Exactly. But people like conspiracies. The majority of stuff looking strange are because they are strange, caused either by coincidences or pure stupidity/arrogance. The number of real life conspiracies is very, very low.
I can remember loud voices complaining that MS never dropped support for stuff in order to keep backwards compatibility therefore making Windows bloated. Now they do for a extremely narrow range of products and the voices are now complaining that stuff are dropped.
Most people use a browser - does that work? They want to connect and manage their phone, camera etc. - does that work? They want to watch movies - DTW? They want to play music - does that work? They may want to play games - DTW? They may want to use the defacto standard office software - DTW?
The fact is that for most people Windows is more than good enough, it still have advantages over alternatives in some cases. You may not like Windows (I don't) but trying to portrait it as a barely useful system is a lie and very childish. You behaving like a child does nobody any good and is very unlikely to make Windows users consider alternatives.
I really don't think you know what the Stockholm syndrome is, if one think it exists at all. Many think the Stockholm situation wasn't created as much by an alliance towards the aggressors rather than the impression the police put the hostages in danger by incompetence instead of trying to solve the situation.
But even if we say it exists, in what way are the users of Windows in danger? If they aren't - the syndrome simply can't apply.
There are some good descriptions how a ballistic missile attack works - I recommend watching one (or reading about it).
Short version: stopping a ballistic missile is really hard except in the boost phase (when it places the bus in orbit). Attacking the bus before the projectiles separate is extremely hard for many reasons, attacking the projectiles after they have separated is harder still. A practical ballistic missile will have many fake projectiles plus other countermeasures and hitting even one projectile (fake or real) is extremely^2 hard. Overwhelming any reasonable interception system is trivial for any of the large states having ballistic missiles. Which leads to your suggestion:
Lasers have a short range - air isn't a vacuum. To be able to shoot down incoming projectiles from a MIRV equipped ballistic missile means that there have to be high-flying laser equipped planes in the air. Each of those planes have to have a power source for the laser, one that can be placed into and working at a high-speed, high-altitude airplane. Let's assume that the lives of the pilots and crew is important and remove a lightweight (read: essentially unshielded) nuclear reactor as a power source, even if they are considered expendable having the crew suffer from acute radiation poisoning isn't good if they are to carry out their mission. So what other power source can we have that have enough power density to be usable? Perhaps it'd be possible to use a chemically pumped laser. Much less power density and a lot of practical problems (the waste product being extremely corrosive would be one of those).
Anyway let's assume we have enough power density to fire the laser and kill a projectile. Hooray! It's just that the missile that delivered that projectile also delivered 9 others. Plus (let's say) 20 decoys. How fast can the laser recharge and kill the rest? If you have looked at a youtube video that is reasonably informative you'll know that the time frame the laser plane can kill projectiles is extremely short. And then there's the problem that a real attack could use multiple missiles targeting the same area making it impossible to stop the attack. As I wrote above overwhelming any reasonable defense is trivial if the missiles are available, that's the reason being MAD is the only sane solution to the problem.
Either you are guessing or you know of studies done on the stability of medication.
I don't know shit about how long standard medications can be relied upon for _normal_ (=reliable) dosage for normal problems. And that is the main problem: if a medication that is guaranteed to contain x mg of an active substance and y mg of filler for period of time t what happens at 2t, 3t etc.?
Some chemicals are almost infinitely stable under stable weather condition in a hermetically sealed package, some are not. How long can it be relied upon containing the active chemical within an acceptable deviation of the original formulation _and_ an acceptable amount of potentially active breakdown products? If one don't know then the medication that was carefully formulated is suddenly an unknown factor. That's the problem.
It would be a good thing if the most common medications could be studied and a separate extended expiration date created for them. But that is only generally possible if they will be stored in known, stable condition (like in a hospital). Maybe such research could lead to extensions of the normal expiration date too.
Because people are stupid. Yes I include me in that category. Oh the myths of how gods own language with the dangerous (=unchecked) but powerful design was so fast and nice and... Yeah I bought into that idea. The fourth language I learned. And was soon let down. It was a primitive language with few features. The compilers were obviously bad if one ever had used assembly language, in some cases interpreted Forth was faster(!). The big thing was that is was portable. Or so "they" claimed. In practice that was limited to a subset of machines and even then most c code was filled with defines to create some kind of meta-language to get that portability. Some skilled programmers could write beautiful portable and good code in C. Most couldn't.
