~0.0001 of the total destroyed ordinance is a rounding error
The ratio is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? If we found out that terrorists had got their hands on a Soviet nuke, would you say that wasn't important because there were 40,000 other soviet nukes still safe and secure? The fact is, 380 tons of high explosive can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. These were explosives that were secured and accounted for before Bush's grand invasion, and now they are missing and nobody knows where they went. Maybe you think that is okay, but I don't.
Many people inside both the NY Times and CBS News have an active animus for W. Is it any wonder that they'd try to spin this crap as news late in the cycle?
it's probably already been destroyed, anyway
"Probably" isn't exactly a recipe for a secure America...
Actually, it is different from the mac. On the Mac, when you mount a Samba volume via the Finder GUI, it shows up as a directory in the file system (e.g./Volumes/MyDiskName). I would be very happy to see that behaviour under Linux as well.
KDE's handlers system is great, but it doesn't seem to quite handle my needs. Perhaps someone can suggest a solution?
The problem is this: My app's users are not Unix-literate and therefore cannot be expected to use the command line. But my users need to use a (non-KDE-aware) helper application to convert files and store them on a Samba server.
KDE's nifty handlers let them easily log in to the Samba server and see the target directory just fine... but there appears to be no way to tell the helper app to save them directly to that folder, because there is no way to specify the Samba directory via a file requester.
I thin what I really need is a nice friendly GUI front end for the "mount" command, so that my users can have their Samba server's directories appear in the regular old filesystem tree. MacOS does a great job of this (the Samba folders automaticallyin a directory called "Volumes") but KDE/Linux apparently does not.
Can anyone suggest a good solution to this problem?
They can, but what happens when the power supply is hit by lightning and those microvolts turn to 10,000 volts.
Given that the power supply will be located either in your pocket or attached to your sunglasses, I think that if lightning hits it you will have other concerns to worry about.
Grr! Look, there is no feature of C++ which has an obvious advantage over the natural C construction in the Linux kernel.
Okay, here's one: Built-in constructors and destructors. You can simulate them in C using constructor- and destructor-like functions, but you'll always have to remember to call those functions at the right time, and if you don't, you'll have a bug in your program. With C++ you don't have to worry about that, they are automatically called for you at the proper time.
As an example, here is a pseudo-code snippet that I don't think you will be able to express directly in C:
ObjectRef AllocateNewObject() {
ObjectRef objRef(new Object);// it's impossible to memory leak this Object!
return objRef; }
Note that this function uses a nice reference-counting template class to make it practically impossible for the heap-allocated Object to be leaked, because the Object will be automatically deleted by the destructor of the last ObjectRef that points to it. ObjectRefs can be passed around and copied just like any other value type, with no need to worry about leakage.
You can do reference counting in C, but you'll have to scatter manual IncRefCount(object) and DecRefCount(object) function calls throughout your code, and chances are pretty good that you'll eventually forget one someplace and end up leaking memory anyway. Because of C++'s constructors, destructors, and templating, I haven't had a problem with memory leaks in years. I automatically get the correct behaviour every time.
There is absolutely no construct in C++ you can make that I can't do in C.
There is no construct in C++ that you can't do in Visual Basic, or a shell script, or any other Turing-complete language either. That's not the point. C++ isn't there to make writing complicated things possible, it's there to make writing complicated things easier. The easier and more fool-proof a given piece of functionality is, the more work you can get done in a day, and the more code you can write and debug in a year. That is the advantage of C++ over C.
C++ has no concept of "interrupt context", it has no concept of "preemptible code", it has no concept of per-CPU data structures.
Neither, to my knowledge, does C. Those are both policies that must be followed manually by the programmer -- neither a C++ nor a C compiler will do the work for you there.
First, C is sufficiently low-level that it's possible to know exactly what machine instructions a compiler will generate.
If you need that much control over the code generated, nothing stops you from writing a C function to do it, or even an inline assembly function.
Second, if a kernel developer actually benefits from type checking, they should not be developing kernel code
By that logic, professional race drivers don't need to wear seat belts. Even the most seasoned programmer benefits from type checking -- everybody makes dumb mistakes occasionally, and it's much better to have them caught the next time you compile then spending hours trying to figure out why your kernel is crashing.
The zero shipping,the sites u mention etc are for USA.
I don't know where you got that idea, it's completely wrong. There are FreeCycling communities worldwide. Click the link and read about it.
Its not that easy to get free comps in developing countries.
