The player analyses each track so that all songs are uniformly loud, not that it alters your volume setting. This is so, if you have 2 tracks playing next to each other - the first quiet, the second mastered to be loud - you won't hurt yourself if you turned up the volume to hear the first one ok.
In the UK we have just (almost) shut the unions off. Now each individual member of the union gets to donate to whichever political party they prefer, rather than the bosses of the union deciding for them.
And this is the way it should be. Similarly for corporates. They should be barred from donating or lobbying - but the individual workers (and shareholders) can donate individually.
Of course, the best approach is to have political parties state-funded as possibly the best way to prevent abuse from rich people having more of a say than poor people, unless you think that poor people are somehow not as worthy as the rich - that poor scientist should have less say in the running of government than the dilettante playboy inheritor?
but we're not talking about what you build, we're talking a corporate that has grown so big they are a danger to free governance of everyone.
By all means, you build something and stick to building it - we've got no problem with you. But once you get to interfering with government, trying to influence democratic process with your buckets of cash, then we have a problem that needs addressing.
Regardless of that, we need regulation of big businesses as the market forces that allow self-regulation to occur break down. This is why we do not allow monopolies to remain in place, for one example, rules on what banks can do for another.
one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders
really? How does an oil pipeline have anything to do with anything Google shareholders care about?
Similarly, how does immigration reform benefit Facebook shareholders, who I assume, would be more interested in reducing immigration - especially cheap-ass tech workers than only benefit Facebook executives in keeping pay of those shareholders down.
yet what you seem to be advocating is that corporates can steal the assets of the state!
If a corporate gets large and/or powerful enough that it becomes a governmental player, then it needs either regulation to prevent it from becoming that powerful (eg, broken up), or nationalised in the interests of the well-running government for everyone.
Nationalising these businesses is not stealing from the people - 99% of the people don't have a stake in Google being a privately run company anyway. If the government took them over, I doubt anyone would notice... except maybe our privacy would be protected better:-)
no, nononono. "could have" is never what you want to be reading when you're talking about whether code is correct or not.
Now, sure a compiler can do it - as it knows exactly what its doing, optimisations make sense at that level as it can perform that optimisation in a safe way. But if you're relying on your own 'optimisation' against what the compiler may do as well, then you're generally going to be screwed. You must always stick with the API spec, and if the API says "never use something after its been freed" then you never use it after its been freed.
Even if they do have a free is just "unreserve" memory, then its pretty bad practice to a) call it free, b) use it in a way that makes it look like it should be freed like every other allocator out there. Don't surprise people is essential.
The main part of this s to tidy things up. One commit removes a load of custom functions and replaces it with a single include of unistd.h - which is really removing stuff put in way, way back because a platform didn't have unistd back then. Similarly, they get rid of weird stuff that is more standardised today.
I think the real code auditing and fixing will happen later.
From the looks of it, many of the (potential) bugs in OpenSSL are caused by the use of a custom memory allocation scheme instead of a standard C allocator
not necessarily - when I saw a commit that said "removed use after free" (ie still using a structure after it had been freed) then you've got to think the code is just generally sloppy.
Assuming intelligent design for a moment, we were designed for stuff our ancestors were used to - running about and generally standing up.,
We were not ever designed to slouch in front of a TV/monitor with a little tool in our hands waggling it up and down (or side to side) pressing buttons.
So,much as I really don't care if ID is true or fantasy, citing proof of our sedentary lifestyles is not and argument against it.
But the concept is good- you need a 'bug tracker' where the requests for patches can be made to you, and you can then assign tot he CCB. Once they agree it, then assign it back to you for implementation.
Any dev bugtracker will provide you with this kind of audit trail - think 'requirements' for the CCB authorisation, 'development' for the implementation, 'test' for the testing. You might want to rename these though.
I'd make it web based so access is simple for everyone involved - last thing you need is a Excel based solution. I've used Mantis, or Redmine but Bugzilla would work too as would any number of web based bug/task tracker tools. Get one installed before someone on the CCB says "we'll use a spreadsheet", seriously.
unsafe { // srcPtr and destPtr are IntPtr's pointing to valid memory locations // size is the number of long (normally 4 bytes) to copy
long* src = (long*)srcPtr;
long* dest = (long*)destPtr;
for (int i = 0; i < size / sizeof(long); i++)
{
dest[i] = src[i];
} }
that's valid C#, all you need to do is inject something like that into the codebase and let the JIT compile it (using all the lovely features they added to support dynamic code) and you're good to get all the memory you like.
Now I know the CLR will not let you do this so easily, but there's always a security vulnerability lying around waiting to be discovered that will, or an unpatched system that already has such a bug found in any of the.NET framework, for example this one that exploits... a "buffer allocation vulnerability", and is present in Silverlight.
The moral is... don't think C programs are somehow insecure and managed languages are perfectly safe.
Yeah, I remember the good old days, when there weren't many demands on developers, and release schedules were easy, and if you said to your boss, "can I have more time?" He said, "Sure, no problem my good friend, have a raise too!"
hey, I still work as a government contractor, you insensitive clod!
