This is a list of who cannot participate in partisan activities.
If you read above that section you'll see there are still quite a few limitations on employees who can participate in partisan activities. (NASA is not on the list either.) But the list you have impose further restrictions on some people. Like members of the FEC and intelligence agencys.
And there are some rules governing how the costs are divied up. Al Gore got in trouble for using his office phone, as opposed to his home phone (which is also paid for by the federal government, so yay symbol.)
TV makes money by broadcasting the ads, websites when you download the image (or clickthru, I forgot which). But basically, it hurts the website when you block their ads. This state is also becoming true for TV. The advent of TiVo has led to people skipping commercials, and I don't doubt that in the not-too-distant future (some claim, in the not-too-distant past) programs that appeal to an intelligent audience will be able to charge less for their ads than with the same-sized, dumber, audience. This will result in the cancelation of good shows in favor of crap.
Are very hard to lose, unless you break a few simple rules, like using govt. property for personal reasons[REMOVED,] or for blogging about politics.
Sorry to be anal about the grammar, but there is a significant difference. You implied that one could get in trouble for blogging about politics. The actual article is about getting in trouble for using gov't property to blog about politics. And to solicit donations. Such use is against the black-letter law.
I know what you're getting at here -- Java variables are all references and method parameters are all reference values allocated on the stack. However, the parent said objects, not variables, and he is correct that stack allocation is a nice optimization that cannot be done if you pass a reference to the object to a method that you know nothing about.
Wow, really? I actually still primarily use C/C++, so I'm used to explictly scoping objects, meaning that they are all declared on the stack if they are passed to a function. I suppose if you have a language where scoping of objects is done automatically, the compiler needs to be the one to optimize that, and therefore needs clues to how long an object will stay in scope. But I don't really think of that as an optimization of 'inlining' but rather the 'const CObject&' syntax.
Yep, that's what inlining is about, you compile a specialised version of a function as a part of its caller so that the optimising logic can see it as a single context and make speed gains across what formerly would be the boundaries between the functions. It generally wastes a little bit of memory but often gains some valuable efficiency in respect to execution time.
Right. That means you cannot compile versions of the the program with virtual inline functions unless every permutation is included. Depending on the complexity of the program, the scale tips at some number of versions of the program.
CPUs these days tend to dump whole pages of memory into cache at a time since memory transfer much faster than lookup, if these multiple inlined functions were adjacently placed into the bytecode (as a switch for example), they would have to be extremely big to neutralise the caching gains.
Depends. Cell processors have smaller caches for each core, and the bottleneck is that all the cores share one(or is it two?) pipes to RAM. Console programming tends to involve recomputation rather than fetching the previous results for suprisingly costly operations. And both of those assume you are running on a fairly modern box, as opposed to built into a handheld unit, or a MP3 player or somesuch.
The whole idea of inlining is so you can run the callee and the caller together through the compiler in a single pass, it won't have to push the arguments because it will know there and then exactly how they are coming out. If you have a fallback function that bounces off the vtable, you push the arguments on the stack then.
Yes. The great-grandparent was claiming that somehow function calls would create variables on the heap if not inlined. I was trying to correct that.
If there is a virtual method and only one implementation, it can be inlined entirely with no 'if' in all of the same cases as if it were marked 'final'.
What you are trying to say is that the compiler will automatically treat non-overwritten 'virtual' functions as non-virtual. I agree. This has to do with how the compiler works, not whether you can make virtual functions inline.
But more to the point, inlining a function is more than just about changing a jump into a compare. It is also about the code matching up with the caller so that registers are not shuffled around and whatnot. It's about determining that the object allocated by the caller and then passed down three levels of function calls never has a reference taken so it can be allocated on the stack.
I agree that inlining a function can also optimize how variables are kept in the registers. However, that involves changing the code of a function (inlining it), and creating a new version for that call. Hence, if it is virtual, you need either a) a giant block of code with switches or b) an if that jumps to a non-inlined version of the function. Avoiding a jump is something many people try to do. It helps keep the code you will be using in the cache. And lastly, variables passed to functions are always declared on the stack.
This is your design hero?
No. You're just in a position where you are wronger than he is.
My design hero is a specific programmer I know who is brilliant. I doubt you know him, so a name would be useless.
For inlining a function to mean anything, it cannot be virtual. An inlined function is in essence a macro.
And Anders is more accurate than Bill. What Bill says translates to: you can turn a virtual function into an inline function with a if ( this_class__is_not_X_or_Y ) jump_to_virtual_function_table type structure. What Andres says translates to: Sure, in that case. But it's an optimization.
I see that you get the best of both worlds in that situation, but Andres is right in his unequivical "You cannot inline a virtual function." Because you cannot. You can inline exactly one version of a virtual function with an if at the top, or more if you use a bunch of ifs/a switch. But the latter removes the benefits of inlining. So, a clever compiler can have a sometimes inlined response.
