Why? She watches all the shows I hate (Smallville, Charmed, Bones, CSI) by herself, thus leaving me free to pursue other hobbies in that daily 30min slot:-)
Unfortunately there are still some apps that only really run in windows. I have lots of Linux computers, but I still need windows for a few things.
Me too. There's Far Cry[345...n], there's StarCraft II... and not much else. I only play these in solo mode, so if anyone has a few suggestions about replacements for Far Cry and Starcraft II, I'm all ears.
But Sling and PlayStation have less expensive OTT bundles already, and there are surely more coming.
What's the cheapest way to legally watch The Walking Dead? How about Grey's Anatomy?
Wait. Then buy the boxed-set DVD (do they still make those?), watch them, then sell the DVDs in the classifieds for half what you paid. I did this for years for the shows I want to watch because it works out well if you only have a few shows you want to watch (five or so).
If you're even more patient, then wait some more, and buy it in the classifieds for half the new price. That worked well for me, too. My wife bought every season of Charmed for $50 about five years ago.
If you want it as it comes out, then you pay more. The longer you are willing to wait the less you pay.
If you aren't worried about performance simply copy the block to a temporary spot before copying it to the destination.
Especially when moving several gigabytes up or down by 1 byte.
I did say If you aren't worried about performance. As an interview question, a qualifier like that is perfectly acceptable because the interviewer can always say "well, what if I *do* care about performance?" in which case you go with the increment/decrement based on the two pointer's relative position to each other.
Your Java/.Net/Python/Haskell/Ruby/Javascript library can't be used from a different language. Even on the same OS, stuff written in Java can only be reused by Java.
Sorry, you know nothing about programming.
First of all, to make statement to your favour: you can write a tiny C wrapper for every Language you mention to make it callable from any other you mention.
That's funny - in practice (on my system) I see all Java libraries only used by Java programs. Same with Python, etc. The C libraries, right now, are used by everything. The Java programs use the C libraries. The Python programs use the C libraries. The Ruby programs use the C libraries. And this is right now.
So, yes, sure you can write wrappers around your library, but in practice it's hardly ever done, and with good reason.
The problem with C dinosaurs is: they did not notice the world moved on.
Well, we couldn't move ahead to the next fad like everyone else (you, perhaps?) because someone has to keep the world running;-)
Not sure I could do that off the top of my head. I'd look up the greater-than and less-than operators and how they work with pointers. Not even sure if that's the right approach.
If you aren't worried about performance simply copy the block to a temporary spot before copying it to the destination.
You are confusing the language and the OS feature. That libzip.so will need to be recompiled for every OS once compiled it isn't c code it is a compiled library.
At least you'll have the option - Your Java/.Net/Python/Haskell/Ruby/Javascript library can't be used from a different language. Even on the same OS, stuff written in Java can only be reused by Java. Stuff written in C can be reused by everything.
I could make a library in any other compiled language say FORTRAN.
I'll give you this - Fortran is still in high use for a good reason - but you can't make a library in Java, Python, etc.
If distribution your c code and the new system doesn't have the library then you get into dependacy hell.
Now C is considered portable because you can compile it on a different system. But that Python program I make I can run on Linux or Windows without any changes. Just as long as the interpreter is installed.
My point was not portability, but reuse - sure that Python library can run everywhere, but it can only be used from Python. That same library written in C will compile on different platforms too, and can be used from Python as well as other languages.
The people producing C libraries (like myself) are happily reusing the libraries we wrote two decades ago without having to rewrite them to use in another language.
And I still happily reuse Java libraries I wrote from over a decade ago
You missed the point - if your library is in C, it can be used from just about every language. Your java code is reusable only from Java, or will you now claim that those libraries from over a decade ago are useful to you when you move to another language?
Meaning there is a preference towards more lower level coding, allowing detailed and measured controls over each line of code, at the expense of maintainability and programming time.
