Strangely science doesn't agree with you. Human sexuality isn't just about external sexual attributes (and it have been know not to be for a long time) nor just driven by hormonal cycles. We know scent affects people according to their perceived gender and/or sexual orientation and we know that brain structures of transsexuals are generally matching the ones of the perceived gender.
But you focus on external attributes only. Too bad we can't add-a-broin-to-u...
Yes the title and blurb is misleading clickbait. However people do have a better sense of smell than many assume - part of smell not being used more by humans are that we don't need to. We have good general-purpose vision and hearing, we don't need smell to detect if a member of the opposite gender want to have sex, we don't mark territorial boarders with pee etc.
However there are people that have trained to use their sense of smell like wine tasters, perfumers etc. and there have been enough research to show that the (actual) body odor is linked to sexual signaling in humans.
Yes "everyone" that have no fucking clue knows that. It isn't true and you are either lying or trying to spread your infectious ignorance. The amount of explosives a passenger can get on board is very limited due to the type of chemical screening done today. That means the explosive force have to be placed just right to be a general danger for the plane. By not allowing potential explosive inside the passenger compartment it isn't possible to place the explosive at a sensitive point and the potential danger of the explosive placed into a safety cargo container is limited by being away from passengers, away from sensitive points where a smaller amount of explosives could do critical damage and inside a container that is designed to _partially_ contain an explosion.
But that is the same thing as having a terrorist wanting to be a "martyr" aiming a shaped charge to maximize the damage to the aircraft, everyone knows that...
How about reading the wikipedia article linked in the OP before writing something that is not consistent with the evidence presented at the trial, nor consistent with the information about the case released before and after the trial?
"Authorities later found over 280 grams (10 oz) of plastic explosives TATP and PETN hidden in the hollowed soles of Reid's black shoes"
But I guess that's how a normal shoe is constructed according to you?
BTW checking shoes have been a standard security measure since forever - my uncle commented on the search of his shoes after visiting USSR in the 80's. Guess that's because the Soviets had learned to foresee the future and didn't want anyone to be able to light a match?
White? Pigment-deficient pinkies more like it. And I wonder what you refer to as "white people" given that racists tend to exclude all others than themselves when using that "term".
If there is any problem(s) it/they are probably caused by the massive amount of people there, more people means one can't know all people around oneself - creating a society with mostly anonymous individuals free to lie, exaggerate, spout racist crap and generally making the place miserable. These anonymous filth like to infiltrate discussions caus... Oh, you are one of them. Should have guessed.
Of course there are alternative networks, it's just that they use the IP protocol(s) with private addresses and with secure routing.There isn't really a reason for a new ARPANET as the network standard already exists and is good enough requiring only standard security measures like air-gaping.
It was a symbol used all over the world for both religious and other purposes (like just depicting the sun or being a nice symmetric figure). But you are right that the Nazis took it from India.
You mean the European method, also known as the US method, the Japanese method etc?
Thinking this is unique for China is naive at best. The practice will decrease as the intellectual property market in China increases just as it have decreased in other countries/areas for the same reason.
They never said they wouldn't make special versions of Windows... And the last version blah was about changing the distribution and update model of the operating system.
But I guess you just wanted to rant without worrying about getting anything right? If so you succeeded, congratulations!
(snip) Note the Browser is NOT part of the OS, so this is a marketing decision.
Hello time-traveler and welcome to the future. Here the web browser is an integral part of everyday work and leisure-time. Not having a browser is like not having man on a UNIX system (though it is commonly spelled Unix today). I recommend that you check out the free Unix compatible systems that are available here in the future, Linux based ones are most popular but alternatives like FreeBSD may be more familiar to you. Use a web browser to search for them.
P.s. All normal installations of those Unix compatible systems come with a web browser too!
BIOS: 16 bit old design originally for booting from floppy drives, 32 bit support (partially) hacked in for some functions. System starts as a real-mode (8086 compatible) and have to be switched to 32/64 bit mode. Settings have been added ad hoc style over many years but still remains vendor specific. Extensions are hard to add. There aren't many standard interfaces for hardware and those that exist are mostly limited to hardware functionality from (at best) the 90's. Only 80x25 textmode is "guaranteed" (not really) to exist. Graphics modes are limited to VGA modes (assuming the graphics adapter supports them) or one can use an extension which often is of a bad quality (nobody uses it). It is a mess. Booting is done by reading a sector (normally 512 bytes) into memory and jumping to that memory block in real mode, that code is mostly enough to load the second stage bootloader. The BIOS doesn't know of filesystems so that is the responsibility of the boot block and/or the bootloader. Boot errors are handled by yet another mess of hacks. Power management is retrofitted over the legacy system as are other extensions. Emulation of legacy (PS/2) keyboard is a hack partially in hardware and partially in software, supports only the USB boot protocol and is a mess.
