Is there ever a reason to use strcat over strncat? It seems to me that strcat should be one of those functions which should be considered obsolete and which good compilers produce warnings about the use of, like gets(3).
This is going to depend on your meaning of 'good'. From a technical and critical viewpoint, he's obviously not. On the other hand, from a 'did he make some movies which are enjoyed' viewpoint, he is a good director. This is what really counts to most people - they've never even heard of really good directors, and don't make any thought about a film other than did they enjoy it.
To improve the speed you could have the server which contains the file send a some number of packets directly, and the rest via proxy. If you get packets hitting your system, you can't tell if they went direct or went via a proxy. Then you could have say 1/4 send direct at full speed, and 3/4 via a proxy.
Call me stupid if you like, but I don't see how the representation of the data helps to search for ideas concepts etc. Regardless of how the text is stores, unless you have a human do a lot of markup on the text, then you're going to have a problem in extracting the ideas from the text. And by markup I don't mean Heading I mean some entering what the ideas, concepts etc are for each part of the text - which can be done equally easily in a traditional database as in a XML document.
It is standard equipment. There is one contingency which must be built into every mission plan, and that's if the payload doors fail to close or lock. In this case there must be an EVA in order to close/lock them. It's never happened so far, but there is always an EVA suit and an astronaut trained in the procedure aboard.
Even the payload capacities aren't that impressive nowadays. The Titan 4B can launch 22 tons to LEO, which is close to the shuttle's 25-32 tons depending on mission. Of course this is dwarfed by Saturn V, which could lift 125 tons to LEO.
Before deciding if you want to replace it, first we have to decide if manned space flight is worth it. There isn't an overriding scientific reason for people to be up there. There isn't any commerical reason. There are huge cost reasons against it - any manned program will cost many times more than a similar non-manned program, but the manned program will have greatly truncated scientific goals, and often virtually no scientific function at all. We don't need people dying to find out how ants form anthills in space.
This is also true for physicics, eg Einstien was 26 when he published the special theory of relativity, and Hawking was 28 when he published his work on the big bang and 32 when he published his work on black holes and Hawking radiation. Probably other similar cerebal fields probably have similar patterns.
Not for us to decide
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I suspect that the answer to this is something which will only be decided by high paid lawyers standing before an appeal or supreme court.
I have been wondering for some time now if proving code might be the next step in computers. If you think about it, most problems related to everyday use of computers have been solved,
This has been pretty much true for at least 30 or 40 years, when computers became widely accepted as business tools. However what's stopping more formal proven software is that it's incredibly expensive to do so. Those fields which can justify the expense, eg flight control systems, are proven. General purpose applications aren't.
Nice Diagram. I belive TAT-14 is the yellow one which hooks above Britan and below Iceland, and the other half of the ring is the yellow one directly below Ireland.
Finding where the fault occured is actually pretty easy. Each repeater can be remotely interregated for diagnostics, and they have a TDR built into them to detect exactly where the fault is. So you know it's say 1500m west of repeater #17. Go to that location, and pull it up.
Since this one is named TAT-14, it's not suprising that there are other TransAtlantic cables. There are currently active 8 different cables that AT&T use crossing the atlantic TAT-8 through TAT-14, and BUS-1. Cables TAT-1 through TAT-7 are retired.
I'm not sure how impressive it is, considering that we've been doing the same basic thing since 1858. All we've done since then is increase the speed of each link, and the numbers of links in each cable.
Remember that fixing faults in undersea cables isn't exactly an activity that you can do in 30 seconds. You've got to get a ship out to the location of the fault, hook the cable, and get it to the surface, and then fix it. There are going to be a limited number of cable ships which have the capability, and they might be busy elsewhere. Even once they start acting on the repair, they are going to take time to get to where the fault is (14 knots cruise speed isn't exactly the fastest ship around the QE2 cruises at 28 knots, and still takes a week to cross the atlantic. Remember a cable ship might be off in the other side of the pacific when it becomes free), and then time to get the cable and repair it. Therefore 'earlier this month' not being repaired is perfectly reasonable.
Re:The main issue with XML is performance
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
For me the #1 priority has to be correctness. If I don't care about the application being right, then I don't need to write it at all, I can just pick one at random. XML lets me be sure that the data is correct, while CSV and binary formats don't. Only once I've got this correctness established, the next priorities are programmer time - I don't want to spend 2 years saving 1 byte of bandwidth. Again XML saves me time, because I don't have to spend a lot of time writing format convertors, or import routines for each different version of the CSV. Only once I get these down do I worry about bandwidth. As for performance, performance goes down a huge amount if you have to spend 2 days tracking down why your application isn't working correctly because of some corrupted data.
Re:The main issue with XML is performance
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Of course they're larger, it's obviously impossible to have data the same size as data+markup. The advantage of adding the markup is that if your record format changes, then the XML representation doesn't have to, and even if you have to change the representation, then it's possible for your import routine to detect which version of the XML you've got, and handle it correctly. That's impossible in a pure data representation.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain to me how 'this bug makes particles this size' implies 'no similar bioprocess could make particles any other size'?