I sorta agree with the rest, but this statement is dead wrong - if you want it reusable you write it in C. Anything written in Python/.Net/etc is only usable from a miniscule subset of languages, while the libzip.so on your system is reusable from everything. This is why the practical/engineering types write it in C - if they chose Python they'll have to rewrite it should they ever decide to use some other language. When they write it in C it need never be rewritten.
The problem with the software engineering/programming people is that they don't care about reusability, and it shows; once the project is done they move on to the next one. The people producing C libraries (like myself) are happily reusing the libraries we wrote two decades ago without having to rewrite them to use in another language. The people producing Python or C++ libraries abandon those libraries when they move to a new language - they don't have a choice.
C is still the most portable language in the universe. The only real language that works on all phones, in particuarl (ok, C++ does too but C is where you get all the amazing well written, optimized libraries you'd want on most devices).
It's not only the portability that matters, it's the software reuse. You write your nifty image recognition library in Java and that's pretty much the only language that can use it. Same for Python, C++, etc. Do a locate \.so | wc -l on your system - chances are that the libraries *not* written in C are a rounding error. Pick just about anything remotely useful - chances are it'd more more useful if written in C, because at the very least you can open the executable using dlopen/dlsym and invoke main() with the correct arguments.
If you stick to a C-only subset of C++ you can write your library in C++, but at that point why bother with C++ anyway?
Not that much more subtle. I watched as Microsoft crushed a long list of companies using exactly this strategy across the 80's and early 90's. Borland was easy -- it's so easy to break a compiler with an OS upgrade.
The demise of Borland makes me weep:-( Just last night I was installing the last copy of a 16-bit C compiler + Assembler that I have[1]. Try as hard as I could, I simply could not find my Borland disks (not that it would have helped much - I sincerely doubt that I would have been able to locate floppy drive anywhere). I found only my printed copy of the TASM manual.
Back to my pontification: the demise of Borland makes me weep, but I realise that they were the architects of their own destruction. Borland did not die in a day, and before the writing was on the wall it was clear to all the leading desktop-software companies in the mid-to-late nineties that they had better be making plans for survival as Microsoft eyed different desktop applications.
Borland could have survived: there were enough people who would have paid good money for a decent C compiler and IDE on Linux, Solaris, etc (anyone else here remember how awful gcc was? Or the whole egcs split?) and I made multiple requests to Borland via my employer for a port. No port was forthcoming.
Instead, a few years later we got Kylix which tanked horribly, then gcc's legs started moving and we got a decent compiler for unix systems. I purchased Turbo C 2.01 (three or four disks, I forget), Turbo Pascal (which I eventually used to write a compiler!), TASM, C++ Builder and Delphi (some student version). I wanted to purchase their tools for Linux as well, and I wasn't the only one.
It's not terribly hard to port a compiler - after all the code-generation mostly remains the same, only the static and dynamic linkers/loaders would see major change, and that's an easy enough problem to solve. The majority of work would have been in porting their libraries. But no - no Turbo C for us dirty Linux devs...
[1] Writing something that runs before the bootloader. Long story. Found my Watcom 10.0 CD, though, and installed that. It appears to work on Windows seven and on WINE. Unfortunately the assembler syntax is fully undocumented, so I'm using nasm now.
They've done so in the past and will do so again in the future.
rgb
Which is why I'm so confused about developers who, for no good reason, tie their application/game/program to the windows platform exclusively. They will die, and I'll probably weep for them too. But, first they'll flock to the windows store, in the process burning their bridges to other platforms behind them. Once they're unrecoverably wedded to Windows again they'll be squeezed until they're dead. Like Borland.
Hasn't it been shown that you can take a fingerprint left by someone (say, on their phone) and use it to fool a fingerprint scanner?
It has been shown that this works for old, cheap or crappy fingerprint readers. Modern, state-of-the-art scanners can check for a pulse, or use other techniques to detect tampering. Anyway, the whole point of multi-factor is that each individual factor doesn't have to be perfect. Two layers that are each 90% secure are as good as one layer that is 99% secure.
