First, it's "because the gram is too small". Then it's "because the kilogram is already established". Do I need to spell it out? Why didn't they do it that way in the first place?
This exact same thing happened last time I asked the same question. I never got a good answer that time either.
For the love of God, to whoever is planning to reply to this, I would appreciate it if you please don't look for another fault in how the question is phrased. I'm not interested. Just answer it.
No no, the question is, why not take what we now call the "kilogram" (you know, that mass unit that weighs roughly 2.2 pounds on Earth) and just call it the "gram"?
I think info is obsolete. For simple, formatted documentation, there's man pages. For hyperlinked documentation, there's HTML (perhaps generated from some other source upon product installation). Why anyone would use info with these two alternatives available is beyond me.
If I calculated correctly, looks like this thing sustains a growth rate of more than 5.6cm/day for for almost two straight weeks, and ends up just slightly taller than Robert Wadlow, the tallest man in history. Yowsers.
Well, as I see it, SCO can only have it one of two ways, with regards to kernel code:
The code they released in their Linux distro was implicitly covered under the GPL or something compatible. In this case, they don't have a leg to stand on in their suit against IBM.
The code was not covered under anything compatible under the GPL; ergo, they violated the GPL by distributing GPL'ed code with their own.
(Disclaimer: Though I am an IBM employee, I am not a party to any "inside information" that makes me any more of an authority on this topic than any typical Slashdot reader. I am merely spouting an unfounded opinion of my own, based on my superficial familiarity with the GPL. See my sig.)
Re:Microsoft Security
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No, security obviously doesn't rely on the inaccessibility of private members. Just like C++: if you use "private" for security, you're in for a surprise when someone adds "#define private public" before including your header file.
mostly its because there was no plan, and people are convinced that living in a secluded area where they dont interact with their neighbors, and need to drive 30 minutes to ANYTHING.
Then theres the NIMBY mindset who wont allow roads to be built that will satisfy capacity.
Didn't you ever play SimCity? Adding extra roads, and widening roads, does not reduce congestion. Congestion is self-limiting: it increases until it's so bad that people look for alternatives to driving.
I do not believe there exists any car-oriented city plan that scales to over 1 million people.
And the absolute avoidance of building towns in grids.
Rectangular grids are not that great. They're better than random streets, but consider that to go diagonally in a city plan based on a square grid requires you to traverse 41% more distance than a direct road.
It's not all about conservation. I lived in downtown Toronto for a few years, and it was great. I never had to bother with a car. Granted, not all car-free cities will have all the services you can find at Yonge & Bloor, like 20 movie theatres and 50 restaurants within walking distance, but surely 2 theatres and 5 restaurants would do most people?
And unless you're fabulously wealthy, a car will consume a sizeable fraction of your income. If cities were designed so some people could live without cars, they could spend their money improving their standard of living instead. Currently, it seems cities are designed for the sole purpose of forcing all families to own two cars.
I wonder if there's some "coriolis-friendly" spiral-shaped path through the planet that will allow you to make the trip without jettisoning your rotational velocity? As a bonus, such a path would not need to go through the nasty center of the planet.
Yep. Too bad the Earth is a two-dimensional circle. If it had been a three-dimensional sphere, then a single hole through the middle wouldn't have split it in two.
REDUNDANT: 18-cents
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I hereby declare any future posts mentioning the "18" typo redundant, including this one. Please mod accordingly.
There are a number of ways. Here's a scenario: suppose I write this function:
int doSomething(int theFastWay){ if(theFastWay) fastWay(); else safeSlowWay(); }
Now suppose I call it everywhere like doSomething(1). If it's inlined, the else branch is optimized away completely. There's no call to safeSlowWay. Then, suppose I don't bother to link with the library containing safeSlowWay. We're still fine (though this is arguably a bug) because the link would succeed.
If this function doesn't get inlined, there will suddenly be a reference to safeSlowWay, and you'll get a link error.
This is just one example off the top of my head.
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
older versions of gcc always made those functions inline, but the new version take inline merely as a hint (like "register"), which is compliant with the standard.
Really? That's a shame. One of the things I used to like about gcc is that it would bloody well inline something if I told it to. I once had an application that ran 10 times slower with Intel's compiler because it didn't inline what I told it to.
That kind of comment is more of a what you are doing to remove duplicates, rather than a why.
