The problem with the array bounds thing is that usually the array index is another variable, and it's tougher to predict what that variable's value might be within the loop. For constant array indices this would work great, I just don't know how much code uses a lot of constant array indices. But don't let me discourage you; for all I know my code is unusual.
IMHO, the original is cleaner, because it's easy to miss the ! in the middle of ((. The logical way that you would describe this condition to someone is: "if either cam or cam->ops are 0, bail out". You wouldn't say "if cam and cam->ops together are 0, bail out". We don't care about "cam && cam->ops", anyway; that combination is nonsensical. We just care that neither are 0, which is why it makes sense to check each to see if it is 0, and then OR the combination.
There's an advantage to maintaining code that reads more like natural language, it seems to me. Or it could be that I'm just more used to reading the Linux kernel sources somehow, which is a scary thought:)
Versus the usual reason to not be able to read the story from a Linux machine, which is that pages developed for IE only use microscopic type sizes? Unless these are the fonts that fix the tiny type issue, I don't think Linux web browsing is going to improve that much.
Honest question: don't you think that a smaller private network is somewhat more at risk from legal attack, though? You would be easy to demonize as a dedicated band of pirates, a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, etc. - just like the recent bust of warez traders. A big public network like Napster at least means that millions of people won't be getting arrested for conspiracy; a small network is more vulnerable that way it seems to me.
Although you said you had legal files, so that's good as long as they all are. But I could see other private p2p networks running into problems if (big if) they are found out.
So, if some people started trolling for money, would the other trolls say that they'd sold out? I mean, there's art, and then there's puttin' bread on the troll table, you know.
Of course, if all existing p2p clients used some sort of primitive encryption of the track lists, they could always go after the RIAA under the DMCA for "hacking" into their p2p network:)
Because theft means losing something. Not getting something that you were entitled to may still be unethical and/or illegal, but it's not theft. It may be fraud or misrepresentation, for example. In this case, we generally call it "copyright infringement".
I'm not saying it's OK (I only rip from my own CDs); I'm just saying that calling it theft inappropriately masks the real differences between physical property and intellectual property. Remember, this wouldn't even be a crime except for a government monopoly that is specifically granted to copyright holders and varies widely from place to place. Compare against physical property, the theft of which has been established as a crime for millennia.
"...this is exactly what I've been waiting for. Now that my compensation is ensured, I will be certain to publish my next three novels that I've been working out down here. Thanks, America!"
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald, interviewed via ouija board in The New York Times
Bravo, Jack - demonstrating moderator stupidity since, well, whenever you started doing it.
Working "The Mythical Man Month" into a CPU architecture discussion is just classic:) I think you could probably say anything and get moderated up as long as you mentioned Fred Brooks; it's kind of the opposite of Godwin's law.
See, folks, we need the trolls to keep the moderators honest. Now, if you are a moderator who knows 2+2, please moderate the parent down.
Well, as long as you can get enough bandwidth hooked up to the box to serve those customers, that is. Your web server is a lot more likely to be bound by bandwidth than by processing power; if you're really doing that much processing on the web server box, then you probably are running stuff on a 'net-accessible box that maybe shouldn't be there (DB server, etc.). Having a real powerful web server is only an advantage for that short time period where a rapidly growing dynamically-generated site hasn't quite reached the threshold at which you would break out the site's processing into a tiered architecture and move the real processing deeper within the site (up the hierarchy of machines, if you can imagine).
For example, compare to how/. is setup (not exactly a sterling example, but...:). Do you think that even if they had a really powerful box and could do everything on one box, that they would do so? I would guess not.
There is a difference - "enhance shareholder value" is what you say when you're actually planning to squander their money on something that might pan out once in a blue moon. If they wanted to make money for the shareholders, they'd offer a dividend instead.
And in fact there's even a special title for this job: you'd be a poindexter. Example: "I'm applying to be an assistant poindexter at the TIPS program."
Deprecated: "But you're standin' on the wall like you was Poindexter." (Young M.C.)
I tried this for uid 666, but for some reason I get a/. error for that particular uid. It's a quick error response; makes me wonder if they specifically avoided having this account or something.../. does seem to be slow today so maybe that's it.
I could see prisoners (and then convicted sex offenders) being among the first group of people to be "chipped" like this. Then you just need good scanners around the vicinity of the prison and you can track any escapes. Heck, you could even follow prisoners around the grounds, see who they associate with, see if they're extra friendly with one or the other of the guards, etc. Schools could have an alarm that goes off if a sex offender comes within 200 feet (or whatever the limit is).
Mark my words: prisoners and sex offenders will be the first chipped, but not the last. Cheap remote identification of physical objects and people is the beginning of the end for privacy in this world.
There are always people who get confused and can't deal with the automated system; thus you need at least a few real people to answer the phones. For a nationwide list, probably a number of people.
It sounds like there's a significant amount of real hacking going on too; that could easily soak up any time that systems administration doesn't require.
Probably most of the expense is running the call center and web site that helps people sign up for the list. It has to be available when people want to use it, etc. I don't know if that costs $16 million, but it's more than just the cost of the hardware and initial DB setup time. There has to be some kind of permanent administrator for the thing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the array bounds thing is that usually the array index is another variable, and it's tougher to predict what that variable's value might be within the loop. For constant array indices this would work great, I just don't know how much code uses a lot of constant array indices. But don't let me discourage you; for all I know my code is unusual.
IMHO, the original is cleaner, because it's easy to miss the ! in the middle of ((. The logical way that you would describe this condition to someone is: "if either cam or cam->ops are 0, bail out". You wouldn't say "if cam and cam->ops together are 0, bail out". We don't care about "cam && cam->ops", anyway; that combination is nonsensical. We just care that neither are 0, which is why it makes sense to check each to see if it is 0, and then OR the combination.