Biometrics are the worst factor; they reduce the efficacy of the other factors because they can never be changed while there will remain a nonzero number of devices that can be fooled (hence, they reduce the efficacy).
The "modern state-of-the-art" that you refer to doesn't yet exist, but I'm sure that it will be secure when they install it in the future, in my flying car.
I don't know about that. Recently the elite everywhere have been getting their asses handed to them by the voters regardless of whether or not the voters are voting for/against their own self-interest. Exhibit A: Brexit.
Consoles provide a computer that, relatively, easily plays games. No tinkering or fussing required.
They also do other stuff, relatively tinker-free, that you'd want to do near your TV & sound system -
- Connect to streaming music & video services
- Play CDs, DVDs & Blu-ray
- Connect to video and audio content libraries in your home
- Control your TV with your voice.
Yeah, yeah, I know you can do all this stuff with a PC as well, but with an XBOX it's set-and-forget (and, most importantly, wife-friendly).
I don't need to do all that voice stuff. I've got a 10 year old beigebox running customised windowmaker and a cheapie remote for the PC. Using a couple of scripts I've put a menu on it that allows syncing to external drives (using volume lable/id to recognise previous drives), a simple remote-friendly menu system for browsing the filesystem, customised vlc to play anything selected and auto-ripping which, when selected, simply rips anything in the optical drive using the date/time and volume label to construct the rip names.
It's got a wifi dongle in, thus I can stream from my storage elsewhere, mame/mess/fceu/some sega thing (which all, like vlc, are started when selecting a file while browsing). Simply keeping a sane starting directory and a small menu (five items) means that my wife uses it very well, as does my ten-year old. The only thing missing is a second wireless controller for the games, and both my son and I are quite enjoying playing Super Mario 2, Sonic, etc.
One last thing: I put in a video capture device in as well, only we're not using it cause we don't watch braodcast TV
I got the PC from my wife's workplace for $40 when they were clearing out old office equipment. Took about a day to set it up (writing all the scripts, customising WindowMaker for use with the remote, etc).
The report adds that processors could still continue to fulfill Moore's Law with increased vertical density.
What took them so long?
I've been pointing out that a three-dimensional arrangement off components could continue FAR longer than an essentially single-layer arrangements since at least the 1970s.
Yeah, and people have been trying that approach since the 70's, too. They're still working on heat dissipation.
Then I clearly need to step up my game and have them call one another for no reason that anyone reading my code will ever be able to understand.
You do. You really do. Until you do, we're revoking your evil overmind badge:-) Here is a function that is never called but cannot be easily proven to be called or not:
struct usethisoften { ...
}; ...
void usethisoften (void) {
printf ("Doesn't get called!);
} ...
typedef void (*ftype) (void); ...
ftype foo[] = {
funcs, that, get, called, usethisoften, otherfuncs, go, here, will not get called,
}; ...
foo[somevar % sizeof (int)] ();// Here it never gets called!!! Looks harmless
Just ensure that the 'usethisoften' struct is used everywhere. The last line that can never call your "don't-call" functions will be glossed over by the maintainer who assumes that you're simply trying not to overrun the array because they've still got another 1500 occurrences of "usethisoften" to double-check.
Bonus: if this is ever discovered you can claim it was an honest error! Plausible Deniability!
an overlap that evidently admit cars will be hacked... but they like it, they love it, they want some more of it.
Makes perfect sense - there's only a small number of people who realise that if the cars software cannot be "hacked", then the only people who will be able to repair the car will be the dealership. These people presumably want aftermarket technicians to be able to fix their car.
That is pretty much in line with my expectations for the car trade. Fortunately, it is also my experience that with a bit of effort it is always possible to find someone to do the same work for next to nothing.
Not if they ever get security correct. Correct security means that they *will* effectively lock out everyone that is not them. After all, any exploit used by a aftermarket tech can also be used by a thief/hacker.
I'd rather just not have networked anything in my car.
