Why the hell would you introduce a distributed computing tool in a discussion about evaluating the performance of a single machine/OS? Pure obfuscation. Typical gentoo-missing-the-point behavior. Either compiling the kernel is a fair measure of the speed of the system or it isn't. distcc doesn't play into it. Here's a fun analogy. You want to see which is faster a porche 911 or a chevy corvette. So some thoughtful guys put together a series of tests, one of which is a 1000 mile race. Then along comes user keesh (202812) who says "Bad test, I wouldn't drive 1000 miles, I would take the train."
A hearty helping of wtf is in order. Some of your other points are ok, though;).
Not true. "*bar" is not necessarily an int. It could point to non-int garbage (if uninitialized) or if bar is 0, then obviouly "*bar" can't possibly be an int. This second problem most clearly shows why this line of thinking ("*bar is an int") is wrong. C/C++ are still low level languagues. Variable definitions reserve space: "int *bar" does not reserve space for "*bar", it reserves space for the pointer bar, which the compiler does type checking on to make sure you use it to point to int storage.
As far as the "char & c" being misread, the C programmer and others should know that & and other operators are overloaded both in C and C++. Knowlege solves the problem.
foo declares/defines the storage for an int. "*bar" does not define/declare storage for an int. The storage you have defined is for a variable of type "int*".
You haven't declared "' "*foo" is an int'; that would imply you're declaring the space/name for an int but you're not - you're only declaring a pointer variable. But if it helps you keep things straight, it's probably a mostly-harmless way to think about it.
I download music but I at least recognize that it's stealing
Downloading isn't stealing, it's rape. Or maybe it's murder. Or maybe trespassing is stealing? Or maybe contract violation is jaywalking? Or maybe assault is really copyright infringement? Tell you what - why don't we do away with thousands of years of law and language evolution and just call all crime murder?
By mislabeling "copyright infringement" with "stealing" or "piracy" or "rape" or any other term that has a well defined and more serious meaning, you are either purposefully or dupefully spinning the issue and allowing a very major concession to those who serve to benefit from the government enforced temporary monopolies of ideas/information/etc.
When crime is outlawed, only criminals will have records.
I don't know about your PHB, but my PHB is hornier than a three-peckered billy goat. It's the nature of the leadership type to be keen on sexual conquest. If your PHB isn't an open pervert, I'd start looking for a new job: your company or division is doomed.
Permission from whom, though? The copyright holder, or the government? What you seem to be saying is "copying things is illegal except when it is legal" - which is meaningless. Consider the way you phrase the assertion - the responses are valid.
Most creationists define pseudoscience as those scientific fields that disagree with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, when pressed, creationists will categorize all or parts of the following fields as pseudoscience:
Evolution
Genetics
Biology
Geology
Astronomy
Physics
As you move down in the list, it is more likely that the creationist will object to a smaller portion of the scientific field. To think like the creationist, it is sufficient to merely apply the following litmus test to science:
Does a particular field, theory, or fact disagree in any way with a literal interpretation of the Bible? If so, that part of science is pseudoscience. Otherwise, the creationist holds no objection to that portion of science.
The otherwise clause in this simpleton logic is especially telling: for the creationists, even those purporting to be creation scientists, create no science, do no experiments, and make no judgements in the scientific field except when required to attempt to discredit those portions that undermine their religious doctrine.
Really, it's as simple as that. Any other answer you get will be self-deception on the part of the creationist.
...
for example middle-clicking on a link in a mail window and having a tab open in the browser....
You don't need a single application you just need reasonble communication between apps. For example, I can open a webpage in an existing mozilla/galeon windows (or new tab) from my email client mutt, which is text based, because of the terminal I use or with macros in mutt.
"Aetheism" isn't anything as far as I can tell. If you ask atheists about their beliefs, you'll find that at least for some of them, atheism isn't a religion. Agnosticism, isn't a religion either, but then it's possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
Usually, something is said to be unique for a property. For example, if I am the only person with 3 eyeballs, I am unique for 3-eyeballness. If another person shows up with 3 eyeballs, that doesn't make me somewhat unique for that property, it makes me nonunique.
