I know this opinion will probably be unpopular here on Slashdot, but 20 years of developing web standards and web technologies tells me Berners-Lee is right on this one, from a standards perspective. Our choice, realistically, for some content is between standardized, compatible, cross-platform DRM, or non-standard, incompatible DRM that requires Internet Explorer on Windows with Java or Flash. This isn't about what we think people *should* do, it's about what they *actually* do.
From the 1990s through to today, some publishers have found a need for DRM of one form or another, and over and over again they've asked me to help deploy it. I explain that DRM generally doesn't work and can't work. They then buy some DRM solution based on ActiveX, or Flash, or Java, or whatever is popular at the moment, and I can't see their content on my Linux desktop. The story repeats over and over. How many years could Linux users not access Netflix?
The fact is, companies will implement DRM. Lacking a standard way to do it, most require Flash (which is a security nightmare), Sony installs a rootkit on customers' computers. Most companies *shouldn't* use DRM, perhaps, but they do. A few companies have a strong case of why DRM actually makes sense for their content. There is no debate about this point - we KNOW companies will deploy DRM without a standard, because the DO. Lack of a standard for web DRM has never stopped them from hacking together really annoying DRM.
Do we prefer a standardized, cross-platform approach developed with input from users or do we prefer the Sony rootkit approach? Those are the realistic options we can actually choose from. The standards bodies can't prevent DRM, they can only offer a reasonable way of doing it or leave publishers to implement it in all kinds of unreasonable ways.
> trying to teach some of the programmers out there how to program effectively on the various parallel platforms is harder than trying to alter physics.
Which could also be phrased as: So far, many of the parallel platforms available are much harder to learn.
Programmers can and do learn new and different ways of working, provided that the new ways don't suck.
C, Java, etc are all imperative, scalar and object based languages. SQL is a completely different paradigm, declarative and set-based. In other words, in most programming languages the programmer tells the computer how to do some task, with some value. In SQL, the programmer tells the computer what the result must be - without specifying how to do it, and all fundamental operations work on sets, not individual values. Yet most programmers can ans often do learn the declarative, set-based way of programming just as well as they learn the classic imperative way. They learn two very different ways of thinking and programming, because SQL is reasonably good - it's quite learnable, with or without understanding the underlying mathematical concepts.
There's no fundamental reason you can't have a parallel programming language or library for general purpose programming that's roughly as easy to use as SQL. In fact, SQL may point the way in many respects - besides being a learnable paradigm, it's fundamentally parallelizable precisely because the fundamental operations all use sets as input and output. All the major operations could easily be completely parallelized behind the scenes and the user (programmer) wouldn't have to know or care.
Maybe that's the way to go, since we know programmers can and do use sets - introduce a set-based general purpose language. To avoid leading programmers into temptation, the language should have no loop constructs. With no capability to run this: foreach blah in group {
result[i++] = do_stuff(blah); }
programmers will quickly learn to instead write: results = do_stuff(group);
Thanks for that information and analysis. Sounds like a difficult situation to improve. I started to say "fix", but probably at this point *improvement* is more realistic than "fixing" it.
On the other hand, people with less than a third-grade education are unlikely to solve the problems of violence and corruption. Ghandi was a lawyer, Martin Luther King had a PhD as well as two two bachelor's degrees.
The average income in Belgian Congo is about $385 / year. I'm going to guess that these kids don't make more than $200/year, or $17/month. I'd pay the $17/month to replace a kid's wages if they went to school.
The cost of education, books, pencils, etc, is about the same, about $17/month. So for $35/month you could pay the kid to go school and provide books, etc.
Figure a few more dollars for the reports, overhead, etc, call it $50/month to take a kid out of the dangerous mine and put them in school. I might talk to my pastor about this idea of replacing the lost wages ($17/month) so they can go to school.
Would you be interested in actually doing something like this?
A) According to some people the Obama State Department, as far as they know, only twice did they forget to remove the "classified" markings as requested.
That's an excellent point! Hillary's great if her staff only occasionally fails to correctly follow her illegal instructions.
