Maybe to protect yourself against the government should it decide to throw out the constitution?
The government already has decided to throw out the constitution (PATRIOT act, war on drugs, take your pick). And gun ownership has helped... how, exactly?
Haskell is not known for raw speed, but dynamic programming is probably the one thing it does well, thanks to lazy evaluation. You fill a CAF with unevaluated function calls, and the language engine does the rest. It won't be as fast as the hand-crafted C++ version, most likely, but if your O'Caml code is anything to go by, it might be able to be improved.
It is impossible for one language to be faster than another language. At best, you can talk about specific programs running with specific language implementations. The assertion is even more silly when talking about ML vs C++, because ideomatic ML has very little in common with ideomatic C++ and vice versa, so talking about implementing "the same program" under two different implementations of two different languages is a difficult task which almost nobody has done under proper research conditions, and when they have, it's almost always on toy problems.
ML is a nice language. Well, O'Caml is, anyway. But C++ is also a nice language when you get to know it. I should know. I also used to call it a horrible kludge until I actually wrote something nontrivial in it using modern C++ development techniques. I still dissent from C++, but I don't disrespect it any more.
I find Boost's excessive use of templates impenetrable.
One of the things about generic programming is that it's hard to design generic, reusable code, but it's not difficult to use. The STL is a good example. Many C++ programmers don't know what an iterator category is, but don't find it difficult to use std::vector.
The iostreams library is another good example. Many people don't truly understand it, but using it isn't so bad.
What good is it that your driver's license was on file?
In the unlikely case that you mention, it's no good. This is true. But in the more likely case, it's a disincentive for you to use the rented car to commit a crime.
But then again: if you are in an accident, you *have* to show your driver's license [...]
That depends on the jurisdiction. In many countries, you don't even need to call the police unless someone is injured.
It's one thing to say "do you have a license? and can I see if it's valid?" it's another thing to say "I will now log your driver's license into our database".
If you break the law in a rental car, like running a red light or hitting a pedestrian, the police must to be able to match up the driver (and their licence) to the perpetrator. For this reason, and for the specific case of renting a car, I don't have a problem with handing over my driver's licence details.
OTOH, I would not want to have to show photo ID before I could use a taxi.
John Gilmour's main point, though, is that secret law is an abomination. With this, I agree wholeheartedly.
The elementary particle of light, or photon, has energy of hf - that is, planck's constant multiplied by the frequency of the light. As we can use Einstein's equation E=mc^2 to link energy and mass, thus a quantity of light has mass.
The famous equation should be more correctly written E = m_0 c^2, where m_0 is the rest mass. A photon is never at rest, and hence has no rest mass.
The relativistic equation for the kinetic energy of an object is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. Since a photon has zero mass, all of its kinetic energy is in its momentum.
No. Planck's constant gives the amount of energy carried by (and hence gives a meaning to the momentum of) a photon of a certain frequency. Its units are Joule-seconds, which is not a unit of energy. Since the frequency of a photon can be arbitrarily low, so can its energy.
Since the basses don't play until the last movement, they went across the street to a bar to have a few drinks while they waited. After getting roaring drunk, they returned to finish the piece.
I said "back to the double bar", not "double back to the bar"!
Re:So what's the big deal for the rest of us?
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Re:So what's the big deal for the rest of us?
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Essentially, don't sign anything that someone else has given you without changing it in some way, or your signature might also apply to some other document they have chosen.
Right, this is important.
Decent digital signature protocols (as opposed to just the algorithms) require that you hash more than just the document. For example, you might pick a small amount of random data ("salt"), add that to the message, hash the combination and sign that. You then put the salt in the signature packet so that your signature can be verified.
OpenPGP, for example, requires that certain signature subpackets be part of the hash, such as the signature creation time. It probably should require random salt.
While I'd argue that global variables are usually a bad idea, I don't see a reason agaist file-scope variables.
Because you can't use a global variable without it first being initialised, and C++ doesn't guarantee an initialisation order for static variables. That's actually the primary argument for singletons: You decide when the singleton object is initialised.
By the way, the initialisation order problem is even worse for shared libraries, especially in the presence of multiple threads.
Many lighthouses, especially those on remote islands, are also manned weather stations and occasionally conservation research stations too. If you need to do the weather collection and conservation research, it's often just as easy to operate the lighthouse too.
Slashdot Mirror
"Literally"? Wow! I'd love to work for an airborne company! Anyone got an address for them? No, probably not...
