The most popular systems are the ones that are generally exploited. The more popular a system is, the greater the number of vulnerable systems. When an exploit appears, it's invariably the users or developers who track it down and come up with a fix. There's not much you can do about morons who refuse to upgrade or patch.
You did know that the story of Abraham and Isaac was intended to explain why the Hebrew deity doesn't require child sacrifice, right?
I have to ask, because even though the majority of rabbis and historians of the Ancient Near East (both religious and otherwise) since mediaeval times have known this, both those who believed it's historical and those who didn't, some people still don't seem to get it.
The trouble with your challenge is the word "deliberately", which could be used as a way out of any example of disadvantage.
There are a large number of indigenous Australians who live in very remote areas, and have far less access to medicine, decent housing, basic sanitation and so on. You could argue that this disadvantage is not deliberate. You may even be right; a lot of the infrastructure gap is indeed due to incompetence and ignorance rather than deliberate racism. You could argue that anyone who lives similarly remotely has the same problems. You might be right about that, too. Nonetheless, it affects indigenous Australians disproportionately more than others, and that's cause for concern.
What you say is true. What you say also does not contradict anything that Psychotria said. People like John Green and Anne Bon were outnumbered, but they did exist.
The suggestion that everyone should be forced to cooperate in the national Prisoner's Dilemma game is controversial, but not that controversial. You are individually better off if you defect, but everyone is better off if everyone cooperates.
I think I'm also against the zeitgeist, at least on those other use cases. I'm pretty sure that the only deployed driverless vehicles in existence are ones which operate at low-speed or in a closed environment (e.g. closed tracks or rails) where the problem is tractable and the risk of an accident is minimal.
Bingo. The US has spent years phasing out land mines, and if it wasn't for the Korean DMZ, it would be a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty. It would be a backwards step if they built new weapons where humans do not make the targeting decision.
It's trivially correct, in that what we invent is always on the fringes of what we've already invented. As we invent more, there's even more to invent.
But I suspect that it depends how you define "new tech". When I think of the tech invented in the last 20 years which has made it to the consumer, the vast majority of it seems incremental, at least to me. What is truly impressive isn't inventions, but products, which is arguably the way it's supposed to be.
Sure, there have been inventions and discoveries in the past, but they've been faster and more impressive under our current patent regime than at any time before.
You think? Surely the rate of truly groundbreaking invention and discovery was faster and more impressive a hundred years ago.
I don't know which planet you live on, but that doesn't accurately describe most Arab-majority states. You've never, I wager, heard "death to the western devils" come out of the mouth of any official from Oman, Qatar, the UAE...
The first edition predates Win95 by... a lot. I remember reading it in 1988.
Petzold's problem is also its strength: It teaches the Windows API extremely well, but requires that you already be a good programmer with good taste, otherwise all the API isn't all you'll learn. You'll also learn a lot of bad habits.
On the other hand, if the information in the cables isn't released, people who have already committed actual crimes will go unpunished.
It's unfortunate that they weren't redacted before release, but the genie is out of the bottle now. I'll wager that evil dictator governments, amoral multinational corporations, organised crime gangs and terrorist organisations won't be getting their copy from the Slashdot comments.
It's been a year, and so far, nobody has died as a result of the leaked cables. Not saying it won't happen, but it hasn't happened so far.
On the other hand, the cables contain information about people who have been murdered. These crimes would not be known, nor their murderers known, were it not for the release of the cables. So you seem to be advocating the cover-up an actual crime to potentially stop a future, theoretical crime. That'd be a great one for an undergraduate philosophy class to work through.
Um, no. It means "don't do silly things like comparing two floats for equality".
There were no equality comparisons in any code snippets so far. But as an aside, this piece of advice is wrong.
Floats are never going to be accurate - you can't shoehorn a real into a finite format.
And so is this.
You can, for example, store a 32-bit integer in an IEEE-754 double-precision floating point number and do arithmetic and do equality comparisons in perfect safety.
Heck, even comparing (10 * a) calculated one place with (10 * a) calculated somewhere else for absolute equality isn't guaranteed to be true - the compiler might do different optimizations, perhaps calling a subroutine for the second calculation because there must be a branch anyhow, or too few spare registers to do an inline optimization.
If a == a, then 10*a == 10*a. If not, your floating point implementation is non-compliant.
Yes, this does indeed mean that many common "optimisations" used on 8087 ISA derivatives are technically non-compliant, because of the incorrectly rounded 80 bit intermediates. SSE does not have this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The most popular systems are the ones that are generally exploited. The more popular a system is, the greater the number of vulnerable systems. When an exploit appears, it's invariably the users or developers who track it down and come up with a fix. There's not much you can do about morons who refuse to upgrade or patch.
You did know that the story of Abraham and Isaac was intended to explain why the Hebrew deity doesn't require child sacrifice, right?
I have to ask, because even though the majority of rabbis and historians of the Ancient Near East (both religious and otherwise) since mediaeval times have known this, both those who believed it's historical and those who didn't, some people still don't seem to get it.
