There's a Predator (or AvP, or something -- I can't remember) FAQ out there that had a more plausible (IMO) explanation. Predators don't seem especially well adapted to warm climates: specifically, they're damn near blind without their helmets because of the IR vision. So, the explanation goes, they actually evolved in a cold climate, but prefer hunting where it's warm because it's difficult. Same reason they carry spears instead of rifles, and run around in their underwear instead of wearing power armor. The skimpy clothing also supports the cold climate theory, as does the fact that their atmosphere (seen mostly coming out of tubes connected to their helmets) seems to be a fog every time you see it (movie sign for 'cold').
This may contradict Dark Horse, but I think it makes more sense than the alternative.
Furthermore, even that "open" specification appears to be tied in with privileged access if you want to see anything resembling actual code APIs or architectural details at a finer level than boxes, lines and clouds.
You mean this? The English version of the spec seems to adequately document the system; it's at least on par with your typically set of manpages. Considering that there's no actual system involved, some vagueness can be excused.
The possibility always remains that we simply don't see all the detailed material because of the language barrier
That does seem to be the case, regardless of what you may believe. I've been trying to gather information about TRON for some time, and have come across great heaps of documentation going back years, all unfortunately in Japanese.
A human can understand the concept of a byte, a single letter.
I don't think most humans realize that 1 byte == 1 character. Nor should they, since it isn't true (think Unicode). To make things really confusing, an extended character is (half-)word sized on most machines. Let your average consumer figure that one out:-)
A human can easily multiply 1000 by 1000 and know what the answer is, but ask him to do 1024 by 1024 and he's going to scratch his head.
Minor point, but you mean "a human used to working in base-10". There isn't anything special about base-10 (well, maybe some little thing to account for its popularity). A Sumerian used to sexagesimal would have a very different idea of what 1000 * 1000 is, and would probably have trouble working out the decimal answer. If you taught kids binary in school, they wouldn't have any trouble figuring out how large their HD was.
BTW, I think it's a bit unfair to ask what '1024 * 1024' is. You're asking people to convert from decimal notation to binary and back in their heads. If you ask what '10000000000 * 10000000000' is it's just a simple matter of a left shift and the hard part becomes counting zeros. In hex it's even easier: 400 * 400 = 100000.
C's ancestor languages may have allowed aliasing as well, and DMR just decided to continue that; I don't actually know.
C's ancestors were untyped, so I don't know if it would have been possible to prevent aliasing. At best you give hints when pointers were copied, and hope no one deref's anything else.
C99 added the __restrict keyword to the language.
It's restrict in C99. __restrict is a GNU C extension.
Whether you are left or right, media bias and distorted reporting hurts America.
I disagree. I think what hurts America is the belief that that the media is capable of being unbiased. Any journalist who tells you he is able to consistently present an unbiased, objective view of the world is full of shit.
Part of the reason why I watch FOXNews is because I know which way they're slanted, so I can compensate for it if I have to. With CNN or the nightly news the bias can be subtle enough that I can't see it, so I have no way of knowing how to evaluate what they present.
Since we repeatedly keep hearing from the media that the media has liberal bias
My experience has been that the conservative media says there's a liberal bias, and the liberal media says there's a conservative bias. I hear both sides about equally often. I'm sure it varies depending on where you get your news.
Interestingly, it's FOXNews where I most often hear the accusations of conservative bias in the media. Jeff Cohen, FAIR's founder, was a regular on FOX's News Watch (the only FOX show I watch consistently), and has since been replaced by Neal Gabler, who holds similar opinions about the media, AFAICT.
If the media were indeed biased left, why would they keep telling us they are biased left while giving conservative think tanks over 400% more airtime than progressives?
There are several possible reasons. They noted that there has been a shift from domestic policy think tanks toward foreign policy think tanks. My impression is that there are more conservatives deeply involved in foreign affairs, and more liberals (I'm not calling anyone 'progressive') in domestic. (There's a theory related this that I've seen, that conservatives often lose on intranational issues, and liberals on international issues, because their different world-views fit reality better in some situations than others.) It's also possible that conservatives are more likely to form 'think tanks' than liberals ('think tank' does have sort of a serious-men-in-grey-suits, conservative feel to it), or that there are so many small liberal think tanks that they don't register in the top 25 reported by FAIR.