B) According to Hillary, when she told someone to remove the markings and send nonsecure, she didn't think he'd actually do it - he knew better than to send classified material nonsecure.
So Hillary says she's okay, and her former staff say they normally managed to follow her unlawful orders without screwing up. Only a couple times did they leave the markings in place. That makes everything okay then!
> claiming she "never sent or received classified material" (later amended to say "never sent classified material",
With Hillary you have to pay attention to her exact words. She said "material *marked* classified". Later we found out that's because she ordered her people to (unlawfully) remove the markings. Of course in some cases they didn't remove the markings, so she did have stuff marked classified too.
> However it is said that it is the public's distress at the status quo which has led to the election of a disruptive president.
Perfect choice of words there. "A disruptive President", I like it. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Trump because he's certainly different - on the one hand he's not at all diplomatic or "politically correct" or whatever you want to call it, on the other hand he's not completely *dependent* on big donors like most politicians. I won't even try to predict, it'll just be interesting to watch and see.
> their share of wealth has definitely declined dramatically since the 1970's.
Perhaps, but their wealth has increases very significantly. The average American's house today is twice the size of what they could afford in the 1970s. We have far more cars amd other durable goods, plus with technology everybody has a computer in their pocket, etc. Also, the average American Slashdot reader is a "one percenter" - 99% of the world makes less than $22,000, so Americans are doing quite well. *If* people in the US had a sense of perspective, they'd be happy and thankful. Good luck with that, I guess.
> automation will likely devalue the workforce at a faster rate.
Many, many times automation has come to a country - India is a recent example. Over the past 400 years, we've seen hundreds of examples of disruptive automation changing an economy. In every case, people have been worried and in every case it's turned out to be very beneficial. They lose their job picking cotton and get a job packing clothing (made from cheaper cotton) for higher pay. Bookkeepers lose their job writing down numbers in pencil, then learn to use computers instead to become much more productive (and therefore higher paid). We've seen this movie hundreds of times, and we still forget the ending. Maybe this time it'll end differently, but the beginning and the middle are the same as always.
There have been two major price drops in sixty years.
In the 1960s, a bunch of people were all excited about amazing solar breakthroughs - they'd all have solar-electric panels on the roof providing all their power needs in a few years. As you mentioned, ten and fifteen years later solar was still more than 100X times too expensive, and that on a sunny day.
According to the chart you linked, in the early 1980s, costs dropped enough that for a remote mountain cabin or other situation where utility power isn't an option, you could reasonably use solar to get a bit of expensive electricity. Heating, cooking, etc would use propane, wood, or some other type of energy - solar-electric was far too expensive to be your only power, even in a mountain cabin.
The change in the early 1980s got people all excited again though. Government and private investors threw billions of dollars at it because the next big breakthrough was just around the corner - for 30 more years.
30 years and 300 billion dollars later, prices dropped again. Now, 50 years (not 5 years) after it was "just around the corner", solar-electric can reasonably provide electricity for many people, on a sunny day. Still doesn't do so well in the morning or evening, but that's just around the corner.
If you put a large potato in the microwave for two minutes, then cut it open, you'll find that the surface is hot and core is cool. The microwaves penetrate about 1/4th to 1/2 inch into the food. (More at the surface, reducing with depth). That's one reason TV dinners have the food spread out so thin - for even heating. That 1/2" of microwave heating is *more* even than a conventional oven, which heats only the surface.
I certainly don't know if this particular approach will turn put great and we'll all be using glass batteries in a few years - but I don't think it matters. What I get from these stories, of various new battery technologies which include some which appear very practical is that *some* much better new technology will replace the current lithium-ion cells in a few years. I don't know or care if Goodenough's battery is the next big thing, I only care that there are enough highly promising ideas in the pipeline that one of them will probably end up in my pocket.
It's not a given that new, better batteries will come out every few years; nickelâ"cadmium reigned alone for 50 years. I'm glad to see some evidence that we won't beb using the same Li-Ion batteries 50 years from now.
On the other hand, cheap, plentiful solar electricity was five years away in 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015... So yeah maybe don't count your chickens before they hatch.
