Second of all, calling destructors on a modern GC are extremely costly. Sure, your example implementation of destructors seems simple, but it is only possible in a reference counted garbage collector, which is so primitive as to be nearly useless.
This may be true if you want deterministic finalization, but not if you want dtor support in general. The D garbage collector is a typical mark & sweep GC and incurs no overhead for finalizing objects before the memory is freed.
It's another issue entirely whether dtor support is desirable in a GCed language. First of all, there's the weird restriction of not being able to use any references to GCed memory, because that data may already have been collected by the GC. Then there's the issue that collection is not deterministic. Some have suggested that dtors should only be allowed for "scope" objects, so RAII is supported without the false sense of security that dtors might provide for GCed data, but I think a fair argument could be made either way. Personally, I find dtors to be useful in a GCed language, if only as an insurance policy.
By the way, I believe that C++/CLI (ie. C++ for.NET) will call the dtor of managed C++ objects when they are finalized. And I believe that C# has some kind of dtor feature as well. So D isn't the only language to do this.
Although D apps can call C functions, D code can't directly use C headers files. So relevant declarations much be replicated in D if you want to use C stdlib routines. And since D does not use the C preprocessor, the structure of these headers often needs to change from C to D. So to answer your question, the user doesn't have to hack a new runtime, but they may have to create headers properly declaring the stuff they intend to use.
This process is pretty straightforward and mechanical, but the C preprocessor is sufficiently evil that it would be difficult to automate without creating a full C compiler that outputs D code. And I don't think this is the best approach anyway, since a lot of what's in these C headers isn't even needed for someone intending to use the library. Much of it is there for the library implementation itself.
This was mostly the result of poor POSIX support and a terrible network layer. By the time they'd begun to fix this, BeOS had become a kiosk OS and was no longer available for the PC (if I remember correctly).
I got a new Passport Card and plain old Passport at the same time, and the card had a sleeve while the Passport did not. I wondered whether the jacket of the Passport was lined and could only be scanned when open, but haven't bothered to investigate.
The bug that annoyed me the most (and it still exists) is that it's impossible to remap the WASD keys from their default action. The UI supports this but when you try it the mappings get all screwed up. How can a game leave beta with issues like these?
That said, I like the combat mechanics in AoC more than any of the other big MMOs (except Guild Wars, if you consider that an MMO). They'd have a pretty solid game on their hands if they polished it a bit.
Another issue is the integration of loot systems in PvP games when the loot has a measurable impact on PvP performance (as with WoW). Such a design effectively bars casual players from being competitive. Personally, there's nothing that will drive me away from a game faster than the use of a loot system as a motivation tool.
And everyone you communicate with is savvy enough to send/receive encrypted mail? Really? In my experience, encryption is a great ideal that is foiled by the simple fact that dealing with encryption is simply too complex or time-consuming for the average person. Personally, the only signed/encrypted mail I've ever received was from someone on the cypherpunks mailing list.
Yup. A hack with the hardest rating almost always requires swapping the first tile with another one. Along with the increased speed, this is the reason safes are regarded as so difficult to crack. That aside, by perhaps 2/3 of the way through the game some of the hacks are unsolvable without at least one tonic installed. Another thing I like is that it's impossible to die from the health penalty incurred from failing a hack. Worst case you'll bottom out with next to no health left and can continue hacking until you get it. This makes hacking health stations basically a no-lose situation.
I had the most fun with the psionic powers, but the psi hypos (if I remember correctly) were few and far between. However, I believe there are cheat codes to spawn additional hypos and ammo and such if you really want to. Think I used the gun mostly for taking out the occasional camera. The crystal sword was a great weapon.
Well, both games are in my Top 5, but Deus Ex actually rewarded you with stories, points and situations that altered based on your gameplay. Kill someone earlier in the game, and a cutscene won't contain that character.
Within certain boundaries, yes. I suppose I was just expecting more because of the game's reputation as being nonlinear. For example, one level begins (I believe) in an air duct above a subway station, and ends with the main character's capture after exiting the station. But certain other characters in that level aren't intended to be killed (a big muscled cyborg guy in particular, if I remember correctly), and the level has hard boundaries on the surface. I played through that particular level a number of times and "broke" it in a few different ways, but finally had to surrender just for the game to continue. This is quite understandable because the story must progress along certain pre-determined routes, but it was still frustrating.
