In fact, the very first Unics application offered text processing support for the patent application process at Bell Labs
If you read that sentence carefully, he doesn't claim to be referring to Unix, he's simply stating that the first application written for the operating system that was to become Unix, was a text processing app. It's not a mistake. It's the author showing that he knows what he's talking about.
The way I read it was that, in the event of a nuclear war, some of the warheads would be biological, rather than nuclear. The idea being, I suppose, that the few that survived nuclear armageddon would be wiped out by a very nasty disease. The same principle as twin-strain antibiotic doses, only somewhat less benign.
There is extra resistance to get from ACC into LOCK and you must be heavly drunk to accomplish that. You flick the switch from on to ACC to kill the engine and immediately back into ON.
There's a reason why the ignition key isn't usually in a convenient position to play with whilst driving, and that's to discourage idiots from fiddling with it whilst driving. Unfortunately, you seem to have found a workaround that involves leaning around the steering wheel whilst cresting the brow of the hill. That, my friend, is dangerous. If something unexpected were to happy whilst you were performing your 'flicking' operation, (for instance a collision caused by you groping behind your steering wheel whilst cresting a hill), the likelihood is that you'd be trying to recover whilst moving at speed and with your steering locked.
I'll give you your second point, about battery drain, because I'm in a hurry to get to your third point.
That's not happening at all if you stick in the righ lane
I'm not sure here whether you mean right-hand lane, or correct lane for your speed.
If you mean right-hand lane, you're probably talking about the slow lane in a country that drives on the right. Claiming that it doesn't annoy anybody at all assumes that you are driving faster in the slow lane than anyone else in that lane, otherwise at some point somebody who was driving faster than you would have caught up with you. Now obviously I'm no expert in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that a policy of consistently driving faster than anybody else in the slow lane doesn't quite square with your claims of hyper fuel-efficiency.
On the other hand, if you're talking about being in the correct lane, you're implying that you change lanes as necessary. Lane changing probably means that your speed increases and decreases as necessary. However, because you seem to think that it's a good thing to accelerate whilst in too high a gear, your acceleration is going to be slower than just about every normal person on the road. I repeat, that is likely to annoy the long queue of traffic behind you.
Get your facts straight! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the facts of the case are these. The deceased, keen to save a buck or two, was known to engage in some unusual motoring habits. On the fateful day in question, travelling at 40mph and approaching the brow of a hill, he took his eyes from the road and a hand from the wheel, leant forward and was in the process of switching off his vehicle's ignition when unseen by him because he was looking down in the process of switching off his vehicle's ignition, a large truck was approaching from a side road. Hearing the truck's horn, the dearly departed glanced up. We can only conjecture as to what exact thoughts went through his poor head at this time, but it seems clear that the shock of what he saw caused him to involuntarily 'flick' his wrist a deadly one-sixteenths of a revolution further than he intended, thus engaging the steering lock. Unable to steer, and unable to accelerate out of danger due to being no less than two gears too high for his speed, our intrepid fuel economist got himself creamed. The only bright spot in this whole sorry affair is that his heirs and successors were able to salvage almost a half a tank of gasoline from the wreckage.
Good luck, and try not to take anybody else out, in your quest to fulfil your Darwinian destiny.
This has got to be a joke. Aside from, as you say, the adverse affects upon the brakes of driving whilst the engine is not running, on most modern cars (the exception being Saabs) the ignition key is usually also how the steering lock is engaged. I'm now imagining some lunatic in a car slowly accelerating down a hill with no steering and brakes that are the mechanical equivalent of a placebo. That might be how Daffy Duck drives the idiot-mobile, but just about the only thing that it has going for it in the real world is that this guy would probably eliminate himself from the gene pool within days of getting his driver's licence. Unfortunately, he'd probably take out a few other people with him.
I'm also wondering about the idea of turning the engine off at red traffic lights. It seems to me that this will result in an immediate fuel saving, but restarting the engine is going to cause a drain on the car's battery. Assuming that the alternator hasn't been removed to give a couple of extra MPG, the extra work needed to recharge the battery to its previous level is going to use some extra fuel. This also assumes a zero-cost start for the engine.
Finally, driving everywhere in the wrong gear is just plain wrong. Aside from the slow acceleration, exacerbated by the 'soft touch' on the pedal, that is likely to annoy the long queue of traffic behind you, going around a corner in too high a gear is dangerous. It can adversely affect a car's handling.
they require you to 'know' what the relationship is before you make your decision!
Anybody that is unable to determine the relationship beween components within a software system, has no business taking part in the development of software. Of course it's required to know what the relationship is. The point is to take the knowledge of that relationship, and apply it in a consistent and practical way to the logical model.
