As for the specific example (dst - src >= len):
Comparing against a dst - len operation would require an intptr_t that as you pointed out is optional.
dst - src requires a ptrdiff_t type that isn't optional in C99 and can be found in stddef.h
This is correct, however it is undefined behaviour to compare two pointers to different objects. In particular, C is intended to support environments where objects are allocated as segments and can be relocated in a linear address space (I work on one such architecture and wrote the C compiler for it, though we actually do support this idiom because so much real-world code depends on it). In such an environment (which includes the version of C that targets the CLR), there is no guarantee that the ordering of two objects in memory will be stable.
They occasionally undercut their competitors. The first flash iPods were cheaper than any other consumer device (including USB flash drives) with that much flash because Apple anticipated the demand and bought up an entire year's flash production capacity from several suppliers, getting a reasonable discount. No one else could get flash chips at close to the rate that Apple was paying for a while. More recently, they've used their cash reserves to build factories for suppliers in exchange for the first year of output from them. They end up paying less for chips than anyone else, and the suppliers then get to keep operating the factory and selling the output after Apple has moved on to wanting the newer process.
I think that they're a fad in the same way that 1990s smartphones were a fad: the technology to build good ones doesn't exist yet. A watch needs to have a battery that lasts long enough that I never accidentally forget to charge it and end up with it not working (my current one is on its second battery and the first one lasted about 5 years) and be light enough that I don't notice that I'm wearing it. I have both of those from a Skagen watch, but if I could keep those requirements then I'd find it very useful to have things like my day's calendar sync'd to the watch, to be able to use it with Bluetooth for two-factor authentication, to be able to use something like Apple Pay and leave my wallet at home, and so on. Make it a quarter the current thickness and make the battery last a week and I'll happily buy one, but that isn't possible yet.
The same thing was true of Smartphones. It was obvious before the iPhone that there were a lot of useful things that a Smartphone could do, but until LiIon batteries, low-power WiFi chipsets and screens improved to a certain point, the downsides outweight the benefits. The difference between the iPhone and the Apple Watch is that the iPhone was released at precisely the time when the technology made it possible to build the useful thing, whereas the Apple Watch appears to be 5-10 years too early.
1) Chances are that "counterfeit" was made in the same factory line as the "real" one.
There have been a lot of cases of third-party batteries being made to significantly lower standards. Often the counterfeit ones are the QA rejects from the real factory.
2) Nikon wouldn't know if you you were using the "real" one or not.
LiIon batteries must communicate with the charger, some communicate things like serial numbers so they can tell it's a fake. A common failure mode is for the battery to expand significantly, at which point it may be difficult to remove it from the camera without causing damage that was obviously not done by the battery and thereby invalidating your warranty.
3) Relying on corporations to be sympathetic is pretty comical. Nikon doesn't care about you.
He's not relying on their sympathy, he's relying on consumer protection laws (you do have those in your country?). If I buy a battery from manufacturer A and put it in a device from manufacturer A, and it destroys the device, then it's clearly the responsibility of manufacturer A. If you buy a battery from A and it destroys a device from B then you're likely to have a lot of effort proving responsibility, and that's assuming that A is not some fly-by-night operator and still exists when you hit the problems.
As I understand the term, it's only a knockoff if it's attempting to portray itself as a different company's brand. Supermarket own brand ketchup is not a Heinz knockoff, even if it's made in the same factory with the same ingredients, because it's got someone else's name on it and isn't trying to pretend to be Heinz ketchup.
If the shoes cost $20 to make and you can get shoes for the same quality as Nike and manage to sell them for $40, making $20 profit on each one, then you shouldn't worry about putting your own brand name on them. You'll get good reviews and the value of your brand increases. The problem is when you make an inferior product and put someone else's name on it, because then you get the benefit from their reputation and they pay the cost when their reputation suffers because of the substandard goods.
Or you could have just used the ISO standard format, which also has the nice property that it's easy to sort: yyyy-mm-dd. ISO dates are big endian. UK dates are little endian. US dates are VAX byte order.
In my working closely with ARM, I honestly think that ARM Holdings does not view Intel as a competitor in most of their markets (though they were very happy when Intel's CEO announced that they were a serious competitor, as it made people start to take them seriously in the server space).
Intel doesn't sell SoCs that anyone else puts accelerators on. They tried, but no one wanted to join in. Intel doesn't sell anything comparable to an M or R-profile ARM core, which is well over half of all ARM cores sold. Actually, that's not true - they sell a load of M-profile ARM cores, but only inside other products.
Each part sold by an ARM licensee is royalty income for ARM and a lost sales prospect for Intel
Except for the 99% of ARM sales that are in markets where Intel doesn't sell a competing product. And, on the flip side, a lot of Intel chips contain ARM cores, so when Intel sells a chip ARM gets some money.
