Shows his lack of background knowledge. He brings up the fact that Mac OS X uses a BSD kernel (which, if you've ever written assembly code on both platforms you know it's very unlike Linux), and then somehow tries to relate that to Linux's lack of easy-to-use menus?
His point -- or at least what I infer his point to be -- is that with MacOS you get the benefits that come with *nix (multiuser, security, yadda) with the ease of use of, uh, MacOS.
(And from almost all levels, yes, Linux and BSD are not unlike each other. The same commands run on each, the same calls are available on each. Even most programmers don't touch assembly, and that's a lower level than most people will touch. From your C code up there are relatively few, relatively minor differences.)
I can't help but think that, since I imagine they will re-use everything, including the memory unit, that people will find out not only how to get the data form the chip itself, but also will be able to read what was recorded on there by previous disposable camcorder owners. No chance of that going wrong at all...
If it's flash, assuming they are erasing it, I doubt it's possible.
(P.S. Anyone else getting stuff like "Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 26 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"? Any idea what might be up?)
You can follow the standards and still not have it work right in IE.
I'm running into a problem now of IE not supporting CSS2 selectors of the form tag[attribute=value]. This is perfectly compliant CSS2, which has been around for about 8 years now, yet IE doesn't support it. So I'm gonna have to come up with a workaround.
It's a little sad that when you raise this issue, you immediately think of.NET. Java was there first
It's a little sad that you think of Java when complaining that he didn't think of the first. There were PLENTY of GC'd languages before Java came around.
Java came out 1995ish. I'm pretty sure Smalltalk was GC'd, and that was from 1969. I'm pretty sure Simula was GC'd, and that was from 1964.
So really, both Java and.Net are younglings when it comes to GC, and you complaining about him gyping Java is no less sad than him gyping Java.
It is technically possible for the GC to detect such circular references by expanding the definition of "inaccessable". In fact, I believe your standard mark-and-sweep will be able to free x and y once they go out of scope.
Now, depending on the GC algorithm detecting them may be much more difficult or slower, so a decision may be made that it will do less harm to not try to detect circular references than looking for them would cause, and such a decision is as valid as any other design tradeoff. However, such a decision does transform the GC from an exact to a conservative algorithm, and breaks its correctness. And because of the tradeoff, that decision is also as valid a target for criticism as any other design decision.
I'm positive that's not accurate, unless it was changed from the final draft of the C99 standard*. Implementations are allowed to allow other types, so a compiler that accepts void main can still be conforming, and the program can still be an acceptable program. (You could say that it's non-standard because it uses implementation-dependent things, but it doesn't violate the standard either.)
a conforming compiler is allowed to reject your code and laugh in your face if you do otherwise
This is true, as the standard doesn't require that compilers accept mains with signatures other than int main() and int main(int, char**). But again, it doesn't mandate that conforming compilers must reject such programs.
(Note that this is all not true for C++. C++ implementations are allowed to accept other signatures of main, but only if they return int. If a C++ compiler accepts void main(), it's non-conforming.)
* Or used to be that way and was changed to the more lenient version in effect now, but I have severe doubts about that because it seems to be a trend in the opposite direction C and C++ have taken in terms of strictness.
For a start, the function main() is of type int, not void. Its arguments are (const int c, const char **argv)
I have two problems with this statement. First and biggest, those arguments are optional:
The function called at program startup is named main. The implementation declares no prototype for this function. It shall be defined with a return type of int and with no parameters:
int main(void) {/*... */ }
or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though any names may be used, as they are local to the function in which they are declared):
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {/*... */ }
or equivalent; or in some other implementation-defined manner.
Secondly, implementations are allowed to allow main types of other than those two. Thus 'void main()' is not incorrect by the standard, it just isn't guranteed to be correct. (Note that this isn't true of C++. In C++ the implementation may provide other forms of main, but all must return an int.)