> a bit like a laser in 1970 but the concept itself is staggering. > a computer was a room full of racks and today it is an Apple iPhone
And by 1985 I bought a CD player, which course contained a laser, and I was 10 years old. Even before that, we had a computer in the living room that was more powerful than the room-sized computers my mother programmed just a few years before.
> assuming we can get pass the current trend towards 0.001% of the population having all the wealth and the rest of us living in a ghetto
Might I suggest you re-read your own post? All that about lasers, computers, and semi-conductors. The rest of us today buy $20 versions of the things that mega-rich people paid $1000 for ten years ago. The early adopters (rich people) pay for the R&D and capital investment that makes cool stuff become cheap.
They *should* have had a good security team as you describe.
There is a reason I pointed out these are simple, obvious mistakes on their primary service - including not hashing passwords properly, and doing authentication cookies wrong. These are things we check for if a customer orders a $500 security assessment. (Which is basically Nessus + our own scripts + an hour of manual investigation). Problems of this level are the things one engineer should find in a cheap assessment that takes just a couple hours. One decent professional hired by Yahoo would probably find in their first week on the job.
> For reliability/safety, you automate only that which is guaranteed to be safe. The more reliability/safety you want, the less you can automate.
My experience is the exact opposite. When I write software to automate something, that automated procedure is planned and reviewed, then undergoes unit testing, integration testing, and acceptance testing. When I do something by hand - well you better hope the phone doesn't ring while I'm in the middle of it because if I lose concentration for a moment mistakes are quite possible. My boss agrees; the other day I mentioned I was doing something manually and he cocked his head and asked "manually? Isn't that subject to typos and other errors?"
No need for it to be so complicated. Asking "who is the current vice president?" will eliminate the half of US adults who have no interest whatsoever in paying attention to national policy issues. It could certainly be argued that the half who do know his name are better prepared to decide whether or not he should keep his job.
Pro tip: when you decide to argue, read a source before citing it. The first sentence on the page you linked to says:
"an abstract type is a type in a nominative type system that cannot be instantiated directly"
Which happens to be more or less exactly what I said:
"That's actually basically the definition of an abstract function (method). The presence of an abstract function makes the entire group of functions and the struct which points to them non-instanceable."
Let's continue to the second sentence as well. Wiki says: "Every instance of an abstract type is an instance of some concrete subtype."
I said the same, giving an example: "The standard example, the 'hello world' of abstract classes I've always seen is Animal. You can't create a generic Animal, you have to subclass to some specific type of Animal."
Third sentence, Wiki says: "An abstract type may provide no implementation, or an incomplete implementation."
Raymorris said: An abstract class has *some* abstract methods. An abstract method doesn't provide an implementation. (In other words, the implementation of the class is missing or incomplete.)
Would you care to continue to the fourth sentence?
A method is a function that has to be be implemented by the class that declares it. An event should not be implemented by the class that declares it, since it's a callback.
> I think you'll find that you can in fact to that in C;... > As for why you might want to specify a (pointer to) an unimplemented functio in C - this would be one way to implement eg. a module that uses a callback function.
Exactly. A callback function is called an "event" in object oriented programming. It should be declared, but not implemented, by the class (module) that calls it. A method is a function that has to be be implemented by the class that calls it. Therefore on OOP we have to distinguish these two types of functions by calling one a "method" and the other an "event".
> Also among those incidents why didn't you mention the U2 pilot who gave his life for his country when he was shot down over Cuba?
Sure, let's address Major Anderson. Before Major Andersen took off, the Joint Chiefs decided that if he were shot down, they wouldn't hold another meeting, they would attack immediately. You can listen to the tapes if you want, but essentially they reasoned that Cuba didn't have the capability to shoot down a U2, so if he was shot down, that would mean the Soviets decided to shoot him down, and that would be causus belli in their minds.
They didn't know that a) the Soviet orders were to fire on groups of planes (an invasion force), but to not fire on single planes and b) the Cubans had the capability to down a U2 (flying a predictable path).
Anyway, he waa shot down and as the Joint Chiefs prepared the order to attack Kennedy stopped them, saying it was possible that the Kremlin hadn't authorized the shoot-down. (Kennedy was right, we later learned).