FAIR itself appears to be somewhat liberal [scratch that -- having looked over the site, they appear to be solidly liberal], so I am inclined to be suspicious when they say the media is dominated by conservatives, for the same reason other people would be suspicious if the Family Research Council complained about liberal bias (I would be suspicious of the FRC, but I don't take them seriously enough to read their stuff).
But whatever you do, why don't you simply make it a requirement that simply be outlawed (you could easily write a tool to enforce that couldn't you?), or take some other drastic action?
This may not seem like a convincing argument (I'm making it and I'm not convinced), but it's worth remembering that ISO C string functions are, well, the ISO C string functions. They're the only string functions guarantied to be portable between (hosted) C implementations, and to the extent that C programmers should be trying to write portable programs, the only functions that can be used.
In other words, this is a C problem, not a platform problem. The obvious solution is to encourage people to use other languages, not try to retrofit non-standard safe string handling onto C. Microsoft appears to be doing just that with C++, C#, VB, etc.
Incidentally, bstring doesn't appear to support wide-characters, which limits its usefulness these days.
I think you two found a culture gap, and have spent the law few hours trying to yell across it. If this isn't the case, forgive me and ignore anything that's obvious. Ditto if I misrepresent your argument, MickLinux.
I have to admit some difficulty grasping your argument, but I believe you have found some philosophy that tries to split things into "natural" and "imposed", and you are using this to try to understand the world.
The idea of natural rights/law are (part of) the foundation of Anglo-American (or at least American) law. In US law they literally are the foundation, since even 'Constitutional rights' were intended to be expressions of pre-existing natural rights. Being American, your comment sounds a bit like complaining that someone has found a philosophy that divides things into 'living' and 'non-living'. As we used to say when I was in school, 'well duh'.
It is a false split, one that will not help you understand, and one that will lead you into false conclusions. Everything is natural, even imposition.
You're misinterpreting the meaning of 'natural law', I think. A natural right is, roughly, a right possessed by all people in virtue of the nature as human beings, regardless of what social institutions may or may not exist. Natural law is presumably a law that is in accord with natural rights. All people have natural rights, and no one, including the government, can legitimately violate them.
Of course governments do routinely violate what many people consider natural rights, which is what creates the tension that I believe he was describing. Indeed, most granted rights involve limiting natural rights (e.g., copyright limits free speech), though in theory those are limits we agree to.
Objectively speaking, the distinction is probably arbitrary. As you've said, all rights are human creations (modulo any theistic origin of natural rights). But from my (again, very American) point of view, the idea of natural rights is obvious and tremendously useful for reasoning about the law and morality, and I'm not especially concerned if it's not well-grounded metaphysically.
$ mplayer -vc help | grep wmv ffwmv1 ffmpeg working FFmpeg M$ WMV1/WMV7 [wmv1] ffwmv2 ffmpeg problems FFmpeg M$ WMV2/WMV8 [wmv2] wmv8 dshow working Windows Media Video 8 [wmv8ds32.ax] wmv7 dshow working Windows Media Video 7 [wmvds32.ax] wmv9dmo dmo working Windows Media Video 9 DMO [wmv9dmod.dll] wmvdmo dmo working Windows Media Video DMO [wmvdmod.dll]
"WMP can't play quicktime, everyone hates the quicktime player, and it's hardly supported anywhere!"
It isn't always clear from context; for example if you have a ten-gigabyte disk and one 'gigabyte' of main memory, how many memory images can you write?
Well, discs are always SI for marketing reasons. On the other hand, most of the software I use reports disc sizes in blocks rather than bytes, which at least makes conversion easy, though it took me forever to figure out how large a block was at first.
You're right that there's a problem, since the system is practically random. I have no idea what the capacity of a CD is, for example.
People may have no idea what 'kibi' is, but at least they _know_ that they do not know. That's probably better than not knowing that you don't know that 'kilo' is different to what you expect.
Well, being the product of a modern public education system, I don't expect anyone to know what 'kilo' means either;-)
I don't really have a problem with a new set of prefixes, I just don't like the one chosen. I'm quite happy using the 'dikilo' prefix; if nothing else, it sounds cool.
