The first isn't very far-fetched. They definitely do have energy-derived mass as per E=mc^2, and this mass supposedly is indistinguishable from other forms of mass. The other - we don't have solid proof either way, though the observations currently seem to go "against".
Having a semi-large youtuber play/endorse the game AND winning a game show award gives them better marketing than just having a semi-large youtuber play/endorse the game.
Actually, any reasonable firm qualifies the above with a limitation of application: "for the purposes of providing the service, marketing and promotion of the service" - so they can e.g. include clips/screenshots of your work in their promo materials.
Any license which omits this specific limitation is dodgy, because while they *explain* it's for "transmitting the content", in fact they reserve the rights in extreme excess of what is necessary for operation.
It's like firefighters reserved the right to enter your house at any time, at will, for whatever purpose, how often and how long they desire, and with ability to sublicense this right to any third party. And explained they need it to save you if your house is on fire.
While - after very specific additions - the compiler could be taught "strlen is the kind of function, that fed a constant string returns a constant, and so could be moved outside the loop", the case is not nearly as simple, especially if you'd need to trace the string to origin.
Imagine this: it's a multi-threaded program. One thread affects the data stored as string. The other monitors it for a timeout. The timeout is proportional to the data size (a common approach; max time to process a unit of data times number of units of data). Since the data can be truncated on the fly, the timeout value may grow or shrink, regardless of the clock ticking in the meantime, one tick per iteration (that contains some 'sleep' inside). In this case you WANT the strlen evaluated each iteration, to make sure the string didn't shrink below the timeout value.
Personally, I'm finding it very annoying if I hear I have to pull a 20KB library, update the build, include the library, initialize the library object and call the object's method, just to acquire functionality I can write myself in 5 lines of code.
Yes, reinventing the wheel may be preferable if your alternative is to manage a cargo ship of car parts (including wheels) from Korea, just because you need a single wheel.
The compiler won't optimize it because it doesn't know what strlen() is at the compile time. It just knows it's a function that takes a string and produces an integer, but for all it's worth it could be listening to network traffic and returning the number of occurrences of characters provided by that string, which would be changing with each call of the function = every iteration.
Only at linking time the actual assembly responsible for strlen() is included (if not dynamically linked) and then it's far too late for such optimizations.
This is one of reasons why projects like SQLite bundle all the source files into one huge file and compile it whole, instead of producing thousands of object files and then linking them. This allows the compiler to perform far deeper optimizations as it knows all the functions that could be inlined, all the loops that can be unrolled, and all the code duplication that could be de-duplicated when it still matters.
Just try:
int f1() { static int x = 0; return ++x; }
int f2() { int sum=0; for(int i=0; i100; i++){ sum += f1(); }; printf("sum: %d",sum) }
Make these functions in two different files, separately compiled, with a forward declaration of f1 in the file of f2, and linked later. You'll get O(n) time depending on the number of iterations. Then put them both in a single file and compile again. You'll have O(0). The compiler will not even inline the function. It won't even unroll the loop. It will precalculate the result and replace the whole body of f2 with equivalent of printf("sum: %d",5050);.
In fact, the litre *could* be redefined to be exactly 1kg of water and simultaneously exactly 1dm^3 of water. The definition just needs to adjust the atmospheric pressure and temperature of water at the moment of measurement - while thermal and pressure expansion/compression of water is minuscule, a change by 0.003% is well within reasonable limits of what occurs on Earth.
That wouldn't be a problem, because the universe would change accordingly, and the kilogram in relation to the rest of the universe would remain unchanged.
I'm using SumatraPDF. It's tiny, fast, and sure it lacks a lot of Acrobat features but that actually makes it safer as many of vectors of attack are simply missing. I still have Acrobat as non-default PDF reader for that 1% cases where a full feature set might be needed.
Did you just equate space to vacuum? Did you just imply transparent media are outside space?
BTW, spacetime can be bent, compressed, stretched, it can be squeezed into a singularity. Is there any solid rule that states it can't, given the right conditions, have discontinuities?
