Because an unloaded personal defense weapon is as useful as a brick.
Interestingly, though, an unloaded pump-action shotgun is of some use. The sound it makes when you cycle the pump is one that everyone recognizes, and it's loud enough to be heard through a typical interior door. There's a reason Mossberg has used the slogan "Nothing else sounds like a Mossberg".
There was a time when you didn't have to carry bricks. Because streets were made from cobblestones.
A paving stone at short range is more effective than a club or sabre. The disappearance of cobble and paving stones has been more of a deterrent to the overthrowing of governments than machine guns, tear bombs and automatic pistols. For it is in the clashes when the government does not want to kill its citizens but to club, ride down and beat them into submission with the flat of a sabre that a government is overthrown. Any government that uses machine guns once too often on its citizens will fall automatically. Regimes are kept in with the club and the blackjack, not the machine gun or bayonet, and while there were paving stones there was never an unarmed mob to club.
I thought bunch of nerds gave a drubbing to a bouncer at Google-sponsored party.
Just out of curiousity, when have a bunch of nerds -- ever -- given a drubbing to a bouncer? (Physical drubbings only please, chicken-shit revenge tactics don't count...)
It could be mistaken as being an official JD product. I assume JD sells merchandise (including books of some sort) in addition to the drinks themselves.
Exactly. That's the whole point. They're not protecting just the JD name. They're protecting the look of the bottle (all the swirly lines and stuff). If they don't do this, then you get into a situation where low end producers produce similar looking bottles with a different name. JD doesn't want their design to mean "Whiskey". They want to make sure it means "Jack Daniels Whiskey". The design is as important to their marketing as the name. Think about it. Suppose you had your grandma's reading glasses on, and went into a liquor store. One bottle has a generic white label bottle, with the words Jack Daniels Tennesse Whiskey in Helvetica on it. The bottle next to it has that book label on it. Which one do you think you'd pick up, if you couldn't see well?
He mentioned it briefly, and said that it was different because of the filtering used, or something. But yeah, that was about it. He also didn't mention vodka, gin, or rum. This doesn't really suprise me, though, since we were, after all, at a burbon tasting...
That's classy.
Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?
It may well be the entire industry that acts that way. A couple of years ago I was at a tasting event with the either Grandson or Great Grandson of Jim Beam, and he was the same way. He had great things to say about all of his Kentucky competitors' products. I think their view of things is to promote Kentucky Burbon, not just their own label. A rising tide lifts all ships kind of thing.
Well who can blame him? I couldn't make any sense of the comments on/. about how 48fps looks "too real". Isn't that kinda the point? To make the TV show or movie look like just a window on another world? It's supposed to look real. (This reminds me of those persons who claimed CDs or lossless AACs were too perfect, and they'd rather hear the sizzle of downloaded MP3s. Illogical.)
Dude. If you have to tell people over and over that it's better because they don't see it in your demos, then you probably ought to think twice before spending a whole lot of money on it. If I were a theater operator, and Pete comes in and tells me I should spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade my equipment, but the buzz on social media is "I wouldn't pay more to see it in this format" why would I do it?
This seems a lot like the studios and Samsung screaming at me that I should buy a 3D TV and blu-ray player, even though the ones I've tried at Best Buy are fairly craptacular.
I'm with you on the CD / AAC thing, though. If you want to add MP3 sizzle to them, that's a straightforward problem. Going the other way, not so much...
Really, though, how much more fun is it? At some point, I don't think it matters. I play a lot of battlefield 3, and i run an HD6950. I can choose to run one monitor with all the settings turned way up at 1920x1080, or I can turn on all three at medium settings, and scale them back to 1366x768 (4098 x 768). The eyefinity setup is much more imersive, which to me says that photorealism doesn't matter as much as giving more of a sense that you're in an environment.
Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...
It actually isn't all that great, at least on the video. Part of the magic of the fireworks is how they move and expand. With that many going off that close to each other, it just turns into a bright pink blur. The beauty of the motion is gone. Fifteen seconds of a really good finalle seems better to me than 15 seconds of really bright blur.
In many cases, you're correct. In others, not so. It varies by compiler. This is one of the problems with the C language; it isn't equipped to deal well with multiple address spaces that overlap. If you're a compiler maker, and you need the ability to point to two different address spaces with the same numerical range, you're screwed. Either you infer meaning that isn't there in the standard (e.g. const means Flash, non-const means ram), you define non-standard keywords such as ROM, or you do run-time translation of addresses (I've only seen one compiler that tried to do this, and it was a disaster...).
