This type of shit really holds Linux back from the mainstream
What the hell are you talking about. Linux rules the world at the moment, it's easier to enumerate the niches Linux doesn't dominate than the ones it does.
That just makes it all the more important to write efficient software. So crap programmers remains just as big a problem as the realities of physics. No excuses please.
If one guy can cause this, it proves that the US financial markets *intrinsically* don't have much integrity.
No, it only shows that it was early days for high speed trading technology and regulation thereof. Regulators did not take it lying down, far from it. One result was circuit breakers.
Much of this is because when C and it's standard libraries were created, CPU cycles were expensive.
CPU cycles are still expensive, just look at your phone, which likely does not last through a day of normal use. What has gotten cheap is programmers with no respect for efficiency.
Buffers can always be protected from overflow by using a very well-known technique: buffer chaining. (A.K.A. "double buffering", "triple buffering"...)
Glib answer, and wrong. For example, given finite memory a producer may outrun a consumer, no matter how many buffers you chain.
Buffer overflows are often the result of not checking the data that is going into the buffer carefully enough...
Buffer overflows have nothing to do with checking the data going into a buffer and everything to do with controlling the sizes and offsets of buffer accesses.
As it happens, I never been asked to solve philosophical problems...
Whoops! Dining philosophers is not a philosophical problem, it is an illustration of a basic issue in computer science. I am not sure I would be comfortable letting you loose on a multi-threaded software base of any complexity.
It's a safe assumption that my Android phone spies on me, after all that is why Google promotes Android and does not allow removing Google services by any method short of changing the firmware. However, if it turns out that Google also spies on my desktop computer by way of Chrome I'm going to be very upset. I don't think it does, unless you tell it to.
The fact in question is "the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues". No argument about the need to combat deforestation and pollution.
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
Slashdot Mirror
This type of shit really holds Linux back from the mainstream
What the hell are you talking about. Linux rules the world at the moment, it's easier to enumerate the niches Linux doesn't dominate than the ones it does.
Did you skip your meds today?
Fraunhofer IIS were a bunch of greedy assholes suing everyone who encoded mp3's and didn't license their codec.
I wonder if the royalties they got were worth the PR damage.
Use a global lock, or release the first lock if you don't get the second.
Glib and simplistic answers like this are more than sufficient reason to keep certain people well away from critical software.
That just makes it all the more important to write efficient software. So crap programmers remains just as big a problem as the realities of physics. No excuses please.
My phone runs 500 times faster than the mini that C was designed on.
So what? It still can't last 24 hours on a single charge. Reason: the application software running on it is crap written by crap programmers.
There are whole companies dedicated to precisely this. It's called "high-frequency trading".
No, it is called "market manipulation", which is illegal whether you do it with trading chits, a computer, or smoke signals.
If one guy can cause this, it proves that the US financial markets *intrinsically* don't have much integrity.
No, it only shows that it was early days for high speed trading technology and regulation thereof. Regulators did not take it lying down, far from it. One result was
circuit breakers.
Go back and look at the code. What you are imagining would not have a ghost of a chance of working without more API glue.
Much of this is because when C and it's standard libraries were created, CPU cycles were expensive.
CPU cycles are still expensive, just look at your phone, which likely does not last through a day of normal use. What has gotten cheap is programmers with no respect for efficiency.
Buffers can always be protected from overflow by using a very well-known technique: buffer chaining. (A.K.A. "double buffering", "triple buffering"...)
Glib answer, and wrong. For example, given finite memory a producer may outrun a consumer, no matter how many buffers you chain.
Buffer overflows are often the result of not checking the data that is going into the buffer carefully enough...
Buffer overflows have nothing to do with checking the data going into a buffer and everything to do with controlling the sizes and offsets of buffer accesses.
Yeah send_buffer() was almost certainly asynchronous.
Almost certainly not. Otherwise it would be called send_buffer_async and/or have a more elaborate API.
In general, queueing is a Hard Problem[tm].
Right there with you. I've been coding multi-threaded code for nearly a decade now. It's not the difficult.
Sure, if you stay away from anything tricky, or you are some sort of omniscient genius that doesn't exist.
As it happens, I never been asked to solve philosophical problems...
Whoops! Dining philosophers is not a philosophical problem, it is an illustration of a basic issue in computer science. I am not sure I would be comfortable letting you loose on a multi-threaded software base of any complexity.
Zillions of async, interacting thingies.
I've never understood why programmers have problems with threads...
It sounds like you have insufficient respect for the nature of the beast.
Words you should live by.
The hard part isn't finding the solution in software, but building a mechanical contraption to rapidly twist the cube without breaking it.
Not just building it, but controlling it. Both are hard problems, and both are limiting factors.
It's a safe assumption that my Android phone spies on me, after all that is why Google promotes Android and does not allow removing Google services by any method short of changing the firmware. However, if it turns out that Google also spies on my desktop computer by way of Chrome I'm going to be very upset. I don't think it does, unless you tell it to.
That's still nowhere near a majority.
Why do I care if it's a majority?
Mark Zuckerberg is a crazy idea. Fake news on Facebook is true as everybody knows, unless they are crazy.
The fact in question is "the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues". No argument about the need to combat deforestation and pollution.
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
From which orifice did you pull that "fact"?