"I think I saw the parent write about chemicals. Im very sure of that. Now one example of a chemical is H2O. H2O or more precisely H2O as in Water is the basis of all life, and O2 is required by almost all life. Also, H2O has been around in the athmosphere far longer than any primate has been on earth. In fact, H2O is the reason why earth is as friendly to life as it is. Without H2O, the earth would just be a big desert.
Without H2O, no plants, no mamals, no you.
Also, were all the H2O replaced by O2, you'd probably shortly be wondering why you are experiencing the worst cramps of your life before finally dying.
So no, H2O is definatly not anmong the 'unpleasant chemicals'"
I just changed the chemical, nothing else. Please note that sometimes, people _do_ drown. Do you now see the flaw in your argument?
So you would advocate doing nothing for the next 10 million years or so, just to be sure? That's certainly a helpful attitude (not).
Look at it like this: we are pumping countless tons of unpleasant chemicals into the environment every day. Do you suppose it all just disappears? Or is it going somewhere, doing something we don't want?
Quite often we have a choice between a cheap, wasteful process and a more expensive, less wasteful one. And people will invariably go for the cheap one, because, hey, its cheap. I just wish more people could take the longterm view though, and go for the durable solutions.
Planning for a longer term obviously requires an investment, but I don't see how this is a bad thing - investing is good for the economy, and investments tend to pay off eventually.
So you are telling us IBM has a patent on this part of the HTML specification? How exactly did that come about? Did they invent that little bit of HTML syntax? Or did they dig it from the HTML specification, realize what it can do, and then quickly patent that?
Next up: somebody patents the use of <B> to make a piece of text bold...
That is a cause that's easy to rule out: just examine the software. And before you ask: yes, they kept a copy of the source around on Earth...
The software was actually built by LogicaCMG. At work we received a christmas card from them (i.e. before it was known that the probe had failed), saying this:
"LogicaCMG delivered the mission-critical software that controls Beagle 2 during the hazardous ride through the Martian atmosphere, releasing the heat shield and deploying parachutes and gas-filled air bags, slowing Beagle 2 down from its 14,000 mph/22,530 kph approach velocity to a safe landing on the surface of Mars"
This article invariably gets posted whenever someone proposes a solution to spam. Has it ever occurred to you that a single solution is not going to work, but that it _will_ be possible to reduce the problem by taking a number of (in themselves incomplete) measures? And that it is necessary to take such steps, in order to reach a sufficiently acceptable solution?
By shooting down everything that looks like a beginning to a solution, you are defending the spammers and postponing the date when our inboxes will once again be _ours_.
Some comments on the items you selected:
> (*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
You won't know until you try, do you?
> (*) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
Maybe, but we still get to see the 50 most obnoxious spammers go through a courtcase and hopefully jail time or major fines. That is good enough for me.
> (*) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
Eh? Once the FBI figures out where they live, all they need to do is be home when they knock on his door. And then hopefully resist arrest in some extreme manner.
> (*) Open relays in foreign countries
Any spammer based in the US is vulnerable, though. Start with those, then think about how to get the rest. I'm sure some method will make itself apparent.
> (*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
That's because people like you shoot them down before they are ever tried.
All these IT people who are out of a job and desperately looking for something to do can now start their own oil plant. Don't worry, it won't go to India or China any time soon...
You are missing the fact that NASA spends a lot of money making housecalls on Hubble, which have greatly extended its lifetime. This will not be possible with Webb because it is much further out.
Although you are modded troll for some unfathomable reason, there are certainly examples of what you ask: the Amiga's filing systems (both OFS and FFS) work like this. Each directory is simply a doubly linked list of file header blocks, with only the first block located in a fixed location (center of the disk, IIRC). Each header block controls a limited number of file blocks, after which an extension block is required - thus a file is also implemented as a doubly linked list.
As another poster has already suggested, this approach is not particularly fast. Especially on floppies the Amiga's filesystem performance is atrocious (harddisks are ok, unless you need to deal with extreme numbers of files in a directory). To compensate, a third filing system augmented FFS with a cache - essentially a part of the disk was allocated to mirror all the header and extension blocks in one place.