Yeah, that's fair. I may be biased because around here when the C guy messes up a java app, it crashes. When the Java guy messes up a C application, a brushless motor goes berserk and burns itself out. We don't let crap like that happen on production servers or on really expensive hardware, so not much damage is done in either case, but the Java guys' reputations suffer from the fact that you can't smell a C programmer's Java app crashing...
The funny thing about this, is how often higher-level languages let you sweep things under the rug. For instance, how often have you seen some hack take a big, complicated function, and call it inside a try/catch block that just throws out the exceptions? In C, these programs usually crash spectacularly. If you run them under GDB or similar, you can see where they crashed.
Exactly. My company does a lot of different things from embedded systems to web interfaces, and, generally speaking, the C guys write better Java code than the Java guys write C code.
No, he's right. On systems where your constants exist in a different medium than your variables (such as microcontrollers where variables are in RAM but constants are in flash), declaring a string as const or not const can have a big impact on what resources you eat up. Typcially, there's often a #pragma or non-standard keyword such as ROM that goes along with this.
Think of it as standardized assembly programming
on
What's To Love About C?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
C is going to stay around for a long time in embedded systems. In this environment many microcontrollers still have 4k or less of RAM, and cost less than a postage stamp. In these systems there is virtually no abstraction. You write directly to hardware registers, and typically don't use any dynamically allocated memory. You use C because, assuming you understand the instruciton set, you can pretty much predict what assembly instructions it's going to generate and create very efficient code, without the hassle of writing assembly. Aditionally, your code is portable for unit testing or, to a lesser degree, other microcontrollers. This allows you to write a program that will run in 3.2 k of ram, rather than 4k, which allows a manufacturer to save 4 cents on the microcontroller they pick. This saves you $40,000 when you're making a million of something.
Slashdot Mirror
Because an unloaded personal defense weapon is as useful as a brick.
Interestingly, though, an unloaded pump-action shotgun is of some use. The sound it makes when you cycle the pump is one that everyone recognizes, and it's loud enough to be heard through a typical interior door. There's a reason Mossberg has used the slogan "Nothing else sounds like a Mossberg".
A paving stone at short range is more effective than a club or sabre. The disappearance of cobble and paving stones has been more of a deterrent to the overthrowing of governments than machine guns, tear bombs and automatic pistols. For it is in the clashes when the government does not want to kill its citizens but to club, ride down and beat them into submission with the flat of a sabre that a government is overthrown. Any government that uses machine guns once too often on its citizens will fall automatically. Regimes are kept in with the club and the blackjack, not the machine gun or bayonet, and while there were paving stones there was never an unarmed mob to club.
-Ernest Hemmingway, Death in the Afternoon
I thought bunch of nerds gave a drubbing to a bouncer at Google-sponsored party.
Just out of curiousity, when have a bunch of nerds -- ever -- given a drubbing to a bouncer? (Physical drubbings only please, chicken-shit revenge tactics don't count...)
It could be mistaken as being an official JD product. I assume JD sells merchandise (including books of some sort) in addition to the drinks themselves.
Exactly. That's the whole point. They're not protecting just the JD name. They're protecting the look of the bottle (all the swirly lines and stuff). If they don't do this, then you get into a situation where low end producers produce similar looking bottles with a different name. JD doesn't want their design to mean "Whiskey". They want to make sure it means "Jack Daniels Whiskey". The design is as important to their marketing as the name. Think about it. Suppose you had your grandma's reading glasses on, and went into a liquor store. One bottle has a generic white label bottle, with the words Jack Daniels Tennesse Whiskey in Helvetica on it. The bottle next to it has that book label on it. Which one do you think you'd pick up, if you couldn't see well?
He mentioned it briefly, and said that it was different because of the filtering used, or something. But yeah, that was about it. He also didn't mention vodka, gin, or rum. This doesn't really suprise me, though, since we were, after all, at a burbon tasting...
That's classy. Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?
It may well be the entire industry that acts that way. A couple of years ago I was at a tasting event with the either Grandson or Great Grandson of Jim Beam, and he was the same way. He had great things to say about all of his Kentucky competitors' products. I think their view of things is to promote Kentucky Burbon, not just their own label. A rising tide lifts all ships kind of thing.
Well who can blame him? I couldn't make any sense of the comments on /. about how 48fps looks "too real". Isn't that kinda the point? To make the TV show or movie look like just a window on another world? It's supposed to look real. (This reminds me of those persons who claimed CDs or lossless AACs were too perfect, and they'd rather hear the sizzle of downloaded MP3s. Illogical.)
