Besides, the US let out the REAL secret at Alamagordo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Namely, that it was possible to build a working atomic bomb. Once the Russkis had that, the rest was engineering. They already knew the theory.
They should annoint a conformance suite, so that things like VC6 won't be able to claim "standards conformance", when they don't even handle exception specifications properly.
Re:Actually, it was July 20th *and* 21st
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 2
Then that's even worse, isn't it? Katz said 19 July 1969.
Speaking as a former employee of a defense contractor, if I were the Navy brass, I'd court-martial the guy who considered the system to have passed FQT without an adequate test.
Whenever we had as system go through QT, we were not allowed to have any priority 1 or 2 problems.
Priority 1 = System failure. Danger to operators.
Priority 2 = Danger to operators.
Priority 3 = Nuisance, no workaround.
Priority 4 = Nuisance, workaround.
Priority 5 = other (minor).
What jerk allowed this obvious priority 1 problem through? I hope they find his ass and court-martial him!
, (ii) parallel searching of all potential solutions by using fluid flow
I couldn't read the article (paid subscription), but this excerpt looks like it's still a brute-force. They were only able to solve in P time by using parallelism.
No. We worked on Land Warrior. The way that Land Warrior worked out, the soldier would have been a turtle. It may have been a COMPONENT of Land Warrior.
It's also a variant on something I once worked on.. handheld box for Situational Awareness, moving map. Of course, it still only used some legacy commo protocols (though we did eventually get MIL-STD-188-220A and VMF BOM running).
The automatic peering and routing are what's really about this system.
First, the soldier is not the client, the DoD is the client.
Second, most "soldier in the field" systems are designed to boot or login directly to the application. The soldier doesn't have development tools or any sort of stuff like that, nor does he have access to a shell to use them.
One system we developed booted directly into our X application (we did it with the inittab). The only way for us as the developers to get into the box for debugging purposes was to telnet in.
Also, this "Army of One" BS aside, those of us who develop for the Army know that we have to design for an 8th grade education. No insult intended against any green-suiters out there.
On the other hand, many of the officers and NCO's (as opposed to rank&file soldiers) have been among the most clueful customers I've ever dealt with -- much more clueful than the typical customer described here on/.
Slashdot Mirror
user error - entering an illegal value in a DB
app error - DB accepting illegal value
OS error - OS crashing because of divide by 0 because of previous errors.
The first is understandable.
The second is unacceptable (should have been caught in test).
The third is unforgivable.
I think you're both right. IIRC, it's
Gort! Klaatu Barata Nikto.
In other words, a mix of both yours.
The KB specifically states that prototype exception specs, i.e.
// I may have the syntax messed up
int f() throw x, y, z;
doesn't work and will generate a warning.
Besides, the US let out the REAL secret at Alamagordo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Namely, that it was possible to build a working atomic bomb. Once the Russkis had that, the rest was engineering. They already knew the theory.
They should annoint a conformance suite, so that things like VC6 won't be able to claim "standards conformance", when they don't even handle exception specifications properly.
Then that's even worse, isn't it? Katz said 19 July 1969.
Somebody probably already posted this, but the moon landing was the 20th. Get your facts together, Katz.
How about in Europe, where there is a per-minute charge for use of the line, and the time taken to download the spam is charged to the user?
Not everyone uses HotMail, you know...
That one sounds like this UserFriendly strip.
Yo, dude. The sidebar said he was born on 3 Jan 1929, so he's 72, not 65.
they haven't got any new helicopters since the Blackhawk
What the hell are you talking about? My last job was working on the avionics upgrade for the AH-1Z Cobra and UH-1Y Huey choppers!
Speaking as a former employee of a defense contractor, if I were the Navy brass, I'd court-martial the guy who considered the system to have passed FQT without an adequate test.
Whenever we had as system go through QT, we were not allowed to have any priority 1 or 2 problems.
Priority 1 = System failure. Danger to operators.
Priority 2 = Danger to operators.
Priority 3 = Nuisance, no workaround.
Priority 4 = Nuisance, workaround.
Priority 5 = other (minor).
What jerk allowed this obvious priority 1 problem through? I hope they find his ass and court-martial him!
7. Incorrect parameter list to main()
8. No return value from main specified.
They're now in CA. CA was listed as one of the states.
but having too many choices in a commercial platform environment in the end, confuses developers and users
Is it me, or did he just insult all the developers, too?
Gee Rob, what are you, a commie or something???
Don't you know that the American Way(tm) is to sue the pants off that guy in Ireland? How dare he have the same name as you!
</SARCASM>
Of course, if Rob's thinking was common, a bunch of lawyers would be out of business... Maybe Shakespeare had the right idea?
For a history of clocks, try The Discoverers by Daniel Boorstin.
Don't forget to mention Konrad Zuse and the Z-1 computer!
, (ii) parallel searching of all potential solutions by using fluid flow
I couldn't read the article (paid subscription), but this excerpt looks like it's still a brute-force. They were only able to solve in P time by using parallelism.
Does this really count? I'm curious.
I've never served, but I work for a defense contractor, and have a healthy respect for you green-suiters and leathernecks.
I'm happy to see so many ex-military here.
I salute you, gentlemen!
No. We worked on Land Warrior. The way that Land Warrior worked out, the soldier would have been a turtle. It may have been a COMPONENT of Land Warrior.
It's also a variant on something I once worked on.. handheld box for Situational Awareness, moving map. Of course, it still only used some legacy commo protocols (though we did eventually get MIL-STD-188-220A and VMF BOM running).
The automatic peering and routing are what's really about this system.
No.
/.
First, the soldier is not the client, the DoD is the client.
Second, most "soldier in the field" systems are designed to boot or login directly to the application. The soldier doesn't have development tools or any sort of stuff like that, nor does he have access to a shell to use them.
One system we developed booted directly into our X application (we did it with the inittab). The only way for us as the developers to get into the box for debugging purposes was to telnet in.
Also, this "Army of One" BS aside, those of us who develop for the Army know that we have to design for an 8th grade education. No insult intended against any green-suiters out there.
On the other hand, many of the officers and NCO's (as opposed to rank&file soldiers) have been among the most clueful customers I've ever dealt with -- much more clueful than the typical customer described here on
Believe it or not, individual soldiers in the Army generally still don't have personal radios down past the squad leader level.
There's a reason for this. Most field tactical radios are bulky and heavy. An individual soldier doesn't really want to carry one.
Also, it's "SINCGARS", not "SINGGARS".
No, that one was COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). You notice how all these things start with "Children's"?
Won't Somebody Think Of the Children!?!?!(tm)
How about, "Won't Somebody Think of the Constitution?!?!?"
No, it's the Arthurian legend.