This works using the "unused" lines of CAT5. Sure, they're unused for 10/100 ethernet, but this will be much less useful once everyone is using Gigabit ethernet (which uses all 4 pairs).
It is true that at one point the Genesis became the more desirable console to own, largely due to Sonic.
Huh? The SNES wasn't even out when Sonic came on the scene.
I never claimed this was the case. What I said is that at one point the Genesis became the more desirable console to own. Sonic was released in America the same year the SNES was released in America (1991). The period I was referring to was the early life of the SNES (it was probably 1992 when I felt the Genesis was more desirable to own, and I think this is viewpoint was commonly held).
Again, what? How did SNES win, exactly? Genesis had a majority of the market for some time, and never really lost much of it. It certainly never had to drop the Genesis, nor did game development slow down, until the Saturn came on the scene.
This shouldn't be that complicated. I don't know anyone who would have considered the Genesis the winner in the end. Doing a little googling around: Nintendo sold twice as many units as Sega. It also said Nintendo had 65% marketshare, though I don't know how that is determined since it doesn't appear to be consistent with the other figure.
In any case, claiming that the SNES won is a very fair statement. Note that I did not say this meant that Genesis was a failure.
As someone who was a SNES owner and longtime Nintendo fan, I remember feeling jealous of the Genesis after reading some gaming magazines which showcased Sonic/Genesis as a faster and cooler system. It is true that at one point the Genesis became the more desirable console to own, largely due to Sonic. The pure speed of Sonic appealed to me as a new angle for side-scrollers.
What this article didn't touch on was how Nintendo's SNES eventually won in the end (due to its much more extensive 3rd party library and probably a few other things). I did not regret going with the SNES after DKC. Zelda (Link to the Past), Super Metroid, etc.
Well, sometimes it's just easier to fire up vim on a text file to change something quickly. If you're working from a remote shell, this is a lot more desirable than the alternatives of:
1) Opening up a firewall to let you use the remote web interface from your own web browser,
2) Using links or lynx from the shell, or
3) Running a web browser over X to connect to the admin interface.
(I'm assuming the web interface would be setup to not allow outside connections in any default configuration. But even if it weren't, and it were totally secure so that you trusted it to be open to the public internet, it would still be a lot less convienent in some situations).
They don't need to necessarily block it, they just need to patch their DNS servers to return NXDOMAIN instead of the SiteFinder IP address. You could still access the SiteFinder site by specifying its address specifically...
Except with this approach, you give people the motivation to harm companies by actually spamming for them against their will. How would you determine if they were really responsible for the spam or if it was an enemy of the company trying to get them in trouble?
Yes, realistically speaking, it's still untraceable.
Mono is a joint project of Ximian and the larger community. Mono's commercial nature also limits community participation.
Can you back this point up? My understanding is that Mono has a LOT of community participation, where Portable.NET is for the most part a one-man show. It seems to me that the "community" is largely backing Mono.
"Anyone remember what that BBS game was that involved you taxing peasents and training lords and taking over other people, but you could only play once a day? It was on a whole bunch of BBS's..."
People who use linux are too cheap to buy an operating system
It's pretty hard to read your whole post when you make a statement like this right away.
You're wrong on many levels. Many Linux users use it for technical reasons, without concern for cost. Also, if being "too cheap" were the real issue, it's not that difficult to pirate Windows. Finally, there are people out there using Linux that ARE paying for it (to Red Hat et. al).
Grace is 3 years old. She weighs 157 pounds. She is 4 feet, 6 inches tall
Hmm, that is startling growth! She started out weighing nothing and without any height.
157 pounds and 4.5 feet in 3 years -- (calculating) -- at this rate, by the year 2014, she will be 785 pounds, and 22 feet 6 inches tall!
This enormous monster will devour us all!!!
Re:C is a high-level language??
on
Think Python
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The bases for a sceince is terms. If they can not get the basic of terms right then there is no science.
I don't think they got any "terms" wrong. I still assert that how "high-level" a language is is NOT an absolute scale.
