You save the instructions on how to build and operate a reader... onto a stone disc. That way archaeologists in the future will be able to know how to build new readers. =)
Yes of course, when you're working within memory alone.
However, when you stream out of memory (say, to disk) then you can keep on appending short string fragments to the file until you're done. You really didn't (past tense) want to build the contents of that stream in memory, because you might run out of memory before completing (what might be) a very long string. And with streaming you usually couldn't jump back X number of bytes (to rewrite the length of a string). With files, you had to start writing from beginning to end, one way, no jumps.
That issue alone could have been enough to tip the scales in favour of null terminated strings, as not being able to write really long strings to file may have been seen as a serious design flaw. Though, in retospect that might not be so obvious.
Not saying that it's better to use null terminated strings. Personally I always preferred sized strings, but I'm saying that streaming may be one of the factors that led them to choose null termination over pre-sizing.
With sized strings you need to know the length of the complete string before you begin streaming. So you'd stream the size first, followed by the content of the string. Not good if your string could be very long and memory is expensive.
But with null terminated strings you can keep on appending almost ad-infinitum, using whatever business logic you like, until you finally end it with a null.
The question is: Did the company pay him to develop the code, or did he do it in his own time and place?
It sounds like he's written the code in his own time and that he volunteered it to the project. If so, then what the business is doing is just as wrong as downloading source and then claiming it to be their own.
But if he did develop it during paid time then yes, you're quite right - it belongs to the company.
It sounds like he's written his own code in his own time that he volunteered to the project. If so, then what the business is doing is just as wrong as downloading open source and then claiming it to be their own.
the fact is, you where working for them, earning money producing something *they* own
Not necessarily. I write my own libraries at home, so that code is entirely mine. Then, when working on client projects, I sometimes volunteer my libraries, meaning that I'm paid to put them in. But the libraries are still mine, just as any other 3rd party library belongs to its creator. And if one of my clients claimed "creation dibs" on my code, then I probably would be a little miffed too.
It's unlikely to replace current electricity generators but it could be a good supplement. Something that converts ambient heat to electricity could be used to...
- extract that bit more electricity from the exhaust of steam turbines and engines (ex. electric hybrid cars).
- extend battery life of devices that get hot (ex. laptops (though good laptops run fairly cool anyway)).
- be used to cool things down for "free" (if we can make them efficient enough). Uses: fridge walls, aircons, solar panel coolers, etc.
This sort of thing could be a very useful supplemental technology. I couldn't find in the articles how efficient they are. Anyone know?
If no link has been found yet, then it's unlikely that one will be found. However, many people do actually get warm ear aches that develop into headaches (myself included). I'm pretty certain it's not psychosomatic for a variety of reasons (that I can't be bothered listing out yet again, though one reason is the fairly consistent sensation across many people).
So is it dangerous? It seems not (and it seems quite clear that it does not cause cancer). Also, not enough energy is generated to warm up all that water in the head. So what is happening then?
How about testing for other things for a change? For example, how about starting by measuring the percieved effects on people who claim to be sensitive?
Um... some of us actually like 3D. Personally I don't care for it in movies, but in gaming it's great.
And yeah, sure it's gimmicky... for now. But that's because it hasn't matured yet. I think once the play-stage is over, then people will have found lots of industrial uses for it as well.
For years governments (at least in Australia) have been saying that going green will be bad for jobs and economy, while some of us have been saying there is enormous business potential in green tech, if given the right guidance. (Although in my opinion, the best guidance is probably not subsidies.)
I reckon that the easiest way to go green is by taking advantage of capitalism, but for some reason the Liberals (blue) just don't seem to see it. It seems they're only on board now that they realise that they're losing votes because of their stance. In Australia I wish there was a cyan party (blue-green) rather than the Greens (which is really red-green).
Is it just in Australia that it's like this? How about the US and Europe? Can other governments see the business potential in "green technology" other than China?
When "attention grabbing" antics like the one you pointed out distort to that degree, then real journalism comes closer to sensationalism, which undermines the news business altogether. When that happens, how can we trust what we read/hear? How can we be properly educated about current events? How can we make fair democratic decisions?
I think that a non-sensationalist news outlet that quite simply reports what journalists honestly believe happened, would in fact do very well.
Listening to most of them, almost all of them say the same thing regardless of their personal point of view.
The question appears to be: "Should evolution be taught in schools?" I'd say that that's a biased question right there.
Their answers were mostly: "Both evolution and faith should be taught so that people can make up their own minds."
Obviously, if you want to be voted the winner, you don't want to alienate a huge chunk of voters. (I don't know who votes, judges or viewers. Not that it matters.) So from a strategic point of view, they are pretty much bound to say that both should be taught.
