I respectfully disagree. I like the MacOS/Windows approach much better. Why? Very often, I found myself replacing existing text with something from the clipboard. With the X system, selecting the text that I want to be replaced puts it in the clipboard, discarding whatever was there. With the Windows system, I just select it and press CTRL-V (or right mouse button -> paste if I'm too lazy to move my hand to the keyboard). Very efficient, with my left hand on the keyboard to operate CTRL-X/C/V and the right hand on the mouse for selecting text.
Can you be a little more specific? Nowhere on that page do I see something that contradicts that statement. I also don't see anything that supports it , though.
Now you're doing it. "parsecmdlinE"? Don't be silly.
That was, admittely, a contrived example. But really, there are silly people out there. One of them might be one of your co-workers.
As for the other questions, yeah, it's fine by me. Because I'll go see what "parsecmdline" actually IS, rather than guessing based on how they typed it.
In my experience, code tends to be a lot less readable if the same identifier is written in different ways. Sure you can go look and see what it really is, but it's a lot easier if you can see it just by glancing over it. And as other posters have mentioned, it's more important for code to be easy to read than easy to write.
I have friends who prefer all caps. They find all lowercase difficult to read. Their preference is equally valid. I don't feel the need to impose my preference on anyone else, I prefer to let the user make a choice.
Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhh
So according to you it's perfectly fine if you use ParseCmdLine in a program, another programmer uses parsecmdline, yet another uses PARSECMDLINE and a fourth one writes parsecmdlinE, all in the same program? Now it's difficult to read for everybody. Just great. As long as you're the only author you can do whatever you want, but for any project that's larger than that there needs to be some kind of agreement. A case sensitive compiler is not enough of course, but IMO it surely helps.
It's like driving on the left side or the right side of the road. Some prefer left, some prefer right; but more important than any person's preference is that we all agree to drive on the same side of the road.
Both the Poles and the British intercepted an Enigma machine. You can read the whole story on Wikipedia; in a nutshell: the Poles intercepted a commercial non-military version well before the start of the war. It was however close enough in construction to be useful in understanding how to decrypt Enigma's messages. In '39 the Germans started to use more advanced versions, and the Navy used even more advanced versions. Therefore the British tried (successfully) to capture a Navy version from a U-boat.
You're probably to view the pictures in an crossed-eye fashion while they're intended to be viewed with the parallel method. Vice-versa would give the same result, but I think most pictures are meant to be viewed parallel.
Re:Using standards saves time
on
XForms Essentials
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sounds familiar... didn't you write almost the same comment a few months ago? I don't remember what story it was, something about CSS I guess.
Mind you, I'm not complaining. Your comment is on-topic, informative and perhaps also insightful, and even if I'm right and you posted this before, you're still much less redundant than the/. editors.
Of course, I never meant to suggest that Linux 2.6 had the same kind of multitasking as Windows 3.x. I know that Linux has had preemptive multitasking for a very long time, even since the very beginning I suppose.
It is important to remember that a process can be stopped in the middle of its timeslice; this is the purpose of preemption.
The purpose of preemption is not to stop processes in the middle of their timeslice; the purpose is to stop them when the scheduler decides to, not only when the process itself decides to give another process a chance to run. The latter is called cooperative multitasking, and is used in Windows 3.x and MacOS prior to X.
Timeslices are used in order to implement preemption: a process stops either when it blocks (waiting for I/O) or otherwise voluntarily gives up the rest of its timeslice, or when it's timeslice is used up.
About the article in general: I'm surprised about the dumbing down. Other articles on Ars, including but not limited to the series about processor technologies (e.g. the one about hyperthreading) are much more thorough and detailed.
When I said 'this is just a very awkward way...', I was referring to the scheme in your post's parent. Wich, as you demonstrated, doesn't have any added value. So I think you and I are saying the same thing here.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. Floating point numbers have such a large range because the fact that their point is floating gives them dynamic precision. That means that small numbers are very precise, while large numbers have much less precision.
Think about it: a 32-bit floating point number can not possible have more different states than a 32-bit integer, yet it spans a much much larger range. It does so by sacrificing precision for large numbers.
Just try it:
#include <stdio.h> int main(void) {
float a = 4e9;
float b = 4.3;
printf("%f\t%f\t%f\n", a, b, a+b);
return 0; }
So the tag bits have to be 00 or 01 for even integers and 10 or 11 for odd integers.
