I have a really hard time believing this, and would state that your memory does not serve you very well. A 33MHz 486 couldn't handle more complex scenes in DOOM, and definitely not in Quake. I gamed actively at the time when Quake came out, and recall that only much later, on a P233MMX, I could get an fps amount rivaling the screen refresh rate. Any 486 is so much behind that machine, that it's not even funny.
I prefer it the same, and to the point of building my own software to do it properly.
I've gone one better - I whipped up a little tcl/tk (wish) script that uses the locatedb to show me my music files*, so I never have to click "open" or "import" or any of that crap. I simply type parts of the filename that I remember into a box and it only displays the matches:-)
Yes, it does. Using these macros everywhere makes the code more opaque, thus less legible, and therefore less secure.
Is this 2014 or 1994? My IDE automatically colors out dead sections where preprocessor macros don't apply to me. Honestly if you are unable to understand or mentally deal with a few preprocessor macro's I don't want you anywhere near openSSL.
They are hardly "everywhere" mostly in the headers and abstraction layers which provide a common target and normalized behavior for supported platforms.
"Many eyes" can't make all bugs shallow if those eyes don't understand what the hell they are looking at.
If eyes stumble on a few preprocessor definitions the chance of them discovering anything useful in this project is zero. I'm all for making shit easier to understand but this specific kind of "premature optimization" accomplishes nothing.
You don't see how that fucks up the legibility of code? You encounter SOMEFUNC(1,2,3); and you have no idea what it does and your damn IDE can't colour-code that away either.
While I broadly agree with your argument, I have to point out that the heartbleed exploit was due to the OpenSSL devs forgoing the system's malloc implementation and rolling their own abstraction for performance reasons.
No. No it wasn't. The Heartbleed exploit was a classic buffer overread bug that would have been prevented by any language with bounds checking.
[Any language with bounds-checking protection] that would likely have been bypassed by the dev-team due to performance reasons. Seriously, for performance reasons this dev-team bypassed malloc of all things; do you really want to assert that they wouldn't have bypassed a bounds-checker?
In my previous post I thought I made this bit clear; it was not that there was protection on some platforms, it was that they bypassed all platform allocators in favour of their own. That's the bug right there. Everything else, like overruns, overreading, etc is a result of that decision. I cannot believe that, with a different language, they would have made a different decision
...Let's divide up problems into "memory errors" and "logic errors", where we broadly interpret "memory errors" as "errors your language or runtime won't let you make."
...
Furthermore, because in C you have to spend time and effort making sure you're not susceptable to memory errors, that takes time and effort away from looking for other errors...
While I broadly agree with your argument, I have to point out that the heartbleed exploit was due to the OpenSSL devs forgoing the system's malloc implementation and rolling their own abstraction for performance reasons. In effect they bypassed the system's protection, so arguing that removing the need for manual memory management would make code safer (it would) is irrelevant to the heartbleed exploit.
In this instance, had they been using Java or similar, it is likely that they would have still rolled their own for performance reasons, thereby still bypassing the languages protections.
Thanks for this. It's great to see a positive comment in a sea of disingenious comments.
I wish I could've modded you down instead. What you mean is "It's great to see a positive opinion in a sea of negative opinions". I have no doubt that it feels great, but should you not be wondering why there is a single positive opinion on Gnome3 for every 25 negative opinions? Does that ratio not tell you that Gnome fucked up?
She also said in the tests that it was one of the least preferred ways to use a switch, and that they made changes based on feedback like making it more obvious you were grabbing a physical handle on the sliding switch (the highlighting of the handle).
In Samsung's documents, the sliding to unlock came out as by far the most preferred of a number of different mechanisms, which is an indicator that the two things are different even if they appear the same on the surface.
Sorry, but no. Just because two people say different things about the same process (one says most preferred and the other says least preferred) doesn't mean that it *might* be different things they are talking about. In fact, it almost never does. In this particular case it's clear even to brain-damaged fanbois that this is prior art.
Ever hear of this invention called a zoom lens? You'll be able to adjust you field of view....
Shazzam!
That works on mirrors too. So does wide-angle lenses. The camera brings no advantages other than fancy software for identifying imminent threats, and if a driver really really needs that then he's going to get himself into trouble sooner or alter anyway.
I had to replace a side view mirror about 6 months ago. $150.