But people like me thought that C was the good thing and alternatives were crap. A lot of code were created in C, a lot of people got C experience. That lead to increasing use of C in a lot of companies even when other languages would be the better choice. Some software actually said outright that it was written in C as if that would be a guarantee of performance or portability. It sure wasn't a guarantee of code quality or reliability.
Then the years passed, C++ became actually usable. The same idea of C/C++ as something superior still remained and more code was created in those languages. Some weaknesses of the C family were polished. C became the default standard and most other languages simply ignored.
So there is a mental (=developers, ex-developers in management, management that thinks C family languages is equal to portability) and physical (=a lot of code written in C) bias towards C, strong attractions of using C family languages even when they aren't a good fit. So now we have the standard tool but we don't have the skilled programmers that can actually write good code using it. It isn't systems programmers with good knowledge of the machine they are using that writes C code - it is application level programmers that use a polished systems programming language writing code on an abstraction level the language wasn't designed for in the first place.
Generally no. That's because the language specifies that bounds checking is required but the generated code can avoid such checks it it is safe to do. Checking is done in the cases where it is or can be unsafe to remove them.
But even if checks are done the overhead is small in most cases. Sure one can create a scenario where bounds checking for a certain workload for a certain machine have a strong performance impact but in the general case there is little or none measurable impact.
For x86 a bounds check would look something like this (I ignore the 16/32 bit instruction designed for this as it is slow, not used and removed from 64 bit mode): cmp ecx, upper ; is (unsigned)ecx>upper ja.check_fail ; if so branch to handler
In the normal case both of those are 1 cycle instructions, 6+6 bytes (or 6+2 if a short branch can be used). That doesn't mean the pair will take 2 cycles, modern x86 folds them into one operation taking 1 cycle. Modern processors are also superscalar and can execute several instructions per cycle, in many cases this kind of check can be done "for free" when the processor wouldn't be able to fill all execution units anyway.
...For all these things and many more there has been a turf war along the lines of "We will fix this in the kernel!", "Oh no you won't, we will fix this with our daemon", "Oh no you won't, my userland administration tool will fix this"....
At that point, the need for an overall system-level architect comes into play. Someone who looks at the overall system, its architecture and design goals and decides the best way to implement features and fixes.
.
To this Linux outsider, it seems that systemd was implemented more because someone decided to do it, rather than being done because it was the appropriate solution to a problem.
Unlike most complainers (some that simply doesn't understand systemd at all) systemd solves a number of real world problems created by the disconnect of how computers used to be used (let's call it "static" configuration) and how a system is used today (... "dynamic" configuration). If systemd is so bloated, reinvents the whole of Linux, is a Microsoft conspiracy etc. why is that it actually solves (most) problems with older init systems? Why is it modern Unix systems have similar "dynamic" init systems rather than the old? Why is it nobody else actually created a modern init system that can be used for the same things as systemd but "follows the Unix philosophy"*?
In a was systemd is kind of a hack - but that is because it tries to integrate into the Unix design and allow it to do things it wasn't designed to do. In some cases maybe systemd have to much of hack in it but again: where is the alternative?
Note: I don't really like systemd.
(* I strongly maintain that people taking about 1) doing one thing well being a Unix thing rather than a design thing 2) thinking that philosophy is actually applied to modern Unix systems are seriously confused)
Nope. If you want to know why "freeing" all drugs usage wouldn't be positive you could do some basic reading. Or even basic thinking.
Neo-liberals can't think beyond their own dick. If others die or are hurt by drug use directly or indirectly doesn't matter they say - as long as they can do what they want. FFS people today die of legal drug use with the level of controls existing now - and not by involving law enforcement. But thinking logically is hard for some...
Even ignoring the economic and political pressures (that do exist) petrol have many advantages. It is easily transportable, it can be stored for long periods of time without problems (well, there are some but let's not get into details), creating a solution for storage is easy and cheap with no fixed infrastructure needed. It also provides an excellent way to store energy, being able to be pumped to a storage container in a vehicle fast and safely (if some elementary precautions are used) and having a good energy density.