In 'The C++ Programming Language', Stroustrup goes to some lengths to emphasise the need to think about relationships between classes. IIRC, he uses the examples of windows and buttons. A specialised window 'is a' window, and so inherits from a window base-class; a window 'has a' button. It gets a bit murkier then, because Stroustrup points out that a button can itself be a specialised window, and so shows that inheritance (is a), and composition (has a), aren't mutually exclusive.
What you are deciding when you have to choose between inheritance or composition (or neither) is what the relationship is.
I disagree. During the initial modelling of the system, the relationship between the components should be examined and, if necessary, clarified. At the end of this phase, you should have a logical model. From the logical model, you should be able to construct a physical model. It is at the physical model stage that the relationships are formalised using inheritance and composition.
If you subclass and add methods in your class there is nothing to stop the original class adding new identically named methods in a subsequent release.
I've never found fragile base-classes to be a problem in Java, where it's a lot easier to override a method than in C#. In Java, by default all methods are virtual, and therefore can be overridden. In C#, however, a method has to be explicitly declared to be virtual before it can be overridden by a derived class.
It is generally much better to favour composition over inheritance unless a class specifically documents that it is intended to be subclassed - eg/ abstract classes.
I think that you're wrong here. There shouldn't be any reason at all to favour composition over inheritance, or vice-versa. Both approaches are equally valid, depending upon the circumstances.
In college, many moons ago, I was taught a simple rule for determining whether to use composition or inheritance:
If it's an 'is a' relationship, use inheritance.
If it's an 'has a' relationsip, use composition.
If it's neither sort of relationship, keep the classes separate.
Always favouring composition over inheritance harks back to the dark days of COM, where inheritance was a no-no.
Re:I will now ask a moron question, but a serious
on
Remotely Crash OpenBSD
·
· Score: 1
I think that it means that you need a patched Linux kernel in order to generate and send the borked packets that cause the crash on an OpenBSD box. The modded network stack is used on a Linux machine to crash an OpenBSD machine.
I usually try to avoid arguing with idiots, but for you I'll make an exception.
Wow name calling, boy you sure now how to discuss differences with intelligence.
You call somebody a thief because they disagree with you, and then you act all indignant when you get insulted. One day you might figure out that being patronising doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look stupid. Grow up.
Yup, you've got me on that one. I should have read the FAQ. I guess that does make it comparitively good value for here in the UK.
I've never liked the way that the sales tax gets added at the counter, over in the states. I figured that the shops did it to make things look cheaper, but I find it annoying.
On the subject of legal music downloads here in the UK, does anybody have any info about the HMV download site? What sort of formats it provides, choice of music, that sort of thing. It seems like it could be good value, but I can't get it to work with Konqueror, so I'll have to wait until I get home to have a look around.
So, why are they ripping off the British buyers, then? According to this, they're charging 0.99UKP per song, when they should be charging 0.74UKP. That's a 25% markup. What's the explanation for a UK company charging substantially more in their home market, than they're charging elsewhere?
As a developer, I use FreeBSD at work, and OSX at home. On OSX I now use darwinports, rather than Fink, after having a kernel panic caused by Fink. I don't particularly blame Fink, as it's still in beta, but as that was my first (and last so far) kernel panic in OSX, I thought that I'd give something else a try until it was more stable.
Personally, I think that darwinports is slightly easier to use than Fink, but there's not a lot of difference. The downside is that there are a lot more packages available in Fink, although the number for darwinports is increasing steadily.
My only real gripe with darwinports is that, by default, it installs packages into/opt, which is a bit too Solaris-like for me. That's easy enough to change, though.
In comparison to the ports system on FreeBSD, darwinports is easier to use. With darwinports, installing a package is as easy as 'ports install package', whereas in FreeBSD ports, you need to cd to the appropriate directory and then do a 'make install'. As a developer, I've got no problems using makefiles, but I can see how they might put off some non-developers.
You're running the benchmarks on a slower machine, under a different operating system, compiled with an earlier version of the compiler, and you were browsing a web site while running the benchmarks, and you're surprised that your results are different to his? Under those circumstances, I would guess that using (almost) the same compiler flags as him means very little.
The Fairey Rotodyne was built nearly fifty years ago. Like the Dragonfly, it used (what was then called) tip-jet rotors, so there was no need for a counter-torque rotor on the tail.
The Rotodyne was advanced technology for its day, but it was killed by the politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
...blah blah blah!
Netcraft confirms it...
Extra karma for you, SIGFPE. You have dispelled all doubt in my mind that moderators are full of sh*t. I'm going to giggling for a week over this one.
I also loved the cosmic ray detector thing. I used some magnets pulled out from an old hard drive. +3 informative. Priceless.
Checked out your home page. Those are mighty cool robots. Not bad for someone who has no talent for anything practical.
Hope I haven't blown your cover. Have a good one.
Not so.