In other words, this is just a very awkward way of doing exactly the same: there are still 31 bits for the integer, and one bit for tagging or whatever.
Hey, a had he same problem 4-5 years ago in NT 4. Refused to run any 16-bit application. Very inconvenient, since a *lot* of installers were 16 bit at the time. Nobody knew how to solve the problem; fortunately it was magically solved when a new service pack came out and I installed it.
Yes, there is backscatter, but that doesn't proof that there was a DDoS attack.
Yes, there are Christmas presents, but that doesn't proof that Santa Claus exists.
It also doesn't disprove either, that's true. Personally I think there's a fairly high chance they're telling the truth, but that would be a sign of alarming incompetence for a company selling operating systems.
Perhaps you also need to define better what kind of location you want people to enter. You ask for a city, but I don't live in a city. I entered the name of the municipality I live in, because that's a commonly used indication of location here in Belgium. But perhaps I should have entered the name of a nearby city?
Just an idea, maybe you could use Wikipedia's lists of locations, such as its list of Flemish municipalities instead of letting users choose them by themselves.
Also, how do you handle ISP's with dynamic IP's? Especially with dial-up, the same IP can be in totally different locations on different times.
I understand that GA -O1 uses all the flags included in -O1 (those should never be removed) plus zero or more other flags. GA -O3 includes all -O3 flags plus zero or more other flags. Since -O3 is a superset of -O1, GA -O1 should be able to find any solution that is found by -O3.
Apparently it doesn't, but I have no clue what that means. Not enough generations? Found a local maximum and can't get out of it? But it happens in almost all cases.
What surprises me the most is that the author doesn't mention it anywhere. Surely he must have seen it, as he's quite thorough in analyzing the results.
I am asuming that you are from America so this might come as a shock to you, but apart from South Korea and small pockets of teenagers in eastern Canada, almost everyone outside the US hates the US. This is why you have heard so much bitching over the interent, because 5.9 Billion people are pissed off.
Very few people in Europe hate the US. Even in Germany, France and Belgium very few hate the US, and we certainly don't hate people living there. We *do* think past and current US foreign policy stinks though.
Hm, we might be onto something here. We just need to figure out why scams were not common in the 17th, 16th, 14th, 13th and 12th centuries, and extrapolate it the the current situation. If necessary we can go back all the way to the 10th century and beyond.
Slashdot Mirror
I respectfully disagree. I like the MacOS/Windows approach much better. Why? Very often, I found myself replacing existing text with something from the clipboard. With the X system, selecting the text that I want to be replaced puts it in the clipboard, discarding whatever was there. With the Windows system, I just select it and press CTRL-V (or right mouse button -> paste if I'm too lazy to move my hand to the keyboard). Very efficient, with my left hand on the keyboard to operate CTRL-X/C/V and the right hand on the mouse for selecting text.
Can you be a little more specific? Nowhere on that page do I see something that contradicts that statement. I also don't see anything that supports it , though.
That was, admittely, a contrived example. But really, there are silly people out there. One of them might be one of your co-workers.
As for the other questions, yeah, it's fine by me. Because I'll go see what "parsecmdline" actually IS, rather than guessing based on how they typed it.
In my experience, code tends to be a lot less readable if the same identifier is written in different ways. Sure you can go look and see what it really is, but it's a lot easier if you can see it just by glancing over it. And as other posters have mentioned, it's more important for code to be easy to read than easy to write.
Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhh
So according to you it's perfectly fine if you use ParseCmdLine in a program, another programmer uses parsecmdline, yet another uses PARSECMDLINE and a fourth one writes parsecmdlinE, all in the same program? Now it's difficult to read for everybody. Just great. As long as you're the only author you can do whatever you want, but for any project that's larger than that there needs to be some kind of agreement. A case sensitive compiler is not enough of course, but IMO it surely helps.
It's like driving on the left side or the right side of the road. Some prefer left, some prefer right; but more important than any person's preference is that we all agree to drive on the same side of the road.
Both the Poles and the British intercepted an Enigma machine. You can read the whole story on Wikipedia; in a nutshell: the Poles intercepted a commercial non-military version well before the start of the war. It was however close enough in construction to be useful in understanding how to decrypt Enigma's messages. In '39 the Germans started to use more advanced versions, and the Navy used even more advanced versions. Therefore the British tried (successfully) to capture a Navy version from a U-boat.