Notable exceptions to the rule that I found:
- Miss Minnesota, 7:19
- Miss Nevada, 8:36
- Miss New Mexico, 9:46
- Miss Pennsylvania, 11:28
- Miss South Dakota, 12:03
- Miss Vermont, 13:00
I only found one who appeared to be against evolution in schools. Can't remember who. But she was against teaching both.
Reading between the lines, I'd say that very roughly about half (possibly a little less) seem to be evolutionists, but were treading too carefully to be up front about it.
I figured that apostrophe use for plurals would differ between the word blackberry (edible) and the name Blackberry, which I thought should be immutable. I guess not.
Where I live, few people use Blackberry's (iPhone and Andoid devices are far more prevalent) and the few Blackberry users I've spoken seem have been disappointed with them. So that's my interpretation of the "Gov't approval" post.
Whoosh!!! I think GP meant that Blackberry's are as useful as toasters (ie. not).
While I'm not disagreeing with that general image of people in the US, I also know (despite not living in the US myself) that there are too many exceptions to make it overall true.
Your post is completely off topic flamebait. Someone mod parent as such please, just to teach him to be polite.
I don't understand this from the labels' perspective... if they find that "piracy" actually helps their sales, then why do they insist on paying huge amounts to fight it?
I suppose I can see two options:
1. Political momentum / Saving face. "We've sunk so much into this for so long, that we'd look stupid and open ourselves up to counter claims if we admitted that we've been wrong all this time."
2. There are different types of distribution. For example: BitTorrent is not the same thing as selling $2 copies in Asian market stalls. (Though, from the customer's point of view I don't see the difference.)
So would it not benefit labels to trim down their anti-piracy war to save on costs, allow the profitable piracy types to prosper and focus more intently on the damaging types of piracy (if there are any)?
Slashdot Mirror
You save the instructions on how to build and operate a reader... onto a stone disc. That way archaeologists in the future will be able to know how to build new readers. =)
Nah. They'd get in the way of the mower. ;)
Perhaps 'cos he enjoys solving problems, just for the fun of it. (Or perhaps 'cos he's had to convince himself that he enjoys it. ;)
Yes of course, when you're working within memory alone.
However, when you stream out of memory (say, to disk) then you can keep on appending short string fragments to the file until you're done. You really didn't (past tense) want to build the contents of that stream in memory, because you might run out of memory before completing (what might be) a very long string. And with streaming you usually couldn't jump back X number of bytes (to rewrite the length of a string). With files, you had to start writing from beginning to end, one way, no jumps.
That issue alone could have been enough to tip the scales in favour of null terminated strings, as not being able to write really long strings to file may have been seen as a serious design flaw. Though, in retospect that might not be so obvious.
Not saying that it's better to use null terminated strings. Personally I always preferred sized strings, but I'm saying that streaming may be one of the factors that led them to choose null termination over pre-sizing.
With sized strings you need to know the length of the complete string before you begin streaming. So you'd stream the size first, followed by the content of the string. Not good if your string could be very long and memory is expensive.
But with null terminated strings you can keep on appending almost ad-infinitum, using whatever business logic you like, until you finally end it with a null.
Does he get lifetime membership on /. for his choice of hobby?
Just need to shrink 'em to keyring size and I'll be able to find my keys! ;)
The question is: Did the company pay him to develop the code, or did he do it in his own time and place?
It sounds like he's written the code in his own time and that he volunteered it to the project. If so, then what the business is doing is just as wrong as downloading source and then claiming it to be their own.
But if he did develop it during paid time then yes, you're quite right - it belongs to the company.
It sounds like he's written his own code in his own time that he volunteered to the project. If so, then what the business is doing is just as wrong as downloading open source and then claiming it to be their own.
the fact is, you where working for them, earning money producing something *they* own
Not necessarily. I write my own libraries at home, so that code is entirely mine. Then, when working on client projects, I sometimes volunteer my libraries, meaning that I'm paid to put them in. But the libraries are still mine, just as any other 3rd party library belongs to its creator. And if one of my clients claimed "creation dibs" on my code, then I probably would be a little miffed too.
It's unlikely to replace current electricity generators but it could be a good supplement. Something that converts ambient heat to electricity could be used to...
- extract that bit more electricity from the exhaust of steam turbines and engines (ex. electric hybrid cars).
- extend battery life of devices that get hot (ex. laptops (though good laptops run fairly cool anyway)).
- be used to cool things down for "free" (if we can make them efficient enough). Uses: fridge walls, aircons, solar panel coolers, etc.
This sort of thing could be a very useful supplemental technology. I couldn't find in the articles how efficient they are. Anyone know?