There's nothing stopping you from keeping and maintaining a classic made before cars had networks. But the truth is that the newer cars are a lot better in every way other than reliability of accessories.
There's going to be a gap in the market for newer cars with older tech. Probably already happening in some countries - a cheap car that can be cheaply kept on the road for decades regardless of what breaks. I'll start a business selling "perpetually-maintainable" cars, with parts based on popular existing mechanicals.
Used to be once upon a time if you needed to swap an engine out you could with only mechanical changes (adapter plates, etc). Now you can't take (for example) a v8 off an Audi in a scrapyard and drop it into your Ford without first getting all the electronics correct (missing gearbox, wheels sensors, etc). I think that in a few years a car manufacturer advertising "This car will take any engine, any gearbox, any braking system, from any other car" will get more than a few takers.
The primary buyers of expensive watches today (that apple and others tried to lure with "classy" designs) will be first caught dead than using a quartz watch, so it is pretty useless to try to sell them smartwatches.
So close:-) It's not just about quartz vs mechanical. There's a large difference between watches.
Tier-1, there's the functional ($20-$40 casio) which is accurate and will probably last longer than you will live. I wear a $40 casio daily and haven't changed the battery in the last ten years or more. It's fallen into the pool, it's fallen from a moving car, it fell from the second floor of my house. All that resulted were scratches which I can live with. I use it while metal-working, brick-laying, and rebuilding the engine on my car, and despite all the knocks it gets, it still works. The tier-1 watches can be sponges for punishment!
Tier-2, the slightly pricier ($50-$200) fashion watches, made by Guess, Police, Fossil, etc. They are fashion items, same as handbags, hats, etc. I've got a few of these as gifts (Hugo Boss, Armani, Guess), although I don't buy these for myself.
Tier-3, Pricier watches made by watch companies like Seiko, Tissot, Citizen, etc, and not made by fashion companies like Tier-2. I've got a pricier Tissot. These watches can be quiet rugged and should also last a lifetime, regardless of quartz vs mechanical movement. They can come with functional complications, like tachymetre, diving bezel, etc. They cost anywhere from $600 dollars up to around $2000.
Tier-4, Even pricier watches by watch companies, for example Longines (+$2000). These are meant to be heirlooms. They can get quite pricey, such as with Rolexes, Breitlings and similar. A Rolex submariner used to sell for +$10k. A Patek Philip sells for +$30k.
In all of these tiers there are certain requirements of the watch (other than keeping time). For example, regardless of whether the movement is quartz or not (I've got a very expensive Longines that has a quartz movement), at tier-3 and tier-4 the watch is intended to have value even 20 years later, closer to 50 or more for tier-4. For tier-1 the watch has to be durable and cheap.
Which only leaves tier-2 - the fashion accessory watches; these top out at around $200 and are treated as fashion accessories (i.e. they won't be passed down!). They have a useful life (as an accessory) of only a few years; some models are out of fashion even before the battery dies!
Apple was, whether they knew it or not, selling in tier-2, but attempting to get tier-3 prices. A smartwatch is a fashion item that will be superceded in about the same time as a smartphone (maybe three years?).
The type of person to drop $500 on a watch is going to get one that isn't mostly obsolete in three years, they'll buy a Seiko, Victorinox or similar. Watches are jewelry, not electronics, and people expect jewelry to have lasting value and not novelty value. The smartwatch is electronics, not jewelry, so traditional watch enthusiasts won't be all that interested in it simply because it has no lasting value.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife bought every season of Charmed
I'm so sorry...
Why? She watches all the shows I hate (Smallville, Charmed, Bones, CSI) by herself, thus leaving me free to pursue other hobbies in that daily 30min slot :-)
Unfortunately there are still some apps that only really run in windows. I have lots of Linux computers, but I still need windows for a few things.
Me too. There's Far Cry[345...n], there's StarCraft II... and not much else. I only play these in solo mode, so if anyone has a few suggestions about replacements for Far Cry and Starcraft II, I'm all ears.
