Yeah, especially given that Bush and bin Laden are connected by much fewer than six degrees...
Consider how nicely the bin Laden family was treated in the days immediately following 9/11, when the government allowed a plane to fly around and pick them up to take them out of the country after only the most cursory FBI screening. (No one else was allowed to fly at the time except the military.) I mean, normally the relatives of a suspect in a murder will be questioned to see if they can lead you to the suspect or provide any evidence that he either did or didn't do the crime. But Bushes and the bin Ladens go way back, and they got off the hook. Way to be "strong on terrorism", Bush.
I know people who do this in real life, and they're not all homophobic. They just don't think about it. I'm pretty sure that if there were a gay person in the room, they wouldn't do it, because then they'd suddenly realize that it's insulting. But when among straight males, they figure "no one's going to get offended". I'm not trying to apologize for them, and if I were gay I'd be pretty pissed about it, but don't assume they're all homophobic.
That said, some of the people who talk like that undoubtedly are homophobic.
"You, um, push buttons and like stuff happens. Sometimes it's like totally cool stuff but sometimes it's like 'oh man, there's no undo button? Mega bummer!'"
Not sure if anyone has noticed it here yet.
Man, so that's what I miss out on by not installing the kernel-doc package.
Well SMP stands for "symmetric multi processing". That basically means the kernel can run on any processor--they're symmetric in that respect. (The advantage of being symmetric is that multiple processors can run kernel code at once, but the disadvantage is that you need locks and the like.)
If he were going to use the extra processors for nothing but crypto, (a) he'd be wasting them since crypto doesn't take that much CPU by today's standards and (b) it wouldn't be called SMP.
Seriously, I don't see why any application should have a skin at all. The only skin I should have to select is for my desktop environment. The applications can use that skin. (The exception is if an application uses skins to redefine the layout of the interface--still a very bad idea but some browsers love to do it. The browser should still be able to use my native-skinned widgets. *cough*mozilla*cough*)
And paper jams? There'd be no paper jams, if the paper wasn't in the right place the printer would crush it into oblivion.
I've got a better solution for paper jams: a fireproof printer. When it detects that paper is stuck, it will send a jet of flame to consume the wayward sheet.
Re:Why are highly rated comments always sarcastic?
on
Junkie Loves His Spam
·
· Score: 1
That said, my first reaction, is one I always have: why when an interesting topic comes up: why do I find only sarcastic/hopefully humorous comments get through my level 4 filter? Still waiting for an answer on that.
So you're telling me there are 6*10^29 spam messages sent out every year? The average year has 365.2425 days IIRC, which assuming no leap seconds means 31556952 seconds in a year. That works out to approximately 1.9*10^22 spam messages per second. The IPv4 address space has (far) fewer than 4294967296 available addresses. That means that each second, the average Internet-connected computer is sending out more than 4426865629872 spam messages. That's 4.4 trillion spam messages per second from every node on the network, including the billions that don't even exist.
Which leaves me three questions:
Where the fuck did you get that number?
What innumerate moderator thought your post was informative?
It was a joke. And even so, I said "-40 Kelvins", and never said anything about degrees. You assumed I was an idiot and inserted the word "degrees" in your head.
Why do they build trumpet-playing humanoid robots? For publicity. Why do they invest R&D money in robotics? Because that's how you build a car these days.
I don't know if they're ripping off everyone. I do know that they're ripping off Americans, because we pay much higher prices for drugs than people elsewhere in the developed world. Why is this?
They have had what is effectively a military, though they call them "self defence forces". There are plenty of countries in the world that spend less on their militaries than Japan does. It just happens that the US spends more than anyone else on defence than anyone else by far. But plenty of countries that aren't Japan have much smaller military expenditures than Japan, and haven't been as successful as Japan in trade.
If you don't want to do anything with an exception, just catch (Exception e) {}. I agree that generally you should be able to just forget about an object you don't want, but some objects represent "real" things like sockets that need to be closed. The OS doesn't have the option of just forgetting about a socket it doesn't want to deal with, and neither do you.