Yes, it is out of the question to overload the same prefix to mean both 1000 and 1024. A 2.4% error doesn't sound so bad, but once you get up to gigabytes or terabytes the gap between the two widens (there is nearly a 10% gap between terabyte and tebibyte).
I don't think it's a problem in practice, though. You can usually figure out which 'kilo' is intended from the context. Right now I think 'kibi' is probably more confusing, just because no one has any idea what it is.
Anyway, one of my goals in life is to make things difficult for SI people. My system has three different 'hundreds' and I like it that way;-)
for example Fast Ethernet is 100 megabits per second.
Units involving bits almost always use the normal SI meanings, so that's fairly unambiguous. Ditto data transmission and storage.
You're right about 'byte'; truly pedantic documents (like international standards) say 'octet'.
Or like ISO C, they punt.
On the whole, there's no good reason to keep quoting sizes in bytes; most computing devices do not have 8-bit registers or buses
Most machines are byte-addressable though, and it happens that the biggest desktop architecture around does have (logical) octet registers. I wouldn't mind going back to using the 'word' as the standard measure, but only if byte-addressing was removed.
a single character does not necessarily fit in 8 bits
Aside: A funny thing occurred to me after I wrote my post. A system using pure UCS-encoded Unicode would probably end up with 32-bit bytes in ISO C because of the way 'byte' is defined. A side-effect would be that there could be no data types smaller than 32-bits.
It would make more sense just to use the bit as measure of information and give disk sizes in terabits, and so on.
I understand that hardware people do that. The only problem is that you end up with huge numbers, and have to divide them all over the place to figure out how much memory you actually have available.
It certainly appealed to roughly the same audience, those who wanted a short, sharp introduction to a programming language.
I like the Camel Book, but short it ain't. The Third Edition is 1067 pages. For that much paper you can have K&R2 and Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, or the ISO C spec and a pretty complete POSIX reference, or almost half of the GCC manpage.
And just out of curiousity, who exactly popped up and decided that a kilobyte was no longer 1024 bytes? I never heard of this.
The IEC. It isn't exactly a redefinition, since AFAIK kilobyte wasn't officially defined as a unit by many standards organizations. Kibi- and friends were coined because standards bodies are by their nature incredibly pedantic, so overloading the SI prefixes was out of the question.
There was an alternative proposal to prefix binary units with 'di-', so 1024 bytes would be a dikilobyte. In writing a subscript '2' would be inserted after the prefix, giving you something like K2b. You were explicitly allowed to keep saying 'kilobyte' in conversation. This system is vastly superior for any number reasons, which is why it wasn't adopted.
As far as I know 'byte' is still undefined, so while a one KiB is definitely 1024 bytes, no one can say how many bits it is.
You could also look at it like the pointer j is being assigned the address where the literal 2 is stored.
No, you couldn't. *j dereferences an uninitialized pointer, which plunges the program into the dark realm of undefined behavior. If j accidentally happened to hold a valid value, and if the compiler saw fit to actually store a 2 somewhere that could be pointed to, then maybe it would appear to work, but you may as well be relying of cosmic rays to flip bits for you.
Do youself a favor a pick up a copy of the standard, or a book, or anything.
Which is no doubt why he said "Maybe IBM's plan was to put together a cheap system to get Apple to buy more chips from them."
I believe his point was that Apple is going to have a hard time selling $3000 dual-processor machines if a few hundred dollars more will buy you a quad, probably with higher-quality components and better support, from IBM. It may only be a small fraction of Apple's customers who are drawn to IBM, but that's still money to be lost.
Automobiles are technology. In fact, my dictionary would have me believe that the Pontiac has a stronger claim on being a technology than most software (it says something about 'industrial applications' or somesuch).
Regardless, FirebirdSQL and Phoenix are in different markets, unless one of them has more features than I'm aware of.
Lots of nice features but such complexity and cleverness that even the people who use it don't like it.
IME, Ada is exceptionally well-liked by the people who know it (note: use != know). I've seen far fewer complaints about it from Ada programmers than I've seen from, e.g., C++ or Perl programmers about those languages.
ADA's a good language, but no one uses it.
Right, just like how no one uses Linux on the desktop.
I've tried looking for this law (I'm in Florida) but I haven't found anything about it. Do you have any info?
