WTF?! This is horrible! It's very hard to guarantee that a non-null pointer will never be passed as a parameter at compile time! And if it is, that just means you're checking the value at multiple other points, as opposed to a central location, ie. the function that uses it. Your functions should always check their parameters are valid, and non-null check takes all of 1 clock cycle, plus a fetch (if it's not in a register), byt you'll have to do that anyways to use it.
Unless I'm missing something major here, I'm now not at all surprised at the terrible quality of some of the code out there.
Those tools are generally too sensitive and give too many false positives to be useful in the long run.
Run gcc with the -Wall option, and fix the warnings, many of which are of the type 'control reached end of a non-void function', 'use of uninitialized variable', etc, and ARE actually real or potential problems. gcc does flow control analysis, so if it tells you you're using an unitialized variable, or not returning a value in a non-void function, it is PROBABLY right, and you should look at what you are doing wrong.
There are many things which are illegal simply for the grave danger of abuse. For example, you cannot make a slave out of yourself, or work many jobs as a minor, because you'd simply see people in debt or under duress sell themselves and their kids. Same with assisted suicide. There's too much room for abuse. Kids terminating their parents to get inheritance money. 'Undesirables' and weak of mind being convinced offing themselves is the right thing to do, etc. So it's illegal, and assisting or enabling someone else to kill themselves is also illegal. Otherwise, it's their word against the word of a dead body. Not much of a case.
Who does it cost money? Only people who overreact. Most defacers tell you how they got in and save your data. Patch it, shame yourself, and resurrect your site. This isn't fucking rocket science.
Uh-huh... and you will believe them because they've proven themselves to be such trustworthy individuals. They'd never trojan anything or sneak in a backdoor. Oh no, never.
What is commonly called a 'sun roof' is actually a 'moon roof'. Sun roof blocks the sun (it's the solid/metal sun roof). Moon roof is the see-through type roof.
So, in fact, over where you live (I assume sunny, as opposed to Antarctica) they should call it a moon roof, because that's what it is.
they had to use acronyms on censored TV, they said things like "Read The Friendly Manual" and "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt." At least, that's my take on it.
That may be your take on it, but don't feel too smug, because it's the wrong take. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt has nothing to do with Fucked Up Data, and was certainly NOT created for its TV friendliness.
And RTFM... do you expect some TV tech help dude or a sitcom actor to say the F word on TV? Of course they'll substitute something else that makes sense. Fuck.. friggin, shit.. crap, etc. Definitely nothing to do with coolness of anything.
But you can see how when it started out was a good idea from the point of view of cell providers, considering the conditions. Now it's just a gravy train.
Really, just who is "trusting" the DRM operating systems? Not the users-- I imagine there will be just as many viruses and exploits and bugs as before.
The cynic (realist) in me says this is a large part of the reason DRM will not be rolled out full blast from the start.
The obvious is that MS wants users to slowly get used to the idea of having less control and real features available, in exchange for chrome essentially, and promises of security.
Which brings up the second reason. When the inevitable happens (viruses more destructive than ever, security holes, etc) MS will be able to say they're not done yet, just wait for the next update which will be more secure. Hey, they could even blame the users for not wanting more DRM, err, secure software.
That's a complete non-sequiter reply, if I ever saw one. Almost makes me think it was misattached to the wrong post.
The guy said nothing about 100,000 people.
He said nothing about owning any patents of copyrights.
He said nothing about being a CEO.
And have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? Isn't the US the country where a minority is supposed to stand a chance against getting squashed by the sheep-like masses of the majority? Nothing is making any 100,000 people more important than any other 60 million; the whole point is that minority views are heard and their rights respected and protected, regardless of who they are.
If you want a good phone, yes, you pay for it. The free ones you get with plans are shit. As a general rule. Maybe they're good enough for you. I got my phone some 6 years ago for $200 with a 1 year contract (Nokia 6160), and I still have it (from my cold dead hands), and it still kicks ass, and you still have to pay for it ($50 I believe) if you want to get it today.
I have 2Mbit cable and pay around $75 a month for that, however I still dont pay to receive data...
That's hardly impressive.. but not unreasonable for Europe.
I do agree with yoru assessement of unlimited plans. They're good only when you so much time and services that no minutes-type plan will ever cover you for less money. I try to get a plan that costs as little as possible for what I use; should I consistantly use more than my plan allows, I will find a new plan. When the time comes when I can't (highly unlikely) I'll look around for unlimited plans.
The incoming call charges are reasonable in the US. Good cell coverage is very expensive considering the land area. Cell phone uptake has also been slow, and as a result early plans were very expensive. So cell phone users would call a land line, and say 'call me back at this #', and avoid outgoing charges. So cell companies smartened up quickly, and started charging for incoming as well.
These days you can find plans with at least unlimited incoming from the same company's network, so there's no double-billing (charging the caller AND callee). And of course, for heavy users, there's unlimited. THIS is why unlimited is so popular in the US.
