Nitpick: The C standard is published by ISO; ANSI adopts each new version as it comes out.
All three editions of the ISO C standard (1990, 1999, and 2011) permit main to have an implementation-defined type.
Only "int main(void)" and "int main(int argc, char *argv[])" (or equivalent) are required to be supported by all C implementations -- and that applies only to hosted implementations. For freestanding implementations, the program entry point is entirely implementation-defined.
In the original episode "Metamorphosis", it wasn't clear where Cochrane was originally from. He could have been a humanoid native of a planet in the the Alpha Centauri system (at the time I thought "Zefram Cochrane" was a sufficiently exotic name that he could have been non-human). Or, more likely, he could have been born in a colony established by sublight ships; we know from "Space Seed" that there were sublight sleeper ships before the invention of warp drive.
Annoying quibble: Kirk's line was "Zefram Cochrane? Of Alpha Centauri?" (The "of" might have a subtly different implication than "from".)
Why do so many people object so vehemently to the question?
I personally don't have much trouble with the difference between calculator and telephone keypads; I can switch between them without much mental effort. (I can also switch between vi and emacs, and between bash and tcsh.)
But on every system I use, one of the first things I do is figure out how to remap the caps-lock key so it acts as a control key. In decades of effort, I've never gotten used to having the control key in a position other than immediately to the left of 'A'. If it works for most people, that's terrific, but it doesn't work for me.
But the OP does have a problem with it. The "destroys muscle- and spatial- memory" part seems exaggerated, but it may well be accurate *for the person asking the question*.
Different people have different mental models and usage patterns. Devices and software are supposed to be designed for users, not the other way around.
My Ubuntu 8.10 system froze around midnight GMT. There's nothing in the logs to indicate any problem, except that the last log entry is at Dec 31 15:55:02 (that's 5 minutes before midnight) for a cron job that runs every 5 minutes. I wasn't at home at the time, so I didn't see what happened, except that my ssh connection died.
When I got home a few hours later, the system was still powered on (the fan was running), but the screen was blank. I was able to reboot it with no problem.
It's not the same problem as on the Zune, since that hit 24 hours earlier. It *might* have something to do with the leap second, or maybe it's a problem that occurs at the end of the 366th day of the year.
I suppose I could set the clock back and run it through midnight again. I'm not sure I'll bother, but if somebody else wants to try it it would be interesting to see the results. Or maybe I'll try that with a live CD.
Elbot: Oh, I'm fine. I just had my 30 millionth processor-cycle check-up. I've been massaged with motor oil, reprogrammed with the latest, most elegant algorithms, and had all my rust removed with an atom smasher.
Oh yeah, no computer could simulate human intelligence *that* well.
> It does (unchecked_conversion), but never (AFAIK) *implicitly*.
Unchecked_Conversion reinterprets the bits of the argument as a value of the specified type.
Ada also allows ordinary value conversions (for example, converting 3.1 to type Integer yields 3) among sufficiently closely related types; for example, a value of any numeric type can be converted to any other numeric type. It requires such conversions to be explicit in more cases than many other languages.
And yes, my experience is that it's more common in Ada than in, say, C, for a program to work correctly the first time you get it to compile successfully.
I agree; the 2000 election shouldn't have been close. I've never understood why so many people voted for Bush in 2000, much less in 2004.
But even in 2000, Nader knew it was going to be a close election, he knew he had no real chance of winning, and he knew that he would be taking more votes away from Gore than from Bush. Knowing all this, he ran anyway.
I'm not saying the Bush presidency is his fault (there were plenty of other factors in play), but if he had chosen not to run, there's a very good chance Bush would not have been sworn in on January 20, 2001. And Nader should have known this.
And no, it's not fair that a vote for a third-party candidate has nearly the same effect as a vote for whichever of the two major candidates you like least. There are electoral systems that don't have this problem, such as systems in which you rank all the candidates, so if your first choice loses you're still able to express a preference among the others. If Nader were out there advocating election reform, I'd have some respect for him.
Has the "Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" joke gone out of fashion? In the old days, someone would have posted it before the ink was dry on the story (and virtual ink dries really fast).
This is really about the separation of powers. The President insists that since he has wartime authorization, he has pretty wide authority to break the law. That is, the law is written, and he doesn't have to follow it because another law trumps it.
The problem with that reasoning is that there isn't another law that grants this authority to the President.
This bill doesn't really change anything legally, but when it comes time for the third branch of government to have their say on the issue, Congress' intentions will be unambiguous: yes, they do mean that FISA is the ONLY way you can do domestic wiretapping.
President Bush is quite fond of "signing statements". When President Carter signed FISA, he issued a signing statement saying that FISA is the only way you can do domestic wiretapping.
It would be nice if laws could be simple and unambiguous, like a well-written piece of software. Instead, laws are written over a long time by a lot of different people, just like real software. Software crashes; laws get inconsistencies. You can point it out for laughs but when it's your phone they're tapping, or your right to life/liberty/property sitting in the ambiguity, it's not so funny.