You seem to be confusing Kennedy with the Joint Chiefs (and pretty much everyone else in the room), who would have done air strikes amd probably an amphibious assault had Kennedy not stopped them. You might find it interesting to listen to the Oval Office tapes.
The standard example, the "hello world" of abstract classes I've always seen is Animal. Animal has a MakeNoise method. Subclass Pig says "oink", subclass Cow says "moo" - the same data type. You can't create a generic Animal, you have to subclass to some specific type of Animal.
So what's the difference between an abstract class and an interface? Animal can implement poop(). An abstract class has *some* abstract methods, an interface has *only* abstract methods.
These vulnerabilities were of course in Yahoo's major service, not some minor service few people used or thought about. In other words, Yahoo mail is probably the number one thing Yahoo should have been thinking about when it comes to security. It also appears likely that these vulnerabilities were simple enough that a dedicated security professional reviewing their systems full time would or should have caught the mistakes, or at least mitigated the risks by pointing out that passwords weren't properly salted and hashed (for the 1 billion hack). It really looks like they could have prevented these by hiring one good security professional; and somebody working remote would have cost them $150K/year, someone in California maybe $300K.
So essentially they chose to lose $350 million in value rather than prevent the losses by spending $150K-$300K on a competent security person.
Just for fun, it's basically a header file, with the implementation left to the user. You can't run the code as recieved, because there is no implementation.
That's actually basically the definition of an abstract function (method). The presence of an abstract function makes the entire group of functions amd the struct which points to them non-instanceable. You can't create an instance of a struct which contains a pointer to a function you've not yet implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this opinion will probably be unpopular here on Slashdot, but 20 years of developing web standards and web technologies tells me Berners-Lee is right on this one, from a standards perspective. Our choice, realistically, for some content is between standardized, compatible, cross-platform DRM, or non-standard, incompatible DRM that requires Internet Explorer on Windows with Java or Flash. This isn't about what we think people *should* do, it's about what they *actually* do.
From the 1990s through to today, some publishers have found a need for DRM of one form or another, and over and over again they've asked me to help deploy it. I explain that DRM generally doesn't work and can't work. They then buy some DRM solution based on ActiveX, or Flash, or Java, or whatever is popular at the moment, and I can't see their content on my Linux desktop. The story repeats over and over. How many years could Linux users not access Netflix?
The fact is, companies will implement DRM. Lacking a standard way to do it, most require Flash (which is a security nightmare), Sony installs a rootkit on customers' computers. Most companies *shouldn't* use DRM, perhaps, but they do. A few companies have a strong case of why DRM actually makes sense for their content.
There is no debate about this point - we KNOW companies will deploy DRM without a standard, because the DO. Lack of a standard for web DRM has never stopped them from hacking together really annoying DRM.
Do we prefer a standardized, cross-platform approach developed with input from users or do we prefer the Sony rootkit approach? Those are the realistic options we can actually choose from. The standards bodies can't prevent DRM, they can only offer a reasonable way of doing it or leave publishers to implement it in all kinds of unreasonable ways.
> trying to teach some of the programmers out there how to program effectively on the various parallel platforms is harder than trying to alter physics.
Which could also be phrased as:
So far, many of the parallel platforms available are much harder to learn.
Programmers can and do learn new and different ways of working, provided that the new ways don't suck.
C, Java, etc are all imperative, scalar and object based languages. SQL is a completely different paradigm, declarative and set-based. In other words, in most programming languages the programmer tells the computer how to do some task, with some value. In SQL, the programmer tells the computer what the result must be - without specifying how to do it, and all fundamental operations work on sets, not individual values. Yet most programmers can ans often do learn the declarative, set-based way of programming just as well as they learn the classic imperative way. They learn two very different ways of thinking and programming, because SQL is reasonably good - it's quite learnable, with or without understanding the underlying mathematical concepts.