The alternatives you propose (a log file or a class static variable) are either too specific or downright wrong, respectively. A log file is something some people will want, but most people want to find out about errors programmatically in a clean way and not by reading a stream. A class static variable (a) should be an object variable (hidden by an accessor) if anything and (b) negates one of the advantages of a language that uses exceptions to indicate errors[1].
In Java there's no reason you can't have a separate finalizer method that does if (!isClosed) throw [...]. There's no guarantee it will be run because automatically-run destructors don't really work in a language that doesn't know exactly when an object is destroyed. Think about it this way: the C++ compiler knows that an object is destroyed either when it leaves scope or when you use delete on a pointer to the object. Java can use lazy garbage collection and so it won't know an object has been destroyed until the GC runs. That, in a nutshell, is why you need to call Socket.close() explicitly even when the object is local to a function.
[1] Namely, that you can't accidentally ignore an error; if you want to ignore an error, you have to explicitly catch (and ignore) an exception.
Fortran is extremely good for producing high performance number crunching code (it forbids array overlapping, and thus several assumptions can be made by the compiler).
Check out C99's restrict keyword if you're interested in letting the C compiler make no-aliasing assumptions.
The way I see it, the benefit of garbage collection is nearly canceled by the lack of stack variables and guaranteed destructor calls. I want to just declare a "Socket" variable in the middle of my function and have a guarantee that the socket will be closed when the block is existed in whatever way. finally or with just don't cut it. Say, I use 2 sockets, 1 file, a mutex and a temporary hash table entry at different points in a function. Imagine the mess of nested blocks, especially since Socket.close can actually throw an exception!
You've got the answer in there; you just need to sort it out.:) See, any object whose destructor is needed for more than memory deallocation can probably throw an exception. If the language supports mandatory catching of exceptions (i.e. Java), it's kinda hard to automatically call the destructor at end of scope, because if that scope is a function there's no way to catch the exception. The Java idiom is something like try { socket.close() } catch [...]. Since you have to catch exceptions out of.close()-style destructors, you have to call them explicitly. Yes, that means using finally blocks sometimes, and it can get messy. Where this idiom really fails is when you're writing non-robust programs and you'd rather have an exception fall all the way through than have to catch it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure it covers your left eye. You don't want a stray ninja star getting in there.
Yeah, especially given that Bush and bin Laden are connected by much fewer than six degrees...
Consider how nicely the bin Laden family was treated in the days immediately following 9/11, when the government allowed a plane to fly around and pick them up to take them out of the country after only the most cursory FBI screening. (No one else was allowed to fly at the time except the military.) I mean, normally the relatives of a suspect in a murder will be questioned to see if they can lead you to the suspect or provide any evidence that he either did or didn't do the crime. But Bushes and the bin Ladens go way back, and they got off the hook. Way to be "strong on terrorism", Bush.
I know people who do this in real life, and they're not all homophobic. They just don't think about it. I'm pretty sure that if there were a gay person in the room, they wouldn't do it, because then they'd suddenly realize that it's insulting. But when among straight males, they figure "no one's going to get offended". I'm not trying to apologize for them, and if I were gay I'd be pretty pissed about it, but don't assume they're all homophobic.
That said, some of the people who talk like that undoubtedly are homophobic.
Why the hell not? Look at who opposes gay marriage the most: the old and the Christian. These are not people who play lots of FPSs.
If it's a human language, it probably has a translation of "I want to kill someone right now".
Only on NT. On 9x-based systems, only a few of the unicode functions are implemented.
Man, so that's what I miss out on by not installing the kernel-doc package.
Well SMP stands for "symmetric multi processing". That basically means the kernel can run on any processor--they're symmetric in that respect. (The advantage of being symmetric is that multiple processors can run kernel code at once, but the disadvantage is that you need locks and the like.)
If he were going to use the extra processors for nothing but crypto, (a) he'd be wasting them since crypto doesn't take that much CPU by today's standards and (b) it wouldn't be called SMP.
Why do sites insist on splitting articles into separate pages?
[next page]
It's even worse when the pages are short.
Hell, they often have only a few paragraphs per page.
[next page]
Some sites are kind enough to at least offer a "print article" link.
[next page]
Others don't.
[next page]
It's obvious what they're trying to do.
[next page]
They want to generate ad revenue.