UEFI: 32/64 bit design. Extensible. Standardized interface for settings. Abstracted graphics, network, storage etc. Supports FAT32, reads a 32/64 bit executable into memory from the boot media and jumps to that code with a rich API. After the boot loader is finished (it can load other files, initialize graphics modes etc.) it calls a function that essentially turns of the UEFI system allowing the system to continue booting under its own control. Faster. All implementations I know of supports emulating the legacy BIOS if needed.
UEFI is bloated and I don't like the design. But saying that nobody wanted it is ludicrous. Everyone wanted something better than the legacy BIOS mess. If you want a grassroots approach then start coding an alternative but don't forget that you also have to have the support from X large companies (that have specific needs ans wants) and Y smaller ones (that just want something that works). You'd also need to support interfaces and standards that UEFI already does. Good luck.
Unless you're talking about C, or D, the fact of the matter is that you've hidden all the computational overhead in multiple layers of automated translation behind your syntactical sugar.
What about all other languages for system programming* or otherwise? You are wrong BTW, even _real_ high level languages can have thin abstraction layers.
Also I don't think you understand what the term syntactic sugar means - it isn't an indication of abstraction but an indication of a feature intended to be "sweeter" for the programmer. Garbage collection isn't syntactic sugar, the C pre/post increment support is. Many languages support alternative looping constructs that reduce typing compared to a generic form but is translated directly and non-ambiguously to the generic form without creating overheads.
My toy language support unless (cond) instead of if not((cond)), that is syntactic sugar but not additional abstraction.
(* like Algol, BCPL, BLISS, (Amiga) E, Forth, Fortran, Pascal, Modula, Modula2, Oberon plus a lot more)
Case in point: non-memory managed languages don't need to manage memory - memory requirements for these programs are huge due to inadequate planning. How many programmers take into account object pooling?
Many. Some languages do that automatically when it can be advantageous.
Case in point: The Motorola Startac was a very limited device but had its programming in hardware - you could not type faster than the device. New smartphones have 2-3Gb in memory and yet are less responsive.
Not relevant. There are plenty of slow code in C and plenty of fast code in Java.
Case in point: a field programmable gate array was never intended for production use - yet every computer today uses these
Really? FPGAs are field programmable gate arrays (oh, it's even in the name!) and gate arrays were designed for production use. FPGAs have increased in use as they are a much better solution to making costly customized chips, modern processes are expensive as hell for small custom designs while FPGA chips are getting less expensive.
The more important point is that this is yet another piece of nonsense from you. It isn't relevant even if you weren't wrong.
BTW the code for "programming" FPGA chips are the same type as that used when making ASICs. Or do you think people hand-place transistors today?
Case in point: how many Java programmers think about += string concatenation versus =+ string concatenation?
Yet another irrelevant piece of crap? Smells like it, will not taste it.
While the K&R manual is correct that every complex problem can be further simplified by one more level of indirection, it is not true that there is no cost.
Irrelevant...
Our computers today are 1000 times more powerful and solve the same problems as before. So what has changed? Our efficiency in coding as dropped and we are not using the resources at hand to make better solutions but sloppier ones that require less effort on our part but more computational overhead.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. I say this as someone that loathes bloated, badly designed software filled with crap "features" that nobody (to a first approximation) use but still take resources.
Software does much more today than before.
We have become lazy and complacent and we call it progress. Until our programs can optimize to the level that we can generate by hand, I would not deem to consider our current state of programming languages an improvement in anything other than readability.
Are you talking about assembly language? Fine for small problems, not for large problems.
I don't buy this. A simple hello world in Java is much more complex and wordy than the same functionality in 50 year-old BASIC. And any language that relies on whitespace to modify the program flow cannot be described as readable.
Now use the 50 year old BASIC to do a modern task in a way that is portable and provides a graphical output to an arbitrary device.
I don't think esoteric languages was mentioned in the article (not that I've read it - but it would make no sense), what real language are you thinking about that uses whitespace for control flow?
You are just showing your ignorance - computer programming is closer to engineering now than it have been before.
The problem is that the development model is fucked up, that most people programming doesn't know actual software engineering* and that crap is accepted as good software.
Really? I think you strongly underestimate the data and metadata available on the net. Pseduo-anonymous accounts, sure, but for people like me that uses a nickname/tag/handle (whatever) on many sites it normally isn't too hard to link a user name to a "real" name.
Slashdot Mirror
Strangely science doesn't agree with you. Human sexuality isn't just about external sexual attributes (and it have been know not to be for a long time) nor just driven by hormonal cycles. We know scent affects people according to their perceived gender and/or sexual orientation and we know that brain structures of transsexuals are generally matching the ones of the perceived gender.
But you focus on external attributes only. Too bad we can't add-a-broin-to-u...