While people living in larger cities should probably switch to electrical cars due to the advantages they have (most important significantly reduced local pollution) people in rural areas and/or traveling significant distances regularly should probably not _but_ a hybrid solution could cover most use cases.
NB the above completely ignores the problem of greenhouse gases etc., there are potential solutions to that too but if they are economically viable is another thing.
I'll try to repeat the relevant piece of text: "...li-ion are crap when it comes to power density compared to gas". That's true and means that space required for storing gas can be used to store less energy in li-ion batteries. The efficiency of electrical motors compared to Otto engines means more space can be freed elsewhere however using electrical energy stored in batteries still provide much less power density.
TL;DR not relevant, misses the point, can't read simple text.
Yeah in your fantasy. In the real world Tesla makes electric cars. They haven't revolutionized battery technology, they haven't revolutionized motor technology and they haven't revolutionized anything else. They produce luxury cars that are comparatively heavy with a limited range (as all non-hybrid electric cars). So why mention them rather than other producers of electric cars, some that _have_ made significant advances of the SOTA in the past?
I don't see how the fact that the identity number is easily guessed is relevant. It isn't intended to add any security - just being a convenient identifier.
Should be known as an assignment of a variable named i of type int(eger) with the value 0. The important bit is it being an _assignment_ and not a declaration of i being equal to zero.
That is a very important detail and not some kind of nit picking. Some other languages don't do assignment rather than binding a name to a value and for those reading it as equals is fine. Imperative languages assigns (guess there could be imperative languages with binding semantics but can't remember any).
A programmer expecting to use any other language outside the C/C++ family should never read "if (a==b)" as anything else as if a equals b. Many languages have "is" as a conditional with differences compared to "equals" opening up to difficulties when switching languages. The symbol "==" _is_ the equal symbol in C type languages, nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. But people like conspiracies. The majority of stuff looking strange are because they are strange, caused either by coincidences or pure stupidity/arrogance. The number of real life conspiracies is very, very low.
Many people kill themselves rather than face spending significant time in prison. Not unusual, not strange and not a conspiracy.
No.
_She_
Don't know if I agree with the idiot thing though.
Is Windows ignoring hostfiles that phones home?!? I recommend you take your medication, psychotic factor is over 11!
I can remember loud voices complaining that MS never dropped support for stuff in order to keep backwards compatibility therefore making Windows bloated. Now they do for a extremely narrow range of products and the voices are now complaining that stuff are dropped.
It's easy to complain.
Most people use a browser - does that work? They want to connect and manage their phone, camera etc. - does that work? They want to watch movies - DTW? They want to play music - does that work? They may want to play games - DTW? They may want to use the defacto standard office software - DTW?
The fact is that for most people Windows is more than good enough, it still have advantages over alternatives in some cases. You may not like Windows (I don't) but trying to portrait it as a barely useful system is a lie and very childish. You behaving like a child does nobody any good and is very unlikely to make Windows users consider alternatives.
I really don't think you know what the Stockholm syndrome is, if one think it exists at all. Many think the Stockholm situation wasn't created as much by an alliance towards the aggressors rather than the impression the police put the hostages in danger by incompetence instead of trying to solve the situation.
But even if we say it exists, in what way are the users of Windows in danger? If they aren't - the syndrome simply can't apply.
There are some good descriptions how a ballistic missile attack works - I recommend watching one (or reading about it).
Short version: stopping a ballistic missile is really hard except in the boost phase (when it places the bus in orbit). Attacking the bus before the projectiles separate is extremely hard for many reasons, attacking the projectiles after they have separated is harder still. A practical ballistic missile will have many fake projectiles plus other countermeasures and hitting even one projectile (fake or real) is extremely^2 hard. Overwhelming any reasonable interception system is trivial for any of the large states having ballistic missiles. Which leads to your suggestion:
Lasers have a short range - air isn't a vacuum. To be able to shoot down incoming projectiles from a MIRV equipped ballistic missile means that there have to be high-flying laser equipped planes in the air. Each of those planes have to have a power source for the laser, one that can be placed into and working at a high-speed, high-altitude airplane. Let's assume that the lives of the pilots and crew is important and remove a lightweight (read: essentially unshielded) nuclear reactor as a power source, even if they are considered expendable having the crew suffer from acute radiation poisoning isn't good if they are to carry out their mission. So what other power source can we have that have enough power density to be usable? Perhaps it'd be possible to use a chemically pumped laser. Much less power density and a lot of practical problems (the waste product being extremely corrosive would be one of those).