And the begining of your critique is just as poor. He said that it was impossible to inline a virtual function. Stating that most functions are not virtual attacks the fact, not the logic. He said "this [disproved emperical condition] results in poor performance because of [insert logical rule] makes it impossible." Disproving the emperical condition does not disprove the logical rule.
The small independent hackers will always have the advantage over the large companies because they can move faster, have far less to lose and aren't hampered by silly things like "ethics" and "law".
On the other hand the companies have cleanrooms, chip production facilities, and a first-mover advantage. It certainly seems possible to make a console that is impossible to mod, at least without yanking and replacing whole CPUs (with custom manufactured ones, bringing into the realm of companies again). Now, the copy-protection part seems more difficult, but to verify the integrity of the hardware...?
Interesting because the games companies I've talked to say that 70% of the game is written by one lead programmer.
It depends on the definition of "written" you are using. Architecture wise, that sounds probably true, that one guy does 70% of that work, with a lot of input and discussion from other people. But writting the code, no way. Things are too specialized. There are AI guys, there are physics guys (or just buy a solution), there are rendering guys, there are networking guys. And that's not even getting into the subspecialties. All the lead programmers I know for games have the same attitude (with the exception of whatever specialty they started in): let the specialists figure out how it works. Pathfinding is a bitch, and, from what I understand, has changed a lot in the three years since I knew how to do it. Hence, if I were the lead programmer, I would echo what a different lead programmmer had to say about the issue; make it work well.
It's a fulltime job just getting the parts to play nicely and to have a vision of the program.
Pretty good. VCRs, in my experience, aren't like DVD players, that kneel over and die every two years. The age of the built-like-a-tank non-disposable consumer electronics is over, it seems.
The same was said about things in the eighties about things built in the sixties. The fact is, VCRs are just like DVD players. A bunch keeled over and died every two years. The ones that are still around are the ones that were built well.
And your past was more interesting than your present because your memories are edited too.
If they happen to have some proprietary architecture that would be a wonderful blessing to the server market, they can always lease the rights to Cisco.
The reason to support servers is because of client/server compatibility. If a business/lab wants to have a bunch of servers and clients, likely they will want one vendor for both. Giving up on the server market means giving up on that chunk of the corporate/lab market. And since there is also a standardization among various departments...
the chemical produced by the sandwords of the desert planet Arrakis proved the key to faster-than-light travel by giving starship steersmen superhuman powers.
To be utterly pedantic, the spice provided the key to faster-than-light navigation rather than travel/speed. The only way to navigate safely at super-light speed involves information that travels faster than light. It's an interesting point that all other Sci-Fi seems to have ignored; assuming we could travel faster than light, navigation would be an impossible hurdle (with regard to small objects... big objects you could plan for).
The spice allowed people to develop psychic powers, and see into the future and at a distance in the present. It's the least supernatural thing I can really imagine, and it deals with human consciousness, which has a supernatural aspect already.
If you had the power to go back in time and beat Strauss Zelnick in front of his mother, would you?
Is that the only reason I can go back in time? Can I take a few periodicals and mail them to myself? Because if answer to both questions is "yes" I would definately do that. I could always buy him France later to make it up to him.
More worryingly why do you agree with the spirit of the law? are foreigners not allowed privacy? DO you consider privacy as US ONLY, right?
Because it is clear that encryption is useful in warfare (see Engima machines). I favor a decisive advantage. If it were possible to keep other countries governments from learning complex encryption techniques (for subtle improvements to them) I favor it.
I want the NSA to be able to break any encryption. I just want it to be costly enough that it is only used for non-trivial cases.
inally the lawyer who had just spent a few days at a HIPPA conference sees the light. DING DING DING Clueless I swear.
Don't confuse your specialized knowledge with common knowledge. Your phrasing assumes that encryption, as a word, conjures up images as it would in a geek's mind (and more than five years earlier than now, when it was less well known.) Obviously they explained it better at the HIPPA conference.
Really, I doubt had I not already know what encryption, or the ease of e-mails being read by third-parties, I would have gained nothing from your explaination.
A possible alternative: It is easy for any third party to read your e-mails. Encryption uses a password (or automatic process) on both ends to make sure that only you and your recipients can read the e-mail. It also verifies that the person who claims to have sent the e-mail did, since falisifying the sender of an e-mail is also very easy.
Which is why most crypto software is developed outside the US nowdays
But PGP still is subject to those laws. Interestingly, I read somewhere where a textbook on cryptography was exported to a forbidden country. The CD with the binaries was confescated, but the book, with compliable source written out, was allowed.
I agree with the spirit of the law, but it seems unenforcable.
