Most modern linguists no longer ascribe to the notion that one negative word somehow cancels another. Words are not numbers like -1 and 1. A double negative does not logically indicate a positive. Indeed, in languages like French, the proper expression of the negative sense involves two words: "ne" and "pas."
While it is true that in English, a double negative can be considered improper (and unclear), this by no means implies that the negatives are somehow "cancelling" each other out.
Please, commit this "a double negative is a positive" concept to the grave where it belongs, along with other archaic concepts like never splitting infinitives, and never ending sentences with prepositions.
But the Bush Administration has consistently shown that it has only two masters: corporations and biblethumpers.
He had masters. Now that the election's over and it's his last term, why should he have any master at all? He has the Congress in grip, and nothing to fear.
But if they are indeed this widespread, I would have to say the election couldnt have reflected accurately what the people voted.
The people's vote itself doesn't accurately reflect what they want. People don't KNOW what they want. Hold the election on November 3 instead of November 2, and you might get a different outcome.
Even with no tampering/screwups in the vote counting, I still doubt the meaningfulness of the outcome. People vote on a whim.
People fell for that "values" crap and elected a President that fully supports Evangelicals.
What makes you think so? For all we know, Bush might think they're all crackpots. But it certainly didn't stop him from courting them to get their votes.
I mean, Kerry went goose hunting to appeal to the hick vote. Do you think he actually gives a shit about hunters? The guy's a Democrat!
I'd be very, very surprised if Bush actually pays any attention to the evangelicals. They were nothing but a tool to get him re-elected, that's all. And as they realize how they've been used, I'll be laughing my ass off.
int douche = 0; int turdSandwich = 0; if(voteFor = 'BUSH') douche++; else turnSandwich++;
You used '=' instead of '=='. If we assume that the constant BUSH is a non-zero value, then the test is always true, and all votes get counted for Bush. You've proven the point in spectacular fashion.
I mean fuck, if you can make a mistake like that in a simple one-liner, how many flaws do you think there are in a multi-KLoC system?
"Kinetic weapons?" I've always hated that term. A falling object can do some serious damage, but calling it a "kinetic weapon" is a bit much. A bullet also kills by impact but we don't use overpompous terminology for it. These things are nothing more than falling chunks of metal.
The US is already looking at low yield nuclear weapons for tactical use, kinetic weapons are one better since they don't have any fallout.
The problem with a falling chunk of metal is that the amount of energy it releases on impact is less than the amount required to get it into orbit in the first place. Instead of launching a rocket into orbit, you might as well have taken those explosives and detonated them at the target site.
Nuclear weapons make more sense because the energy required to lift them into orbit is miniscule compared with the results.
Of course, I in no way wish to encourage the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit...
I'd really like to see a meteor defense started. That is the single most likely thing that could wipe out the whole planet. And lately, we've had a lot of close calls......
Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot makes a very convincing argument against the placement of asteroid deflection technology in space.
The basic idea is that once this technology is there, evil-doers can coopt it and use it to steer asteroids into the earth, not away from it.
However, recursive descent parsers are not as powerful as the bottom-up parsers generated by, for example, Yacc/Bison (LL vs LR).
That's backwards. Recursive decent with backtracking can parse all LL(k) grammars for arbitrary k. OTOH, yacc/bison can only parse LR(1) which, although sufficient for most realistic grammars, definitely is not as general as a full LL(k) method.
Left-recursive grammars are a red herring -- you can always eliminate the recursion, and with backtracking you can deal with arbitrary lookahead requirements.
If that's true, then how come Larry himself writes in the preface to Schwartz's Perl book that Perl was named for "Practical extraction and report language?"
The ones who brought up the first draft bill where Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans and rest of the Democrats alike, so how does Bush winning make it more likely?
Because that was before the election, and now it's after?
Besides, this isn't a matter of party. The fact is that Bush is a warmonger regardless of what party he happens to belong to, and he doesn't have enough troops.
