might affect the skill distribution of the competitors. In fact, it does. The main reason is that matches are not at convenient times in Europe compared to the US. Also, the problem statements are written in standard American English, which also makes it more convenient to compete in the US. Because competing is more convenient for Americans than Europeans, fewer Europeans find it worth their while to compete. Those that are likely to do well are more likely to find it worth their while.
Really, though, if you think a self-selected sample will work, the burden of proof is on you to argue why.
Note that I do actually believe that the educational system in the US is inferior to that in Europe. However, I still believe that those statistics are meaningless, because I understand statistics.
Buuuut, if it makes you feel better, have fun rationalizing.
Pfft. My rating on TopCoder is much higher than the average for Sweden. I'm not arguing that the country rankings are meaningless to inflate my precious ego.
This was not the same format as last year's Google Code Jam. This was a algorithmic problem solving contest where competitors given the same set of problems try to solve more problems faster than the others under a short time frame. Google could in no way benefit from the competiors' solutions because they already had solutions for testing purposes. RTFA for the exact format of the contest.
The country ratings are not meaningful because the competitors are not randomly selected from each country. There are fewer competitors from Europe, and those that do compete are quite good, whereas there are many amateur competitors from the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
NULL is often (void *)0, which is *technically* valid on some architectures (OS notwithstanding). It's just so unlikely a result that it's safe to use.
NO!!!! (void *)0 is not the address of anything (that the C program can use). See the comp.lang.c FAQ on null pointers.
Inner classes: D Yes, C++ No
BZZT (perhaps they meant specifically the automatic parent resolution?)
BZZT -- The page even had "nested classes" listed separately and a note linked from the words "inner classes" explaining the difference. Obviously if "nested classes" in on the preceding line, you should realize that "inner class" in not being used as a synonym for "nested class".
You also see a lot of programs written by people who don't know the difference between big- and little-endian systems, so they try to do "clever" things like calculating array locations by performing boolean addition between ints and pointers.
Huh? Adding an int and a pointer is perfectly well defined and could easily be used to calculate an array location. That is, it is defined by the standard, and must work on any system. And what do mean by boolean addition?
Both Objective Caml and SML (using, say MLton) can be compiled to ELF executables for the x86.
Anyway, native-code compilation versus bytecode compilation isn't a property of a language, it's a property of an implementation. The GNU Compiler for Java exists.
These were pretty arbitrary examples: there are plenty of options for native code executables besides C/C++.
I don't mean to slight D, though!
Yes, But the difference in that case is that malloc happens at a known point. You can intentionally place such actions in non-time critical sections of your program. The problem the OP was refering to is that with garbage collection, the garbage collection could occur during a time-cirtical section. Something which you as a programmer could avoid otherwise.
But garbage collection likewise only occurs when memory is allocated*! Code that could call the garbage collector is not inserted between every statement or something. That would be absurd. Thus, don't allocate memory during a time-critical section.
*This isn't entirely true, but the other cases aren't relevant to this discussion.
Are you absolutely sure it supports power over ethernet?
I have yet to find a time where I would need to strip out the DRM unless to share with the masses.
Suppose your main computer (that you play music on) runs Linux but you have a spare Windows machine or Mac that you can use with iTunes. Gee, that scenario was terribly hard to think up.
OK, I don't know much about audio formats, but something seems goofy here on general principles.
Suppose I have AIFF data (or whatever lossless format) that came from an AAC file. Now I use that data to come up with a new AAC file that would produce the same AIFF data if so converted. This must be possible in principle, since the AIFF data came from an AAC file. This new file must be aurally indistinguishable from the original, since it yields the same uncompressed audio (which is essentially what gets played, right?).
The only way we have a problem is if it is computationally infeasible to create an AAC file from AIFF data in this manner, but this would surprise me. Or perhaps no one has written a tool to do this.
I understand that there can be unavoidable loss going, for example, from AAC to CD to MP3, since AAC and MP3 discard different information. I don't see a problem in principle going from AAC to CD to AAC.
Uh, you got an extra $900,000,000 sitting around?
No, but the DOD should be able to dig that out from under its figurative couch cushions.
The April 1985 $ echo newsletter announces that changes will be made to the agreements, and is available here (see page 5).
The August 1985 $ echo newsletter announces that changes have been made to the agreements, and is available here (again, see page 5).
Well, I find the idea that American jobs are more important than Indian jobs morally repugnant. So, where does that leave us?
There is a neat trick for dealing with a biased coin in a coin toss:
- Flip twice.
- Discard the pair of throws if it's both heads (HH) or both tails (TT).
- Count HT as heads, and TH as tails.
(I think this idea was from John von Neumann.)
