no you won't get a null pointer in "foo", but even if foo was initialized you wouldn't as you were setting 0s in the address foo pointed to not foo itself. foo is not NULL - it's a real discrete value, that may or may not be 0. The actual value is not defined by the C specification, and is most likely whatever happened to already exist at the &foo address.
Your code will in fact guarantee sizeof(foo) 0 bytes at the address foo - whatever that might happen to be - operating system allowing. The code would very likely crash...but not because of C knowing you were trying to populate a NULL pointer. C treats the pointer as valid, and attempts to set the values - it's the operating system that will probably object.
any comparison to null is false in oracle (and some other databases I believe). And it makes a certain amount of sense, even if it's different to how most common languages treat it...null is not a value, it's an absense of value in Oracle. In languages like Java it's a separate discrete value, and in C there is no concept of null - just a macro defining (void *)0.
It's a common source of bugs from people new to Oracle - a query like SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE field1 != 'blah' may not return what you expect if field1 may have nulls...you need to add "OR field1 IS NULL" as a specific extra clause. The other one is attempting to check for NULL by using WHERE field1 = NULL which will fail, because even NULL == NULL is false under that assumption. Which is why the IS NULL and IS NOT NULL operaters exist.
But only if you're trying to cram that much traffic through in the first place.
If your applications mainly deal with 32 bit values now, a 64 bit processor won't make much difference. But if you're working with 64 bit numbers already, then suddenly operations that had to be broken up can be done in a single step. Also unlrelated to the word size, the AMD64 instruction set provides more general purpose registers which can improve performance regardless of whether or not you're using 64 bit numbers, I would assume that Intel's 64 bit extensions would also have to provide those registers.
If you're working in a job where you can't be frank with the people above you, then get another job. The only reason this dilbertesque cliche of organisational structure exists is because people let it exist.
If you're going to turn down an offer the best thing to do is explain why. You might get a better one.
An example of that is a tender our company was invited to take part in. Generaly we're a scanning and printing outsourcer, but this tender had a whole lot of personel management involved as well that would have made the whole thing too much of a headache. But rather than just say no thanks or ignore it, we turned in a response saying that we would not apply for the tender, and explained the reasons why we would not. No one else responded to it at all, but the company in question looked at our anti-response, and offered us the chance at a revised contract that was more acceptable and we took it.
By explaining why you don't want to do something it shows that you're thinking, and that you know your limitations, and are ultimately a more responsible person. Just ignoring it or turning it down with no reason will make it appear as if you have no ambition. Accepting it as is when you know you don't want it is just asking for trouble.
Also if the truth is going to set you free from you relationship, then it's doomed anyway, because the truth will always come out in a relationship eventually. But if it's coming out because you're telling it, then you have control over the way it's delivered.
so "Greater Than" or "Bar, Greater Than" or "Asterisk"
Alt tags aren't supposed to be ASCII art, they're supposed to tell the user of text based - and in particular text to speech screen readers - what the image is. If the image isn't anything useful, there's no point in it saying anything. alt="" very clearly shows that this image is irrelevant, anything else just confuses things.
LCDs don't have refresh rates as such, they have a response time, and that value is a property of the display itself, not a function of the resolution, so I'm not sure what you mean by the 120Hz and 200Hz figures.
The trouble is that the day you don't attend is the day that something gets decided without you that you could have had some input in. When you object to it after having read the email, the only correct response is "Well why weren't you in the meeting then?" Of course having an agenda would help the decision to attend, so the advise to never attend a meeting without one is probably pretty sound.
I knew it was trollish, hence my "I don't know why I'm replying" comment, but re-reading showed just how ridiculous it was...oh well...can't take it back now.
Its my experience that "highly trained technical professionals" would have enough real world experience to know the sort of crap code that can come out of any company...no matter how much money you throw at it, and that there's nothing inherently better about a product that costs money. In fact, it's been my experience that the more you pay for something, the crappier it is *cough*legato*cough*
Also, professional you may be (as in you get payed to do it), but you have very little professionalism if you have to resort to using terms like "open sores", not to mention the fact that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about due to your use of terms like "the Linux 7.0 webserver", "LinuxOS", and reference to RedHat as a web server, as well as referring to J2EE as an open source product, instead of the specification implemented by many proprietry application servers by companies such as IBM, Oracle, Borland and BEA.
I'm not even sure why I'm replying to this...it might as well have been generated by a script...
The thing is that Linux is _NOT_ written by Slashdot reading armchair critics...