I've heard the same thing in Oregon. My mom was pulled over some years ago there for blinking at a guy to get him to turn off his brights. I can't recall whether she was ticketed or not, but the more think about it the more it seems she was.
Akamai has a network of streaming servers all over the world. Posting a link to one of them defeats the whole purpose.
Well, if the selection is done when you hit the trailer page (before you stream), then you can just view the page source, grep for "lxg_480.mov", copy the URL, change the filename to "lxg_m480.mov", and try that.
as one reply noted, he got 1K/s from it
I assume you're talking about me. My comment was about the size of the file (the reference file is ~1400 bytes), not the transfer speed (which was quite nice).
That only gave me a 1K... something (I assume it's supposed to switch me to the trailer stream, but I'm using mplayer so it didn't work too well). The full trailer is available here.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a Predator (or AvP, or something -- I can't remember) FAQ out there that had a more plausible (IMO) explanation. Predators don't seem especially well adapted to warm climates: specifically, they're damn near blind without their helmets because of the IR vision. So, the explanation goes, they actually evolved in a cold climate, but prefer hunting where it's warm because it's difficult. Same reason they carry spears instead of rifles, and run around in their underwear instead of wearing power armor. The skimpy clothing also supports the cold climate theory, as does the fact that their atmosphere (seen mostly coming out of tubes connected to their helmets) seems to be a fog every time you see it (movie sign for 'cold').
This may contradict Dark Horse, but I think it makes more sense than the alternative.
If an open-source implementation of ITRON did exist
eCos and RTEMS both claim to support uITRON 3.0.
Furthermore, even that "open" specification appears to be tied in with privileged access if you want to see anything resembling actual code APIs or architectural details at a finer level than boxes, lines and clouds.
You mean this? The English version of the spec seems to adequately document the system; it's at least on par with your typically set of manpages. Considering that there's no actual system involved, some vagueness can be excused.
The possibility always remains that we simply don't see all the detailed material because of the language barrier
That does seem to be the case, regardless of what you may believe. I've been trying to gather information about TRON for some time, and have come across great heaps of documentation going back years, all unfortunately in Japanese.
A human can understand the concept of a byte, a single letter.
:-)
I don't think most humans realize that 1 byte == 1 character. Nor should they, since it isn't true (think Unicode). To make things really confusing, an extended character is (half-)word sized on most machines. Let your average consumer figure that one out
A human can easily multiply 1000 by 1000 and know what the answer is, but ask him to do 1024 by 1024 and he's going to scratch his head.
Minor point, but you mean "a human used to working in base-10". There isn't anything special about base-10 (well, maybe some little thing to account for its popularity). A Sumerian used to sexagesimal would have a very different idea of what 1000 * 1000 is, and would probably have trouble working out the decimal answer. If you taught kids binary in school, they wouldn't have any trouble figuring out how large their HD was.
BTW, I think it's a bit unfair to ask what '1024 * 1024' is. You're asking people to convert from decimal notation to binary and back in their heads. If you ask what '10000000000 * 10000000000' is it's just a simple matter of a left shift and the hard part becomes counting zeros. In hex it's even easier: 400 * 400 = 100000.
C's ancestor languages may have allowed aliasing as well, and DMR just decided to continue that; I don't actually know.
C's ancestors were untyped, so I don't know if it would have been possible to prevent aliasing. At best you give hints when pointers were copied, and hope no one deref's anything else.
C99 added the __restrict keyword to the language.
It's restrict in C99. __restrict is a GNU C extension.
Whether you are left or right, media bias and distorted reporting hurts America.
I disagree. I think what hurts America is the belief that that the media is capable of being unbiased. Any journalist who tells you he is able to consistently present an unbiased, objective view of the world is full of shit.
Part of the reason why I watch FOXNews is because I know which way they're slanted, so I can compensate for it if I have to. With CNN or the nightly news the bias can be subtle enough that I can't see it, so I have no way of knowing how to evaluate what they present.
Since we repeatedly keep hearing from the media that the media has liberal bias
My experience has been that the conservative media says there's a liberal bias, and the liberal media says there's a conservative bias. I hear both sides about equally often. I'm sure it varies depending on where you get your news.
