I've never played this so may get this for that (footage interleaved as Extended Reloaded). Dispite its faults, the Matrices are slick and impressive action films, the first being a finely balanced roller-coaster (with amusing product tie-ins etc.) and the other two being poorly balanced but still exciting to watch (IMHO).
netbook/pxe? good point tho. Windows 2000's boot disk is larger than a floppy and spans several. Perhaps you could figure out a way of spanning across 4 disks?
"If a hole in MS SQL doesn't count against Windows, should one in mySQL count against Red Hat?"
In fact, since mySQL is a supported product on Windows, why not count all mySQL vulns on Windows too?
MS Windows does come with a lot of software (server editions come with IIS etc.), but Redhat comes with more (5 mail servers, 4 RDBMSs...). XP Pro is not a server OS. Redhat ES is. We should be comparing Windows Server 2003, with a comparable groups of server packages (including Exchange etc.).
Those 5 malloc()s and 4 free()s may well match up at runtime to be 20 of each, or they may make 5 and 4, respectively. The compiler can only tell in certain very trivial cases.
Dynamic memory management is not very susceptible to static (i.e. compile-time for C) analysis. Try valgrind.
here in the UK the BCS in conjunction with the Engineering Council do accreditation for Chartered Engineer (CEng) status, and the new Chartered IT Professional (CITP) too.
"The misanthropes that took over comp.lang.lisp are pathetic. I've never seen a techical discussion group that hostile and defensive."
I've never seen technical discussion of such a high calibre, except perhaps lambda the ultimate, where the discussion often goes way over my head.
cllers have to deal with many trolls and many, many I-havn't-read-the-FAQ-ers, neither of whom deserve a lot of attention. Perhaps what you would like is to see a comp.lang.lisp.learn or.newbies for people learning the language? They can get the answers they need from the FAQ, and newbies' questions do get constructive answers.
Basically: you can do want you want, you just need to write a few macros to transform the code that you want to write into Lisp.
Having spent a few hours writing CLOS code (probably what you'd want to do) I think that the power gained (the sheer breadth of the object model to begin with) is easily worth the cost of a syntactic change. It's just a bit different.
"Lisp does need a better... community and one standard open source implementation."
I don't see how abandonning several different viable implementations would be a good thing. Eg. SBCL and CLISP are very different tools. Drop CLISP and you lose the ability to run Common Lisp on 4MB machines, drop SBCL and lose native threading. Again, this is a little different; just because Python and Perl have only on implementation, this doesn't mean all languages should have only on implementation. You can't really think that we should get rid of any of Intel's, MS's or GCC, surely?
it's not really destructive, it's only a DOS (local too).
Re:I apologize if this is a stupid question, but..
on
GCC Gets Its Own News Site
·
· Score: 4, Informative
read this and this.
SSA stands for Static Single Assignment.
Partly the work is about unifying parse-tree data structures throughout the compiler. "There is no single tree representation in GCC."
OT:Re:PCs are LBAs, and Halting for LBAs is solved
on
Java Faster Than C++?
·
· Score: 1
let me get this straight. Run a copy of the program. Either a program with input halts or it doesn't. If it does halt, then we return true. Otherwise, keep track of all past states of the LBA, and if we ever come to the same state, return false. PROVE: if an LBA does not halt for a given input, then it will loop through the same state.
'Arithmetics' has to be interpreted pretty loosely, since there are systems that Godel's theorem holds for that are not really recognizable as arithmetic. (Sorry for being vague, I can't find a good reference atm).
That is simply not true. Companies pay tax on their profits. If they make no profit, then they pay no taxes. So there are companies that take money from customers, but not enough to make a profit, so they pay no tax.
Perhaps once the environmental cost of throwing away all that mercury-laden pcb and other toxic stuff is taken into account, throwing away pretty much whole computers won't be so economical....
Quoth the poster: "They also say that current cheap broadband products will more than likely not be viable in five years time."
This means:
"Mr Beal hinted, however, that the cheap broadband telephony deals available at the moment may not continue." (from bbc article).
NOT that broadband itself is going to get more expensive...
You might want to look at Harold Cohen, the author of AARON. You might also be interested in a talk he did after retiring at the Tate (real format). I don't think that it's entirely clear whether the paintings are the work, or the program is the work.
AARON however, was capable of creating representation images, which requires AI work in of itself. I am not sure (without perusing the code) much K++ is intelligent.
1. Linux 0.1 == Linux 2.6
2. Minix is a "Prentice Hall Product".
3. "Hybrid Source".
4. Software being cheaper is bad for the economy.
5. Proprietary software is immune to the problem of software attribution.
6. Rhetoric constitutes an argument.
1. This fallacy is used in the inference that since Coherent took several man years, Linux must have been stolen.
2. As even Brown admits, Prentice Hall released Minix under a libre license.
3. Perhaps "Noone can ever truly accrue any value from owning hybrid source software", but so what? Everyone can accrue value from such software. It is a rank non-sequitur to claim that "The hybrid source model negatively impacts... inevitably the entire IT economy". (See 4 too).
"Tanenbaum vehemently insists that Torvalds wrote Linux from scratch, which means from a blank computer screen to most people. No books, no resources, no notes -- certainly not a line of source code to borrow from, or to be tempted to borrow from."
This guy has never written a line of code in his life, and it's painfully obvious. I cannot think of a single program that I have written where I have never used a book. Linus just typed in every line of Linux version 0.1 himself. That's what "from scratch" means.
Slashdot Mirror
thanks - I saw when I looked again. It wasn't given much description in TFA which explains why I missed it.
see above discussion of why this might not be a good idea.
I'm slightly surprised that the Animatrix was not one of the discs. Pity. For 45 quid, they could have thrown it in...
