Fish turns to rubber if it's cooked much past 140F.
Nobody cooks fish to the 160F required to kill dangerous pig pathogens. That's partly because up until now, fish haven't spent their lives bathed in dangerous pig pathogens.
As far as gardens go, the shit is either first composted, or at the very least spread early in the season so it has time to break down. People don't sprinkle raw pig shit on their lettuce right before harvest.
It is necessary if starvation and homelessness threaten to break down public order.
This has happened many times in the history of human civilization. Don't pretend it can't just because your head is full of naive libertarian ideas about how you wish the world worked.
Whenever the shit really hits the fan, libertarians disappear into the cracks like scattering cockroaches.
The investors risked their own money, not my money.
That works great when one company at a time fails.
However, as has just been relived recently, when enough companies fail at once to form a critical mass (which is inevitable in real-world chaotic economic systems), it becomes necessary for the government to step in and bail them out with your money in order to stop our entire society from spiraling into an utter meltdown. (After all, we can't have depraved mobs invading gated communities and torching the McMansions of the market kingpins.)
So don't get too smug about the virtues of market risk. The bigger the private risk, the bigger the government bailout that will one day have to be made.
Look at what typically happens when cities decide to give... I mean sell off... their parking garages to private businesses: Parking prices skyrocket because of price gouging by oligarchs.
So your approach to privatizing roads might actually be good: By making driving cost prohibitive for most people through the exorbitant tolls that will be charged to drive on their natural monopolies, the libertarian approach would do a great deal to help the environment by drastically reducing the overall usage of automobiles in this country.
First off, on what planet to people keep their PCs for 10 years? It's more like 3... at the most; for both home and business.
Well, I've always been a computer geek. From 1982 until 2007, I updated for a faster computer every two years on average.
Right now I'm typing this on that same 5-1/2 year old system, and I don't see any need to upgrade it for the foreseeable future. It's still fast enough for most anything I do, and the latest systems aren't drastically faster (especially on any particular single-threaded task I'm most likely to be waiting on).
One reason why Python 3 hasn't taken off is that it didn't adopt.py3 as a file name suffix for Python 3 programs.
A lot of the Python programs I've written don't have any extension on the file name. They're intended to be commands in the system. The language they're written in is an unimportant implementation detail (and might change one day). There's usually no need to make the implementation language user-visible.
So, in the US you'd probably need to purchase ~1 2/5 cans of regular swill to get 500ml, considering that the cheapest and most common beer comes in 355ml cans.
Actually, most major brands are also available in 16 oz. (473ml) "tall boy" cans, and they're often marginally cheaper in that package than in 12 oz. containers. (Probably because it's positioned as being a slightly "lower class" product.)
Take the case of me and Google. My share of their power is about 1W electric (that's usually about 3w thermal).
However, I estimate that their maps and local business info features alone easily save me at least a couple of hundred miles per year of driving. That would be about 10 gallons of gasoline per year, which is 38 W thermal that I'm not burning thanks to the info they're providing. Google provides at least a 10 to 1 payback in energy savings just for this one case.
PCs are a mature market, and they may not change as much any more, but they aren't going away any time soon. That's because people don't create content on a phone.
Nevertheless, somebody has to make PCs, glamorous or not. It might as well be these companies, just like Proctor & Gamble makes toothpaste and soap. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that?
I interviewed with them in 1999. Back then they seemed like an excellent company, with a campus that reminded me of college (lots of small buildings interconnected by pathways).
Now that campus IS a college. A couple of years ago HP sold off most of the Compaq buildings to Lone Star College.
This is what happened to the (probably still perfectly usable) Compaq buildings that the college didn't want.
Reports have it that rather than releasing a buggy system, the problem was caused by running the test harness in a production environment. More here:
That sounds like the time in 1979 when they mistakenly loaded a nuclear attack simulation tape into NORAD's actual online defense system and nearly started WWIII.
I've seen lots of stuff about Microsoft's upcoming Surface, but it didn't look different enough from normal tablets to get me interested. But an Attack Surface could be exciting. Does anybody have a link to a picture of this thing?