Interestingly, it's FOXNews where I most often hear the accusations of conservative bias in the media. Jeff Cohen, FAIR's founder, was a regular on FOX's News Watch (the only FOX show I watch consistently), and has since been replaced by Neal Gabler, who holds similar opinions about the media, AFAICT.
If the media were indeed biased left, why would they keep telling us they are biased left while giving conservative think tanks over 400% more airtime than progressives?
There are several possible reasons. They noted that there has been a shift from domestic policy think tanks toward foreign policy think tanks. My impression is that there are more conservatives deeply involved in foreign affairs, and more liberals (I'm not calling anyone 'progressive') in domestic. (There's a theory related this that I've seen, that conservatives often lose on intranational issues, and liberals on international issues, because their different world-views fit reality better in some situations than others.) It's also possible that conservatives are more likely to form 'think tanks' than liberals ('think tank' does have sort of a serious-men-in-grey-suits, conservative feel to it), or that there are so many small liberal think tanks that they don't register in the top 25 reported by FAIR.
FAIR itself appears to be somewhat liberal [scratch that -- having looked over the site, they appear to be solidly liberal], so I am inclined to be suspicious when they say the media is dominated by conservatives, for the same reason other people would be suspicious if the Family Research Council complained about liberal bias (I would be suspicious of the FRC, but I don't take them seriously enough to read their stuff).
JDE.
But whatever you do, why don't you simply make it a requirement that simply be outlawed (you could easily write a tool to enforce that couldn't you?), or take some other drastic action?
This may not seem like a convincing argument (I'm making it and I'm not convinced), but it's worth remembering that ISO C string functions are, well, the ISO C string functions. They're the only string functions guarantied to be portable between (hosted) C implementations, and to the extent that C programmers should be trying to write portable programs, the only functions that can be used.
In other words, this is a C problem, not a platform problem. The obvious solution is to encourage people to use other languages, not try to retrofit non-standard safe string handling onto C. Microsoft appears to be doing just that with C++, C#, VB, etc.
Incidentally, bstring doesn't appear to support wide-characters, which limits its usefulness these days.
I think you two found a culture gap, and have spent the law few hours trying to yell across it. If this isn't the case, forgive me and ignore anything that's obvious. Ditto if I misrepresent your argument, MickLinux.
I have to admit some difficulty grasping your argument, but I believe you have found some philosophy that tries to split things into "natural" and "imposed", and you are using this to try to understand the world.
The idea of natural rights/law are (part of) the foundation of Anglo-American (or at least American) law. In US law they literally are the foundation, since even 'Constitutional rights' were intended to be expressions of pre-existing natural rights. Being American, your comment sounds a bit like complaining that someone has found a philosophy that divides things into 'living' and 'non-living'. As we used to say when I was in school, 'well duh'.
It is a false split, one that will not help you understand, and one that will lead you into false conclusions. Everything is natural, even imposition.
You're misinterpreting the meaning of 'natural law', I think. A natural right is, roughly, a right possessed by all people in virtue of the nature as human beings, regardless of what social institutions may or may not exist. Natural law is presumably a law that is in accord with natural rights. All people have natural rights, and no one, including the government, can legitimately violate them.
Of course governments do routinely violate what many people consider natural rights, which is what creates the tension that I believe he was describing. Indeed, most granted rights involve limiting natural rights (e.g., copyright limits free speech), though in theory those are limits we agree to.
Objectively speaking, the distinction is probably arbitrary. As you've said, all rights are human creations (modulo any theistic origin of natural rights). But from my (again, very American) point of view, the idea of natural rights is obvious and tremendously useful for reasoning about the law and morality, and I'm not especially concerned if it's not well-grounded metaphysically.
Nor were {Net,Free,Open}BSD experimental branches of 4.4BSD. Or XEmacs of GNU Emacs, as I recall.
Of course they compensate by not hiring anyone who knows anything.
Obligatory Fry's Application Form.
"Wmv can ONLY be played in windows"
$ mplayer -vc help | grep wmv
ffwmv1 ffmpeg working FFmpeg M$ WMV1/WMV7 [wmv1]
ffwmv2 ffmpeg problems FFmpeg M$ WMV2/WMV8 [wmv2]
wmv8 dshow working Windows Media Video 8 [wmv8ds32.ax]
wmv7 dshow working Windows Media Video 7 [wmvds32.ax]
wmv9dmo dmo working Windows Media Video 9 DMO [wmv9dmod.dll]
wmvdmo dmo working Windows Media Video DMO [wmvdmod.dll]
"WMP can't play quicktime, everyone hates the quicktime player, and it's hardly supported anywhere!"