Defragmentation strategies for the Amiga tend to revolve around getting the linked list into a group of contiguous blocks, making directory scans faster, but at the cost of opening individual files.
Not all is woe though: the Amiga filing systems are extremely recoverable in case of problems, because there is no reliance on any centralized structure. A block by block scan of the disk will uncover all the header, extension, and data blocks, and if all the blocks of a file are recoverable, then the entire file is.
After a very long Half Life game I stopped for a moment to take a sanitary break. While doing so I noticed a pipe near the ceiling, and I found myself wondering just how I was supposed to get up there...
But if not now, then when? There will always be something else to spend your money on (even better health care, shinier weapons, higher salaries for teachers,...). At some point we, as a race, will have to decide that this is worth doing and then do it, or we will have to give up, accept that we will never get into space, serve our time here on Earth, and finally pass into history.
Of course you may argue that the technology is not there yet. And you would be right, but the only thing we can do to overcome this problem is to start developing and using it. Sitting back and hoping that it will just materialize is not going to work.
...then, would be to find a major Windows flaw, patch it, and _patent the patch_. I'll leave the obligatory steps two and three to you, but it involves Microsoft, money, and a court of law...
Don't you think we _know_? Just read the links: apparently 94% of respondents were opposed to software patents in a consultation by the council of ministers. They then happily went ahead and claimed the other 6% represented the "economic majority". This gross lack of democracy is apparently not a problem to them.
It is to me, though. And I'm not alone in this.
The EU is not fundamentally a bad thing. The close cooperation between european states has allowed me, at least, to grow up in a Europe where war is unthinkable for the first time in - well, forever, basically. All these processes you hear about, like that single coin, bring our countries closer together and join them more and more in a unified whole. And that is good. But occasionally we get excesses, such as in this case, and that's something we must fight.
Let's say there are 30 million people in that underfunded public school system of yours. What benefit would they have from having $10 each? How would it improve their education?
Education, like health, is a great goal and shouldn't be underfunded. But we should also recognize that they are essentially bottomless pits as far as funding is concerned...
thank you very much for this information. I must standarize my notation somehow. Most problems I have are just because I'm not aware what types should I distinguish.
Don't overdo it. The question you need to ask yourself is, "what information do I really need when _reading_ the code?" I find I am usually interested in scope, but not really in type (the question I want answered is "where the hell did they declare that?" rather than "hmm, I wonder if it is a bool or an int?"). In particular, if something has class-scope I want to know, so like the original poster I use a prefix for those. I do not use enough static or global variables for them to ever become an issue, so I do not prefix those.
Of course when you are _reading_ code it is often other peoples' code, leaving you at their mercy, prefix-wise. Typically the nastiest code will also use misleading prefixes...
what is your convention for giving class/struct/typedef names? (I tend to use prefix class_ struct_ type_ respectively - is that enough or something more sparks to your mind?)
I would say it is too much already. The difference between a class and a struct is too insignificant to worry about. I consider typedefs just a clever-looking way to obfuscate code that is otherwise perfectly clear, so as a general rule I steer away from them (whatever is wrong with just using "int" when you want an integer? I understand things like "uint32", but making integers look like structures ("csw_status_t") is just plain annoying...)
some hints about function names? (or just what do you prefer `foo_bar()` or `FooBar()` ? I just cannot make a legitimate decision on this topic)
Whichever you can type the quickest;-) I hate those underscores, it messes up my typing, so I use BiCaps. And try to use names that makes your program look like normal prose - when you see "cfg_hw" I have no clue what it does, while "ConfigureHardware" gives me a good idea. Same goes for variable- and other names of course.
do you use c++ namespaces? (I almost always start my c++ program with 'using namespace std;') If yes, then what names do you give to them?
I do not usually use them. Whether or not that is smart I haven't figured out yet, despite 6 years intensive C++ programming (and earning the title of "C++ guru" within my company).
m = member, i.e. it is declared in a class definition. f = float, i.e. it is something of type float. I have never met the poster but I'm sure I could read his code;-)
As for the original poster, I can only say this: "amen, brother".
You are absolutely right. It is not about procedure, tools, motivation, domain knowledge, or any other circumstantial attribute (although these are also required); delivering a quality product starts with quality people.