Your program's control reaches the end of a non-void function, which is naughty although IIRC not strictly an error condition
Again, this is perfectly kosher. Reaching the end of a non-void function may be undefined for other functions (I didn't bother to look), but both C99 and C++ provide that reaching the end of main is equivalent to exit(0):
If the return type of the main function is a type compatible with int, a return from the initial call to the main function is equivalent to calling the exit function with the value returned by the main function as its argument; reaching the } that terminates the main function returns a value of 0. If the return type is not compatible with int, the termination status returned to the host environment is unspecified.
(5.1.2.2.3 #1)
(This provides further support for my statement that main needn't return int.)
But you also have (an implicit) typing problem in the test=malloc(10); line, because you have not declared the malloc() function - return type defaults to int when you want int * (in fact, malloc() returns a void * so you should be casting anyway). You haven't declared free() either, but as it's used in void context that's not too much of a problem
This is pedantic I think. People understand that if you use malloc and free you probably know to include stdlib.h. Typing it out everytime wastes the person's time, half the time in a context such as slashdot results in lines of just '#include' because the poster forgot to escape the <s and didn't preview (I'm just as guilty of this as anyone), and "wastes" space.
Most importantly, however, the text message is time-shifted, whereas morse transmission is real-time. When the sender is done, the recipient is done also.
On the other hand, with the particular contest, the SMS receiver could have raised his hand as soon has he saw it arrive. Sure, the Morse Code guy may be able to anticipate the end, but assuming he's playing fair and not putting his hand up before the end actually comes, that'd buy probably half a second. Even if the SMS guy read the message before putting his hand up and not just as he was reading it to Leno, that'd add probably 2 seconds at most.
That's another thing I don't understand... laptops seem to have better monitors than most stand-alone LCDs.
I can sort of see why 1600 wouldn't be in the main line, because with a 19" CRT things are still a little small, and if you make the native resolution 1600 then smaller ones don't look that good. But the rarity of nice flat panel monitors confuses me...
Besides, I doubt you can get good grades on tests without either studying or doing homework, at least not for practical math and sciences - you simply don't get enough practice in solving problems
It's possible. I've done it.
One marking period in chemistry, I did no homework. None. Homework was worth 10% of our grade; I got a B+ for the semester.
Senior year of high school, I had AP physics C. (I didn't take B first, despite it theoretically being a prerequsite.) That teacher had a nice policy where if you got a 90% or better on exams, there was an alternate grading scheme that didn't count homework. (The tests, participation, and labs were increased in weight. And there was still the option of counting homework if it would give you a higher grade; he went with the better score.) I did very few problems outside of class after the first or second test. I'd usually have to go quickly back over a couple things before the tests to review things we hadn't done for a while, but I just did what we did in class. Wound up with a very solid A.
I personally liked the approach taken by my physics teacher. He had two potential grading schemes. One counted homework, participation, tests, and labs and was pretty much standard. The other didn't count homework at all, and the other categories were increased proportionally. If you got a 90% or better (no like 89.9% arguments either) on your test average, he went with whichever scheme gave you the higher score, otherwise he just used the first one (with homework).
The end result was that you could usually get a good grade if you did the work, even if you had a difficult time with the material, but at the same time if you could pick up the material well enough to do fine on the tests without doing all of the homework you weren't put through a lot of busywork.
I don't know about you, but I've never seen a wrist rest I could rest my wrists on while typing. You'd need 2 or 3 for the proper thickness. If wrist rests are thick enough for you, the only ways I can see that to be is if either your wrists are bent or if your hands are higher than your elbows. Both of these are no-nos.
Plus the rest would need an indentation to deal with the thumb and part of the palm that follws the thumb.
Sometime you don't have a choice. Penn State (and plenty of other universities) have firewalls up that block bittorrent. Switching ISPs however would require moving out of the dorms and finding an apartment. Kind of a drastic move to be able to use BT, huh?
Anybody else remember in Empire when Ghost Obi Wan is talking about "he is our last hope" and Yoda says... "No, their is another". Exactly why was Obi Wan so clueless!!!! That was the first thing that popped in my head when I saw Obi Wan hearing the names of the two kids and seeing them off.
You didn't need any of the prequels to ask this question. You know Obi-Wan knows (and has known) about Leia from his talk with Luke in EP3.
