Especially all the warm fuzzies that France and Germany have towards the Jewish and African immigrants
I didn't say perfect. I said better. I've been to Marseilles, and I've been to the South, and believe me, I know where the better race relations are.
Really the only difference... between the 1930s and is... there's no central figure like Hitler to get it really organized,
That's crap. Ever heard of Jean Marie Le Pen? Pym Fortune? Joerg Haider? These guys reached power levels equivalent to David Duke in the US, but after their exposure as racist demagogues, they were cast out by a repulsed public.
We both have our isolated nutters, but isolated incidents like lynchings and neo-nazi firebombs are not the worst of racism; you've still got entrenched, institutional, Jim Crow racism across the Southern states. You've got government agencies seemingly involved with schemes to disenfranchise black voters, and stirring Islamophobia at every turn.
That's quite a good run through but theres one thing he's missed. The reason all the vibrancy has been removed from the lightsabres is for added consistency... with the dialogue.
Just about every democracy in Western Europe for one. We've better race relations, better public health care, better public transport, healthier citizens. We also make better movies and TV programs, and are largely better educated.
And we actually decide election results by counting the ballots.
In Britain, where cameras have been installed everywhere, their main usage is to bust people for traffic violations.
That's misleading. In Britain we have CCTV cameras, that monitor a lot of stores and some public places. Like the US airports, hardly any of this footage is ever looked at, except by bored store detectives. There's no centralised repository, and little or no communication between the camera operators. It's paranoid to suggest someone might be systematically monitored by this network, although a major investigation may be able to piece your movements together after the fact. Sometimes, if a crime is reported to have taken place in the area covered, the police will look at the footage. When they're used at all, they're largely used as evidence, again solely after the fact.
We also have speed cameras, that exist solely to nick people who are speeding. These are completely automated. They'll register you speed, and if you're speeding, they'll record your license number. The fine and penalty points will arrive a few days later, but you are allowed to contest them (if you can produce reasonable doubt that it wasn't you driving, for example.)
Well, theres a slight problem with this. The data you're storing are single pointers, which minimises the cost of the array copy operation, and maximises the relative overhead of linked lists.
How about if you rewrite it using the sort of structures one puts in linked lists: typedef struct _list { char entry_name[256]; float x; float y; double z; int rgb[3]; int alpha; int gamma; double temp; double salinity; struct _list* next; } mylist;
"Arrays are always preferable to linked lists" is not a good solution. Its an idiotic generalisation. (Given an array of 1000000 large elements, how would you insert an new element in the middle? How would you remove an arbitrary element. Explain how your method would be more efficent than using a linked list.)
I can't help making assumptions when you have inadequately specified the problem.
No, you over generalised the solution, and have been continually attempting to weasel your way out of it by making specific assumptions that favour you.
In the same way you would proceed if you failed to add an element to your linked list: throw an exception.
Right. Except because your code needs contiguous memory, it throws an exception much earlier than the linked lists, which within fragmented memory better. That may be an acceptable trade off for better performance BUT IT MAY NOT.
It is also easy with sliding buffers, where you have no overhead at all. If you have data just pouring in and you can access it sequentially, you should break it up into manageable packets and queue them in a sliding buffer.
A sliding buffer is fine, as long as you don't mind losing the early data. Which, surprise surprise, is another unwarranted assumption you've made.
You don't need to access the values you are storing until you are done
Again, you're making completely unwarranted assumptions to steer the answer back to your unsupportable over-generalisation. How the fuck do you know when and how I want the values I'm storing? I made need them immediately in some other thread.
Why don't you tell me what it is, and I'll see if I can figure out how an array can be used for it.
OK. You're attempting to solve any non deterministic decision problem, and want to save the state of some object/variable at each iteration. Now tell me, how much space am I going to need?
Not quite right: the program will still work in all corner cases, it will just be slower sometimes.
Really? How would you proceed if the corner case caused realloc() to return NULL? You can't assume you're running Linux (portability), so what do you do?
This would be true for really large datasets that approach the size of your memory. The swap might save you for a while, but after that you really would have problems. In this case it really would be a bad thing to use an array. In fact, a linked list is a really bad solution here as well.
Now you're just moving the goalposts, adding arbitrarily adding searchability as a criterion in order to make your point. Sometimes you don't need searchability, just sequential access. And thats easy with linked lists, and doesn't have the overhead of building a tree.
If all you want sequential access, and none of the contiguous memory constraints of arrays, linked lists are the solution.
arrays do not grow indefinitely. Some elements get added, some get removed, and eventually it settles down to some steady state size after which point no memory allocation is going to happen,
Says who? Your arrays might do that, (and if they do then, yes, arrays are probably better than linked lists.) But, unless thats in your specs, if you assume your data is going to behave nicely, all you'll get is a program that doesn't work in corner cases when it doesn't. Not smart. Not good programming.
First of all, you are not totally screwed, because you did not assign the return value of realloc directly to your pointer (you didn't, right?). realloc will not touch the original data if it fails reallocation.
