It's like the analog hole for music - just point an hd camera at the screen from a great position (after all, it's an inside job) and you've got your screener.
Unfortunately, that doesn't hide the watermarking, which can be things like an extra duped frame followed by a dropped frame. Easy enough to alter during transmission of the video to the theatre, since it's done before encryption and transmission.
Sure, you can detect the altered frames by comparing different copies from different theatres, but who's going to do that when the goal is to be the first to release a pirated copy?
Wait a year or two and most of them come on TV. The pros include frequent bathroom and snack breaks, no noisy people with their phones, no being ripped off at the concession stands, the best seats in the house, pets allowed, no having to find a babysitter, no sticky floors from spilled pop, you control the volume, and if half-way through you get bored, you won't be thinking about the money you wasted watching a turkey - just change the channel or go walk the dog or something because the only sunk cost you have invested in the movie is your time.
And yet, because it's possible to digitally mark every single copy released to theaters, it's impossible to hide the source of the leak. So, the more often they leak, the more often the message gets sent that if you leak it, you will be caught. It's not rocket science.
Do you really think people will continue to be willing to leak movies when it's an almost-guaranteed jail term in an Indian jail just to get some cred for leaking a movie? Did you know it's possible to rape someone of either sex to death? The worst Indian jails are just as bad as the worst jails in other countries.
You're so full of crap it's not funny. Try again. What you're positing is that someone who is good at one task or language cannot be good at another. That's a real pantload that is easily demonstrated in real life terms, as per this example:
You're claiming the equivalent of someone who can speak colloquial English can't speak colloquial French. The languages have different styles, ways of phrasing concepts, etc - to the point that some are not possible to properly translate unless you can think in the other language because a literal translation doesn't convey the real meaning. And yet plenty of people can do both - and the thought process is different for both, unless you aren't fluent, in which case you're doing the translate-thought-into-second-language thing, a poor imitation of the real thing. Maybe you have to - don't put your limitations on others.
It's not a word game. You're the one playing word games by invoking the "once you start playing that word game" bullshit. That's just a cop-out for those who lack sufficient intellectual curiosity to ask "why?" For example, why does an "arrow of time" exist? It's not like it's required for the universe to exist - it may just be an artifact of our perceptions. Why can't all points in time exist simultaneously, the same as all points in space? Maybe entropy is also an artifact. We don't know, and unless we ask the questions, we'll never know.
C was not originally designed to be a "portable assembler" across platforms. Check your history. It was a language that was supposed to be used to write programs that ran on UNIX. It was written in 1972, and ANSI only got around to publishing a first definition in 1988 - in the meantime, its' use expanded. So, enough with the false facts, mkay?
Unfortunately for you, that doesn't hold true in the real world. You want shitty java, ask a java programmer. The language, because it is easier to write in, has lowered the barrier to the point where sloppy is good enough. Excessive use of synchronized is one example, and if you can't figure out why this happens, you are a prime example of my point.
Syntax trees etc., are used because they are easier to implement, but not absolutely needed. Same as it's still possible to write assemblers that don't need a syntax tree. In theory, it's possible to implement even later versions of c without an in-memory tree, it's just harder than necessary. Every operation can ultimately be simplified.
Ohhhh, attack the messenger, not the message. BTW, it's possible to write programs in both c and c++ that do not leak memory. You just have to remember what your mother told you - if you take it, put it back where you got it from.
As far as c being a portable assembler, every programming language that boils down to executable code, as opposed to interpreted byte-code, is a "portable assembler" if it can run on more than one platform. Sheesh - go buy a clue, tool!
And emitting the resulting stream of bytes into a file definitely isn't something you can only do in a pure C program.
Really? They were able to do it back in the days of DOS C compilers. What's changed? The various variants of seek() still work. Compilers still allow for padding in the emitted file, so you don't have to know the exact size of the code you're going to emit at any particular offset in the file, just the maximum size (and if you wanted, you were able to optimize for size instead of speed by eliminating that padding). Go look at a binary with a hex editor - you'll see the extra space.
I wouldn't use "unique lines of code" as a metric. There's tons of crappy javascript out there - which is why they keep on coming up with new, but still inadequate, frameworks - they haven't found one good enough to have a decent half-life, or people would stick with it. And they never will - it's the nature of the beast.
Bottom line it does not really matter if you write Java or C++. A competent programmer should learn the other language in a day or two and get good in it in a few weeks or months.
Hahahahaha. Want good C/C++ code? Get a good C/C++ programmer. Want good Java code? Get a good C/C++ programmer.
The path from Java to C is all uphill - especially if you're not used to managing your own memory, or pointers to arrays of pointers, or macros, or conditional defines, etc.