What content offended you? Are you of a particular race they offended?
It's been too long to remember much, but I do recall one audio exchange involving a horrible parody of a Chinese NPC in Shanghai or wherever that was. I'm not of any particular race, gender, or culture involved however. I think it jumped out at me because it was the type of parody you might have heard from a child in the US maybe 30-40 years ago--I never expected to hear something like that in a game.
Mostly sound clips / audio scenarios (I'm not sure what the proper term is). One may as well have been Mickey Rooney's char from "Breakfast at Tiffany's," though there were some other notable moments I can't recall offhand. The thing is that I'm not terribly touchy about that sort of thing, but for some reason these parts of Deus Ex really struck a nerve.
System Shock 2 was far better than Deus Ex, in my opinion. For one thing, System Shock 2 felt quite nonlinear, while Deus Ex railroaded the player through the game from start to finish. Also, Deus Ex contained some racist content that had me considering just uninstalling the game for a while. Not to mention System Shock 2's unbelievable use of sound, fantastic level design, etc. It's easily in my top ten FPS games of all time along with System Shock 1, Thief 1 & 2, Ultima Underworld, Half Life 2, and various others I can't think of right now. But Deus Ex may not be on that list.
As for Bioshock, I recently started playing the game and have been enjoying it quite a bit. I agree that the interface is more like a traditional FPS than System Shock 2 and thus "dumbed down" I suppose, but still more complex than Half Life and similar more pure FPS variants. What I really enjoy about Bioshock, though, is simply the realization of the concept within the game world. How often do you get to explore the shattered remains of a dystopian world inspired by an Ayn Rand novel? About my only potential issue so far are the few scripted "scare" scenarios I've encountered. I'd have preferred if they had been done in such a way that they at least didn't feel quite so scripted. Many of the scariest moments in System Shock 2, for example, were simply an artifact of situations I found myself in and the excellent sound work in the game--the ability to hear critters nearby but not know where they were, etc.
It sounds like you know more about this aspect of financial reporting than I do. Are you saying that it's illegal for a future earnings report to include income from pending client contracts? And how does this differ from projected sales earnings?
I believe I used the term "assume" explicitly a number of times in my post. I can't say I understand the point in replying to a comment one hasn't even read.
Nacchio is clearly not a disinterested party to this, so his assertions have to be examined carefully, but it is at least plausible that after Qwest declined to give the NSA access to their network, NSA decided to give the contract to someone else in retaliation.
This was my interpretation as well. Basically, the government was using lucrative contracts as an incentive for cooperation with various other less palatable projects. When Qwest declined to cooperate with those, the government pulled their other contracts and gave them to someone else who was presumably more willing to cooperate. Given this, I think a case could be made for the mis-estimation of future income by Qwest. Depending on where they were in negotiations, etc, it's reasonable to assume that there was grounds for considering these contracts as valid future revenue.
I've bolded the sentence that worries me. It both sounds too good to be true and sounds like they take my money and promise me something later that's ill defined. What do you think?
That sounds almost exactly like Costco, Price Club, etc, to me. All require a yearly fee for "membership" and offer items at a cost below retail prices. It ends up being a pretty good deal if you shop there regularly, as many of the prices are indeed significantly less than elsewhere. I have no idea what DirectBuy is like though.
that the victory of the Empire ushered in a new era of industrialization. So the ships you see in Ep. 4-6 are the product of early industrial engineering (ie. assembly lines for spaceships). By comparison, Ep. 1-3 were largely hand-made, and thus far more elegant and customized.
The two strongest arguments against this are:
1. It seems odd that things technology and trading could have progress so far if most or all ships were custom made. 2. It doesn't make sense that every Ep. 1-3 era ship would be out of commission by Ep. 4-6, or that we wouldn't see any of them around.
Still, this is the most acceptable explanation I've heard.
You are so wrong. Traveling should not be a function of luck. We are a nation of laws. Speaking words is not suppsed to be a crime. Some of us have no choice bacuse of our job - we have to travel. I do not recall any amendment to the constitution that said I am giving up my rights because I am flying and the staff are idiots and the process is ineffective.