In fact, the very first Unics application offered text processing support for the patent application process at Bell Labs
If you read that sentence carefully, he doesn't claim to be referring to Unix, he's simply stating that the first application written for the operating system that was to become Unix, was a text processing app. It's not a mistake. It's the author showing that he knows what he's talking about.
Unix is a shortening of Unics. As in Multics.
Feel stupid now?
Apple Computer Inc. 1976-1986
Learned many things, including do's and don'ts for building executive teams
Best. Resume. Ever.
The way I read it was that, in the event of a nuclear war, some of the warheads would be biological, rather than nuclear. The idea being, I suppose, that the few that survived nuclear armageddon would be wiped out by a very nasty disease. The same principle as twin-strain antibiotic doses, only somewhat less benign.
Hey, daffy!
There is extra resistance to get from ACC into LOCK and you must be heavly drunk to accomplish that. You flick the switch from on to ACC to kill the engine and immediately back into ON.
There's a reason why the ignition key isn't usually in a convenient position to play with whilst driving, and that's to discourage idiots from fiddling with it whilst driving. Unfortunately, you seem to have found a workaround that involves leaning around the steering wheel whilst cresting the brow of the hill. That, my friend, is dangerous. If something unexpected were to happy whilst you were performing your 'flicking' operation, (for instance a collision caused by you groping behind your steering wheel whilst cresting a hill), the likelihood is that you'd be trying to recover whilst moving at speed and with your steering locked.
I'll give you your second point, about battery drain, because I'm in a hurry to get to your third point.
That's not happening at all if you stick in the righ lane
I'm not sure here whether you mean right-hand lane, or correct lane for your speed.
If you mean right-hand lane, you're probably talking about the slow lane in a country that drives on the right. Claiming that it doesn't annoy anybody at all assumes that you are driving faster in the slow lane than anyone else in that lane, otherwise at some point somebody who was driving faster than you would have caught up with you. Now obviously I'm no expert in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that a policy of consistently driving faster than anybody else in the slow lane doesn't quite square with your claims of hyper fuel-efficiency.
On the other hand, if you're talking about being in the correct lane, you're implying that you change lanes as necessary. Lane changing probably means that your speed increases and decreases as necessary. However, because you seem to think that it's a good thing to accelerate whilst in too high a gear, your acceleration is going to be slower than just about every normal person on the road. I repeat, that is likely to annoy the long queue of traffic behind you.
Get your facts straight!
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the facts of the case are these. The deceased, keen to save a buck or two, was known to engage in some unusual motoring habits. On the fateful day in question, travelling at 40mph and approaching the brow of a hill, he took his eyes from the road and a hand from the wheel, leant forward and was in the process of switching off his vehicle's ignition when unseen by him because he was looking down in the process of switching off his vehicle's ignition, a large truck was approaching from a side road. Hearing the truck's horn, the dearly departed glanced up. We can only conjecture as to what exact thoughts went through his poor head at this time, but it seems clear that the shock of what he saw caused him to involuntarily 'flick' his wrist a deadly one-sixteenths of a revolution further than he intended, thus engaging the steering lock. Unable to steer, and unable to accelerate out of danger due to being no less than two gears too high for his speed, our intrepid fuel economist got himself creamed. The only bright spot in this whole sorry affair is that his heirs and successors were able to salvage almost a half a tank of gasoline from the wreckage.
Good luck, and try not to take anybody else out, in your quest to fulfil your Darwinian destiny.
This has got to be a joke. Aside from, as you say, the adverse affects upon the brakes of driving whilst the engine is not running, on most modern cars (the exception being Saabs) the ignition key is usually also how the steering lock is engaged. I'm now imagining some lunatic in a car slowly accelerating down a hill with no steering and brakes that are the mechanical equivalent of a placebo. That might be how Daffy Duck drives the idiot-mobile, but just about the only thing that it has going for it in the real world is that this guy would probably eliminate himself from the gene pool within days of getting his driver's licence. Unfortunately, he'd probably take out a few other people with him.
I'm also wondering about the idea of turning the engine off at red traffic lights. It seems to me that this will result in an immediate fuel saving, but restarting the engine is going to cause a drain on the car's battery. Assuming that the alternator hasn't been removed to give a couple of extra MPG, the extra work needed to recharge the battery to its previous level is going to use some extra fuel. This also assumes a zero-cost start for the engine.
Finally, driving everywhere in the wrong gear is just plain wrong. Aside from the slow acceleration, exacerbated by the 'soft touch' on the pedal, that is likely to annoy the long queue of traffic behind you, going around a corner in too high a gear is dangerous. It can adversely affect a car's handling.
Lunacy.
From the page:
Requires Mac OS X 10.2 or newer
If you've got such a problem with it not supporting 10.1.x, maybe you should write your own. And give it away for free, of course.
No software design should be solely based on English expressions.
