It's interesting that the "if ( !ptr )" form more directly expresses the intent. One often uses a smart pointer class, like boost's scoped_ptr, which doesn't allow implicit conversion to a pointer, but does overload the ! operator to allow this way of checking its value. With one of these, only the above form works.
> It's like comparing booleans with "if (foo==true)" instead of "if > (foo)". If that's better why not go all the way and write "if > (((...((foo==true)==true)==true)...==true)==true)" ? For extra > clarity you should probably make a recursive function out of it.
I did, but it crashed:(
inline bool is_true( bool b ) { return is_true( b ) == true; }
So I just expanded it to about 10 levels. I even wrote a macro for it (shortened):
Argh, this explains why my last ISP wouldn't cancel my account when I only told them my username. I couldn't figure it out, I mean, I told them my username! What more proof do they need that it's me?
At least that's the position they take. In interviews Bill Gates usually says all the problems are due to misuse of the software, rather than bugs in it. Maybe it's not meant to be executed?
I've never heard a recording with such a low noise floor! My sound program doesn't even register anything. And I also measured no quantization distortion, which is a feat considering they didn't use any low-order dithering.
Have you ever called 1-800-COL-LECT? Have you ever called 1-800-COL-MECT? Same thing. You get a "collect call long distance provider".
No, but I often misdial 1-800-COL-KECT, but the phone company is apparently nice enough to connect me to 1-800-COL-LECT. I feel sorry for whoever has the number I misdialed; they must be losing business.
In all three cases Windows Server 2003 came out ahead, with an average of 30 "days of risk" between a vulnerability being identified and patched compared to 71 from Red Hat.
1. Write buggy, insecure code. 2. Issue patches more often than the competition, who has better code 3. Come out on top in studies which ignore significance of patches. 4. ??? 5. Profit!
In an academic study due to be released next month Dr Richard Ford, from the Florida Institute of Technology, and Dr Herbert Thompson, from application security firm Security Innovation, analysed vulnerabilities and patching and were forced to conclude that Windows Server 2003 is more secure than Red Hat Linux.
I can't wait for the day I get a chance to get to space. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable... and by affordable, I mean like SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.
One way trip to Vegas: $79 One way trip to the moon: $79 Return trip: Priceless
Being quite ruthless, anybody who tries stuff around HV and microwaves and doesn't have the brain to spot when things are going wrong, probably needs to be removed from the gene pool anyway.
When I was younger, I lived in a small town. I had a high-voltage transformer for neon lighting. It was hooked up toome aluminum foil and a doorknob. One of the neighbor kids was over and I told him it was electrified. He touched it and felt a tingle. He said it was fun. He wasn't very bright.
People should start pasting The Bean into the background of their images. "Look, The Bean just happened to be in the background of all these pictures! Nevermind that some are indoors."
In tomorrow's news, Oracle is charging extra for execution on pipelined processors, citing that their software is running on more than one execution unit at a time, and that the user should pay for this extra value their software provides.
I really don't understand those who fear GM food. It's not like the cows, or even the corn we eat now, is "natural." Most of our food has been selectively bred for centuries. The result is the same mucking-with-genes, just much more slowly than genetic engineering promises.
When you manage to breed a glow-in-the-dark houseplant through artificial selection, then your argument holds. Otherwise, we'll treat artificial selection as a constrained form of genetic engineering, one whose constraints might prevent certain dangerous results.
I don't care how many genes shift around, it's going to take nothing more than voodoo magic to both kill the leaves so they change color, and make them come back to life.
The best you could do is get a nice waxy coating on the leaves so they can stay green all year without drying the tree out [...]
Or maybe they could make the leaves thin and pointy all year around. Kind of like conifer...oh, wait....nevermind.
It says very clearly, "Illegal Downloading. Inappropriate for all ages." and "There are websites that provide legal downloads. This is not one of them."
But damn it, I can't find any of this illegal content on there! Just to screw them over, I downloaded all the images from the page, several times. Take that!
It makes sense to have heavy fines for corporations who attempt to make money off of other corporations' copyrighted work. The $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines for copyright violation make more sense in that context (though arguably are still ridiculously high).
However, in the Internet age, virtually anyone can make a perfect copy of virtually any data. Thus, we see those same $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines being used to threaten Joe Teenager from copying an MP3 from his friend. In this context, the amount is patently absurd.
I think RIAA etc. look at consumers as a huge company that rips them off, and thus treats each member as being accountable for the entire "operation". This seems to be the same thinking behind crippled e-books and future per-play charges for movies: when you multiply the possible profit of even small restrictions on consumers, they all seem a good idea.
My mother would always multiply some insignificant savings (like dropping phone tone dialing to save $0.33 per month) by the 12 months per year or even over a number of years, to come up with a significant figure. What I could never get across to her was the relative insiginficance of this compared to major costs, how the overall impact of constant compulsive tinkering was negative, especially since it took time away from looking at the big issues.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that the "if ( !ptr )" form more directly expresses the intent. One often uses a smart pointer class, like boost's scoped_ptr, which doesn't allow implicit conversion to a pointer, but does overload the ! operator to allow this way of checking its value. With one of these, only the above form works.
> It's like comparing booleans with "if (foo==true)" instead of "if" ? For extra
:(
> (foo)". If that's better why not go all the way and write "if
> (((...((foo==true)==true)==true)...==true)==true)
> clarity you should probably make a recursive function out of it.
