So the solution is either to turn off that specific warning (usually means it's off in all files)...
Just a note: recent versions of GCC have (finally) gotten the ability to enable and disable many warnings for regions of code through the #pragma diagnostic.
...or add a dummy use case for the parameter
So you add (void)param;. Big whoop. What's worse, typing a few extraneous keystrokes, or spending an hour debugging something elsewhere that the compiler could have told you about?
(Or, possibly even better, you define an UNUSED_PARAM macro and then write foo(int x, int UNUSED_PARAM(y)) or similar. On MSVC, UNUSED_PARAM(a) expands to nothing, and on GCC-compatibile compilers it expands to a __attribute__((unused)) or something like that. That won't work everywhere though, but if you're in the realm of desktop software it will probably work well enough.)
In my firm opinion, it's almost always better to change your code slightly to eliminate the more common warnings (e.g. -Wall, though I also like -Wextra) than it is to disable the warnings because they are too noisy.
The Windows ZPT doesn't affect what your uninitialized-malloc region will contain: I'm 98% sure that all reasonable (non-embedded) OSs zero pages before they map them into a process's memory space for security reasons. The ZPT only means that there is usually a pool of pre-zeroed pages sitting around, and so it doesn't have to go clear one out on demand. (I also don't know what happens on Linux in terms of whether it does this in the background or not.)
As TFA an incredible amount of orchestral music in movies, TV shows, ads etc. already is made from 100% samples, and nobody notices (or cares).
As a fan of soundtracks, I wouldn't say nobody, because I can tell, and I do care. There are places in a couple synthed scores I have that sound downright bad to me from a musical standpoint, even though compositionally I enjoy them. For one of the cues in Mass Effect 3, for example, even a decent high school orchestra probably would have been able to do a better job at sounding good.
That being said, I still enjoy a lot of synthed recordings -- I just think I'd enjoy it more if the companies producing hadn't been cheapasses. It's only blatently obvious during parts that highlight the weaknesses of libraries like the VSL, and one of the interesting aspects of a lot of the music that falls into this category is how it is written so that the compositions spend much more time doing things that the VSL can do reasonably well.
I know the article is mainly about dance music, but I see this happening a bit in the world of orchestral soundtracks, which is a genre I tend to like quite a bit, where recordings of orchestras are being replaced by sample libraries. And it's really unfortunate... even without getting into any philosophical arguments, just from the listener's perspective. For instance, I really like a lot of the music from the Mass Effect series, but there are certain parts that just sound bad even though compositionally I much approve.
...those NSA guys have tainted so much everywhere simply because it is their job description to decrypt sensitive communications for the intelligence community.
To play devil's advocate for a second (and from someone who is as opposed to the NSA's spying as anyone), they job is also to prevent adversarial spying on us. That presumably applies much more to government functions than day-to-day ones, but if, say, the military or state department actually follows the NSA's suggestions, there's a decent chance that those suggestions are pretty close to as good as it gets.
As Google *always* cache the image, the sender does not knows anymore when or even if the image was viewed and, so, doesn't knows anymore if the email was opened.
If they have specific knowledge about Gmail. Unfortunately, mailers that don't would make the more dangerous assumption (that you read the mail) under that behavior.
But anyway, even that's not true because under Gmail's new setup, the first download will still come when the user opens the mail and loads the images. At least, that's the best information I can find on this. I also saw a comment somewhere a couple of days ago by someone who claimed to have tested that behavior, and checked that the load of the image came when the mail was opened.
I suspect caching the images allow pre-processing of the images and therefore making the whole system more secure by default.
I saw mention that Google will be transcoding them, so yeah, you should be more protected by exploits.
That said, I still turned off the showing of images by default because of the first issue you mention -- otherwise Google will still go out and download the tracking bugs.
Most any mid-range computer from 2007 forward should run this just fine.
I can't give you a date for when I'd be comfortable saying that, but I strongly suspect your 2007 is at least a little early. The computer I'm posting from now, actually, I built in late 2007, and it is BIOS. I don't remember enough about the chipsets that were available at the time to precisely place mine (P35), but I'd say my motherboard is definitely at least mid-range and was perhaps slightly high-end.
Spike strips require the police to be able to predict where the runner is going to go, for the runner to not steer around them, and for the runner to not keep going despite a flat. They're also not exactly safe.
I would change that to say may not have that problem. I borrowed an older Kindle from a friend a few months ago to evaluate and read several chapters of A Song of Ice and Fire on it, and I wasn't impressed. I mean it was pretty nice, but I still prefer physical books over it. The contrast on the Kindle was lower, and even though the screen isn't a glossy screen, it is still much more glossy than paper. The paperwhite he got to replace the one I borrowed seemed better, but it still had the gloss problem.
(And don't consider me some book snob; I actually do embarrassingly little pleasure reading.)
