Wow, if only you had told the authors of the tech report how ray tracing worked before they spent all that time working on actually doing the math on it.
So all the negatives of strncpy with none of the positives.
It might be better to restrict the length copied to match the destination rather than the source...
Even if you did that right, you didn't null terminate after the call, and even if you added that extra bit of code you'd be wasting time setting chunks of bytes to 0 because strncpy is retarded.
Ask Lot. Mind you the "men" the people wanted to "have relations" with were in fact angels - whom you would expect would be able to defend themselves with firey swords or something. Lot probably just didn't like his whiny daughters much and saw an opportunity..
If the photographer edits the image in photoshop to add a person who wasn't there to the image, or a building that wasn't there, or some smoke that wasn't there, or some flares that weren't there then we call it a doctored fake image.
If the photographer makes the scene darker than it was or brighter than it was in photoshop then we just call it a processed image, not a fake.
If the photographer chooses what to include in the frame (and what not to) then we also don't call it a fake image.
Doing a copy-n-paste to produce copies of the scene so that there seems to more flares or more smoke is not the same as cleaning up the contrast/brightness or removing dust marks or whatever.
The buildings that got duplicated in the copy-n-paste were not seen by the sensor (well they were seen once, but not multiple times).
If you get my street number wrong the postal service will happily deliver it to the number you specified. If the person who is at that location feels like bouncing it back then it'll get sent back to you as undeliverable - just as the owner of the domain name you typoed to can set things up to do. Or the person who gets it can toss it in the trash - as the owner of the domain you typoed to can do. Or the person can keep it and so what they want with it - just as the owner of the domain you typoed to can do.
And if you typo it as friend@hmail.com it'll go somewhere else as well...
or if you typo it as freind@gmail.com it'll go to someone else too...
Maybe you could try not typoing the address in the first place. Strangely enough when you make a "typo" on the envelope of a letter your letter might end up at the wrong house.
Estoppal would make breaking the encryption OK I suspect - if the copyright holder gave you permission to make a copy. As least if the copyright holder (or an agent thereof) brought the court action.
So yes I guess people do call inhibitors catalysts - learn something new every day I guess...
As for TEL being a catalyst, I'd still argue it isn't because it isn't the TEL that does anything, it's the products of its decomposition which would be classified as catalysts assuming the link you have is correct (I don't know the details - chem eng was about the cat cracking side of petroleum, not the burn it an engine part:)
He just knows more perl than you, the system function is perfectly safe when used like that, the useless quotes around $url indicate he could learn some more perl, but that's not a security issue.
Envoronmentalists have also helped us a great deal. For example eliminating Tetra-ethyl-lead ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead )- a catalyst used to slow down the raction of gasoline burning (a catalyst either speeds up or slows down a reaction by definition).
A catalyst "by definition" lowers the activation energy of a reaction, how you manage to translate that showing down a reaction I don't understand. The other part of the "definition" is that the catalyst is unchanged at the end of the reaction, but tetra-ethyl-lead is decomposed and the by-products help reduce knocking (but you linked to a description of that...) and is not reformed by the end of the reaction.
Re:What's the copy protection like?
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 1
Whereas other people would rather not screw around with disks and even play it with the extra battery instead of the DVD drive in their laptop...
Of course most people would prefer both, no required CD and no phoning home.
But if you check the footnote, that "One theory" is a back of the envelope calculation and some guesses combined together to say it would provide 1000x as much gamma radiation on the Earth as a solar flare...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, if only you had told the authors of the tech report how ray tracing worked before they spent all that time working on actually doing the math on it.
They already have.
It just plain doesn't look like anything vaguely similar to something I'd want to watch. Judging from the TV ads.
Because being outspoken has nothing to do with whether you are in the majority or minority.
You have the variance backwards. Limit wins it by miles...
Heroin, the non-addictive replacement for morphine, worked out so well on the non-addictive side...
Because they weren't already...
So all the negatives of strncpy with none of the positives.
It might be better to restrict the length copied to match the destination rather than the source...
Even if you did that right, you didn't null terminate after the call, and even if you added that extra bit of code you'd be wasting time setting chunks of bytes to 0 because strncpy is retarded.