It's simple math. We aren't going to have enough troops to take on Iraq AND Iran AND North Korea. We know Bush plans to do this. We also know that people aren't exactly joining the Army in droves. I think the result is obvious.
I'm just glad that my brother and I are out of the age group which will be drafted first. Hopefully the first kids to die will be all the ones who didn't vote in the election. And I'm going to have a hard time being sympathetic.
It wouldn't change anything at all. You'd have to get a majority of people to vote for the "none of the above option," but they won't. Why not? For exactly the same reason they don't vote third-party now: by doing so, they are essentially throwing away their vote for the least despicable candidate.
No, the flaw in the American voting system is that it is a strict majority system. Simple fixes like a "none of the above" option won't do any good. We need an entirely different system, like IRV or Condorcet. Unfortunately, Condorcet is "scary" because it is hard to understand, and the voting public won't accept it.
They need to change their name and get on with life. The languages of the world now own "SPAM".
Ahhh, we geeks are such hypocrites...
On the one hand, we bitch incessantly about the news media corrupting the term "hacker" to refer to persons who maliciously crack into and destroy computer systems. We take offense that the mass culture-at-large has stolen our term and turned it into something negative.
On the other hand, when a company like Hormel tries to do exactly the same thing, i.e., protect their important name (which happens to be trademarked) from being diluted and perverted to mean something negative, we cry foul. "You can't own culture! Let the majority rule! We want Spam to mean junk email, so that's how it's going to be!"
You can't have it both ways. If you think the news media should stop abusing the term "hacker," then you must also admit that Hormel has the right to stop abuse of its trademark SPAM.
Nice. Make unwarranted assumptions while being an ass, way to go.
Same goes for people thinking for the last few years that modding is a new thing. I remember people soldering 486's onto their heatsinks in ovens in like 1994.
Who's been saying it's a new thing? I think we're quite aware that modding is as old as the first guy to pick up a stick and make a spear out of it. I fail to see your point.
That's at least a decade ago, and before that people were doing crazy things swapping clock crystals to overclock things. These aren't new ideas. There's nothing original.
Again, what the fuck is your point? That we should all stop doing it because it's too obvious?
These people are just slow catching on, and think they're a big deal cos they finally got something done. Big deal.
Ah, this is a great example of the Slashdot Fallacy -- assuming that somebody thinks he's cool just because he got posted on Slashdot. Newsflash, anal_assassin: this guy didn't post this article to Slashdot himself. Somebody else found it, thought it was cool, and posted it.
Yes, but... There have been 15 elections since 1944. This relationship has "held" since then. Assuming that the presidential race and the Redskins game are completely uncorrelated, there should be a 50% chance each election that the results will match up.
A 50% chance, over 15 elections? That's like flipping a coin 15 times and having it land heads each time! Have you ever seen something like that? The odds are 32768 to 1!
I don't think anyone is claiming some direct link between a football game and the outcome of the election, but come on, you have to admit that's it's a little weird, no? Perhaps there is some unseen third factor at work here.
Granted, I don't think we'll ever see the way of life he envisions, but wishing for something that's more than what seems possible is a facet of human nature. It's something cynics like you appear to have lost (and I seem to be losing quickly).
It hardly implies that he lives in some "subjective reality."
What hype? The article summary was wrong, that's all. I assure you, I am not jumping up and down because of the existence of a perfectly smooth ball in orbit of Saturn...
C++ depends on some external functionality, which is assumed to be provided by the runtime environment. The most obvious examples are exception handling and the code which invokes global object constructors/destructors. On Linux/G++, this is provided by the libg++ library, and it integrates tightly with theC runtime. All C++ programs which use exceptions or any other C++ built-in functionality (like implicit copy constructors, etc.) depend on this library.
In order to support C++ code in the Linux kernel, the equivalent functionality must be coded in a way which is compatible with the kernel environment. libg++, for example, won't work in kernel space, because it is vastly different than user space.