Applied to the current situation: Flip twice, once starting H down, once with T down.
Um, no. If you want to use von Neumann's procedure, you should flip it twice under the same conditions. Your suggestion would bias the sequence towards TH, which counts as tails.
If you call a function many times, it will be in the cache most of the times that it is called. If you do not call it many times, any cache miss that might occur when it is called has negligible performance impact.
Inlining functions will increase code size because some functions will be inlined in many places. Increasing code size will generally increase cache misses simply because it occupies more space in the cache.
Are they TRYING to taunt the SEC into investigating? What could be a more foolish move, when you're doing a pump-n-dump scheme, than to make loud (possibly perjurous) threats in the face of the very people who have the ear of the SEC?... What could possibly be more stupid or suicidal?
They could have sued the SEC itself.
Your analogy is flawed. Punching a rude person in the face is not like using a jammer. Spraying pepper spray wildly around the area is like using a jammer. The reason people think, correctly, that you're an incosiderate asshole for wanting to use a jammer to deal with incosiderate assholes is precisely because there is nothing about using a jammer that limits its effects to incosiderate assholes.
This is almost exactly how it works on eBay. The person with the highest bid wins the item for a price a small increment higher than the second highest bid. The difference is trifling.
If only there were some sort of ... interface whereby the user could invoke programs using the keyboard, perhaps by typing commands. I suppose you could wait only the user enters a complete line to process the commands.
Seriously, though, how many programs do you regularly start? If, using one level of folders to hold icons, you still manage to clutter two desktops with programs you regularly start, you need help. Otherwise, you should simply recognize that removing programs you use infrequently from the desktop will make it easier for you overall, even if you don't like the start menu.
Going by average number of distinct sexual partners (and presumably there are other objective metrics that would work as well), gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and heterosexuals are more promiscuous than lesbians. It is a bit misleading to say that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals when it is so easy to split homosexuals into two groups with vastly different levels of promiscuity.
The reason for this should be overwhelmingly obvious: on average, men desire to be much more promiscuous than women do. The promiscuity of gays and lesbians simply reflects the relative desired promiscuity of men and women. Since heterosexual sex requires both a man and a woman, the promiscuity of heterosexuals falls between that of gays and lesbians.
I see no reason to dislike homosexual men more than heterosexual men simply because the latter are unable to be as promiscuous as they would like. If you believe that heterosexual men would not be as promiscuous as homosexual men if women desired promiscuity as much as men, I respectfully suggest that you are delusional.
That is quite debatable. A good number of politicians feel differently.
In any case, it's a question best decided by the Supreme Court. So why not let them?
All branches of the federal government, not just the judicial, have a duty to abide by the Constitution. The fact that the judicial branch may strike down unconstitutional laws is not an excuse for creating them in the first place.
Medical care isn't a public service in the US.
21 million bits is not 21 KB, which is 168 thousand bits. It's 20996011 (not 20996010) bits = 2624502 bytes = 2563 kilobytes = 2.503 megabytes.
The issue you have encountered is that word order in a query affects the ordering of search results. For example, math does returns different results than does math, but does for math returns the same results as does the math, because both are of the form "does [ignored word] math".
I obviously didn't explain in enough detail, but I'm right.
As you note, the samples are self-selected, not randomly selected. While self-selected samples can roughly substitute for random samples in some circumstances, this is not one of them. The fact that the huge number of competitors from the US is more than can be accounted for by population differences is a tip-off that self-selection has skewed the samples. There must be a reason why people from the US are more likely to compete, and this reason might affect the skill distribution of the competitors. In fact, it does. The main reason is that matches are not at convenient times in Europe compared to the US. Also, the problem statements are written in standard American English, which also makes it more convenient to compete in the US. Because competing is more convenient for Americans than Europeans, fewer Europeans find it worth their while to compete. Those that are likely to do well are more likely to find it worth their while.
Really, though, if you think a self-selected sample will work, the burden of proof is on you to argue why.
Note that I do actually believe that the educational system in the US is inferior to that in Europe. However, I still believe that those statistics are meaningless, because I understand statistics.
Buuuut, if it makes you feel better, have fun rationalizing.
Pfft. My rating on TopCoder is much higher than the average for Sweden. I'm not arguing that the country rankings are meaningless to inflate my precious ego.
This was not the same format as last year's Google Code Jam. This was a algorithmic problem solving contest where competitors given the same set of problems try to solve more problems faster than the others under a short time frame. Google could in no way benefit from the competiors' solutions because they already had solutions for testing purposes. RTFA for the exact format of the contest.
The country ratings are not meaningful because the competitors are not randomly selected from each country. There are fewer competitors from Europe, and those that do compete are quite good, whereas there are many amateur competitors from the U.S.