No, I'm talking about antibiotics specifically added to increase weight gain.
They are gradually trying to curtail this, but until recently it has been very common. In particular, the GP claim that "when I grew up, cows only got one shot of antibiotics in their life!" is simply disingenuous.
Simple products can be perfect. Ethernet cables for instance. I have some I bought years ago. They're sturdy, always just work and give full gigabit speeds, and are attractively colored. I haven't tried using them as truck ties, but I haven't babied them either.
Given the fundamental design flaw involving the snaggable, breakable tabs (or unwieldy add-ons to address the issue), no RJ** cable made in the last five decades deserves a perfect 5-star rating.
The real news in this story is that they've apparently shrunk an engineer down to the scale of a few dozen angstrom units. How did they do that? There must be a huge number of applications for such a compact engineer.
Huh? Strcat() is a wheel that was invented a long, long time ago...and it rolls as well as it ever did.
You should never use strcat(). But if you do, you need to reinvent wheels that check at least three things every time you use it: The current size of the source, the current size of the dest, and the total free space in dest. Then you need to do the math to check for buffer overflows. Using strncat() safely is almost as complicated. (If instead, you've figured out static assumptions to guarantee safety, now you have a massive documentation problem for future maintainability.)
But all of that was just for static allocation. What if you have the audacity to support strings that don't have a fixed size limit? Well, now you have a vast new pile of wheel reinventing to do on top of that.
Remind us what language the python interpreter is written in.
It's written in C, by people who have been reviewing that code base for those types of issues for decades (probably including the use of high-priced tools that help weed out that stuff). Their jobs are important and necessary, if unpleasant... kind of like garbage men. But that doesn't mean that most people should go around handling garbage.
Personally, as someone who has had plenty of experience with C, I hope to never have to write or review another line of that godforsaken language ever again. It's a mentally exhausting minefield, and makes you reinvent wheels every time you need to do something as simple as concatenate strings. All to pick up only a few percent more performance than certain safer more modern system-level languages.
The Python integer can hold an unbounded sized value (eventually using even more storage if the value goes over 2^63).
You allocated an array with a single character on the CPU stack (always reported as size "1", but you don't really know how big it is in octets; C doesn't specify). The tradeoff is that you now have several potential bugs/vulnerabilities:
* You can overflow the number if it gets larger than 127 (or maybe it's 255, or even some other limit; who knows? C doesn't specify) * You need to manage the array size implicitly in your code and make sure you never index past zero. * The lifetime of your object abruptly and silently ends after you return. You must manually make sure to never store a reference to your array anywhere that could outlast your function. * You must mentally remember that a is not a null-terminated string, even though most C library functions dealing with characters only use that format. * If you use any recursion in your program, the stack allocation might fail, possibly without warning, resulting in serious security vulnerabilities. You'd need to manually avoid that possibility.
Except for the integer, those sizes are comparable to most any language. Strings and arrays all involve at least one pointer and usually a capacity and size. On a 64-bit system, that can be 24 bytes right there. Hash tables are often allocated with some empty slots, so they are usually bigger still in any language. Python might be a little bigger in most cases to handle the overhead of dynamic typing, but it looks like it's within a factor of two.
At any rate, if you're doing any serious number crunching in Python, it's probably best to figure out how to store the floats in numpy or "array" module structures, or even write a native library engine for your core crunching algorithms (it's not that hard). Alternatively, like you want, just use a different language without dynamic typing. But the tradeoff is usually less safety (C/C++), lack of a huge collection of comprehensive libraries (most other languages), or just being even slower and more bloated on most real-world tasks than Python for no good reason (Java).
The other error that you made is that if you get first post on a Python article, you really are supposed to just say: "Derp! Whitespace! Derp!!"
This issue is only for Luddites who are stuck in the past. Once systemd achieves its ultimate goal of moving every available service and user application into a single executable, distros aren't even going to need "packages" anymore.
Kind suggestion for Slashdot editors: please mention how the organics were destroyed in the lede. You say they were destroyed but you don't say how.
In addition to organics, NASA also expected any landers arriving at Mars to encounter hostile aliens armed with ray guns. In order to counter this threat, they equipped the landers with short range molecular disruptors.
Unfortunately, even though no aliens immediately appeared, a software glitch activated the disruptors. This disintegrated most of the matter within 10 meters of the landers, including the soil samples.
It certainly makes it more difficult to fight against, but there are only so many people that they can neutralize without the public finding out before they have the entire population against them,
And how is this population going to organize themselves into a credible fighting force? On facebook?
You go on and on, completely missing the fact that in today's world, government information about you completely neutralizes any ability for you to use arms against it. That's why rights regarding limits on government surveillance are orders of magnitude more important than the 2nd amendment you keep persevering about.
But do you care if this judge thinks that unfettered mass surveillance is OK? I doubt it. Even your sig indicates that you've drunk so much Kool Aid that you probably can't even comprehend what I'm taking about.
(You should also note that Afghanistan has now been occupied and run by a US-installed puppet government for over 15 years. How long until these local patriots start "winning"?)
Information has little value when a boot is crushing your skull..........
