For example, you might test the scenarios "front camera obscured by rain", "car ahead of you performs emergency stop", and "dog runs into street", but that doesn't necessarily tell you how the car will respond to a combination of the three.
Now that really leads to a difficult decision for the car. Should it:
- Maintain heading and come to a halt? Or perhaps
- Maintain heading and come to a halt? Or even
- Maintain heading and come to a halt?
Let's wait for strong AI to solve that problem for us.
Yeah! Or why not use a string of numbers, render it in a warped way, apply some distortion and noise. The human will still distinguish the individual digits - I am not so sure about the bots.
Thunderbird is fairly crappy in general, and doesn't even try to conform to basic standards.
While I personally don't like GUI mail programs, i've recently learned that kmail is refreshingly sane (even despite the leading k!).
So essentially you're saying that you, as a technically illiterate person, don't give a crap about the opinion of your sysadmin in technical questions.
Oh, wait, you've already mentioned you're a business person. Enjoy your Dunning-Kruger while it lasts.
need to fix the infrastructure when it are broken.
Shall we fix your understanding of the English language while we're at it? Or would that be too mission-critical a business decision?
[...] shows you are a troll [...] also marks you as a sadist [...] I am so far beyond your level [...]
This makes your original claim less wrong how exactly? Since you're so far beyond my level, it should be trivial to point out in which standard, (be it formal or informal, to lower the bar a bit for you) void main() is "valid C". Protip.
That being said, i have nothing to add to sibling's post.
You talked about standards, and C89 is the first formal C standard. I'm sorry for your C knowledge if you are indeed oblivious of implicit int (hint: you can and must still return an int from "main([void])". Furthermore probably sucks to think that a function taking no parameters like foo(void) and a function taking an unspecified number of parameters like foo() and (void) were the same thing. Your mind might be a bit C++-damaged (in C++, foo() in fact means foo(void)). Educate much? Consider char (*foo(int))[4]; What's the type of foo?
No. None of the C Standards ever had void a valid return type for main, and, frankly all of them (since we're talking standards, that means C89 through C11) give you int main(void) and int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent).
It's not like i didn't link a source.
Even "main()" can be valid.
Yes, C89 allowed leaving away the int, that's called "implicit int". Needless to point out, the return type is still int.
Nope. Not valid C. Valid would be int main(void), int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent), and in some cases int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) (and equivalent). Source
Slashdot Mirror
your post made me realize that "ruinit" would be an awesome name for a new init system
replacing /etc with a mysql database
Wow, I just puked a bit.
sed -n '/^[^#]/p' ldap.conf
...which is precisely what happens with Microsoft's retarded patch-whateverday approach to make the amount of fixes appear smaller.
The problem is that noone trusts a system which is controlled by the USA.
Your point being?
Honestly, there are enough sybians on the internet already...
For example, you might test the scenarios "front camera obscured by rain", "car ahead of you performs emergency stop", and "dog runs into street", but that doesn't necessarily tell you how the car will respond to a combination of the three.
Now that really leads to a difficult decision for the car. Should it:
- Maintain heading and come to a halt? Or perhaps
- Maintain heading and come to a halt? Or even
- Maintain heading and come to a halt?
Let's wait for strong AI to solve that problem for us.
ASCII -- Do you do it?
Pic of the wheel ...
http://www.garrettbelmont.com/...
...
Let me FTFY:
Pic of the wheel...
Wasn't that hard, was it?
Yeah! Or why not use a string of numbers, render it in a warped way, apply some distortion and noise.
The human will still distinguish the individual digits - I am not so sure about the bots.
Oh, wait.
It's spelt "Nucular"
Thunderbird is fairly crappy in general, and doesn't even try to conform to basic standards.
While I personally don't like GUI mail programs, i've recently learned that kmail is refreshingly sane (even despite the leading k!).
Of course, the One True Mail Program is mutt
the first F was supposed to mean "failed" ;).
You're right. Not sure what i was thinking...
Do not you understand what CGI is, son? Protip: It's not Computer Generated Imagery in this context.
It's obviously $200 worth of M&M's
I mean, the speed of light is 299,792,458,000 Meters per second.
FTFY
Oh, wait, you've already mentioned you're a business person. Enjoy your Dunning-Kruger while it lasts.
need to fix the infrastructure when it are broken.
Shall we fix your understanding of the English language while we're at it? Or would that be too mission-critical a business decision?
[...] shows you are a troll [...] also marks you as a sadist [...] I am so far beyond your level [...]
This makes your original claim less wrong how exactly?
Since you're so far beyond my level, it should be trivial to point out in which standard, (be it formal or informal, to lower the bar a bit for you) void main() is "valid C".
Protip.
That being said, i have nothing to add to sibling's post.
You talked about standards, and C89 is the first formal C standard. I'm sorry for your C knowledge if you are indeed oblivious of implicit int (hint: you can and must still return an int from "main([void])".
Furthermore probably sucks to think that a function taking no parameters like foo(void) and a function taking an unspecified number of parameters like foo() and (void) were the same thing. Your mind might be a bit C++-damaged (in C++, foo() in fact means foo(void)).
Educate much?
Consider char (*foo(int))[4];
What's the type of foo?
Depends on the standard.
No. None of the C Standards ever had void a valid return type for main, and, frankly all of them (since we're talking standards, that means C89 through C11) give you int main(void) and int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent).
It's not like i didn't link a source.
Even "main()" can be valid.
Yes, C89 allowed leaving away the int, that's called "implicit int". Needless to point out, the return type is still int.
void main(int argc, char *argv[])
valid C
Nope. Not valid C. Valid would be int main(void), int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent), and in some cases int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) (and equivalent).
Source
Software can emulate any hardware you build
And what about the performance implications of emulating my massively parallel hardware in software?
Same reason there are razors "for men" and "for women", despite being essentially the same thing just differently colored.
not actually eating the plate.
Wait, that's not how it works?
Shit.