But Sling and PlayStation have less expensive OTT bundles already, and there are surely more coming.
What's the cheapest way to legally watch The Walking Dead? How about Grey's Anatomy?
Wait. Then buy the boxed-set DVD (do they still make those?), watch them, then sell the DVDs in the classifieds for half what you paid. I did this for years for the shows I want to watch because it works out well if you only have a few shows you want to watch (five or so).
If you're even more patient, then wait some more, and buy it in the classifieds for half the new price. That worked well for me, too. My wife bought every season of Charmed for $50 about five years ago.
If you want it as it comes out, then you pay more. The longer you are willing to wait the less you pay.
If you aren't worried about performance simply copy the block to a temporary spot before copying it to the destination.
Especially when moving several gigabytes up or down by 1 byte.
I did say If you aren't worried about performance. As an interview question, a qualifier like that is perfectly acceptable because the interviewer can always say "well, what if I *do* care about performance?" in which case you go with the increment/decrement based on the two pointer's relative position to each other.
Your Java/.Net/Python/Haskell/Ruby/Javascript library can't be used from a different language. Even on the same OS, stuff written in Java can only be reused by Java. Sorry, you know nothing about programming.
First of all, to make statement to your favour: you can write a tiny C wrapper for every Language you mention to make it callable from any other you mention.
That's funny - in practice (on my system) I see all Java libraries only used by Java programs. Same with Python, etc. The C libraries, right now, are used by everything. The Java programs use the C libraries. The Python programs use the C libraries. The Ruby programs use the C libraries. And this is right now.
So, yes, sure you can write wrappers around your library, but in practice it's hardly ever done, and with good reason.
The problem with C dinosaurs is: they did not notice the world moved on.
Well, we couldn't move ahead to the next fad like everyone else (you, perhaps?) because someone has to keep the world running ;-)
Until after all that work getting it done you realize it needs to move to a different processor and/or operating system.
Yeah, look how poorly that turned out for Linux when they wanted to port it to something other than x86/32...
Not sure I could do that off the top of my head. I'd look up the greater-than and less-than operators and how they work with pointers. Not even sure if that's the right approach.
If you aren't worried about performance simply copy the block to a temporary spot before copying it to the destination.
You are confusing the language and the OS feature. That libzip.so will need to be recompiled for every OS once compiled it isn't c code it is a compiled library.
At least you'll have the option - Your Java/.Net/Python/Haskell/Ruby/Javascript library can't be used from a different language. Even on the same OS, stuff written in Java can only be reused by Java. Stuff written in C can be reused by everything.
I could make a library in any other compiled language say FORTRAN.
I'll give you this - Fortran is still in high use for a good reason - but you can't make a library in Java, Python, etc.
If distribution your c code and the new system doesn't have the library then you get into dependacy hell.
Now C is considered portable because you can compile it on a different system. But that Python program I make I can run on Linux or Windows without any changes. Just as long as the interpreter is installed.
My point was not portability, but reuse - sure that Python library can run everywhere, but it can only be used from Python. That same library written in C will compile on different platforms too, and can be used from Python as well as other languages.
The people producing C libraries (like myself) are happily reusing the libraries we wrote two decades ago without having to rewrite them to use in another language.
And I still happily reuse Java libraries I wrote from over a decade ago
You missed the point - if your library is in C, it can be used from just about every language. Your java code is reusable only from Java, or will you now claim that those libraries from over a decade ago are useful to you when you move to another language?
Meaning there is a preference towards more lower level coding, allowing detailed and measured controls over each line of code, at the expense of maintainability and programming time.
I sorta agree with the rest, but this statement is dead wrong - if you want it reusable you write it in C. Anything written in Python/.Net/etc is only usable from a miniscule subset of languages, while the libzip.so on your system is reusable from everything. This is why the practical/engineering types write it in C - if they chose Python they'll have to rewrite it should they ever decide to use some other language. When they write it in C it need never be rewritten.