Yes the title and blurb is misleading clickbait. However people do have a better sense of smell than many assume - part of smell not being used more by humans are that we don't need to. We have good general-purpose vision and hearing, we don't need smell to detect if a member of the opposite gender want to have sex, we don't mark territorial boarders with pee etc.
However there are people that have trained to use their sense of smell like wine tasters, perfumers etc. and there have been enough research to show that the (actual) body odor is linked to sexual signaling in humans.
Yes "everyone" that have no fucking clue knows that. It isn't true and you are either lying or trying to spread your infectious ignorance. The amount of explosives a passenger can get on board is very limited due to the type of chemical screening done today. That means the explosive force have to be placed just right to be a general danger for the plane. By not allowing potential explosive inside the passenger compartment it isn't possible to place the explosive at a sensitive point and the potential danger of the explosive placed into a safety cargo container is limited by being away from passengers, away from sensitive points where a smaller amount of explosives could do critical damage and inside a container that is designed to _partially_ contain an explosion.
But that is the same thing as having a terrorist wanting to be a "martyr" aiming a shaped charge to maximize the damage to the aircraft, everyone knows that...
Don't forget your muscles that can be used to accelerate your limbs.
MiB?
How about reading the wikipedia article linked in the OP before writing something that is not consistent with the evidence presented at the trial, nor consistent with the information about the case released before and after the trial?
"Authorities later found over 280 grams (10 oz) of plastic explosives TATP and PETN hidden in the hollowed soles of Reid's black shoes"
But I guess that's how a normal shoe is constructed according to you?
BTW checking shoes have been a standard security measure since forever - my uncle commented on the search of his shoes after visiting USSR in the 80's. Guess that's because the Soviets had learned to foresee the future and didn't want anyone to be able to light a match?
White? Pigment-deficient pinkies more like it. And I wonder what you refer to as "white people" given that racists tend to exclude all others than themselves when using that "term".
I take that you think so by your experience licking the asses of a lot of Indians? Maybe you shouldn't frequent scat-fetish clubs in India...
The saddest part is that you have access to the Internet.
If there is any problem(s) it/they are probably caused by the massive amount of people there, more people means one can't know all people around oneself - creating a society with mostly anonymous individuals free to lie, exaggerate, spout racist crap and generally making the place miserable. These anonymous filth like to infiltrate discussions caus... Oh, you are one of them. Should have guessed.
Of course there are alternative networks, it's just that they use the IP protocol(s) with private addresses and with secure routing.There isn't really a reason for a new ARPANET as the network standard already exists and is good enough requiring only standard security measures like air-gaping.
And here I have no mod points :(
It was a symbol used all over the world for both religious and other purposes (like just depicting the sun or being a nice symmetric figure). But you are right that the
Nazis took it from India.
Wrong and wrong. How about not posting bullshit?
You mean the European method, also known as the US method, the Japanese method etc?
Thinking this is unique for China is naive at best. The practice will decrease as the intellectual property market in China increases just as it have decreased in other countries/areas for the same reason.
Unlike on PC where Intel dominates, mobile is a different matter entirely, and Samsung is on hand to provide the DRAM and NAND chips they require?
They never said they wouldn't make special versions of Windows... And the last version blah was about changing the distribution and update model of the operating system.
But I guess you just wanted to rant without worrying about getting anything right? If so you succeeded, congratulations!
(snip)
Note the Browser is NOT part of the OS, so this is a marketing decision.
Hello time-traveler and welcome to the future. Here the web browser is an integral part of everyday work and leisure-time. Not having a browser is like not having man on a UNIX system (though it is commonly spelled Unix today).
I recommend that you check out the free Unix compatible systems that are available here in the future, Linux based ones are most popular but alternatives like FreeBSD may be more familiar to you. Use a web browser to search for them.
P.s. All normal installations of those Unix compatible systems come with a web browser too!
Then you have the wrong idea what a programming language is or what programming is.
BASIC is a real programming language and have been used for many real, important tasks. That's just one example.
BIOS: 16 bit old design originally for booting from floppy drives, 32 bit support (partially) hacked in for some functions. System starts as a real-mode (8086 compatible) and have to be switched to 32/64 bit mode. Settings have been added ad hoc style over many years but still remains vendor specific. Extensions are hard to add. There aren't many standard interfaces for hardware and those that exist are mostly limited to hardware functionality from (at best) the 90's. Only 80x25 textmode is "guaranteed" (not really) to exist. Graphics modes are limited to VGA modes (assuming the graphics adapter supports them) or one can use an extension which often is of a bad quality (nobody uses it). It is a mess. Booting is done by reading a sector (normally 512 bytes) into memory and jumping to that memory block in real mode, that code is mostly enough to load the second stage bootloader. The BIOS doesn't know of filesystems so that is the responsibility of the boot block and/or the bootloader. Boot errors are handled by yet another mess of hacks. Power management is retrofitted over the legacy system as are other extensions. Emulation of legacy (PS/2) keyboard is a hack partially in hardware and partially in software, supports only the USB boot protocol and is a mess.
