Strategy has nothing to do with this "perfect computational game". It is merely a matter of finding moves which always win.
In practice, one player often has a better strategy, but still loses due to a tactic (ie. clever move, perhaps against the run of play) which the other player finds.
This model (and the ones proposed by the other two repliers to my post) all have a central point that *everything* is moving away from (eg. the centre of your rubber sheet). However, the cosmologers say that that is not the case with the Universe. So, what gives..?
Actually , if you apply sufficient brute force you will be able to read a message encrypted with a one-time pad. However you won't be able to know that you have the original message.
I often read about the universe's expansion being described as like points on a balloon being blown up, and there was no point that the universe expanded away from. However a balloon is manifestly curved. How does this stay consistent with the result that the universe is flat?
All the time we hear about new buffer overruns discovered in supposedly stable software. Then at patch comes out, and people praise open source for its efficacy at fixing bugs found.
However, a buffer overrun is inexcusable in the first place, and is a direct result of sloppy coding.
Ask yourself, how often do you allocate a char[] buffer that "should be large enough" ? Or, more insidiously, how often do you write a function that takes a (char *), or even worse, (char **) but you do not document clearly how big a buffer it must be pointing to, or how big a buffer you are going to return, or what you are going to change.
C is a low-level language and requires the programmer to fully understand the memory layout and usage of the code they write -- and to clearly document a function they expose to other programmers.
So when a buffer overrun is discovered (either by chance, or by somebody combing the source for sloppy buffers), it is then easy to make an exploit that gives root, etc., because the code is open-source.
So, what to do about this? If you do not wish to spend the time involved in writing robust C code... use C++ !
Use a string class or template set that will prevent a buffer overrun (or underrun, for that matter).
Why are buffer overruns so very rare in Windows code? Because most Windows code is written in object-oriented languages, using components or string containers that have effectively had billions of man-hours of testing. Not to mention the fact that due to lack of source, it is difficult to find an overrun, let alone exploit it once found.
For people who baulk at C++ ? You can still use your old C coding style and practises, you know. Just learn how to use a C++ string, and incorporate it in your code. A small change, but with priceless benefits.
Something has gone seriously wrong, what with all these different versions of libc, and glibc etc.
The expected behaviour of any library function is defined by a specification, and the function should do exactly what it is meant to. If, later on, someone decides that a function should behave differently, then they should create a new function rather than changing the behaviour of the old one.
Specifications often leave many things up to the implementation, and when a programmer uses a library function, he or she should ensure that only the specified behaviour is relied on, and not anything else.
There is too much coding done these days where people will hack out some code that ought to work, and then test and tweak it by trial-and-error until it seems to do what they want.... until they have to maintain and support the code a few months (or years) down the track.
It was called Janitor Joe, but the filename was JUMPJOE.EXE . It was phun, but difficult on level 5. I, however, knew where the secret level was, and knew the godmode cheat. Armed with this and my bowl of trusty hot grits, I was able to finish the game and watch the cheesy but very entertaining ending sequence. Hurrah for old games!
The other women probably died out (altho we can safely say not from STDs. The other 1% of people (which includes natalie portman) are probably descended from hot grits.
You forgot to mention that the discussions quickly shift to whether there were a Beowulf cluster of the devices in question, and what Natalie Portman thought of them while pouring hot grits down my pants
I've never seen a post by OOG, and your comments are all i have to judge him/her on. So, I think OOG is a complete loser and a waste of time. Which makes your fanaticism quite funny.
So can someone do this? The actual.mov can't be downloaded except via the imbedded player, and I don't want to do that. Anyone with video capture and editing equipment?
Install a unix toolset in windows NT (eg. Interix, Cygnus, MKS), copy over your desktop background, and pretend you're in linux:) If you're doing nothing but development within C++Builder, and cli shells, you won't notice a lot of difference.
Or, to go a step further, you could reside your files on the linux machine, work on them via telnet, and have your C++Builder project access those files via SMB.
Dos and Win95 don't multitask, so you can't really blame them for implementing pipes and redirection that way.
I just tested on win NT: the following command:
dir/s |more
done on a large volume, clearly does not complete the dir listing before invoking more; as the listing appears straight away ( <.1 sec), and the hard drive keeps chugging as you scroll down. Cacheing was not involved as this was the first dir listing I had done in a long time. A plain dir/s takes a long time to run for many files.
NTFS has named pipes, soft links, hard links (ntfs 5), and quite a few other features which i forget now, but are a part of ufs and its derivatives.
Linux has many free and unpowerful APIs, and Windows has many APIs (both powerful and unpowerful). They are also very well documented in the functions which the API developers want documented. The fact that there are extra undocumented functions hardly detracts from the documented ones. MS have terabytes worth of documentation of their APIs and technologies (doesn't that word piss you off) on their website.