So, for your contrived example, for exactness in every detail, then perhaps every object is unique.
Something can be unique in more or less ways, but when you're talking about a laptop (named product) that can act as a camcorder, that product is either unique in that regard or not. "Very Unique", "More Unique", "Less Unique", and similar phrases are meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
'chsh -s /bin/emerge' I win.
A hearty helping of wtf is in order. Some of your other points are ok, though ;).
MS/GNU/Linux
As far as the "char & c" being misread, the C programmer and others should know that & and other operators are overloaded both in C and C++. Knowlege solves the problem.
I think what is meant (and correct) is "that's a (pointer to an int) named bar", which is equivalent to the way you wrote it.
foo declares/defines the storage for an int. "*bar" does not define/declare storage for an int. The storage you have defined is for a variable of type "int*".
You haven't declared "' "*foo" is an int'; that would imply you're declaring the space/name for an int but you're not - you're only declaring a pointer variable. But if it helps you keep things straight, it's probably a mostly-harmless way to think about it.
Because robots are lazy no-good techno-molestors who can't be trusted? If you're going to build robots, humans are the right ones to do it.
Excellent troll. My hat is of two you.
Downloading isn't stealing, it's rape. Or maybe it's murder. Or maybe trespassing is stealing? Or maybe contract violation is jaywalking? Or maybe assault is really copyright infringement? Tell you what - why don't we do away with thousands of years of law and language evolution and just call all crime murder?
By mislabeling "copyright infringement" with "stealing" or "piracy" or "rape" or any other term that has a well defined and more serious meaning, you are either purposefully or dupefully spinning the issue and allowing a very major concession to those who serve to benefit from the government enforced temporary monopolies of ideas/information/etc.
When crime is outlawed, only criminals will have records.
I don't know about your PHB, but my PHB is hornier than a three-peckered billy goat. It's the nature of the leadership type to be keen on sexual conquest. If your PHB isn't an open pervert, I'd start looking for a new job: your company or division is doomed.
If you incarcerate everyone, the crime rate goes to 0. Great.
Permission from whom, though? The copyright holder, or the government? What you seem to be saying is "copying things is illegal except when it is legal" - which is meaningless. Consider the way you phrase the assertion - the responses are valid.
- Evolution
- Genetics
- Biology
- Geology
- Astronomy
- Physics
As you move down in the list, it is more likely that the creationist will object to a smaller portion of the scientific field. To think like the creationist, it is sufficient to merely apply the following litmus test to science:The otherwise clause in this simpleton logic is especially telling: for the creationists, even those purporting to be creation scientists, create no science, do no experiments, and make no judgements in the scientific field except when required to attempt to discredit those portions that undermine their religious doctrine.
Really, it's as simple as that. Any other answer you get will be self-deception on the part of the creationist.
That's probably where the "jokingly" part comes in.
This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Take it outside, zealot. The rest of your post is either troll or ignorance.
Your cowardice is just about right for a reactionary conservative asshat.
Well really, that's not so much a bug as a design choice.
Whoever modded this offtopic is a sad, humorless, and droll excuse for a human. Parent post is fucking funny.
You and the band member's Moms. But you know how moms are.
Boeing and Airbus are pretty much all these days.
You don't need a single application you just need reasonble communication between apps. For example, I can open a webpage in an existing mozilla/galeon windows (or new tab) from my email client mutt, which is text based, because of the terminal I use or with macros in mutt.
HAND
So, for your contrived example, for exactness in every detail, then perhaps every object is unique.
Something can be unique in more or less ways, but when you're talking about a laptop (named product) that can act as a camcorder, that product is either unique in that regard or not. "Very Unique", "More Unique", "Less Unique", and similar phrases are meaningless.