Someone would have to sue them for it. Since most customers probably _want_ to know that, rather than the name of the call center, it seems unlikely that anyone would pursue a case based on that.
I have noticed that if I don't do "using namespace std" it shrinks the output, but I don't understand why a using statement would cause any change to the resulting output. Isn't a using statement merely a syntactical convenience to avoid typing fully-qualified names?
But in general, if you are care about a 300k increase in your executable, you should probably be using C anyway.
This is the attitude that confuses me. C++ is not larger than C. gcc is creating that perception because when you include a simple C++ header, it brings in 200k of unused libraries.
The solution is not to use C. The solution is for gcc and/or the linker to stop importing unused libraries.
Actually, it was fstream that I was causing the problem. The embedded app didn't have a console so there was no cout. Looking back at the code, I started to use fstream then switched to regular C FILE *.
After reading through 100 comments on the politics of Mexican immigrant workers, I realized I'm reading a technology blog, and all I wanted to know was why the fence didn't work. The article doesn't really say. It says the "fence" is composed of towers with monitoring equipment. But it doesn't really say what that equipment was supposed to do, or what it failed to do.
"Ninety to 100 percent of all illegal crossers, this camera system was going to identify and characterize this threat,"
What does that mean? Was it supposed to magically know who was crossing illegally and who wasn't? Or identify Mexicans -vs- Americans? That's silly. Was it just supposed to detect people, or movement? Did it fail at doing that?
"It's not a matter of, you know, do you look at the screen and see things?" Stana said. "Yes, you're going to see some things. The question is: Are you going to see things over time? Is it a quality image and is it a reliable image?"
This is still very vague. It is supposed to "see things over time" - what things? Over what time? Was it supposed to identify behaviors somehow?
Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?
I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code. I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++. Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries. the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced. The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler wanted to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.
This just establishes that the original post was making a lot of assumptions. There was very little information at that point since all they had the was GDC announcement speech to go on. If it really were an EyeToy + a glowy controller, this would be awful.
HTML5 video has to be optimized once per browser per platform,
You are confusing implementations and standards. HTML5 is a standard. There is no optimization.
Now, since the software companies have no chosen to share a common implementation, there are more implementations that must be optimized. But the fact that more software implements the standard is not a disadvantage, it is an advantage. The fact there are more more solutions is a good thing, not a bad thing. If you applied your reasoning, then it would be best to have only one browser, and one word procsesor, and one video player, and one spreadsheet program, etc. so that fewer things need to be optimized.
We got into this bad economy by financing mortgage debts greater than the value of the property, under the assumption that the housing market would grow and that mortgage debt would become a smaller percentage of the property value.
Our plan to get out of the bad economy is to finance national debt greater than the GDP of the economy, under the assumption that the economy will grow and the national debt will become a smaller percentage of the GDP.
Does anyone else see something wrong with this plan?
This sounds terrible. Sony already has the EyeToy. When it was originally created, it was a big thing, and they hired someone from NASA who was working on remote control of rovers using the human body. And it was some big high-tech thing. It turned out to be a cheap webcam and some simple software to see if there was motion at that point. They put absolutely zero effort into it. The Eyetoy was silly gimmick.
If this is sounding very much like the Wii's Remote and Nunchuk well, you aren't far off (
Really? It sounds totally different to me. An eyetoy is a cheap webcam with a limited frame rate and resolution. The Wii controllers can accurately determine position in 3 dimensions. There is good reason that this stuff has not been done with cameras. Cameras are limited - they need lots of light, the frame rate limits the responsiveness and accuracy, they can't handle things in the way, they can get easily confused. Accelerometers suffer from none of these flaws. Heck - at GDC there are tons of companies demonstrating motion-capture systems, and you can see the trade-off between quality and price by looking at the camera-based systems compared with the more custom solutions.
Image processing has come a long way in just a few years. But I don't think an EyeToy can even come close to what a Wii offers.
I suspect that Microsoft's Natal is using dual IR cameras or something, so at least they will have decent depth information. I'm skeptical that this can compete with the Wii either, but at least it looks like Microsoft is trying.
Okay, perhaps "no benefit" was too strong of a term. There are cases where it helps, and various replies have pointed-out those cases. As a general rule though, if a feature helps 10% of the time, and hurts 10% of the time, I would rather it be off.
Ideally, the feature would be enabled for those apps that do benefit from it. Perhaps the implementation was the problem - the OS general reports twice as many CPUs as it really has, which causes some apps/servers to spawn more threads than they should.