This could allow for platform independent Linux programs!
That would be an interesting idea, except that TCC only targets Intel chips.
My thought was that if GCC compiled to P-Code instead of the final binary, the target GCC could complete the P-Code conversion at install time.
It does. Hardly any "real" compiler compiles directly to the target instruction set -- it usually transforms the input into pseudo-machine-instructions, called "quads" or "3-address-ops". Code optimization occurs on these pseudo-instructions before it ever gets translated to the actual instruction set (although there are also optimization applied to the particular instruction set as well). Check out the -d* switches to GCC. It can dump the internal representation at many different stages in the compilation process.
It probably wouldn't be hard to customize GCC to read those dumps back in and start the compilation process from that point.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is true that in English, a double negative can be considered improper (and unclear), this by no means implies that the negatives are somehow "cancelling" each other out.
Please, commit this "a double negative is a positive" concept to the grave where it belongs, along with other archaic concepts like never splitting infinitives, and never ending sentences with prepositions.
He had masters. Now that the election's over and it's his last term, why should he have any master at all? He has the Congress in grip, and nothing to fear.
Yeah, I'll believe you meant to do that, just like I believed that my third grade teacher misspelled words to check if I was "paying attention."
The people's vote itself doesn't accurately reflect what they want. People don't KNOW what they want. Hold the election on November 3 instead of November 2, and you might get a different outcome.
Even with no tampering/screwups in the vote counting, I still doubt the meaningfulness of the outcome. People vote on a whim.
What makes you think so? For all we know, Bush might think they're all crackpots. But it certainly didn't stop him from courting them to get their votes.
I mean, Kerry went goose hunting to appeal to the hick vote. Do you think he actually gives a shit about hunters? The guy's a Democrat!
I'd be very, very surprised if Bush actually pays any attention to the evangelicals. They were nothing but a tool to get him re-elected, that's all. And as they realize how they've been used, I'll be laughing my ass off.
You used '=' instead of '=='. If we assume that the constant BUSH is a non-zero value, then the test is always true, and all votes get counted for Bush. You've proven the point in spectacular fashion.
I mean fuck, if you can make a mistake like that in a simple one-liner, how many flaws do you think there are in a multi-KLoC system?
The US is already looking at low yield nuclear weapons for tactical use, kinetic weapons are one better since they don't have any fallout.
The problem with a falling chunk of metal is that the amount of energy it releases on impact is less than the amount required to get it into orbit in the first place. Instead of launching a rocket into orbit, you might as well have taken those explosives and detonated them at the target site.
Nuclear weapons make more sense because the energy required to lift them into orbit is miniscule compared with the results.
Of course, I in no way wish to encourage the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit...
Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot makes a very convincing argument against the placement of asteroid deflection technology in space.
The basic idea is that once this technology is there, evil-doers can coopt it and use it to steer asteroids into the earth, not away from it.
That's backwards. Recursive decent with backtracking can parse all LL(k) grammars for arbitrary k. OTOH, yacc/bison can only parse LR(1) which, although sufficient for most realistic grammars, definitely is not as general as a full LL(k) method.
Left-recursive grammars are a red herring -- you can always eliminate the recursion, and with backtracking you can deal with arbitrary lookahead requirements.
I mean, it's from the horse's mouth.
Because that was before the election, and now it's after?
Besides, this isn't a matter of party. The fact is that Bush is a warmonger regardless of what party he happens to belong to, and he doesn't have enough troops.
It's simple math. We aren't going to have enough troops to take on Iraq AND Iran AND North Korea. We know Bush plans to do this. We also know that people aren't exactly joining the Army in droves. I think the result is obvious.
I'm just glad that my brother and I are out of the age group which will be drafted first. Hopefully the first kids to die will be all the ones who didn't vote in the election. And I'm going to have a hard time being sympathetic.
