* Fixation of two's complement as the integer format.
Are you trying to make C less portable, or what?
Not all platforms work exactly the same, and these additional constraints on datatypes would be a problem on platforms, where: well two's complement is not the signed integer format.
Of course you're free to define your own augmented rules on top of C, as long as they're not the formal language standard --- and if you write compilers, you're free to constrain yourself into making your implementation a higher-level interpreter, that makes these overflow conditions work the same on non 2's complement platforms.
I don't care what "unstable" justification its authors gleaned from the standard, don't mess with my code without telling me you did so.
That's not what's happening..... they are talking about unstable optimizations; as in.....
optimizations that aren't predictable, and while they don't change the semantics of the code according to the programming language ---- the optimization may affect what happens, if the code contains an error or operation that is runtime-undefined, such as a buffer overflow condition.
A cursory glance at this code suggests missiles will not be launched. With gcc, that's probably true at the moment. With clang, as I understand it, this is not true -missiles will be launched.
It's not quite correct. a == b is not a use of the argument that has been invalidated.
a was a variable containing an address of the object that was passed by value to the realloc() function.
In case the value of a is no longer valid, then the b = realloc... assignment, would not have returned the same value;
therefore, a == b would evaluate to false, and with the short-circuit && operator, the *a != *b test would never have been executed.
The only way to make that work is to become huge and set up an impenetrable wall between the customer and anyone with any level of skill.
Another method is to take the "Yahoo/Google" style approach; and restrict any phone support to billing matters only, with directions to use community forums. to discuss problems, and self-help tools.
Or require an upgrade to a minimum of a $30/month plan, before "3 support incidents" are included, and an option will be available to call in support is made available.
The closest thing to what the submitter is asking for is probably a managed server provider, and there's no shortage of those out there, at varying quality/price points.
Yes..... I think the poster is asking Where's the place I can get all those things together in high quality at a commodity price?
In other words.... Where can I purchase a car with all the amenities of the high end Rolls-Royce, for the price of a Civic?
How much of such fees go to the authors? 0%. Zero. Nothing. Nada.
Of course.... the work is actually free... the $2.50 per page is just a "nominal" service fee charged by the outside provider for the service of providing the searchable digitized archive of the material, and allowing you to print or copy the material.
By the way, the clerk of court around here does a similar thing with their digitized legal records --- you can view all you want, but as soon as you want to have a copy made, or print out a copy it's somewhere between $1 and $2 per page; which adds up quite fast, when you are referring to legal documents such as property documents, title/deeds, mortgages, contracts or court proceedings registered with the clerk, that can easily be several hundred pages long.
We regret to inform you, that the burglary of your house, due to you having left the front door unlocked, with a missplaced "FREE STUFF, HELP YOURSELF" sign observed hanging from your front door, after seeing a suspicious character in the front yard constitutes WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE on your part as a homeowner.
In addition to the loss of the $300,000 in personal property stolen from your house, which will not be covered by insurance;
We have determined to assess you with a $120,000 fine for homeowner negligence. This assessment will be due immediately, and if not paid, you will be subject to possible prison time and seizure of the residence.
Let this be a stern reminder to you, to not leave your front door open in the future, while you are not at home, after observing suspicious characters in the vicinity.
Regards,
Sincerely,
Build cars that have an option to only switch on their charging circuits after midnight, or, even better, after the meter 'tells' them it's time to start slurping juice.
This is no good, if you put the car on your charger, because you need to use it sometime within the next 18 hours and BEFORE some ridiculous time, such as midnight.
Charge all day long from a photovoltaic panel the size of a parking space. On a sunny day, that energy might get you a few miles, on a cloudy day, it might not get you out of a big parking lot. And that is being generous.
I'm thinking more along the lines of entire buildings' rooves decked with PV cells; so the building is mostly powered using solar, and the reduced building power consumption serves to offset additional capacity demand being pulled by the charger during the day.
Solar isn't going to work for this. Nor fuel cells. There is a solution that will ultimately win. But it will take a radical change in the power distribution network.
It is not likely that there are going to be any radical changes to the power distribution network, due to the cost.
I actually think Solar and Fuel cells can work just fine for this, but there need to be enough of them
in proximity to chargers,
to offset at least a majority of the additional capacity requirement.