Flash was not a W3C standard. Flash was a commercial creation - so of course they made an editor available. That was the whole reason they made Flash in the first place - to sell the editor.
I would like to help clarify the meaning of "fundamental right" --
First of all, "fundamental right" does not mean "must be provided for free by the government." Free speech is a fundamental right. Health care is a fundamental right. The ability to fart in public is a fundamental right. In the view of the US founding fathers, such rights are "inalienable" meaning that they are so intrinsic that a government doesn't have to grant you the right. You already have it. They just aren't allowed to take it away.
The Internet has become like the postal service or telephone service. Soon, you won't be able to file your taxes or get a drivers license without the internet. But the postal service has never been free. Nor has telephone service.
So, if we say that the internet is a "fundamental right," does that mean that it should be free? Some people seem to assume it does. But that term usually just means that everyone, everywhere, should have the ability to purchase it at a reasonable price at a reasonable quality. It means it needs some level of regulation - that it should meet a minimum speed, it should not be filtered, it should be available at any residence, and it should not be subject to race or creed or color.
as such platform dependent QA & Testing is only done by the source engine developers and not the game developers
It just doesn't work that way. If you want to develop for XBOX, PC, and PS2 you don't use a cross-platform library, then test it on your PC, then release it having never tested it on the XBOX or PS2. You still have to get the XBOX and PS2 dev kits, you still have to build and deploy to those platforms, you still have to test it, and you still have to submit it to Microsoft and Sony to do their testing and get their approvals.
1) Flash works fine on mobile devices. There are 3rd-party Flash players that are optimized for those kinds of processors. Lots of embedded devices use Flash internally, as do some games.
2) Is there any reason that HTML5 would be any better or worse on mobile devices than Flash?
Why are they are still announcing hyperthreading? It was established long-ago that it had no benefit. It's been off on any machines I've ever purchased.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone would have to sue them for it. Since most customers probably _want_ to know that, rather than the name of the call center, it seems unlikely that anyone would pursue a case based on that.
I have noticed that if I don't do "using namespace std" it shrinks the output, but I don't understand why a using statement would cause any change to the resulting output. Isn't a using statement merely a syntactical convenience to avoid typing fully-qualified names?
Is there any downside to this? Slower compile + link time maybe?
Thank you! I will definitely try that.
But in general, if you are care about a 300k increase in your executable, you should probably be using C anyway.
This is the attitude that confuses me. C++ is not larger than C. gcc is creating that perception because when you include a simple C++ header, it brings in 200k of unused libraries.
The solution is not to use C. The solution is for gcc and/or the linker to stop importing unused libraries.
Actually, it was fstream that I was causing the problem. The embedded app didn't have a console so there was no cout. Looking back at the code, I started to use fstream then switched to regular C FILE *.
After reading through 100 comments on the politics of Mexican immigrant workers, I realized I'm reading a technology blog, and all I wanted to know was why the fence didn't work. The article doesn't really say. It says the "fence" is composed of towers with monitoring equipment. But it doesn't really say what that equipment was supposed to do, or what it failed to do.
"Ninety to 100 percent of all illegal crossers, this camera system was going to identify and characterize this threat,"
What does that mean? Was it supposed to magically know who was crossing illegally and who wasn't? Or identify Mexicans -vs- Americans? That's silly. Was it just supposed to detect people, or movement? Did it fail at doing that?
"It's not a matter of, you know, do you look at the screen and see things?" Stana said. "Yes, you're going to see some things. The question is: Are you going to see things over time? Is it a quality image and is it a reliable image?"
This is still very vague. It is supposed to "see things over time" - what things? Over what time? Was it supposed to identify behaviors somehow?
This whole thing is really vague.
I agree with you, but your last sentence is a bit of a stretch.
i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This smells political.
They aren't defending anyone (yet). They are just asking "what did you mean by that part about US citizens...?"
How would it know that it has found somebody on The Dreaded List
Wow: you just made me realize that someone...somewhere... is working on facial recognition for drones.
This applies to snipers as well. Does the military ever use snipers against enemies who are not presently engaged in a firefight?
Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?
I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code. I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++. Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries. the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced. The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler wanted to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.
Yeah, the eurogamer article on the Move also claims that there are accelerometers.
This just establishes that the original post was making a lot of assumptions. There was very little information at that point since all they had the was GDC announcement speech to go on. If it really were an EyeToy + a glowy controller, this would be awful.
HTML5 video has to be optimized once per browser per platform,
You are confusing implementations and standards. HTML5 is a standard. There is no optimization.