MIPS assembly compared to C - C is higher, more human to read (if you do not compound expressions (example: x(i++) =+ y(--j); ). But C is much lower than Basic.
Good, so you are thinking in terms of "higher" and "lower".
Know the question: Did your teacher refer C as a HIGH-LEVEL LANGAUGE (wrong) or a HIGH-ER-LEVEL LANGUAGE (right)?.
High-level language. This is NOT wrong in the context of the course. Relative to the course material (assembly), C is a very high-level language. I have always thought of this scale in terms of context and relativity, not absolute.
Why do I do this? Well, I suppose in theory someone could come up with an absolute scale and say "C is classified as a X-level language", but when the only terms we're using are "high", "low", and sometimes "medium", this will not hold up.
You've been programming for a long time. Certainly you realize that C was considered more high level back then than it is now.
Rewind back to the early 90's. Ignoring Basic, Pascal was the highest-level language I was familiar with and used. People undeniably (and fairly consistently) referred to Pascal as a high-level language. Along comes languages like Java, which is clearly higher level than Pascal, and we have to re-evaluate what we consider to be "high-level".
The point is, we can't keep redefining this stuff everytime a new language comes out. You call Python high-level today, but 15 years from now when some other language comes out even more abstract, you can no longer call Python high level unless you keep attaching superlatives (like "very") to the new languages.
Relative. Not absolute.
Re:C is a high-level language??
on
Think Python
·
· Score: 1
I think you're being too harsh.
The fact is, how "high" level something is, is completely relative. There are no strict rules to my knowledge about what's included in each "level" (e.g., file i/o, bound checking like you mentioned). Maybe you're just annoyed because you've always heard C as medium or low-level and it goes against that?
My first programming language I used was QBasic (I was very young, ok?). Eventually, I moved on to use Turbo Pascal. During the time I spent developing software in Pascal, I frequently heard people talk about C and how it was tighter and superior because it was a low-level language. And compared to Pascal, it is _slightly_ lower level.
Last year I had a Machine Organization class where we used MIPS assembly. The professor always referred to C as a high level language.
I think a justified complaint would not be that the author classified C as a high level language, but that he classified it in the same realm as Python and Java. Clearly, Python and Java are substantially more high level.
The use of these words have also been catching on due to this behavior:
"retrireview" (retrieval): 333 matches at google. "prreviewent" (prevalent): 41 matches at google.
I'm still confused as to how this has affected so many web sites out there. Are people simply seeing these words in e-mail and then use them on their own thinking it's proper? Or are many webmasters cut and pasting their content from HTML e-mails or something?
All you have to do is start handing out Fs or kicking kids out, and things will change rather quickly.
It's not quite that easy. There was a lot of red tape to go through each time. Also, even though students saw other students being caught, some assumed that they just cut-n-pasted code. They thought they could just change a few variable names and comments to get away with it, not realizing that the code analysis software would still detect the cheating. Over time, this could be alleviated perhaps. I'm just betting that it's much more difficult to enforce than we could imagine.
I agree with the general sentiment of your post, however. The exams certainly weren't a true test of knowledge. There were usually code-writing sections near the end of the exam that were worth a lot of points, though. My biggest complaint is that I believe some professors had difficulty coming up with good questions for the exams, resulting in an exam with questions that would be much more practically answered in the real world by looking it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are all the screenshots from iPhones?
Android phones account for 51.2% of smartphone sales, with iPhones trailing at 43.5% [1].
So how likely is it that out of a sample of 10 screenshots, all 10 of them would be from iPhones? Seems suspicious.
[1] http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/Android-Sprint-and-Samsung-Increased-Share-In-Early-2013
See the MondoNet project for an implementation of this idea.
*whoosh*
True Part:
In Python version 2, 1/2 = 1 (integer math)
1/2 in Python 2.x is actually 0.
go-oo is not for Windows only. It originates from ooo-build which was intended for use by Linux distributions.
