If you're writing a library that messes around in the dark corners of C, you should know exactly what you're doing WRT the standard. And what oddball compilers are still in use in an environment where people are consuming open source libraries? Obviously, you want to cover GCC, clang/llvm, VS, and maybe Intel yourself. For the rest, as the sibling post says, libraries should come with unit tests in the modern world,
More than that, string and vector are just as fast as the vulnerable C alternatives as long as you pre-allocate the buffers to the expected size. It's not rocket science, but the number of times I've heard "but C++ is too slow, we have to use C" makes me cry. With bounds checking in both (hand-written in C, of course), the speed is the same. Without buffer checking in either, the speed is the same.
Compilers remove vastly more code than you seem to think, when optimizing. They always have - this isn't new. You wouldn't want all that spam as warnings, for sure (if you build with warnings as error, as one ought to do, you'd never build anything).
If you're testing only in debug mode, you're doing it wrong. Do your customers run debug? No? Then all your tests must run retail or you fail.
Is this a compiler bug? Doubtful. Chances are it's code that isn't standard that was getting away with its non-standard behavior until the compiler started enforcing this bit.
Compiler flags? Again, test the binaries your users will run.
Actually, this ruling doesn't really matter. You do not need to register a trademark to have a legally defensible trademark! All that was stripped was the registration, not the trademark.
Registering a trademark means you don't have to prove in court that you're the owner, That's often a big deal, but it's meaningless in this case.
They also have Android clients now for everything (plus Windows of course). Outlook.com's web interface is nice IMO - I like it better that gmail today (gmail 10 yrs ago was great and simple, now not so much). MS has also recently make a public promise not to read your email or docs, even to serve you ads (believe that if you will).
There is the option, especially prevalent within academia, of working for your pleasure.
If your salary is paid from the taxes of those of us who do work for money, maybe don't bite the hand that feeds you?
Once you have enough money to keep food in your belly and a roof over your head, increased income has very little impact on happiness
Different people have different utility curves. When someone acts in a way that's sub-optimal according to your values, it's rude (but normal in academia) to assume they're stupid instead of simply having different values.
How many botnets that big are there? Sure, the Russian mafia might manage it (though it would still be non-trivial to make Amazon notice, after all, they call 100M machines hitting their pipe "December"), but I'm struggling to think why they would.
I do remember "Anonymous" tried a DDOS against Amazon once and were laughing at themselves for the compete failure of the effort. Something about the end boss of the internet having a final form.
You certainly wouldn't rent enough servers to dominate the bitcoin pool to make money mining, but you might it you had a different objective (subverting the block chain for one reason or another). But there's a lot of supercomputing projects don't on EC2 these days, as it's not bad by the pricing of supercomputer time (especially Spot pricing), and they do have sizable GPU farms.
The only problems with the reverse strategy is the fact that cloud servers usually charge for outgoing bandwidth (but not incoming), and that law enforcement takes DDOS attacks seriously these days, while they still don't seem to care about bitcoin much (not that either would bother a governmental attacker).
If someone rents 1,000,000 Amazon severs to mine bitcoins, would you pick a DDOS fight with that. Even with special purpose HW, it's unlikely to be a small pipe.
The Tea Party loves folks like SpaceX. NASA is all politics and earmarks anyway. (And climate "science" is more politics and earmarks than science right now, but that a different topic).
You must be new here. Everyone knows Cheetos are the food of choice for the Slashdot basement virgin legions! No other snack food leaves proper orange fingerprints on your D&D character sheet, c'mon.
Remember that turning worked during the war with the 40s equivalent of geek girls - intelligent, driven, not shrinking violets. He wasn't talking about that shallow crap. He was talking about the fact that in the 40s even geek girls had a quite different perspective than men.
So, the bot needed to not only pass as human, but have a sufficiently deep understanding of the human condition to know what different sorts of answers to everyday questions a man and a woman would give, without simply being a 40s stereotype.