Anyway let's assume we have enough power density to fire the laser and kill a projectile. Hooray! It's just that the missile that delivered that projectile also delivered 9 others. Plus (let's say) 20 decoys. How fast can the laser recharge and kill the rest? If you have looked at a youtube video that is reasonably informative you'll know that the time frame the laser plane can kill projectiles is extremely short. And then there's the problem that a real attack could use multiple missiles targeting the same area making it impossible to stop the attack. As I wrote above overwhelming any reasonable defense is trivial if the missiles are available, that's the reason being MAD is the only sane solution to the problem.
Either you are guessing or you know of studies done on the stability of medication.
I don't know shit about how long standard medications can be relied upon for _normal_ (=reliable) dosage for normal problems. And that is the main problem: if a medication that is guaranteed to contain x mg of an active substance and y mg of filler for period of time t what happens at 2t, 3t etc.?
Some chemicals are almost infinitely stable under stable weather condition in a hermetically sealed package, some are not. How long can it be relied upon containing the active chemical within an acceptable deviation of the original formulation _and_ an acceptable amount of potentially active breakdown products? If one don't know then the medication that was carefully formulated is suddenly an unknown factor. That's the problem.
It would be a good thing if the most common medications could be studied and a separate extended expiration date created for them. But that is only generally possible if they will be stored in known, stable condition (like in a hospital). Maybe such research could lead to extensions of the normal expiration date too.
Because people are stupid. Yes I include me in that category. Oh the myths of how gods own language with the dangerous (=unchecked) but powerful design was so fast and nice and ... Yeah I bought into that idea. The fourth language I learned. And was soon let down. It was a primitive language with few features. The compilers were obviously bad if one ever had used assembly language, in some cases interpreted Forth was faster(!). The big thing was that is was portable. Or so "they" claimed. In practice that was limited to a subset of machines and even then most c code was filled with defines to create some kind of meta-language to get that portability. Some skilled programmers could write beautiful portable and good code in C. Most couldn't.
But people like me thought that C was the good thing and alternatives were crap. A lot of code were created in C, a lot of people got C experience. That lead to increasing use of C in a lot of companies even when other languages would be the better choice. Some software actually said outright that it was written in C as if that would be a guarantee of performance or portability. It sure wasn't a guarantee of code quality or reliability.
Then the years passed, C++ became actually usable. The same idea of C/C++ as something superior still remained and more code was created in those languages. Some weaknesses of the C family were polished. C became the default standard and most other languages simply ignored.
So there is a mental (=developers, ex-developers in management, management that thinks C family languages is equal to portability) and physical (=a lot of code written in C) bias towards C, strong attractions of using C family languages even when they aren't a good fit. So now we have the standard tool but we don't have the skilled programmers that can actually write good code using it. It isn't systems programmers with good knowledge of the machine they are using that writes C code - it is application level programmers that use a polished systems programming language writing code on an abstraction level the language wasn't designed for in the first place.
Sorry for the ranting.
Unique? Hardly.
Generally no. That's because the language specifies that bounds checking is required but the generated code can avoid such checks it it is safe to do. Checking is done in the cases where it is or can be unsafe to remove them.
But even if checks are done the overhead is small in most cases. Sure one can create a scenario where bounds checking for a certain workload for a certain machine have a strong performance impact but in the general case there is little or none measurable impact.
For x86 a bounds check would look something like this (I ignore the 16/32 bit instruction designed for this as it is slow, not used and removed from 64 bit mode): .check_fail ; if so branch to handler
cmp ecx, upper ; is (unsigned)ecx>upper
ja
In the normal case both of those are 1 cycle instructions, 6+6 bytes (or 6+2 if a short branch can be used). That doesn't mean the pair will take 2 cycles, modern x86 folds them into one operation taking 1 cycle. Modern processors are also superscalar and can execute several instructions per cycle, in many cases this kind of check can be done "for free" when the processor wouldn't be able to fill all execution units anyway.
...For all these things and many more there has been a turf war along the lines of "We will fix this in the kernel!", "Oh no you won't, we will fix this with our daemon", "Oh no you won't, my userland administration tool will fix this"....
