Checking for CARRY flag is one instruction. Not exactly a dramatic slowing.
Moreover, at least on X86, easily predictable conditional jumps (like overflow checks) are often almost free. They execute in different hardware units than ALU instructions, and often don't add to the overall clock count or latency at all.
There's no reason why you can't have a fixed-size string class that can grow its buffer if anyone calls the appending methods.
Yes there are. Compilers can make a lot more assumptions when optimizing code for immutable objects than for mutable ones. Immutable objects are more idiot-proof when used as hashtable keys. And memory layout requires an extra layer of indirection (2 allocations for each string) for variable-length vs. fixed length unless funky hacks are used under the hood.
I do agree that the mutable string API should be a strict superset of the immutable string API. This is something many existing languages fail at. (You can't make the mutable an actual subclass of the immutable without messing up the invariants guaranteed by immutability, however.)
"In America" certainly includes any country in either North or South America
We do not use the term "America" as a geographical set of the continents "North America" and "South America". Similarly, we don't say that someone is in "Dakota", because that territory no longer exists. We always say "North Dakota" or "South Dakota".
However, "America" *is* commonly used around the world as an abbreviated form of "The United States of America".
So perhaps it was unwise to include the phrase. BUT THEY DID! He can't argue it away with a slippery slope strawman any more than you can. I told you, if you don't like it, work to get it changed.
In the meantime, most the management of this advanced 21st century nation that goes beyond the immediate needs of an 18th century agrarian society works just fine under that phrase.
Why would the creators of the constitution go to all the trouble of all the various conventions throughout the colonies to make all the various stated limitations on Government and then make a loophole that negates all of it?
I don't know. Maybe the same reason those slave owners went on and on about "liberty" and "created equal" and such. Anyway, they did it, and the wording is crystal clear. If you don't like it, lobby to get it removed.
Where? Article I. Section 8: "General Welfare". It's a phrase broad enough to drive a battleship through, including healthcare. Don't like it? Get an amendment passed to remove it.
"We hold these truths to be self evident." That's the definitive circular argument. As I said, circular arguments are all that any government has, or needs. At the end of the day, the Colonists had more guns and force in North America than the British could deal with, scraps of paper notwithstanding.
So slavery is legitimate if a majority of the voters agree?
It essentially was in most places throughout history until the industrial revolution. After that, majorities of voters almost everywhere decided that it was no longer necessary, and therefore not legitimate.
Peoples' ideas of exactly what constitutes "inalienable rights" have constantly changed throughout time. Ironically, the very document you point to silently tolerates slavery, despite all its high-minded language.
Technology has been one of the largest factors influencing just what an "inalienable right" is. Mechanization eliminated slavery, for example. Right now, many people are looking at the rise of expensive lifesaving medical procedures, and are concluding that access to health insurance should now be an "inalienable right". More rights will be added and detracted from this definition as history marches on.
It's part of human nature. Governments spontaneously form in every situation where population density passes a certain threshold, "legitimate" or not. Governments always collect taxes, therefore forcing people to "labor for others".
The government decides what objectives your "forced labor" will be used for. Luckily, we live in a representative democracy. If a majority of the people decide that "forced labor" will be used for health insurance, then that's what it will be used for.
You do not gain such a right by delegating the force to a third party.
Unless the third party is the government. Each and every government throughout history have had this power since the first civilization was formed. Libertarian handwaving and/or whining doesn't change this basic fact.
but I can't imagine forcing things into the public domain for living authors.
Why not? That's the way it originally worked.
If we went back to the original system, if the authors want to earn more money after their copyrights expire, they would have to get up off of their asses and work some more, just like the rest of us have to. If they don't want to have to work later in life, they should put some of their current earnings into a 401k, like the rest of us have to.
Actually, I was not trolling. Put simply, if this EXACT BUG was discovered in Windows, OS persons would be jumping about like grass-hoppers that THIS could never happen in OS software.
As pointed out elsewhere on these threads, most Linux versions already prevent this bug through a kernel memory map setting. However, WINE, which needs to run things in a Windows-compatible way, doesn't work with that setting, so it's turned off, and people with WINE installed remain vulnerable.