How would that play out? An e-mail:
Attn Client, Please download PGP in violation of US export control laws.
Your accomplice,
your lawyer
Or maybe tell them in person, and then use PGP to communicate, indicating that you knew and ex post facto helped them pay off their violataion US export laws.
Fact of the matter is, is is illegal to get encryption software to some parties as individuals, and some countries in mass. And I'm sure the clients referenced in the article are on the verboten list.
Double jeopardy laws mean either you convict him now, or never. No "i'm not sure".
Somewhat true. You must either convict him now, or never. However, "I'm not sure" is a valid option; it is written out "not guilty".
With proper evidence, which is what they had, guilty until proven innocent is acceptable
What you mean to say is that with proper evidence, guilt is sufficently proven unless countering evidence is brought forth. I agree that, based only on the article, one could say that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is unaccpetqable is to vary the standards for convictions (or at least to lower them) for more henious crimes. Which unfortunately seems to be the case. After all, no one will beat themselves up too much if the person they acquit for shoplifting does so again, but if that person were to kill someone...
Slashdot Mirror
If you read above that section you'll see there are still quite a few limitations on employees who can participate in partisan activities. (NASA is not on the list either.) But the list you have impose further restrictions on some people. Like members of the FEC and intelligence agencys.
And there are some rules governing how the costs are divied up. Al Gore got in trouble for using his office phone, as opposed to his home phone (which is also paid for by the federal government, so yay symbol.)
TV makes money by broadcasting the ads, websites when you download the image (or clickthru, I forgot which). But basically, it hurts the website when you block their ads. This state is also becoming true for TV. The advent of TiVo has led to people skipping commercials, and I don't doubt that in the not-too-distant future (some claim, in the not-too-distant past) programs that appeal to an intelligent audience will be able to charge less for their ads than with the same-sized, dumber, audience. This will result in the cancelation of good shows in favor of crap.
Sorry to be anal about the grammar, but there is a significant difference. You implied that one could get in trouble for blogging about politics. The actual article is about getting in trouble for using gov't property to blog about politics. And to solicit donations. Such use is against the black-letter law.
Wow, really? I actually still primarily use C/C++, so I'm used to explictly scoping objects, meaning that they are all declared on the stack if they are passed to a function. I suppose if you have a language where scoping of objects is done automatically, the compiler needs to be the one to optimize that, and therefore needs clues to how long an object will stay in scope. But I don't really think of that as an optimization of 'inlining' but rather the 'const CObject&' syntax.
Right. That means you cannot compile versions of the the program with virtual inline functions unless every permutation is included. Depending on the complexity of the program, the scale tips at some number of versions of the program.
Depends. Cell processors have smaller caches for each core, and the bottleneck is that all the cores share one(or is it two?) pipes to RAM. Console programming tends to involve recomputation rather than fetching the previous results for suprisingly costly operations. And both of those assume you are running on a fairly modern box, as opposed to built into a handheld unit, or a MP3 player or somesuch.
Yes. The great-grandparent was claiming that somehow function calls would create variables on the heap if not inlined. I was trying to correct that.
What you are trying to say is that the compiler will automatically treat non-overwritten 'virtual' functions as non-virtual. I agree. This has to do with how the compiler works, not whether you can make virtual functions inline.
I agree that inlining a function can also optimize how variables are kept in the registers. However, that involves changing the code of a function (inlining it), and creating a new version for that call. Hence, if it is virtual, you need either a) a giant block of code with switches or b) an if that jumps to a non-inlined version of the function. Avoiding a jump is something many people try to do. It helps keep the code you will be using in the cache. And lastly, variables passed to functions are always declared on the stack.
No. You're just in a position where you are wronger than he is.
My design hero is a specific programmer I know who is brilliant. I doubt you know him, so a name would be useless.
For inlining a function to mean anything, it cannot be virtual. An inlined function is in essence a macro.
And Anders is more accurate than Bill. What Bill says translates to: you can turn a virtual function into an inline function with a if ( this_class__is_not_X_or_Y ) jump_to_virtual_function_table type structure. What Andres says translates to: Sure, in that case. But it's an optimization.
I see that you get the best of both worlds in that situation, but Andres is right in his unequivical "You cannot inline a virtual function." Because you cannot. You can inline exactly one version of a virtual function with an if at the top, or more if you use a bunch of ifs/a switch. But the latter removes the benefits of inlining. So, a clever compiler can have a sometimes inlined response.
And the begining of your critique is just as poor. He said that it was impossible to inline a virtual function. Stating that most functions are not virtual attacks the fact, not the logic. He said "this [disproved emperical condition] results in poor performance because of [insert logical rule] makes it impossible." Disproving the emperical condition does not disprove the logical rule.