If you believe that, you're a moron.
Forget about 'english'. If you can't express a design in plain natural, human, language, the design is fit for nothing other than the garbage.
Instead of criticising, why don't you come up with an alternative, then maybe you'd be worth wasting time on.
they require you to 'know' what the relationship is before you make your decision!
Anybody that is unable to determine the relationship beween components within a software system, has no business taking part in the development of software. Of course it's required to know what the relationship is. The point is to take the knowledge of that relationship, and apply it in a consistent and practical way to the logical model.
In 'The C++ Programming Language', Stroustrup goes to some lengths to emphasise the need to think about relationships between classes. IIRC, he uses the examples of windows and buttons. A specialised window 'is a' window, and so inherits from a window base-class; a window 'has a' button. It gets a bit murkier then, because Stroustrup points out that a button can itself be a specialised window, and so shows that inheritance (is a), and composition (has a), aren't mutually exclusive.
What you are deciding when you have to choose between inheritance or composition (or neither) is what the relationship is.
I disagree. During the initial modelling of the system, the relationship between the components should be examined and, if necessary, clarified. At the end of this phase, you should have a logical model. From the logical model, you should be able to construct a physical model. It is at the physical model stage that the relationships are formalised using inheritance and composition.
I've never found fragile base-classes to be a problem in Java, where it's a lot easier to override a method than in C#. In Java, by default all methods are virtual, and therefore can be overridden. In C#, however, a method has to be explicitly declared to be virtual before it can be overridden by a derived class.
It is generally much better to favour composition over inheritance unless a class specifically documents that it is intended to be subclassed - eg/ abstract classes.
I think that you're wrong here. There shouldn't be any reason at all to favour composition over inheritance, or vice-versa. Both approaches are equally valid, depending upon the circumstances.
In college, many moons ago, I was taught a simple rule for determining whether to use composition or inheritance:
Always favouring composition over inheritance harks back to the dark days of COM, where inheritance was a no-no.
I used to want a Mk1 Escort... until I got a Triumph Toledo.
Kryten, is that you?
I think that it means that you need a patched Linux kernel in order to generate and send the borked packets that cause the crash on an OpenBSD box. The modded network stack is used on a Linux machine to crash an OpenBSD machine.
I usually try to avoid arguing with idiots, but for you I'll make an exception.
Wow name calling, boy you sure now how to discuss differences with intelligence.
You call somebody a thief because they disagree with you, and then you act all indignant when you get insulted. One day you might figure out that being patronising doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look stupid. Grow up.
Yup, you've got me on that one. I should have read the FAQ. I guess that does make it comparitively good value for here in the UK.
I've never liked the way that the sales tax gets added at the counter, over in the states. I figured that the shops did it to make things look cheaper, but I find it annoying.
On the subject of legal music downloads here in the UK, does anybody have any info about the HMV download site? What sort of formats it provides, choice of music, that sort of thing. It seems like it could be good value, but I can't get it to work with Konqueror, so I'll have to wait until I get home to have a look around.
So, why are they ripping off the British buyers, then? According to this, they're charging 0.99UKP per song, when they should be charging 0.74UKP. That's a 25% markup. What's the explanation for a UK company charging substantially more in their home market, than they're charging elsewhere?
I'd never realised that Wolf 359 was so close.
Cheers. I'll give that a go.
Sounds good. Where can I get the portupgrade stuff?
As a developer, I use FreeBSD at work, and OSX at home. On OSX I now use darwinports, rather than Fink, after having a kernel panic caused by Fink. I don't particularly blame Fink, as it's still in beta, but as that was my first (and last so far) kernel panic in OSX, I thought that I'd give something else a try until it was more stable.
/opt, which is a bit too Solaris-like for me. That's easy enough to change, though.
Personally, I think that darwinports is slightly easier to use than Fink, but there's not a lot of difference. The downside is that there are a lot more packages available in Fink, although the number for darwinports is increasing steadily.
My only real gripe with darwinports is that, by default, it installs packages into
In comparison to the ports system on FreeBSD, darwinports is easier to use. With darwinports, installing a package is as easy as 'ports install package', whereas in FreeBSD ports, you need to cd to the appropriate directory and then do a 'make install'. As a developer, I've got no problems using makefiles, but I can see how they might put off some non-developers.
Is this a troll?
You're running the benchmarks on a slower machine, under a different operating system, compiled with an earlier version of the compiler, and you were browsing a web site while running the benchmarks, and you're surprised that your results are different to his? Under those circumstances, I would guess that using (almost) the same compiler flags as him means very little.
The Fairey Rotodyne was built nearly fifty years ago. Like the Dragonfly, it used (what was then called) tip-jet rotors, so there was no need for a counter-torque rotor on the tail.
The Rotodyne was advanced technology for its day, but it was killed by the politicians.