Cool story. I replaced the RHS sideview mirror of my wife's ford escort last week for ~$10. Of course, it was a simple as going to the local glasscutter and getting him to make a replacement piece of reflective glass. Didn't even try at the dealer for a replacement.
(OTOH, the dealer wanted ~$210 for the thermostat housing. Non-dealer replacements are almost always an order of magnitude cheaper, so that "cheap camera" that replaces the mirror won't be)
and in those situations a camera or multiple cameras is far superior to a fucking piece of glass with silver.
There is nothing that a camera can show you that cannot be done with curved mirrors.
(if it breaks, take it for fixing, like you would if someone kicked off your real mirror - and unlike popular myth you don't have to drive like an asshole even if everyone else is driving like one so you can take your time to get to the shop..).
I like my view from the drivers seat to be unimpeded even if the car is not fully functional. Actually, visibility is even more important when the car is less than 100% functional. I don't want a blown fuse, or a wiring problem, or other electrical malfunction to limit my visibility.
Wait, what? Don't you mean "get popular"? After all, even fictional game-world-only (Eve, Second life, D3) money is used for trade more than bitcoin gets used for trade.
Patrick Byrne indicates that they keep a small percentage of profits in Bitcoin and are looking to increase that percentage when they start getting more of their partners accepting Bitcoin.
I think you meant "any of their partners". Right now (mostly due to accounting laws) a business is going to have a hard time accepting anything other than currency (any currency) for payment, hence I'd like to see how they intend to "keep some of the profits in bitcoins" other than converting dollars back to bitcoins. Both overstock.com and tigerdirect make it clear that they use an exchange so that they can receive real currency. Were they to actually receive bitcoins in payment you can be sure that more than a few tax officials would start wondering about it.
Technically BTC that is received would have to go on the books as stock or similar. Thus keeping "revenue" in BTC means capturing payment in books at time of receipt, in which case the value you have captured is non-financial instrument asset. This asset has to be depreciated. Selling that BTC later on (for dollars) results in even further revenue. This just artificially drives up the "earned revenue" in the year-end balance, making it an almost certainty that you would be paying vastly more in tax than you would otherwise have done.
Every time the topic comes up, all the BTC proponents, with not a single accounting or economics degree between them (Patrick Byrne has the "do you want fries with that" Philosophy degree) start disagreeing with practicing accountants, book-keepers and economists. BTC as money starts looking even more of a joke when you actually try to keep books with it - book-keeping, and all the laws made in every country to audit it, don't work on a deflationary currency.
BTC can't work as a currency. It was designed as a poor joke on otherwise smart people who are a little clueless about accounting, economics, book-keeping, etc.
Why is this lie perpetually getting repeated? Hell, some moron even modded it up. Overstock (and Tigerdirect, etc) do not accept bitcoins as payment.
You might want to tell that to Overstock and Tiger Direct, then, who both proudly proclaim that they do accept BTC as payment.
They can proclaim whatever the hell they want to; they themselves state, on their website in multiple places, that bitcoin transactions are routed through coinbase or similar.
But no doubt, you know better than they do, so carry on with the Bitcoin hate.
When we go to the zoo and comment on the monkeys flinging poo at each other we don't call it "hate". We call it "scorn".
Though, with the likes of Overstock accepting BTC now, the marketplace itself might soon serve that function without needing an external point of reference.
Why is this lie perpetually getting repeated? Hell, some moron even modded it up. Overstock (and Tigerdirect, etc) do not accept bitcoins as payment.
Once again for those of you too stupid to read carefully - No major retailer accepts bitcoins as tender!. Some of them allow you to pay via an exchange such as coinbase, but note that even though the customer is parting with bitcoins, the seller is only ever receiving dollars (AKA real currency).
What, seriously? I said: Newsweek. It's the very first link in the summary, you can't find that?
Fine, for your lazy ass: link.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that link has no evidence whatsoever, only a lot of conjecture and speculation. As of now, there is still no evidence that this man and the bitcoin inventor are the same person.
I've been following this pretty closely today and it honestly seems to be fairly convincing to me that he is. What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator?
That's not how it works - you need to provide evidence that he is. What is the main reason you think he *is* the guy?