In interviews I've seen, the architects stated that the assumption was that any collision would involve a plane (specifically a 707) lost in the fog, flying slowly and trying to land. Such planes would not be fully loaded with fuel since they would be at the end of their trip, and they wouldn't be piloted by terrorists pegging the throttles at top speed.
The scenario envisioned was more like what happened to the bomber that hit Empire State building in 1945. It wasn't that big of a deal.
Since we are talking about digital computers based on the binary numerical system, using base 2 makes a lot more sense than using base 10.
Maybe it would in a world full of nothing but assembly coders, but a term such as "27 MiB" is *not* binary. It's an odd mixture of a base-10 number and a base-2 multiplier.
If you want to stick close to the hardware, you should use exclusively hexadecimal arithmetic. However, the vast majority of users have no frigging clue what number base a computer internally uses, don't care about such implementation details, and have been brought up since childhood to think in decimal. Spreadsheets don't display their results in hex for good reason, and neither should file manager applications.
If there's a B, b, or a reference to bits or bytes, then it's in powers of 2.
Not for bandwidth. Base-2 units have never been used to describe bandwidth. (If you have a 1MB per second connection, that's exactly 1,000,000 bytes per second.)
Not for hard drive capacity at any time later than ancient history.
Not for floppy disks, which were always in ridiculous mixed units of 1024*1000.
Not for optical media, which come in sizes like 4,700,000,000 bytes.
Not for file sizes reported in any non-braindead application.
In fact, not for anything other than solid state RAM.
So your assertion that "there is no confusion" is 100% false. The explicit distinction between TB and TiB should be strictly enforced in all contexts due to the historical abuse of SI terminology by people like you.
It is IMPERATIVE to measure bits in (base 2) exponential terms because bits are quantum logical units. We count them, and we are concerned with possible comibnations in a given number of bits.
This statement makes zero sense. You're confusing the number of permutations that "n" bits can denote with the number "n" itself. Just because the number of permutations of n bits happens to be 2**n, that property in no way constrains us to denote measurements of the number n itself in some strange hybrid derivative of base 2 and base 10. (Which is only slightly more convenient to do arithmetic with than Roman numerals. Quick: how many 100 MiB files fit onto a 4.377 GiB DVD?)
I tried connecting, and apparently I got lots of traffic, but all I got was a blank screen.
I haven't even tried connecting, and I won't be doing so any time soon. I'm not going to buy any equipment for these networks until the big industry players resolve their format war. One camp is trying to standardize on tabs, and the other is pushing for spaces.
I don't know about this university, but most places I've worked at made me agree up front (on an actual contract, not just a "gentleman's agreement") to sign over any patent rights on my work, and agree to take reasonable steps to help them obtain and defend such patents. Had he refused to cooperate with the university, he might have eventually found himself out of a job.
I'm grateful for the men and women who patrol our borders. If this report is true, their hard work has kept us safe from another potential disaster: Having to endure 7 years of unrelenting hype, having to witness multiple late and overbudget Stalinesque construction projects, all capped off by an orgy of hypocritical corporate-sponsored "amateur" contests and overblown nationalism. Good job!
Why bother banning each individual activities when the existing laws suffice,
Because, as I originally explained, they *don't* suffice.
Why make police officers follow someone who is texting for miles until they see them actually commit a life-threatening driving error? Is it just for the silly principle that the number of characters in the road laws needs to be minimized for some reason? You'd just be wasting police resources and risking the safety of everyone.
Texting while driving is stupid and dangerous, period. You know it, I know it, and the law ought to know it.
Secondly, there is no "proof" that speeding is necessarily dangerous (and, it really isn't up to certain speeds - difference in speed is the issue), yet they still smack down tickets left and right without any challenge.
That's because there's a specific law that says speeding is illegal in and of itself. That was exactly the point I was making: texting while driving should get the same treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
Checking for CARRY flag is one instruction. Not exactly a dramatic slowing.
Moreover, at least on X86, easily predictable conditional jumps (like overflow checks) are often almost free. They execute in different hardware units than ALU instructions, and often don't add to the overall clock count or latency at all.
There's no reason why you can't have a fixed-size string class that can grow its buffer if anyone calls the appending methods.