It's like putting 'unauthorized access prohibited' on telnet and ftp server banner screene. As long as you know such access is explicitely prohibited, and you are not authorized to access it, you are breaking the law by continuing. Even if all you have to do is press enter at the password prompt.
Oh, I see... so because you (and some others) don't want to pay anything for an item, that item is worth nothing? There are many things you'd have to pay ME to use (like, say, Pontiac Aztek), but that doesn't make them worthless, and ok to steal, or copyright infringe. And since when is music/entertainment/culture a luxury? By that line of thinking corn flakes or milk are a luxury, as long as you have ready access to bread and water?
People equate theft with taking something physical without paying for it, or profiting from something that isn't their's. Downloading a song or sharing a song with someone doesn't involve the taking of anything physical or making a profit on something that isn't their's. It's just sharing of information.
It's not 'just sharing of information'. Obtaining and distributing plans for Intel's next gen CPU would also be just sharing information, would it not? So would publishing names of all people testing positive for HIV. Spreading around your income tax return? Bank statements? Hey, it's just information sharing here...
And you ARE profiting from this sharing. You're breaking copyright laws and keeping money in your pocket because you didn't have to pay for your songs.
The bad part is that this NetFlix patent is just the same old 'on the internet' trick.
For those too young to remember, before Blockbuster came along you had video rental clubs. You paid a membership fee which let you borrow a certain number of videos, and you could keep them for as long as you wanted (or for a certain fairly long term). If you wanted to rent more, you'd return some of the ones you had. This model was eventually driven out by the far more profitable rental fee+late fee per item model we're so familiar with now.
Hmm, what do you know, apparently P4s can't be doubled up... wonder why I thought they could be... I assumed that since the P3 worked fine, so would the P4.
Well, yeah, but offering the tracks separately INCREASES your exposure, provided your CDs aren't mostly filler. Fans will continue to buy your CDs/albums. But I don't like Linkin Park (yeah, yeah, whatever, I'm lame). I have one of their songs, Cure for the Itch, in mp3. I'm not gonna go out and spend $15 for that CD, because I've listened to the other songs on it and I think they suck. But if I could legitimately buy that one specific song, I would.
If you attempted to get a loan outside of the copyright industry based on that type of payment it would probably be classified as loansharking.
Why? It's an interest-free loan. You pay it off as you make money. In fact, if you don't make any money, you don't even HAVE TO pay it off. What's illegal about that? Do the artists have a blindfold over their eyes when they sign their contract? A gun to their heads? What? How it is loan sharking?
Yes, this loan is used to pay to produce and promote the album. Problem is this money is spent on companies and products of the labels choosing, at very inflated prices. Essentially, the labels give this loan to themselves and their friends. Most of the 'losses' on unsuccessfull bands are just paper losses. The money just changes hands a couple of times.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF?! This is horrible! It's very hard to guarantee that a non-null pointer will never be passed as a parameter at compile time! And if it is, that just means you're checking the value at multiple other points, as opposed to a central location, ie. the function that uses it. Your functions should always check their parameters are valid, and non-null check takes all of 1 clock cycle, plus a fetch (if it's not in a register), byt you'll have to do that anyways to use it.
Unless I'm missing something major here, I'm now not at all surprised at the terrible quality of some of the code out there.
Run gcc with the -Wall option, and fix the warnings, many of which are of the type 'control reached end of a non-void function', 'use of uninitialized variable', etc, and ARE actually real or potential problems. gcc does flow control analysis, so if it tells you you're using an unitialized variable, or not returning a value in a non-void function, it is PROBABLY right, and you should look at what you are doing wrong.
There are many things which are illegal simply for the grave danger of abuse. For example, you cannot make a slave out of yourself, or work many jobs as a minor, because you'd simply see people in debt or under duress sell themselves and their kids. Same with assisted suicide. There's too much room for abuse. Kids terminating their parents to get inheritance money. 'Undesirables' and weak of mind being convinced offing themselves is the right thing to do, etc. So it's illegal, and assisting or enabling someone else to kill themselves is also illegal. Otherwise, it's their word against the word of a dead body. Not much of a case.
What can I say... nostalgia sells when the economy is down.
Arnold does not say "I'll be back" in T3. He does, however, say "I'm back."
Uh-huh... and you will believe them because they've proven themselves to be such trustworthy individuals. They'd never trojan anything or sneak in a backdoor. Oh no, never.
What is commonly called a 'sun roof' is actually a 'moon roof'. Sun roof blocks the sun (it's the solid/metal sun roof). Moon roof is the see-through type roof.
So, in fact, over where you live (I assume sunny, as opposed to Antarctica) they should call it a moon roof, because that's what it is.
That may be your take on it, but don't feel too smug, because it's the wrong take. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt has nothing to do with Fucked Up Data, and was certainly NOT created for its TV friendliness.
And RTFM... do you expect some TV tech help dude or a sitcom actor to say the F word on TV? Of course they'll substitute something else that makes sense. Fuck .. friggin, shit .. crap, etc. Definitely nothing to do with coolness of anything.