But I disagree - I don't think an understanding of the human condition specifically is in any way needed for sapience or self awareness, but an broader sort of awareness as one member of society. What's needed (if we discard the supernatural) is the ability to model the world (including the social aspects) abstractly and make decisions based on mentally evolving that model to see the likely outcomes of choices - as opposed to following a set of rules.
Democracy is no virtue in and of itself. It's rather dependent on leadership to be more than looting the public treasury. That's the premise of a republic, after all: an attempt to get a better government than we deserve.
The decadent state of the press today is a reflection of the people's choices.
True enough, though arguably we're just going through the death throes of broadcast news and the birth pangs of blogging-based news.
I've been to several more modern mainstream theaters in the past couple of years, and they do seem to be changing for the better. Well cleaned and comfy seats, and pre-movie warnings that threatened to eject you for phone abuse (not that they actually would, but at least it deters some). If I go after the movie's been out 2 weeks, so that there are just a handful in the theater, it tends to be OK. But the volume thing just makes some theaters impossible.
Of course, if I were in Texas, I'd have better options!
Coincidentally, I was talking to day with a dev who used to be on the WinFS team at MS. Apparantly it crashed on the rocks of SQL server perf on small systems (and that was a surprise why?). Some days I missed the old days when you were forced to embrace simplicity over vast over-general systems.
To both questions in the thread: it's the dev team's job to pick reasonable defaults. Obviously, budget will influence your ability to base that on real user data, but then budget affects almost everything. Sometimes the right choices can be obvious (e.g., a game with checkpoints - you already defined where you go back to if something goes wrong, might as well make that true out-of-character as well), sometimes you just have to use your best judgment, and let the expert user change the defaults. Undo on a phone? How much content is the user likely to create in the first place? Undo in an IDE? Go wild.
Not to say you shouldn't take advantage of the opportunity for a graceful shutdown, but I've met too many devs who just don't stop to think what would happen if power were lost at any random point - at least don't corrupt the user's files if you crash!
Leadership is a thing. That means doing what's right for the people you represent, even when it's somewhat unpopular with them at first - without being aloof and refusing to explain why you're right! That was the huge problem we had with the healthcare non-debate. Politicians fled from town halls, wouldn't explain the bill, wouldn't explain the particulars of why it was better for everyone, it was just "we must to something, and this is some thing, so we're doing it". If a politician has a sensible explanation that goes into details, even if don't agree with it, at least it shows he's thinking about something other than contributors. And if his logic leads to abject failure, we'll have reason to reject the same argument in the future, rather than everything being "red team vs blue team, what do issues have to do with it?"
The press of course has a real role to play there, one they're utterly failing at, to remind people that the issues are substantive and demand logical explanation from both sides (but of course screaming talking-point soundbites at each other gets more viewers, so that's what we get).
With a worthwhile system, you can still have the appearance of folders if you want that. That's as UI thing. But there's no reason for layout on disk to mirror that. The mainframe architecture I developed for in the 90s worked just that way: no unix/windows-style file system ("files" were fixed partitions), but the user saw files while the disk saw efficiently-tiled file data, and a (simple, fast, non-relational) DB held all the metadata. Directories existed only as a UI affordance, not as a filesystem thing.
Tagging is easy and worthwhile to exactly the extent it's automated and effortless, or like iTunes you pay someone to do it all for you. For business docs, one way or the other you get that (all the daily reports the system would run, for example, were appropriately tagged by the code that created them).
Slashdot Mirror
Flatly false.
Good code has plenty of null-checking, for example, most of which a clever compiler can prove is unreachable. It's still completely good code.
Compilers remove code that is provably unreachable on this build. Good defensive coding includes protection against future code changes.