Yes there are. Compilers can make a lot more assumptions when optimizing code for immutable objects than for mutable ones. Immutable objects are more idiot-proof when used as hashtable keys. And memory layout requires an extra layer of indirection (2 allocations for each string) for variable-length vs. fixed length unless funky hacks are used under the hood.
I do agree that the mutable string API should be a strict superset of the immutable string API. This is something many existing languages fail at. (You can't make the mutable an actual subclass of the immutable without messing up the invariants guaranteed by immutability, however.)
Wrong on all points. One gallon of oil has roughly 40 kWh of energy.
I think his point is that one gallon of oil actually has about 3kg*c^2 energy, or 75 billion kWh.
"In America" certainly includes any country in either North or South America
We do not use the term "America" as a geographical set of the continents "North America" and "South America". Similarly, we don't say that someone is in "Dakota", because that territory no longer exists. We always say "North Dakota" or "South Dakota".
However, "America" *is* commonly used around the world as an abbreviated form of "The United States of America".
So perhaps it was unwise to include the phrase. BUT THEY DID! He can't argue it away with a slippery slope strawman any more than you can. I told you, if you don't like it, work to get it changed.
In the meantime, most the management of this advanced 21st century nation that goes beyond the immediate needs of an 18th century agrarian society works just fine under that phrase.
You don't know either.
Why would the creators of the constitution go to all the trouble of all the various conventions throughout the colonies to make all the various stated limitations on Government and then make a loophole that negates all of it?
I don't know. Maybe the same reason those slave owners went on and on about "liberty" and "created equal" and such. Anyway, they did it, and the wording is crystal clear. If you don't like it, lobby to get it removed.
Where? Article I. Section 8: "General Welfare". It's a phrase broad enough to drive a battleship through, including healthcare. Don't like it? Get an amendment passed to remove it.
Start here
"We hold these truths to be self evident." That's the definitive circular argument. As I said, circular arguments are all that any government has, or needs. At the end of the day, the Colonists had more guns and force in North America than the British could deal with, scraps of paper notwithstanding.
So slavery is legitimate if a majority of the voters agree?
It essentially was in most places throughout history until the industrial revolution. After that, majorities of voters almost everywhere decided that it was no longer necessary, and therefore not legitimate.
Peoples' ideas of exactly what constitutes "inalienable rights" have constantly changed throughout time. Ironically, the very document you point to silently tolerates slavery, despite all its high-minded language.
Technology has been one of the largest factors influencing just what an "inalienable right" is. Mechanization eliminated slavery, for example. Right now, many people are looking at the rise of expensive lifesaving medical procedures, and are concluding that access to health insurance should now be an "inalienable right". More rights will be added and detracted from this definition as history marches on.
So what? Who defines "legitimate"?
It's part of human nature. Governments spontaneously form in every situation where population density passes a certain threshold, "legitimate" or not. Governments always collect taxes, therefore forcing people to "labor for others".
The government decides what objectives your "forced labor" will be used for. Luckily, we live in a representative democracy. If a majority of the people decide that "forced labor" will be used for health insurance, then that's what it will be used for.
Legitimately.
You do not gain such a right by delegating the force to a third party.
Unless the third party is the government. Each and every government throughout history have had this power since the first civilization was formed. Libertarian handwaving and/or whining doesn't change this basic fact.
but I can't imagine forcing things into the public domain for living authors.
Why not? That's the way it originally worked.
If we went back to the original system, if the authors want to earn more money after their copyrights expire, they would have to get up off of their asses and work some more, just like the rest of us have to. If they don't want to have to work later in life, they should put some of their current earnings into a 401k, like the rest of us have to.
Actually, I was not trolling. Put simply, if this EXACT BUG was discovered in Windows, OS persons would be jumping about like grass-hoppers that THIS could never happen in OS software.
As pointed out elsewhere on these threads, most Linux versions already prevent this bug through a kernel memory map setting. However, WINE, which needs to run things in a Windows-compatible way, doesn't work with that setting, so it's turned off, and people with WINE installed remain vulnerable.
So in a way, this *is* a bug with Windows.
In interviews I've seen, the architects stated that the assumption was that any collision would involve a plane (specifically a 707) lost in the fog, flying slowly and trying to land. Such planes would not be fully loaded with fuel since they would be at the end of their trip, and they wouldn't be piloted by terrorists pegging the throttles at top speed.