I think it's probable that Obi-Wan just doesn't see Leia as having much chance of becoming a Jedi. Either through her concentration on helping to organize the rebellion, or the fact that Luke was already trained pretty far (remember, he doesn't need any more to be a Jedi when he goes back to Yoda, just to face Vader), or perhaps Luke was just more gifted, or any number of other reasons.
"How about when Obi-Wan says he met Anakin when Anakin was a pilot?"
He just said he was already a great pilot, not that he was a pilot.
With Anakin's performance in the Pod race, it's not unfathomable. (Of course, his later bumbling ride in autopilot sort of betrays that.)
So I agree that's a stretch.
Or how about when Obi-Wan offers to train Han Solo in the use of the force (ep. IV), but Yoda says that child Anakin is too old to be trained (ep. I)? Of course, Yoda himself trained Luke when Luke was much older.
This isn't a hole at all. (I assume you mean Luke, not Han.)
First, I haven't seen EP1 for a while, but if Obi-Wan has no objections to Anakin's training, everything is good.
Second, even if both Yoda and Obi-Wan were going against their earlier stances, they were kind of put in a tough spot, there being no other Jedi and everything. If they didn't get Luke trained, they would lose what Obi-Wan considered their last hope.
The force went from being something anyone could learn to use, to being something only a select few who were born with the right blood could use.
I don't know if it was ever anything anyone could learn to use (I just watched the original trilogy through -- RotJ ended half an hour ago -- and I don't remember this ever being said). Also, it was never something only a select few could use.
Different people have different midichlorian counts. Those with higher counts have a greater propensity to being able to use the force, but having a low count doesn't necessarily preclude them from learning.
Finally, there almost has to be something genetic when it comes to the ability to learn the force. Remember, Luke and Leia were split at birth, so faced different upbringings. Yet:
-Luke refers to the force running strong in his family, and that his sister has it
-When Luke runs off to Bespin, Obi-Wan says that he is their only hope; Yoda says, "no, there is another." This is presumably in reference to Leia, so he attaches significance to them being in the same bloodline.
-When Luke is hiding in the Emperor's throne room, Vader threatens to try to turn Luke's sister to the dark side if Luke won't. It's possible that he's just saying that to rile Luke, but I think it's more likely that he too attaches significance to them being in the same blood line.
-Obi-Wan tells luke that the Emperor and he forsaw that if Anakin had any kids they would be a threat to him
-Finally, the fact that Luke and Anakin, apparently two of the greatest Jedi ever, come from the same bloodline would be a huge coincidence if there was no relation. Remember, Luke was raised in a family that would have actively discuraged anything that would have helped Luke develop his Jedi powers.
Clearly a propensity to be able to use the force
There are legitimate complaints about midichlorians (attaching something tangible to the force), but the alleged transformation of the force from an egalitarian to a specialized ability is not one of them.
Furthermore, I'd bet that the stores could make the same profit selling cheap OSS programs than what they get from Office and Windows. I don't have any real data to judge this on, but I'd bet that they don't get much of the sale price. If they could package their own boxed sets of Linux, OO.org,..., that might take $5 or so. Sell it for $15 or $20 (probably not too out there) and they're probably making more than their share of Windows.
The biggest obstacle I see with this is the trademark problem a couple others have mentioned.
You're failing to distinguish between the language and implementations of the language.
By analogy, the C++ language has changed once since 1997 (with the technical corrigendum that fixed a couple relatively minor issues).
However, it was only fairly recently that there has been a compiler and library that has implemented the standard apparently correctly.
This does not mean that when a compiler writer adds support for the hell that is 'export' he or she is extending the language. By contrast, the only thing they're extending is the amount of the language their tool implements.
I don't know what the OP was thinking, but I suspect it's along those lines.
(Granted, from the other posts it sounds like Mozilla is in fact extending the language.)
Slashdot Mirror
Shows his lack of background knowledge. He brings up the fact that Mac OS X uses a BSD kernel (which, if you've ever written assembly code on both platforms you know it's very unlike Linux), and then somehow tries to relate that to Linux's lack of easy-to-use menus?