$ mplayer -vc help | grep qt
qtrle qtrle working Quicktime Animation (RLE)
qtrpza qtrpza working Quicktime Apple Video
qtsmc qtsmc working Apple Graphics (SMC) codec
qt3ivx qtvideo working win32/quicktime 3IV1 (3ivx) decoder [3ivx Delta 3.5.qtx]
qth263 qtvideo crashing win32/quicktime H.263 decoder [QuickTime.qts]
qtrlerpza qtvideo crashing win32/quicktime RLE/RPZA decoder [QuickTime.qts]
qtvp3 qtvideo crashing win32/quicktime VP3 decoder [On2_VP3.qtx]
qtzygo qtvideo problems win32/quicktime ZyGo decoder [ZyGoVideo.qtx]
qtbhiv qtvideo untested win32/quicktime BeHereiVideo decoder [BeHereiVideo.qtx]
qtcvid qtvideo working win32/quicktime Cinepak decoder [QuickTime.qts]
qtindeo qtvideo crashing win32/quicktime Indeo decoder [QuickTime.qts]
qtmjpeg qtvideo crashing win32/quicktime MJPEG decoder [QuickTime.qts]
qtmpeg4 qtvideo crashing win32/quicktime MPEG-4 decoder [QuickTime.qts]
qtsvq3 qtvideo working win32/quicktime SVQ3 decoder [QuickTimeEssentials.qtx]
qtsvq1 qtvideo problems win32/quicktime SVQ1 decoder [QuickTime.qts]
It isn't always clear from context; for example if you have a ten-gigabyte disk and one 'gigabyte' of main memory, how many memory images can you write?
;-)
Well, discs are always SI for marketing reasons. On the other hand, most of the software I use reports disc sizes in blocks rather than bytes, which at least makes conversion easy, though it took me forever to figure out how large a block was at first.
You're right that there's a problem, since the system is practically random. I have no idea what the capacity of a CD is, for example.
People may have no idea what 'kibi' is, but at least they _know_ that they do not know. That's probably better than not knowing that you don't know that 'kilo' is different to what you expect.
Well, being the product of a modern public education system, I don't expect anyone to know what 'kilo' means either
I don't really have a problem with a new set of prefixes, I just don't like the one chosen. I'm quite happy using the 'dikilo' prefix; if nothing else, it sounds cool.
On byte-addressing: fair point.
Unfortunately.
Yes, it is out of the question to overload the same prefix to mean both 1000 and 1024. A 2.4% error doesn't sound so bad, but once you get up to gigabytes or terabytes the gap between the two widens (there is nearly a 10% gap between terabyte and tebibyte).
;-)
I don't think it's a problem in practice, though. You can usually figure out which 'kilo' is intended from the context. Right now I think 'kibi' is probably more confusing, just because no one has any idea what it is.
Anyway, one of my goals in life is to make things difficult for SI people. My system has three different 'hundreds' and I like it that way
for example Fast Ethernet is 100 megabits per second.
Units involving bits almost always use the normal SI meanings, so that's fairly unambiguous. Ditto data transmission and storage.
You're right about 'byte'; truly pedantic documents (like international standards) say 'octet'.
Or like ISO C, they punt.
On the whole, there's no good reason to keep quoting sizes in bytes; most computing devices do not have 8-bit registers or buses
Most machines are byte-addressable though, and it happens that the biggest desktop architecture around does have (logical) octet registers. I wouldn't mind going back to using the 'word' as the standard measure, but only if byte-addressing was removed.
a single character does not necessarily fit in 8 bits
Aside: A funny thing occurred to me after I wrote my post. A system using pure UCS-encoded Unicode would probably end up with 32-bit bytes in ISO C because of the way 'byte' is defined. A side-effect would be that there could be no data types smaller than 32-bits.
It would make more sense just to use the bit as measure of information and give disk sizes in terabits, and so on.