This works using the "unused" lines of CAT5. Sure, they're unused for 10/100 ethernet, but this will be much less useful once everyone is using Gigabit ethernet (which uses all 4 pairs).
It is true that at one point the Genesis became the more desirable console to own, largely due to Sonic.
Huh? The SNES wasn't even out when Sonic came on the scene.
I never claimed this was the case. What I said is that at one point the Genesis became the more desirable console to own. Sonic was released in America the same year the SNES was released in America (1991). The period I was referring to was the early life of the SNES (it was probably 1992 when I felt the Genesis was more desirable to own, and I think this is viewpoint was commonly held).
Again, what? How did SNES win, exactly? Genesis had a majority of the market for some time, and never really lost much of it. It certainly never had to drop the Genesis, nor did game development slow down, until the Saturn came on the scene.
This shouldn't be that complicated. I don't know anyone who would have considered the Genesis the winner in the end. Doing a little googling around: Nintendo sold twice as many units as Sega. It also said Nintendo had 65% marketshare, though I don't know how that is determined since it doesn't appear to be consistent with the other figure.
In any case, claiming that the SNES won is a very fair statement. Note that I did not say this meant that Genesis was a failure.
I agree. I was also jealous that the SNES version of Mortal Kombat removed the coolest finishing moves that were present in the Genesis version.
I actually don't even remember that. So, no.
.. on me at least.
As someone who was a SNES owner and longtime Nintendo fan, I remember feeling jealous of the Genesis after reading some gaming magazines which showcased Sonic/Genesis as a faster and cooler system. It is true that at one point the Genesis became the more desirable console to own, largely due to Sonic. The pure speed of Sonic appealed to me as a new angle for side-scrollers.
What this article didn't touch on was how Nintendo's SNES eventually won in the end (due to its much more extensive 3rd party library and probably a few other things). I did not regret going with the SNES after DKC. Zelda (Link to the Past), Super Metroid, etc.
Well, sometimes it's just easier to fire up vim on a text file to change something quickly. If you're working from a remote shell, this is a lot more desirable than the alternatives of:
1) Opening up a firewall to let you use the remote web interface from your own web browser,
2) Using links or lynx from the shell, or
3) Running a web browser over X to connect to the admin interface.
(I'm assuming the web interface would be setup to not allow outside connections in any default configuration. But even if it weren't, and it were totally secure so that you trusted it to be open to the public internet, it would still be a lot less convienent in some situations).
They don't need to necessarily block it, they just need to patch their DNS servers to return NXDOMAIN instead of the SiteFinder IP address. You could still access the SiteFinder site by specifying its address specifically...
Skinner: We can buy real periodic tables instead of these promotional ones from Oscar Meyer.
... delicious?
Krabappel: Who can tell me the atomic weight of bolognium?
Martin: Ooh
Krabappel: Correct. I would also accept snacktacular.
Except with this approach, you give people the motivation to harm companies by actually spamming for them against their will. How would you determine if they were really responsible for the spam or if it was an enemy of the company trying to get them in trouble?
Yes, realistically speaking, it's still untraceable.
Mathematician: The air:liquid ratio in the glass is 1:1
Mono is a joint project of Ximian and the larger community. Mono's commercial nature also limits community participation.
Can you back this point up? My understanding is that Mono has a LOT of community participation, where Portable.NET is for the most part a one-man show. It seems to me that the "community" is largely backing Mono.
Offer valid in 49 states. Sorry, Tennessee.
"Anyone remember what that BBS game was that involved you taxing peasents and training lords and taking over other people, but you could only play once a day? It was on a whole bunch of BBS's..."
Exitilus? BRE?
People who use linux are too cheap to buy an operating system
It's pretty hard to read your whole post when you make a statement like this right away.
You're wrong on many levels. Many Linux users use it for technical reasons, without concern for cost. Also, if being "too cheap" were the real issue, it's not that difficult to pirate Windows. Finally, there are people out there using Linux that ARE paying for it (to Red Hat et. al).