I never said that it was. In fact, I never said anything about developing countries at all. FreeCycle is about recycling things locally, not about shipping them across the world.
If we're going to start plugging things, then I'll seize the opportunity and throw in a plug for FreeCycle. FreeCycle is a great way to get a good used computer (or anything else) for zero cost, and also an easy way to clear out all your old junk by giving it away to local people who find it useful. No packing or shipping hassle, since the recipient typically will come by to pick it up, and you'll earn more karma that way then you ever will posting to Slashdot.:^)
Right, and the easiest and most effective way to mitigate the risk is to have the machine print out a paper ballot for the voter to hand-check and then turn in to the ballot box. That way no matter what goes wrong with the equipment, the voter can be sure his vote was properly recorded, and the election officials can do a manual recount to verify that the tallies were properly calculated.
So, you go to your local polling place and run md5sum on all the voting machines, and md5sum prints out the checksums that you expected it to print out. Now what? How can you be sure that:
md5sum hasn't been hacked to give the expected checksums, even for an altered binary?
there isn't a bug or back door in the "golden source code" that nobody noticed? (such bugs can be very, very subtle)
The compiler used to compile the "golden binaries" wasn't itself hacked to silently insert a back door into the binaries as part of the compilation process?
There isn't some hardware bug or sneaky microcode logic somewhere in the machine that might alter the way the software operates, so that even correct code does the wrong thing?
Some other clever trick that nobody has even thought of yet isn't in place?
Sure, it sounds like paranoia, but you have to remember that electronic voting machines are likely to be with us for decades, and if there isn't complete transparency, sooner or later someone will be tempted to use the technology as an easy way to grab extra votes. Instead of trying to come up with ever more complicated ways to verify that the system isn't buggy or corrupted, why not just do the obvious thing and have the machine print out a paper ballot that the voter and/or election officials can hand-check when necessary? It's not like dot matrix printers are some sort of exotic, unproven technology...
there's nothing more funny than a civic with a giant wing on the back. it's a clear way to identify that the owner is, in fact, an idiot
You are assuming the owner put the giant wing on in a misguided attempt to make his car perform better. It's possible that the owner doesn't care about performance, but rather just likes the way it looks.
. Plus, there's the collision factor: an elderly person who isn't too steady and who has slower reaction times than the norm is more likely to...
Keep in mind that the alternative is for them to get in a 2,000lb automobile and drive it instead. Given that, I think free Segways for everyone over 75 would be a good investment...
I think the best you can say is that you are violating Apple's government-granted monopoly on distribution of the OS/X software.
It's not quite theft, but it's not something you should do, either. If you want to play with the OS/X software, show Apple a little respect and buy yourself a legitimate copy. As others have mentioned, you can find one on eBay for cheep.
If only we had a way to harness the energy generated by the spontaneous knee-jerk naysaying of Slashdot posters, our energy needs would be met forever.
Excellent idea!:^) But perhaps a slightly more realistic solution would be to have the solar panels mounted on your roof or in your yard, where there is more surface area available. They could generate hydrogen all day, and when you got home in the evening you could transfer it to your car.
Combine that with advances in solar panel efficiency (both in terms of watts per square meter and watts per dollar) efficient automobile designs (so that less hydrogen is necessary), commercial renewable hydrogen generation (roof not producing enough hydrogen? Supplement your supply with an extra bottle from the solar/wind far across town), and we might have something...
In a car, if you are a good, skilled, highly-responsive and attentive driver, you have decent odds of recovering, even surviving unscathed.
That may be true, but it's not really relevant, since most people aren't. And even if you personally are lucky enough to be "good, skilled, highly-responsive and attentive", many of the people driving alongside you are not, and any one of them could make a stupid mistake that ends up being fatal for you, with no chance of recovery.
The bottom line is: airplanes are maintained and piloted by highly trained professionals, and cars are driven (and generally not maintained) by anyone who can multiple-guess their way through a trivial 30 minute DMV test. That's why planes are safer in practice than cars.
i honestly submit to you that when confronted with the madness of 9/11
I honestly submit that confronted by the madness of 9/11, you have lost your ability to think rationally, and have been reduced to a primitive "we must kill them all before they hit us again" mentality.
Sorry, but the intensity of your fear does not make the world a simple place where you can solve the nation's problems by beating on them with a rock. Things like economics and politics still do matter very much, no matter how much you'd like to believe they don't. If our misadventure in Iraq haven't demonstrated that to you yet, then I don't know what would.
really, why should the us care what anyone else thinks?