UEFI: 32/64 bit design. Extensible. Standardized interface for settings. Abstracted graphics, network, storage etc. Supports FAT32, reads a 32/64 bit executable into memory from the boot media and jumps to that code with a rich API. After the boot loader is finished (it can load other files, initialize graphics modes etc.) it calls a function that essentially turns of the UEFI system allowing the system to continue booting under its own control. Faster. All implementations I know of supports emulating the legacy BIOS if needed.
UEFI is bloated and I don't like the design. But saying that nobody wanted it is ludicrous. Everyone wanted something better than the legacy BIOS mess. If you want a grassroots approach then start coding an alternative but don't forget that you also have to have the support from X large companies (that have specific needs ans wants) and Y smaller ones (that just want something that works). You'd also need to support interfaces and standards that UEFI already does. Good luck.
Unless you're talking about C, or D, the fact of the matter is that you've hidden all the computational overhead in multiple layers of automated translation behind your syntactical sugar.
What about all other languages for system programming* or otherwise? You are wrong BTW, even _real_ high level languages can have thin abstraction layers.
Also I don't think you understand what the term syntactic sugar means - it isn't an indication of abstraction but an indication of a feature intended to be "sweeter" for the programmer. Garbage collection isn't syntactic sugar, the C pre/post increment support is. Many languages support alternative looping constructs that reduce typing compared to a generic form but is translated directly and non-ambiguously to the generic form without creating overheads.
My toy language support unless (cond) instead of if not((cond)), that is syntactic sugar but not additional abstraction.
(* like Algol, BCPL, BLISS, (Amiga) E, Forth, Fortran, Pascal, Modula, Modula2, Oberon plus a lot more)
Case in point: non-memory managed languages don't need to manage memory - memory requirements for these programs are huge due to inadequate planning. How many programmers take into account object pooling?
Many. Some languages do that automatically when it can be advantageous.
Case in point: The Motorola Startac was a very limited device but had its programming in hardware - you could not type faster than the device. New smartphones have 2-3Gb in memory and yet are less responsive.
Not relevant. There are plenty of slow code in C and plenty of fast code in Java.
Case in point: a field programmable gate array was never intended for production use - yet every computer today uses these
Really? FPGAs are field programmable gate arrays (oh, it's even in the name!) and gate arrays were designed for production use. FPGAs have increased in use as they are a much better solution to making costly customized chips, modern processes are expensive as hell for small custom designs while FPGA chips are getting less expensive.
The more important point is that this is yet another piece of nonsense from you. It isn't relevant even if you weren't wrong.
BTW the code for "programming" FPGA chips are the same type as that used when making ASICs. Or do you think people hand-place transistors today?
Case in point: how many Java programmers think about += string concatenation versus =+ string concatenation?
Yet another irrelevant piece of crap? Smells like it, will not taste it.
While the K&R manual is correct that every complex problem can be further simplified by one more level of indirection, it is not true that there is no cost.
Irrelevant...
Our computers today are 1000 times more powerful and solve the same problems as before. So what has changed? Our efficiency in coding as dropped and we are not using the resources at hand to make better solutions but sloppier ones that require less effort on our part but more computational overhead.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. I say this as someone that loathes bloated, badly designed software filled with crap "features" that nobody (to a first approximation) use but still take resources.
Software does much more today than before.
We have become lazy and complacent and we call it progress. Until our programs can optimize to the level that we can generate by hand, I would not deem to consider our current state of programming languages an improvement in anything other than readability.
Are you talking about assembly language? Fine for small problems, not for large problems.
I don't buy this. A simple hello world in Java is much more complex and wordy than the same functionality in 50 year-old BASIC. And any language that relies on whitespace to modify the program flow cannot be described as readable.
Now use the 50 year old BASIC to do a modern task in a way that is portable and provides a graphical output to an arbitrary device.
I don't think esoteric languages was mentioned in the article (not that I've read it - but it would make no sense), what real language are you thinking about that uses whitespace for control flow?
You are just showing your ignorance - computer programming is closer to engineering now than it have been before.
The problem is that the development model is fucked up, that most people programming doesn't know actual software engineering* and that crap is accepted as good software.
(* it still isn't real engineering IMNSHO)
So the definition of a real language is the ability to program device drivers? Are you a moron or just playing one on /.?
Really? I think you strongly underestimate the data and metadata available on the net. Pseduo-anonymous accounts, sure, but for people like me that uses a nickname/tag/handle (whatever) on many sites it normally isn't too hard to link a user name to a "real" name.