There may be a few Linux kernel hackers reading slashdot...but the vast majority of people commenting on stories on slashdot really don't know anything...about any of the topics, so the trick is to wade through the crap from those that take yesterday's headline as gospel today to find the good posts from those that really do know what they're talking about. Chances are, if there are a lot of early posts repeating the same thing in a slightly hysterical manner, ("Intel's doing this for marketing purposes", "Windows is always insecure and always will be", "Nintendo's new game console will fail, it's Virtual Boy 2")that they're all uninformed...not necesarily wrong...but very likely uninformed
Things just working is always good...but I'm usualy far more insterested in how easy it is to make the things that dont work, work.
It's all very well having a distribution that can do a,b and c out of the box, but if when X,Y and Z become the important things later down the track, it's nearly impossible to get them working then it's not much good to me. But if a distribution doesn't supply a,b and c functionality out of the box, but doesn't make it difficult to add things, then you can get the a,b and c, and later the X, Y and Z without too much hassle.
However, I'm not saying that Mandrake does make it difficult to add things, but often distributions that go out of their way to make life easy the first time round have to customize the underlying components to a point where it can be difficult to figure out how to make your own changes, as the setup no longer resembles anything like what is in the documentation for that component.
So?, It's still not the Virtual Boy, so nothing that happened to the Virtual Boy is doomed to happen to this. The real world doesn't run on narratives.
And like I said before, you don't have enough details to make a judgement yet.
There's not even a PICUTRE of it yet...don't you think you're jumping to a conclusion or two here? Why don't you wait until there's just a little more information and then make your judgement.
Also, why does everyone keep comparing it to the Virtual Boy?...it's NOT the Virtual Boy, and how ever it turns out, it still wont be the Virtual Boy, so the fate of the Virtual Boy is irrelevant when looking at this.
Slashdot Mirror
> int *foo;
> memset(foo, 0, sizeof(foo));
no you won't get a null pointer in "foo", but even if foo was initialized you wouldn't as you were setting 0s in the address foo pointed to not foo itself.
foo is not NULL - it's a real discrete value, that may or may not be 0. The actual value is not defined by the C specification, and is most likely whatever happened to already exist at the &foo address.
Your code will in fact guarantee sizeof(foo) 0 bytes at the address foo - whatever that might happen to be - operating system allowing.
The code would very likely crash...but not because of C knowing you were trying to populate a NULL pointer. C treats the pointer as valid, and attempts to set the values - it's the operating system that will probably object.
any comparison to null is false in oracle (and some other databases I believe). And it makes a certain amount of sense, even if it's different to how most common languages treat it...null is not a value, it's an absense of value in Oracle. In languages like Java it's a separate discrete value, and in C there is no concept of null - just a macro defining (void *)0.
It's a common source of bugs from people new to Oracle - a query like SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE field1 != 'blah' may not return what you expect if field1 may have nulls...you need to add "OR field1 IS NULL" as a specific extra clause.
The other one is attempting to check for NULL by using WHERE field1 = NULL which will fail, because even NULL == NULL is false under that assumption. Which is why the IS NULL and IS NOT NULL operaters exist.
when x is null, and you're dealing with oracle.
yes..but the most common component in homemade explosives is.......explosive material.
which there wont be any of...
so there wont be a problem.
hah, do you really believe the CPM user is real?
They've got to be masking their user agent.
But Brand X has far less information on you and so doesn't require as much trust.
actually base is a technically correct, if not widely used anymore spelling.
:P
Though in this case it appears it was a typo anyway
But only if you're trying to cram that much traffic through in the first place.
If your applications mainly deal with 32 bit values now, a 64 bit processor won't make much difference.
But if you're working with 64 bit numbers already, then suddenly operations that had to be broken up can be done in a single step.
Also unlrelated to the word size, the AMD64 instruction set provides more general purpose registers which can improve performance regardless of whether or not you're using 64 bit numbers, I would assume that Intel's 64 bit extensions would also have to provide those registers.
No, the address getting all the spam definitely doesn't have a common name.
;)
I'm making the guess that the Tressia one is a result of that though....assuming Tressia is a common russian name
I have had exactly the same experience.
about 95% of my Spam comes from an old email address I have not used for 4 years or so.
About 1% comes from DNS records, and about 3% is things like info@, sales@, webmaster@ which the spammers have just assumed would exist.
The weirdest is one for someone called Tressia at my domain....and all the spam to that address is russian.
What the hell does that have to do with James Gosling, the inventor of Java?
If you're working in a job where you can't be frank with the people above you, then get another job.
The only reason this dilbertesque cliche of organisational structure exists is because people let it exist.
If you're going to turn down an offer the best thing to do is explain why. You might get a better one.
An example of that is a tender our company was invited to take part in. Generaly we're a scanning and printing outsourcer, but this tender had a whole lot of personel management involved as well that would have made the whole thing too much of a headache. But rather than just say no thanks or ignore it, we turned in a response saying that we would not apply for the tender, and explained the reasons why we would not.