[next page]
[next page]
But really, the joke's on them.
[next page]
Because I use Privoxy.
[next page]
And so they don't get any ad money.
[next page]
But still have to spend money on the extra bandwidth it costs...
[next page]
...to split up the article into separate pages.
Seriously, I don't see why any application should have a skin at all. The only skin I should have to select is for my desktop environment. The applications can use that skin. (The exception is if an application uses skins to redefine the layout of the interface--still a very bad idea but some browsers love to do it. The browser should still be able to use my native-skinned widgets. *cough*mozilla*cough*)
I've got a better solution for paper jams: a fireproof printer. When it detects that paper is stuck, it will send a jet of flame to consume the wayward sheet.
I'll give you two:
When you spend all day responding to spam, you need a lot of vitamin D.
Correction: You can sell anything to somebody.
So you're telling me there are 6*10^29 spam messages sent out every year? The average year has 365.2425 days IIRC, which assuming no leap seconds means 31556952 seconds in a year. That works out to approximately 1.9*10^22 spam messages per second. The IPv4 address space has (far) fewer than 4294967296 available addresses. That means that each second, the average Internet-connected computer is sending out more than 4426865629872 spam messages. That's 4.4 trillion spam messages per second from every node on the network, including the billions that don't even exist.
Which leaves me three questions:
No one tell them about Mozilla on Linux...
It was a joke. And even so, I said "-40 Kelvins", and never said anything about degrees. You assumed I was an idiot and inserted the word "degrees" in your head.
Yeah, but I had taken it to be -40 Kelvins.
Can I get a paper ballot? I don't trust their "electronic voting machine" thingy. What do these people know about reliable software?
Why do they build trumpet-playing humanoid robots? For publicity. Why do they invest R&D money in robotics? Because that's how you build a car these days.
I don't know if they're ripping off everyone. I do know that they're ripping off Americans, because we pay much higher prices for drugs than people elsewhere in the developed world. Why is this?
They have had what is effectively a military, though they call them "self defence forces". There are plenty of countries in the world that spend less on their militaries than Japan does. It just happens that the US spends more than anyone else on defence than anyone else by far. But plenty of countries that aren't Japan have much smaller military expenditures than Japan, and haven't been as successful as Japan in trade.
If you don't want to do anything with an exception, just catch (Exception e) {}. I agree that generally you should be able to just forget about an object you don't want, but some objects represent "real" things like sockets that need to be closed. The OS doesn't have the option of just forgetting about a socket it doesn't want to deal with, and neither do you.
The alternatives you propose (a log file or a class static variable) are either too specific or downright wrong, respectively. A log file is something some people will want, but most people want to find out about errors programmatically in a clean way and not by reading a stream. A class static variable (a) should be an object variable (hidden by an accessor) if anything and (b) negates one of the advantages of a language that uses exceptions to indicate errors[1].
In Java there's no reason you can't have a separate finalizer method that does if (!isClosed) throw [...] . There's no guarantee it will be run because automatically-run destructors don't really work in a language that doesn't know exactly when an object is destroyed. Think about it this way: the C++ compiler knows that an object is destroyed either when it leaves scope or when you use delete on a pointer to the object. Java can use lazy garbage collection and so it won't know an object has been destroyed until the GC runs. That, in a nutshell, is why you need to call Socket.close() explicitly even when the object is local to a function.
[1] Namely, that you can't accidentally ignore an error; if you want to ignore an error, you have to explicitly catch (and ignore) an exception.
Check out C99's restrict keyword if you're interested in letting the C compiler make no-aliasing assumptions.
You've got the answer in there; you just need to sort it out. :) See, any object whose destructor is needed for more than memory deallocation can probably throw an exception. If the language supports mandatory catching of exceptions (i.e. Java), it's kinda hard to automatically call the destructor at end of scope, because if that scope is a function there's no way to catch the exception. The Java idiom is something like try { socket.close() } catch [...] . Since you have to catch exceptions out of .close()-style destructors, you have to call them explicitly. Yes, that means using finally blocks sometimes, and it can get messy. Where this idiom really fails is when you're writing non-robust programs and you'd rather have an exception fall all the way through than have to catch it.