Given the current state of the US electrical grid, I'm not confident it would fare well against a sudden increase of large battery packs being plugged in at once. Yeah, we can setup delayed or offset charging times, etc.
This is a problem with increase in the usage of electric cars in general..... more grid capacity will be needed.
The good news is: less shipping gas around..
The bad news is: lots of construction work.
Maybe some solar panels on the roofs of these facilities, or some $500,000 fuel cells....
A user stuck downloading slowly for a long is a base load that makes poor use of trunk bandwidth
Yes, except that the consumption becomes immaterial due to the low cap; only the capped users experience an adverse effect.
The stability for other users can be improved and the purchase of additional capacity can be delayed; which looks good on the business' financial statements.
The toilet at your job is provided by the company, yet they aren't allowed to film you in there.
They can track you going there.
They could but probably won't film there, because it would create an uncomfortable environment, even if they designed the system so that nothing below waste level could appear in the cameras' view
The reiteration of concurrent demand is bullshit that the ISP use to motivate why they don't have the capacity to supply the service they offer.In reality most of the customers wants to use the bandwidth at the same time, that is the capacity they need is very close to the sum of the service they have promised all their customers.
Hi... I know a thing or two about ISP's; and I happen to know that it's really not the case --- capacity demand at any particular moment is only a fraction of the amount sold.
ISP profitability relies on oversubscription at many levels; attempting to have no oversubscription would result in cost overruns, which would be fiscally irresponsible, since oversubscription works just fine.
Usually ISP's manage capacity by looking at peak demand --- if 80% capacity is reached; then efforts need to be made to identify potential resource hogs, and to clear bottlenecks by planning purchase of additional capacity.
Often there will be some small fraction of users creating the vast majority of the resource contention.
It makes sense to terminate these subscribers, or require them to spend extra money, to help cover the additional costs.
They may make more out of it than it is....
and decent ISPs don't consider resource hog to mean someone who transfers a large number of net gigabytes of data ----- but rather,
someone who pushes their link to 100% for long periods of time during peak.
These users should rightfully be charged more, than those who never reach 100%.
It makes sense to have no such thing as "tiers"; simply have all users in the 100 megabits tier,
and those who have higher bits per second peak usage on their link for longer periods of time, get the call, and have a choice to either pay more -- leave, or request that their downstream be capped to 1 megabit.
Capacity Demand * Time = Data Usage.
To claim that one isn't holy fucking balls directly proportional is to claim that 1 + 1 = bananas.
You fail at logic.
No, you sort of failed there; that's actually not what it is.
Now Average bits per second Times Number of Seconds would equal the Total bits transferred, of course, because that's the definition of average. It's also uninformative, because (1) Instantaneous capacity requirement is not constant, and it's definitely not the average, AND (2) Time is not constant, and it's definitely not the average ----- therefore while 'average capacity over time' is proportional; Capacity Demand is not.
Total Bits transferred ("Data usage") is actually the Integral of Bits per Second over the period of time that those bits were transferred;
area under the curve..
Slashdot Mirror
* Fixation of two's complement as the integer format.
Are you trying to make C less portable, or what?
Not all platforms work exactly the same, and these additional constraints on datatypes would be a problem on platforms, where: well two's complement is not the signed integer format.
Of course you're free to define your own augmented rules on top of C, as long as they're not the formal language standard --- and if you write compilers, you're free to constrain yourself into making your implementation a higher-level interpreter, that makes these overflow conditions work the same on non 2's complement platforms.
I don't care what "unstable" justification its authors gleaned from the standard, don't mess with my code without telling me you did so.
That's not what's happening..... they are talking about unstable optimizations; as in..... optimizations that aren't predictable, and while they don't change the semantics of the code according to the programming language ---- the optimization may affect what happens, if the code contains an error or operation that is runtime-undefined, such as a buffer overflow condition.
A cursory glance at this code suggests missiles will not be launched. With gcc, that's probably true at the moment. With clang, as I understand it, this is not true -missiles will be launched.
It's not quite correct. a == b is not a use of the argument that has been invalidated. a was a variable containing an address of the object that was passed by value to the realloc() function.
