Actually, in C the null pointer constant is a distinct value from integer zero. The standard requires the following (see section 6.3.2.3 of ISO C99):
That the integer value 0, when cast to any pointer type, yield a null pointer
That a null pointer, when cast to any other pointer type, yield another null pointer
That any two null pointers will compare as equal, regardless of type
As for constructions like if (!ptr), the standard requires that the if statement execute if its value is non-zero, and it would be entirely legal for the null pointer to have a non-zero in-memory representation, but convert to the integer zero. See, for example, the comp.lang.c FAQ.
So, in other words, you're certain that all ciphers one might conceivably use for an encrypted partition are vulnerable to a known-plaintext attack to produce the key? You should publish your magical algorithm for doing this.
Any legal company policy is based on the local laws and codes.
We have shall-issue concealed carry in Washington. As far as I know, there is nothing whatsoever illegal about having a gun in the trunk of your car here.
Trust me, lesbians on Slashdot don't get laid any more than anyone else.
Re:looks like it still loses history
on
BASH 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Keep the history added in the current session in memory and, when exiting, lock the history file and append? Actually, as far as I know that's what it does; I don't think I've ever seen it actually lose history with multiple concurrent sessions, just add it to the history file in different orders depending on timing. I don't think I've paid that much attention, though.
Yes, and with two hundred and twenty-two years since that was written, the damnable tyrants have gotten very good at finding highly creative interpretations of that. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that growing marijuana on one's own property for one's own consumption constitutes 'interstate commerce' on the grounds that if one grows it oneself rather than buying it from a dealer, it could potentially have a miniscule effect on the price in other states. I wouldn't count on the interstate commerce clause to provide any meaningful limits on federal power at all.
Leave it to government to find a more complicated way to do exactly what they're already doing.
Well, if you're gullible enough to believe that's the real purpose and being able to track everyone's movements is just a coincidence that they would never, ever take advantage of.
It is *NOT* good economics for the government to borrow money to destroy existing capital assets in order to prop up an uncompetitive domestic car industry which should have died a decade or more ago. Can you say broken window fallacy?
Perhaps I didn't think of that because I've always felt it was a bad idea to get too buddy-buddy with coworkers in a professional environment. I mean, everyone should be treated with kindness and understanding, but mixing business with your personal affairs tends to be more trouble than it's worth and just sounds like a bad idea. Anyone who's heard a few minutes of office gossip and decided they don't want any part of it can understand what I mean.
You know, I've always felt the same way, but my straight co-workers have the freedom to choose their policy on that without as much to worry about as I do. I don't really know how much of my tendency to avoid anything that even hints of mixing my personal and professional life stems from fear of what effect it could have if co-workers knew how thoroughly queer I am.
What I don't understand is how this comes up at all. I'm straight, too, but I don't discuss my sex life with coworkers. It's just not their business. So, how are they being discriminated against unless they are bringing very personal and non-work-related matters to the office? Do homosexual people want to be able to discuss their intimate sex lives at work without repercussions?
Do your straight co-workers ever have pictures of their husband/wife and kids up in their cubicles? Do they ever casually mention going on a date or something? Do you live in an area where you are surrounded by other straight people and can go out with a heterosexual partner and have a nice time without worrying about getting beaten up for it? Is your appearance and demeanor socially normative for the gender you were assigned at birth? Even if it turns out everyone around you seems accepting of your heterosexuality, have you ever been afraid they would find out anyway because there was a prevailing social attitude against it or you'd had an unpleasant experience in the past, and there's no way to tell how a new person will be in advance? There are plenty of places where I wouldn't take a job for any amount of money, even if the particular employer were known to be entirely queer-friendly, and that has nothing to do with wanting to discuss my sex life (or, this being Slashdot, lack thereof...) at work and everything to do with not wanting to deal with being a lesbian in the Bible Belt.
You can have a balance between freedom of speech and censorship. The common example of yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind.
You mean the example originally given by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. United States to justify upholding a six month prison sentence for distributing anti-draft pamphlets? Maybe you censorship fans should at least think about the source of these quotes before you use them.
So if you commit a burglary at night and use a flashlight, are you banned for life from ever using electricity? If you get caught dealing drugs and taking orders by cell phone, are you banned from ever having a telephone again?
Cutting someone off from access to communications technology for an indefinite term in modern society is a *very* harsh punishment. It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".
You ignored age, and it still only works if you assume all these parameters are uncorrelated. Speaking as someone who was once one of five women in a graduating class of 160 computer science majors, this, rather unfortunately, does not appear to be the case.
On the other hand, I do know two others besides myself now. Well, my girlfriend is more of an OpenBSD person, so maybe that doesn't count.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, that's hardly adequate. It doesn't include the part about how Shinzon's weapon is ripped off from *Rocky Horror*, for fuck's sake.
Are the top quarks rarer than the sub bottom quarks?
Yes, but they wear one of eight different colors of gluon in their left pants pocket so you can identify them easily.
I liked the Jebus character, but I thought he could have used a love interest.
It was in there, but it got cut.
I actually really, really want a phone like that, except for that paragraph about KDE. If I wanted Windows, I know where to find it.