There's no fundamental reason you can't have a parallel programming language or library for general purpose programming that's roughly as easy to use as SQL. In fact, SQL may point the way in many respects - besides being a learnable paradigm, it's fundamentally parallelizable precisely because the fundamental operations all use sets as input and output. All the major operations could easily be completely parallelized behind the scenes and the user (programmer) wouldn't have to know or care.
Maybe that's the way to go, since we know programmers can and do use sets - introduce a set-based general purpose language. To avoid leading programmers into temptation, the language should have no loop constructs. With no capability to run this:
foreach blah in group {
result[i++] = do_stuff(blah);
}
programmers will quickly learn to instead write:
results = do_stuff(group);
Thanks for that information and analysis. Sounds like a difficult situation to improve. I started to say "fix", but probably at this point *improvement* is more realistic than "fixing" it.
On the other hand, people with less than a third-grade education are unlikely to solve the problems of violence and corruption. Ghandi was a lawyer, Martin Luther King had a PhD as well as two two bachelor's degrees.
The average income in Belgian Congo is about $385 / year. I'm going to guess that these kids don't make more than $200/year, or $17/month. I'd pay the $17/month to replace a kid's wages if they went to school.
The cost of education, books, pencils, etc, is about the same, about $17/month. So for $35/month you could pay the kid to go school and provide books, etc.
Figure a few more dollars for the reports, overhead, etc, call it $50/month to take a kid out of the dangerous mine and put them in school. I might talk to my pastor about this idea of replacing the lost wages ($17/month) so they can go to school.
Would you be interested in actually doing something like this?
I used to think typography didn't matter. Then I saw this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...
So let me see if I'm clear on your two points:
A) According to some people the Obama State Department, as far as they know, only twice did they forget to remove the "classified" markings as requested.
That's an excellent point! Hillary's great if her staff only occasionally fails to correctly follow her illegal instructions.
B) According to Hillary, when she told someone to remove the markings and send nonsecure, she didn't think he'd actually do it - he knew better than to send classified material nonsecure.
So Hillary says she's okay, and her former staff say they normally managed to follow her unlawful orders without screwing up. Only a couple times did they leave the markings in place. That makes everything okay then!
> claiming she "never sent or received classified material" (later amended to say "never sent classified material",
With Hillary you have to pay attention to her exact words. She said "material *marked* classified". Later we found out that's because she ordered her people to (unlawfully) remove the markings. Of course in some cases they didn't remove the markings, so she did have stuff marked classified too.
> However it is said that it is the public's distress at the status quo which has led to the election of a disruptive president.
Perfect choice of words there. "A disruptive President", I like it. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Trump because he's certainly different - on the one hand he's not at all diplomatic or "politically correct" or whatever you want to call it, on the other hand he's not completely *dependent* on big donors like most politicians. I won't even try to predict, it'll just be interesting to watch and see.
> their share of wealth has definitely declined dramatically since the 1970's.
Perhaps, but their wealth has increases very significantly. The average American's house today is twice the size of what they could afford in the 1970s. We have far more cars amd other durable goods, plus with technology everybody has a computer in their pocket, etc. Also, the average American Slashdot reader is a "one percenter" - 99% of the world makes less than $22,000, so Americans are doing quite well. *If* people in the US had a sense of perspective, they'd be happy and thankful. Good luck with that, I guess.
> automation will likely devalue the workforce at a faster rate.
Many, many times automation has come to a country - India is a recent example. Over the past 400 years, we've seen hundreds of examples of disruptive automation changing an economy. In every case, people have been worried and in every case it's turned out to be very beneficial. They lose their job picking cotton and get a job packing clothing (made from cheaper cotton) for higher pay. Bookkeepers lose their job writing down numbers in pencil, then learn to use computers instead to become much more productive (and therefore higher paid). We've seen this movie hundreds of times, and we still forget the ending. Maybe this time it'll end differently, but the beginning and the middle are the same as always.
There have been two major price drops in sixty years.
In the 1960s, a bunch of people were all excited about amazing solar breakthroughs - they'd all have solar-electric panels on the roof providing all their power needs in a few years. As you mentioned, ten and fifteen years later solar was still more than 100X times too expensive, and that on a sunny day.