Who moderated this crap up?
Grace is 3 years old. She weighs 157 pounds. She is 4 feet, 6 inches tall
Hmm, that is startling growth! She started out weighing nothing and without any height.
157 pounds and 4.5 feet in 3 years -- (calculating) -- at this rate, by the year 2014, she will be 785 pounds, and 22 feet 6 inches tall!
This enormous monster will devour us all!!!
The bases for a sceince is terms. If they can not get the basic of terms right then there is no science.
I don't think they got any "terms" wrong. I still assert that how "high-level" a language is is NOT an absolute scale.
MIPS assembly compared to C - C is higher, more human to read (if you do not compound expressions (example: x(i++) =+ y(--j); ). But C is much lower than Basic.
Good, so you are thinking in terms of "higher" and "lower".
Know the question: Did your teacher refer C as a HIGH-LEVEL LANGAUGE (wrong) or a HIGH-ER-LEVEL LANGUAGE (right)?.
High-level language. This is NOT wrong in the context of the course. Relative to the course material (assembly), C is a very high-level language. I have always thought of this scale in terms of context and relativity, not absolute.
Why do I do this? Well, I suppose in theory someone could come up with an absolute scale and say "C is classified as a X-level language", but when the only terms we're using are "high", "low", and sometimes "medium", this will not hold up.
You've been programming for a long time. Certainly you realize that C was considered more high level back then than it is now.
Rewind back to the early 90's. Ignoring Basic, Pascal was the highest-level language I was familiar with and used. People undeniably (and fairly consistently) referred to Pascal as a high-level language. Along comes languages like Java, which is clearly higher level than Pascal, and we have to re-evaluate what we consider to be "high-level".
The point is, we can't keep redefining this stuff everytime a new language comes out. You call Python high-level today, but 15 years from now when some other language comes out even more abstract, you can no longer call Python high level unless you keep attaching superlatives (like "very") to the new languages.
Relative. Not absolute.
I think you're being too harsh.
The fact is, how "high" level something is, is completely relative. There are no strict rules to my knowledge about what's included in each "level" (e.g., file i/o, bound checking like you mentioned). Maybe you're just annoyed because you've always heard C as medium or low-level and it goes against that?
My first programming language I used was QBasic (I was very young, ok?). Eventually, I moved on to use Turbo Pascal. During the time I spent developing software in Pascal, I frequently heard people talk about C and how it was tighter and superior because it was a low-level language. And compared to Pascal, it is _slightly_ lower level.
Last year I had a Machine Organization class where we used MIPS assembly. The professor always referred to C as a high level language.
I think a justified complaint would not be that the author classified C as a high level language, but that he classified it in the same realm as Python and Java. Clearly, Python and Java are substantially more high level.
an asteroid of this size is large enough to cause continent wide destruction
I hope it's Canada.
Oh, wait....
The use of these words have also been catching on due to this behavior:
"retrireview" (retrieval): 333 matches at google.
"prreviewent" (prevalent): 41 matches at google.
I'm still confused as to how this has affected so many web sites out there. Are people simply seeing these words in e-mail and then use them on their own thinking it's proper? Or are many webmasters cut and pasting their content from HTML e-mails or something?
All you have to do is start handing out Fs or kicking kids out, and things will change rather quickly.
It's not quite that easy. There was a lot of red tape to go through each time. Also, even though students saw other students being caught, some assumed that they just cut-n-pasted code. They thought they could just change a few variable names and comments to get away with it, not realizing that the code analysis software would still detect the cheating. Over time, this could be alleviated perhaps. I'm just betting that it's much more difficult to enforce than we could imagine.
I agree with the general sentiment of your post, however. The exams certainly weren't a true test of knowledge. There were usually code-writing sections near the end of the exam that were worth a lot of points, though. My biggest complaint is that I believe some professors had difficulty coming up with good questions for the exams, resulting in an exam with questions that would be much more practically answered in the real world by looking it up.