His point -- or at least what I infer his point to be -- is that with MacOS you get the benefits that come with *nix (multiuser, security, yadda) with the ease of use of, uh, MacOS.
(And from almost all levels, yes, Linux and BSD are not unlike each other. The same commands run on each, the same calls are available on each. Even most programmers don't touch assembly, and that's a lower level than most people will touch. From your C code up there are relatively few, relatively minor differences.)
I can't help but think that, since I imagine they will re-use everything, including the memory unit, that people will find out not only how to get the data form the chip itself, but also will be able to read what was recorded on there by previous disposable camcorder owners. No chance of that going wrong at all...
If it's flash, assuming they are erasing it, I doubt it's possible.
(P.S. Anyone else getting stuff like "Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 26 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"? Any idea what might be up?)
MS already makes VirtualPC, which, AFAIK, runs *nix just fine.
Whose Line rules... I was thinking the same thing
You're not looking at a divide-by-zero error, but a stack overflow from the infinite recursion.
You can follow the standards and still not have it work right in IE.
I'm running into a problem now of IE not supporting CSS2 selectors of the form tag[attribute=value]. This is perfectly compliant CSS2, which has been around for about 8 years now, yet IE doesn't support it. So I'm gonna have to come up with a workaround.
It's a little sad that when you raise this issue, you immediately think of .NET. Java was there first
.Net are younglings when it comes to GC, and you complaining about him gyping Java is no less sad than him gyping Java.
It's a little sad that you think of Java when complaining that he didn't think of the first. There were PLENTY of GC'd languages before Java came around.
Java came out 1995ish. I'm pretty sure Smalltalk was GC'd, and that was from 1969. I'm pretty sure Simula was GC'd, and that was from 1964.
So really, both Java and
That's still a problem with the GC.
It is technically possible for the GC to detect such circular references by expanding the definition of "inaccessable". In fact, I believe your standard mark-and-sweep will be able to free x and y once they go out of scope.
Now, depending on the GC algorithm detecting them may be much more difficult or slower, so a decision may be made that it will do less harm to not try to detect circular references than looking for them would cause, and such a decision is as valid as any other design tradeoff. However, such a decision does transform the GC from an exact to a conservative algorithm, and breaks its correctness. And because of the tradeoff, that decision is also as valid a target for criticism as any other design decision.
Standard C requires main to return an int
I'm positive that's not accurate, unless it was changed from the final draft of the C99 standard*. Implementations are allowed to allow other types, so a compiler that accepts void main can still be conforming, and the program can still be an acceptable program. (You could say that it's non-standard because it uses implementation-dependent things, but it doesn't violate the standard either.)
a conforming compiler is allowed to reject your code and laugh in your face if you do otherwise
This is true, as the standard doesn't require that compilers accept mains with signatures other than int main() and int main(int, char**). But again, it doesn't mandate that conforming compilers must reject such programs.
See my other post for citations.
(Note that this is all not true for C++. C++ implementations are allowed to accept other signatures of main, but only if they return int. If a C++ compiler accepts void main(), it's non-conforming.)
* Or used to be that way and was changed to the more lenient version in effect now, but I have severe doubts about that because it seems to be a trend in the opposite direction C and C++ have taken in terms of strictness.
I have two problems with this statement. First and biggest, those arguments are optional:
(Draft C99 standard, 5.1.2.2.1 #1; footnote citation omitted)
Secondly, implementations are allowed to allow main types of other than those two. Thus 'void main()' is not incorrect by the standard, it just isn't guranteed to be correct. (Note that this isn't true of C++. In C++ the implementation may provide other forms of main, but all must return an int.)
Your program's control reaches the end of a non-void function, which is naughty although IIRC not strictly an error condition
Again, this is perfectly kosher. Reaching the end of a non-void function may be undefined for other functions (I didn't bother to look), but both C99 and C++ provide that reaching the end of main is equivalent to exit(0):
(5.1.2.2.3 #1)
(This provides further support for my statement that main needn't return int.)