I dunno about that. Seeing as how companies are accepting it as a means of payment (Overstock, Tiger Direct, Tesla dealerships, etc), it pretty strongly represents the definition of money/currency: http://dictionary.reference.co...
That didn't happen - the tesla was paid for with dollars by Bitpay (who received bitcoins), Overstock uses Coinbase to get their money in dollars and the Tiger Direct website is down as of writing. IOW, none of the retailers took any bitcoins from shoppers, they take dollars from exchanges. None of the shoppers paid any retailer any bitcoins, rather they paid bitcoins to an exchange. For "retailer accepts bitcoin" I expect them to actually take the purchasers bitcoins and convert the btc to dollars, not ask for it to be converted before purchase
Regardless of whether the retailer actually accepted bitcoins or not (they don't), retailers also accept part payment in coupons, or store vouchers, etc. None of which are money or currency.
For me, the most basic definition of money is "representative item of value used in the exchange of goods and services", which bitcoin certainly meets.
The most accurate definition of money is "common item of barter", which btc also isn't.
Yeah, your pointing to an outlier totally shows that even the 90% majority that females hold in a profession still leaves them disadvantaged and in need of "help" to become more equal.
As for automation: SC is easier to automate than most RL games, including golf. Shit, people have already produced AI better than most players and that's without even putting a team of computer scientists onto the problem.
Better than most players != better than the best players. GP is quite correct - it is easy to throw a bunch of electro-mechanical components together that will best even the very best "sportsman" of all time, but it is well-nigh impossible (provably so) to put together an AI that will better a Go champion (e-sport).
So, for traditional sports we already have the ability to beat the very best humans while for E-sports (Go, Starcraft, etc) it's still very much a human-dominated activity, with good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a really hard time believing this, and would state that your memory does not serve you very well. A 33MHz 486 couldn't handle more complex scenes in DOOM, and definitely not in Quake. I gamed actively at the time when Quake came out, and recall that only much later, on a P233MMX, I could get an fps amount rivaling the screen refresh rate. Any 486 is so much behind that machine, that it's not even funny.
A low ID number username like you probably won't believe a brat like me, so here's some proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The fps is abysmal. The machine would need to be 10-20 times faster to reach a decent fps.
Nevermind what some random youtube link says, I ran quake reliably on a 486 dx4 100 (33x3 IIRC) with a 1MB trident graphics card and 8MB of RAM.
I prefer it the same, and to the point of building my own software to do it properly.
I've gone one better - I whipped up a little tcl/tk (wish) script that uses the locatedb to show me my music files*, so I never have to click "open" or "import" or any of that crap. I simply type parts of the filename that I remember into a box and it only displays the matches :-)
* and mpg123 to play them
Yes, it does. Using these macros everywhere makes the code more opaque, thus less legible, and therefore less secure.
Is this 2014 or 1994? My IDE automatically colors out dead sections where preprocessor macros don't apply to me. Honestly if you are unable to understand or mentally deal with a few preprocessor macro's I don't want you anywhere near openSSL.
They are hardly "everywhere" mostly in the headers and abstraction layers which provide a common target and normalized behavior for supported platforms.
"Many eyes" can't make all bugs shallow if those eyes don't understand what the hell they are looking at.
If eyes stumble on a few preprocessor definitions the chance of them discovering anything useful in this project is zero. I'm all for making shit easier to understand but this specific kind of "premature optimization" accomplishes nothing.
#ifdef VMS
#define SOMEFUNC(x,y,z) SomeVmsFunc (z,y,x)
#else
#define SOMEFUNC(x,y,z) TotallyOtherFunc (x,y,z)
#endif
You don't see how that fucks up the legibility of code? You encounter SOMEFUNC(1,2,3); and you have no idea what it does and your damn IDE can't colour-code that away either.
No. No it wasn't. The Heartbleed exploit was a classic buffer overread bug that would have been prevented by any language with bounds checking.
[Any language with bounds-checking protection] that would likely have been bypassed by the dev-team due to performance reasons. Seriously, for performance reasons this dev-team bypassed malloc of all things; do you really want to assert that they wouldn't have bypassed a bounds-checker?
In my previous post I thought I made this bit clear; it was not that there was protection on some platforms, it was that they bypassed all platform allocators in favour of their own. That's the bug right there. Everything else, like overruns, overreading, etc is a result of that decision. I cannot believe that, with a different language, they would have made a different decision
...Let's divide up problems into "memory errors" and "logic errors", where we broadly interpret "memory errors" as "errors your language or runtime won't let you make."