Is there ever a reason to use strcat over strncat? It seems to me that strcat should be one of those functions which should be considered obsolete and which good compilers produce warnings about the use of, like gets(3).
This is going to depend on your meaning of 'good'. From a technical and critical viewpoint, he's obviously not. On the other hand, from a 'did he make some movies which are enjoyed' viewpoint, he is a good director. This is what really counts to most people - they've never even heard of really good directors, and don't make any thought about a film other than did they enjoy it.
Yep, but what difference does it make if the text is stored in XML or in a database?
To improve the speed you could have the server which contains the file send a some number of packets directly, and the rest via proxy. If you get packets hitting your system, you can't tell if they went direct or went via a proxy. Then you could have say 1/4 send direct at full speed, and 3/4 via a proxy.
Call me stupid if you like, but I don't see how the representation of the data helps to search for ideas concepts etc. Regardless of how the text is stores, unless you have a human do a lot of markup on the text, then you're going to have a problem in extracting the ideas from the text. And by markup I don't mean Heading I mean some entering what the ideas, concepts etc are for each part of the text - which can be done equally easily in a traditional database as in a XML document.
747-100's first flight date is Feb 1969. First in service date is Jan 1970. Boring Boeing link.
Remember that he went through serious health problems from 1970 onwards. It's hard to worry about spelling when you're nearly dying from an infection.
It is standard equipment. There is one contingency which must be built into every mission plan, and that's if the payload doors fail to close or lock. In this case there must be an EVA in order to close/lock them. It's never happened so far, but there is always an EVA suit and an astronaut trained in the procedure aboard.
Even the payload capacities aren't that impressive nowadays. The Titan 4B can launch 22 tons to LEO, which is close to the shuttle's 25-32 tons depending on mission. Of course this is dwarfed by Saturn V, which could lift 125 tons to LEO.
Before deciding if you want to replace it, first we have to decide if manned space flight is worth it. There isn't an overriding scientific reason for people to be up there. There isn't any commerical reason. There are huge cost reasons against it - any manned program will cost many times more than a similar non-manned program, but the manned program will have greatly truncated scientific goals, and often virtually no scientific function at all. We don't need people dying to find out how ants form anthills in space.
Remember that every bit approximatly doubles the type to break it. RSA-1024 is about 10^134 times harder to break than RSA-576.
A Moose once bit my sister ...
This is also true for physicics, eg Einstien was 26 when he published the special theory of relativity, and Hawking was 28 when he published his work on the big bang and 32 when he published his work on black holes and Hawking radiation. Probably other similar cerebal fields probably have similar patterns.
I suspect that the answer to this is something which will only be decided by high paid lawyers standing before an appeal or supreme court.
This has been pretty much true for at least 30 or 40 years, when computers became widely accepted as business tools. However what's stopping more formal proven software is that it's incredibly expensive to do so. Those fields which can justify the expense, eg flight control systems, are proven. General purpose applications aren't.
Nice Diagram. I belive TAT-14 is the yellow one which hooks above Britan and below Iceland, and the other half of the ring is the yellow one directly below Ireland.
They've got them.
Here are some more. Still not complete though.
Finding where the fault occured is actually pretty easy. Each repeater can be remotely interregated for diagnostics, and they have a TDR built into them to detect exactly where the fault is. So you know it's say 1500m west of repeater #17. Go to that location, and pull it up.
Since this one is named TAT-14, it's not suprising that there are other TransAtlantic cables. There are currently active 8 different cables that AT&T use crossing the atlantic TAT-8 through TAT-14, and BUS-1. Cables TAT-1 through TAT-7 are retired.
I'm not sure how impressive it is, considering that we've been doing the same basic thing since 1858. All we've done since then is increase the speed of each link, and the numbers of links in each cable.
Remember that fixing faults in undersea cables isn't exactly an activity that you can do in 30 seconds. You've got to get a ship out to the location of the fault, hook the cable, and get it to the surface, and then fix it. There are going to be a limited number of cable ships which have the capability, and they might be busy elsewhere. Even once they start acting on the repair, they are going to take time to get to where the fault is (14 knots cruise speed isn't exactly the fastest ship around the QE2 cruises at 28 knots, and still takes a week to cross the atlantic. Remember a cable ship might be off in the other side of the pacific when it becomes free), and then time to get the cable and repair it. Therefore 'earlier this month' not being repaired is perfectly reasonable.
For me the #1 priority has to be correctness. If I don't care about the application being right, then I don't need to write it at all, I can just pick one at random. XML lets me be sure that the data is correct, while CSV and binary formats don't. Only once I've got this correctness established, the next priorities are programmer time - I don't want to spend 2 years saving 1 byte of bandwidth. Again XML saves me time, because I don't have to spend a lot of time writing format convertors, or import routines for each different version of the CSV. Only once I get these down do I worry about bandwidth. As for performance, performance goes down a huge amount if you have to spend 2 days tracking down why your application isn't working correctly because of some corrupted data.
Of course they're larger, it's obviously impossible to have data the same size as data+markup. The advantage of adding the markup is that if your record format changes, then the XML representation doesn't have to, and even if you have to change the representation, then it's possible for your import routine to detect which version of the XML you've got, and handle it correctly. That's impossible in a pure data representation.