If you're writing a library that messes around in the dark corners of C, you should know exactly what you're doing WRT the standard. And what oddball compilers are still in use in an environment where people are consuming open source libraries? Obviously, you want to cover GCC, clang/llvm, VS, and maybe Intel yourself. For the rest, as the sibling post says, libraries should come with unit tests in the modern world,
Your complier constantly removes tons of unneeded code under optimization. It can't possibly be a warning to do this, or you'd drown in them.
More than that, string and vector are just as fast as the vulnerable C alternatives as long as you pre-allocate the buffers to the expected size. It's not rocket science, but the number of times I've heard "but C++ is too slow, we have to use C" makes me cry. With bounds checking in both (hand-written in C, of course), the speed is the same. Without buffer checking in either, the speed is the same.
Compilers remove vastly more code than you seem to think, when optimizing. They always have - this isn't new. You wouldn't want all that spam as warnings, for sure (if you build with warnings as error, as one ought to do, you'd never build anything).
If you're testing only in debug mode, you're doing it wrong. Do your customers run debug? No? Then all your tests must run retail or you fail.
Is this a compiler bug? Doubtful. Chances are it's code that isn't standard that was getting away with its non-standard behavior until the compiler started enforcing this bit.
Compiler flags? Again, test the binaries your users will run.
Testing can catch a lot, if not half-assed.
Actually, this ruling doesn't really matter. You do not need to register a trademark to have a legally defensible trademark! All that was stripped was the registration, not the trademark.
Registering a trademark means you don't have to prove in court that you're the owner, That's often a big deal, but it's meaningless in this case.
They also have Android clients now for everything (plus Windows of course). Outlook.com's web interface is nice IMO - I like it better that gmail today (gmail 10 yrs ago was great and simple, now not so much). MS has also recently make a public promise not to read your email or docs, even to serve you ads (believe that if you will).
Ah, there's an important typo there. Google's motto is actuall "Don't, be evil". It's a common misunderstanding.
There is the option, especially prevalent within academia, of working for your pleasure.
If your salary is paid from the taxes of those of us who do work for money, maybe don't bite the hand that feeds you?
Once you have enough money to keep food in your belly and a roof over your head, increased income has very little impact on happiness
Different people have different utility curves. When someone acts in a way that's sub-optimal according to your values, it's rude (but normal in academia) to assume they're stupid instead of simply having different values.
How many botnets that big are there? Sure, the Russian mafia might manage it (though it would still be non-trivial to make Amazon notice, after all, they call 100M machines hitting their pipe "December"), but I'm struggling to think why they would.
I do remember "Anonymous" tried a DDOS against Amazon once and were laughing at themselves for the compete failure of the effort. Something about the end boss of the internet having a final form.
You certainly wouldn't rent enough servers to dominate the bitcoin pool to make money mining, but you might it you had a different objective (subverting the block chain for one reason or another). But there's a lot of supercomputing projects don't on EC2 these days, as it's not bad by the pricing of supercomputer time (especially Spot pricing), and they do have sizable GPU farms.
The only problems with the reverse strategy is the fact that cloud servers usually charge for outgoing bandwidth (but not incoming), and that law enforcement takes DDOS attacks seriously these days, while they still don't seem to care about bitcoin much (not that either would bother a governmental attacker).
If someone rents 1,000,000 Amazon severs to mine bitcoins, would you pick a DDOS fight with that. Even with special purpose HW, it's unlikely to be a small pipe.
The Tea Party loves folks like SpaceX. NASA is all politics and earmarks anyway. (And climate "science" is more politics and earmarks than science right now, but that a different topic).
Ha ha. How ribald! Your mockery of America is quite original and unexpected. Why, you must be quite the intelligent fellow with such novel wit.
You must be new here. Everyone knows Cheetos are the food of choice for the Slashdot basement virgin legions! No other snack food leaves proper orange fingerprints on your D&D character sheet, c'mon.
Spot especially, as it's relatively cheap - quite cheap as supercomputing cluster time goes!
And why wouldn't there be?