Kinda make you wonder why Apple didn't do this first really.
Because if Apple bought ARM, then everyone else would start looking very closely at other CPU vendors. A lot of the value of ARM comes from their size: they're not big enough to be a threat to any of their partners, but they're big enough that they can act as independent mediators between their partners. The ARM ecosystem is valuable because a lot of people contribute to it but no one really controls it (ARM Holdings controls the ISA).
If Apple bought them, then they'd suddenly stop being independent. At that point, MIPS (owned by another UK company) would suddenly look very attractive to companies like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung, and so on.
There have been a few studies recently (including one that was a/. front page) that link crime to perceptions of unfairness (which is not the same as inequality). People are far more likely to commit crimes against people that they feel have benefitted from an unfair situation that has harmed them.
removing the minimum wage would significantly impact the costs of basic services. If my food, daycare, house/lawn care, haircuts, etc. dropped by just 10% that would save me $6000 per year so this would be a wash for me.
It's quite difficult to form accurate hypotheses about what would happen if you removed the minimum wage and introduced UBI. Some jobs that tend to be low paying but enjoyed by the people that do them (hair dresser seems like a good example here) might become cheaper, but anything menial would suddenly find the bargaining position between employer and employee dramatically changed. The person in the menial job is no longer going to be out on the street if they don't work, they'll simply have less money available for luxuries. I'd expect to see a lot of jobs see increases in salary as no one wants to do them. If no one needed a job to live, how much do you think you'd have to pay people to clean toilets?
NYC is a horrendous example of regulatory capture by the taxi industry, so it's really a straw man in a discussion about Uber. If you want a better example, take a look at London. The black London taxis are regulated by an organisation that has a load of 'mystery shoppers' who will flag them down at random for trips. If they refuse to let the mystery shopper in (some of them look quite disreputable and they're drawn from various ethnic backgrounds) or doesn't take the most efficient route then the driver can lose their taxi license on the spot.
Try taking a taxi in Istanbul, where the taxis are poorly regulated. Get in and look like a tourist, the driver will happily quote you 10 times the normal rate, not bother turning on the meter, and then expect you to pay when you get there. In some cases, threatening violence if you don't. Much as I detest the medallion system, I'd much rather take a taxi in New York than Istanbul, though I'm even happier doing so somewhere like London where there is strong regulation without the crazy medallion system.
I wonder if May is being even more Machiavellian than usual here. There's some talk from MPs now about pushing for a referendum on whatever post-EU deal that the UK will end up with (i.e. a rerun of the referendum, but this time with the Leave campaign having to pick something concrete to campaign about). If you send Boris to piss off all of the world leaders, then you can guarantee that we'll end up with something that's pretty horrendous in comparison to the status quo.
Nice simple talking point. Just remember that in the USA the Southern states regarded ownership of slaves as a 'property right'. Is that where you think the government should draw the line (it's fine to own people)? If not, then what about putting them in the kind of indentured servitude where they're nominally not slaves but can't ever afford to leave or they'll starve to death?
Libertarians are the most boring of the political factions. At least the others want to make new mistakes.
And that's the point at which I'd suggest that you pick up a politics textbook before you continue your rants. The phrase to search for is 'written but not codified'.
Even that's not really true. By the late '90s, most of the code had been written by other contributors and I wouldn't say that Linux became 'wildly popular' until then, or possibly even the early 2000s.
Why should THEIR bus have said that? Jesus, you people really have no idea how to advertise, do you?
In this country, it's generally illegal to place advertisements that you know to be false.
The slogans are painting an EMOTIONAL picture - and the picture painted by the Brexit bus was this: "We're sending a ton of money to faceless bureaucrats across the channel. We should spend that money on Britons, here in Britain, instead!"
That's the point. If that were actually the choice, then they might have my support (though spending an extra £6/week per capita won't actually do much) The accurate picture is that we have the choice between sending money to the EU and having a say in how it's spent, or sending (more) money to the EU and having no say in how it's spent. I doubt many people would have voted for the second if they'd understood that this is what they were voting for.
Nope, you don't have to repeal EU-mandated laws for leaving the EU, they have become national legislation and they can be cancelled or modified whenever the Parliament wants to
You're missing the point. You have to repeal the law that says that you can't deprive people of their EU citizenship without their consent to be able to legally invoke Article 50, because Article 50 mandates that the country invoking it must follow its own constitutional requirements before invoking it. You can't repeal these laws as long as you are a member of the EU, because the EU guarantees these rights.