Without copyright, anybody with more time than money could disassemble, document, and distribute any proprietary fork of a program and turn binaries back into (assembly language) source code useful for cloning the added functionality in the Free branch.
Being involved in some work that's related to reverse engineering (though I guess unrelated enough that I've never actually tried to do that really), my suspicion is that in most cases, it would be easier to re-implement from scratch whatever functionality you wanted than it would be to reverse engineer an existing binary (at least for your typical C or C++ optimized, stripped binary). Thethe main exception to that would be if you were doing something for compatibility or such and didn't even really know what it was doing in the first place... but most of the time if you said "hey, that feature is a really neat idea, I wish the open version had that", I don't think it'd be worth it.
That's even worse, but not really what I was getting at.
What I was saying through rhetorical questions was that even if you test two cars back-to-back and the first gets a 5.3 and the second gets a 5.4, it's still almost certainly a huge stretch for the manufacturer of the 5.4 to start running about telling everyone that they're the safest car on the road, because.1 difference is probably well within the margin of error for the overall test. And that's probably what has the NHTSA in a tizzy, and rightly so.
So it had the best overall test score.. but is not necessarily the safest. But the test is on safety. So it's the best in safety.. but not necessarily the best in safety.
And of course, tests perfectly reflect reality, and as such the Tesla's 5.4 score means it's definitely safer than some car that got a 5.35 or something. Uh huh.
The Tesla is pretty damn safe, but saying "it's the safest car ever tested" can't be supported, and if I were the NHTSA, I wouldn't want people implying that I said it was (even though Tesla chose their words carefully).
So... it's a technical dispute over bureaucratic assholery.
To play devil's advocate for a second, measurements like the safety ratings inherently have error to them. For something like car safety, is a 5.4 really better than a 5.3, or was that just a quirk of the particular tests they did, and the 5.3 would be safer on the road?
Look at it from the NHTSA's perspective: if you think that Tesla's advertising is making claims that aren't particularly supportable because of margins of error like that and they're using your data to do it (and in the process saying essentially "NHTSA says we're the safest car on the road" when you don't want to make that claim), I think you'd be well within the realm of reasonableness to make them stop it.
Also, I recall this claim / story being about 3 months old at this point, and I believe NHTSA complained around the same time. Is slashdot seriously that far behind, or (as I suspect) is this an attempt to generate additional controversy and angst due to the other Tesla stories in the news?
Neither. (Well, it could be the latter.)
Rather, it is new action by NHTSA. "Complaining" is a lot different from saying "we will stop accrediting your cars". The former is old news. The latter is, well, news. (The "guidelines" were released yesterday.)
A society that only satisfies the lowest common denominator is no society I'd want to live in. foobar is targeted at digital audio fans...and of course every digital audio fan worth their salt has at least 100,000 files. </sarcasm>
I'm not saying that software should satisfy only the lowest common denominator, just that I suspect 150K files is a pretty severe abnormality even among music fans who love piracy. Personally, I very briefly tried foobar2k, and didn't feel like putting in the effort to figure out how to make it do what I want, so I just use other programs. And on normal-sized collections, they work plenty fine.
There are still a ton that don't toward the lower end of the price ranges for the corresponding size. I actually just bought a new TV myself -- and this is a $1K, 60" TV, so while it's pretty inexpensive for its size it's not a cheap television in a more absolute sense -- and I'm pretty sure it has nothing of that sort of feature.
I'd love a Tesla for round-the-city driving, don't get me wrong, but 300 miles is an awfully generous; that's in ideal weather (warm enough the batteries don't suffer and cool enough you can get away without A/C) and at 55mph. Who the hell drives long distances at 55 mph? I'm sure some people do, but most people who have to go that distance are able and choose to take an interstate and go much faster.
It's not at all hard to get to get an estimate of a maximum range of around 180 miles in poor but realistic situations. The worst their calculator supports is 65mph at 32 degrees with the heater on, and there it's 218 mph. What would it get if it was 20 degrees and you were going at 70 (like the speed limit on the Indiana and Ohio turnpikes)?
Actually I don't think my "counterexample" argument holds, because there would actually still be a sequence point at each call. You could change it to:
Check Annex C: there is no sequence point between evaluation of arguments, only after evaluation of all of the arguments is complete. (Note that the comma separating arguments aren't a comma operator.)
In addition, the standard explicitly states that it is not necessary to completely evaluate one argument before moving onto the next: "The order of evaluation of the function designator, the actual arguments, and subexpressions within the actual arguments is unspeciïed, but there is a sequence point before the actual call" (6.5.2.2/10 of C99 draft). This means, for example, that f(g1() + g2(), g3() + g4()) could be evaluated by calling the g# functions in any order (as each is a subexpression within the actual arguments), and if those functions produced side effects then that would be a counterexample to your claim that there is a sequence point between arguments.