Remember that turning worked during the war with the 40s equivalent of geek girls - intelligent, driven, not shrinking violets. He wasn't talking about that shallow crap. He was talking about the fact that in the 40s even geek girls had a quite different perspective than men.
So, the bot needed to not only pass as human, but have a sufficiently deep understanding of the human condition to know what different sorts of answers to everyday questions a man and a woman would give, without simply being a 40s stereotype.
But I disagree - I don't think an understanding of the human condition specifically is in any way needed for sapience or self awareness, but an broader sort of awareness as one member of society. What's needed (if we discard the supernatural) is the ability to model the world (including the social aspects) abstractly and make decisions based on mentally evolving that model to see the likely outcomes of choices - as opposed to following a set of rules.
Sure, but that's orthogonal to democracy
Democracy is no virtue in and of itself. It's rather dependent on leadership to be more than looting the public treasury. That's the premise of a republic, after all: an attempt to get a better government than we deserve.
The decadent state of the press today is a reflection of the people's choices.
True enough, though arguably we're just going through the death throes of broadcast news and the birth pangs of blogging-based news.
I've been to several more modern mainstream theaters in the past couple of years, and they do seem to be changing for the better. Well cleaned and comfy seats, and pre-movie warnings that threatened to eject you for phone abuse (not that they actually would, but at least it deters some). If I go after the movie's been out 2 weeks, so that there are just a handful in the theater, it tends to be OK. But the volume thing just makes some theaters impossible.
Of course, if I were in Texas, I'd have better options!
Coincidentally, I was talking to day with a dev who used to be on the WinFS team at MS. Apparantly it crashed on the rocks of SQL server perf on small systems (and that was a surprise why?). Some days I missed the old days when you were forced to embrace simplicity over vast over-general systems.
To both questions in the thread: it's the dev team's job to pick reasonable defaults. Obviously, budget will influence your ability to base that on real user data, but then budget affects almost everything. Sometimes the right choices can be obvious (e.g., a game with checkpoints - you already defined where you go back to if something goes wrong, might as well make that true out-of-character as well), sometimes you just have to use your best judgment, and let the expert user change the defaults. Undo on a phone? How much content is the user likely to create in the first place? Undo in an IDE? Go wild.
Not to say you shouldn't take advantage of the opportunity for a graceful shutdown, but I've met too many devs who just don't stop to think what would happen if power were lost at any random point - at least don't corrupt the user's files if you crash!
Leadership is a thing. That means doing what's right for the people you represent, even when it's somewhat unpopular with them at first - without being aloof and refusing to explain why you're right! That was the huge problem we had with the healthcare non-debate. Politicians fled from town halls, wouldn't explain the bill, wouldn't explain the particulars of why it was better for everyone, it was just "we must to something, and this is some thing, so we're doing it". If a politician has a sensible explanation that goes into details, even if don't agree with it, at least it shows he's thinking about something other than contributors. And if his logic leads to abject failure, we'll have reason to reject the same argument in the future, rather than everything being "red team vs blue team, what do issues have to do with it?"
The press of course has a real role to play there, one they're utterly failing at, to remind people that the issues are substantive and demand logical explanation from both sides (but of course screaming talking-point soundbites at each other gets more viewers, so that's what we get).
With a worthwhile system, you can still have the appearance of folders if you want that. That's as UI thing. But there's no reason for layout on disk to mirror that. The mainframe architecture I developed for in the 90s worked just that way: no unix/windows-style file system ("files" were fixed partitions), but the user saw files while the disk saw efficiently-tiled file data, and a (simple, fast, non-relational) DB held all the metadata. Directories existed only as a UI affordance, not as a filesystem thing.
Tagging is easy and worthwhile to exactly the extent it's automated and effortless, or like iTunes you pay someone to do it all for you. For business docs, one way or the other you get that (all the daily reports the system would run, for example, were appropriately tagged by the code that created them).