The problem with the software engineering/programming people is that they don't care about reusability, and it shows; once the project is done they move on to the next one. The people producing C libraries (like myself) are happily reusing the libraries we wrote two decades ago without having to rewrite them to use in another language. The people producing Python or C++ libraries abandon those libraries when they move to a new language - they don't have a choice.
C is still the most portable language in the universe. The only real language that works on all phones, in particuarl (ok, C++ does too but C is where you get all the amazing well written, optimized libraries you'd want on most devices).
It's not only the portability that matters, it's the software reuse. You write your nifty image recognition library in Java and that's pretty much the only language that can use it. Same for Python, C++, etc. Do a locate \.so | wc -l on your system - chances are that the libraries *not* written in C are a rounding error. Pick just about anything remotely useful - chances are it'd more more useful if written in C, because at the very least you can open the executable using dlopen/dlsym and invoke main() with the correct arguments.
If you stick to a C-only subset of C++ you can write your library in C++, but at that point why bother with C++ anyway?
No, I'm intimating that the Wikipedia definition is not the one used if you were to ask the general public.
No. It's the definition you would probably find in the manual for an airplane. It's called reality.
In your reality Tesla drivers receive the same sort of training and certification as airline pilots?
Not that much more subtle. I watched as Microsoft crushed a long list of companies using exactly this strategy across the 80's and early 90's. Borland was easy -- it's so easy to break a compiler with an OS upgrade.
The demise of Borland makes me weep :-( Just last night I was installing the last copy of a 16-bit C compiler + Assembler that I have[1]. Try as hard as I could, I simply could not find my Borland disks (not that it would have helped much - I sincerely doubt that I would have been able to locate floppy drive anywhere). I found only my printed copy of the TASM manual.
Back to my pontification: the demise of Borland makes me weep, but I realise that they were the architects of their own destruction. Borland did not die in a day, and before the writing was on the wall it was clear to all the leading desktop-software companies in the mid-to-late nineties that they had better be making plans for survival as Microsoft eyed different desktop applications.
Borland could have survived: there were enough people who would have paid good money for a decent C compiler and IDE on Linux, Solaris, etc (anyone else here remember how awful gcc was? Or the whole egcs split?) and I made multiple requests to Borland via my employer for a port. No port was forthcoming.
Instead, a few years later we got Kylix which tanked horribly, then gcc's legs started moving and we got a decent compiler for unix systems. I purchased Turbo C 2.01 (three or four disks, I forget), Turbo Pascal (which I eventually used to write a compiler!), TASM, C++ Builder and Delphi (some student version). I wanted to purchase their tools for Linux as well, and I wasn't the only one.
It's not terribly hard to port a compiler - after all the code-generation mostly remains the same, only the static and dynamic linkers/loaders would see major change, and that's an easy enough problem to solve. The majority of work would have been in porting their libraries. But no - no Turbo C for us dirty Linux devs...
[1] Writing something that runs before the bootloader. Long story. Found my Watcom 10.0 CD, though, and installed that. It appears to work on Windows seven and on WINE. Unfortunately the assembler syntax is fully undocumented, so I'm using nasm now.
They've done so in the past and will do so again in the future.
rgb
Which is why I'm so confused about developers who, for no good reason, tie their application/game/program to the windows platform exclusively. They will die, and I'll probably weep for them too. But, first they'll flock to the windows store, in the process burning their bridges to other platforms behind them. Once they're unrecoverably wedded to Windows again they'll be squeezed until they're dead. Like Borland.
...because the phone may not always be in possession of the phone...
Do the editors not even read submissions anymore?
It's not a typo - it's proof by fight-club assertion :-)
Hasn't it been shown that you can take a fingerprint left by someone (say, on their phone) and use it to fool a fingerprint scanner?
