"References"
These are hardly a selling point of C++ in my opinion. Implicit pass by address symantics should NEVER have been put in a modern language.
Are you joking? References are the ultimate syntactic way to say "don't mess with the pointer, just use the object". The fact that you can't do arithmetic on references, or delete references, or assign references, without casting them in various ways is exactly the kind of friendly reminder that helps prevent a large class of common pointer-related programmer errors.
Besides, after compilation they produce the same code as that using pointers.
So does asm.
Anyhow, C has got issues. C++ added constructs to automate many aspects of modern programming, the point being to help reduce bugs by giving friendly syntactical shortcuts and reminders, and writing some of the code for you. It's not an issue of what can and cannot be done; it's more of a likelihood of programmer error thing. C++ has issues too, mostly because of various odd syntactic decisions that were made, several of which stem from trying to make it backwards-compatible. Some of it is plain ugly:) But it sure as heck puts bread on my table without stressing my brain too much.
Now I find myself evaluating the new Java, and C#, which both add even more features and little reminders to programmers to avoid common programmer errors. D is not looking too shabby, though it doesn't have anything like the market strength of either new Java or C#. Personally I think they are all getting bloated, adding too many keywords and not simplifying and unifying things enough. Back in my university days me and a buddy started designing a language we called D-, but we stopped after we realized how much time it would take to actually make it happen. I still dabble with the design on my spare cycles. Maybe some day... just maybe...
And most of you will know that
3) Power = Work / Time
Substituting 1 and 2 into 3, we get
4) Knowledge = Work / Money
Rearranging 4, we get the inevitable conclusion
5) Money = Work / Knowledge
Therefore, the more you do, and the less you know, the more money you make. Damn, I should never have gotten this stupid Masters degree!
Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
The problem with the intellectual elite is just that - they are the intellectual elite. Often times, smart solutions on paper is not the same as applying them in the real world - socialism/communism is a classic example of this.
I submit that socialism/communism are not smart solutions on paper, once human nature is taken into account. Thus the problem is that the designers were not smart enough, and not that they were intellectual elite. I have a problem with the "works on paper but not in real life" argument in general, for this very reason.
All this study proved is that the "average" face is attractive. It did NOT prove that the "average" face is the MOST attractive, which has also been tested and found to be false. The "average" face is high on the beauty scale, but it is not at the top.
The minerals are not there to dehydrate you! If you drank 100% pure H2O, with absolutely 0 ppm dissolved salts, you will end up with a hypotonic situation. Your cells will experience some discomfort, and in the extreme case, possible hemolysis. In short, your cells will freak out if you dilute your blood too much.
Source code watermarking is a hot research topic. You do it by inserting *logic* into the code, not just text. The logic, thanks to the hardness of SAT, can be constructed so that it is nigh impossible to see which parts will be run and which will not. Thus it becomes impossible to remove the logic, even for a nice optimizing compiler. There are side effects built into these bits of code, such that no matter how it is modified, rearranged, and compiled, the side effects can be read (by you, the programmer) to identify which copy of the source code it comes from. Of course, the code will become somewhat obfuscated and difficult to read, but hey:P There are tools already available for watermarking Java.
Google for: "source code" watermarking filetype:pdf
RGB are only special to us humans. A prism really doesn't care about them, and neither does a fiber optic cable. You could send information on many wavelengths together, and filter each of them out. I believe this is already done in commercial fiber optics. To do prism-based switching, you would need a source which can deliver a different wavelength for each "address". That might be cool, I'd be glyph@654nm.com.
At the end of the video it draws the letters "BSA" on the screen, one at a time. Quite fittingly, my connection failed just as it finished drawing "BS".
As soon as the alien measures anything about his photon to determine if it's still entangled, Boom! Entanglement is lost. Besides, you cannot determine whether it's entangled without knowing our results on Earth, which he would have to get using some kind of conventional communication signal, and then do some statistical analysis comparing our results to his.
I know a guy who was all ready to go for the lasik, and he asked the doctor if there's any side effects. The doctor said "no... oh, yes, there is one. You cannot go scuba diving, because of the changes in pressure". Poor guy had to trash the whole plan, because he wants to be a scuba instructor.
The scene with the scar on his face swapping sides caught my attention, but I quickly realized he was looking in a mirror just then. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that was what I noticed at the time.
I mentioned splatting methods, which eliminates the photon mapping problems. Also, diffraction is trivial. You don't spawn extra photons, you just simulate the one you're working on. Everybody simulates that. Phosphorescence and fluorescence are similarly trivial. People have been simulating that for some time. Polarization is a little trickier to implement, but again people have been doing it for years. This doesn't change the 100,000 photons per second figure.
I don't quite get why 45 billion photons is such a big deal. People do iterative photon mapping techniques, where you do 100 million photons each pass, and you do as many passes as you like. If you're using a splatting method this works trivially. 45 billion photons in a good implementation should run in about 1 week on a single P4 machine. I guess I need to read his paper to see what he's doing differently.
Dropping $20 into a nice, juicy retirement savings plan every two weeks is guaranteed to change your life. Take your lottery tickets, and whatever other impulse purchases you can identify, and divert the money into savings. Why bother gambling? You'll thank yourself many times over when you're older.
... so I shouldn't stop eating donuts if I'm fat. And pizza with extra cheese is only 5%, so I certainly shouldn't cut down on the pizza. And boy howdy, I shouldn't start doing more excercise. That would only help by about 30%! What a waste of time that would be. Until we get the 100% solution, it's nonsense to try anything!
You can remove the block artifacts from JPEGs, leaving an image much more pleasing, similar to JPEG 2000. You can do this in such a way that the resulting image could have been the original image, meaning it's in the set of possible original images. I'll go ahead and plug my own software that does just this, and also reduces the wave function artifacts for good measure: JPEG Image Enhancer.
Yes it's shareware. Yes I wrote it. Yes it's relevent to the topic:)
Slashdot Mirror
"References"
These are hardly a selling point of C++ in my opinion. Implicit pass by address symantics should NEVER have been put in a modern language.
Are you joking? References are the ultimate syntactic way to say "don't mess with the pointer, just use the object". The fact that you can't do arithmetic on references, or delete references, or assign references, without casting them in various ways is exactly the kind of friendly reminder that helps prevent a large class of common pointer-related programmer errors.
Besides, after compilation they produce the same code as that using pointers.
So does asm.
Anyhow, C has got issues. C++ added constructs to automate many aspects of modern programming, the point being to help reduce bugs by giving friendly syntactical shortcuts and reminders, and writing some of the code for you. It's not an issue of what can and cannot be done; it's more of a likelihood of programmer error thing. C++ has issues too, mostly because of various odd syntactic decisions that were made, several of which stem from trying to make it backwards-compatible. Some of it is plain ugly :) But it sure as heck puts bread on my table without stressing my brain too much.
Now I find myself evaluating the new Java, and C#, which both add even more features and little reminders to programmers to avoid common programmer errors. D is not looking too shabby, though it doesn't have anything like the market strength of either new Java or C#. Personally I think they are all getting bloated, adding too many keywords and not simplifying and unifying things enough. Back in my university days me and a buddy started designing a language we called D-, but we stopped after we realized how much time it would take to actually make it happen. I still dabble with the design on my spare cycles. Maybe some day... just maybe...
Okay, another take on it.
We know that
1) Time = Money
It is also well known that
2) Knowledge = Power
And most of you will know that
3) Power = Work / Time
Substituting 1 and 2 into 3, we get
4) Knowledge = Work / Money
Rearranging 4, we get the inevitable conclusion
5) Money = Work / Knowledge
Therefore, the more you do, and the less you know, the more money you make. Damn, I should never have gotten this stupid Masters degree!
The problem with the intellectual elite is just that - they are the intellectual elite. Often times, smart solutions on paper is not the same as applying them in the real world - socialism/communism is a classic example of this.
I submit that socialism/communism are not smart solutions on paper, once human nature is taken into account. Thus the problem is that the designers were not smart enough, and not that they were intellectual elite. I have a problem with the "works on paper but not in real life" argument in general, for this very reason.
All this study proved is that the "average" face is attractive. It did NOT prove that the "average" face is the MOST attractive, which has also been tested and found to be false. The "average" face is high on the beauty scale, but it is not at the top.
So the body attaches a tag on the protein, and says, "You be quittin'!"
Sounds like a good way to handle corporate restructuring, to me.