Sorry. I'm not usually given to pedantry, but the mental image was too amusing.
You should check out EROS, which is an open source OS based on KeyKOS (but updated a bit).
Damn, beat me to it. Guess it's up to me to mention Hitler, then.
I was thinking more of The Iron Giant, which is an animation geek's delight.
Admit it: You just wanted to use the word "foxylicious" in a slashdot thread.
If I ever write a web browser, it's going to be called "boot".
The government already has decided to throw out the constitution (PATRIOT act, war on drugs, take your pick). And gun ownership has helped... how, exactly?
Was it on a triple word score?
A corporation can't tell its shareholders what not to do.
Can we see your Haskell code?
Haskell is not known for raw speed, but dynamic programming is probably the one thing it does well, thanks to lazy evaluation. You fill a CAF with unevaluated function calls, and the language engine does the rest. It won't be as fast as the hand-crafted C++ version, most likely, but if your O'Caml code is anything to go by, it might be able to be improved.
I would have thought that slashdotters of all people should know the difference between seismic activity and tidal forces.
Oh, I forgot the most obvious one...
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
No it's not.
It is impossible for one language to be faster than another language. At best, you can talk about specific programs running with specific language implementations. The assertion is even more silly when talking about ML vs C++, because ideomatic ML has very little in common with ideomatic C++ and vice versa, so talking about implementing "the same program" under two different implementations of two different languages is a difficult task which almost nobody has done under proper research conditions, and when they have, it's almost always on toy problems.
ML is a nice language. Well, O'Caml is, anyway. But C++ is also a nice language when you get to know it. I should know. I also used to call it a horrible kludge until I actually wrote something nontrivial in it using modern C++ development techniques. I still dissent from C++, but I don't disrespect it any more.
One of the things about generic programming is that it's hard to design generic, reusable code, but it's not difficult to use. The STL is a good example. Many C++ programmers don't know what an iterator category is, but don't find it difficult to use std::vector.
The iostreams library is another good example. Many people don't truly understand it, but using it isn't so bad.
I know you want to forget Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but I suppose, also, that it doesn't really count as a "hit".
Shrek was largely targeted at older kids, though it did have something for the younger ones, too.
I run it in 640kb which, after all, should be enough for anybody.
In the unlikely case that you mention, it's no good. This is true. But in the more likely case, it's a disincentive for you to use the rented car to commit a crime.
That depends on the jurisdiction. In many countries, you don't even need to call the police unless someone is injured.
If you break the law in a rental car, like running a red light or hitting a pedestrian, the police must to be able to match up the driver (and their licence) to the perpetrator. For this reason, and for the specific case of renting a car, I don't have a problem with handing over my driver's licence details.
OTOH, I would not want to have to show photo ID before I could use a taxi.
John Gilmour's main point, though, is that secret law is an abomination. With this, I agree wholeheartedly.
The famous equation should be more correctly written E = m_0 c^2, where m_0 is the rest mass. A photon is never at rest, and hence has no rest mass.
The relativistic equation for the kinetic energy of an object is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. Since a photon has zero mass, all of its kinetic energy is in its momentum.
No. Planck's constant gives the amount of energy carried by (and hence gives a meaning to the momentum of) a photon of a certain frequency. Its units are Joule-seconds, which is not a unit of energy. Since the frequency of a photon can be arbitrarily low, so can its energy.
I said "back to the double bar", not "double back to the bar"!
"Postpend" in the case of OpenPGP, but yes.
Hook, line, sinker and copy of Angling Times.
Right, this is important.
Decent digital signature protocols (as opposed to just the algorithms) require that you hash more than just the document. For example, you might pick a small amount of random data ("salt"), add that to the message, hash the combination and sign that. You then put the salt in the signature packet so that your signature can be verified.
OpenPGP, for example, requires that certain signature subpackets be part of the hash, such as the signature creation time. It probably should require random salt.
Because you can't use a global variable without it first being initialised, and C++ doesn't guarantee an initialisation order for static variables. That's actually the primary argument for singletons: You decide when the singleton object is initialised.
By the way, the initialisation order problem is even worse for shared libraries, especially in the presence of multiple threads.
Many lighthouses, especially those on remote islands, are also manned weather stations and occasionally conservation research stations too. If you need to do the weather collection and conservation research, it's often just as easy to operate the lighthouse too.