This particular law is already unambiguous, and the administration has been unambiguously violating it.
Stars are much bigger than planets, and have much deeper gravity wells. A body floating through interstellar space is far more likely to hit a star than a planet.
Presumably the bacteria would not survive the experience.
It mandates that the paper records be the authoritative source in any recounts...
Make the paper record the authoritative source in any and all counts.
If the paper record (it's called a ballot!) is computer-generated, that's ok, as long as the voter gets to verify it, and as long as everything on the ballot is human-readable. (If it looks like a human-readable ballot but the actual vote is recorded in a barcode, that's subject to abuse; the voter has no way to confirm that the barcode matches the actual vote.)
And I don't think there's any good reason not to count the ballots by hand.
Of course they're not granted, the government doesn't grant any rights. It can protect or violate them, but not decide that they were not granted to someone.
Yes, that's true; that's the political theory on which the Constitution is based. It's spelled out in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...]
I wish I could believe that that's what Gonzalez meant, but his record does not imply that he understands this.
Most likely because they were doing illegal things that a court wouldn't have approved. (Their previous claims that getting permission would have taken too long are not plausible; the law allows for retroactive permission in some cases.)
If he really posted his REAL name and REAL email address on public newsgroups, he should never be a programmer anyway.
If this is intended to be a general point, it's nonsense. I post to Usenet with my real name and a real e-mail address all the time. Why should that disqualify me from being a programmer?
(If you just mean that he shouldn't post under his real name complaining about how difficult it is to get heroin, then I have no argument.)
I once installed some GPLed software (sorry, I don't remember what it was) that displayed the GPL as if it were a EULA. But rather than having "Accept" and "Don't accept" buttons, it has a single button labeled "Cool!".
Slashdot Mirror
Nitpick: The C standard is published by ISO; ANSI adopts each new version as it comes out.
All three editions of the ISO C standard (1990, 1999, and 2011) permit main to have an implementation-defined type.
Only "int main(void)" and "int main(int argc, char *argv[])" (or equivalent) are required to be supported by all C implementations -- and that applies only to hosted implementations. For freestanding implementations, the program entry point is entirely implementation-defined.
In the original episode "Metamorphosis", it wasn't clear where Cochrane was originally from. He could have been a humanoid native of a planet in the the Alpha Centauri system (at the time I thought "Zefram Cochrane" was a sufficiently exotic name that he could have been non-human). Or, more likely, he could have been born in a colony established by sublight ships; we know from "Space Seed" that there were sublight sleeper ships before the invention of warp drive.
Annoying quibble: Kirk's line was "Zefram Cochrane? Of Alpha Centauri?" (The "of" might have a subtly different implication than "from".)
Why do so many people object so vehemently to the question?
I personally don't have much trouble with the difference between calculator and telephone keypads; I can switch between them without much mental effort. (I can also switch between vi and emacs, and between bash and tcsh.)
But on every system I use, one of the first things I do is figure out how to remap the caps-lock key so it acts as a control key. In decades of effort, I've never gotten used to having the control key in a position other than immediately to the left of 'A'. If it works for most people, that's terrific, but it doesn't work for me.
But the OP does have a problem with it. The "destroys muscle- and spatial- memory" part seems exaggerated, but it may well be accurate *for the person asking the question*.
Different people have different mental models and usage patterns. Devices and software are supposed to be designed for users, not the other way around.
It's not a stupid question at all.
So it's not a problem *for you*. So what? It's obviously a problem for the OP.
Two is not an issue; there's no way to reply to these broadcast messages (at least not directly).
No these are far too easy. Want we want are SECRET QUESTIONS, not answers.
Mine is, "The answer is 42. What is the question?".
41?
Obviously it stands for "Shut Your Frakking Yap".
I encourage everyone to spread this idea. (Thanks to my brother who came up with it.)
My Ubuntu 8.10 system froze around midnight GMT. There's nothing in the logs to indicate any problem, except that the last log entry is at Dec 31 15:55:02 (that's 5 minutes before midnight) for a cron job that runs every 5 minutes. I wasn't at home at the time, so I didn't see what happened, except that my ssh connection died.
When I got home a few hours later, the system was still powered on (the fan was running), but the screen was blank. I was able to reboot it with no problem.
It's not the same problem as on the Zune, since that hit 24 hours earlier. It *might* have something to do with the leap second, or maybe it's a problem that occurs at the end of the 366th day of the year.
I suppose I could set the clock back and run it through midnight again. I'm not sure I'll bother, but if somebody else wants to try it it would be interesting to see the results. Or maybe I'll try that with a live CD.
Here's the conversation I just had with Elbot:
Me: How well did you do on the Turing Test?
Elbot: Oh, I'm fine. I just had my 30 millionth processor-cycle check-up. I've been massaged with motor oil, reprogrammed with the latest, most elegant algorithms, and had all my rust removed with an atom smasher.