I imagine that it might be shaped something like a cricket bat with a shock resistant display on its blade. If so, that would be cool.
Owing to the fact that we will know the lander has already reached the surface (in unknown condition) by the time we get the first signal it has entered the atmosphere
Relativity says that there is a 14 minute delay in *some* frames of reference. In other frames of reference, the delay is longer. For others (those occupied by the radio signal photons, for example), the landing events and our reception of the signals happen simultaneously.
Getting hung up over what you imagine is the "time delay" between two points in spacetime that are outside of each others' light cones is kind of pointless.
After the storm of 1900, the entire Island of Galveston was raised by 10 or 20 feet. If they could do it back then with limited technology and resources while dealing with thousands of dead bodies and 50 ft tall piles of debris, I think we can deal with a centimeter per decade rise.
The economic focus of southeast Texas also left Galveston for Houston, never to return.
Galveston had been Texas' primary seaport. Now it's little more than a cute tourist trap. (Which still needs to be totally evacuated every few years.)
The economic costs to Galveston for being too close to sea level have been utterly devastating to that city.
But that's the thing about amazons robotics system, kiva: it depends on low cost, low capital individual robots than can easily be scaled up and down to meet demand much more than old style systems
This sounds like a huge risk. After the warehouse lays off unneeded robots during a downturn, we could very well end up with rogue gangs of desperate unemployed robots roaming our streets, using any means necessary to appropriate electrical power, spare parts and lubricants.
gcc could have easily chosen to always initialise uninitialised local variables to 0 regardless of optimisations.
That's true. And if my experiment had returned 0, then it would have been a useless result. But it didn't return zero. Instead, it returned garbage, thereby proving my hypothesis to a sufficient degree for the real world.
(In fact, if you turn on optimization, gcc does create a zero at compile time. So turning on optimization does not result in a useful experiment for this case.)
But I don't care what kind of main() gcc accepts, or what warnings it might or might not print about main(), or why the gcc devs handle main() in any particular fashion. None of that has the slightest relevance to the original discussion, which was about uninitialized local variables.
The fact of the matter is, if local variables were supposed to be initialized to zero according to the standard, then gcc, which is probably the most popular C compiler on the planet, would do it.
I mean really. What are the actual odds that if gcc sees "int main()" instead of 'int main(void)', it thinks "Oh! Undefined behavior! Just for grins, I'll do everything just the same, except now I'll fail to initialize automatic variables to zero at runtime. That'll teach 'em."
Local variables in C are almost always on the stack. These are not "allocated" from the OS just prior to use. The garbage on the stack comes from the setup routines that the C runtime called just prior to entering main(); the OS has no control over that.
At any rate, as you point out, getting 0 proves nothing. (In fact, if you turn on compiler optimization, gcc eliminates the actual stack storage and does give you a compile-time computed zero.) However, finding an actual garbage value the way I did proves that either gcc has a bug (unlikely in this case), or that local variables may indeed be totally uninitialized.
Oh, and by the way, you left color[0] and [1] undefined on both of your Buttons.
The C standard requires the compiler initialize all stack-allocated memory to zero. color[0] and color[1] are exactly as the OP specified. To be safe, they should indeed be initialized to zero. In professional practice, I always memset everything I allocate to 0 for the entire block of memory I have allocated, and then initialize individual members of structures to whatever their default value should be.
The C standard requires static variables to be initialized to zero by default. Stack variables that aren't explicitly initialized can be random garbage.
To verify that I'm correct, I just tested it:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int x;
printf("x: %d\n", x);
return 0; }
____
$ gcc -Wall t.c t.c: In function 'main': t.c:6: warning: 'x' is used uninitialized in this function
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an idea: cook your fish.
Fish turns to rubber if it's cooked much past 140F.
Nobody cooks fish to the 160F required to kill dangerous pig pathogens. That's partly because up until now, fish haven't spent their lives bathed in dangerous pig pathogens.