The trouble with your challenge is the word "deliberately", which could be used as a way out of any example of disadvantage.
There are a large number of indigenous Australians who live in very remote areas, and have far less access to medicine, decent housing, basic sanitation and so on. You could argue that this disadvantage is not deliberate. You may even be right; a lot of the infrastructure gap is indeed due to incompetence and ignorance rather than deliberate racism. You could argue that anyone who lives similarly remotely has the same problems. You might be right about that, too. Nonetheless, it affects indigenous Australians disproportionately more than others, and that's cause for concern.
What you say is true. What you say also does not contradict anything that Psychotria said. People like John Green and Anne Bon were outnumbered, but they did exist.
The suggestion that everyone should be forced to cooperate in the national Prisoner's Dilemma game is controversial, but not that controversial. You are individually better off if you defect, but everyone is better off if everyone cooperates.
I think I'm also against the zeitgeist, at least on those other use cases. I'm pretty sure that the only deployed driverless vehicles in existence are ones which operate at low-speed or in a closed environment (e.g. closed tracks or rails) where the problem is tractable and the risk of an accident is minimal.
Incidentally, history is repeating itself. If you've never read the classic paper by David Lorge Parnas about his time on the SDI committee, do it now. It's sobering.
Bingo. The US has spent years phasing out land mines, and if it wasn't for the Korean DMZ, it would be a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty. It would be a backwards step if they built new weapons where humans do not make the targeting decision.
Not available anywhere near where I live, but thanks for the tip.
100 years ago was before State Street.
I checked out four of my local microbreweries just to check, and they only sell bottles or kegs. Admittedly, using a keg for this would be awesome.
It's trivially correct, in that what we invent is always on the fringes of what we've already invented. As we invent more, there's even more to invent.
But I suspect that it depends how you define "new tech". When I think of the tech invented in the last 20 years which has made it to the consumer, the vast majority of it seems incremental, at least to me. What is truly impressive isn't inventions, but products, which is arguably the way it's supposed to be.
You think? Surely the rate of truly groundbreaking invention and discovery was faster and more impressive a hundred years ago.
I don't know which planet you live on, but that doesn't accurately describe most Arab-majority states. You've never, I wager, heard "death to the western devils" come out of the mouth of any official from Oman, Qatar, the UAE...
The first edition predates Win95 by... a lot. I remember reading it in 1988.
Petzold's problem is also its strength: It teaches the Windows API extremely well, but requires that you already be a good programmer with good taste, otherwise all the API isn't all you'll learn. You'll also learn a lot of bad habits.
Here's the latest one.
Assange has claimed responsibility for a death? Whose?
I don't know if he's committed an actual crime or not, and unless you're the troll account for one of two particular Swedish women, neither do you.
[citation needed]
On the other hand, if the information in the cables isn't released, people who have already committed actual crimes will go unpunished.
It's unfortunate that they weren't redacted before release, but the genie is out of the bottle now. I'll wager that evil dictator governments, amoral multinational corporations, organised crime gangs and terrorist organisations won't be getting their copy from the Slashdot comments.
It's been a year, and so far, nobody has died as a result of the leaked cables. Not saying it won't happen, but it hasn't happened so far.
On the other hand, the cables contain information about people who have been murdered. These crimes would not be known, nor their murderers known, were it not for the release of the cables. So you seem to be advocating the cover-up an actual crime to potentially stop a future, theoretical crime. That'd be a great one for an undergraduate philosophy class to work through.
That's not password protected. This is:
If,you,don''t,know,the,password,is,D0m$hit,do,not,read,on
I'm here as prior art if you need it.
Um, no. It means "don't do silly things like comparing two floats for equality".
There were no equality comparisons in any code snippets so far. But as an aside, this piece of advice is wrong.
Floats are never going to be accurate - you can't shoehorn a real into a finite format.
And so is this.
You can, for example, store a 32-bit integer in an IEEE-754 double-precision floating point number and do arithmetic and do equality comparisons in perfect safety.
Heck, even comparing (10 * a) calculated one place with (10 * a) calculated somewhere else for absolute equality isn't guaranteed to be true - the compiler might do different optimizations, perhaps calling a subroutine for the second calculation because there must be a branch anyhow, or too few spare registers to do an inline optimization.
If a == a, then 10*a == 10*a. If not, your floating point implementation is non-compliant.
Yes, this does indeed mean that many common "optimisations" used on 8087 ISA derivatives are technically non-compliant, because of the incorrectly rounded 80 bit intermediates. SSE does not have this problem.
(And we're not talking micro-rounding discrepancies here)
Translation: "Care to back that up with an example of where X and Y are not the same, leaving aside the cases where X and Y are not the same?"
A likely cause for your confusion is that it's not intuitive for everyone that x *= 10 is the same as x += 9x
Especially people who understand floating point, where it isn't the same.