In case the value of a is no longer valid, then the b = realloc ... assignment, would not have returned the same value;
therefore, a == b would evaluate to false, and with the short-circuit && operator, the *a != *b test would never have been executed.
I'd rather set -Wall and get a warning.
I see your -Wall, and raise you a -Werror -pedantic
The only way to make that work is to become huge and set up an impenetrable wall between the customer and anyone with any level of skill.
Another method is to take the "Yahoo/Google" style approach; and restrict any phone support to billing matters only, with directions to use community forums. to discuss problems, and self-help tools.
Or require an upgrade to a minimum of a $30/month plan, before "3 support incidents" are included, and an option will be available to call in support is made available.
How do we keep politics out of this?
Fire the state scientists, and recast the study as a lucrative grant program, for local research universities to take on.
The closest thing to what the submitter is asking for is probably a managed server provider, and there's no shortage of those out there, at varying quality/price points.
Yes..... I think the poster is asking Where's the place I can get all those things together in high quality at a commodity price?
In other words.... Where can I purchase a car with all the amenities of the high end Rolls-Royce, for the price of a Civic?
I think the question should be how much does the drone weigh, not how big is it.
The answer is a big it depends; some of them are a few ounces of plastic, some half a pound, a pound, ten pounds....
They come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and weights, and it seems the FAA is not interested in making any distinction based on that.
How much of such fees go to the authors? 0%. Zero. Nothing. Nada.
Of course.... the work is actually free... the $2.50 per page is just a "nominal" service fee charged by the outside provider for the service of providing the searchable digitized archive of the material, and allowing you to print or copy the material.
By the way, the clerk of court around here does a similar thing with their digitized legal records --- you can view all you want, but as soon as you want to have a copy made, or print out a copy it's somewhere between $1 and $2 per page; which adds up quite fast, when you are referring to legal documents such as property documents, title/deeds, mortgages, contracts or court proceedings registered with the clerk, that can easily be several hundred pages long.
Under MIT's Open Campus Policy, the library he was at, and all other places on campus are open to the public.
So the argument of trespass is suspect at best.
. Of course, you can get a digital copy... for a small additional processing fee. -_-
And by small... you mean $2.50 a page to be paid to the outsourced digitization provider?
(Otherwise known as $50 for a 20-page article)
They did. It was their own money they lost.
DEAR HOMEOWNER,
We regret to inform you, that the burglary of your house, due to you having left the front door unlocked, with a missplaced "FREE STUFF, HELP YOURSELF" sign observed hanging from your front door, after seeing a suspicious character in the front yard constitutes WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE on your part as a homeowner.
In addition to the loss of the $300,000 in personal property stolen from your house, which will not be covered by insurance;
We have determined to assess you with a $120,000 fine for homeowner negligence. This assessment will be due immediately, and if not paid, you will be subject to possible prison time and seizure of the residence.
Let this be a stern reminder to you, to not leave your front door open in the future, while you are not at home, after observing suspicious characters in the vicinity.
Regards,
Sincerely,
THE HOME SECURITY COMMISSION
Build cars that have an option to only switch on their charging circuits after midnight, or, even better, after the meter 'tells' them it's time to start slurping juice.
This is no good, if you put the car on your charger, because you need to use it sometime within the next 18 hours and BEFORE some ridiculous time, such as midnight.
Charge all day long from a photovoltaic panel the size of a parking space. On a sunny day, that energy might get you a few miles, on a cloudy day, it might not get you out of a big parking lot. And that is being generous.
I'm thinking more along the lines of entire buildings' rooves decked with PV cells; so the building is mostly powered using solar, and the reduced building power consumption serves to offset additional capacity demand being pulled by the charger during the day.
Solar isn't going to work for this. Nor fuel cells. There is a solution that will ultimately win. But it will take a radical change in the power distribution network.
It is not likely that there are going to be any radical changes to the power distribution network, due to the cost.
I actually think Solar and Fuel cells can work just fine for this, but there need to be enough of them in proximity to chargers, to offset at least a majority of the additional capacity requirement.
Given the current state of the US electrical grid, I'm not confident it would fare well against a sudden increase of large battery packs being plugged in at once. Yeah, we can setup delayed or offset charging times, etc.