...
Furthermore, because in C you have to spend time and effort making sure you're not susceptable to memory errors, that takes time and effort away from looking for other errors...
While I broadly agree with your argument, I have to point out that the heartbleed exploit was due to the OpenSSL devs forgoing the system's malloc implementation and rolling their own abstraction for performance reasons. In effect they bypassed the system's protection, so arguing that removing the need for manual memory management would make code safer (it would) is irrelevant to the heartbleed exploit.
In this instance, had they been using Java or similar, it is likely that they would have still rolled their own for performance reasons, thereby still bypassing the languages protections.
I'd be pretty useless ... but my wife... she's got enough useful skills to float the both of us, easy.
What's this "us"?
signed,
Your wife
Thanks for this. It's great to see a positive comment in a sea of disingenious comments.
I wish I could've modded you down instead. What you mean is "It's great to see a positive opinion in a sea of negative opinions". I have no doubt that it feels great, but should you not be wondering why there is a single positive opinion on Gnome3 for every 25 negative opinions? Does that ratio not tell you that Gnome fucked up?
She also said in the tests that it was one of the least preferred ways to use a switch, and that they made changes based on feedback like making it more obvious you were grabbing a physical handle on the sliding switch (the highlighting of the handle).
In Samsung's documents, the sliding to unlock came out as by far the most preferred of a number of different mechanisms, which is an indicator that the two things are different even if they appear the same on the surface.
Sorry, but no. Just because two people say different things about the same process (one says most preferred and the other says least preferred) doesn't mean that it *might* be different things they are talking about. In fact, it almost never does. In this particular case it's clear even to brain-damaged fanbois that this is prior art.
Ever hear of this invention called a zoom lens? You'll be able to adjust you field of view....
Shazzam!
That works on mirrors too. So does wide-angle lenses. The camera brings no advantages other than fancy software for identifying imminent threats, and if a driver really really needs that then he's going to get himself into trouble sooner or alter anyway.
I had to replace a side view mirror about 6 months ago. $150.
Cool story. I replaced the RHS sideview mirror of my wife's ford escort last week for ~$10. Of course, it was a simple as going to the local glasscutter and getting him to make a replacement piece of reflective glass. Didn't even try at the dealer for a replacement.
(OTOH, the dealer wanted ~$210 for the thermostat housing. Non-dealer replacements are almost always an order of magnitude cheaper, so that "cheap camera" that replaces the mirror won't be)
and in those situations a camera or multiple cameras is far superior to a fucking piece of glass with silver.
There is nothing that a camera can show you that cannot be done with curved mirrors.
(if it breaks, take it for fixing, like you would if someone kicked off your real mirror - and unlike popular myth you don't have to drive like an asshole even if everyone else is driving like one so you can take your time to get to the shop..).
I like my view from the drivers seat to be unimpeded even if the car is not fully functional. Actually, visibility is even more important when the car is less than 100% functional. I don't want a blown fuse, or a wiring problem, or other electrical malfunction to limit my visibility.
Found On Road Dead
...If virtual currencies stay popular ...
Wait, what? Don't you mean "get popular"? After all, even fictional game-world-only (Eve, Second life, D3) money is used for trade more than bitcoin gets used for trade.
Patrick Byrne indicates that they keep a small percentage of profits in Bitcoin and are looking to increase that percentage when they start getting more of their partners accepting Bitcoin.
I think you meant "any of their partners". Right now (mostly due to accounting laws) a business is going to have a hard time accepting anything other than currency (any currency) for payment, hence I'd like to see how they intend to "keep some of the profits in bitcoins" other than converting dollars back to bitcoins. Both overstock.com and tigerdirect make it clear that they use an exchange so that they can receive real currency. Were they to actually receive bitcoins in payment you can be sure that more than a few tax officials would start wondering about it.
Technically BTC that is received would have to go on the books as stock or similar. Thus keeping "revenue" in BTC means capturing payment in books at time of receipt, in which case the value you have captured is non-financial instrument asset. This asset has to be depreciated. Selling that BTC later on (for dollars) results in even further revenue. This just artificially drives up the "earned revenue" in the year-end balance, making it an almost certainty that you would be paying vastly more in tax than you would otherwise have done.