The scenario envisioned was more like what happened to the bomber that hit Empire State building in 1945. It wasn't that big of a deal.
Quick, how many 100 MB files fit onto a 4.377 GB DVD?
So answer it, asshole, without getting out a calculator. Go ahead.
Since we are talking about digital computers based on the binary numerical system, using base 2 makes a lot more sense than using base 10.
Maybe it would in a world full of nothing but assembly coders, but a term such as "27 MiB" is *not* binary. It's an odd mixture of a base-10 number and a base-2 multiplier.
If you want to stick close to the hardware, you should use exclusively hexadecimal arithmetic. However, the vast majority of users have no frigging clue what number base a computer internally uses, don't care about such implementation details, and have been brought up since childhood to think in decimal. Spreadsheets don't display their results in hex for good reason, and neither should file manager applications.
If there's a B, b, or a reference to bits or bytes, then it's in powers of 2.
Not for bandwidth. Base-2 units have never been used to describe bandwidth. (If you have a 1MB per second connection, that's exactly 1,000,000 bytes per second.)
Not for hard drive capacity at any time later than ancient history.
Not for floppy disks, which were always in ridiculous mixed units of 1024*1000.
Not for optical media, which come in sizes like 4,700,000,000 bytes.
Not for file sizes reported in any non-braindead application.
In fact, not for anything other than solid state RAM.
So your assertion that "there is no confusion" is 100% false. The explicit distinction between TB and TiB should be strictly enforced in all contexts due to the historical abuse of SI terminology by people like you.
It is IMPERATIVE to measure bits in (base 2) exponential terms because bits are quantum logical units. We count them, and we are concerned with possible comibnations in a given number of bits.
This statement makes zero sense. You're confusing the number of permutations that "n" bits can denote with the number "n" itself. Just because the number of permutations of n bits happens to be 2**n, that property in no way constrains us to denote measurements of the number n itself in some strange hybrid derivative of base 2 and base 10. (Which is only slightly more convenient to do arithmetic with than Roman numerals. Quick: how many 100 MiB files fit onto a 4.377 GiB DVD?)
I tried connecting, and apparently I got lots of traffic, but all I got was a blank screen.
I haven't even tried connecting, and I won't be doing so any time soon. I'm not going to buy any equipment for these networks until the big industry players resolve their format war. One camp is trying to standardize on tabs, and the other is pushing for spaces.
The cap's are under the seats?! Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take a cab, thank you.
"You can't get people to sit over an explosion."
--Colonel Albert A. Pope, 1890s bicycle and electric car mogul, on the newly introduced internal combustion engines.
I hate to break it to you, but you're already eating your snot. Most of it drips down your throat from the back of your nose and gets swallowed.
Captain Bligh's log for April 28, 1789 contains only this scrawled entry:
"I'll see them all hanging from the highest yardarm in the British Fleet!"
I don't know about this university, but most places I've worked at made me agree up front (on an actual contract, not just a "gentleman's agreement") to sign over any patent rights on my work, and agree to take reasonable steps to help them obtain and defend such patents. Had he refused to cooperate with the university, he might have eventually found himself out of a job.
I'm grateful for the men and women who patrol our borders. If this report is true, their hard work has kept us safe from another potential disaster: Having to endure 7 years of unrelenting hype, having to witness multiple late and overbudget Stalinesque construction projects, all capped off by an orgy of hypocritical corporate-sponsored "amateur" contests and overblown nationalism. Good job!
Why bother banning each individual activities when the existing laws suffice,
Because, as I originally explained, they *don't* suffice.
Why make police officers follow someone who is texting for miles until they see them actually commit a life-threatening driving error? Is it just for the silly principle that the number of characters in the road laws needs to be minimized for some reason? You'd just be wasting police resources and risking the safety of everyone.
Texting while driving is stupid and dangerous, period. You know it, I know it, and the law ought to know it.
Secondly, there is no "proof" that speeding is necessarily dangerous (and, it really isn't up to certain speeds - difference in speed is the issue), yet they still smack down tickets left and right without any challenge.
That's because there's a specific law that says speeding is illegal in and of itself. That was exactly the point I was making: texting while driving should get the same treatment.