It has been shown that this works for old, cheap or crappy fingerprint readers. Modern, state-of-the-art scanners can check for a pulse, or use other techniques to detect tampering. Anyway, the whole point of multi-factor is that each individual factor doesn't have to be perfect. Two layers that are each 90% secure are as good as one layer that is 99% secure.
Biometrics are the worst factor; they reduce the efficacy of the other factors because they can never be changed while there will remain a nonzero number of devices that can be fooled (hence, they reduce the efficacy).
The "modern state-of-the-art" that you refer to doesn't yet exist, but I'm sure that it will be secure when they install it in the future, in my flying car.
Trump isn't going to win.
I don't know about that. Recently the elite everywhere have been getting their asses handed to them by the voters regardless of whether or not the voters are voting for/against their own self-interest. Exhibit A: Brexit.
Consoles provide a computer that, relatively, easily plays games. No tinkering or fussing required.
They also do other stuff, relatively tinker-free, that you'd want to do near your TV & sound system - - Connect to streaming music & video services - Play CDs, DVDs & Blu-ray - Connect to video and audio content libraries in your home - Control your TV with your voice. Yeah, yeah, I know you can do all this stuff with a PC as well, but with an XBOX it's set-and-forget (and, most importantly, wife-friendly).
I don't need to do all that voice stuff. I've got a 10 year old beigebox running customised windowmaker and a cheapie remote for the PC. Using a couple of scripts I've put a menu on it that allows syncing to external drives (using volume lable/id to recognise previous drives), a simple remote-friendly menu system for browsing the filesystem, customised vlc to play anything selected and auto-ripping which, when selected, simply rips anything in the optical drive using the date/time and volume label to construct the rip names.
It's got a wifi dongle in, thus I can stream from my storage elsewhere, mame/mess/fceu/some sega thing (which all, like vlc, are started when selecting a file while browsing). Simply keeping a sane starting directory and a small menu (five items) means that my wife uses it very well, as does my ten-year old. The only thing missing is a second wireless controller for the games, and both my son and I are quite enjoying playing Super Mario 2, Sonic, etc.
One last thing: I put in a video capture device in as well, only we're not using it cause we don't watch braodcast TV
I got the PC from my wife's workplace for $40 when they were clearing out old office equipment. Took about a day to set it up (writing all the scripts, customising WindowMaker for use with the remote, etc).
The report adds that processors could still continue to fulfill Moore's Law with increased vertical density.
What took them so long?
I've been pointing out that a three-dimensional arrangement off components could continue FAR longer than an essentially single-layer arrangements since at least the 1970s.
Yeah, and people have been trying that approach since the 70's, too. They're still working on heat dissipation.
Those other funcs might be called if `int` is 8 bytes. If you're going to obfuscate, you'd better make sure your obfuscation isn't buggy.
Yeah, but if you code in a check for sizeof(int)==4 then they're onto you - there's no plausible deniability :-)
Then I clearly need to step up my game and have them call one another for no reason that anyone reading my code will ever be able to understand.
You do. You really do. Until you do, we're revoking your evil overmind badge :-) Here is a function that is never called but cannot be easily proven to be called or not:
struct usethisoften {
};
void usethisoften (void) {
printf ("Doesn't get called!);
}
typedef void (*ftype) (void);
ftype foo[] = {
funcs, that, get, called, usethisoften, otherfuncs, go, here, will not get called,
};
foo[somevar % sizeof (int)] ();
Just ensure that the 'usethisoften' struct is used everywhere. The last line that can never call your "don't-call" functions will be glossed over by the maintainer who assumes that you're simply trying not to overrun the array because they've still got another 1500 occurrences of "usethisoften" to double-check.
Bonus: if this is ever discovered you can claim it was an honest error! Plausible Deniability!
an overlap that evidently admit cars will be hacked... but they like it, they love it, they want some more of it.
Makes perfect sense - there's only a small number of people who realise that if the cars software cannot be "hacked", then the only people who will be able to repair the car will be the dealership. These people presumably want aftermarket technicians to be able to fix their car.