Every time the topic comes up, all the BTC proponents, with not a single accounting or economics degree between them (Patrick Byrne has the "do you want fries with that" Philosophy degree) start disagreeing with practicing accountants, book-keepers and economists. BTC as money starts looking even more of a joke when you actually try to keep books with it - book-keeping, and all the laws made in every country to audit it, don't work on a deflationary currency.
BTC can't work as a currency. It was designed as a poor joke on otherwise smart people who are a little clueless about accounting, economics, book-keeping, etc.
Why is this lie perpetually getting repeated? Hell, some moron even modded it up. Overstock (and Tigerdirect, etc) do not accept bitcoins as payment. You might want to tell that to Overstock and Tiger Direct, then, who both proudly proclaim that they do accept BTC as payment.
They can proclaim whatever the hell they want to; they themselves state, on their website in multiple places, that bitcoin transactions are routed through coinbase or similar.
But no doubt, you know better than they do, so carry on with the Bitcoin hate.
When we go to the zoo and comment on the monkeys flinging poo at each other we don't call it "hate". We call it "scorn".
Though, with the likes of Overstock accepting BTC now, the marketplace itself might soon serve that function without needing an external point of reference.
Why is this lie perpetually getting repeated? Hell, some moron even modded it up. Overstock (and Tigerdirect, etc) do not accept bitcoins as payment.
Once again for those of you too stupid to read carefully - No major retailer accepts bitcoins as tender!. Some of them allow you to pay via an exchange such as coinbase, but note that even though the customer is parting with bitcoins, the seller is only ever receiving dollars (AKA real currency).
I got to play a part in the success of the first viable non-commodity non-government currency.
No, you didn't. You were/are part of a scam. It's nothing to be proud of, being high up on the pyramid.
What, seriously? I said: Newsweek. It's the very first link in the summary, you can't find that? Fine, for your lazy ass: link.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that link has no evidence whatsoever, only a lot of conjecture and speculation. As of now, there is still no evidence that this man and the bitcoin inventor are the same person.
Newsweek has already provided plenty of evidence.
No, they haven't - provide a link to the evidence.
The name matches hundreds, if not thousands, of other people. Your turn.
I've been following this pretty closely today and it honestly seems to be fairly convincing to me that he is. What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator?
That's not how it works - you need to provide evidence that he is. What is the main reason you think he *is* the guy?
I dunno about that. Seeing as how companies are accepting it as a means of payment (Overstock, Tiger Direct, Tesla dealerships, etc), it pretty strongly represents the definition of money/currency: http://dictionary.reference.co...
That didn't happen - the tesla was paid for with dollars by Bitpay (who received bitcoins), Overstock uses Coinbase to get their money in dollars and the Tiger Direct website is down as of writing. IOW, none of the retailers took any bitcoins from shoppers, they take dollars from exchanges. None of the shoppers paid any retailer any bitcoins, rather they paid bitcoins to an exchange. For "retailer accepts bitcoin" I expect them to actually take the purchasers bitcoins and convert the btc to dollars, not ask for it to be converted before purchase
Regardless of whether the retailer actually accepted bitcoins or not (they don't), retailers also accept part payment in coupons, or store vouchers, etc. None of which are money or currency.
For me, the most basic definition of money is "representative item of value used in the exchange of goods and services", which bitcoin certainly meets.
The most accurate definition of money is "common item of barter", which btc also isn't.
But bitcoin is money.
No, it isn't.
And people steal money.
People steal lots of things - groceries, clothing, cars - that doesn't make those things "money" though.
Yeah, your pointing to an outlier totally shows that even the 90% majority that females hold in a profession still leaves them disadvantaged and in need of "help" to become more equal.
As for automation: SC is easier to automate than most RL games, including golf. Shit, people have already produced AI better than most players and that's without even putting a team of computer scientists onto the problem.
Better than most players != better than the best players. GP is quite correct - it is easy to throw a bunch of electro-mechanical components together that will best even the very best "sportsman" of all time, but it is well-nigh impossible (provably so) to put together an AI that will better a Go champion (e-sport).
So, for traditional sports we already have the ability to beat the very best humans while for E-sports (Go, Starcraft, etc) it's still very much a human-dominated activity, with good reason.