Sounds like a good way for Uber to end up in a lot of courts. If they thought that the lawsuits for violating various taxi laws were bad, wait until they see the ones for violating every variant implementation of the EU data protection directive...
The lack of seatbelts makes sense. If you're on a spaceship that can accelerate quickly enough to turn everyone into a fine paste and relies on inertial dampeners (adjustments of the artificial gravity) to prevent this, then there aren't many situations where you'll need a seatbelt: either the inertial dampeners are preventing you from needing them, or you're dead. The problem is that the drama needed the ship to seem to shake. It's the same issue as feeling the ship warm up as you get close to a star: it makes for good drama, but the difference between 'humans are comfortable' and 'humans are on fire' is tiny compared to the difference between 'humans are comfortable' and 'nuclear fusion is happening' - it's far more likely that the shields would work fine and no one would be discomforted right up until the point where much of the ship vaporised.
I was quite surprised by the numbers they had for the old model. On my 2014 MBP, I recently did some tests doing sha calculations of VM images. These were multithreaded and not CPU-bound, but they ended up getting almost 2GB/s reads from the SSD. The benchmark is interleaving reads and writes, so that may account for it, but if you're just loading game data from disk then the old model can fill the whole of physical RAM in 8 seconds, so I doubt that's the bottleneck.
If people are actually being killed, then as soon as you get near the house you're likely to hear screams / gunshots. If they're just being threatened, then you have time to plan something that has a good chance of having the victims survive. Well-trained police forces don't rush in guns blazing.
Step one, drive past the house - no sirens or lights, just see if there's anything odd. Step two, knock on a couple of the neighbours' doors - say that you've received a non-specific report of gunfire in the area, ask if they heard anything. Step three, from somewhere inconspicuous see if you can see in through the windows with binoculars. Step four, visit the nearest take-away and have someone in plain clothes take the food to the house pretending that they misread the number, look for signs of distress from the person answering the door. Step five, surround the house with armed officers at all exits and have someone in uniform knock on the front door and ask the person who answers to step outside - if they're refusing and showing signs of distress, then go in.
Or they could just forget all of their police training and pretend that their soldiers in enemy territory.
Racism is ok outside of the workplace? Thought not...
The workplace is special because it's somewhere where your freedom of association is limited. If you're being racist in a public place, I can leave or use my freedom of speech to tell you to shut up. If you're being racist in my house, I can ask you to leave (and call the police if you don't). If you're being racist in work, then my ability to do anything about it is limited by the management. If you are the management, then there's nothing that I can do about it except quit, and (depending on the state of the economy) that may hurt me more than you.
She sees the same absurdity in the "feminist" movement that I do.
The problem for feminists today is that their parents (or grandparents) won all of the easy battles. Now the only ones left are difficult and nuanced. Addressing them is hard - it's much easier to make up an easy target to attack than deal with real issues.
They don't admit to anything, but the fact that they're willing to pay to make the lawsuit go away counts for something. Precedent doesn't usually apply in a small claims court anyway (and magistrates tend to get a bit cranky with anyone trying to be a lawyer in one).
For most use cases I've found where MySQL is more appropriate than PostgreSQL, SQLite is better than either. For things where you actually want a real RDBMS, PostgreSQL usually wins.
Because needs grow. The entire point of the free version is to encourage people to use it for everything and then discover that their data has grown to over 10GB and they can either pay MS for the full version or spend a lot more migrating all of their data and software to something else. If you start out on PostgreSQL, then you don't have that issue.
When a class action suit is settled, if you are a member of the class then you should receive a letter asking if you want to opt in to the class. If not, then you don't get the money and are free to take it to court yourself. Opting out then turning up in a small claims court with a class action result and evidence of the value of your losses should get you a few hundred dollars fairly easily. If enough people do this, then it will discourage companies from offering too low settlements for class action suits. The cost for them to send someone to defend is sufficiently high that it's probably not worth it and small claims courts have a habit of ruling against people who don't turn up...