If it were just up to the order of evaluation of the function arguments, then it would be unspecified. However, the program also modifies the same object twice without an intervening sequence point, and that puts it into undefined behavior territory (6.5/2, C99 draft standard).
Slashdot Mirror
I tried that example. It has a syntax error.
If I fix the syntax error -- by parenthesizing b=f(a) and c=g(b) -- then there's no warning with GCC 4.5, -O2 -Wall -Wextra.
That's not legal in C, at least through C99. (I actually thought it wasn't in C++ either, but apparently it is.)
Just a note: recent versions of GCC have (finally) gotten the ability to enable and disable many warnings for regions of code through the #pragma diagnostic.
So you add (void)param;. Big whoop. What's worse, typing a few extraneous keystrokes, or spending an hour debugging something elsewhere that the compiler could have told you about?
(Or, possibly even better, you define an UNUSED_PARAM macro and then write foo(int x, int UNUSED_PARAM(y)) or similar. On MSVC, UNUSED_PARAM(a) expands to nothing, and on GCC-compatibile compilers it expands to a __attribute__((unused)) or something like that. That won't work everywhere though, but if you're in the realm of desktop software it will probably work well enough.)
In my firm opinion, it's almost always better to change your code slightly to eliminate the more common warnings (e.g. -Wall, though I also like -Wextra) than it is to disable the warnings because they are too noisy.
Probably. Here's an even more impressive example.
The Windows ZPT doesn't affect what your uninitialized-malloc region will contain: I'm 98% sure that all reasonable (non-embedded) OSs zero pages before they map them into a process's memory space for security reasons. The ZPT only means that there is usually a pool of pre-zeroed pages sitting around, and so it doesn't have to go clear one out on demand. (I also don't know what happens on Linux in terms of whether it does this in the background or not.)
As a fan of soundtracks, I wouldn't say nobody, because I can tell, and I do care. There are places in a couple synthed scores I have that sound downright bad to me from a musical standpoint, even though compositionally I enjoy them. For one of the cues in Mass Effect 3, for example, even a decent high school orchestra probably would have been able to do a better job at sounding good.
That being said, I still enjoy a lot of synthed recordings -- I just think I'd enjoy it more if the companies producing hadn't been cheapasses. It's only blatently obvious during parts that highlight the weaknesses of libraries like the VSL, and one of the interesting aspects of a lot of the music that falls into this category is how it is written so that the compositions spend much more time doing things that the VSL can do reasonably well.
I know the article is mainly about dance music, but I see this happening a bit in the world of orchestral soundtracks, which is a genre I tend to like quite a bit, where recordings of orchestras are being replaced by sample libraries. And it's really unfortunate... even without getting into any philosophical arguments, just from the listener's perspective. For instance, I really like a lot of the music from the Mass Effect series, but there are certain parts that just sound bad even though compositionally I much approve.
To play devil's advocate for a second (and from someone who is as opposed to the NSA's spying as anyone), they job is also to prevent adversarial spying on us. That presumably applies much more to government functions than day-to-day ones, but if, say, the military or state department actually follows the NSA's suggestions, there's a decent chance that those suggestions are pretty close to as good as it gets.
If they have specific knowledge about Gmail. Unfortunately, mailers that don't would make the more dangerous assumption (that you read the mail) under that behavior.
But anyway, even that's not true because under Gmail's new setup, the first download will still come when the user opens the mail and loads the images. At least, that's the best information I can find on this. I also saw a comment somewhere a couple of days ago by someone who claimed to have tested that behavior, and checked that the load of the image came when the mail was opened.
I suspect caching the images allow pre-processing of the images and therefore making the whole system more secure by default.
I saw mention that Google will be transcoding them, so yeah, you should be more protected by exploits.
That said, I still turned off the showing of images by default because of the first issue you mention -- otherwise Google will still go out and download the tracking bugs.
Most any mid-range computer from 2007 forward should run this just fine.
I can't give you a date for when I'd be comfortable saying that, but I strongly suspect your 2007 is at least a little early. The computer I'm posting from now, actually, I built in late 2007, and it is BIOS. I don't remember enough about the chipsets that were available at the time to precisely place mine (P35), but I'd say my motherboard is definitely at least mid-range and was perhaps slightly high-end.
Spike strips require the police to be able to predict where the runner is going to go, for the runner to not steer around them, and for the runner to not keep going despite a flat. They're also not exactly safe.
I would change that to say may not have that problem. I borrowed an older Kindle from a friend a few months ago to evaluate and read several chapters of A Song of Ice and Fire on it, and I wasn't impressed. I mean it was pretty nice, but I still prefer physical books over it. The contrast on the Kindle was lower, and even though the screen isn't a glossy screen, it is still much more glossy than paper. The paperwhite he got to replace the one I borrowed seemed better, but it still had the gloss problem.