MM were looking for THE medium through which EM waves propagate. They made some completely wrong assumptions as to the expected nature of that medium. Yes, what they assumed it to be doesn't exist. Which doesn't mean the medium doesn't exist, merely that it's quite different than their expectations.
It may be boiling down to a semantic argument - which doesn't mean the argument is invalid or wrong. Meanwhile refusing to accept an argument may be correct merely on basis that it may be semantic is outright wrong.
A very lousy comparison implying red doesn't exist.
Space has quite enough properties to be considered 'a medium'. Only our lack of ability to detect anything more 'voidy' keeps the insistence that it's to be treated as a void, lack of anything. In reality it can be warped, like a tensor field, it can carry quite a few other fields, even matter can spontaneously manifest out of it. In light of the increasing number of features that can be assigned to any (empty) point of space, insisting space can't be qualified as a kind of medium becomes pure stubbornness.
Or - can light propagate through anything else than space?
But let me bite: Rename 'space' to 'aether'. Apply special and general relativity rules normally; that kills the idea of preferred frame of reference - one important point where Michaelson and Morley were wrong. Anything else about aether still doesn't check out?
Or simply the GP's point completely flew over your head. But you're so arrogant about that, and so confident in your infallibility that I'm not going to argue with you.
Slashdot Mirror
The first isn't very far-fetched. They definitely do have energy-derived mass as per E=mc^2, and this mass supposedly is indistinguishable from other forms of mass.
The other - we don't have solid proof either way, though the observations currently seem to go "against".
Except the silly us build dual interferometers angled exactly 90 degrees to each other.
At least we know it's not a hexagonal grid, but more possibly rectangular.
Or should we rather say it's happening EACH the time?
Having a semi-large youtuber play/endorse the game AND winning a game show award gives them better marketing than just having a semi-large youtuber play/endorse the game.
Or someone paid more.
These game awards shows exist for the sole purpose of marketing, and huge $$$ change hands under the table.
Of course if the management is retarded, the game can't be made popular on a reasonable budget.
This was always true. Just think of the budget behind Atari 2600's E.T.
Take Minecraft as a counter-example.
Or Motorola Razr.
Actually, any reasonable firm qualifies the above with a limitation of application: "for the purposes of providing the service, marketing and promotion of the service" - so they can e.g. include clips/screenshots of your work in their promo materials.
Any license which omits this specific limitation is dodgy, because while they *explain* it's for "transmitting the content", in fact they reserve the rights in extreme excess of what is necessary for operation.
It's like firefighters reserved the right to enter your house at any time, at will, for whatever purpose, how often and how long they desire, and with ability to sublicense this right to any third party. And explained they need it to save you if your house is on fire.
While - after very specific additions - the compiler could be taught "strlen is the kind of function, that fed a constant string returns a constant, and so could be moved outside the loop", the case is not nearly as simple, especially if you'd need to trace the string to origin.
Imagine this: it's a multi-threaded program. One thread affects the data stored as string. The other monitors it for a timeout. The timeout is proportional to the data size (a common approach; max time to process a unit of data times number of units of data). Since the data can be truncated on the fly, the timeout value may grow or shrink, regardless of the clock ticking in the meantime, one tick per iteration (that contains some 'sleep' inside). In this case you WANT the strlen evaluated each iteration, to make sure the string didn't shrink below the timeout value.
Personally, I'm finding it very annoying if I hear I have to pull a 20KB library, update the build, include the library, initialize the library object and call the object's method, just to acquire functionality I can write myself in 5 lines of code.
Yes, reinventing the wheel may be preferable if your alternative is to manage a cargo ship of car parts (including wheels) from Korea, just because you need a single wheel.
> Well, I suppose that still means his library has fewer flaws than OpenSSL does
Just wait till he's done with the 9999999 security flaws he's fixing currently.
99 little bugs in the code
99 little bugs in the code
Take one down, patch it around
117 little bugs in the code.
The compiler won't optimize it because it doesn't know what strlen() is at the compile time. It just knows it's a function that takes a string and produces an integer, but for all it's worth it could be listening to network traffic and returning the number of occurrences of characters provided by that string, which would be changing with each call of the function = every iteration.
Only at linking time the actual assembly responsible for strlen() is included (if not dynamically linked) and then it's far too late for such optimizations.