I agree with you, but I don't know what this has to do with what I said. The sad truth is that regardless of the actual laws in place, airport security is free to act basically however they want and any attempt to protest is liable to waste hours of your time at best and solve absolutely nothing in exchange. I suggested picking a different venue if the goal was to change things. Contact politicians, Homeland Security, airlines, etc.
That said, I suspect that if this girl had been shot in the airport, things may well have changed for the better. The press coverage would have been tremendous, and it's that kind of attention that seems to make things happen in this country. The Rodney King incident certainly brought attention to the problem of police brutality... at least for a while. Not that I'm suggesting it would have been better if something had happened to this girl. But it will likely take some similarly ridiculous and horrible occurrence to have an effect on the status quo. Walking into an airport right now is like volunteering for the Milgram experiment.
Could be. I mostly mentioned the medical profession because it has seen the same sort of gender bias the article mentions occurring in IT: women biased against other women. I can only assume that things have improved since I heard this (which, admittedly, was quite a while ago).
Seriously, I was smart enough not to wear such stuff to the airport 20 years ago; 15 years ago I was asked not to use the "b" word by airport security. I think I had said in too loud a loud voice that some show I had been to had bombed.
A few years ago, during one of the times the handles of may bag were being swabbed by airport security, the person I was traveling with asked me what the trouble was. Without thinking, I replied "they're swabbing for bomb particles" just loud enough for security to hear me. Near as I can tell, they didn't know the actual purpose of the test and hearing the word "bomb" set them off. I had to do some pretty fast talking to avoid being taken to a back room.
In short, while the policies are completely ridiculous at times, there's no reason to push your luck. If you have to travel by plane (and I avoid it at all costs these days), don't give them any excuse to give you a hard time. Doing so won't change anything and it's liable to make your day much more difficult as well. If you intend to protest airport security policy, pick a different venue. That is, unless you have a *lot* of time on your hands.
basically every male-dominated profession. Why hasn't a similar effort been made to encourage women to go into medicine, for example? Not that I think this is a bad thing, but it's a bit weird that the focus is so heavily on IT.
Slashdot Mirror
Second of all, calling destructors on a modern GC are extremely costly. Sure, your example implementation of destructors seems simple, but it is only possible in a reference counted garbage collector, which is so primitive as to be nearly useless.
This may be true if you want deterministic finalization, but not if you want dtor support in general. The D garbage collector is a typical mark & sweep GC and incurs no overhead for finalizing objects before the memory is freed.
It's another issue entirely whether dtor support is desirable in a GCed language. First of all, there's the weird restriction of not being able to use any references to GCed memory, because that data may already have been collected by the GC. Then there's the issue that collection is not deterministic. Some have suggested that dtors should only be allowed for "scope" objects, so RAII is supported without the false sense of security that dtors might provide for GCed data, but I think a fair argument could be made either way. Personally, I find dtors to be useful in a GCed language, if only as an insurance policy.
By the way, I believe that C++/CLI (ie. C++ for .NET) will call the dtor of managed C++ objects when they are finalized. And I believe that C# has some kind of dtor feature as well. So D isn't the only language to do this.
Although D apps can call C functions, D code can't directly use C headers files. So relevant declarations much be replicated in D if you want to use C stdlib routines. And since D does not use the C preprocessor, the structure of these headers often needs to change from C to D. So to answer your question, the user doesn't have to hack a new runtime, but they may have to create headers properly declaring the stuff they intend to use.
This process is pretty straightforward and mechanical, but the C preprocessor is sufficiently evil that it would be difficult to automate without creating a full C compiler that outputs D code. And I don't think this is the best approach anyway, since a lot of what's in these C headers isn't even needed for someone intending to use the library. Much of it is there for the library implementation itself.
This was mostly the result of poor POSIX support and a terrible network layer. By the time they'd begun to fix this, BeOS had become a kiosk OS and was no longer available for the PC (if I remember correctly).
I got a new Passport Card and plain old Passport at the same time, and the card had a sleeve while the Passport did not. I wondered whether the jacket of the Passport was lined and could only be scanned when open, but haven't bothered to investigate.
The bug that annoyed me the most (and it still exists) is that it's impossible to remap the WASD keys from their default action. The UI supports this but when you try it the mappings get all screwed up. How can a game leave beta with issues like these?
That said, I like the combat mechanics in AoC more than any of the other big MMOs (except Guild Wars, if you consider that an MMO). They'd have a pretty solid game on their hands if they polished it a bit.