At that point, the need for an overall system-level architect comes into play. Someone who looks at the overall system, its architecture and design goals and decides the best way to implement features and fixes.
.
To this Linux outsider, it seems that systemd was implemented more because someone decided to do it, rather than being done because it was the appropriate solution to a problem.
Unlike most complainers (some that simply doesn't understand systemd at all) systemd solves a number of real world problems created by the disconnect of how computers used to be used (let's call it "static" configuration) and how a system is used today (... "dynamic" configuration).
If systemd is so bloated, reinvents the whole of Linux, is a Microsoft conspiracy etc. why is that it actually solves (most) problems with older init systems? Why is it modern Unix systems have similar "dynamic" init systems rather than the old? Why is it nobody else actually created a modern init system that can be used for the same things as systemd but "follows the Unix philosophy"*?
In a was systemd is kind of a hack - but that is because it tries to integrate into the Unix design and allow it to do things it wasn't designed to do. In some cases maybe systemd have to much of hack in it but again: where is the alternative?
Note: I don't really like systemd.
(* I strongly maintain that people taking about 1) doing one thing well being a Unix thing rather than a design thing 2) thinking that philosophy is actually applied to modern Unix systems are seriously confused)
Rule 3. Don't post stupid shit on /.
Nope. If you want to know why "freeing" all drugs usage wouldn't be positive you could do some basic reading. Or even basic thinking.
Neo-liberals can't think beyond their own dick. If others die or are hurt by drug use directly or indirectly doesn't matter they say - as long as they can do what they want. FFS people today die of legal drug use with the level of controls existing now - and not by involving law enforcement. But thinking logically is hard for some...
It would be nice if you just once "thought it through" before posting. Unsupported speculation = not worth shit.
Or stating it in another way: Have you stopped raping your victims before hanging them?
Even ignoring the economic and political pressures (that do exist) petrol have many advantages. It is easily transportable, it can be stored for long periods of time without problems (well, there are some but let's not get into details), creating a solution for storage is easy and cheap with no fixed infrastructure needed. It also provides an excellent way to store energy, being able to be pumped to a storage container in a vehicle fast and safely (if some elementary precautions are used) and having a good energy density.
While people living in larger cities should probably switch to electrical cars due to the advantages they have (most important significantly reduced local pollution) people in rural areas and/or traveling significant distances regularly should probably not _but_ a hybrid solution could cover most use cases.
NB the above completely ignores the problem of greenhouse gases etc., there are potential solutions to that too but if they are economically viable is another thing.
I'll try to repeat the relevant piece of text: "...li-ion are crap when it comes to power density compared to gas". That's true and means that space required for storing gas can be used to store less energy in li-ion batteries. The efficiency of electrical motors compared to Otto engines means more space can be freed elsewhere however using electrical energy stored in batteries still provide much less power density.
TL;DR not relevant, misses the point, can't read simple text.
Yeah in your fantasy. In the real world Tesla makes electric cars. They haven't revolutionized battery technology, they haven't revolutionized motor technology and they haven't revolutionized anything else. They produce luxury cars that are comparatively heavy with a limited range (as all non-hybrid electric cars). So why mention them rather than other producers of electric cars, some that _have_ made significant advances of the SOTA in the past?
I don't see how the fact that the identity number is easily guessed is relevant. It isn't intended to add any security - just being a convenient identifier.
Should be known as an assignment of a variable named i of type int(eger) with the value 0. The important bit is it being an _assignment_ and not a declaration of i being equal to zero.
That is a very important detail and not some kind of nit picking. Some other languages don't do assignment rather than binding a name to a value and for those reading it as equals is fine. Imperative languages assigns (guess there could be imperative languages with binding semantics but can't remember any).
A programmer expecting to use any other language outside the C/C++ family should never read "if (a==b)" as anything else as if a equals b. Many languages have "is" as a conditional with differences compared to "equals" opening up to difficulties when switching languages. The symbol "==" _is_ the equal symbol in C type languages, nothing else.
LOL! And your strange level of abstraction is an indication of being "talented"? Really...
Since when should one expect a technical forum to be full of know-nothings? Oh wait! /.
I hope you are trolling. Macs weren't designed nor built in a house garage.