Losing the original data wasn't the problem. The problem is, you've got no place to put the new data, which was the reason you did the realloc() in the first place.
If you use realloc, there will be no copying involved
BZZZT: Wrong. If you use realloc, there may be no copying involved as it will extend your allocated block if possible. Which is good for things that our fairly well bounded in size, and not at all good for things that could get very large.
You could suddenly hit the limit of the contiguous space above your initial allocation and bang your program performance goes out of the window as the realloc does a massive copy of one bit of memory to another... And that's assuming you can get a sufficiently large contiguous block of memory, otherwise, realloc returns NULL and you're totally screwed.
the Guardian to encourage its UK readers, i.e., not US citizens, to start a letter writing and email campaign to Ohioans encouraging them to vote for John Kerry
Actually, that's not what they did. What they did (as you'd know if you'd done any research) was
That's it. No specific policies, issues or candidates were suggested. It's called freedom of speech, buddy boy. Suck it up, it applies to non-Americans too. Besides, I'm not being told not to interfere in elections by the people who installed Pinochet, OK?
Charlie Brooker described Bush in scathing terms, and concluded: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"
That would be Charlie Brooker, comedian, right? You're aware of the concept of humour, right? OK, this isn't very funny, but it is clearly a joke.
Incidentally, About 15 years ago Ben Elton did *precisely* this joke about Margaret Thatcher. On national television, while dressed as Guy Fawkes (a terrorist, albeit a 17th century one, who attempted to blow up Parliament). Nobody cared, because we are not a nation of humorless retards, and we can detect a joke, and react appropriately.
Slashdot Mirror
... because before I was having to use an unpatched backdoor in IIS in order to access the webpages detailing the latest vulnerabilities.
Yeah, but its still 7am on the Eastern Seaboard, and no one outside North America has ever seen that Coors advert.
That's crap. Ever heard of Jean Marie Le Pen? Pym Fortune? Joerg Haider? These guys reached power levels equivalent to David Duke in the US, but after their exposure as racist demagogues, they were cast out by a repulsed public.
We both have our isolated nutters, but isolated incidents like lynchings and neo-nazi firebombs are not the worst of racism; you've still got entrenched, institutional, Jim Crow racism across the Southern states. You've got government agencies seemingly involved with schemes to disenfranchise black voters, and stirring Islamophobia at every turn.
That's quite a good run through but theres one thing he's missed. The reason all the vibrancy has been removed from the lightsabres is for added consistency ... with the dialogue.
Just about every democracy in Western Europe for one. We've better race relations, better public health care, better public transport, healthier citizens. We also make better movies and TV programs, and are largely better educated.
And we actually decide election results by counting the ballots.
We also have speed cameras, that exist solely to nick people who are speeding. These are completely automated. They'll register you speed, and if you're speeding, they'll record your license number. The fine and penalty points will arrive a few days later, but you are allowed to contest them (if you can produce reasonable doubt that it wasn't you driving, for example.)
Well, theres a slight problem with this. The data you're storing are single pointers, which minimises the cost of the array copy operation, and maximises the relative overhead of linked lists.
How about if you rewrite it using the sort of structures one puts in linked lists:
typedef struct _list {
char entry_name[256];
float x;
float y;
double z;
int rgb[3];
int alpha;
int gamma;
double temp;
double salinity;
struct _list* next;
} mylist;
(Sorry about the formatting, lameness filter.)
Now you're just moving the goalposts, adding arbitrarily adding searchability as a criterion in order to make your point. Sometimes you don't need searchability, just sequential access. And thats easy with linked lists, and doesn't have the overhead of building a tree.
If all you want sequential access, and none of the contiguous memory constraints of arrays, linked lists are the solution.
You could suddenly hit the limit of the contiguous space above your initial allocation and bang your program performance goes out of the window as the realloc does a massive copy of one bit of memory to another... And that's assuming you can get a sufficiently large contiguous block of memory, otherwise, realloc returns NULL and you're totally screwed.
Vulcan computer scientists are the only plausible explanation for the design of Ada95.
Err. You're weird. I was accusing the Republicans... Eejit.
Criminy, its almost as if the Supreme Court were voting on party allegiance rather than the facts! Inconceivable!
Depends what you mean. Clinton appointed him to the FCC. GWB made him chairman.
Don't forget Poland.
Sure, knock yourself out. It's not as if Rupert Murdoch doesn't have enough as a say already.
Besides, I'm not being told not to interfere in elections by the people who installed Pinochet, OK?
That would be Charlie Brooker, comedian, right? You're aware of the concept of humour, right? OK, this isn't very funny, but it is clearly a joke.
Incidentally, About 15 years ago Ben Elton did *precisely* this joke about Margaret Thatcher. On national television, while dressed as Guy Fawkes (a terrorist, albeit a 17th century one, who attempted to blow up Parliament). Nobody cared, because we are not a nation of humorless retards, and we can detect a joke, and react appropriately.