I'd rather spend a few minutes looking up documentation than spend an hour or two wading through source to find out what a complicated API function does. True, source is useful to look at if you can't figure out the documentation, but that situation rarely arises in windows programming. At worst, you can just write test sample code (still faster than figuring out the source).
Have you noticed that reading other people's code is difficult? because they don't think as you do? Even if it is well-structured and well-documented, it still takes a while to suss out its author's mental layout. And most code I've seen is not well-structured and not well-documented.
DOS has had piping and redirection since DOS 2.0 (at least!), and Windows still has it.
You are complaining that windows sucks cos it doesn't have your commandline tools? Download a free package for Windows with those tools then! There are plenty about. I cheerfully use grep and awk on my NT box.
The superb sci-fi novel "The Mote in God's Eye", by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, does in fact feature this. An alien society launches a probe which has a huge light parachute , and propels it for 35 light-years using gigantic ground-based lasers. (Until humans discover it and destroy it in paranoia... but that's for you to find out:) )
??? is certainly the correct choice of symbol there. Not only is there no centrifugal force, there is no centripital force.
However, there is a centripetal force, which all the posters here seem to fail to understand. When you swing a ball around your head, it maintains its circular path because _you are applying force to it_ via tension in the rope. The name for this force which you are applying is 'centripetal force' , because your hand is at the centre of the circle and that's where the force stems from.
If you stop applying this force, the ball (surprise surprise) continues to move in the direction it was moving when you stopped applying the force, and at the same velocity. Note that this corresponds to a tangent to the circular path it was moving on before.
Now, this gives me an idea. Suppose this anti-gravity research is completed, and we have a portable device which can disable gravity locally (or even better, reduce its effect by a variable amount). When you engage this device, you would start to travel upwards (like when you release the ball, _as seen from the perspective of the ball_). Once you thought you were getting too high, you could re-engage your device and drop down a bit. Coupled with some direction-control jets, we have a portable flight device. No more paying air tickets and waiting in queues at the airport!
And, to top it all off, this flight device could run a beowulf cluster of linux machines, and you could control its flight with GIMP. And, while you were passing the time, you could watch Natalie Portman pour hot grits down her pants! Perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
Strategy has nothing to do with this "perfect computational game". It is merely a matter of finding moves which always win.
In practice, one player often has a better strategy, but still loses due to a tactic (ie. clever move, perhaps against the run of play) which the other player finds.
Looks like the Napster users forgot about Dre's lawyers.
This model (and the ones proposed by the other two repliers to my post) all have a central point that *everything* is moving away from (eg. the centre of your rubber sheet). However, the cosmologers say that that is not the case with the Universe. So, what gives..?
Actually , if you apply sufficient brute force you will be able to read a message encrypted with a one-time pad. However you won't be able to know that you have the original message.
I often read about the universe's expansion being described as like points on a balloon being blown up, and there was no point that the universe expanded away from.
However a balloon is manifestly curved.
How does this stay consistent with the result that the universe is flat?
All the time we hear about new buffer overruns discovered in supposedly stable software. Then at patch comes out, and people praise open source for its efficacy at fixing bugs found.
However, a buffer overrun is inexcusable in the first place, and is a direct result of sloppy coding.
Ask yourself, how often do you allocate a char[] buffer that "should be large enough" ? Or, more insidiously, how often do you write a function that takes a (char *), or even worse, (char **) but you do not document clearly how big a buffer it must be pointing to, or how big a buffer you are going to return, or what you are going to change.
C is a low-level language and requires the programmer to fully understand the memory layout and usage of the code they write -- and to clearly document a function they expose to other programmers.
So when a buffer overrun is discovered (either by chance, or by somebody combing the source for sloppy buffers), it is then easy to make an exploit that gives root, etc., because the code is open-source.
So, what to do about this? If you do not wish to spend the time involved in writing robust C code... use C++ !
Use a string class or template set that will prevent a buffer overrun (or underrun, for that matter).
Why are buffer overruns so very rare in Windows code? Because most Windows code is written in object-oriented languages, using components or string containers that have effectively had billions of man-hours of testing. Not to mention the fact that due to lack of source, it is difficult to find an overrun, let alone exploit it once found.
For people who baulk at C++ ? You can still use your old C coding style and practises, you know. Just learn how to use a C++ string, and incorporate it in your code. A small change, but with priceless benefits.
Something has gone seriously wrong, what with all these different versions of libc, and glibc etc.
The expected behaviour of any library function is defined by a specification, and the function should do exactly what it is meant to. If, later on, someone decides that a function should behave differently, then they should create a new function rather than changing the behaviour of the old one.
Specifications often leave many things up to the implementation, and when a programmer uses a library function, he or she should ensure that only the specified behaviour is relied on, and not anything else.
There is too much coding done these days where people will hack out some code that ought to work, and then test and tweak it by trial-and-error until it seems to do what they want.... until they have to maintain and support the code a few months (or years) down the track.
Giving incorrect advice isn't a way of promoting good English.