Oh yeah, no computer could simulate human intelligence *that* well.
Here's one piece of customization that would really make me happy, even though it's a minor thing.
Let me customize the keyboard layout so the shift-lock key acts as a control key.
(I do this now, but it requires a registry update, and it applies to all users on the system.)
I can't help wondering how many of the people making snide comments about Ada (note: not ADA; it's not an acronym) have actually used it.
Ada isn't just a palindrome. It's a hexadecimal palindrome. How many other languages can make that claim?
(Well, six that I can think of: B, C, D, E, F, and my own 99.)
>> It doesn't allow for type conversion
> It does (unchecked_conversion), but never (AFAIK) *implicitly*.
Unchecked_Conversion reinterprets the bits of the argument as a value of the specified type.
Ada also allows ordinary value conversions (for example, converting 3.1 to type Integer yields 3) among sufficiently closely related types; for example, a value of any numeric type can be converted to any other numeric type. It requires such conversions to be explicit in more cases than many other languages.
And yes, my experience is that it's more common in Ada than in, say, C, for a program to work correctly the first time you get it to compile successfully.
I agree; the 2000 election shouldn't have been close. I've never understood why so many people voted for Bush in 2000, much less in 2004.
But even in 2000, Nader knew it was going to be a close election, he knew he had no real chance of winning, and he knew that he would be taking more votes away from Gore than from Bush. Knowing all this, he ran anyway.
I'm not saying the Bush presidency is his fault (there were plenty of other factors in play), but if he had chosen not to run, there's a very good chance Bush would not have been sworn in on January 20, 2001. And Nader should have known this.
And no, it's not fair that a vote for a third-party candidate has nearly the same effect as a vote for whichever of the two major candidates you like least. There are electoral systems that don't have this problem, such as systems in which you rank all the candidates, so if your first choice loses you're still able to express a preference among the others. If Nader were out there advocating election reform, I'd have some respect for him.
Has the "Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" joke gone out of fashion? In the old days, someone would have posted it before the ink was dry on the story (and virtual ink dries really fast).
It's the San Diego Supercomputer Center (http://www.sdsc.edu/), not the San Diego Supercomputing Center.
Is there any actual evidence that "extreme" pornography triggers violent behavior?
This is really about the separation of powers. The President insists that since he has wartime authorization, he has pretty wide authority to break the law. That is, the law is written, and he doesn't have to follow it because another law trumps it.
The problem with that reasoning is that there isn't another law that grants this authority to the President.
This bill doesn't really change anything legally, but when it comes time for the third branch of government to have their say on the issue, Congress' intentions will be unambiguous: yes, they do mean that FISA is the ONLY way you can do domestic wiretapping.
President Bush is quite fond of "signing statements". When President Carter signed FISA, he issued a signing statement saying that FISA is the only way you can do domestic wiretapping.
It would be nice if laws could be simple and unambiguous, like a well-written piece of software. Instead, laws are written over a long time by a lot of different people, just like real software. Software crashes; laws get inconsistencies. You can point it out for laughs but when it's your phone they're tapping, or your right to life/liberty/property sitting in the ambiguity, it's not so funny.
This particular law is already unambiguous, and the administration has been unambiguously violating it.
Stars are much bigger than planets, and have much deeper gravity wells. A body floating through interstellar space is far more likely to hit a star than a planet.
Presumably the bacteria would not survive the experience.
It mandates that the paper records be the authoritative source in any recounts ...
Make the paper record the authoritative source in any and all counts.
If the paper record (it's called a ballot!) is computer-generated, that's ok, as long as the voter gets to verify it, and as long as everything on the ballot is human-readable. (If it looks like a human-readable ballot but the actual vote is recorded in a barcode, that's subject to abuse; the voter has no way to confirm that the barcode matches the actual vote.)
And I don't think there's any good reason not to count the ballots by hand.
Of course they're not granted, the government doesn't grant any rights. It can protect or violate them, but not decide that they were not granted to someone.
Yes, that's true; that's the political theory on which the Constitution is based. It's spelled out in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...]
I wish I could believe that that's what Gonzalez meant, but his record does not imply that he understands this.
Most likely because they were doing illegal things that a court wouldn't have approved. (Their previous claims that getting permission would have taken too long are not plausible; the law allows for retroactive permission in some cases.)
If he really posted his REAL name and REAL email address on public newsgroups, he should never be a programmer anyway.
If this is intended to be a general point, it's nonsense. I post to Usenet with my real name and a real e-mail address all the time. Why should that disqualify me from being a programmer?
(If you just mean that he shouldn't post under his real name complaining about how difficult it is to get heroin, then I have no argument.)
It's the zinf audio player.
I once installed some GPLed software (sorry, I don't remember what it was) that displayed the GPL as if it were a EULA. But rather than having "Accept" and "Don't accept" buttons, it has a single button labeled "Cool!".