...then make 'em join you. It's testing using cheap crowdsourcing. Very sensible, as those cracks would likely be used against them anyway..
Microsoft has not taken any measures to curb access to its database
So? Why bother? If it's Microsoft security, then what difference would it make?
If no link has been found yet, then it's unlikely that one will be found. However, many people do actually get warm ear aches that develop into headaches (myself included). I'm pretty certain it's not psychosomatic for a variety of reasons (that I can't be bothered listing out yet again, though one reason is the fairly consistent sensation across many people).
So is it dangerous? It seems not (and it seems quite clear that it does not cause cancer). Also, not enough energy is generated to warm up all that water in the head. So what is happening then?
How about testing for other things for a change? For example, how about starting by measuring the percieved effects on people who claim to be sensitive?
Um... some of us actually like 3D. Personally I don't care for it in movies, but in gaming it's great.
And yeah, sure it's gimmicky... for now. But that's because it hasn't matured yet. I think once the play-stage is over, then people will have found lots of industrial uses for it as well.
For years governments (at least in Australia) have been saying that going green will be bad for jobs and economy, while some of us have been saying there is enormous business potential in green tech, if given the right guidance. (Although in my opinion, the best guidance is probably not subsidies.)
I reckon that the easiest way to go green is by taking advantage of capitalism, but for some reason the Liberals (blue) just don't seem to see it. It seems they're only on board now that they realise that they're losing votes because of their stance. In Australia I wish there was a cyan party (blue-green) rather than the Greens (which is really red-green).
Is it just in Australia that it's like this? How about the US and Europe? Can other governments see the business potential in "green technology" other than China?
... it's the Sentinel's ship.
When "attention grabbing" antics like the one you pointed out distort to that degree, then real journalism comes closer to sensationalism, which undermines the news business altogether.
When that happens, how can we trust what we read/hear? How can we be properly educated about current events? How can we make fair democratic decisions?
I think that a non-sensationalist news outlet that quite simply reports what journalists honestly believe happened, would in fact do very well.
Listening to most of them, almost all of them say the same thing regardless of their personal point of view.
The question appears to be: "Should evolution be taught in schools?" I'd say that that's a biased question right there.
Their answers were mostly: "Both evolution and faith should be taught so that people can make up their own minds."
Obviously, if you want to be voted the winner, you don't want to alienate a huge chunk of voters. (I don't know who votes, judges or viewers. Not that it matters.) So from a strategic point of view, they are pretty much bound to say that both should be taught.
Notable exceptions to the rule that I found:
- Miss Minnesota, 7:19
- Miss Nevada, 8:36
- Miss New Mexico, 9:46
- Miss Pennsylvania, 11:28
- Miss South Dakota, 12:03
- Miss Vermont, 13:00
I only found one who appeared to be against evolution in schools. Can't remember who. But she was against teaching both.
Reading between the lines, I'd say that very roughly about half (possibly a little less) seem to be evolutionists, but were treading too carefully to be up front about it.
Ah, I see. I was whooshed. Thanks for the tip. :)
I figured that apostrophe use for plurals would differ between the word blackberry (edible) and the name Blackberry, which I thought should be immutable. I guess not.
Where I live, few people use Blackberry's (iPhone and Andoid devices are far more prevalent) and the few Blackberry users I've spoken seem have been disappointed with them. So that's my interpretation of the "Gov't approval" post.
Whoosh!!! I think GP meant that Blackberry's are as useful as toasters (ie. not).
While I'm not disagreeing with that general image of people in the US, I also know (despite not living in the US myself) that there are too many exceptions to make it overall true.
Your post is completely off topic flamebait. Someone mod parent as such please, just to teach him to be polite.
I don't understand this from the labels' perspective... if they find that "piracy" actually helps their sales, then why do they insist on paying huge amounts to fight it?
I suppose I can see two options:
1. Political momentum / Saving face. "We've sunk so much into this for so long, that we'd look stupid and open ourselves up to counter claims if we admitted that we've been wrong all this time."
2. There are different types of distribution. For example: BitTorrent is not the same thing as selling $2 copies in Asian market stalls. (Though, from the customer's point of view I don't see the difference.)
So would it not benefit labels to trim down their anti-piracy war to save on costs, allow the profitable piracy types to prosper and focus more intently on the damaging types of piracy (if there are any)?
This seems to have nothing to do with topic. Am I completely whooshed, or is this a trick to get YouTube hits?
This article suggests using short phrases instead of cryptic passwords.
I don't know if you whooshed me or I whooshed you. Gandma' is long pig. Human flesh tastes like sweet pork, similar to spam (I'm told).