(And don't consider me some book snob; I actually do embarrassingly little pleasure reading.)
Being involved in some work that's related to reverse engineering (though I guess unrelated enough that I've never actually tried to do that really), my suspicion is that in most cases, it would be easier to re-implement from scratch whatever functionality you wanted than it would be to reverse engineer an existing binary (at least for your typical C or C++ optimized, stripped binary). Thethe main exception to that would be if you were doing something for compatibility or such and didn't even really know what it was doing in the first place... but most of the time if you said "hey, that feature is a really neat idea, I wish the open version had that", I don't think it'd be worth it.
That's even worse, but not really what I was getting at.
What I was saying through rhetorical questions was that even if you test two cars back-to-back and the first gets a 5.3 and the second gets a 5.4, it's still almost certainly a huge stretch for the manufacturer of the 5.4 to start running about telling everyone that they're the safest car on the road, because .1 difference is probably well within the margin of error for the overall test. And that's probably what has the NHTSA in a tizzy, and rightly so.
And of course, tests perfectly reflect reality, and as such the Tesla's 5.4 score means it's definitely safer than some car that got a 5.35 or something. Uh huh.
The Tesla is pretty damn safe, but saying "it's the safest car ever tested" can't be supported, and if I were the NHTSA, I wouldn't want people implying that I said it was (even though Tesla chose their words carefully).
To play devil's advocate for a second, measurements like the safety ratings inherently have error to them. For something like car safety, is a 5.4 really better than a 5.3, or was that just a quirk of the particular tests they did, and the 5.3 would be safer on the road?
Look at it from the NHTSA's perspective: if you think that Tesla's advertising is making claims that aren't particularly supportable because of margins of error like that and they're using your data to do it (and in the process saying essentially "NHTSA says we're the safest car on the road" when you don't want to make that claim), I think you'd be well within the realm of reasonableness to make them stop it.
Neither. (Well, it could be the latter.)
Rather, it is new action by NHTSA. "Complaining" is a lot different from saying "we will stop accrediting your cars". The former is old news. The latter is, well, news. (The "guidelines" were released yesterday.)
A society that only satisfies the lowest common denominator is no society I'd want to live in. foobar is targeted at digital audio fans ...and of course every digital audio fan worth their salt has at least 100,000 files. </sarcasm>
I'm not saying that software should satisfy only the lowest common denominator, just that I suspect 150K files is a pretty severe abnormality even among music fans who love piracy. Personally, I very briefly tried foobar2k, and didn't feel like putting in the effort to figure out how to make it do what I want, so I just use other programs. And on normal-sized collections, they work plenty fine.
There are still a ton that don't toward the lower end of the price ranges for the corresponding size. I actually just bought a new TV myself -- and this is a $1K, 60" TV, so while it's pretty inexpensive for its size it's not a cheap television in a more absolute sense -- and I'm pretty sure it has nothing of that sort of feature.
s/keep/buy/ and you'll have it right.
I'd love a Tesla for round-the-city driving, don't get me wrong, but 300 miles is an awfully generous; that's in ideal weather (warm enough the batteries don't suffer and cool enough you can get away without A/C) and at 55mph. Who the hell drives long distances at 55 mph? I'm sure some people do, but most people who have to go that distance are able and choose to take an interstate and go much faster.
It's not at all hard to get to get an estimate of a maximum range of around 180 miles in poor but realistic situations. The worst their calculator supports is 65mph at 32 degrees with the heater on, and there it's 218 mph. What would it get if it was 20 degrees and you were going at 70 (like the speed limit on the Indiana and Ohio turnpikes)?
Actually I don't think my "counterexample" argument holds, because there would actually still be a sequence point at each call. You could change it to:
and the order in which the writes to the xs occur could be any, including, for example, x1, x3, x2, x4.
Check Annex C: there is no sequence point between evaluation of arguments, only after evaluation of all of the arguments is complete. (Note that the comma separating arguments aren't a comma operator.)
In addition, the standard explicitly states that it is not necessary to completely evaluate one argument before moving onto the next: "The order of evaluation of the function designator, the actual arguments, and subexpressions within the actual arguments is unspeciïed, but there is a sequence point before the actual call" (6.5.2.2/10 of C99 draft). This means, for example, that f(g1() + g2(), g3() + g4()) could be evaluated by calling the g# functions in any order (as each is a subexpression within the actual arguments), and if those functions produced side effects then that would be a counterexample to your claim that there is a sequence point between arguments.
If it were just up to the order of evaluation of the function arguments, then it would be unspecified. However, the program also modifies the same object twice without an intervening sequence point, and that puts it into undefined behavior territory (6.5/2, C99 draft standard).