Reason #1: People who don't hate us won't be trying to kill us all the time. Therefore it is to our advantage to reduce the number of people who hate us. Israel largely follows your policy of "fuck em if they don't like it", and you can see how well it works for Israel. I, for one, do not want to live in a climate of perpetual hatred and fear.
You can't really even blame George for it. He was just doing what Cheney was whispering in his ear.
Oh, I absolutely can blame George for it. George is the one who took the oath of Office. The buck stops there. Regardless of how smart or stupid the President is reputed to be, the things his administration does are his responsibility.
While you are observing, you might also observe that CBS acknowledged their mistake and apologized to the nation, within about a week. I await Bush's apology, both to the nation as a whole and to the 10,000-odd people who have died because of his little mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
The ratio is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? If we found out that terrorists had got their hands on a Soviet nuke, would you say that wasn't important because there were 40,000 other soviet nukes still safe and secure? The fact is, 380 tons of high explosive can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. These were explosives that were secured and accounted for before Bush's grand invasion, and now they are missing and nobody knows where they went. Maybe you think that is okay, but I don't.
Many people inside both the NY Times and CBS News have an active animus for W. Is it any wonder that they'd try to spin this crap as news late in the cycle?
it's probably already been destroyed, anyway
"Probably" isn't exactly a recipe for a secure America...
Actually, it is different from the mac. On the Mac, when you mount a Samba volume via the Finder GUI, it shows up as a directory in the file system (e.g.
The problem is this: My app's users are not Unix-literate and therefore cannot be expected to use the command line. But my users need to use a (non-KDE-aware) helper application to convert files and store them on a Samba server.
KDE's nifty handlers let them easily log in to the Samba server and see the target directory just fine... but there appears to be no way to tell the helper app to save them directly to that folder, because there is no way to specify the Samba directory via a file requester.
I thin what I really need is a nice friendly GUI front end for the "mount" command, so that my users can have their Samba server's directories appear in the regular old filesystem tree. MacOS does a great job of this (the Samba folders automaticallyin a directory called "Volumes") but KDE/Linux apparently does not.
Can anyone suggest a good solution to this problem?
The easy solution to this (potential) problem is to include a fail-safe mechanism that cuts power to the laser if/when the mirror stops moving.
Given that the power supply will be located either in your pocket or attached to your sunglasses, I think that if lightning hits it you will have other concerns to worry about.
ObNitpick: The BeOS kernel was written in C. It was the API user-land libraries and APIs that were written in C++.
Okay, here's one: Built-in constructors and destructors. You can simulate them in C using constructor- and destructor-like functions, but you'll always have to remember to call those functions at the right time, and if you don't, you'll have a bug in your program. With C++ you don't have to worry about that, they are automatically called for you at the proper time.
As an example, here is a pseudo-code snippet that I don't think you will be able to express directly in C:
ObjectRef AllocateNewObject()
{
ObjectRef objRef(new Object);
return objRef;
}
Note that this function uses a nice reference-counting template class to make it practically impossible for the heap-allocated Object to be leaked, because the Object will be automatically deleted by the destructor of the last ObjectRef that points to it. ObjectRefs can be passed around and copied just like any other value type, with no need to worry about leakage.
You can do reference counting in C, but you'll have to scatter manual IncRefCount(object) and DecRefCount(object) function calls throughout your code, and chances are pretty good that you'll eventually forget one someplace and end up leaking memory anyway. Because of C++'s constructors, destructors, and templating, I haven't had a problem with memory leaks in years. I automatically get the correct behaviour every time.
There is no construct in C++ that you can't do in Visual Basic, or a shell script, or any other Turing-complete language either. That's not the point. C++ isn't there to make writing complicated things possible, it's there to make writing complicated things easier. The easier and more fool-proof a given piece of functionality is, the more work you can get done in a day, and the more code you can write and debug in a year. That is the advantage of C++ over C.
C++ has no concept of "interrupt context", it has no concept of "preemptible
code", it has no concept of per-CPU data structures.
Neither, to my knowledge, does C. Those are both policies that must be followed manually by the programmer -- neither a C++ nor a C compiler will do the work for you there.
If you need that much control over the code generated, nothing stops you from writing a C function to do it, or even an inline assembly function.
Second, if a kernel developer actually benefits from type checking, they should not be developing kernel code
By that logic, professional race drivers don't need to wear seat belts. Even the most seasoned programmer benefits from type checking -- everybody makes dumb mistakes occasionally, and it's much better to have them caught the next time you compile then spending hours trying to figure out why your kernel is crashing.