But you can see how when it started out was a good idea from the point of view of cell providers, considering the conditions. Now it's just a gravy train.
The cynic (realist) in me says this is a large part of the reason DRM will not be rolled out full blast from the start.
The obvious is that MS wants users to slowly get used to the idea of having less control and real features available, in exchange for chrome essentially, and promises of security.
Which brings up the second reason. When the inevitable happens (viruses more destructive than ever, security holes, etc) MS will be able to say they're not done yet, just wait for the next update which will be more secure. Hey, they could even blame the users for not wanting more DRM, err, secure software.
That's a complete non-sequiter reply, if I ever saw one. Almost makes me think it was misattached to the wrong post.
The guy said nothing about 100,000 people.
He said nothing about owning any patents of copyrights.
He said nothing about being a CEO.
And have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? Isn't the US the country where a minority is supposed to stand a chance against getting squashed by the sheep-like masses of the majority? Nothing is making any 100,000 people more important than any other 60 million; the whole point is that minority views are heard and their rights respected and protected, regardless of who they are.
If you want a good phone, yes, you pay for it. The free ones you get with plans are shit. As a general rule. Maybe they're good enough for you. I got my phone some 6 years ago for $200 with a 1 year contract (Nokia 6160), and I still have it (from my cold dead hands), and it still kicks ass, and you still have to pay for it ($50 I believe) if you want to get it today.
That's hardly impressive.. but not unreasonable for Europe.
I do agree with yoru assessement of unlimited plans. They're good only when you so much time and services that no minutes-type plan will ever cover you for less money. I try to get a plan that costs as little as possible for what I use; should I consistantly use more than my plan allows, I will find a new plan. When the time comes when I can't (highly unlikely) I'll look around for unlimited plans.
The incoming call charges are reasonable in the US. Good cell coverage is very expensive considering the land area. Cell phone uptake has also been slow, and as a result early plans were very expensive. So cell phone users would call a land line, and say 'call me back at this #', and avoid outgoing charges. So cell companies smartened up quickly, and started charging for incoming as well.
These days you can find plans with at least unlimited incoming from the same company's network, so there's no double-billing (charging the caller AND callee). And of course, for heavy users, there's unlimited. THIS is why unlimited is so popular in the US.
It's like putting 'unauthorized access prohibited' on telnet and ftp server banner screene. As long as you know such access is explicitely prohibited, and you are not authorized to access it, you are breaking the law by continuing. Even if all you have to do is press enter at the password prompt.
Oh, I see... so because you (and some others) don't want to pay anything for an item, that item is worth nothing? There are many things you'd have to pay ME to use (like, say, Pontiac Aztek), but that doesn't make them worthless, and ok to steal, or copyright infringe. And since when is music/entertainment/culture a luxury? By that line of thinking corn flakes or milk are a luxury, as long as you have ready access to bread and water?
It's not 'just sharing of information'. Obtaining and distributing plans for Intel's next gen CPU would also be just sharing information, would it not? So would publishing names of all people testing positive for HIV. Spreading around your income tax return? Bank statements? Hey, it's just information sharing here...
And you ARE profiting from this sharing. You're breaking copyright laws and keeping money in your pocket because you didn't have to pay for your songs.
The bad part is that this NetFlix patent is just the same old 'on the internet' trick.
For those too young to remember, before Blockbuster came along you had video rental clubs. You paid a membership fee which let you borrow a certain number of videos, and you could keep them for as long as you wanted (or for a certain fairly long term). If you wanted to rent more, you'd return some of the ones you had. This model was eventually driven out by the far more profitable rental fee+late fee per item model we're so familiar with now.
You're not thinking like a lawyer. This just means there are more people to sue.
Hmm, what do you know, apparently P4s can't be doubled up... wonder why I thought they could be... I assumed that since the P3 worked fine, so would the P4.
Why would you buy Xeons? Regular P4s work just fine in dual configs, no need for a specially priced model, like the Athlon MP.
Actually, you'd probably take the 2.4GHz (or maybe 2.6) with integrated everything, if it's an office machine. Outlook ain't gonna run any faster.
Quick, someone mirror it!
Well, yeah, but offering the tracks separately INCREASES your exposure, provided your CDs aren't mostly filler. Fans will continue to buy your CDs/albums. But I don't like Linkin Park (yeah, yeah, whatever, I'm lame). I have one of their songs, Cure for the Itch, in mp3. I'm not gonna go out and spend $15 for that CD, because I've listened to the other songs on it and I think they suck. But if I could legitimately buy that one specific song, I would.
Why? It's an interest-free loan. You pay it off as you make money. In fact, if you don't make any money, you don't even HAVE TO pay it off. What's illegal about that? Do the artists have a blindfold over their eyes when they sign their contract? A gun to their heads? What? How it is loan sharking?
Yes, this loan is used to pay to produce and promote the album. Problem is this money is spent on companies and products of the labels choosing, at very inflated prices. Essentially, the labels give this loan to themselves and their friends. Most of the 'losses' on unsuccessfull bands are just paper losses. The money just changes hands a couple of times.