Stacks are a compiler and platform implementation issue. C does not require the use of a stack.
Java's means of keeping you from writing to random locations in memory is something of a hindrance when trying to use anything memory-mapped. You will have to write code somewhere to tell the system to map symbolic objects to real locations, and you will have to do it in a language other than Java.
C's means of failing in interesting ways and corrupting your program is roughly as big a problem as Java's means of failing by starting out far less capable and keeping you from doing many things you might think of as natural.
It's a tradeoff. Can you use the big-boy software, or do you need to have the kind that doesn't have small parts that come off and you can choke on?
If something can't be done in parallel, maybe it can be pipelined.
Or you can reserve one CPU to do the non-parallelizable, non-pipelineable parts, while the rest are working on the next parallel/pipelined task.
Treating the processors as heterogenous, with the ability to make homogenous subsets, is the key to getting nearer to unit efficiency from a multiprocessing system.
If the detector at the other end of the rope has a very high impedance (doesn't allow the end to move for a changing force) then it will detect the vertical and horizontal wave components with fidelity as forces. The two components can then be decoded.
If the detector is in a moving portion of the rope, it will have to have a very low impedance (allowing full motion without applying any force to the rope itself). It can detect the motion as displacement and decode it into vertical and horizontal components.
Your reasons are sufficient but not necessary. Some people like watching anyone at all playing baseball. Some people like just sitting and staring at the stadium as it fills before the game. Some people like to watch the crowd during the game.
C hides stacks from you. I don't know why you have to teach them to anyone. And Java and C++ don't eliminate stacks.
In theory, you don't need to teach pointers as arrays of memory locations. You can show them as references with different behaviors and rules for correct use.
Wait. After I return from your subroutine, am I supposed to do something with the return value? What register is the return value? What do you mean, "assembler doesn't have return values"? Then how do you return a value from a function? A function. You know: A subroutine that takes typed arguments and returns a typed return value. "What's a typed?" Really?
And you can do anything assember that you can do in any language; does that make any language a tarted-up assembler?
Physics is mathematical modeling of natural processes.
Physics is math. Even the statistical part is taking data and analyzing it, which is math.
Math isn't all Physics. It's kind of a Venn diagram with Physics inside of Math.
Natural processes aren't physics, but once you quantify one or try to model it functionally, you're creating a Physics model to fit to the Natural process.
Natural processes are, at some level, dirt-simple. Even if you have to define a 26-dimensional idea of "dirt-simple", it will come down to a simple application of that model. Something that can happen as the consequence of an energetic accident, and progress without disturbance through a sequence of simple processes.
Computers take care of easy tasks so that people can be freed up to deal with hard ones. Some of the hard ones will be created by the use of computers, but they can be safely ignored if the computers are still doing the easy ones.
It would be neat if the bot writers included an uninstall commmand; then you could hijack the server domain, inject the command, and the network would vaporize itself.
But of course they don't do that, and they probably know how to write code that isn't vulnerable to external exploits, so you have to go in through a trusted channel on each infected host. Which is what Microsoft's malware thing does.
And they do that whether the command system is up or down.
What Microsoft needs to do is to make it plain to anyone infected by one of these things that their system is not secure and is causing problems for the rest of the internet, and show them how to secure it. Even if that means sending snail-mail to the address registered for an infected IP address.
It's pretty obvious to me that it's trivially simple to watch one of these bots cycle through its algorithm, then when it gets a working server site, you trace to that site and find who's running it and cut their balls off as well as their network access. Then watch it happen again, and so on.
That would be a lot smarter than paying tens of thousands of dollars for randomly-generated domain names.
Why are spam-fighters so intent on doing the dumb thing instead of the right thing?
3.06 GHz quad-core Yorkfield. 4 GB of 1333-MHz DDR-3 DRAM. You don't want to hear about my main-disk RAID-0 array.
OO.o is a pig. Even if the quick-start daemon is running, it takes for-fucking-ever to open the first document, and all other operations in it feel clunky.
Open-sourcers need to pay some attention to performance issues or they'll be marginalized by low-cost/free closed software.
The only times that AMD really fell behind Intel was with the K5 and their current batch of CPUs. They'll surpass Intel again, you can be certain of that.
No, I've seen their roadmaps.
AMD is 1-2 years behind and its marketing department is paddling away from the Titanic as fast as it can.