I don't know where you got that idea, it's completely wrong. There are FreeCycling communities worldwide. Click the link and read about it.
Its not that easy to get free comps in developing countries.
I never said that it was. In fact, I never said anything about developing countries at all. FreeCycle is about recycling things locally, not about shipping them across the world.
If we're going to start plugging things, then I'll seize the opportunity and throw in a plug for FreeCycle. FreeCycle is a great way to get a good used computer (or anything else) for zero cost, and also an easy way to clear out all your old junk by giving it away to local people who find it useful. No packing or shipping hassle, since the recipient typically will come by to pick it up, and you'll earn more karma that way then you ever will posting to Slashdot. :^)
Right, and the easiest and most effective way to mitigate the risk is to have the machine print out a paper ballot for the voter to hand-check and then turn in to the ballot box. That way no matter what goes wrong with the equipment, the voter can be sure his vote was properly recorded, and the election officials can do a manual recount to verify that the tallies were properly calculated.
So, you go to your local polling place and run md5sum on all the voting machines, and md5sum prints out the checksums that you expected it to print out. Now what? How can you be sure that:
Sure, it sounds like paranoia, but you have to remember that electronic voting machines are likely to be with us for decades, and if there isn't complete transparency, sooner or later someone will be tempted to use the technology as an easy way to grab extra votes. Instead of trying to come up with ever more complicated ways to verify that the system isn't buggy or corrupted, why not just do the obvious thing and have the machine print out a paper ballot that the voter and/or election officials can hand-check when necessary? It's not like dot matrix printers are some sort of exotic, unproven technology...
You are assuming the owner put the giant wing on in a misguided attempt to make his car perform better. It's possible that the owner doesn't care about performance, but rather just likes the way it looks.
I doubt the effect would be any harder on your equipment than the water vapor you already blow out every time you exhale...
who has slower reaction times than the norm is more likely to...
Keep in mind that the alternative is for them to get in a 2,000lb automobile and drive it instead. Given that, I think free Segways for everyone over 75 would be a good investment...
It's not quite theft, but it's not something you should do, either. If you want to play with the OS/X software, show Apple a little respect and buy yourself a legitimate copy. As others have mentioned, you can find one on eBay for cheep.
The same thing that always happens, EvilSS... the satellite will turn evil and try to destroy humanity.
If only we had a way to harness the energy generated by the spontaneous knee-jerk naysaying of Slashdot posters, our energy needs would be met forever.
Combine that with advances in solar panel efficiency (both in terms of watts per square meter and watts per dollar) efficient automobile designs (so that less hydrogen is necessary), commercial renewable hydrogen generation (roof not producing enough hydrogen? Supplement your supply with an extra bottle from the solar/wind far across town), and we might have something...
That may be true, but it's not really relevant, since most people aren't. And even if you personally are lucky enough to be "good, skilled, highly-responsive and attentive", many of the people driving alongside you are not, and any one of them could make a stupid mistake that ends up being fatal for you, with no chance of recovery.
The bottom line is: airplanes are maintained and piloted by highly trained professionals, and cars are driven (and generally not maintained) by anyone who can multiple-guess their way through a trivial 30 minute DMV test. That's why planes are safer in practice than cars.
I honestly submit that confronted by the madness of 9/11, you have lost your ability to think rationally, and have been reduced to a primitive "we must kill them all before they hit us again" mentality.
Sorry, but the intensity of your fear does not make the world a simple place where you can solve the nation's problems by beating on them with a rock. Things like economics and politics still do matter very much, no matter how much you'd like to believe they don't. If our misadventure in Iraq haven't demonstrated that to you yet, then I don't know what would.
Reason #1: People who don't hate us won't be trying to kill us all the time. Therefore it is to our advantage to reduce the number of people who hate us. Israel largely follows your policy of "fuck em if they don't like it", and you can see how well it works for Israel. I, for one, do not want to live in a climate of perpetual hatred and fear.
Oh, I absolutely can blame George for it. George is the one who took the oath of Office. The buck stops there. Regardless of how smart or stupid the President is reputed to be, the things his administration does are his responsibility.
While you are observing, you might also observe that CBS acknowledged their mistake and apologized to the nation, within about a week. I await Bush's apology, both to the nation as a whole and to the 10,000-odd people who have died because of his little mistake.