A quality team can deliver quality software, even under bad circumstances. A non-quality team will _never_ deliver quality software, even when the circumstances are otherwise perfect.
Of course, acknowledging that would be financially painful to some bosses...
Do I have any chance of getting the ATI 9800 pro to work on the 64bit version? I'd already be happy if I could get a decent 2D performance - right now the best I can do is 800x600 in VESA-compatibility mode...
USA charges guy in Amsterdam with a crime. Does the Amsterdam police force make an arrest and extradite the shop owner?
As we have seen in the past again and again, the answer to this question is "yes". The Dutch government will bend over, and then ask to have it done to them again.
In one case, a person who had merely visited the USA was accused of trafficking drugs by an anonymous prisoner (who had his sentence reduced thanks to the accusation) and was prompty sent to the US for trial. Effectively this means that as a Dutch citizen, I could suddenly find myself on trial in on the other side of the globe, merely because an unnamed crook has heard of my name. One would expect ones own government to be more caring about its own citizens, but evidently that is not the case here.
I find this situation utterly unacceptable. However, rather than jumping with joy at this reversal, I find it simply another step in the wrong direction.
Slashdot Mirror
...are also coming to an end, then. But not to worry, India and China will be happy to pick up where we left off.
I just changed the chemical, nothing else. Please note that sometimes, people _do_ drown. Do you now see the flaw in your argument?
Look at it like this: we are pumping countless tons of unpleasant chemicals into the environment every day. Do you suppose it all just disappears? Or is it going somewhere, doing something we don't want?
Quite often we have a choice between a cheap, wasteful process and a more expensive, less wasteful one. And people will invariably go for the cheap one, because, hey, its cheap. I just wish more people could take the longterm view though, and go for the durable solutions.
Planning for a longer term obviously requires an investment, but I don't see how this is a bad thing - investing is good for the economy, and investments tend to pay off eventually.
So you are telling us IBM has a patent on this part of the HTML specification? How exactly did that come about? Did they invent that little bit of HTML syntax? Or did they dig it from the HTML specification, realize what it can do, and then quickly patent that?
Next up: somebody patents the use of <B> to make a piece of text bold...
The software was actually built by LogicaCMG. At work we received a christmas card from them (i.e. before it was known that the probe had failed), saying this:
"LogicaCMG delivered the mission-critical software that controls Beagle 2 during the hazardous ride through the Martian atmosphere, releasing the heat shield and deploying parachutes and gas-filled air bags, slowing Beagle 2 down from its 14,000 mph/22,530 kph approach velocity to a safe landing on the surface of Mars"
Or maybe not - but thanks for the card anyway ;-)
By shooting down everything that looks like a beginning to a solution, you are defending the spammers and postponing the date when our inboxes will once again be _ours_.
Some comments on the items you selected:
> (*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
You won't know until you try, do you?
> (*) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
Maybe, but we still get to see the 50 most obnoxious spammers go through a courtcase and hopefully jail time or major fines. That is good enough for me.
> (*) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
Eh? Once the FBI figures out where they live, all they need to do is be home when they knock on his door. And then hopefully resist arrest in some extreme manner.
> (*) Open relays in foreign countries
Any spammer based in the US is vulnerable, though. Start with those, then think about how to get the rest. I'm sure some method will make itself apparent.
> (*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
That's because people like you shoot them down before they are ever tried.
You are missing the fact that NASA spends a lot of money making housecalls on Hubble, which have greatly extended its lifetime. This will not be possible with Webb because it is much further out.
_Logical_ center, obviously. The block in the middle rather than the hole...
As another poster has already suggested, this approach is not particularly fast. Especially on floppies the Amiga's filesystem performance is atrocious (harddisks are ok, unless you need to deal with extreme numbers of files in a directory). To compensate, a third filing system augmented FFS with a cache - essentially a part of the disk was allocated to mirror all the header and extension blocks in one place.
Defragmentation strategies for the Amiga tend to revolve around getting the linked list into a group of contiguous blocks, making directory scans faster, but at the cost of opening individual files.
Not all is woe though: the Amiga filing systems are extremely recoverable in case of problems, because there is no reliance on any centralized structure. A block by block scan of the disk will uncover all the header, extension, and data blocks, and if all the blocks of a file are recoverable, then the entire file is.