As far as gardens go, the shit is either first composted, or at the very least spread early in the season so it has time to break down. People don't sprinkle raw pig shit on their lettuce right before harvest.
I didn't read the article but this cannot be their conclusion. Because something cannot be found it must be gone forever?
It's been dispersed into the near vacuum of interstellar space.
As far as we're concerned, that's gone forever.
It is necessary if starvation and homelessness threaten to break down public order.
This has happened many times in the history of human civilization. Don't pretend it can't just because your head is full of naive libertarian ideas about how you wish the world worked.
Whenever the shit really hits the fan, libertarians disappear into the cracks like scattering cockroaches.
The investors risked their own money, not my money.
That works great when one company at a time fails.
However, as has just been relived recently, when enough companies fail at once to form a critical mass (which is inevitable in real-world chaotic economic systems), it becomes necessary for the government to step in and bail them out with your money in order to stop our entire society from spiraling into an utter meltdown. (After all, we can't have depraved mobs invading gated communities and torching the McMansions of the market kingpins.)
So don't get too smug about the virtues of market risk. The bigger the private risk, the bigger the government bailout that will one day have to be made.
Look at what typically happens when cities decide to give ... I mean sell off ... their parking garages to private businesses: Parking prices skyrocket because of price gouging by oligarchs.
So your approach to privatizing roads might actually be good: By making driving cost prohibitive for most people through the exorbitant tolls that will be charged to drive on their natural monopolies, the libertarian approach would do a great deal to help the environment by drastically reducing the overall usage of automobiles in this country.
First off, on what planet to people keep their PCs for 10 years? It's more like 3... at the most; for both home and business.
Well, I've always been a computer geek. From 1982 until 2007, I updated for a faster computer every two years on average.
Right now I'm typing this on that same 5-1/2 year old system, and I don't see any need to upgrade it for the foreseeable future. It's still fast enough for most anything I do, and the latest systems aren't drastically faster (especially on any particular single-threaded task I'm most likely to be waiting on).
One reason why Python 3 hasn't taken off is that it didn't adopt .py3 as a file name suffix for Python 3 programs.
A lot of the Python programs I've written don't have any extension on the file name. They're intended to be commands in the system. The language they're written in is an unimportant implementation detail (and might change one day). There's usually no need to make the implementation language user-visible.
So, in the US you'd probably need to purchase ~1 2/5 cans of regular swill to get 500ml, considering that the cheapest and most common beer comes in 355ml cans.
Actually, most major brands are also available in 16 oz. (473ml) "tall boy" cans, and they're often marginally cheaper in that package than in 12 oz. containers. (Probably because it's positioned as being a slightly "lower class" product.)
Take the case of me and Google. My share of their power is about 1W electric (that's usually about 3w thermal).
However, I estimate that their maps and local business info features alone easily save me at least a couple of hundred miles per year of driving. That would be about 10 gallons of gasoline per year, which is 38 W thermal that I'm not burning thanks to the info they're providing. Google provides at least a 10 to 1 payback in energy savings just for this one case.
He could have saved a lot of bandwidth by simply posting:
PCs are a mature market, and they may not change as much any more, but they aren't going away any time soon. That's because people don't create content on a phone.
Nevertheless, somebody has to make PCs, glamorous or not. It might as well be these companies, just like Proctor & Gamble makes toothpaste and soap. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that?
I interviewed with them in 1999. Back then they seemed like an excellent company, with a campus that reminded me of college (lots of small buildings interconnected by pathways).
Now that campus IS a college. A couple of years ago HP sold off most of the Compaq buildings to Lone Star College.
This is what happened to the (probably still perfectly usable) Compaq buildings that the college didn't want.
Yeah, and if one of your kids gets leukemia, you're going to go bankrupt and then dump the unpaid medical expenses on the rest of us.
Thanks.
This is a bargain as far as useless satellites go.
At only $100,400, it's about six orders of magnitude cheaper than the International Space Station.