Exactly. There's a reason why 'no commercial use' licenses are generally best avoided: defining commercial use is hard. The problem for the FAA is that, traditionally, it's pretty easy with an aeroplane: if someone is paying you to fly the plane, it's commercial, otherwise it isn't. The distinction makes sense because you want tighter regulation on pilots who are going to fly with passengers, or for those passengers to definitely know that they're flying with a hobbyist at their own risk. For drones, it makes a lot less sense.
Well, fuck you Slashcode! Apparently I was using too many junk characters by having the temerity to post code snippets. Posting lots of mathematics also triggers it. Remember when this place used to be for nerds? Rather than try to work around the filter, I have placed the contents of my post here: http://pastebin.com/HtQXTnX0
I don't think I understand what you think you're trying to do. You can't make a cache flush a line that you're modifying with an atomic operation to RAM, because atomic ops require the value to be in cache. Given an n-way set associative cache, however, you can typically force cache flushes (without requiring special cache flush instructions) by writing N+1 values at cache-line offsets (e.g. at address X, X+64, X+128,...) repeatedly. This probably wouldn't trigger the rowhammer issues though, because it's up to the CPU which row it evicts each time and you'd end up repeatedly stalling on loads without bashing a single DRAM line. You might be able to do something similar with the nontemporal store instructions that Intel added in recent generations of processor...
It's not just about freedom, it's also about economics. Copying software (and music) is trivial. Writing software is hard (well, writing good software is, at least). With free software, you don't charge for copying, but you often do charge for writing the software in the first place. And, because of the relevant licenses, there's a large body of code that you can charge for fixing / extending / customising.
Huh? You want on-stack arrays, std::array gives you an on-stack array. You want to pass them to a function, a template function that takes std::array references would work fine.
The most ridiculous part of the summary is the part where she thinks that an Internet-connected system is secure if no one has physical access to it...
I think that the single USB-C port is going to be pretty annoying for the people who buy one this year, but it is likely to have the same effect as making the iMac USB only: provide a sufficiently large demand for USB-C devices that it makes sense for peripheral manufacturers to produce docking stations, displays that can provide power over USB-C, and so on. In a couple of years, I expect that there will be enough devices on the market handle breakout from a single USB-C connector that people buying laptops won't have a problem with it.
However, just like the original iMac, there's going to be a lead time where the only peripherals that you can connect reliably are (expensive) Apple-branded ones. If you remember the iMac launch, you'll recall that about a year later computer stores were full of USB stuff all in the same sort of translucent coloured plastic as the iMac to encourage iMac users to buy them, but a year after that the vast majority were bought to plug into non-Apple machines.
They tossed a port they really needed to keep: ethernet
Not with the latest version, Ethernet was gone several revisions ago. Most people really don't need it. I generally only use it at work, and leave the dongle connected to the Ethernet cable, so it's no harder to plug in than connecting the cable itself.
you must re-dongle the USB port (and you'd better hope you have some kind of mega-wire-spider so you can feed it power at the same time... and connect your USB stuff... and connect an external HDMI monitor...)
The idea is that you'll just have one cable coming from your monitor, providing power and a USB hub. Currently you can only get that with Thunderbolt from an Apple display, but a number of display manufacturers have signed up to do the same with USB-C. I'd love to be able to have a single cable to connect power, ethernet, display, keyboard and mouse to my laptop. About the only place where I connect more than one cable is at my own desk. I generally have to carry a dongle for projectors, because in most places they're VGA only (if you give a talk at Apple, they have an impressive array of adaptors connected to their projectors, for every display connector that Apple has ever sold. I really wished I'd lugged a G4 PowerMac tower with me to be able to use the ADC adaptor).