Slashdot Mirror
As for the specific example (dst - src >= len): Comparing against a dst - len operation would require an intptr_t that as you pointed out is optional. dst - src requires a ptrdiff_t type that isn't optional in C99 and can be found in stddef.h
This is correct, however it is undefined behaviour to compare two pointers to different objects. In particular, C is intended to support environments where objects are allocated as segments and can be relocated in a linear address space (I work on one such architecture and wrote the C compiler for it, though we actually do support this idiom because so much real-world code depends on it). In such an environment (which includes the version of C that targets the CLR), there is no guarantee that the ordering of two objects in memory will be stable.
They occasionally undercut their competitors. The first flash iPods were cheaper than any other consumer device (including USB flash drives) with that much flash because Apple anticipated the demand and bought up an entire year's flash production capacity from several suppliers, getting a reasonable discount. No one else could get flash chips at close to the rate that Apple was paying for a while. More recently, they've used their cash reserves to build factories for suppliers in exchange for the first year of output from them. They end up paying less for chips than anyone else, and the suppliers then get to keep operating the factory and selling the output after Apple has moved on to wanting the newer process.
You don't need Paypal to do this. You can send SMS to most landlines and the message will be read out by a computerised voice.
I think that they're a fad in the same way that 1990s smartphones were a fad: the technology to build good ones doesn't exist yet. A watch needs to have a battery that lasts long enough that I never accidentally forget to charge it and end up with it not working (my current one is on its second battery and the first one lasted about 5 years) and be light enough that I don't notice that I'm wearing it. I have both of those from a Skagen watch, but if I could keep those requirements then I'd find it very useful to have things like my day's calendar sync'd to the watch, to be able to use it with Bluetooth for two-factor authentication, to be able to use something like Apple Pay and leave my wallet at home, and so on. Make it a quarter the current thickness and make the battery last a week and I'll happily buy one, but that isn't possible yet.
The same thing was true of Smartphones. It was obvious before the iPhone that there were a lot of useful things that a Smartphone could do, but until LiIon batteries, low-power WiFi chipsets and screens improved to a certain point, the downsides outweight the benefits. The difference between the iPhone and the Apple Watch is that the iPhone was released at precisely the time when the technology made it possible to build the useful thing, whereas the Apple Watch appears to be 5-10 years too early.
1) Chances are that "counterfeit" was made in the same factory line as the "real" one.
There have been a lot of cases of third-party batteries being made to significantly lower standards. Often the counterfeit ones are the QA rejects from the real factory.
2) Nikon wouldn't know if you you were using the "real" one or not.
LiIon batteries must communicate with the charger, some communicate things like serial numbers so they can tell it's a fake. A common failure mode is for the battery to expand significantly, at which point it may be difficult to remove it from the camera without causing damage that was obviously not done by the battery and thereby invalidating your warranty.
3) Relying on corporations to be sympathetic is pretty comical. Nikon doesn't care about you.
He's not relying on their sympathy, he's relying on consumer protection laws (you do have those in your country?). If I buy a battery from manufacturer A and put it in a device from manufacturer A, and it destroys the device, then it's clearly the responsibility of manufacturer A. If you buy a battery from A and it destroys a device from B then you're likely to have a lot of effort proving responsibility, and that's assuming that A is not some fly-by-night operator and still exists when you hit the problems.
As I understand the term, it's only a knockoff if it's attempting to portray itself as a different company's brand. Supermarket own brand ketchup is not a Heinz knockoff, even if it's made in the same factory with the same ingredients, because it's got someone else's name on it and isn't trying to pretend to be Heinz ketchup.
If the shoes cost $20 to make and you can get shoes for the same quality as Nike and manage to sell them for $40, making $20 profit on each one, then you shouldn't worry about putting your own brand name on them. You'll get good reviews and the value of your brand increases. The problem is when you make an inferior product and put someone else's name on it, because then you get the benefit from their reputation and they pay the cost when their reputation suffers because of the substandard goods.
Or you could have just used the ISO standard format, which also has the nice property that it's easy to sort: yyyy-mm-dd. ISO dates are big endian. UK dates are little endian. US dates are VAX byte order.
Someone clearly isn't a J. J. Abrams fan...
In my working closely with ARM, I honestly think that ARM Holdings does not view Intel as a competitor in most of their markets (though they were very happy when Intel's CEO announced that they were a serious competitor, as it made people start to take them seriously in the server space).
Intel doesn't sell SoCs that anyone else puts accelerators on. They tried, but no one wanted to join in. Intel doesn't sell anything comparable to an M or R-profile ARM core, which is well over half of all ARM cores sold. Actually, that's not true - they sell a load of M-profile ARM cores, but only inside other products.
Each part sold by an ARM licensee is royalty income for ARM and a lost sales prospect for Intel
Except for the 99% of ARM sales that are in markets where Intel doesn't sell a competing product. And, on the flip side, a lot of Intel chips contain ARM cores, so when Intel sells a chip ARM gets some money.