Actually, in C the null pointer constant is a distinct value from integer zero. The standard requires the following (see section 6.3.2.3 of ISO C99):
As for constructions like if (!ptr), the standard requires that the if statement execute if its value is non-zero, and it would be entirely legal for the null pointer to have a non-zero in-memory representation, but convert to the integer zero. See, for example, the comp.lang.c FAQ.
Of course they're a bit odd. Who would want to date normals?
So, in other words, you're certain that all ciphers one might conceivably use for an encrypted partition are vulnerable to a known-plaintext attack to produce the key? You should publish your magical algorithm for doing this.
White noise is white because it contains an equal amount of all frequencies. There certainly are other colors of noise.
Any legal company policy is based on the local laws and codes.
We have shall-issue concealed carry in Washington. As far as I know, there is nothing whatsoever illegal about having a gun in the trunk of your car here.
Trust me, lesbians on Slashdot don't get laid any more than anyone else.
Keep the history added in the current session in memory and, when exiting, lock the history file and append? Actually, as far as I know that's what it does; I don't think I've ever seen it actually lose history with multiple concurrent sessions, just add it to the history file in different orders depending on timing. I don't think I've paid that much attention, though.
True, excess gov't can also be ugly, but lows are less low.
Heh. Looks like someone needs to study some history.
Yes, and with two hundred and twenty-two years since that was written, the damnable tyrants have gotten very good at finding highly creative interpretations of that. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that growing marijuana on one's own property for one's own consumption constitutes 'interstate commerce' on the grounds that if one grows it oneself rather than buying it from a dealer, it could potentially have a miniscule effect on the price in other states. I wouldn't count on the interstate commerce clause to provide any meaningful limits on federal power at all.
Well, more hot lesbian entanglement for me then.
Leave it to government to find a more complicated way to do exactly what they're already doing.
Well, if you're gullible enough to believe that's the real purpose and being able to track everyone's movements is just a coincidence that they would never, ever take advantage of.
Who can tell me where I come from? I have blood from all continents except Australia.
So does that mean you're part Elder Thing?
Revealing secrets about our capabilities really can hurt the United States.
Not a tenth as much as allowing unconstitutional domestic surveillance to continue unchallenged.
The state-worshipper advocates violence against anyone who dares disagree with him. Typical. So typical.
It is *NOT* good economics for the government to borrow money to destroy existing capital assets in order to prop up an uncompetitive domestic car industry which should have died a decade or more ago. Can you say broken window fallacy?
Perhaps I didn't think of that because I've always felt it was a bad idea to get too buddy-buddy with coworkers in a professional environment. I mean, everyone should be treated with kindness and understanding, but mixing business with your personal affairs tends to be more trouble than it's worth and just sounds like a bad idea. Anyone who's heard a few minutes of office gossip and decided they don't want any part of it can understand what I mean.
You know, I've always felt the same way, but my straight co-workers have the freedom to choose their policy on that without as much to worry about as I do. I don't really know how much of my tendency to avoid anything that even hints of mixing my personal and professional life stems from fear of what effect it could have if co-workers knew how thoroughly queer I am.
What I don't understand is how this comes up at all. I'm straight, too, but I don't discuss my sex life with coworkers. It's just not their business. So, how are they being discriminated against unless they are bringing very personal and non-work-related matters to the office? Do homosexual people want to be able to discuss their intimate sex lives at work without repercussions?
Do your straight co-workers ever have pictures of their husband/wife and kids up in their cubicles? Do they ever casually mention going on a date or something? Do you live in an area where you are surrounded by other straight people and can go out with a heterosexual partner and have a nice time without worrying about getting beaten up for it? Is your appearance and demeanor socially normative for the gender you were assigned at birth? Even if it turns out everyone around you seems accepting of your heterosexuality, have you ever been afraid they would find out anyway because there was a prevailing social attitude against it or you'd had an unpleasant experience in the past, and there's no way to tell how a new person will be in advance? There are plenty of places where I wouldn't take a job for any amount of money, even if the particular employer were known to be entirely queer-friendly, and that has nothing to do with wanting to discuss my sex life (or, this being Slashdot, lack thereof...) at work and everything to do with not wanting to deal with being a lesbian in the Bible Belt.
So, apparently: we are at war with child porn; we have always been at war with child porn.
You can have a balance between freedom of speech and censorship. The common example of yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind.
You mean the example originally given by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. United States to justify upholding a six month prison sentence for distributing anti-draft pamphlets? Maybe you censorship fans should at least think about the source of these quotes before you use them.
So if you commit a burglary at night and use a flashlight, are you banned for life from ever using electricity? If you get caught dealing drugs and taking orders by cell phone, are you banned from ever having a telephone again?
Cutting someone off from access to communications technology for an indefinite term in modern society is a *very* harsh punishment. It's like these things all get written by some geriatric lawyer who's thinking "Those damn whippersnappers aren't doing anything important on that intarthingy anyway".
You ignored age, and it still only works if you assume all these parameters are uncorrelated. Speaking as someone who was once one of five women in a graduating class of 160 computer science majors, this, rather unfortunately, does not appear to be the case.
On the other hand, I do know two others besides myself now. Well, my girlfriend is more of an OpenBSD person, so maybe that doesn't count. :)