I understand that hardware people do that. The only problem is that you end up with huge numbers, and have to divide them all over the place to figure out how much memory you actually have available.
It certainly appealed to roughly the same audience, those who wanted a short, sharp introduction to a programming language.
I like the Camel Book, but short it ain't. The Third Edition is 1067 pages. For that much paper you can have K&R2 and Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, or the ISO C spec and a pretty complete POSIX reference, or almost half of the GCC manpage.
And just out of curiousity, who exactly popped up and decided that a kilobyte was no longer 1024 bytes? I never heard of this.
The IEC. It isn't exactly a redefinition, since AFAIK kilobyte wasn't officially defined as a unit by many standards organizations. Kibi- and friends were coined because standards bodies are by their nature incredibly pedantic, so overloading the SI prefixes was out of the question.
There was an alternative proposal to prefix binary units with 'di-', so 1024 bytes would be a dikilobyte. In writing a subscript '2' would be inserted after the prefix, giving you something like K2b. You were explicitly allowed to keep saying 'kilobyte' in conversation. This system is vastly superior for any number reasons, which is why it wasn't adopted.
As far as I know 'byte' is still undefined, so while a one KiB is definitely 1024 bytes, no one can say how many bits it is.
You could also look at it like the pointer j is being assigned the address where the literal 2 is stored.
No, you couldn't. *j dereferences an uninitialized pointer, which plunges the program into the dark realm of undefined behavior. If j accidentally happened to hold a valid value, and if the compiler saw fit to actually store a 2 somewhere that could be pointed to, then maybe it would appear to work, but you may as well be relying of cosmic rays to flip bits for you.
Do youself a favor a pick up a copy of the standard, or a book, or anything.
Talk about clueless :)
Indeed.
The "G5" is a PPC970 from IBM.
Which is no doubt why he said "Maybe IBM's plan was to put together a cheap system to get Apple to buy more chips from them."
I believe his point was that Apple is going to have a hard time selling $3000 dual-processor machines if a few hundred dollars more will buy you a quad, probably with higher-quality components and better support, from IBM. It may only be a small fraction of Apple's customers who are drawn to IBM, but that's still money to be lost.
Firebird = Automotive, FirebirdSQL = Technology, Firebird Browser = Technology.
Automobiles are technology. In fact, my dictionary would have me believe that the Pontiac has a stronger claim on being a technology than most software (it says something about 'industrial applications' or somesuch).
Regardless, FirebirdSQL and Phoenix are in different markets, unless one of them has more features than I'm aware of.
No. One also needs a processor/compiler/interpreter.
Not to express it. The expression may not be worth much without an interpreter, but that doesn't mean it can't exist.
Lots of nice features but such complexity and cleverness that even the people who use it don't like it.
IME, Ada is exceptionally well-liked by the people who know it (note: use != know). I've seen far fewer complaints about it from Ada programmers than I've seen from, e.g., C++ or Perl programmers about those languages.
ADA's a good language, but no one uses it.
Right, just like how no one uses Linux on the desktop.
I've tried looking for this law (I'm in Florida) but I haven't found anything about it. Do you have any info?
I've heard the same thing in Oregon. My mom was pulled over some years ago there for blinking at a guy to get him to turn off his brights. I can't recall whether she was ticketed or not, but the more think about it the more it seems she was.
will it be to slow when compiled with the optimized gcc that is built for the 64bit PPC970 chip that Apple will be shipping later this year?
Yes. And you don't know they're shipping the 970 this year.
Mine just has links like this:
:-) for '.mov' should produce it.
The filename occurs twice in the last few lines, outside of any links AFAICT. Grepping (or what, 'FINDing' on Windows
Akamai has a network of streaming servers all over the world. Posting a link to one of them defeats the whole purpose.
Well, if the selection is done when you hit the trailer page (before you stream), then you can just view the page source, grep for "lxg_480.mov", copy the URL, change the filename to "lxg_m480.mov", and try that.
as one reply noted, he got 1K/s from it
I assume you're talking about me. My comment was about the size of the file (the reference file is ~1400 bytes), not the transfer speed (which was quite nice).
That only gave me a 1K... something (I assume it's supposed to switch me to the trailer stream, but I'm using mplayer so it didn't work too well). The full trailer is available here.