Kinda make you wonder why Apple didn't do this first really.
Because if Apple bought ARM, then everyone else would start looking very closely at other CPU vendors. A lot of the value of ARM comes from their size: they're not big enough to be a threat to any of their partners, but they're big enough that they can act as independent mediators between their partners. The ARM ecosystem is valuable because a lot of people contribute to it but no one really controls it (ARM Holdings controls the ISA).
If Apple bought them, then they'd suddenly stop being independent. At that point, MIPS (owned by another UK company) would suddenly look very attractive to companies like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung, and so on.
There have been a few studies recently (including one that was a /. front page) that link crime to perceptions of unfairness (which is not the same as inequality). People are far more likely to commit crimes against people that they feel have benefitted from an unfair situation that has harmed them.
The long comment modifier is configurable. I have it set to give a bonus to long comments, you apparently have it set to penalise them.
removing the minimum wage would significantly impact the costs of basic services. If my food, daycare, house/lawn care, haircuts, etc. dropped by just 10% that would save me $6000 per year so this would be a wash for me.
It's quite difficult to form accurate hypotheses about what would happen if you removed the minimum wage and introduced UBI. Some jobs that tend to be low paying but enjoyed by the people that do them (hair dresser seems like a good example here) might become cheaper, but anything menial would suddenly find the bargaining position between employer and employee dramatically changed. The person in the menial job is no longer going to be out on the street if they don't work, they'll simply have less money available for luxuries. I'd expect to see a lot of jobs see increases in salary as no one wants to do them. If no one needed a job to live, how much do you think you'd have to pay people to clean toilets?
NYC is a horrendous example of regulatory capture by the taxi industry, so it's really a straw man in a discussion about Uber. If you want a better example, take a look at London. The black London taxis are regulated by an organisation that has a load of 'mystery shoppers' who will flag them down at random for trips. If they refuse to let the mystery shopper in (some of them look quite disreputable and they're drawn from various ethnic backgrounds) or doesn't take the most efficient route then the driver can lose their taxi license on the spot.
Try taking a taxi in Istanbul, where the taxis are poorly regulated. Get in and look like a tourist, the driver will happily quote you 10 times the normal rate, not bother turning on the meter, and then expect you to pay when you get there. In some cases, threatening violence if you don't. Much as I detest the medallion system, I'd much rather take a taxi in New York than Istanbul, though I'm even happier doing so somewhere like London where there is strong regulation without the crazy medallion system.
Boris Johnson is the best bit, however
I wonder if May is being even more Machiavellian than usual here. There's some talk from MPs now about pushing for a referendum on whatever post-EU deal that the UK will end up with (i.e. a rerun of the referendum, but this time with the Leave campaign having to pick something concrete to campaign about). If you send Boris to piss off all of the world leaders, then you can guarantee that we'll end up with something that's pretty horrendous in comparison to the status quo.
Nice simple talking point. Just remember that in the USA the Southern states regarded ownership of slaves as a 'property right'. Is that where you think the government should draw the line (it's fine to own people)? If not, then what about putting them in the kind of indentured servitude where they're nominally not slaves but can't ever afford to leave or they'll starve to death?
Libertarians are the most boring of the political factions. At least the others want to make new mistakes.
And the UK doesn't even have a real constitution
And that's the point at which I'd suggest that you pick up a politics textbook before you continue your rants. The phrase to search for is 'written but not codified'.
Even that's not really true. By the late '90s, most of the code had been written by other contributors and I wouldn't say that Linux became 'wildly popular' until then, or possibly even the early 2000s.
Why should THEIR bus have said that? Jesus, you people really have no idea how to advertise, do you?
In this country, it's generally illegal to place advertisements that you know to be false.
The slogans are painting an EMOTIONAL picture - and the picture painted by the Brexit bus was this: "We're sending a ton of money to faceless bureaucrats across the channel. We should spend that money on Britons, here in Britain, instead!"
That's the point. If that were actually the choice, then they might have my support (though spending an extra £6/week per capita won't actually do much) The accurate picture is that we have the choice between sending money to the EU and having a say in how it's spent, or sending (more) money to the EU and having no say in how it's spent. I doubt many people would have voted for the second if they'd understood that this is what they were voting for.
Nope, you don't have to repeal EU-mandated laws for leaving the EU, they have become national legislation and they can be cancelled or modified whenever the Parliament wants to
You're missing the point. You have to repeal the law that says that you can't deprive people of their EU citizenship without their consent to be able to legally invoke Article 50, because Article 50 mandates that the country invoking it must follow its own constitutional requirements before invoking it. You can't repeal these laws as long as you are a member of the EU, because the EU guarantees these rights.
Not me, I want a pony.
Here you go. I'd also prefer it to Rust.