No one else responded to it at all, but the company in question looked at our anti-response, and offered us the chance at a revised contract that was more acceptable and we took it.
By explaining why you don't want to do something it shows that you're thinking, and that you know your limitations, and are ultimately a more responsible person. Just ignoring it or turning it down with no reason will make it appear as if you have no ambition. Accepting it as is when you know you don't want it is just asking for trouble.
Also if the truth is going to set you free from you relationship, then it's doomed anyway, because the truth will always come out in a relationship eventually. But if it's coming out because you're telling it, then you have control over the way it's delivered.
so "Greater Than"
or "Bar, Greater Than"
or "Asterisk"
Alt tags aren't supposed to be ASCII art, they're supposed to tell the user of text based - and in particular text to speech screen readers - what the image is. If the image isn't anything useful, there's no point in it saying anything.
alt="" very clearly shows that this image is irrelevant, anything else just confuses things.
LCDs don't have refresh rates as such, they have a response time, and that value is a property of the display itself, not a function of the resolution, so I'm not sure what you mean by the 120Hz and 200Hz figures.
The trouble is that the day you don't attend is the day that something gets decided without you that you could have had some input in.
When you object to it after having read the email, the only correct response is "Well why weren't you in the meeting then?"
Of course having an agenda would help the decision to attend, so the advise to never attend a meeting without one is probably pretty sound.
Why is that ridiculous? there's a lot more people in the world that waste more time than that on TV every day....
Also living on campus eliminates travels times, and so allows for more free time anyway....
probably...that's what I get for skim reading ;)
I knew it was trollish, hence my "I don't know why I'm replying" comment, but re-reading showed just how ridiculous it was...oh well...can't take it back now.
Its my experience that "highly trained technical professionals" would have enough real world experience to know the sort of crap code that can come out of any company...no matter how much money you throw at it, and that there's nothing inherently better about a product that costs money. In fact, it's been my experience that the more you pay for something, the crappier it is *cough*legato*cough*
Also, professional you may be (as in you get payed to do it), but you have very little professionalism if you have to resort to using terms like "open sores", not to mention the fact that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about due to your use of terms like "the Linux 7.0 webserver", "LinuxOS", and reference to RedHat as a web server, as well as referring to J2EE as an open source product, instead of the specification implemented by many proprietry application servers by companies such as IBM, Oracle, Borland and BEA.
I'm not even sure why I'm replying to this...it might as well have been generated by a script...
The thing is that Linux is _NOT_ written by Slashdot reading armchair critics...
There may be a few Linux kernel hackers reading slashdot...but the vast majority of people commenting on stories on slashdot really don't know anything...about any of the topics, so the trick is to wade through the crap from those that take yesterday's headline as gospel today to find the good posts from those that really do know what they're talking about.
Chances are, if there are a lot of early posts repeating the same thing in a slightly hysterical manner, ("Intel's doing this for marketing purposes", "Windows is always insecure and always will be", "Nintendo's new game console will fail, it's Virtual Boy 2")that they're all uninformed...not necesarily wrong...but very likely uninformed
proof?
On either claim?
you forgot, * higher clock speed == faster.
and + more clock speed headroom == faster again later.
Things just working is always good...but I'm usualy far more insterested in how easy it is to make the things that dont work, work.
It's all very well having a distribution that can do a,b and c out of the box, but if when X,Y and Z become the important things later down the track, it's nearly impossible to get them working then it's not much good to me.
But if a distribution doesn't supply a,b and c functionality out of the box, but doesn't make it difficult to add things, then you can get the a,b and c, and later the X, Y and Z without too much hassle.
However, I'm not saying that Mandrake does make it difficult to add things, but often distributions that go out of their way to make life easy the first time round have to customize the underlying components to a point where it can be difficult to figure out how to make your own changes, as the setup no longer resembles anything like what is in the documentation for that component.
So?, It's still not the Virtual Boy, so nothing that happened to the Virtual Boy is doomed to happen to this. The real world doesn't run on narratives.
And like I said before, you don't have enough details to make a judgement yet.
There's not even a PICUTRE of it yet...don't you think you're jumping to a conclusion or two here?
Why don't you wait until there's just a little more information and then make your judgement.
Also, why does everyone keep comparing it to the Virtual Boy?...it's NOT the Virtual Boy, and how ever it turns out, it still wont be the Virtual Boy, so the fate of the Virtual Boy is irrelevant when looking at this.
"Nintendo DS features two separate 3" TFT LCD display panels"
That's in the article summary, the GameSpy article, and the Nintendo Press release.
no wait, you're right..we're all assuming things....