Dude. If you have to tell people over and over that it's better because they don't see it in your demos, then you probably ought to think twice before spending a whole lot of money on it. If I were a theater operator, and Pete comes in and tells me I should spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade my equipment, but the buzz on social media is "I wouldn't pay more to see it in this format" why would I do it?
This seems a lot like the studios and Samsung screaming at me that I should buy a 3D TV and blu-ray player, even though the ones I've tried at Best Buy are fairly craptacular.
I'm with you on the CD / AAC thing, though. If you want to add MP3 sizzle to them, that's a straightforward problem. Going the other way, not so much...
Really, though, how much more fun is it? At some point, I don't think it matters. I play a lot of battlefield 3, and i run an HD6950. I can choose to run one monitor with all the settings turned way up at 1920x1080, or I can turn on all three at medium settings, and scale them back to 1366x768 (4098 x 768). The eyefinity setup is much more imersive, which to me says that photorealism doesn't matter as much as giving more of a sense that you're in an environment.
NSFW to me, means my boss walks by and sees what I'm looking at. If I don't want to talk about it (as in this case), its NSFW.
Note to all: Wikipedia entries are usually safe for work. Not today...
Hum. Your first posts are today... I'm thinking Astroturfer...
You're either insane, a troll, or a more subtle than average astroturfer. Maybe that can be tomorrow's Slashdot poll....
I am _so_ sick of hearing this shit. I'm leaving. And I'm taking Suri with me.
Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...
Well, there's this one guy who owns five of them. That skews the average...
This is why George Washington is my favorite president. To have that sort of power, and to set a precident of giving it up is amazing.
I can read it just fine. It's usally when the Scotts try to talk that I can't understand...
It actually isn't all that great, at least on the video. Part of the magic of the fireworks is how they move and expand. With that many going off that close to each other, it just turns into a bright pink blur. The beauty of the motion is gone. Fifteen seconds of a really good finalle seems better to me than 15 seconds of really bright blur.
Much more entertaining, I thought, was the CNN video of a fireworks stand that caught fire.
I can just hear the cops on the side of the road... "Move along people... move along... Nothing to see here..."
In many cases, you're correct. In others, not so. It varies by compiler. This is one of the problems with the C language; it isn't equipped to deal well with multiple address spaces that overlap. If you're a compiler maker, and you need the ability to point to two different address spaces with the same numerical range, you're screwed. Either you infer meaning that isn't there in the standard (e.g. const means Flash, non-const means ram), you define non-standard keywords such as ROM, or you do run-time translation of addresses (I've only seen one compiler that tried to do this, and it was a disaster...).
Yeah, that's fair. I may be biased because around here when the C guy messes up a java app, it crashes. When the Java guy messes up a C application, a brushless motor goes berserk and burns itself out. We don't let crap like that happen on production servers or on really expensive hardware, so not much damage is done in either case, but the Java guys' reputations suffer from the fact that you can't smell a C programmer's Java app crashing...
The funny thing about this, is how often higher-level languages let you sweep things under the rug. For instance, how often have you seen some hack take a big, complicated function, and call it inside a try/catch block that just throws out the exceptions? In C, these programs usually crash spectacularly. If you run them under GDB or similar, you can see where they crashed.
Repeat after me: C++ is not equal to C
Wait. Did you mean equal "=", or equal "==" ?
Exactly. My company does a lot of different things from embedded systems to web interfaces, and, generally speaking, the C guys write better Java code than the Java guys write C code.
No, he's right. On systems where your constants exist in a different medium than your variables (such as microcontrollers where variables are in RAM but constants are in flash), declaring a string as const or not const can have a big impact on what resources you eat up. Typcially, there's often a #pragma or non-standard keyword such as ROM that goes along with this.
C is going to stay around for a long time in embedded systems. In this environment many microcontrollers still have 4k or less of RAM, and cost less than a postage stamp. In these systems there is virtually no abstraction. You write directly to hardware registers, and typically don't use any dynamically allocated memory. You use C because, assuming you understand the instruciton set, you can pretty much predict what assembly instructions it's going to generate and create very efficient code, without the hassle of writing assembly. Aditionally, your code is portable for unit testing or, to a lesser degree, other microcontrollers. This allows you to write a program that will run in 3.2 k of ram, rather than 4k, which allows a manufacturer to save 4 cents on the microcontroller they pick. This saves you $40,000 when you're making a million of something.