But you also have (an implicit) typing problem in the test=malloc(10); line, because you have not declared the malloc() function - return type defaults to int when you want int * (in fact, malloc() returns a void * so you should be casting anyway). You haven't declared free() either, but as it's used in void context that's not too much of a problem
This is pedantic I think. People understand that if you use malloc and free you probably know to include stdlib.h. Typing it out everytime wastes the person's time, half the time in a context such as slashdot results in lines of just '#include' because the poster forgot to escape the <s and didn't preview (I'm just as guilty of this as anyone), and "wastes" space.
Most importantly, however, the text message is time-shifted, whereas morse transmission is real-time. When the sender is done, the recipient is done also.
On the other hand, with the particular contest, the SMS receiver could have raised his hand as soon has he saw it arrive. Sure, the Morse Code guy may be able to anticipate the end, but assuming he's playing fair and not putting his hand up before the end actually comes, that'd buy probably half a second. Even if the SMS guy read the message before putting his hand up and not just as he was reading it to Leno, that'd add probably 2 seconds at most.
That's another thing I don't understand... laptops seem to have better monitors than most stand-alone LCDs.
I can sort of see why 1600 wouldn't be in the main line, because with a 19" CRT things are still a little small, and if you make the native resolution 1600 then smaller ones don't look that good. But the rarity of nice flat panel monitors confuses me...
Agreed. The only way I would get a monitor that does under 1600 resolution is if I can get two and use them side-by-side.
Can DVI even do above 1280 with one port?
Besides, I doubt you can get good grades on tests without either studying or doing homework, at least not for practical math and sciences - you simply don't get enough practice in solving problems
It's possible. I've done it.
One marking period in chemistry, I did no homework. None. Homework was worth 10% of our grade; I got a B+ for the semester.
Senior year of high school, I had AP physics C. (I didn't take B first, despite it theoretically being a prerequsite.) That teacher had a nice policy where if you got a 90% or better on exams, there was an alternate grading scheme that didn't count homework. (The tests, participation, and labs were increased in weight. And there was still the option of counting homework if it would give you a higher grade; he went with the better score.) I did very few problems outside of class after the first or second test. I'd usually have to go quickly back over a couple things before the tests to review things we hadn't done for a while, but I just did what we did in class. Wound up with a very solid A.
I personally liked the approach taken by my physics teacher. He had two potential grading schemes. One counted homework, participation, tests, and labs and was pretty much standard. The other didn't count homework at all, and the other categories were increased proportionally. If you got a 90% or better (no like 89.9% arguments either) on your test average, he went with whichever scheme gave you the higher score, otherwise he just used the first one (with homework).
The end result was that you could usually get a good grade if you did the work, even if you had a difficult time with the material, but at the same time if you could pick up the material well enough to do fine on the tests without doing all of the homework you weren't put through a lot of busywork.
Is the metric standard of somewhat-long measure a football pitch
Cricket.
(Actually, for all I know, they could be played on the same field.)
I don't know about you, but I've never seen a wrist rest I could rest my wrists on while typing. You'd need 2 or 3 for the proper thickness. If wrist rests are thick enough for you, the only ways I can see that to be is if either your wrists are bent or if your hands are higher than your elbows. Both of these are no-nos.
Plus the rest would need an indentation to deal with the thumb and part of the palm that follws the thumb.
Your hands SHOULD be in the air whenever you're typing.
If you're keeping your palms on your desk (or wrist rest in front of your keyboard) you're asking for problems.
Whether it's as severe as this is, I dunno... hard to say from the pics.
Sometime you don't have a choice. Penn State (and plenty of other universities) have firewalls up that block bittorrent. Switching ISPs however would require moving out of the dorms and finding an apartment. Kind of a drastic move to be able to use BT, huh?
Anyone know if this is being released to stable today?
The timeline set May 3 gives today as a release and I don't know of any changes, but there's nothing up there about the new release.
Anybody else remember in Empire when Ghost Obi Wan is talking about "he is our last hope" and Yoda says... "No, their is another". Exactly why was Obi Wan so clueless!!!! That was the first thing that popped in my head when I saw Obi Wan hearing the names of the two kids and seeing them off.