You generally look at the map from a distance, grouping your units into manageable armies. Then your entire interface looks more like a few points on a map and a spreadsheet as the relevant army stats are displayed in a grid.
This is the way real life Command and control interfaces are designed. A police 911 dispatcher will manage individual units rather than armies, but they will still need access to their stats (eg what equipment and training the unit has), their location and the location of any event (and the details of said location).
If you want to compare that to SC, you'll see it way different - much less frantic, which is important as you don't want the operator to be overwhelmed with information. You want them to see the "bigger picture" so they can plan the resource allocation effectively, calmly and with thought.
My feeling is that a lot of older computer users suffer from no longer giving a fuck, after years of mismanagement and youthful exuberance, many older users have finally realised that having a life and not thinking computing is the be-all and end-all of everything is important.
Oh I am not a libertarian. I just point out that most people in high office are psychopaths with their own pushing ambition and lack of care for anyone who gets in the way of their own agendas.
This applies to men and women, but as the topic concerned a woman abusing her position to push her own agenda, I felt it was unnecessary to mention psycho male execs too.
Most women do like "feminine" jobs, hence the number of women in nursing, childcare and similar.
only the "executive" women are the ones who can't hack real-world jobs. Don't belittle most women by comparing them to these self-appointed attention whores.
The fact is that most women prefer different jobs, more social ones like teaching or nursing. These are valuable jobs that have a disproportionate amount of men in them too,, there's always more calls for men in primary schools for example, but strangely never any outreach programmes for male primary teachers.
So girls don't like working in computing... so what. There are plenty other careers available.
Try the Windows Web Services alternative (a compatible system designed by the Windows team, significantly faster and less memory intensive).
I also thought the new preferred way to write back-end services was to sue the REST toolkit that came out with VS2013 (ex codename casablanca). WCF is only still around because the,NET devs don't have much of an alternative, that's all.
but a unit test wouldn't show this up - nobody would write a test, testing that the function worked, and start looking at external impacts of that function.
For this to be caught using testing, you'd need a fairly good coverage integration test. Unit tests are just too focussed on small things. They prove the unit works as expected, they never consider interaction with other parts of the overall system.
Slashdot Mirror
eedjit.
The player analyses each track so that all songs are uniformly loud, not that it alters your volume setting. This is so, if you have 2 tracks playing next to each other - the first quiet, the second mastered to be loud - you won't hurt yourself if you turned up the volume to hear the first one ok.
You know you're right - VS2013 doesn't have it. I was sure I'd had to use it recently, but just checked and you're right.
Oh well, back to macros :-)
In the UK we have just (almost) shut the unions off. Now each individual member of the union gets to donate to whichever political party they prefer, rather than the bosses of the union deciding for them.
And this is the way it should be. Similarly for corporates. They should be barred from donating or lobbying - but the individual workers (and shareholders) can donate individually.
Of course, the best approach is to have political parties state-funded as possibly the best way to prevent abuse from rich people having more of a say than poor people, unless you think that poor people are somehow not as worthy as the rich - that poor scientist should have less say in the running of government than the dilettante playboy inheritor?
but we're not talking about what you build, we're talking a corporate that has grown so big they are a danger to free governance of everyone.
By all means, you build something and stick to building it - we've got no problem with you. But once you get to interfering with government, trying to influence democratic process with your buckets of cash, then we have a problem that needs addressing.
Regardless of that, we need regulation of big businesses as the market forces that allow self-regulation to occur break down. This is why we do not allow monopolies to remain in place, for one example, rules on what banks can do for another.
one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders
really? How does an oil pipeline have anything to do with anything Google shareholders care about?
Similarly, how does immigration reform benefit Facebook shareholders, who I assume, would be more interested in reducing immigration - especially cheap-ass tech workers than only benefit Facebook executives in keeping pay of those shareholders down.
yet what you seem to be advocating is that corporates can steal the assets of the state!
If a corporate gets large and/or powerful enough that it becomes a governmental player, then it needs either regulation to prevent it from becoming that powerful (eg, broken up), or nationalised in the interests of the well-running government for everyone.
Nationalising these businesses is not stealing from the people - 99% of the people don't have a stake in Google being a privately run company anyway. If the government took them over, I doubt anyone would notice... except maybe our privacy would be protected better :-)
no, nononono. "could have" is never what you want to be reading when you're talking about whether code is correct or not.
Now, sure a compiler can do it - as it knows exactly what its doing, optimisations make sense at that level as it can perform that optimisation in a safe way. But if you're relying on your own 'optimisation' against what the compiler may do as well, then you're generally going to be screwed. You must always stick with the API spec, and if the API says "never use something after its been freed" then you never use it after its been freed.
Even if they do have a free is just "unreserve" memory, then its pretty bad practice to a) call it free, b) use it in a way that makes it look like it should be freed like every other allocator out there. Don't surprise people is essential.
The main part of this s to tidy things up. One commit removes a load of custom functions and replaces it with a single include of unistd.h - which is really removing stuff put in way, way back because a platform didn't have unistd back then. Similarly, they get rid of weird stuff that is more standardised today.