This is one of reasons why projects like SQLite bundle all the source files into one huge file and compile it whole, instead of producing thousands of object files and then linking them. This allows the compiler to perform far deeper optimizations as it knows all the functions that could be inlined, all the loops that can be unrolled, and all the code duplication that could be de-duplicated when it still matters.
Just try:
int f1() { static int x = 0; return ++x; }
int f2() { int sum=0; for(int i=0; i100; i++){ sum += f1(); }; printf("sum: %d",sum) }
Make these functions in two different files, separately compiled, with a forward declaration of f1 in the file of f2, and linked later. You'll get O(n) time depending on the number of iterations. Then put them both in a single file and compile again. You'll have O(0). The compiler will not even inline the function. It won't even unroll the loop. It will precalculate the result and replace the whole body of f2 with equivalent of printf("sum: %d",5050);.
Get the cheapest Android tablet. Root it. Connect to local WiFi. Install ClockSync, some nice-looking clock and a blanking disabler. Hang on the wall.
There. NTP-synchronized wall clock.
(root is needed so that ClockSync could sync time without user interaction.)
In fact, the litre *could* be redefined to be exactly 1kg of water and simultaneously exactly 1dm^3 of water. The definition just needs to adjust the atmospheric pressure and temperature of water at the moment of measurement - while thermal and pressure expansion/compression of water is minuscule, a change by 0.003% is well within reasonable limits of what occurs on Earth.
That wouldn't be a problem, because the universe would change accordingly, and the kilogram in relation to the rest of the universe would remain unchanged.
All kilograms are equal
but some are more equal than others.
I'm using SumatraPDF. It's tiny, fast, and sure it lacks a lot of Acrobat features but that actually makes it safer as many of vectors of attack are simply missing. I still have Acrobat as non-default PDF reader for that 1% cases where a full feature set might be needed.
Interesting. In Poland you can get quite a few couple-years old blockbusters in dollar stores (well, counterparts) and bargain bins.
A recent Auchan deal: 22PLN ($5.60) for a kilogram of DVDs. (boxes obligatory, unfortunately, can't buy just the discs).
Did you just equate space to vacuum? Did you just imply transparent media are outside space?
BTW, spacetime can be bent, compressed, stretched, it can be squeezed into a singularity. Is there any solid rule that states it can't, given the right conditions, have discontinuities?
MM were looking for THE medium through which EM waves propagate. They made some completely wrong assumptions as to the expected nature of that medium. Yes, what they assumed it to be doesn't exist. Which doesn't mean the medium doesn't exist, merely that it's quite different than their expectations.
It may be boiling down to a semantic argument - which doesn't mean the argument is invalid or wrong. Meanwhile refusing to accept an argument may be correct merely on basis that it may be semantic is outright wrong.
So - electromagnetic field can exist without/outside space?
Actually, that post cuts both ways. Replace "wife" with "husband", "woman" with "man".
Except then it's not "mysogynic". It becomes "empowering".
The last sentence is entirely BS.
A 4-gigahertz CPU gets its signal traveling at speed of light 7.5cm away from its source over time of 1 cycle.
Relativity may be inaccurate. There may be extra factors we don't know - but it approximates the reality quite accurately.
A very lousy comparison implying red doesn't exist.
Space has quite enough properties to be considered 'a medium'. Only our lack of ability to detect anything more 'voidy' keeps the insistence that it's to be treated as a void, lack of anything. In reality it can be warped, like a tensor field, it can carry quite a few other fields, even matter can spontaneously manifest out of it. In light of the increasing number of features that can be assigned to any (empty) point of space, insisting space can't be qualified as a kind of medium becomes pure stubbornness.
Or - can light propagate through anything else than space?
Yeah, the point completely flew over your head.
But let me bite: Rename 'space' to 'aether'. Apply special and general relativity rules normally; that kills the idea of preferred frame of reference - one important point where Michaelson and Morley were wrong. Anything else about aether still doesn't check out?
Or simply the GP's point completely flew over your head. But you're so arrogant about that, and so confident in your infallibility that I'm not going to argue with you.