Intel has changed the way it does business completely since Itanium balled them up. They only develop for a working fab process, and they only start fabs with known-good chip designs. They have tight integration of their design and fabs (AMD is pushing their fabs away) and much more significant design advances in the pipe.
AMD just pushed Fusion back by two years; and it wasn't going to impress anyone running a Larrabee anyway.
If they asked the question as "How much time do you spend using the following tools: a) OpenOffice.org, b) Google Docs, c) Microsoft Office, d) Pencil and Paper?"
Then the answer is not that OO.o is more popular than GD, but that it takes 5 times as long to do the same job in OO.o, so people spend more time in it.
In fact, I'm waiting for a CPU upgrade so OO.o can finish opening a Word document I clicked on yesterday...
No, Intel held the performance crown until the early 00's. AMD was the cheap chips, but didn't really have a chance in performance. Intel let that happen by focussing on Itanium and ignoring x86 improvements. That snapped back when they realized the mobile M-core could be enhanced for desktop operation, and then modularized for multi-core desktops.
It's like AMD took the lead while Intel hobbled into the pits to fix a flat, which took 12.8 seconds, and then Intel came right up and passed them in the next lap. AMD's a lap down now, and is realizing it just didn't bring enough horsepower to the race. This thing is all over except the turning of the donuts, the spraying of the milk, and the back-flip onto the tarmac.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really believe that anyone should be able to say anything they want about you from behind a cloak of anonymity?
What if it's the government disguising itself as a supplier of credit reports and police records to prevent you from ever getting a job or a loan?
The anonymity of the Internet is a bug, not a feature.
Solve your social problems in the elections and the courts, not by assaulting the integrity of others and hiding.
"They owe him NOTHING."
Then it should be easy to prove in court and you can then go after him for defaming you with false accusations.
The fact remains: the Internet wasn't created so you could hide, and there's no reason to allow you to.
Stacks are a compiler and platform implementation issue. C does not require the use of a stack.
Java's means of keeping you from writing to random locations in memory is something of a hindrance when trying to use anything memory-mapped. You will have to write code somewhere to tell the system to map symbolic objects to real locations, and you will have to do it in a language other than Java.
C's means of failing in interesting ways and corrupting your program is roughly as big a problem as Java's means of failing by starting out far less capable and keeping you from doing many things you might think of as natural.
It's a tradeoff. Can you use the big-boy software, or do you need to have the kind that doesn't have small parts that come off and you can choke on?
Whether you believe it's true or not we all have a right to face our accusers.
And if it isn't true, you deserve to pay the price, not the person you're defaming.
And if you are just some idiot in Ukraine making jokes, then the victim has a right to know that and explain it to those who took the joke seriously.
Or to travel to Ukraine and bust you in the nose.
The Internet is not a free ride on the libel train.
s/stack/wad
dang newbies
If something can't be done in parallel, maybe it can be pipelined.
Or you can reserve one CPU to do the non-parallelizable, non-pipelineable parts, while the rest are working on the next parallel/pipelined task.
Treating the processors as heterogenous, with the ability to make homogenous subsets, is the key to getting nearer to unit efficiency from a multiprocessing system.
"unlike two ropes would"
False.
If the detector at the other end of the rope has a very high impedance (doesn't allow the end to move for a changing force) then it will detect the vertical and horizontal wave components with fidelity as forces. The two components can then be decoded.
If the detector is in a moving portion of the rope, it will have to have a very low impedance (allowing full motion without applying any force to the rope itself). It can detect the motion as displacement and decode it into vertical and horizontal components.
Your reasons are sufficient but not necessary. Some people like watching anyone at all playing baseball. Some people like just sitting and staring at the stadium as it fills before the game. Some people like to watch the crowd during the game.
Sports are something to do.
So is /.
If you don't care about sports, then they have no meaning for you.
If you do, then they do.
And vice versa.
Life's like that. Only for some things your caring is built-in.
C hides stacks from you. I don't know why you have to teach them to anyone. And Java and C++ don't eliminate stacks.
In theory, you don't need to teach pointers as arrays of memory locations. You can show them as references with different behaviors and rules for correct use.
Wait. After I return from your subroutine, am I supposed to do something with the return value? What register is the return value? What do you mean, "assembler doesn't have return values"? Then how do you return a value from a function? A function. You know: A subroutine that takes typed arguments and returns a typed return value. "What's a typed?" Really?
And you can do anything assember that you can do in any language; does that make any language a tarted-up assembler?
What? How deep it goes?
Physics is mathematical modeling of natural processes.