The minerals are not there to dehydrate you! If you drank 100% pure H2O, with absolutely 0 ppm dissolved salts, you will end up with a hypotonic situation. Your cells will experience some discomfort, and in the extreme case, possible hemolysis. In short, your cells will freak out if you dilute your blood too much.
It's a two-dimensional cave! Cool. That sure makes mapping it easier.
Source code watermarking is a hot research topic. You do it by inserting *logic* into the code, not just text. The logic, thanks to the hardness of SAT, can be constructed so that it is nigh impossible to see which parts will be run and which will not. Thus it becomes impossible to remove the logic, even for a nice optimizing compiler. There are side effects built into these bits of code, such that no matter how it is modified, rearranged, and compiled, the side effects can be read (by you, the programmer) to identify which copy of the source code it comes from. Of course, the code will become somewhat obfuscated and difficult to read, but hey :P There are tools already available for watermarking Java.
Google for: "source code" watermarking filetype:pdf
RGB are only special to us humans. A prism really doesn't care about them, and neither does a fiber optic cable. You could send information on many wavelengths together, and filter each of them out. I believe this is already done in commercial fiber optics. To do prism-based switching, you would need a source which can deliver a different wavelength for each "address". That might be cool, I'd be glyph@654nm.com.
You should write a book on it! "The mythical monkey minute"
At the end of the video it draws the letters "BSA" on the screen, one at a time. Quite fittingly, my connection failed just as it finished drawing "BS".
As soon as the alien measures anything about his photon to determine if it's still entangled, Boom! Entanglement is lost. Besides, you cannot determine whether it's entangled without knowing our results on Earth, which he would have to get using some kind of conventional communication signal, and then do some statistical analysis comparing our results to his.
I know a guy who was all ready to go for the lasik, and he asked the doctor if there's any side effects. The doctor said "no... oh, yes, there is one. You cannot go scuba diving, because of the changes in pressure". Poor guy had to trash the whole plan, because he wants to be a scuba instructor.
See my journal. That's all I have to say about asteroids.
The scene with the scar on his face swapping sides caught my attention, but I quickly realized he was looking in a mirror just then. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that was what I noticed at the time.
I mentioned splatting methods, which eliminates the photon mapping problems. Also, diffraction is trivial. You don't spawn extra photons, you just simulate the one you're working on. Everybody simulates that. Phosphorescence and fluorescence are similarly trivial. People have been simulating that for some time. Polarization is a little trickier to implement, but again people have been doing it for years. This doesn't change the 100,000 photons per second figure.
I don't quite get why 45 billion photons is such a big deal. People do iterative photon mapping techniques, where you do 100 million photons each pass, and you do as many passes as you like. If you're using a splatting method this works trivially. 45 billion photons in a good implementation should run in about 1 week on a single P4 machine. I guess I need to read his paper to see what he's doing differently.
Dropping $20 into a nice, juicy retirement savings plan every two weeks is guaranteed to change your life. Take your lottery tickets, and whatever other impulse purchases you can identify, and divert the money into savings. Why bother gambling? You'll thank yourself many times over when you're older.
Who the heck hasn't learned from day 1 that 1 inch is exactly 2.54 cm? I learned that in grade 1. Then again, I'm in Canada.
... so I shouldn't stop eating donuts if I'm fat. And pizza with extra cheese is only 5%, so I certainly shouldn't cut down on the pizza. And boy howdy, I shouldn't start doing more excercise. That would only help by about 30%! What a waste of time that would be. Until we get the 100% solution, it's nonsense to try anything!
This news is OLD. I mean, YEARS OLD. "new algorithm" my foot! Come on, boys! Come on!
You can remove the block artifacts from JPEGs, leaving an image much more pleasing, similar to JPEG 2000. You can do this in such a way that the resulting image could have been the original image, meaning it's in the set of possible original images. I'll go ahead and plug my own software that does just this, and also reduces the wave function artifacts for good measure: :)
JPEG Image Enhancer.
Yes it's shareware. Yes I wrote it. Yes it's relevent to the topic
No way, dude. I played that game right through, and found it rewarding :) Well, as rewarding as a point-and-click adventure game could be.
Given that you have to select an E-mail to delete it, how are users supposed to protect themselves from this one?
It's easy:
Step 1) Delete MS Outlook
Step 2) Install any other mail reader
Step 3) Delete messages at your leisure
You should never generalize.