Next you'll be saying that Windows admins can make good *nix admins. Do you also do stand-up comedy at the local bar on Saturday nights? Because you're really cracking us up here:-)
COBOL programmers are having a hard time finding jobs? Bullshit. The "old retired folks with Cobol experience are coming back to the workplaces" because the money is temping enough, and you can't replace them with someone whose only programming experience is some "web-scale latest javascript framework" scripting shite.
My stove doesn't have any microprocessors in it. Nice cast-iron heating elements on top, old-style mechanical clock, and if/when it dies I'll take it apart and fix it, same as I've done to other people's old stoves.
The newer stuff is so crappily made that soon it will be worth paying to have 3d-printed replacement parts to be able to avoid the crappy newer models, that cost almost as much to fix because some circuit board fried as it would cost to buy a new one - which will also cost almost as much to fix because some circuit board fried.
Part of the problem with language rankings is that they don't measure the more intricate cases, the ones that will never be solved by a quick look at stackoverflow. The people doing the really complicated shit won't use stackoverflow, so those people are invisible. And yet the really complicated shit still gets done.
Language rankings are bullshit if they fail to take into account the entire range of use, which in C and C++ is far more than in most other languages.
Throw in that popularity is not a measure of utility, but of fads (javascript frameworks are a great example - they're all shit, which is why they are constantly being replaced with more shit in the hope of finding the holy grail). C isn't a fad.
Also, I would add that hoping that more powerful hardware is going to solve your speed issues tells a lot about your professionalism.
That's the Microsoft Way, dating back to when Microsoft and IBM were working together on OS/2. Gates insisted OS/2 be written entirely in assembler, while secretly doing windows in C. He said that by the time it came out, hardware would be "fast enough." That has NEVER been true, if only because "fast enough" changes with time.
An acceptable wait time for a query at a terminal used to be 1 to 3 seconds. Now? Acceptable "lag" is measured in microseconds in many cases. Would anyone accept a game that took a couple of seconds to register a keypress or mouse click? Or even a web page?
What? It's easy to disable newer features. And there's no reason you can't replace api calls with your own in an #include file, same as you do when you want to write code that needs to be portable.
There are only so many devices around that have the kind of vulnerabilities that make them potential targets for a botnet. That translates into a smaller average attack size, said Martin McKeay, senior security advocate at Cambridge, Mass.-based Akamai Technologies Inc. There are only so many devices around that have the kind of vulnerabilities that make them potential targets for a botnet.
First they came and duped stories. I didn't say anything because sometimes I missed the original story.
Then they came and duped posts. I didn't say anything because they were easy to ignore.
Next they came and duped sentences in stories to pad them out. I said something...
1.... no commonality that we know of.
2... any spatial dimensions that we know of.
3.... who says the rules of space-time are uniform even in our own universe?
4.... who says the collisions were collisions of matter? cf Matter-energy equivalence, etc.
One thing we know for certain that that we don't know everything. also:
even make any sense?
Lots of things we now accept as nonsense used to be accepted facts. It "made sense" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It "made sense" that the earth was the center of the universe, since "everything was seen to revolve around it." It "made sense" that fetuses were little humans, complete at conception, and just grew in size over 9 months. It "made sense" to stone gays and lesbians to death. It "made sense" to elect Donald Trump. Oops - those last two show we have a ways to go.
You ask "how speculation on astrophysics can somehow be related to Trump vs Clinton." Since you asked, here's one possibility - there may be a sane universe where neither of them were even candidates. Let's face it - 2 years ago, if anyone had said "President Trump", you'd say they were either deluded or living in an alternate universe. You're not deluded - we are living in that alternate universe, where the improbable happens more often than can be reasonably expected. Hence the attempts to explain it away via "God did it", etc.
Well, at least it's a theory that fits the facts... and answers your question.
Or maybe the energy is flowing into the past, which we now see today as the cosmic background radiation, big bang, etc. Who knows - it's probably stranger than we can imagine at this point.
I disagree. The monkey theory is based in reality because it's occurring within our universe. When you talk about things outside our universe you're in the realm of religion.
Bullshit. Nobody is asking you to take it on faith or belief based on a "textus receptus." We may some day be able, at least in theory, to put it to the test, same as we tested other theories, like the existence of bacteria, the failure of the accepted view of spontaneous transformation of meat into maggots, moons around other planets, or even, one day, intelligent life on Earth.
Your backhanded appeal to religion shows a lack of both imagination and curiosity, two essential ingredients for the advancement of knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like the analog hole for music - just point an hd camera at the screen from a great position (after all, it's an inside job) and you've got your screener.