That is pretty much in line with my expectations for the car trade. Fortunately, it is also my experience that with a bit of effort it is always possible to find someone to do the same work for next to nothing.
Not if they ever get security correct. Correct security means that they *will* effectively lock out everyone that is not them. After all, any exploit used by a aftermarket tech can also be used by a thief/hacker.
I'd rather just not have networked anything in my car.
There's nothing stopping you from keeping and maintaining a classic made before cars had networks. But the truth is that the newer cars are a lot better in every way other than reliability of accessories.
There's going to be a gap in the market for newer cars with older tech. Probably already happening in some countries - a cheap car that can be cheaply kept on the road for decades regardless of what breaks. I'll start a business selling "perpetually-maintainable" cars, with parts based on popular existing mechanicals.
Used to be once upon a time if you needed to swap an engine out you could with only mechanical changes (adapter plates, etc). Now you can't take (for example) a v8 off an Audi in a scrapyard and drop it into your Ford without first getting all the electronics correct (missing gearbox, wheels sensors, etc). I think that in a few years a car manufacturer advertising "This car will take any engine, any gearbox, any braking system, from any other car" will get more than a few takers.
People regularly spend much more on traditional watches.
Traditional watches in that price range (Victorinox, for example) will still be desirable to own and wear 25 years after purchase.
The primary buyers of expensive watches today (that apple and others tried to lure with "classy" designs) will be first caught dead than using a quartz watch, so it is pretty useless to try to sell them smartwatches.
So close :-) It's not just about quartz vs mechanical. There's a large difference between watches.
Tier-1, there's the functional ($20-$40 casio) which is accurate and will probably last longer than you will live. I wear a $40 casio daily and haven't changed the battery in the last ten years or more. It's fallen into the pool, it's fallen from a moving car, it fell from the second floor of my house. All that resulted were scratches which I can live with. I use it while metal-working, brick-laying, and rebuilding the engine on my car, and despite all the knocks it gets, it still works. The tier-1 watches can be sponges for punishment!
Tier-2, the slightly pricier ($50-$200) fashion watches, made by Guess, Police, Fossil, etc. They are fashion items, same as handbags, hats, etc. I've got a few of these as gifts (Hugo Boss, Armani, Guess), although I don't buy these for myself.
Tier-3, Pricier watches made by watch companies like Seiko, Tissot, Citizen, etc, and not made by fashion companies like Tier-2. I've got a pricier Tissot. These watches can be quiet rugged and should also last a lifetime, regardless of quartz vs mechanical movement. They can come with functional complications, like tachymetre, diving bezel, etc. They cost anywhere from $600 dollars up to around $2000.
Tier-4, Even pricier watches by watch companies, for example Longines (+$2000). These are meant to be heirlooms. They can get quite pricey, such as with Rolexes, Breitlings and similar. A Rolex submariner used to sell for +$10k. A Patek Philip sells for +$30k.
In all of these tiers there are certain requirements of the watch (other than keeping time). For example, regardless of whether the movement is quartz or not (I've got a very expensive Longines that has a quartz movement), at tier-3 and tier-4 the watch is intended to have value even 20 years later, closer to 50 or more for tier-4. For tier-1 the watch has to be durable and cheap.
Which only leaves tier-2 - the fashion accessory watches; these top out at around $200 and are treated as fashion accessories (i.e. they won't be passed down!). They have a useful life (as an accessory) of only a few years; some models are out of fashion even before the battery dies!
Apple was, whether they knew it or not, selling in tier-2, but attempting to get tier-3 prices. A smartwatch is a fashion item that will be superceded in about the same time as a smartphone (maybe three years?).
The type of person to drop $500 on a watch is going to get one that isn't mostly obsolete in three years, they'll buy a Seiko, Victorinox or similar. Watches are jewelry, not electronics, and people expect jewelry to have lasting value and not novelty value. The smartwatch is electronics, not jewelry, so traditional watch enthusiasts won't be all that interested in it simply because it has no lasting value.