Man, that's like Suffrage for Spoons, or something.
No, the flaw in the American voting system is that it is a strict majority system. Simple fixes like a "none of the above" option won't do any good. We need an entirely different system, like IRV or Condorcet. Unfortunately, Condorcet is "scary" because it is hard to understand, and the voting public won't accept it.
Ahhh, we geeks are such hypocrites...
On the one hand, we bitch incessantly about the news media corrupting the term "hacker" to refer to persons who maliciously crack into and destroy computer systems. We take offense that the mass culture-at-large has stolen our term and turned it into something negative.
On the other hand, when a company like Hormel tries to do exactly the same thing, i.e., protect their important name (which happens to be trademarked) from being diluted and perverted to mean something negative, we cry foul. "You can't own culture! Let the majority rule! We want Spam to mean junk email, so that's how it's going to be!"
You can't have it both ways. If you think the news media should stop abusing the term "hacker," then you must also admit that Hormel has the right to stop abuse of its trademark SPAM.
Same goes for people thinking for the last few years that modding is a new thing. I remember people soldering 486's onto their heatsinks in ovens in like 1994.
Who's been saying it's a new thing? I think we're quite aware that modding is as old as the first guy to pick up a stick and make a spear out of it. I fail to see your point.
That's at least a decade ago, and before that people were doing crazy things swapping clock crystals to overclock things. These aren't new ideas. There's nothing original.
Again, what the fuck is your point? That we should all stop doing it because it's too obvious?
These people are just slow catching on, and think they're a big deal cos they finally got something done. Big deal.
Ah, this is a great example of the Slashdot Fallacy -- assuming that somebody thinks he's cool just because he got posted on Slashdot. Newsflash, anal_assassin: this guy didn't post this article to Slashdot himself. Somebody else found it, thought it was cool, and posted it.
Now, fuck off.
Yes, but... There have been 15 elections since 1944. This relationship has "held" since then. Assuming that the presidential race and the Redskins game are completely uncorrelated, there should be a 50% chance each election that the results will match up.
A 50% chance, over 15 elections? That's like flipping a coin 15 times and having it land heads each time! Have you ever seen something like that? The odds are 32768 to 1!
I don't think anyone is claiming some direct link between a football game and the outcome of the election, but come on, you have to admit that's it's a little weird, no? Perhaps there is some unseen third factor at work here.
It hardly implies that he lives in some "subjective reality."
While I see your point, I'd hardly call Hot Topic "alternate culture."
What hype? The article summary was wrong, that's all. I assure you, I am not jumping up and down because of the existence of a perfectly smooth ball in orbit of Saturn...
In order to support C++ code in the Linux kernel, the equivalent functionality must be coded in a way which is compatible with the kernel environment. libg++, for example, won't work in kernel space, because it is vastly different than user space.
Because the script is more than just a shortcut. For example, try:
service --status-all
You can't do that with an alias :-)
Oh, I don't doubt you already knew that, I'm just shooting for a +5 Informative ;-)
Why not give some more information so we can figure out why it doesn't work? It could just be a misconfigured #define somewhere.
Explain how the fuck tab completion will magically type "/etc/rc.d/init.d/" for you in less than 10 keystrokes. "service" only requires 7. Idiot.
That would be an interesting idea, except that TCC only targets Intel chips.
My thought was that if GCC compiled to P-Code instead of the final binary, the target GCC could complete the P-Code conversion at install time.
It does. Hardly any "real" compiler compiles directly to the target instruction set -- it usually transforms the input into pseudo-machine-instructions, called "quads" or "3-address-ops". Code optimization occurs on these pseudo-instructions before it ever gets translated to the actual instruction set (although there are also optimization applied to the particular instruction set as well). Check out the -d* switches to GCC. It can dump the internal representation at many different stages in the compilation process.
It probably wouldn't be hard to customize GCC to read those dumps back in and start the compilation process from that point.