That's no different from closed source development. Do you think Microsoft or Apple care about the opinions of people who aren't going to buy their products? There is basically only one way to contribute to a closed source project: pay money to the developers. That works for open source too, but you can also produce code, documentation (please!), artwork, detailed and reproducible bug reports (please!). People who contribute in any of these ways are valuable to the project and their opinions should be considered. People who don't contribute anything are only valuable in the sense that they may eventually become contributors.
The difference between open source and closed development is that open source projects allow non-contributors to use the product for free, whereas most closed projects will use legal means to prevent this.
For HCI, this usually isn't difficult. There is a huge body of research that can be cited. Some of it changes. For example, we used to think that cancel buttons should go on the left and okay buttons on the right in left-to-right reading order countries, because the reading order influences how people perceive the direction that forward and backward buttons go. More recent research has shown that this doesn't depend on reading order: people perceive left as back and right as forward whatever their reading order. GNOME and Windows are particularly bizarre in this respect, putting okay on the left, cancel on the right, but having forward on the right and back on the left - they're not even consistent within the same dialog box!
Where are these people who actually respect the work of Poettering?
As a FreeBSD developer, I have a lot of respect for the work Poettering. Every time he releases a new piece of software, we gain a load more users and developers. I can't wait for his next project.
You might want to look at the std::array template in C++11. It lets you do exactly this, only with compile-time checking of the arguments that the lengths match. Actually, you can skip the A, B, C parameters because your function template would be able to extract them from the.size() of the matrix parameters.
For example "int i; printf( "%d", i );" and you have a code with undefined behavior. At runtime it'll print a random number even though you never called rand() to indicate that's what you wanted.
This is a feature, not a bug. If uninitialised variables were default-initialised to some value, then this code would still be buggy, but now your compiler / static analyser would not be able to tell you that it contained a bug.
if you need that behavior for some reason make it "uninitialized int i; printf( "%d", i );"
If you don't want that behaviour, then initialise the value at the declaration. Coding styles typically discourage initialising with a sentinel though, because you lose the ability for your compiler to check that you've assigned the correct value on every code path.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a good way for Uber to end up in a lot of courts. If they thought that the lawsuits for violating various taxi laws were bad, wait until they see the ones for violating every variant implementation of the EU data protection directive...
The lack of seatbelts makes sense. If you're on a spaceship that can accelerate quickly enough to turn everyone into a fine paste and relies on inertial dampeners (adjustments of the artificial gravity) to prevent this, then there aren't many situations where you'll need a seatbelt: either the inertial dampeners are preventing you from needing them, or you're dead. The problem is that the drama needed the ship to seem to shake. It's the same issue as feeling the ship warm up as you get close to a star: it makes for good drama, but the difference between 'humans are comfortable' and 'humans are on fire' is tiny compared to the difference between 'humans are comfortable' and 'nuclear fusion is happening' - it's far more likely that the shields would work fine and no one would be discomforted right up until the point where much of the ship vaporised.
I was quite surprised by the numbers they had for the old model. On my 2014 MBP, I recently did some tests doing sha calculations of VM images. These were multithreaded and not CPU-bound, but they ended up getting almost 2GB/s reads from the SSD. The benchmark is interleaving reads and writes, so that may account for it, but if you're just loading game data from disk then the old model can fill the whole of physical RAM in 8 seconds, so I doubt that's the bottleneck.
If people are actually being killed, then as soon as you get near the house you're likely to hear screams / gunshots. If they're just being threatened, then you have time to plan something that has a good chance of having the victims survive. Well-trained police forces don't rush in guns blazing.
Step one, drive past the house - no sirens or lights, just see if there's anything odd. Step two, knock on a couple of the neighbours' doors - say that you've received a non-specific report of gunfire in the area, ask if they heard anything. Step three, from somewhere inconspicuous see if you can see in through the windows with binoculars. Step four, visit the nearest take-away and have someone in plain clothes take the food to the house pretending that they misread the number, look for signs of distress from the person answering the door. Step five, surround the house with armed officers at all exits and have someone in uniform knock on the front door and ask the person who answers to step outside - if they're refusing and showing signs of distress, then go in.