I'm not talking about you using information. I'm talking about the information the government has on you. That's the real power in this world, and that's what this judge seems to think should be almost unlimited.
With today's environment of mass surveillance, no rag-tag band of rifle-toting "patriots" is even going to get near critical mass before their communications are intercepted, and they're rounded up one-by-one and neutralized. In the mean time, certain leaders manipulate these people and keep them mollified by telling them that their retail firearms are somehow relevant in today's world.
BTW, if you're worried about Venezuela, you should really be thinking about how they got into that pickle: By electing an autocratic leader who had built up a big personality cult with a segment of their population. Who does that remind you of in this country?
Yes, it is that outlandish to think that one small aspect of a TV could make up 10% of it's *retail* cost. That would probably be well over half the cost of all the raw materials in the set.
TVs have been a cutthroat business since at least the 1970s. Anything that expensive would have been cost reduced out a long time ago.
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.
I've done that, Mr. "Coward", and it's clear that you are by far the worst user on this site.
You always post dozens of off-topic comments and trolls on every single story, going back decades. How do you manage to do that? Do you even get any sleep at all?
Ready for prime time or not, I'm sure it's going to show up real soon on my system in another ambush upgrade.
(Hint to MS: I set the computer to "Hibernate" because I was expecting to come back and pick up where I left off *quickly*. I specifically did not want to come back to find "Windows is finishing updates. Do not turn off your PC" for 45 minutes instead, followed by having to recover all of the open files that got trashed.)
They recommend singing the alphabet song once or "Happy Birthday" twice.
Luckily, due to recent court rulings, you no longer owe royalties for singing while you wash your hands. Because of these lower costs, from now on more people will have cleaner hands.
Nobody's bothered developing a reactor that uses 3He because there isn't much of it here on Earth.
There's the little issue that He3 reactions are orders of magnitude harder to create and contain than the D-T reactions that we still haven't figured out how to harness.
Not to mention that if you did manage to create super high-tech reactors, then you might as well use boron. It has even less neutron-producing side reactions, and it's plentiful here on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Give it up already.
No, I'm talking about antibiotics specifically added to increase weight gain.
They are gradually trying to curtail this, but until recently it has been very common. In particular, the GP claim that "when I grew up, cows only got one shot of antibiotics in their life!" is simply disingenuous.
Nonsense. Maybe you grew up on some kind of granola organic farm.
Animals in this country have routinely been given feed that is laced with antibiotics because it makes them gain weight faster. You should know that.
I'm sure that even with minimal training, this AI would also outperform you at comprehending a basic article summary.
Simple products can be perfect. Ethernet cables for instance. I have some I bought years ago. They're sturdy, always just work and give full gigabit speeds, and are attractively colored. I haven't tried using them as truck ties, but I haven't babied them either.
Given the fundamental design flaw involving the snaggable, breakable tabs (or unwieldy add-ons to address the issue), no RJ** cable made in the last five decades deserves a perfect 5-star rating.
There is actually one more notch on the scale not mentioned here.
11: Flying saucers are hovering over each of Earth's major cities and are in the process of vaporizing them with death rays.
The article forgot to mention the worst part of these contractors' jobs:
The team members with red badges who beam down to uncharted planets rarely make it back alive.
Yes, let's take us some juicy hardware problems and fix'em in software!
Well, that's not an especially good idea, even if you can successfully do it.
OK, I'm personally going to need several new replacement CPUs once the hardware fixes have been implemented. Will you buy them for me?
Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*.
Not if they're factually incorrect.
The real news in this story is that they've apparently shrunk an engineer down to the scale of a few dozen angstrom units. How did they do that? There must be a huge number of applications for such a compact engineer.
Huh? Strcat() is a wheel that was invented a long, long time ago...and it rolls as well as it ever did.
You should never use strcat(). But if you do, you need to reinvent wheels that check at least three things every time you use it: The current size of the source, the current size of the dest, and the total free space in dest. Then you need to do the math to check for buffer overflows. Using strncat() safely is almost as complicated. (If instead, you've figured out static assumptions to guarantee safety, now you have a massive documentation problem for future maintainability.)
But all of that was just for static allocation. What if you have the audacity to support strings that don't have a fixed size limit? Well, now you have a vast new pile of wheel reinventing to do on top of that.
Remind us what language the python interpreter is written in.
It's written in C, by people who have been reviewing that code base for those types of issues for decades (probably including the use of high-priced tools that help weed out that stuff). Their jobs are important and necessary, if unpleasant... kind of like garbage men. But that doesn't mean that most people should go around handling garbage.
Personally, as someone who has had plenty of experience with C, I hope to never have to write or review another line of that godforsaken language ever again. It's a mentally exhausting minefield, and makes you reinvent wheels every time you need to do something as simple as concatenate strings. All to pick up only a few percent more performance than certain safer more modern system-level languages.
That's apples and oranges.
The Python integer can hold an unbounded sized value (eventually using even more storage if the value goes over 2^63).