I think the real code auditing and fixing will happen later.
From the looks of it, many of the (potential) bugs in OpenSSL are caused by the use of a custom memory allocation scheme instead of a standard C allocator
not necessarily - when I saw a commit that said "removed use after free" (ie still using a structure after it had been freed) then you've got to think the code is just generally sloppy.
Some progressive offices have desks that can be raised or lowered with a little motor, so you can sit and then stand when you feel like it.
Typically the guys in the office would sit all morning and stand for part of the afternoon.
eh?
Assuming intelligent design for a moment, we were designed for stuff our ancestors were used to - running about and generally standing up.,
We were not ever designed to slouch in front of a TV/monitor with a little tool in our hands waggling it up and down (or side to side) pressing buttons.
So,much as I really don't care if ID is true or fantasy, citing proof of our sedentary lifestyles is not and argument against it.
oh god Remedy....I used that once.
But the concept is good- you need a 'bug tracker' where the requests for patches can be made to you, and you can then assign tot he CCB. Once they agree it, then assign it back to you for implementation.
Any dev bugtracker will provide you with this kind of audit trail - think 'requirements' for the CCB authorisation, 'development' for the implementation, 'test' for the testing. You might want to rename these though.
I'd make it web based so access is simple for everyone involved - last thing you need is a Excel based solution. I've used Mantis, or Redmine but Bugzilla would work too as would any number of web based bug/task tracker tools. Get one installed before someone on the CCB says "we'll use a spreadsheet", seriously.
are you sure about that?
that's valid C#, all you need to do is inject something like that into the codebase and let the JIT compile it (using all the lovely features they added to support dynamic code) and you're good to get all the memory you like.
Now I know the CLR will not let you do this so easily, but there's always a security vulnerability lying around waiting to be discovered that will, or an unpatched system that already has such a bug found in any of the .NET framework, for example this one that exploits... a "buffer allocation vulnerability", and is present in Silverlight.
The moral is ... don't think C programs are somehow insecure and managed languages are perfectly safe.
Yeah, I remember the good old days, when there weren't many demands on developers, and release schedules were easy, and if you said to your boss, "can I have more time?" He said, "Sure, no problem my good friend, have a raise too!"
hey, I still work as a government contractor, you insensitive clod!
There is - but its very boring.
You generally look at the map from a distance, grouping your units into manageable armies. Then your entire interface looks more like a few points on a map and a spreadsheet as the relevant army stats are displayed in a grid.
This is the way real life Command and control interfaces are designed. A police 911 dispatcher will manage individual units rather than armies, but they will still need access to their stats (eg what equipment and training the unit has), their location and the location of any event (and the details of said location).
If you want to compare that to SC, you'll see it way different - much less frantic, which is important as you don't want the operator to be overwhelmed with information. You want them to see the "bigger picture" so they can plan the resource allocation effectively, calmly and with thought.
My feeling is that a lot of older computer users suffer from no longer giving a fuck, after years of mismanagement and youthful exuberance, many older users have finally realised that having a life and not thinking computing is the be-all and end-all of everything is important.
rubbish. I can get it to do merging of sorted payroll data and, erm.. and.. and... yeah ok.
Oh I am not a libertarian. I just point out that most people in high office are psychopaths with their own pushing ambition and lack of care for anyone who gets in the way of their own agendas.
This applies to men and women, but as the topic concerned a woman abusing her position to push her own agenda, I felt it was unnecessary to mention psycho male execs too.
Most women do like "feminine" jobs, hence the number of women in nursing, childcare and similar.
Hmmm.... let me think...
oh yes, donate to Gnome!
http://mate-desktop.org/donate... :-)
only the "executive" women are the ones who can't hack real-world jobs. Don't belittle most women by comparing them to these self-appointed attention whores.
The fact is that most women prefer different jobs, more social ones like teaching or nursing. These are valuable jobs that have a disproportionate amount of men in them too,, there's always more calls for men in primary schools for example, but strangely never any outreach programmes for male primary teachers.
So girls don't like working in computing... so what. There are plenty other careers available.
.NET is not dead - there are far too many developers who are unable to code in anything else. They won't give it up easily.
It is the preferred solution... unfortunately.
Try the Windows Web Services alternative (a compatible system designed by the Windows team, significantly faster and less memory intensive).
I also thought the new preferred way to write back-end services was to sue the REST toolkit that came out with VS2013 (ex codename casablanca). WCF is only still around because the ,NET devs don't have much of an alternative, that's all.
no, they'd be using win32 and C based APIs for system services.... a lot like a certain alternative OS.
but a unit test wouldn't show this up - nobody would write a test, testing that the function worked, and start looking at external impacts of that function.
For this to be caught using testing, you'd need a fairly good coverage integration test. Unit tests are just too focussed on small things. They prove the unit works as expected, they never consider interaction with other parts of the overall system.
why is C++ a problem then? I've not written malloc or new a C style array for years.
I just hope your unnamed other language has no scope for other bugs... its Jva isn't it, lololololol.