Unfortunately, that doesn't hide the watermarking, which can be things like an extra duped frame followed by a dropped frame. Easy enough to alter during transmission of the video to the theatre, since it's done before encryption and transmission.
Sure, you can detect the altered frames by comparing different copies from different theatres, but who's going to do that when the goal is to be the first to release a pirated copy?
Wait a year or two and most of them come on TV. The pros include frequent bathroom and snack breaks, no noisy people with their phones, no being ripped off at the concession stands, the best seats in the house, pets allowed, no having to find a babysitter, no sticky floors from spilled pop, you control the volume, and if half-way through you get bored, you won't be thinking about the money you wasted watching a turkey - just change the channel or go walk the dog or something because the only sunk cost you have invested in the movie is your time.
And yet, because it's possible to digitally mark every single copy released to theaters, it's impossible to hide the source of the leak. So, the more often they leak, the more often the message gets sent that if you leak it, you will be caught. It's not rocket science.
Do you really think people will continue to be willing to leak movies when it's an almost-guaranteed jail term in an Indian jail just to get some cred for leaking a movie? Did you know it's possible to rape someone of either sex to death? The worst Indian jails are just as bad as the worst jails in other countries.
You're so full of crap it's not funny. Try again. What you're positing is that someone who is good at one task or language cannot be good at another. That's a real pantload that is easily demonstrated in real life terms, as per this example:
You're claiming the equivalent of someone who can speak colloquial English can't speak colloquial French. The languages have different styles, ways of phrasing concepts, etc - to the point that some are not possible to properly translate unless you can think in the other language because a literal translation doesn't convey the real meaning. And yet plenty of people can do both - and the thought process is different for both, unless you aren't fluent, in which case you're doing the translate-thought-into-second-language thing, a poor imitation of the real thing. Maybe you have to - don't put your limitations on others.
It's not a word game. You're the one playing word games by invoking the "once you start playing that word game" bullshit. That's just a cop-out for those who lack sufficient intellectual curiosity to ask "why?" For example, why does an "arrow of time" exist? It's not like it's required for the universe to exist - it may just be an artifact of our perceptions. Why can't all points in time exist simultaneously, the same as all points in space? Maybe entropy is also an artifact. We don't know, and unless we ask the questions, we'll never know.
C was not originally designed to be a "portable assembler" across platforms. Check your history. It was a language that was supposed to be used to write programs that ran on UNIX. It was written in 1972, and ANSI only got around to publishing a first definition in 1988 - in the meantime, its' use expanded. So, enough with the false facts, mkay?
Unfortunately for you, that doesn't hold true in the real world. You want shitty java, ask a java programmer. The language, because it is easier to write in, has lowered the barrier to the point where sloppy is good enough. Excessive use of synchronized is one example, and if you can't figure out why this happens, you are a prime example of my point.
Syntax trees etc., are used because they are easier to implement, but not absolutely needed. Same as it's still possible to write assemblers that don't need a syntax tree. In theory, it's possible to implement even later versions of c without an in-memory tree, it's just harder than necessary. Every operation can ultimately be simplified.
As far as c being a portable assembler, every programming language that boils down to executable code, as opposed to interpreted byte-code, is a "portable assembler" if it can run on more than one platform. Sheesh - go buy a clue, tool!
And emitting the resulting stream of bytes into a file definitely isn't something you can only do in a pure C program.
Really? They were able to do it back in the days of DOS C compilers. What's changed? The various variants of seek() still work. Compilers still allow for padding in the emitted file, so you don't have to know the exact size of the code you're going to emit at any particular offset in the file, just the maximum size (and if you wanted, you were able to optimize for size instead of speed by eliminating that padding). Go look at a binary with a hex editor - you'll see the extra space.
I wouldn't use "unique lines of code" as a metric. There's tons of crappy javascript out there - which is why they keep on coming up with new, but still inadequate, frameworks - they haven't found one good enough to have a decent half-life, or people would stick with it. And they never will - it's the nature of the beast.
Bottom line it does not really matter if you write Java or C++. A competent programmer should learn the other language in a day or two and get good in it in a few weeks or months.
Hahahahaha. Want good C/C++ code? Get a good C/C++ programmer. Want good Java code? Get a good C/C++ programmer.
The path from Java to C is all uphill - especially if you're not used to managing your own memory, or pointers to arrays of pointers, or macros, or conditional defines, etc.
Next you'll be saying that Windows admins can make good *nix admins. Do you also do stand-up comedy at the local bar on Saturday nights? Because you're really cracking us up here :-)
COBOL programmers are having a hard time finding jobs? Bullshit. The "old retired folks with Cobol experience are coming back to the workplaces" because the money is temping enough, and you can't replace them with someone whose only programming experience is some "web-scale latest javascript framework" scripting shite.