You allocated an array with a single character on the CPU stack (always reported as size "1", but you don't really know how big it is in octets; C doesn't specify). The tradeoff is that you now have several potential bugs/vulnerabilities:
* You can overflow the number if it gets larger than 127 (or maybe it's 255, or even some other limit; who knows? C doesn't specify)
* You need to manage the array size implicitly in your code and make sure you never index past zero.
* The lifetime of your object abruptly and silently ends after you return. You must manually make sure to never store a reference to your array anywhere that could outlast your function.
* You must mentally remember that a is not a null-terminated string, even though most C library functions dealing with characters only use that format.
* If you use any recursion in your program, the stack allocation might fail, possibly without warning, resulting in serious security vulnerabilities. You'd need to manually avoid that possibility.
Except for the integer, those sizes are comparable to most any language. Strings and arrays all involve at least one pointer and usually a capacity and size. On a 64-bit system, that can be 24 bytes right there. Hash tables are often allocated with some empty slots, so they are usually bigger still in any language. Python might be a little bigger in most cases to handle the overhead of dynamic typing, but it looks like it's within a factor of two.
At any rate, if you're doing any serious number crunching in Python, it's probably best to figure out how to store the floats in numpy or "array" module structures, or even write a native library engine for your core crunching algorithms (it's not that hard). Alternatively, like you want, just use a different language without dynamic typing. But the tradeoff is usually less safety (C/C++), lack of a huge collection of comprehensive libraries (most other languages), or just being even slower and more bloated on most real-world tasks than Python for no good reason (Java).
The other error that you made is that if you get first post on a Python article, you really are supposed to just say: "Derp! Whitespace! Derp!!"
This issue is only for Luddites who are stuck in the past. Once systemd achieves its ultimate goal of moving every available service and user application into a single executable, distros aren't even going to need "packages" anymore.
Kind suggestion for Slashdot editors: please mention how the organics were destroyed in the lede. You say they were destroyed but you don't say how.
In addition to organics, NASA also expected any landers arriving at Mars to encounter hostile aliens armed with ray guns. In order to counter this threat, they equipped the landers with short range molecular disruptors.
Unfortunately, even though no aliens immediately appeared, a software glitch activated the disruptors. This disintegrated most of the matter within 10 meters of the landers, including the soil samples.
It certainly makes it more difficult to fight against, but there are only so many people that they can neutralize without the public finding out before they have the entire population against them,
And how is this population going to organize themselves into a credible fighting force? On facebook?
You go on and on, completely missing the fact that in today's world, government information about you completely neutralizes any ability for you to use arms against it. That's why rights regarding limits on government surveillance are orders of magnitude more important than the 2nd amendment you keep persevering about.
But do you care if this judge thinks that unfettered mass surveillance is OK? I doubt it. Even your sig indicates that you've drunk so much Kool Aid that you probably can't even comprehend what I'm taking about.
(You should also note that Afghanistan has now been occupied and run by a US-installed puppet government for over 15 years. How long until these local patriots start "winning"?)
Information has little value when a boot is crushing your skull..........
I'm not talking about you using information. I'm talking about the information the government has on you. That's the real power in this world, and that's what this judge seems to think should be almost unlimited.
With today's environment of mass surveillance, no rag-tag band of rifle-toting "patriots" is even going to get near critical mass before their communications are intercepted, and they're rounded up one-by-one and neutralized. In the mean time, certain leaders manipulate these people and keep them mollified by telling them that their retail firearms are somehow relevant in today's world.
BTW, if you're worried about Venezuela, you should really be thinking about how they got into that pickle: By electing an autocratic leader who had built up a big personality cult with a segment of their population. Who does that remind you of in this country?
+ firm supporter of the 2nd amendment, without which all other amendments become moot
-1: Naive idiot.
Information is power.
Small arms are *not* power.
Yes, it is that outlandish to think that one small aspect of a TV could make up 10% of it's *retail* cost. That would probably be well over half the cost of all the raw materials in the set.
TVs have been a cutthroat business since at least the 1970s. Anything that expensive would have been cost reduced out a long time ago.
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.
I've done that, Mr. "Coward", and it's clear that you are by far the worst user on this site.
You always post dozens of off-topic comments and trolls on every single story, going back decades. How do you manage to do that? Do you even get any sleep at all?
Ready for prime time or not, I'm sure it's going to show up real soon on my system in another ambush upgrade.
(Hint to MS: I set the computer to "Hibernate" because I was expecting to come back and pick up where I left off *quickly*. I specifically did not want to come back to find "Windows is finishing updates. Do not turn off your PC" for 45 minutes instead, followed by having to recover all of the open files that got trashed.)
They recommend singing the alphabet song once or "Happy Birthday" twice.
Luckily, due to recent court rulings, you no longer owe royalties for singing while you wash your hands. Because of these lower costs, from now on more people will have cleaner hands.
Nobody's bothered developing a reactor that uses 3He because there isn't much of it here on Earth.
There's the little issue that He3 reactions are orders of magnitude harder to create and contain than the D-T reactions that we still haven't figured out how to harness.
Not to mention that if you did manage to create super high-tech reactors, then you might as well use boron. It has even less neutron-producing side reactions, and it's plentiful here on earth.