You're probably to view the pictures in an crossed-eye fashion while they're intended to be viewed with the parallel method. Vice-versa would give the same result, but I think most pictures are meant to be viewed parallel.
Sounds familiar... didn't you write almost the same comment a few months ago? I don't remember what story it was, something about CSS I guess.
/. editors.
Mind you, I'm not complaining. Your comment is on-topic, informative and perhaps also insightful, and even if I'm right and you posted this before, you're still much less redundant than the
Of course, I never meant to suggest that Linux 2.6 had the same kind of multitasking as Windows 3.x. I know that Linux has had preemptive multitasking for a very long time, even since the very beginning I suppose.
Timeslices are used in order to implement preemption: a process stops either when it blocks (waiting for I/O) or otherwise voluntarily gives up the rest of its timeslice, or when it's timeslice is used up.
About the article in general: I'm surprised about the dumbing down. Other articles on Ars, including but not limited to the series about processor technologies (e.g. the one about hyperthreading) are much more thorough and detailed.
When I said 'this is just a very awkward way...', I was referring to the scheme in your post's parent. Wich, as you demonstrated, doesn't have any added value. So I think you and I are saying the same thing here.
Think about it: a 32-bit floating point number can not possible have more different states than a 32-bit integer, yet it spans a much much larger range. It does so by sacrificing precision for large numbers.
Just try it:Output:
4000000000.000000 4.300000 4000000000.000000
With doubles (64-bit floating point numbers) this example would work:gives 4000000000.000000 4.300000 4000000004.300000
typedef __kernel_time_t time_t;
http://lxr.linux.no/source/include/asm-i386/posix_ types.h?v=2.0.39, line 21:
typedef long __kernel_time_t;
It's defined as a long for the other architectures as well. AFAIK a long is 32 bits on all platforms Linux 2.0.39 runs on.
In other words, this is just a very awkward way of doing exactly the same: there are still 31 bits for the integer, and one bit for tagging or whatever.
Hey, a had he same problem 4-5 years ago in NT 4. Refused to run any 16-bit application. Very inconvenient, since a *lot* of installers were 16 bit at the time. Nobody knew how to solve the problem; fortunately it was magically solved when a new service pack came out and I installed it.
Hm. I figure many Windows-only persons would think it's all garbage even if their editor of choice could read the file perfectly.
On the contrary. Compare:
Yes, there is backscatter, but that doesn't proof that there was a DDoS attack.
Yes, there are Christmas presents, but that doesn't proof that Santa Claus exists.
It also doesn't disprove either, that's true. Personally I think there's a fairly high chance they're telling the truth, but that would be a sign of alarming incompetence for a company selling operating systems.
It's more like doing a wheelie and braking on the back wheel, without allowing the front wheel to touch the ground.
Just an idea, maybe you could use Wikipedia's lists of locations, such as its list of Flemish municipalities instead of letting users choose them by themselves.
Also, how do you handle ISP's with dynamic IP's? Especially with dial-up, the same IP can be in totally different locations on different times.
That's what I thought too.
I understand that GA -O1 uses all the flags included in -O1 (those should never be removed) plus zero or more other flags. GA -O3 includes all -O3 flags plus zero or more other flags. Since -O3 is a superset of -O1, GA -O1 should be able to find any solution that is found by -O3.
Apparently it doesn't, but I have no clue what that means. Not enough generations? Found a local maximum and can't get out of it? But it happens in almost all cases.
What surprises me the most is that the author doesn't mention it anywhere. Surely he must have seen it, as he's quite thorough in analyzing the results.
Or maybe he means the number of letters in the name of the month.
this page intentionally left blank
Perhaps people who know about the history can add a 'History' section on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_controller.
Very few people in Europe hate the US. Even in Germany, France and Belgium very few hate the US, and we certainly don't hate people living there. We *do* think past and current US foreign policy stinks though.
Hm, we might be onto something here. We just need to figure out why scams were not common in the 17th, 16th, 14th, 13th and 12th centuries, and extrapolate it the the current situation. If necessary we can go back all the way to the 10th century and beyond.
Eugenia Loli-Query or somesuch.