Ask Lot. Mind you the "men" the people wanted to "have relations" with were in fact angels - whom you would expect would be able to defend themselves with firey swords or something. Lot probably just didn't like his whiny daughters much and saw an opportunity..
Unless you consider the International Space Station to orbit in the atmosphere then that particular test wasn't in the atmosphere...
Try making a copy of a video feed by pointing a camera at the TV screen playing it. Now try it with technology from 1969.
"higher res" understates the quality difference significantly...
If the photographer edits the image in photoshop to add a person who wasn't there to the image, or a building that wasn't there, or some smoke that wasn't there, or some flares that weren't there then we call it a doctored fake image.
If the photographer makes the scene darker than it was or brighter than it was in photoshop then we just call it a processed image, not a fake.
If the photographer chooses what to include in the frame (and what not to) then we also don't call it a fake image.
There really is an obvious difference.
But that's completely unrelated to what happened.
Doing a copy-n-paste to produce copies of the scene so that there seems to more flares or more smoke is not the same as cleaning up the contrast/brightness or removing dust marks or whatever.
The buildings that got duplicated in the copy-n-paste were not seen by the sensor (well they were seen once, but not multiple times).
No they won't.
If you get my street number wrong the postal service will happily deliver it to the number you specified. If the person who is at that location feels like bouncing it back then it'll get sent back to you as undeliverable - just as the owner of the domain name you typoed to can set things up to do. Or the person who gets it can toss it in the trash - as the owner of the domain you typoed to can do. Or the person can keep it and so what they want with it - just as the owner of the domain you typoed to can do.
And if you typo it as friend@hmail.com it'll go somewhere else as well...
or if you typo it as freind@gmail.com it'll go to someone else too...
Maybe you could try not typoing the address in the first place. Strangely enough when you make a "typo" on the envelope of a letter your letter might end up at the wrong house.
But aren't they getting close to the sun all the time? In effect still falling towards it? Seems like it would be perpetual motion were they not?
They will be getting closer due to friction, however, there isn't a lot of friction on a planet moving through space.
Also the solar wind will be providing a force to push them away - though F=ma, and F is tiny, and m is large...
Estoppal would make breaking the encryption OK I suspect - if the copyright holder gave you permission to make a copy. As least if the copyright holder (or an agent thereof) brought the court action.
Every place that speaks English does too, except the USA (and a handful of Pacific nations who caught it from the US).
I was actaully going from memory from my chemistry days at uni - back before I made the switch from chem eng to comp sci. But a google gives:
/ bp/ch22/activate.html#ratet .html
t alyst/Catalyst.htm
:)
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview
http://www.chem.brown.edu/chem12/catalyst/catalys
and of course at some that don't state the speed must be increased:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1046/notes/Kinetics/Ca
http://www.purchon.com/chemistry/catalyst.htm
So yes I guess people do call inhibitors catalysts - learn something new every day I guess...
As for TEL being a catalyst, I'd still argue it isn't because it isn't the TEL that does anything, it's the products of its decomposition which would be classified as catalysts assuming the link you have is correct (I don't know the details - chem eng was about the cat cracking side of petroleum, not the burn it an engine part
He just knows more perl than you, the system function is perfectly safe when used like that, the useless quotes around $url indicate he could learn some more perl, but that's not a security issue.
A catalyst "by definition" lowers the activation energy of a reaction, how you manage to translate that showing down a reaction I don't understand. The other part of the "definition" is that the catalyst is unchanged at the end of the reaction, but tetra-ethyl-lead is decomposed and the by-products help reduce knocking (but you linked to a description of that...) and is not reformed by the end of the reaction.
Whereas other people would rather not screw around with disks and even play it with the extra battery instead of the DVD drive in their laptop...
Of course most people would prefer both, no required CD and no phoning home.
The point being it isn't an "end of the world" scenario backed by huge amounts of science - it's a back of the envelope guess...
But if you check the footnote, that "One theory" is a back of the envelope calculation and some guesses combined together to say it would provide 1000x as much gamma radiation on the Earth as a solar flare...
You're right about adding 100 being a completely retarded way of working out 100x slower.
However, the bad algorithm was 2^n not n^2 (which is also stupid in itself...)