Now, since the software companies have no chosen to share a common implementation, there are more implementations that must be optimized. But the fact that more software implements the standard is not a disadvantage, it is an advantage. The fact there are more more solutions is a good thing, not a bad thing. If you applied your reasoning, then it would be best to have only one browser, and one word procsesor, and one video player, and one spreadsheet program, etc. so that fewer things need to be optimized.
Hardly. Cities are very heavy.
We got into this bad economy by financing mortgage debts greater than the value of the property, under the assumption that the housing market would grow and that mortgage debt would become a smaller percentage of the property value.
Our plan to get out of the bad economy is to finance national debt greater than the GDP of the economy, under the assumption that the economy will grow and the national debt will become a smaller percentage of the GDP.
Does anyone else see something wrong with this plan?
Yes, but the Wii doesn't use just the sensor bar. The accelerometers are a key feature.
This sounds terrible. Sony already has the EyeToy. When it was originally created, it was a big thing, and they hired someone from NASA who was working on remote control of rovers using the human body. And it was some big high-tech thing. It turned out to be a cheap webcam and some simple software to see if there was motion at that point. They put absolutely zero effort into it. The Eyetoy was silly gimmick.
If this is sounding very much like the Wii's Remote and Nunchuk well, you aren't far off (
Really? It sounds totally different to me. An eyetoy is a cheap webcam with a limited frame rate and resolution. The Wii controllers can accurately determine position in 3 dimensions. There is good reason that this stuff has not been done with cameras. Cameras are limited - they need lots of light, the frame rate limits the responsiveness and accuracy, they can't handle things in the way, they can get easily confused. Accelerometers suffer from none of these flaws. Heck - at GDC there are tons of companies demonstrating motion-capture systems, and you can see the trade-off between quality and price by looking at the camera-based systems compared with the more custom solutions.
Image processing has come a long way in just a few years. But I don't think an EyeToy can even come close to what a Wii offers.
I suspect that Microsoft's Natal is using dual IR cameras or something, so at least they will have decent depth information. I'm skeptical that this can compete with the Wii either, but at least it looks like Microsoft is trying.
Okay, perhaps "no benefit" was too strong of a term. There are cases where it helps, and various replies have pointed-out those cases. As a general rule though, if a feature helps 10% of the time, and hurts 10% of the time, I would rather it be off.
Ideally, the feature would be enabled for those apps that do benefit from it. Perhaps the implementation was the problem - the OS general reports twice as many CPUs as it really has, which causes some apps/servers to spawn more threads than they should.
Just download http:///www.amilegit.com.ru/legit_app_detector__win32_trojanfree!!!!.exe and it will scan the app and tell you if it is legitimate.
Irrelevant.
Flash was not a W3C standard. Flash was a commercial creation - so of course they made an editor available. That was the whole reason they made Flash in the first place - to sell the editor.
I would like to help clarify the meaning of "fundamental right" --
First of all, "fundamental right" does not mean "must be provided for free by the government." Free speech is a fundamental right. Health care is a fundamental right. The ability to fart in public is a fundamental right. In the view of the US founding fathers, such rights are "inalienable" meaning that they are so intrinsic that a government doesn't have to grant you the right. You already have it. They just aren't allowed to take it away.
The Internet has become like the postal service or telephone service. Soon, you won't be able to file your taxes or get a drivers license without the internet. But the postal service has never been free. Nor has telephone service.
So, if we say that the internet is a "fundamental right," does that mean that it should be free? Some people seem to assume it does. But that term usually just means that everyone, everywhere, should have the ability to purchase it at a reasonable price at a reasonable quality. It means it needs some level of regulation - that it should meet a minimum speed, it should not be filtered, it should be available at any residence, and it should not be subject to race or creed or color.
as such platform dependent QA & Testing is only done by the source engine developers and not the game developers
It just doesn't work that way. If you want to develop for XBOX, PC, and PS2 you don't use a cross-platform library, then test it on your PC, then release it having never tested it on the XBOX or PS2. You still have to get the XBOX and PS2 dev kits, you still have to build and deploy to those platforms, you still have to test it, and you still have to submit it to Microsoft and Sony to do their testing and get their approvals.
1) Flash works fine on mobile devices. There are 3rd-party Flash players that are optimized for those kinds of processors. Lots of embedded devices use Flash internally, as do some games.
2) Is there any reason that HTML5 would be any better or worse on mobile devices than Flash?
Right now, probably nothing since HTML 5 is completely new. There is no reason that Adobe Flash could not save to HTML 5.
Why are they are still announcing hyperthreading? It was established long-ago that it had no benefit. It's been off on any machines I've ever purchased.