Reports have it that rather than releasing a buggy system, the problem was caused by running the test harness in a production environment. More here:
That sounds like the time in 1979 when they mistakenly loaded a nuclear attack simulation tape into NORAD's actual online defense system and nearly started WWIII.
I've seen lots of stuff about Microsoft's upcoming Surface, but it didn't look different enough from normal tablets to get me interested. But an Attack Surface could be exciting. Does anybody have a link to a picture of this thing?
I imagine that it might be shaped something like a cricket bat with a shock resistant display on its blade. If so, that would be cool.
Owing to the fact that we will know the lander has already reached the surface (in unknown condition) by the time we get the first signal it has entered the atmosphere
Relativity says that there is a 14 minute delay in *some* frames of reference. In other frames of reference, the delay is longer. For others (those occupied by the radio signal photons, for example), the landing events and our reception of the signals happen simultaneously.
Getting hung up over what you imagine is the "time delay" between two points in spacetime that are outside of each others' light cones is kind of pointless.
After the storm of 1900, the entire Island of Galveston was raised by 10 or 20 feet. If they could do it back then with limited technology and resources while dealing with thousands of dead bodies and 50 ft tall piles of debris, I think we can deal with a centimeter per decade rise.
The economic focus of southeast Texas also left Galveston for Houston, never to return.
Galveston had been Texas' primary seaport. Now it's little more than a cute tourist trap. (Which still needs to be totally evacuated every few years.)
The economic costs to Galveston for being too close to sea level have been utterly devastating to that city.
Did you remember that you also need to drill a hole on the top of the new drive?
Otherwise, the data will just spill out onto your desk.
But that's the thing about amazons robotics system, kiva: it depends on low cost, low capital individual robots than can easily be scaled up and down to meet demand much more than old style systems
This sounds like a huge risk. After the warehouse lays off unneeded robots during a downturn, we could very well end up with rogue gangs of desperate unemployed robots roaming our streets, using any means necessary to appropriate electrical power, spare parts and lubricants.
gcc could have easily chosen to always initialise uninitialised local variables to 0 regardless of optimisations.
That's true. And if my experiment had returned 0, then it would have been a useless result. But it didn't return zero. Instead, it returned garbage, thereby proving my hypothesis to a sufficient degree for the real world.
(In fact, if you turn on optimization, gcc does create a zero at compile time. So turning on optimization does not result in a useful experiment for this case.)
But I don't care what kind of main() gcc accepts, or what warnings it might or might not print about main(), or why the gcc devs handle main() in any particular fashion. None of that has the slightest relevance to the original discussion, which was about uninitialized local variables.
The fact of the matter is, if local variables were supposed to be initialized to zero according to the standard, then gcc, which is probably the most popular C compiler on the planet, would do it.
I verified it well enough for the real world.
I mean really. What are the actual odds that if gcc sees "int main()" instead of 'int main(void)', it thinks "Oh! Undefined behavior! Just for grins, I'll do everything just the same, except now I'll fail to initialize automatic variables to zero at runtime. That'll teach 'em."
Local variables in C are almost always on the stack. These are not "allocated" from the OS just prior to use. The garbage on the stack comes from the setup routines that the C runtime called just prior to entering main(); the OS has no control over that.
At any rate, as you point out, getting 0 proves nothing. (In fact, if you turn on compiler optimization, gcc eliminates the actual stack storage and does give you a compile-time computed zero.) However, finding an actual garbage value the way I did proves that either gcc has a bug (unlikely in this case), or that local variables may indeed be totally uninitialized.
Oh, and by the way, you left color[0] and [1] undefined on both of your Buttons.
The C standard requires the compiler initialize all stack-allocated memory to zero. color[0] and color[1] are exactly as the OP specified. To be safe, they should indeed be initialized to zero. In professional practice, I always memset everything I allocate to 0 for the entire block of memory I have allocated, and then initialize individual members of structures to whatever their default value should be.
The C standard requires static variables to be initialized to zero by default. Stack variables that aren't explicitly initialized can be random garbage.
To verify that I'm correct, I just tested it: