If you don't understand the way types work in C, use an other language. It's obviously not for you.
You missed the point. These operations have well defined meanings outside C.
C subverts that meaning with arcane rules. Indeed
int z = x * 1/2;// == 1
gives a different value than
int y = 1/2 *x;// == 0
There is always a tendency in the/. and *nix community to blame the user for not being familiar with inferior design decisions. But in reality the blame lies squarely in the original designers and those who perpetuate their mistakes rather than clamoring for fixes.
In contrast, sqrt(2) used to be an inderteminate value, in ANSI C sqrt(2) == sqrt(2.0) as one would expect.
This is a trend that has been going on now for about ten years now. The average upgrade time has been slowly moving up, from 12 months to 24 months over the last ten years IIRC. My guess is that average home computer upgrade time has moved from 2-3 years to 5-6 years (with the exception of gamers, who ofetn live on the cutting edge).
For people to upgrade, they need to see sluggish performance. An upgraded GUI can soak tons of raw CPU power in ways that make you yearn for it (just ask the Mac folks about CPU consumption under the OS X GUI). Transparent windows, photo realistic icons, bayesian user interfaces, fully indexable content, database file system, you name it: these features can keep a P4 busy all day.
Until then, a slow pentium at home is all I need to surf the web and read e-mail.
large cost involved in the promotion and discovery of talent.
True talent does not need to be promoted. On the other hand the collection of lip singing artists put out by the record industry needs a ton of promotion as otherwise nobody in their right mind would listen to Christina Aguilera.....
Re:Fix it yourself (was Re:Does it..)
on
PINE Releases 4.50
·
· Score: 2
You run ssty erase ^H and you'll fix it.
Nope. Is quite a bit more complex than that, and it is a pine specific problem according to several web sites out there. less does not show this behavior, with or without the "fix".
Re:Fix it yourself (was Re:Does it..)
on
PINE Releases 4.50
·
· Score: 2
It don't work custard. I've done some research on this problem in the past, and it is a pine specific implementation problem.
Thanks dude. I looked around the place where you enter the main address in the config, and couldn't find any likely candidate for secondary address nearbt... Even if I had seen the "alt-field" at the end, I don't think I would have clued in that this was what I was looking for.
Re:Fix it yourself (was Re:Does it..)
on
PINE Releases 4.50
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Fix it yourself
That is a surprise. A linux fanatic blaming yet another *nix idiocy on the user. Then they run stories wondering why people are still using Windows instead of Linux. Gee, I wonder why....
It's not a bug in pine, it's a bug in your termcap database.
Interesting as no other program has that problem....
Salon magazine is a great magazine, but it has never gotten the web. The greatest advantage of the web is that "the content is out there".
Rather than paying $100K to traditional writers to pen articles in HTML instead of a remington, they should have tapped into the plethora of expertise available in the web, at much lower rates.
A magazine that really understood how the web operates would
(1) have a lot more letters from the readers
(2) allow the best, most informed letters to become part of the article (kind of/. with professional moderators)
(3) invite leads from the readership at large which would then be completed jointly with a journalism major
(4) Publish a large number of articles a day under this model, making it more likely that people would pay for a subscription
This and our continued support for israel is the reason for the WTC attacks,
Actually, while this explains a lot of the hatred for the US from the Arab people at large, Al-Qaida's main reason for the WTC attack was to get the "infidel" US troops out of the "vicinity" of Mecca. This is in spite of the US troops being in Saudia Arabai at the invitation of the government to *defend* Saudi interests from Sadam Hussein's machinations.
To be fair, it's an extraordinarily difficult problem for TI et al to solve: The chips are necessarily trivial -- they're *powered* by the sensors, for crying out loud. Not only is it nearly impossible to build any kind of cryptosystem into a chip that small and weak, but the system itself would remain utterly defenseless against electrical skullduggery: Manipulating a chip's power source is one of the definitive ways of divining its cryptographic secrets, as Satellite TV hackers have been pointing out for quite some time.
When developing a new technology there are technical problems and fundamental problems. A technical problem is "friction must be reduced an extra 20%", a fundamental problem is "this only works if there is no friction whatsoever".
What you describe is a technical problem. Technical problems are rarely unsurmountable and quite often ingenious work arounds can be found.
1) setenv DISPLAY mordor:0.0 2) backspace key doing any number of things (including delete and help key) rather than what is supposed to do (hint: it's says backspace) 3) main editors not always mouse aware (vi, emacs) 4) lack, until recently, of a decent graphical mail application 5) lack of a decent word processor. Forget about word: could somebody clone Wordpad and include it in all standard Unix distros? 6) ugly font design. KDE and GNOME are light years ahead of motif but the fonts they use still suck. 7) default values for almost all unix commands are obscure cases rather than the norm. For example, typing xterm from the command shell should background itself without need for '&' with an explicit command option *not* to do this 8) lack of support of extended character set. e.g. vim seven-bits by default all characters. 9) lack of third party applications
You are establishing a false dichotomy: either the software is hard to install or it has to be full of exploits.
This is totally bogus. It is possible to have easy to install software that is not ridden with holes.
Why do you think people are writing documentations?
The beef is not with software having documentation. The beef is with an OSS attitude (much like yours in your message) along the lines: "why should I make your life easier?".
That reflects negatively in TCO for OSS, whether you like to admit it or not.
This has been my personal experience too. Generally if I need a new package installed on either a Windows server or a Linux box, I have the package on Windows running a few minutes after I inserted the CD. With Linux I'm still changing permissions and looking up mailing lists a good four hours after I started.
This doesn't have to be this way. But for some reason OSS seems to atract RTFM types as developers.
People have been presenting graphic search engines since 1995 (look up the WWW conference, for example). To this date, none of them have succeeded.
For all graph visualizers out there: no one cares that you can draw a nifty little graph with arrows as links (duh!). The question is: is the information associated with those links best grasped visually?
The page ranking algorithm from Google uses link information to compute the ranking of the result set. It is unclear how a collection of lines in a blank page will enhance the fact that the top reference is, ahem, the top reference...
What are we to do in 5 years when everyone wants more than 2GB of ram. Is it going to just magically apear because we wish it?
You need hybrid architectures that support 64 bit addressing while not making everything under the sun (no pun intended) a 64 bit constant. One way to do that is VLIW, another is to support small and large operands. All three of these options are available in the market already...
Have you heard the one about:
People made 8 bit machines and saw they were good.
They made 16 bit machines and they were better.
They made 32 bit machines and they were the best.
So they made 64 bit machines which are even bester.
Third, what's this crap about it being "too expensive" to transfer 64-bits of data in from RAM?
Easy if your words are bigger, you consume cache faster.
Similarly on "paging in 64 bit code", suppose you had three integer constants in a 32 bit program and in a 64 bit program. Guess what? the 64 bit constants, even thugh they are the same, take twice as much space in disk, hence take twice as long to load.
Whatever your job description might have said, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
You are quite loud for somebody who doesn't know the basics about paging and caching.
And IBM said no one needed the power of the 80386. Then Compaq released their 386 monster and IBM stopped mattering in the PC world.
The difference is that we have had plenty of 64 bit processors aimed at the lower end and they just don't work. It is too expensive to bring in 64 bits from RAM to cache when the average variable has less than 8 significant bits. Hence the packed words of VLIW Itanium.
Back when my job description included developing code for the Alpha and the Pentium, just paging in the larger 64 bit code killed the speed advantage of the Alpha chip.
Ability to distribute a key is not an arbitrary metric. To the contrary what is totally arbitrary is to focus solely on strength vs key size while ignoring all practical considerations. It is a bad of habit, although sadly all too common, to state that something is optimal and not specify the metric. This is, to say the least, misleading (e.g. Huffman codes are optimal, right?).
Information theory proves that the One-Time Pad (OTP) is optimal - it cannot be improved.
That is not correct. Information theory proves that one-time pad is unbreakable. Optimality, on the other hand, is a whole other thing. For one you have to specify what you are measuring: Security? Easyness of operation? Ability to distribute keys easily (like PKC)?
Many people think PKC is best because key distribution is a lot simpler than for most other encryption schemes.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the point. These operations have well defined meanings outside C.
C subverts that meaning with arcane rules. Indeed gives a different value than There is always a tendency in the
In contrast, sqrt(2) used to be an inderteminate value, in ANSI C sqrt(2) == sqrt(2.0) as one would expect.
This is a trend that has been going on now for about ten years now. The average upgrade time has been slowly moving up, from 12 months to 24 months over the last ten years IIRC. My guess is that average home computer upgrade time has moved from 2-3 years to 5-6 years (with the exception of gamers, who ofetn live on the cutting edge).
For people to upgrade, they need to see sluggish performance. An upgraded GUI can soak tons of raw CPU power in ways that make you yearn for it (just ask the Mac folks about CPU consumption under the OS X GUI). Transparent windows, photo realistic icons, bayesian user interfaces, fully indexable content, database file system, you name it: these features can keep a P4 busy all day.
Until then, a slow pentium at home is all I need to surf the web and read e-mail.
large cost involved in the promotion and discovery of talent.
True talent does not need to be promoted. On the other hand the collection of lip singing artists put out by the record industry needs a ton of promotion as otherwise nobody in their right mind would listen to Christina Aguilera.....
You run ssty erase ^H and you'll fix it.
Nope. Is quite a bit more complex than that, and it is a pine specific problem according to several web sites out there. less does not show this behavior, with or without the "fix".
It don't work custard. I've done some research on this problem in the past, and it is a pine specific implementation problem.
Look in the configuration for 'alt-addresses'.
Thanks dude. I looked around the place where you enter the main address in the config, and couldn't find any likely candidate for secondary address nearbt... Even if I had seen the "alt-field" at the end, I don't think I would have clued in that this was what I was looking for.
Fix it yourself
That is a surprise. A linux fanatic blaming yet another *nix idiocy on the user. Then they run stories wondering why people are still using Windows instead of Linux. Gee, I wonder why....
It's not a bug in pine, it's a bug in your termcap database.
Interesting as no other program has that problem....
Did they fix the Ctrl-H Backspace bug?
Can it understand more than one local sender address as not to be included in the reply set?
Salon magazine is a great magazine, but it has never gotten the web. The greatest advantage of the web is that "the content is out there".
Rather than paying $100K to traditional writers to pen articles in HTML instead of a remington, they should have tapped into the plethora of expertise available in the web, at much lower rates.
A magazine that really understood how the web operates would
(1) have a lot more letters from the readers
(2) allow the best, most informed letters to become part of the article (kind of
(3) invite leads from the readership at large which would then be completed jointly with a journalism major
(4) Publish a large number of articles a day under this model, making it more likely that people would pay for a subscription
(5) ???
(6) profit
This and our continued support for israel is the reason for the WTC attacks,
Actually, while this explains a lot of the hatred for the US from the Arab people at large, Al-Qaida's main reason for the WTC attack was to get the "infidel" US troops out of the "vicinity" of Mecca. This is in spite of the US troops being in Saudia Arabai at the invitation of the government to *defend* Saudi interests from Sadam Hussein's machinations.
To be fair, it's an extraordinarily difficult problem for TI et al to solve: The chips are necessarily trivial -- they're *powered* by the sensors, for crying out loud. Not only is it nearly impossible to build any kind of cryptosystem into a chip that small and weak, but the system itself would remain utterly defenseless against electrical skullduggery: Manipulating a chip's power source is one of the definitive ways of divining its cryptographic secrets, as Satellite TV hackers have been pointing out for quite some time.
When developing a new technology there are technical problems and fundamental problems. A technical problem is "friction must be reduced an extra 20%", a fundamental problem is "this only works if there is no friction whatsoever".
What you describe is a technical problem. Technical problems are rarely unsurmountable and quite often ingenious work arounds can be found.
RFIDs are closer than you think....
1) setenv DISPLAY mordor:0.0
2) backspace key doing any number of things (including delete and help key) rather than what is supposed to do (hint: it's says backspace)
3) main editors not always mouse aware (vi, emacs)
4) lack, until recently, of a decent graphical mail application
5) lack of a decent word processor. Forget about word: could somebody clone Wordpad and include it in all standard Unix distros?
6) ugly font design. KDE and GNOME are light years ahead of motif but the fonts they use still suck.
7) default values for almost all unix commands are obscure cases rather than the norm. For example, typing xterm from the command shell should background itself without need for '&' with an explicit command option *not* to do this
8) lack of support of extended character set. e.g. vim seven-bits by default all characters.
9) lack of third party applications
I don't think Excite ever had the crown (for example, AFAIK it didn't properly support advanced searches). The list goes more or less like this
Lycos
Infoseek
Open Text
Altavista
Inktomi
Altavista
Google
With Altavista and Google being the two that have been on top the longest.
You are establishing a false dichotomy: either the software is hard to install or it has to be full of exploits.
This is totally bogus. It is possible to have easy to install software that is not ridden with holes.
Why do you think people are writing documentations?
The beef is not with software having documentation. The beef is with an OSS attitude (much like yours in your message) along the lines: "why should I make your life easier?".
That reflects negatively in TCO for OSS, whether you like to admit it or not.
This has been my personal experience too. Generally if I need a new package installed on either a Windows server or a Linux box, I have the package on Windows running a few minutes after I inserted the CD. With Linux I'm still changing permissions and looking up mailing lists a good four hours after I started.
This doesn't have to be this way. But for some reason OSS seems to atract RTFM types as developers.
You don't get it, do you?
A one liner is not meant to be taken 100% literally.
You trying to deconstruct the last ounce of meaning from this one liner by talking about absurd figures is looking at the finger, not at the sky.
There is a saying that the wiseman points to the sky and the idiot looks at the finger...
Money spent educating people is never a waste.
People have been presenting graphic search engines since 1995 (look up the WWW conference, for example). To this date, none of them have succeeded.
For all graph visualizers out there: no one cares that you can draw a nifty little graph with arrows as links (duh!). The question is: is the information associated with those links best grasped visually?
The page ranking algorithm from Google uses link information to compute the ranking of the result set. It is unclear how a collection of lines in a blank page will enhance the fact that the top reference is, ahem, the top reference...
if(q[i]="Searchking") {
0 error(s), 1 warning(s):
Program language deprecated; please upgrade:
http://www.python.org.
What are we to do in 5 years when everyone wants more than 2GB of ram. Is it going to just magically apear because we wish it?
You need hybrid architectures that support 64 bit addressing while not making everything under the sun (no pun intended) a 64 bit constant. One way to do that is VLIW, another is to support small and large operands. All three of these options are available in the market already...
Have you heard the one about:
People made 8 bit machines and saw they were good.
They made 16 bit machines and they were better.
They made 32 bit machines and they were the best.
So they made 64 bit machines which are even bester.
Third, what's this crap about it being "too expensive" to transfer 64-bits of data in from RAM?
Easy if your words are bigger, you consume cache faster.
Similarly on "paging in 64 bit code", suppose you had three integer constants in a 32 bit program and in a 64 bit program. Guess what? the 64 bit constants, even thugh they are the same, take twice as much space in disk, hence take twice as long to load.
Whatever your job description might have said, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
You are quite loud for somebody who doesn't know the basics about paging and caching.
And IBM said no one needed the power of the 80386. Then Compaq released their 386 monster and IBM stopped mattering in the PC world.
The difference is that we have had plenty of 64 bit processors aimed at the lower end and they just don't work. It is too expensive to bring in 64 bits from RAM to cache when the average variable has less than 8 significant bits. Hence the packed words of VLIW Itanium.
Back when my job description included developing code for the Alpha and the Pentium, just paging in the larger 64 bit code killed the speed advantage of the Alpha chip.
Give me a break!
I won't.
Of course if you choose arbitrary metrics,
Ability to distribute a key is not an arbitrary metric. To the contrary what is totally arbitrary is to focus solely on strength vs key size while ignoring all practical considerations. It is a bad of habit, although sadly all too common, to state that something is optimal and not specify the metric. This is, to say the least, misleading (e.g. Huffman codes are optimal, right?).
Information theory proves that the One-Time Pad (OTP) is optimal - it cannot be improved.
That is not correct. Information theory proves that one-time pad is unbreakable. Optimality, on the other hand, is a whole other thing. For one you have to specify what you are measuring: Security? Easyness of operation? Ability to distribute keys easily (like PKC)?
Many people think PKC is best because key distribution is a lot simpler than for most other encryption schemes.