Physics is math. Even the statistical part is taking data and analyzing it, which is math.
Math isn't all Physics. It's kind of a Venn diagram with Physics inside of Math.
Natural processes aren't physics, but once you quantify one or try to model it functionally, you're creating a Physics model to fit to the Natural process.
Natural processes are, at some level, dirt-simple. Even if you have to define a 26-dimensional idea of "dirt-simple", it will come down to a simple application of that model. Something that can happen as the consequence of an energetic accident, and progress without disturbance through a sequence of simple processes.
Why was this a question again?
You don't need authority, you only need permission, and you only need to get permission after you have performed the service.
If nobody accuses you of harming their system, you are not running afoul of the law.
Allow me to reset the attitude:
Computers take care of easy tasks so that people can be freed up to deal with hard ones. Some of the hard ones will be created by the use of computers, but they can be safely ignored if the computers are still doing the easy ones.
"You learn C very fast if you can think of it as a high-level assembler."
((void (*)())FAIL)();
If you can't get more out of C than what you find in an assembler, you never learned C properly.
BTW, 85% of C++ coding skill is C coding skill. And 115% of Java coding skill is C coding skill.
Here's the answer:
Tell them, "Pointers turn memory into one big array."
Then let them figure out how to use an array.
I was thinking about that.
It would be neat if the bot writers included an uninstall commmand; then you could hijack the server domain, inject the command, and the network would vaporize itself.
But of course they don't do that, and they probably know how to write code that isn't vulnerable to external exploits, so you have to go in through a trusted channel on each infected host. Which is what Microsoft's malware thing does.
And they do that whether the command system is up or down.
What Microsoft needs to do is to make it plain to anyone infected by one of these things that their system is not secure and is causing problems for the rest of the internet, and show them how to secure it. Even if that means sending snail-mail to the address registered for an infected IP address.
They're busy watching Kazaa for pr0n doctors.
It's pretty obvious to me that it's trivially simple to watch one of these bots cycle through its algorithm, then when it gets a working server site, you trace to that site and find who's running it and cut their balls off as well as their network access. Then watch it happen again, and so on.
That would be a lot smarter than paying tens of thousands of dollars for randomly-generated domain names.
Why are spam-fighters so intent on doing the dumb thing instead of the right thing?
Presuming your conclusions just to get your name in the papers?
Cripes, Ray, get a grip.
The moderation on my posts in this thread shows that the fanboys have not gained any subjectivity over the years.
3.06 GHz quad-core Yorkfield.
4 GB of 1333-MHz DDR-3 DRAM.
You don't want to hear about my main-disk RAID-0 array.
OO.o is a pig. Even if the quick-start daemon is running, it takes for-fucking-ever to open the first document, and all other operations in it feel clunky.
Open-sourcers need to pay some attention to performance issues or they'll be marginalized by low-cost/free closed software.
The only times that AMD really fell behind Intel was with the K5 and their current batch of CPUs. They'll surpass Intel again, you can be certain of that.
No, I've seen their roadmaps.
AMD is 1-2 years behind and its marketing department is paddling away from the Titanic as fast as it can.
Intel has changed the way it does business completely since Itanium balled them up. They only develop for a working fab process, and they only start fabs with known-good chip designs. They have tight integration of their design and fabs (AMD is pushing their fabs away) and much more significant design advances in the pipe.
AMD just pushed Fusion back by two years; and it wasn't going to impress anyone running a Larrabee anyway.
If they asked the question as "How much time do you spend using the following tools: a) OpenOffice.org, b) Google Docs, c) Microsoft Office, d) Pencil and Paper?"
Then the answer is not that OO.o is more popular than GD, but that it takes 5 times as long to do the same job in OO.o, so people spend more time in it.
In fact, I'm waiting for a CPU upgrade so OO.o can finish opening a Word document I clicked on yesterday...
No, Intel held the performance crown until the early 00's. AMD was the cheap chips, but didn't really have a chance in performance. Intel let that happen by focussing on Itanium and ignoring x86 improvements. That snapped back when they realized the mobile M-core could be enhanced for desktop operation, and then modularized for multi-core desktops.
It's like AMD took the lead while Intel hobbled into the pits to fix a flat, which took 12.8 seconds, and then Intel came right up and passed them in the next lap. AMD's a lap down now, and is realizing it just didn't bring enough horsepower to the race. This thing is all over except the turning of the donuts, the spraying of the milk, and the back-flip onto the tarmac.