Oh brother. Well, if you find it useful to put this comment (which we both agree is useful) into the same "what" category with comments like the one below, then that's your business:
/* add 1 to x */ x = x + 1;
However, to me, the "what" versus "why" distinction is both clear and useful. The comment I gave describes "why" the code works.
No, I don't think your code should say why- that is what the documentation is for. If you say why, then the code may be eroneous when somebody starts using your function for something else, or changes are made elsewhere.
Frankly that seems intentionally dense to me. You ovbiously don't put comments in a function stating "why" callers should call it, or "why" they should use it. The comments should state "why" you chose to do a thing a certain way.
For example:
void removeDuplicates(ItemList items){ int i; sort(items); /* now any duplicate items must be adjacent, so we can find them all just by checking adjacent pairs */ for(i=0; i < items.length; i++) if(items[i] == items[i+1]) remove(items, i+1); }
Without the comment, someone might not know why you're only checking adjacent pairs of items. This kind of comment is what I was talking about, and it suffers from none of the problems you mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
First, it's "because the gram is too small". Then it's "because the kilogram is already established". Do I need to spell it out? Why didn't they do it that way in the first place?
This exact same thing happened last time I asked the same question. I never got a good answer that time either.
For the love of God, to whoever is planning to reply to this, I would appreciate it if you please don't look for another fault in how the question is phrased. I'm not interested. Just answer it.
Sheesh.
No no, the question is, why not take what we now call the "kilogram" (you know, that mass unit that weighs roughly 2.2 pounds on Earth) and just call it the "gram"?
It's very simple: <A HREF=" (url) "> (description) </A>
I think info is obsolete. For simple, formatted documentation, there's man pages. For hyperlinked documentation, there's HTML (perhaps generated from some other source upon product installation). Why anyone would use info with these two alternatives available is beyond me.
I haven't seen any comments on the linked "book" itself yet. In short: it sucks hard. Go take a look and try not to laugh.
Sorry, what does "firing on all counts"? Do you mean "filing on all counts"? Or "firing on all cylinders"?
If I calculated correctly, looks like this thing sustains a growth rate of more than 5.6cm/day for for almost two straight weeks, and ends up just slightly taller than Robert Wadlow, the tallest man in history. Yowsers.
-
The code they released in their Linux distro was implicitly covered under the GPL or something compatible. In this case, they don't have a leg to stand on in their suit against IBM.
-
The code was not covered under anything compatible under the GPL; ergo, they violated the GPL by distributing GPL'ed code with their own.
(Disclaimer: Though I am an IBM employee, I am not a party to any "inside information" that makes me any more of an authority on this topic than any typical Slashdot reader. I am merely spouting an unfounded opinion of my own, based on my superficial familiarity with the GPL. See my sig.)No, security obviously doesn't rely on the inaccessibility of private members. Just like C++: if you use "private" for security, you're in for a surprise when someone adds "#define private public" before including your header file.
I do not believe there exists any car-oriented city plan that scales to over 1 million people.
Rectangular grids are not that great. They're better than random streets, but consider that to go diagonally in a city plan based on a square grid requires you to traverse 41% more distance than a direct road.And unless you're fabulously wealthy, a car will consume a sizeable fraction of your income. If cities were designed so some people could live without cars, they could spend their money improving their standard of living instead. Currently, it seems cities are designed for the sole purpose of forcing all families to own two cars.
I wonder if there's some "coriolis-friendly" spiral-shaped path through the planet that will allow you to make the trip without jettisoning your rotational velocity? As a bonus, such a path would not need to go through the nasty center of the planet.
Yep. Too bad the Earth is a two-dimensional circle. If it had been a three-dimensional sphere, then a single hole through the middle wouldn't have split it in two.
I hereby declare any future posts mentioning the "18" typo redundant, including this one. Please mod accordingly.
There are plenty of reasons inlining versus not inlining could make code stop working.
If this function doesn't get inlined, there will suddenly be a reference to safeSlowWay, and you'll get a link error.
This is just one example off the top of my head.
For example:
Without the comment, someone might not know why you're only checking adjacent pairs of items. This kind of comment is what I was talking about, and it suffers from none of the problems you mentioned.Wow, good call. You may be right.
Smells like the DMCA to me.
That's irrelevant. The point is that the Opteron will run 32-bit code.
"Oh, Conan, I'm ashamed that one of your edgification and knowledgosity would have to ask such a question."