You didn't need any of the prequels to ask this question. You know Obi-Wan knows (and has known) about Leia from his talk with Luke in EP3.
I think it's probable that Obi-Wan just doesn't see Leia as having much chance of becoming a Jedi. Either through her concentration on helping to organize the rebellion, or the fact that Luke was already trained pretty far (remember, he doesn't need any more to be a Jedi when he goes back to Yoda, just to face Vader), or perhaps Luke was just more gifted, or any number of other reasons.
"How about when Obi-Wan says he met Anakin when Anakin was a pilot?"
He just said he was already a great pilot, not that he was a pilot.
With Anakin's performance in the Pod race, it's not unfathomable. (Of course, his later bumbling ride in autopilot sort of betrays that.)
So I agree that's a stretch.
Or how about when Obi-Wan offers to train Han Solo in the use of the force (ep. IV), but Yoda says that child Anakin is too old to be trained (ep. I)? Of course, Yoda himself trained Luke when Luke was much older.
This isn't a hole at all. (I assume you mean Luke, not Han.)
First, I haven't seen EP1 for a while, but if Obi-Wan has no objections to Anakin's training, everything is good.
Second, even if both Yoda and Obi-Wan were going against their earlier stances, they were kind of put in a tough spot, there being no other Jedi and everything. If they didn't get Luke trained, they would lose what Obi-Wan considered their last hope.
The force went from being something anyone could learn to use, to being something only a select few who were born with the right blood could use.
I don't know if it was ever anything anyone could learn to use (I just watched the original trilogy through -- RotJ ended half an hour ago -- and I don't remember this ever being said). Also, it was never something only a select few could use.
Different people have different midichlorian counts. Those with higher counts have a greater propensity to being able to use the force, but having a low count doesn't necessarily preclude them from learning.
Finally, there almost has to be something genetic when it comes to the ability to learn the force. Remember, Luke and Leia were split at birth, so faced different upbringings. Yet:
-Luke refers to the force running strong in his family, and that his sister has it
-When Luke runs off to Bespin, Obi-Wan says that he is their only hope; Yoda says, "no, there is another." This is presumably in reference to Leia, so he attaches significance to them being in the same bloodline.
-When Luke is hiding in the Emperor's throne room, Vader threatens to try to turn Luke's sister to the dark side if Luke won't. It's possible that he's just saying that to rile Luke, but I think it's more likely that he too attaches significance to them being in the same blood line.
-Obi-Wan tells luke that the Emperor and he forsaw that if Anakin had any kids they would be a threat to him
-Finally, the fact that Luke and Anakin, apparently two of the greatest Jedi ever, come from the same bloodline would be a huge coincidence if there was no relation. Remember, Luke was raised in a family that would have actively discuraged anything that would have helped Luke develop his Jedi powers.
Clearly a propensity to be able to use the force
There are legitimate complaints about midichlorians (attaching something tangible to the force), but the alleged transformation of the force from an egalitarian to a specialized ability is not one of them.
Furthermore, I'd bet that the stores could make the same profit selling cheap OSS programs than what they get from Office and Windows. I don't have any real data to judge this on, but I'd bet that they don't get much of the sale price. If they could package their own boxed sets of Linux, OO.org, ..., that might take $5 or so. Sell it for $15 or $20 (probably not too out there) and they're probably making more than their share of Windows.
The biggest obstacle I see with this is the trademark problem a couple others have mentioned.
Anyone have problem with some wood grains and optical mice too?
You're failing to distinguish between the language and implementations of the language.
By analogy, the C++ language has changed once since 1997 (with the technical corrigendum that fixed a couple relatively minor issues).
However, it was only fairly recently that there has been a compiler and library that has implemented the standard apparently correctly.
This does not mean that when a compiler writer adds support for the hell that is 'export' he or she is extending the language. By contrast, the only thing they're extending is the amount of the language their tool implements.
I don't know what the OP was thinking, but I suspect it's along those lines.
(Granted, from the other posts it sounds like Mozilla is in fact extending the language.)