My stove doesn't have any microprocessors in it. Nice cast-iron heating elements on top, old-style mechanical clock, and if/when it dies I'll take it apart and fix it, same as I've done to other people's old stoves.
The newer stuff is so crappily made that soon it will be worth paying to have 3d-printed replacement parts to be able to avoid the crappy newer models, that cost almost as much to fix because some circuit board fried as it would cost to buy a new one - which will also cost almost as much to fix because some circuit board fried.
Part of the problem with language rankings is that they don't measure the more intricate cases, the ones that will never be solved by a quick look at stackoverflow. The people doing the really complicated shit won't use stackoverflow, so those people are invisible. And yet the really complicated shit still gets done.
Language rankings are bullshit if they fail to take into account the entire range of use, which in C and C++ is far more than in most other languages.
Throw in that popularity is not a measure of utility, but of fads (javascript frameworks are a great example - they're all shit, which is why they are constantly being replaced with more shit in the hope of finding the holy grail). C isn't a fad.
Also, I would add that hoping that more powerful hardware is going to solve your speed issues tells a lot about your professionalism.
That's the Microsoft Way, dating back to when Microsoft and IBM were working together on OS/2. Gates insisted OS/2 be written entirely in assembler, while secretly doing windows in C. He said that by the time it came out, hardware would be "fast enough." That has NEVER been true, if only because "fast enough" changes with time.
An acceptable wait time for a query at a terminal used to be 1 to 3 seconds. Now? Acceptable "lag" is measured in microseconds in many cases. Would anyone accept a game that took a couple of seconds to register a keypress or mouse click? Or even a web page?
What? It's easy to disable newer features. And there's no reason you can't replace api calls with your own in an #include file, same as you do when you want to write code that needs to be portable.
There are only so many devices around that have the kind of vulnerabilities that make them potential targets for a botnet. That translates into a smaller average attack size, said Martin McKeay, senior security advocate at Cambridge, Mass.-based Akamai Technologies Inc. There are only so many devices around that have the kind of vulnerabilities that make them potential targets for a botnet.
First they came and duped stories. I didn't say anything because sometimes I missed the original story.
Then they came and duped posts. I didn't say anything because they were easy to ignore.
Next they came and duped sentences in stories to pad them out. I said something ...
TThheeyy rreettaalliiaatteed bbyy bboott--dduuppinngg mmyy kkeeyybbooaarrdd,, tthhee bbaassttaarrddss.
I'm voting for the Ford Galaxy.
we have no commonality of any spatial dimensions
1. ... no commonality that we know of.
... any spatial dimensions that we know of.
... who says the rules of space-time are uniform even in our own universe?
... who says the collisions were collisions of matter? cf Matter-energy equivalence, etc.
2
3.
4.
One thing we know for certain that that we don't know everything. also:
even make any sense?
Lots of things we now accept as nonsense used to be accepted facts. It "made sense" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It "made sense" that the earth was the center of the universe, since "everything was seen to revolve around it." It "made sense" that fetuses were little humans, complete at conception, and just grew in size over 9 months. It "made sense" to stone gays and lesbians to death. It "made sense" to elect Donald Trump. Oops - those last two show we have a ways to go.
You ask "how speculation on astrophysics can somehow be related to Trump vs Clinton." Since you asked, here's one possibility - there may be a sane universe where neither of them were even candidates. Let's face it - 2 years ago, if anyone had said "President Trump", you'd say they were either deluded or living in an alternate universe. You're not deluded - we are living in that alternate universe, where the improbable happens more often than can be reasonably expected. Hence the attempts to explain it away via "God did it", etc.
Well, at least it's a theory that fits the facts ... and answers your question.
Or maybe the energy is flowing into the past, which we now see today as the cosmic background radiation, big bang, etc. Who knows - it's probably stranger than we can imagine at this point.
I disagree. The monkey theory is based in reality because it's occurring within our universe. When you talk about things outside our universe you're in the realm of religion.
Bullshit. Nobody is asking you to take it on faith or belief based on a "textus receptus." We may some day be able, at least in theory, to put it to the test, same as we tested other theories, like the existence of bacteria, the failure of the accepted view of spontaneous transformation of meat into maggots, moons around other planets, or even, one day, intelligent life on Earth.
Your backhanded appeal to religion shows a lack of both imagination and curiosity, two essential ingredients for the advancement of knowledge.
You want the multiverse two doors down, where what you say is true.
We know there's intelligent life out there - look how they avoid us :-)