When I hear about bitcoin's founder I am reminded of a homeless man I met in Palo Alto in the 1990's, in his 30's or 40's. He used to stand on the street chanting weird things and you would think he was insane, which he was. But if you talked to him, you'd realize he was pretty smart too. Anyhow, he told me about how he was getting his P.H.D. in Economics from Yale, but they rejected his thesis which was basically about private currency, as his professors equated it with counterfeiting and he subsequently went semi-mad according to him. This guy was a smart homeless guy but also a little crazy, his shopping cart had various gadgets powered by car battery, and I think there was a reason he was hanging out in the valley at that time. Find him, and you will find the creator of bitcoin. Anyway, after he was all done telling me this, he looked intently at me and said, "By the way, can you spare some change? I need about tree fiddy."
Chimpanzees absolutely cannot function in human society. When they become agitated, people around them lose hands and eyes. If they're lucky.
"I don't know... It's not wise to upset a chimpanzee."
"But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid."
"That's 'cause a droid don't pull people's arms outta their sockets when they lose. Chimpanzees have been known to do that."
What that meant is that slaveholding states had greater representation in the US House of Representatives than if the slaves were not counted.
Well, yes, that was a short-term consequence of it. But what it actually meant, in the long term (and why it was such a briliiant tactic!) is that it encouraged states to free their slaves in order to gain even more representation — because those "other persons" would then count as 1.0 as free persons, as opposed to only 0.6 as slaves. In other words, the slave-holding states were tricked by their own greed. It's brilliant.
Maybe you could have the eyeball explode or get shot with a bullet or poked with a sharp stick after two seconds? That would get the point across that you're shutting down the eye so it can't see anymore.
That eyeball freaks me out. When I see your web page, I immediately think you're saying: "Install my software and I can watch you just like I'm looking through this peephole."
depends what you do with the computer. If your browsing for pictures of cats then the trackpad is the way to go, if your writing code, the nipple mouse kicks ass because your hands never have to leave the home row.
I thought it was called the clitoris mouse. Whose nipples are that small?
No, your years are quite wrong, actually. 640x480 (VGA) was common by 1987-88. In 1985 it was 640x350 (EGA). In 1995 we had already gotten past 800x600 and were on 1024x768.
Too many shadows, whispering voices
faces on posters, too many choices
If? When? Why? What?
How much have you got?
Have you got it? Do you get it?
If so, how often?
Which do you choose
a hard or soft option?
I would dare you to take a 20 year old program in any language and have it run successfully on any current computer without having to do some substantial tweaking or putting that computer into some sort of historical mode of operation.
We have a rule that you should always set the loop counter when starting a loop, so that it is in a clearly defined state and anyone looking at the loop can see that.
Better yet, you should always define and set the loop counter when starting a loop, e.g.,
for (int i = 0; i < imax; i++)
so that its type definition is clearly defined and anyone looking at the loop can see it. There is never any good reason for this:
You said, "If the compiler does anything but check to see if the pointer p is null and execute g() if p is a null pointer then the compiler is broken." I'm saying that's incorrect. Note that the compiler is full well within its right to also try to initialize x by dereferencing p, thereby causing an exception. There is no rule that int x = *p; be optimized out of existence just because it can be.
So if you want your work to be find a prime number larger than 1 trillion, after the number is found; then checking it is fast and easy.
I don't think you quite understand how prime numbers work. If it's easy to check that a number n (known to be larger than some m, for example 1 trillion) is prime, then it's also easy to find the first prime after m, due to the distribution of primes. For example, you only have to expect to test about 14 odd numbers greater than 1 trillion to find one that is prime. So if the test for primeness is "easy," then finding the first prime number larger than 1 trillion is only 14 times as much work — i.e., still "easy."
What's the turnaround time if you change, say, one tiny part of a C function having no ramifications to other modules? Do you have a 1-second recompile time (just for that module) followed by 5-10 minutes of link time before you can re-test? Is there no incremental linking? No dynamic libraries? I'm curious what type of program you have. That seems excessively slow to me.
Nonsense. Just because the compiler can optimize away int x = *p; (if it chooses to as an optimization) doesn't mean that it must. It would be perfectly valid for the compiler to generate code that dereferences p and throws an exception at runtime.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought your story was going to go like this...
When I hear about bitcoin's founder I am reminded of a homeless man I met in Palo Alto in the 1990's, in his 30's or 40's. He used to stand on the street chanting weird things and you would think he was insane, which he was. But if you talked to him, you'd realize he was pretty smart too. Anyhow, he told me about how he was getting his P.H.D. in Economics from Yale, but they rejected his thesis which was basically about private currency, as his professors equated it with counterfeiting and he subsequently went semi-mad according to him. This guy was a smart homeless guy but also a little crazy, his shopping cart had various gadgets powered by car battery, and I think there was a reason he was hanging out in the valley at that time. Find him, and you will find the creator of bitcoin. Anyway, after he was all done telling me this, he looked intently at me and said, "By the way, can you spare some change? I need about tree fiddy."