I've never played this so may get this for that (footage interleaved as Extended Reloaded). Dispite its faults, the Matrices are slick and impressive action films, the first being a finely balanced roller-coaster (with amusing product tie-ins etc.) and the other two being poorly balanced but still exciting to watch (IMHO).
netbook/pxe? good point tho. Windows 2000's boot disk is larger than a floppy and spans several. Perhaps you could figure out a way of spanning across 4 disks?
"If a hole in MS SQL doesn't count against Windows, should one in mySQL count against Red Hat?"
In fact, since mySQL is a supported product on Windows, why not count all mySQL vulns on Windows too?
MS Windows does come with a lot of software (server editions come with IIS etc.), but Redhat comes with more (5 mail servers, 4 RDBMSs ...). XP Pro is not a server OS. Redhat ES is. We should be comparing Windows Server 2003, with a comparable groups of server packages (including Exchange etc.).
read Date's book (Introduction to Database Systems) but basically, SQL is meant be be a relational query language, but it isn't relational!
Those 5 malloc()s and 4 free()s may well match up at runtime to be 20 of each, or they may make 5 and 4, respectively. The compiler can only tell in certain very trivial cases.
Dynamic memory management is not very susceptible to static (i.e. compile-time for C) analysis. Try valgrind.
here in the UK the BCS in conjunction with the Engineering Council do accreditation for Chartered Engineer (CEng) status, and the new Chartered IT Professional (CITP) too.
I agree. The puerile style spilled from the jokes into the meat of the story too. "Unit testing didn't exist before XP" etc.
-1: Un-funny
"The misanthropes that took over comp.lang.lisp are pathetic. I've never seen a techical discussion group that hostile and defensive."
.newbies for people learning the language? They can get the answers they need from the FAQ, and newbies' questions do get constructive answers.
I've never seen technical discussion of such a high calibre, except perhaps lambda the ultimate, where the discussion often goes way over my head.
cllers have to deal with many trolls and many, many I-havn't-read-the-FAQ-ers, neither of whom deserve a lot of attention. Perhaps what you would like is to see a comp.lang.lisp.learn or
Basically: you can do want you want, you just need to write a few macros to transform the code that you want to write into Lisp.
... community and one standard open source implementation."
Having spent a few hours writing CLOS code (probably what you'd want to do) I think that the power gained (the sheer breadth of the object model to begin with) is easily worth the cost of a syntactic change. It's just a bit different.
"Lisp does need a better
I don't see how abandonning several different viable implementations would be a good thing. Eg. SBCL and CLISP are very different tools. Drop CLISP and you lose the ability to run Common Lisp on 4MB machines, drop SBCL and lose native threading. Again, this is a little different; just because Python and Perl have only on implementation, this doesn't mean all languages should have only on implementation. You can't really think that we should get rid of any of Intel's, MS's or GCC, surely?
"For example does anyone really lose flexibility if we say statements are delimited by ';'?"
What about if you don't want to have statements in your programming language? Eg. in a functional language.
it's not really destructive, it's only a DOS (local too).
read this and this.
SSA stands for Static Single Assignment.
Partly the work is about unifying parse-tree data structures throughout the compiler. "There is no single tree representation in GCC."
let me get this straight.
Run a copy of the program.
Either a program with input halts or it doesn't.
If it does halt, then we return true.
Otherwise, keep track of all past states of the LBA, and if we ever come to the same state, return false.
PROVE: if an LBA does not halt for a given input, then it will loop through the same state.
'Arithmetics' has to be interpreted pretty loosely, since there are systems that Godel's theorem holds for that are not really recognizable as arithmetic. (Sorry for being vague, I can't find a good reference atm).
That is simply not true. Companies pay tax on their profits. If they make no profit, then they pay no taxes. So there are companies that take money from customers, but not enough to make a profit, so they pay no tax.
Perhaps once the environmental cost of throwing away all that mercury-laden pcb and other toxic stuff is taken into account, throwing away pretty much whole computers won't be so economical....
Quoth the poster: "They also say that current cheap broadband products will more than likely not be viable in five years time."
This means:
"Mr Beal hinted, however, that the cheap broadband telephony deals available at the moment may not continue." (from bbc article).
NOT that broadband itself is going to get more expensive...
Could someone capable in the apropriate math(s) please explain how the proof works?
You might want to look at Harold Cohen, the author of AARON. You might also be interested in a talk he did after retiring at the Tate (real format). I don't think that it's entirely clear whether the paintings are the work, or the program is the work.
AARON however, was capable of creating representation images, which requires AI work in of itself. I am not sure (without perusing the code) much K++ is intelligent.
"Check out the political compass."
Or even better(?), check out Political Survey, the open source equivalent, where the methodology is open to all to inspect and criticise.
1. Linux 0.1 == Linux 2.6
... inevitably the entire IT economy". (See 4 too).
2. Minix is a "Prentice Hall Product".
3. "Hybrid Source".
4. Software being cheaper is bad for the economy.
5. Proprietary software is immune to the problem of software attribution.
6. Rhetoric constitutes an argument.
1. This fallacy is used in the inference that since Coherent took several man years, Linux must have been stolen.
2. As even Brown admits, Prentice Hall released Minix under a libre license.
3. Perhaps "Noone can ever truly accrue any value from owning hybrid source software", but so what? Everyone can accrue value from such software. It is a rank non-sequitur to claim that "The hybrid source model negatively impacts
"Tanenbaum vehemently insists that Torvalds wrote Linux from scratch, which means from a blank computer screen to most people. No books, no resources, no notes -- certainly not a line of source code to borrow from, or to be tempted to borrow from."
This guy has never written a line of code in his life, and it's painfully obvious. I cannot think of a single program that I have written where I have never used a book. Linus just typed in every line of Linux version 0.1 himself. That's what "from scratch" means.