"You and me both." is obviously in the context "We both would like to see..."
and since "We" is the subject, the corresponding singular pronouns are "You" and "I".
"Us both" does not equate to "Us too", as you seem to suggest.
Wonder if Microsoft will sue them..
It was called Janitor Joe, but the filename was JUMPJOE.EXE . It was phun, but difficult on level 5. I, however, knew where the secret level was, and knew the godmode cheat. Armed with this and my bowl of trusty hot grits, I was able to finish the game and watch the cheesy but very entertaining ending sequence. Hurrah for old games!
The other women probably died out (altho we can safely say not from STDs. The other 1% of people
(which includes natalie portman) are probably descended from hot grits.
You forgot to mention that the discussions quickly shift to whether there were a Beowulf cluster of the devices in question, and what Natalie Portman thought of them while pouring hot grits down my pants
Reading these, I think OOG would be disappointed with this troll poster I originally replied to.
I've never seen a post by OOG, and your comments are all i have to judge him/her on. So, I think OOG is a complete loser and a waste of time. Which makes your fanaticism quite funny.
So can someone do this? .mov can't be downloaded except via the imbedded player, and I don't want to do that.
The actual
Anyone with video capture and editing equipment?
What's more, HotJava doesn't actually support anything. It runs just as quickly and just is just as incapable as IE 2.0 .
"boxen" ?
Install a unix toolset in windows NT (eg. Interix, Cygnus, MKS), copy over your desktop background, and pretend you're in linux :)
If you're doing nothing but development within C++Builder, and cli shells, you won't notice a lot of difference.
Or, to go a step further, you could reside your files on the linux machine, work on them via telnet, and have your C++Builder project access those files via SMB.
Dos and Win95 don't multitask, so you can't really blame them for implementing pipes and redirection that way.
/s |more
.1 sec), and the hard drive keeps chugging as you scroll down.
I just tested on win NT: the following command:
dir
done on a large volume, clearly does not complete the dir listing before invoking more; as the listing appears straight away ( <
Cacheing was not involved as this was the first dir listing I had done in a long time.
A plain dir/s takes a long time to run for many files.
NTFS has named pipes, soft links, hard links (ntfs 5), and quite a few other features which i forget now, but are a part of ufs and its derivatives.
Linux has many free and unpowerful APIs, and Windows has many APIs (both powerful and unpowerful). They are also very well documented in the functions which the API developers want documented. The fact that there are extra undocumented functions hardly detracts from the documented ones. MS have terabytes worth of documentation of their APIs and technologies (doesn't that word piss you off) on their website.
I'd rather spend a few minutes looking up documentation than spend an hour or two wading through source to find out what a complicated API function does. True, source is useful to look at if you can't figure out the documentation, but that situation rarely arises in windows programming. At worst, you can just write test sample code (still faster than figuring out the source).
Have you noticed that reading other people's code is difficult? because they don't think as you do? Even if it is well-structured and well-documented, it still takes a while to suss out its author's mental layout.
And most code I've seen is not well-structured and not well-documented.
DOS has had piping and redirection since DOS 2.0 (at least!), and Windows still has it.
You are complaining that windows sucks cos it doesn't have your commandline tools? Download a free package for Windows with those tools then! There are plenty about. I cheerfully use grep and awk on my NT box.
That's bugger all energy. A couple of floors of an office building probably uses that much on its lightbulbs.
The superb sci-fi novel "The Mote in God's Eye", by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, does in fact feature this. An alien society launches a probe which has a huge light parachute , and propels it for 35 light-years using gigantic ground-based lasers. :) )
(Until humans discover it and destroy it in paranoia... but that's for you to find out
??? is certainly the correct choice of symbol there. Not only is there no centrifugal force, there is no centripital force.
However, there is a centripetal force, which all the posters here seem to fail to understand. When you swing a ball around your head, it maintains its circular path because _you are applying force to it_ via tension in the rope. The name for this force which you are applying is 'centripetal force' , because your hand is at the centre of the circle and that's where the force stems from.
If you stop applying this force, the ball (surprise surprise) continues to move in the direction it was moving when you stopped applying the force, and at the same velocity. Note that this corresponds to a tangent to the circular path it was moving on before.
Now, this gives me an idea. Suppose this anti-gravity research is completed, and we have a portable device which can disable gravity locally (or even better, reduce its effect by a variable amount). When you engage this device, you would start to travel upwards (like when you release the ball, _as seen from the perspective of the ball_). Once you thought you were getting too high, you could re-engage your device and drop down a bit.
Coupled with some direction-control jets, we have a portable flight device. No more paying air tickets and waiting in queues at the airport!
And, to top it all off, this flight device could run a beowulf cluster of linux machines, and you could control its flight with GIMP. And, while you were passing the time, you could watch Natalie Portman pour hot grits down her pants! Perfect.
He said, "grit"
huh huh huh
huh huh huh huh huh huh huh