Young, massive, and hot: Pick any two.
"I don't know... It's not wise to upset a chimpanzee."
"But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid."
"That's 'cause a droid don't pull people's arms outta their sockets when they lose. Chimpanzees have been known to do that."
What that meant is that slaveholding states had greater representation in the US House of Representatives than if the slaves were not counted.
Well, yes, that was a short-term consequence of it. But what it actually meant, in the long term (and why it was such a briliiant tactic!) is that it encouraged states to free their slaves in order to gain even more representation — because those "other persons" would then count as 1.0 as free persons, as opposed to only 0.6 as slaves. In other words, the slave-holding states were tricked by their own greed. It's brilliant.
Maybe you could have the eyeball explode or get shot with a bullet or poked with a sharp stick after two seconds? That would get the point across that you're shutting down the eye so it can't see anymore.
That eyeball freaks me out. When I see your web page, I immediately think you're saying: "Install my software and I can watch you just like I'm looking through this peephole."
Witch Burning Teslas In the News Ford Recalls Almost 140,000 Escapes
depends what you do with the computer. If your browsing for pictures of cats then the trackpad is the way to go, if your writing code, the nipple mouse kicks ass because your hands never have to leave the home row.
I thought it was called the clitoris mouse. Whose nipples are that small?
No, your years are quite wrong, actually. 640x480 (VGA) was common by 1987-88. In 1985 it was 640x350 (EGA). In 1995 we had already gotten past 800x600 and were on 1024x768.
IMO, you need at least 7" (or maybe even larger) to "need" it.
Agreed. I'm 7.5" and I need it all the time.
floats are soft option, ...
Too many shadows, whispering voices
faces on posters, too many choices
If? When? Why? What?
How much have you got?
Have you got it? Do you get it?
If so, how often?
Which do you choose
a hard or soft option?
s/cheeck/cheek/ Too much coffee tonight; forgot how to English properly.
That is a terrible example.
It was meant tongue-in-cheeck.
I would dare you to take a 20 year old program in any language and have it run successfully on any current computer without having to do some substantial tweaking or putting that computer into some sort of historical mode of operation.
10 PRINT "HELLO, WORLD!"
20 END
RUN
HELLO, WORLD!
Yup, still works without any tweaking!
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
We have a rule that you should always set the loop counter when starting a loop, so that it is in a clearly defined state and anyone looking at the loop can see that.
Better yet, you should always define and set the loop counter when starting a loop, e.g.,
for (int i = 0; i < imax; i++)
so that its type definition is clearly defined and anyone looking at the loop can see it. There is never any good reason for this:
int i;
...
for (i = 0; i < imax; i++)
No need to go off and hunt where it was set.
Or go off and hunt where it was defined.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
I see. OK. I wish Slashdot's comment system was better at showing the order of things in large subthreads.
You said, "If the compiler does anything but check to see if the pointer p is null and execute g() if p is a null pointer then the compiler is broken." I'm saying that's incorrect. Note that the compiler is full well within its right to also try to initialize x by dereferencing p, thereby causing an exception. There is no rule that int x = *p; be optimized out of existence just because it can be.
I don't think you quite understand how prime numbers work. If it's easy to check that a number n (known to be larger than some m, for example 1 trillion) is prime, then it's also easy to find the first prime after m, due to the distribution of primes. For example, you only have to expect to test about 14 odd numbers greater than 1 trillion to find one that is prime. So if the test for primeness is "easy," then finding the first prime number larger than 1 trillion is only 14 times as much work — i.e., still "easy."
Maybe because most people want Microsoft out of the picture and conveniently choose to ignore it rather than lend credence to it?
What's the turnaround time if you change, say, one tiny part of a C function having no ramifications to other modules? Do you have a 1-second recompile time (just for that module) followed by 5-10 minutes of link time before you can re-test? Is there no incremental linking? No dynamic libraries? I'm curious what type of program you have. That seems excessively slow to me.
A single C source code file? 8 hours? How many lines? Even 8 minutes seems off by several order of magnitude.
Nonsense. Just because the compiler can optimize away int x = *p; (if it chooses to as an optimization) doesn't mean that it must. It would be perfectly valid for the compiler to generate code that dereferences p and throws an exception at runtime.
At first I thought it said:
Self-Published Zombie Titties Have Doubled Since 2012