Luckily I managed to stop myself in time ;-)
Of course you may argue that the technology is not there yet. And you would be right, but the only thing we can do to overcome this problem is to start developing and using it. Sitting back and hoping that it will just materialize is not going to work.
...then, would be to find a major Windows flaw, patch it, and _patent the patch_. I'll leave the obligatory steps two and three to you, but it involves Microsoft, money, and a court of law...
Maybe the poster meant "first manned all-European mission"?
Of course! Why would you think otherwise?
It is to me, though. And I'm not alone in this.
The EU is not fundamentally a bad thing. The close cooperation between european states has allowed me, at least, to grow up in a Europe where war is unthinkable for the first time in - well, forever, basically. All these processes you hear about, like that single coin, bring our countries closer together and join them more and more in a unified whole. And that is good. But occasionally we get excesses, such as in this case, and that's something we must fight.
Education, like health, is a great goal and shouldn't be underfunded. But we should also recognize that they are essentially bottomless pits as far as funding is concerned...
Don't overdo it. The question you need to ask yourself is, "what information do I really need when _reading_ the code?" I find I am usually interested in scope, but not really in type (the question I want answered is "where the hell did they declare that?" rather than "hmm, I wonder if it is a bool or an int?"). In particular, if something has class-scope I want to know, so like the original poster I use a prefix for those. I do not use enough static or global variables for them to ever become an issue, so I do not prefix those.
Of course when you are _reading_ code it is often other peoples' code, leaving you at their mercy, prefix-wise. Typically the nastiest code will also use misleading prefixes...
what is your convention for giving class/struct/typedef names? (I tend to use prefix class_ struct_ type_ respectively - is that enough or something more sparks to your mind?)
I would say it is too much already. The difference between a class and a struct is too insignificant to worry about. I consider typedefs just a clever-looking way to obfuscate code that is otherwise perfectly clear, so as a general rule I steer away from them (whatever is wrong with just using "int" when you want an integer? I understand things like "uint32", but making integers look like structures ("csw_status_t") is just plain annoying...)
some hints about function names? (or just what do you prefer `foo_bar()` or `FooBar()` ? I just cannot make a legitimate decision on this topic)
Whichever you can type the quickest ;-) I hate those underscores, it messes up my typing, so I use BiCaps. And try to use names that makes your program look like normal prose - when you see "cfg_hw" I have no clue what it does, while "ConfigureHardware" gives me a good idea. Same goes for variable- and other names of course.
do you use c++ namespaces? (I almost always start my c++ program with 'using namespace std;') If yes, then what names do you give to them?
I do not usually use them. Whether or not that is smart I haven't figured out yet, despite 6 years intensive C++ programming (and earning the title of "C++ guru" within my company).
As for the original poster, I can only say this: "amen, brother".
A quality team can deliver quality software, even under bad circumstances. A non-quality team will _never_ deliver quality software, even when the circumstances are otherwise perfect.
Of course, acknowledging that would be financially painful to some bosses...
Do I have any chance of getting the ATI 9800 pro to work on the 64bit version? I'd already be happy if I could get a decent 2D performance - right now the best I can do is 800x600 in VESA-compatibility mode...
As we have seen in the past again and again, the answer to this question is "yes". The Dutch government will bend over, and then ask to have it done to them again.
In one case, a person who had merely visited the USA was accused of trafficking drugs by an anonymous prisoner (who had his sentence reduced thanks to the accusation) and was prompty sent to the US for trial. Effectively this means that as a Dutch citizen, I could suddenly find myself on trial in on the other side of the globe, merely because an unnamed crook has heard of my name. One would expect ones own government to be more caring about its own citizens, but evidently that is not the case here.
I find this situation utterly unacceptable. However, rather than jumping with joy at this reversal, I find it simply another step in the wrong direction.
There is a mirror in the nose of the 747, used for aiming. If it is so hard to make those mirrors, how would you explain that one?
You do realize that a microscope error in aiming on their side would translate into many meters on your side, right?
Master is making you lose your compression? That's indeed insane!
Ah wait, wrong website.