According to the chart you linked, in the early 1980s, costs dropped enough that for a remote mountain cabin or other situation where utility power isn't an option, you could reasonably use solar to get a bit of expensive electricity. Heating, cooking, etc would use propane, wood, or some other type of energy - solar-electric was far too expensive to be your only power, even in a mountain cabin.
The change in the early 1980s got people all excited again though. Government and private investors threw billions of dollars at it because the next big breakthrough was just around the corner - for 30 more years.
30 years and 300 billion dollars later, prices dropped again. Now, 50 years (not 5 years) after it was "just around the corner", solar-electric can reasonably provide electricity for many people, on a sunny day. Still doesn't do so well in the morning or evening, but that's just around the corner.
If you put a large potato in the microwave for two minutes, then cut it open, you'll find that the surface is hot and core is cool. The microwaves penetrate about 1/4th to 1/2 inch into the food. (More at the surface, reducing with depth). That's one reason TV dinners have the food spread out so thin - for even heating. That 1/2" of microwave heating is *more* even than a conventional oven, which heats only the surface.
I certainly don't know if this particular approach will turn put great and we'll all be using glass batteries in a few years - but I don't think it matters. What I get from these stories, of various new battery technologies which include some which appear very practical is that *some* much better new technology will replace the current lithium-ion cells in a few years. I don't know or care if Goodenough's battery is the next big thing, I only care that there are enough highly promising ideas in the pipeline that one of them will probably end up in my pocket.
It's not a given that new, better batteries will come out every few years; nickelâ"cadmium reigned alone for 50 years. I'm glad to see some evidence that we won't beb using the same Li-Ion batteries 50 years from now.
On the other hand, cheap, plentiful solar electricity was five years away in 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015 ... So yeah maybe don't count your chickens before they hatch.
> a bit like a laser in 1970 but the concept itself is staggering.
> a computer was a room full of racks and today it is an Apple iPhone
And by 1985 I bought a CD player, which course contained a laser, and I was 10 years old. Even before that, we had a computer in the living room that was more powerful than the room-sized computers my mother programmed just a few years before.
> assuming we can get pass the current trend towards 0.001% of the population having all the wealth and the rest of us living in a ghetto
Might I suggest you re-read your own post? All that about lasers, computers, and semi-conductors. The rest of us today buy $20 versions of the things that mega-rich people paid $1000 for ten years ago. The early adopters (rich people) pay for the R&D and capital investment that makes cool stuff become cheap.
They *should* have had a good security team as you describe.
There is a reason I pointed out these are simple, obvious mistakes on their primary service - including not hashing passwords properly, and doing authentication cookies wrong. These are things we check for if a customer orders a $500 security assessment. (Which is basically Nessus + our own scripts + an hour of manual investigation). Problems of this level are the things one engineer should find in a cheap assessment that takes just a couple hours. One decent professional hired by Yahoo would probably find in their first week on the job.
> For reliability/safety, you automate only that which is guaranteed to be safe. The more reliability/safety you want, the less you can automate.
My experience is the exact opposite. When I write software to automate something, that automated procedure is planned and reviewed, then undergoes unit testing, integration testing, and acceptance testing. When I do something by hand - well you better hope the phone doesn't ring while I'm in the middle of it because if I lose concentration for a moment mistakes are quite possible. My boss agrees; the other day I mentioned I was doing something manually and he cocked his head and asked "manually? Isn't that subject to typos and other errors?"
No need for it to be so complicated. Asking "who is the current vice president?" will eliminate the half of US adults who have no interest whatsoever in paying attention to national policy issues. It could certainly be argued that the half who do know his name are better prepared to decide whether or not he should keep his job.
That was funny. Unfortunately, lately I've been posting every day, so I don't get mod points.
Pro tip: when you decide to argue, read a source before citing it. The first sentence on the page you linked to says:
"an abstract type is a type in a nominative type system that cannot be instantiated directly"
Which happens to be more or less exactly what I said:
"That's actually basically the definition of an abstract function (method). The presence of an abstract function makes the entire group of functions and the struct which points to them non-instanceable."