Or they could just forget all of their police training and pretend that their soldiers in enemy territory.
Racism is ok outside of the workplace? Thought not...
The workplace is special because it's somewhere where your freedom of association is limited. If you're being racist in a public place, I can leave or use my freedom of speech to tell you to shut up. If you're being racist in my house, I can ask you to leave (and call the police if you don't). If you're being racist in work, then my ability to do anything about it is limited by the management. If you are the management, then there's nothing that I can do about it except quit, and (depending on the state of the economy) that may hurt me more than you.
She sees the same absurdity in the "feminist" movement that I do.
The problem for feminists today is that their parents (or grandparents) won all of the easy battles. Now the only ones left are difficult and nuanced. Addressing them is hard - it's much easier to make up an easy target to attack than deal with real issues.
They don't admit to anything, but the fact that they're willing to pay to make the lawsuit go away counts for something. Precedent doesn't usually apply in a small claims court anyway (and magistrates tend to get a bit cranky with anyone trying to be a lawyer in one).
For most use cases I've found where MySQL is more appropriate than PostgreSQL, SQLite is better than either. For things where you actually want a real RDBMS, PostgreSQL usually wins.
Because needs grow. The entire point of the free version is to encourage people to use it for everything and then discover that their data has grown to over 10GB and they can either pay MS for the full version or spend a lot more migrating all of their data and software to something else. If you start out on PostgreSQL, then you don't have that issue.
When a class action suit is settled, if you are a member of the class then you should receive a letter asking if you want to opt in to the class. If not, then you don't get the money and are free to take it to court yourself. Opting out then turning up in a small claims court with a class action result and evidence of the value of your losses should get you a few hundred dollars fairly easily. If enough people do this, then it will discourage companies from offering too low settlements for class action suits. The cost for them to send someone to defend is sufficiently high that it's probably not worth it and small claims courts have a habit of ruling against people who don't turn up...
Exactly. There's a reason why 'no commercial use' licenses are generally best avoided: defining commercial use is hard. The problem for the FAA is that, traditionally, it's pretty easy with an aeroplane: if someone is paying you to fly the plane, it's commercial, otherwise it isn't. The distinction makes sense because you want tighter regulation on pilots who are going to fly with passengers, or for those passengers to definitely know that they're flying with a hobbyist at their own risk. For drones, it makes a lot less sense.
Well, fuck you Slashcode! Apparently I was using too many junk characters by having the temerity to post code snippets. Posting lots of mathematics also triggers it. Remember when this place used to be for nerds? Rather than try to work around the filter, I have placed the contents of my post here: http://pastebin.com/HtQXTnX0
I don't think I understand what you think you're trying to do. You can't make a cache flush a line that you're modifying with an atomic operation to RAM, because atomic ops require the value to be in cache. Given an n-way set associative cache, however, you can typically force cache flushes (without requiring special cache flush instructions) by writing N+1 values at cache-line offsets (e.g. at address X, X+64, X+128,...) repeatedly. This probably wouldn't trigger the rowhammer issues though, because it's up to the CPU which row it evicts each time and you'd end up repeatedly stalling on loads without bashing a single DRAM line. You might be able to do something similar with the nontemporal store instructions that Intel added in recent generations of processor...
It's not just about freedom, it's also about economics. Copying software (and music) is trivial. Writing software is hard (well, writing good software is, at least). With free software, you don't charge for copying, but you often do charge for writing the software in the first place. And, because of the relevant licenses, there's a large body of code that you can charge for fixing / extending / customising.
Huh? You want on-stack arrays, std::array gives you an on-stack array. You want to pass them to a function, a template function that takes std::array references would work fine.
The most ridiculous part of the summary is the part where she thinks that an Internet-connected system is secure if no one has physical access to it...