The prize pool is only ten to the 6th.
Another issue is the integration of loot systems in PvP games when the loot has a measurable impact on PvP performance (as with WoW). Such a design effectively bars casual players from being competitive. Personally, there's nothing that will drive me away from a game faster than the use of a loot system as a motivation tool.
And everyone you communicate with is savvy enough to send/receive encrypted mail? Really? In my experience, encryption is a great ideal that is foiled by the simple fact that dealing with encryption is simply too complex or time-consuming for the average person. Personally, the only signed/encrypted mail I've ever received was from someone on the cypherpunks mailing list.
As a subscriber you are probably not aware that /. has started inserting banner ads after some posts.
I'm a subscriber and I see the ads anyway.
Like basically every office chair in the world, my chair has rollers on its feet. How am I expected to use a stair-stepper while sitting in it?
Yup. A hack with the hardest rating almost always requires swapping the first tile with another one. Along with the increased speed, this is the reason safes are regarded as so difficult to crack. That aside, by perhaps 2/3 of the way through the game some of the hacks are unsolvable without at least one tonic installed. Another thing I like is that it's impossible to die from the health penalty incurred from failing a hack. Worst case you'll bottom out with next to no health left and can continue hacking until you get it. This makes hacking health stations basically a no-lose situation.
I had the most fun with the psionic powers, but the psi hypos (if I remember correctly) were few and far between. However, I believe there are cheat codes to spawn additional hypos and ammo and such if you really want to. Think I used the gun mostly for taking out the occasional camera. The crystal sword was a great weapon.
Yeah just a horrible stereotype. That's why I compared it to Mickey Rooney's character in "Breakfast at Tiffany's."
Well, both games are in my Top 5, but Deus Ex actually rewarded you with stories, points and situations that altered based on your gameplay. Kill someone earlier in the game, and a cutscene won't contain that character.
Within certain boundaries, yes. I suppose I was just expecting more because of the game's reputation as being nonlinear. For example, one level begins (I believe) in an air duct above a subway station, and ends with the main character's capture after exiting the station. But certain other characters in that level aren't intended to be killed (a big muscled cyborg guy in particular, if I remember correctly), and the level has hard boundaries on the surface. I played through that particular level a number of times and "broke" it in a few different ways, but finally had to surrender just for the game to continue. This is quite understandable because the story must progress along certain pre-determined routes, but it was still frustrating.
What content offended you? Are you of a particular race they offended?
It's been too long to remember much, but I do recall one audio exchange involving a horrible parody of a Chinese NPC in Shanghai or wherever that was. I'm not of any particular race, gender, or culture involved however. I think it jumped out at me because it was the type of parody you might have heard from a child in the US maybe 30-40 years ago--I never expected to hear something like that in a game.
Mostly sound clips / audio scenarios (I'm not sure what the proper term is). One may as well have been Mickey Rooney's char from "Breakfast at Tiffany's," though there were some other notable moments I can't recall offhand. The thing is that I'm not terribly touchy about that sort of thing, but for some reason these parts of Deus Ex really struck a nerve.
System Shock 2 was far better than Deus Ex, in my opinion. For one thing, System Shock 2 felt quite nonlinear, while Deus Ex railroaded the player through the game from start to finish. Also, Deus Ex contained some racist content that had me considering just uninstalling the game for a while. Not to mention System Shock 2's unbelievable use of sound, fantastic level design, etc. It's easily in my top ten FPS games of all time along with System Shock 1, Thief 1 & 2, Ultima Underworld, Half Life 2, and various others I can't think of right now. But Deus Ex may not be on that list.
As for Bioshock, I recently started playing the game and have been enjoying it quite a bit. I agree that the interface is more like a traditional FPS than System Shock 2 and thus "dumbed down" I suppose, but still more complex than Half Life and similar more pure FPS variants. What I really enjoy about Bioshock, though, is simply the realization of the concept within the game world. How often do you get to explore the shattered remains of a dystopian world inspired by an Ayn Rand novel? About my only potential issue so far are the few scripted "scare" scenarios I've encountered. I'd have preferred if they had been done in such a way that they at least didn't feel quite so scripted. Many of the scariest moments in System Shock 2, for example, were simply an artifact of situations I found myself in and the excellent sound work in the game--the ability to hear critters nearby but not know where they were, etc.