This is a problem with increase in the usage of electric cars in general..... more grid capacity will be needed.
The good news is: less shipping gas around..
The bad news is: lots of construction work.
Maybe some solar panels on the roofs of these facilities, or some $500,000 fuel cells....
A user stuck downloading slowly for a long is a base load that makes poor use of trunk bandwidth
Yes, except that the consumption becomes immaterial due to the low cap; only the capped users experience an adverse effect.
The stability for other users can be improved and the purchase of additional capacity can be delayed; which looks good on the business' financial statements.
The toilet at your job is provided by the company, yet they aren't allowed to film you in there.
They can track you going there.
They could but probably won't film there, because it would create an uncomfortable environment, even if they designed the system so that nothing below waste level could appear in the cameras' view
The reiteration of concurrent demand is bullshit that the ISP use to motivate why they don't have the capacity to supply the service they offer.In reality most of the customers wants to use the bandwidth at the same time, that is the capacity they need is very close to the sum of the service they have promised all their customers.
Hi... I know a thing or two about ISP's; and I happen to know that it's really not the case --- capacity demand at any particular moment is only a fraction of the amount sold.
ISP profitability relies on oversubscription at many levels; attempting to have no oversubscription would result in cost overruns, which would be fiscally irresponsible, since oversubscription works just fine.
Usually ISP's manage capacity by looking at peak demand --- if 80% capacity is reached; then efforts need to be made to identify potential resource hogs, and to clear bottlenecks by planning purchase of additional capacity.
Often there will be some small fraction of users creating the vast majority of the resource contention.
It makes sense to terminate these subscribers, or require them to spend extra money, to help cover the additional costs.
They may make more out of it than it is.... and decent ISPs don't consider resource hog to mean someone who transfers a large number of net gigabytes of data ----- but rather, someone who pushes their link to 100% for long periods of time during peak.
These users should rightfully be charged more, than those who never reach 100%.
It makes sense to have no such thing as "tiers"; simply have all users in the 100 megabits tier, and those who have higher bits per second peak usage on their link for longer periods of time, get the call, and have a choice to either pay more -- leave, or request that their downstream be capped to 1 megabit.
Capacity Demand * Time = Data Usage.
To claim that one isn't holy fucking balls directly proportional is to claim that 1 + 1 = bananas.
You fail at logic.
No, you sort of failed there; that's actually not what it is. Now Average bits per second Times Number of Seconds would equal the Total bits transferred, of course, because that's the definition of average. It's also uninformative, because (1) Instantaneous capacity requirement is not constant, and it's definitely not the average, AND (2) Time is not constant, and it's definitely not the average ----- therefore while 'average capacity over time' is proportional; Capacity Demand is not.
Total Bits transferred ("Data usage") is actually the Integral of Bits per Second over the period of time that those bits were transferred; area under the curve..
The leet hackers are not idiots, my friend.
No, but leet hackers and malware are unnecessary; and there will still be security issues without them.
The top of every organization's list of security threats should be the Unintentional Insider Threat (UIT).
You know... for those situations where some fool e-mails the root password to their coworker's gmail address?
It was Knight's shareholders that ultimately lost the money, as the stock price plunged following the debacle.
And it's the shareholders who will be paying the fines too.
Who are the fines supposed to help?
Hey, if I own anything in a thousand years, I'm doing alright!
You never know... some people have cryogenicists freeze their body, with an intention of being revived some day in the distant future.
It's a bad thing...
Just make sure they suffer all the pain caused by the $450 Million loss
In other words: don't allow them to pass any of this loss on to their customers by drawing funds from their accounts.
Progress is slowly being made in the use of capability based security.
If you think a technology will solve all our security problems, then you don't understand what security is all about.
Securty is a process, not a technology.
Every time you think you've built something idiot-proof; nature comes right in, and delivers you a more idiotic idiot.
Until you can eliminate all humans in organizations; computer security can never be a solved problem.
Because most security problems are caused by humans, AND IT security falls within the broader umbrella of risk management.
You will never own a perfectly secure system. Not now. Not in a thousand years.
It doesn't matter what fancy new capability-based models you come up with; there will always be threats and vulnerabilities.