On the other hand the companies have cleanrooms, chip production facilities, and a first-mover advantage. It certainly seems possible to make a console that is impossible to mod, at least without yanking and replacing whole CPUs (with custom manufactured ones, bringing into the realm of companies again). Now, the copy-protection part seems more difficult, but to verify the integrity of the hardware...?
It depends on the definition of "written" you are using. Architecture wise, that sounds probably true, that one guy does 70% of that work, with a lot of input and discussion from other people. But writting the code, no way. Things are too specialized. There are AI guys, there are physics guys (or just buy a solution), there are rendering guys, there are networking guys. And that's not even getting into the subspecialties. All the lead programmers I know for games have the same attitude (with the exception of whatever specialty they started in): let the specialists figure out how it works. Pathfinding is a bitch, and, from what I understand, has changed a lot in the three years since I knew how to do it. Hence, if I were the lead programmer, I would echo what a different lead programmmer had to say about the issue; make it work well.
It's a fulltime job just getting the parts to play nicely and to have a vision of the program.
I'd imagine us and the aliens as well. Of course, I assume it refers more to a mental image than physical.
That would be stupid. The hardware is different, and I think, factoring in those improvements, the Linux machine is a better buy.
Only iif you think of a name for your scooter gang first. May I suggest "Hell's Tech Support"?
The same was said about things in the eighties about things built in the sixties. The fact is, VCRs are just like DVD players. A bunch keeled over and died every two years. The ones that are still around are the ones that were built well.
And your past was more interesting than your present because your memories are edited too.
The reason to support servers is because of client/server compatibility. If a business/lab wants to have a bunch of servers and clients, likely they will want one vendor for both. Giving up on the server market means giving up on that chunk of the corporate/lab market. And since there is also a standardization among various departments...
To be utterly pedantic, the spice provided the key to faster-than-light navigation rather than travel/speed. The only way to navigate safely at super-light speed involves information that travels faster than light. It's an interesting point that all other Sci-Fi seems to have ignored; assuming we could travel faster than light, navigation would be an impossible hurdle (with regard to small objects... big objects you could plan for).
The spice allowed people to develop psychic powers, and see into the future and at a distance in the present. It's the least supernatural thing I can really imagine, and it deals with human consciousness, which has a supernatural aspect already.
Is that the only reason I can go back in time? Can I take a few periodicals and mail them to myself? Because if answer to both questions is "yes" I would definately do that. I could always buy him France later to make it up to him.
Sure, ignore all the critical bugs, as they make your development environment seem like a worse choice. People like you make me sick.
Because it is clear that encryption is useful in warfare (see Engima machines). I favor a decisive advantage. If it were possible to keep other countries governments from learning complex encryption techniques (for subtle improvements to them) I favor it.
I want the NSA to be able to break any encryption. I just want it to be costly enough that it is only used for non-trivial cases.
Don't confuse your specialized knowledge with common knowledge. Your phrasing assumes that encryption, as a word, conjures up images as it would in a geek's mind (and more than five years earlier than now, when it was less well known.) Obviously they explained it better at the HIPPA conference.
Really, I doubt had I not already know what encryption, or the ease of e-mails being read by third-parties, I would have gained nothing from your explaination.
A possible alternative: It is easy for any third party to read your e-mails. Encryption uses a password (or automatic process) on both ends to make sure that only you and your recipients can read the e-mail. It also verifies that the person who claims to have sent the e-mail did, since falisifying the sender of an e-mail is also very easy.
Then there would be endometrial cells present, which are only present in menstral blood (or if the cuts were through her uterous I suppose.)
You can try mine if you like: 192.168.1.1
But PGP still is subject to those laws. Interestingly, I read somewhere where a textbook on cryptography was exported to a forbidden country. The CD with the binaries was confescated, but the book, with compliable source written out, was allowed.
I agree with the spirit of the law, but it seems unenforcable.
How would that play out?
An e-mail:
Attn Client,
Please download PGP in violation of US export control laws.
Your accomplice,
your lawyer
Or maybe tell them in person, and then use PGP to communicate, indicating that you knew and ex post facto helped them pay off their violataion US export laws.
Fact of the matter is, is is illegal to get encryption software to some parties as individuals, and some countries in mass. And I'm sure the clients referenced in the article are on the verboten list.
Somewhat true. You must either convict him now, or never. However, "I'm not sure" is a valid option; it is written out "not guilty".
What you mean to say is that with proper evidence, guilt is sufficently proven unless countering evidence is brought forth. I agree that, based only on the article, one could say that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is unaccpetqable is to vary the standards for convictions (or at least to lower them) for more henious crimes. Which unfortunately seems to be the case. After all, no one will beat themselves up too much if the person they acquit for shoplifting does so again, but if that person were to kill someone...
And his attorney did advise against it, in very strong terms.