It sounds like you know more about this aspect of financial reporting than I do. Are you saying that it's illegal for a future earnings report to include income from pending client contracts? And how does this differ from projected sales earnings?
I believe I used the term "assume" explicitly a number of times in my post. I can't say I understand the point in replying to a comment one hasn't even read.
Nacchio is clearly not a disinterested party to this, so his assertions have to be examined carefully, but it is at least plausible that after Qwest declined to give the NSA access to their network, NSA decided to give the contract to someone else in retaliation.
This was my interpretation as well. Basically, the government was using lucrative contracts as an incentive for cooperation with various other less palatable projects. When Qwest declined to cooperate with those, the government pulled their other contracts and gave them to someone else who was presumably more willing to cooperate. Given this, I think a case could be made for the mis-estimation of future income by Qwest. Depending on where they were in negotiations, etc, it's reasonable to assume that there was grounds for considering these contracts as valid future revenue.
I've bolded the sentence that worries me. It both sounds too good to be true and sounds like they take my money and promise me something later that's ill defined. What do you think?
That sounds almost exactly like Costco, Price Club, etc, to me. All require a yearly fee for "membership" and offer items at a cost below retail prices. It ends up being a pretty good deal if you shop there regularly, as many of the prices are indeed significantly less than elsewhere. I have no idea what DirectBuy is like though.
that the victory of the Empire ushered in a new era of industrialization. So the ships you see in Ep. 4-6 are the product of early industrial engineering (ie. assembly lines for spaceships). By comparison, Ep. 1-3 were largely hand-made, and thus far more elegant and customized.
The two strongest arguments against this are:
1. It seems odd that things technology and trading could have progress so far if most or all ships were custom made.
2. It doesn't make sense that every Ep. 1-3 era ship would be out of commission by Ep. 4-6, or that we wouldn't see any of them around.
Still, this is the most acceptable explanation I've heard.
You are so wrong. Traveling should not be a function of luck. We are a nation of laws. Speaking words is not suppsed to be a crime. Some of us have no choice bacuse of our job - we have to travel. I do not recall any amendment to the constitution that said I am giving up my rights because I am flying and the staff are idiots and the process is ineffective.
I agree with you, but I don't know what this has to do with what I said. The sad truth is that regardless of the actual laws in place, airport security is free to act basically however they want and any attempt to protest is liable to waste hours of your time at best and solve absolutely nothing in exchange. I suggested picking a different venue if the goal was to change things. Contact politicians, Homeland Security, airlines, etc.
That said, I suspect that if this girl had been shot in the airport, things may well have changed for the better. The press coverage would have been tremendous, and it's that kind of attention that seems to make things happen in this country. The Rodney King incident certainly brought attention to the problem of police brutality... at least for a while. Not that I'm suggesting it would have been better if something had happened to this girl. But it will likely take some similarly ridiculous and horrible occurrence to have an effect on the status quo. Walking into an airport right now is like volunteering for the Milgram experiment.
Could be. I mostly mentioned the medical profession because it has seen the same sort of gender bias the article mentions occurring in IT: women biased against other women. I can only assume that things have improved since I heard this (which, admittedly, was quite a while ago).
Seriously, I was smart enough not to wear such stuff to the airport 20 years ago; 15 years ago I was asked not to use the "b" word by airport security. I think I had said in too loud a loud voice that some show I had been to had bombed.
A few years ago, during one of the times the handles of may bag were being swabbed by airport security, the person I was traveling with asked me what the trouble was. Without thinking, I replied "they're swabbing for bomb particles" just loud enough for security to hear me. Near as I can tell, they didn't know the actual purpose of the test and hearing the word "bomb" set them off. I had to do some pretty fast talking to avoid being taken to a back room.
In short, while the policies are completely ridiculous at times, there's no reason to push your luck. If you have to travel by plane (and I avoid it at all costs these days), don't give them any excuse to give you a hard time. Doing so won't change anything and it's liable to make your day much more difficult as well. If you intend to protest airport security policy, pick a different venue. That is, unless you have a *lot* of time on your hands.
basically every male-dominated profession. Why hasn't a similar effort been made to encourage women to go into medicine, for example? Not that I think this is a bad thing, but it's a bit weird that the focus is so heavily on IT.