There's an advantage to maintaining code that reads more like natural language, it seems to me. Or it could be that I'm just more used to reading the Linux kernel sources somehow, which is a scary thought :)
It's like the Simpsons: Fonts aren't rendered live since it's a terrible strain on the fontographer's wrists :)
Versus the usual reason to not be able to read the story from a Linux machine, which is that pages developed for IE only use microscopic type sizes? Unless these are the fonts that fix the tiny type issue, I don't think Linux web browsing is going to improve that much.
mod up, please - this is the most important point about the whole damn article.
For once, you're on-topic, my AC friend. We'll see if any moderators didn't read the article...
Honest question: don't you think that a smaller private network is somewhat more at risk from legal attack, though? You would be easy to demonize as a dedicated band of pirates, a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, etc. - just like the recent bust of warez traders. A big public network like Napster at least means that millions of people won't be getting arrested for conspiracy; a small network is more vulnerable that way it seems to me.
Although you said you had legal files, so that's good as long as they all are. But I could see other private p2p networks running into problems if (big if) they are found out.
So, if some people started trolling for money, would the other trolls say that they'd sold out? I mean, there's art, and then there's puttin' bread on the troll table, you know.
Of course, if all existing p2p clients used some sort of primitive encryption of the track lists, they could always go after the RIAA under the DMCA for "hacking" into their p2p network :)
Because theft means losing something. Not getting something that you were entitled to may still be unethical and/or illegal, but it's not theft. It may be fraud or misrepresentation, for example. In this case, we generally call it "copyright infringement".
I'm not saying it's OK (I only rip from my own CDs); I'm just saying that calling it theft inappropriately masks the real differences between physical property and intellectual property. Remember, this wouldn't even be a crime except for a government monopoly that is specifically granted to copyright holders and varies widely from place to place. Compare against physical property, the theft of which has been established as a crime for millennia.
"...this is exactly what I've been waiting for. Now that my compensation is ensured, I will be certain to publish my next three novels that I've been working out down here. Thanks, America!"
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald, interviewed via ouija board in The New York Times
See? Retroactive copyright extension does work :)
What? It's a perfectly cromulent word :)
Actually it is a real word. The upshot is the synopsis or the gist of a particular thing. Look it up.
Bravo, Jack - demonstrating moderator stupidity since, well, whenever you started doing it.
Working "The Mythical Man Month" into a CPU architecture discussion is just classic :) I think you could probably say anything and get moderated up as long as you mentioned Fred Brooks; it's kind of the opposite of Godwin's law.
See, folks, we need the trolls to keep the moderators honest. Now, if you are a moderator who knows 2+2, please moderate the parent down.
That fits right into the normal "if you're going to do anything at all, send us money" Microsoft business plan :)
Well, as long as you can get enough bandwidth hooked up to the box to serve those customers, that is. Your web server is a lot more likely to be bound by bandwidth than by processing power; if you're really doing that much processing on the web server box, then you probably are running stuff on a 'net-accessible box that maybe shouldn't be there (DB server, etc.). Having a real powerful web server is only an advantage for that short time period where a rapidly growing dynamically-generated site hasn't quite reached the threshold at which you would break out the site's processing into a tiered architecture and move the real processing deeper within the site (up the hierarchy of machines, if you can imagine).
For example, compare to how /. is setup (not exactly a sterling example, but... :). Do you think that even if they had a really powerful box and could do everything on one box, that they would do so? I would guess not.
YMMV, of course.
There is a difference - "enhance shareholder value" is what you say when you're actually planning to squander their money on something that might pan out once in a blue moon. If they wanted to make money for the shareholders, they'd offer a dividend instead.
And in fact there's even a special title for this job: you'd be a poindexter. Example: "I'm applying to be an assistant poindexter at the TIPS program."
Deprecated: "But you're standin' on the wall like you was Poindexter." (Young M.C.)
Sure it is, for example, here's you: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?uid=81281
I tried this for uid 666, but for some reason I get a /. error for that particular uid. It's a quick error response; makes me wonder if they specifically avoided having this account or something... /. does seem to be slow today so maybe that's it.
Been there, done that:
"How are those new Gap khakis working out for you, Mr. Anderton?"
I could see prisoners (and then convicted sex offenders) being among the first group of people to be "chipped" like this. Then you just need good scanners around the vicinity of the prison and you can track any escapes. Heck, you could even follow prisoners around the grounds, see who they associate with, see if they're extra friendly with one or the other of the guards, etc. Schools could have an alarm that goes off if a sex offender comes within 200 feet (or whatever the limit is).
Mark my words: prisoners and sex offenders will be the first chipped, but not the last. Cheap remote identification of physical objects and people is the beginning of the end for privacy in this world.
Frankly, I'd rather maintain my self-respect, but to each his own, I guess.
OTOH, I wonder how much self-respect $40 billion can buy?
There are always people who get confused and can't deal with the automated system; thus you need at least a few real people to answer the phones. For a nationwide list, probably a number of people.
It sounds like there's a significant amount of real hacking going on too; that could easily soak up any time that systems administration doesn't require.
Probably most of the expense is running the call center and web site that helps people sign up for the list. It has to be available when people want to use it, etc. I don't know if that costs $16 million, but it's more than just the cost of the hardware and initial DB setup time. There has to be some kind of permanent administrator for the thing, etc.
I believe politicians are already excepted from having to use the do-not-call list, aren't they?