I think that the single USB-C port is going to be pretty annoying for the people who buy one this year, but it is likely to have the same effect as making the iMac USB only: provide a sufficiently large demand for USB-C devices that it makes sense for peripheral manufacturers to produce docking stations, displays that can provide power over USB-C, and so on. In a couple of years, I expect that there will be enough devices on the market handle breakout from a single USB-C connector that people buying laptops won't have a problem with it.
However, just like the original iMac, there's going to be a lead time where the only peripherals that you can connect reliably are (expensive) Apple-branded ones. If you remember the iMac launch, you'll recall that about a year later computer stores were full of USB stuff all in the same sort of translucent coloured plastic as the iMac to encourage iMac users to buy them, but a year after that the vast majority were bought to plug into non-Apple machines.
They tossed a port they really needed to keep: ethernet
Not with the latest version, Ethernet was gone several revisions ago. Most people really don't need it. I generally only use it at work, and leave the dongle connected to the Ethernet cable, so it's no harder to plug in than connecting the cable itself.
you must re-dongle the USB port (and you'd better hope you have some kind of mega-wire-spider so you can feed it power at the same time... and connect your USB stuff... and connect an external HDMI monitor...)
The idea is that you'll just have one cable coming from your monitor, providing power and a USB hub. Currently you can only get that with Thunderbolt from an Apple display, but a number of display manufacturers have signed up to do the same with USB-C. I'd love to be able to have a single cable to connect power, ethernet, display, keyboard and mouse to my laptop. About the only place where I connect more than one cable is at my own desk. I generally have to carry a dongle for projectors, because in most places they're VGA only (if you give a talk at Apple, they have an impressive array of adaptors connected to their projectors, for every display connector that Apple has ever sold. I really wished I'd lugged a G4 PowerMac tower with me to be able to use the ADC adaptor).
That's no different from closed source development. Do you think Microsoft or Apple care about the opinions of people who aren't going to buy their products? There is basically only one way to contribute to a closed source project: pay money to the developers. That works for open source too, but you can also produce code, documentation (please!), artwork, detailed and reproducible bug reports (please!). People who contribute in any of these ways are valuable to the project and their opinions should be considered. People who don't contribute anything are only valuable in the sense that they may eventually become contributors.
The difference between open source and closed development is that open source projects allow non-contributors to use the product for free, whereas most closed projects will use legal means to prevent this.
For HCI, this usually isn't difficult. There is a huge body of research that can be cited. Some of it changes. For example, we used to think that cancel buttons should go on the left and okay buttons on the right in left-to-right reading order countries, because the reading order influences how people perceive the direction that forward and backward buttons go. More recent research has shown that this doesn't depend on reading order: people perceive left as back and right as forward whatever their reading order. GNOME and Windows are particularly bizarre in this respect, putting okay on the left, cancel on the right, but having forward on the right and back on the left - they're not even consistent within the same dialog box!
Where are these people who actually respect the work of Poettering?
As a FreeBSD developer, I have a lot of respect for the work Poettering. Every time he releases a new piece of software, we gain a load more users and developers. I can't wait for his next project.
Those who know c well are unlikely to be the mediocre and bad programmers.
Clearly you have never visited GitHub.
You might want to look at the std::array template in C++11. It lets you do exactly this, only with compile-time checking of the arguments that the lengths match. Actually, you can skip the A, B, C parameters because your function template would be able to extract them from the .size() of the matrix parameters.
For example "int i; printf( "%d", i );" and you have a code with undefined behavior. At runtime it'll print a random number even though you never called rand() to indicate that's what you wanted.
This is a feature, not a bug. If uninitialised variables were default-initialised to some value, then this code would still be buggy, but now your compiler / static analyser would not be able to tell you that it contained a bug.
if you need that behavior for some reason make it "uninitialized int i; printf( "%d", i );"
If you don't want that behaviour, then initialise the value at the declaration. Coding styles typically discourage initialising with a sentinel though, because you lose the ability for your compiler to check that you've assigned the correct value on every code path.