I did, but it crashed
inline bool is_true( bool b ) {
return is_true( b ) == true;
}
So I just expanded it to about 10 levels. I even wrote a macro for it (shortened):
#define IS_TRUE( x ) (((((x) == true) == true) == true) == true)
Argh, this explains why my last ISP wouldn't cancel my account when I only told them my username. I couldn't figure it out, I mean, I told them my username! What more proof do they need that it's me?
At least that's the position they take. In interviews Bill Gates usually says all the problems are due to misuse of the software, rather than bugs in it. Maybe it's not meant to be executed?
I've never heard a recording with such a low noise floor! My sound program doesn't even register anything. And I also measured no quantization distortion, which is a feat considering they didn't use any low-order dithering.
...is our loss.
Have you ever called 1-800-COL-LECT? Have you ever called 1-800-COL-MECT? Same thing. You get a "collect call long distance provider".
No, but I often misdial 1-800-COL-KECT, but the phone company is apparently nice enough to connect me to 1-800-COL-LECT. I feel sorry for whoever has the number I misdialed; they must be losing business.
that goes on the back of the phone and you will get... well 300% the battery life of a normal Li-Ion battery.
to write Shakespeare if they are typing with this thought-controlled robotic arm?
In all three cases Windows Server 2003 came out ahead, with an average of 30 "days of risk" between a vulnerability being identified and patched compared to 71 from Red Hat.
1. Write buggy, insecure code.
2. Issue patches more often than the competition, who has better code
3. Come out on top in studies which ignore significance of patches.
4. ???
5. Profit!
In an academic study due to be released next month Dr Richard Ford, from the Florida Institute of Technology, and Dr Herbert Thompson, from application security firm Security Innovation, analysed vulnerabilities and patching and were forced to conclude that Windows Server 2003 is more secure than Red Hat Linux.
I see.
I'm afraid I had to block access to my server from Slashdot. I don't have enough bandwidth for the onslaught.
Too bad you don't have a webcam video of your server melting down.
Yeah, but you want to be inside the thing rather than bouncing on it (and exploding while you're at it).
I can't wait for the day I get a chance to get to space. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable... and by affordable, I mean like SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.
One way trip to Vegas: $79
One way trip to the moon: $79
Return trip: Priceless
Being quite ruthless, anybody who tries stuff around HV and microwaves and doesn't have the brain to spot when things are going wrong, probably needs to be removed from the gene pool anyway.
When I was younger, I lived in a small town. I had a high-voltage transformer for neon lighting. It was hooked up toome aluminum foil and a doorknob. One of the neighbor kids was over and I told him it was electrified. He touched it and felt a tingle. He said it was fun. He wasn't very bright.
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you eat that."
Kerberos is the only widely implemented system I'm aware of that implements one key criterium [...]
Is criterium a new element? Or is it more like unobtainium?
Why did this make it to the front page of slashdot?
Read the last linked phrase in the summary, "sell to any interested buyers." Pay money, get your advertisement shown.
People should start pasting The Bean into the background of their images. "Look, The Bean just happened to be in the background of all these pictures! Nevermind that some are indoors."
In tomorrow's news, Oracle is charging extra for execution on pipelined processors, citing that their software is running on more than one execution unit at a time, and that the user should pay for this extra value their software provides.
slsahdot.org
According to the above link, a lot of people are misspelling slashdot.org today as compared to other days!
I really don't understand those who fear GM food. It's not like the cows, or even the corn we eat now, is "natural." Most of our food has been selectively bred for centuries. The result is the same mucking-with-genes, just much more slowly than genetic engineering promises.
When you manage to breed a glow-in-the-dark houseplant through artificial selection, then your argument holds. Otherwise, we'll treat artificial selection as a constrained form of genetic engineering, one whose constraints might prevent certain dangerous results.
I don't care how many genes shift around, it's going to take nothing more than voodoo magic to both kill the leaves so they change color, and make them come back to life.
The best you could do is get a nice waxy coating on the leaves so they can stay green all year without drying the tree out [...]
Or maybe they could make the leaves thin and pointy all year around. Kind of like conifer...oh, wait....nevermind.
It says very clearly, "Illegal Downloading. Inappropriate for all ages." and "There are websites that provide legal downloads. This is not one of them."
But damn it, I can't find any of this illegal content on there! Just to screw them over, I downloaded all the images from the page, several times. Take that!
It makes sense to have heavy fines for corporations who attempt to make money off of other corporations' copyrighted work. The $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines for copyright violation make more sense in that context (though arguably are still ridiculously high).
However, in the Internet age, virtually anyone can make a perfect copy of virtually any data. Thus, we see those same $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines being used to threaten Joe Teenager from copying an MP3 from his friend. In this context, the amount is patently absurd.
I think RIAA etc. look at consumers as a huge company that rips them off, and thus treats each member as being accountable for the entire "operation". This seems to be the same thinking behind crippled e-books and future per-play charges for movies: when you multiply the possible profit of even small restrictions on consumers, they all seem a good idea.
My mother would always multiply some insignificant savings (like dropping phone tone dialing to save $0.33 per month) by the 12 months per year or even over a number of years, to come up with a significant figure. What I could never get across to her was the relative insiginficance of this compared to major costs, how the overall impact of constant compulsive tinkering was negative, especially since it took time away from looking at the big issues.