Let's continue to the second sentence as well. Wiki says:
"Every instance of an abstract type is an instance of some concrete subtype."
I said the same, giving an example:
"The standard example, the 'hello world' of abstract classes I've always seen is Animal. You can't create a generic Animal, you have to subclass to some specific type of Animal."
Third sentence, Wiki says:
"An abstract type may provide no implementation, or an incomplete implementation."
Raymorris said:
An abstract class has *some* abstract methods. An abstract method doesn't provide an implementation. (In other words, the implementation of the class is missing or incomplete.)
Would you care to continue to the fourth sentence?
Replace the word "calls" with "defines":
A method is a function that has to be be implemented by the class that declares it. An event should not be implemented by the class that declares it, since it's a callback.
> I think you'll find that you can in fact to that in C; ...
> As for why you might want to specify a (pointer to) an unimplemented functio in C - this would be one way to implement eg. a module that uses a callback function.
Exactly. A callback function is called an "event" in object oriented programming. It should be declared, but not implemented, by the class (module) that calls it. A method is a function that has to be be implemented by the class that calls it. Therefore on OOP we have to distinguish these two types of functions by calling one a "method" and the other an "event".
> If you give 32 million people (that is, each Texan) a Chevy Bolt each
That would be Californians who a) drive tiny electric cars and b) expect someone to give them a car. Texans buy their own pickup trucks.
> Also among those incidents why didn't you mention the U2 pilot who gave his life for his country when he was shot down over Cuba?
Sure, let's address Major Anderson. Before Major Andersen took off, the Joint Chiefs decided that if he were shot down, they wouldn't hold another meeting, they would attack immediately. You can listen to the tapes if you want, but essentially they reasoned that Cuba didn't have the capability to shoot down a U2, so if he was shot down, that would mean the Soviets decided to shoot him down, and that would be causus belli in their minds.
They didn't know that a) the Soviet orders were to fire on groups of planes (an invasion force), but to not fire on single planes and b) the Cubans had the capability to down a U2 (flying a predictable path).
Anyway, he waa shot down and as the Joint Chiefs prepared the order to attack Kennedy stopped them, saying it was possible that the Kremlin hadn't authorized the shoot-down. (Kennedy was right, we later learned).
You seem to be confusing Kennedy with the Joint Chiefs (and pretty much everyone else in the room), who would have done air strikes amd probably an amphibious assault had Kennedy not stopped them. You might find it interesting to listen to the Oval Office tapes.
The standard example, the "hello world" of abstract classes I've always seen is Animal. Animal has a MakeNoise method. Subclass Pig says "oink", subclass Cow says "moo" - the same data type. You can't create a generic Animal, you have to subclass to some specific type of Animal.
So what's the difference between an abstract class and an interface? Animal can implement poop(). An abstract class has *some* abstract methods, an interface has *only* abstract methods.
These vulnerabilities were of course in Yahoo's major service, not some minor service few people used or thought about. In other words, Yahoo mail is probably the number one thing Yahoo should have been thinking about when it comes to security. It also appears likely that these vulnerabilities were simple enough that a dedicated security professional reviewing their systems full time would or should have caught the mistakes, or at least mitigated the risks by pointing out that passwords weren't properly salted and hashed (for the 1 billion hack). It really looks like they could have prevented these by hiring one good security professional; and somebody working remote would have cost them $150K/year, someone in California maybe $300K.
So essentially they chose to lose $350 million in value rather than prevent the losses by spending $150K-$300K on a competent security person.
Just for fun, it's basically a header file, with the implementation left to the user. You can't run the code as recieved, because there is no implementation.
That's actually basically the definition of an abstract function (method). The presence of an abstract function makes the entire group of functions amd the struct which points to them non-instanceable. You can't create an instance of a struct which contains a pointer to a function you've not yet implemented.
Writing objects in C is fun (once).
> uptime
16:51:37 up 107 days, 5:01
Looks like you installed some new hardware in December, eh? Was that a new CPU or some odd hardware that doesn't support hotplug?
I hate it when a PCI-e card doesn't support hotplug and I end having to reboot like some caveman running Windows.