While I agree with your disdain for the Taleban (I would extend that to anyone attempting a theocracy), it's important to point out that according to the article the radio in question was invented well before they were in power. It was his first real invention.
(Of note, if you look at the dates of inventions in the list shown, is how it goes right from an invention in 1972 to one in 1996, with nothing in-between. Apparently he didn't do a whole lot during the soviet occupation.)
Indeed. An automobile tire is designed to spread the weight out over an area. (I think I've heard of this concept before called "pressure...") And that means that if you want to know how much a car will hurt when it runs over your foot, don't look at the weight of the car. Look at the pressure of the tire. A bicyclist running over your foot hurts more than a car does, because the bike tire is higher pressure. Sure the bike weighs a lot less, but that weight will be concentrated onto a very small area of your foot.
30 meters of copper wire makes a noticable resistor in a circuit that is only operating on a small voltage like 5 or 12 volts. Thus the voltage you get at the wall socket would vary tremendously depending on how far the socket is from the house's transformer. (or you'd have to use much more expensive house wiring.)
This would mean the standard would have to have a large tolerance window on the voltage the appliace should expect to receive from the wall socket, enough of one to be largely useless. (There is some tolerance in the large voltage AC currents too, but from the point of view of a relative ratio, the difference between, say, 107 volts and 110 volts is not nearly as signifigant as the difference between 9 volts and 12 volts, even though both are only "three volts apart".)
(By the way, in response to another point you mentioned, there do exist AC motors.)
You claim, as near as I can tell, that the adaption of AC is the reason for having the mistake of there only existing a small number of power plants, each putting out a large capacity, instead of a large number of smaller local plants.
On this I call bullshit, because while AC *can* work over longer distances, it doesn't *have to*. One could build a short range AC power system just as easily as a short range DC one. And yet they still didn't end up doing it that way. Why? Because it's not actually better that way as you claim. Operating an electrical plant has an overhead cost that is rather signifigant, and so it's cheaper to have one plant putting out a lot of power than having 100 plants putting out a little power each. Consider the analogy of mass transit. Operating a compact car is cheaper, uses less fuel, and produces less pollution than operating a passenger bus. But if you need to move 40 people across town, with the bus you only "pay" that overhead cost once, and so moving 40 people on one bus is still less of a waste overall than moving ten compact cars with four people in each one.
Nautical lingo often contains vocabulary from a mix of many languages, because for a long time it was the one vocation where people of mixed languages got thrown together in one job, and the one vocation where someone might actually travel to more than a few different countries in a lifetime, and be exposed to a variety of languages.
So using the french "du jour" with the english "rig" is perfectly plausable. Nautical lingo is almost its own seperate language anyway (When have you ever heard "rig" used in english to mean "collection of nets and ropes that hold a structure in place", in some context OTHER than sailing?)
I don't know if the poster is right or not about the origin of the word, but the fact that it contains a mix of french and english, by itself, is not the problem you make it out to be.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem and I don't know how to solve it. App companies won't spend the effort to port their software to linux unless there's a big enough market to justify the effort. And the linux market will always be small so long as people can't run the apps they want on linux. (These kinds of problems *are* solvable, but as they are social, not techincal, they can only be solved in baby steps and trying to rush them has no effect.)
Ooh. Let's have another "It's all the fault of the evil application developers"-rant
Where did I say, or even imply "evil". I did say the ball was in their court. I did not say this made them evil. Either show me where I did, or apologise for your misrepresentation.
Your post was in response to a point that I never made.
Linux programs do not make calls directly to the video card more than Windows ones do. In fact, It is just the opposite - originally programs written for Windows had to talk to the video card directly to do any three-D, but more recently layers got written to make the abstraction so this is no longer required. In Linux, originally all video card work HAD to be done through drivers and direct access was disallowed and it is only recently that direct access to the video cards became a possiblity. So I have no idea what you are trying to refer to here by making the false implication that Windows abstracts the video card and while Linux does not.
If they just want to make up some element, and give it some comic-book properties, there's nothing wrong with that. But they should just make up a new name instead of using something existing and changing its properties.
Spidey's swinging isn't plausable, actually. The scenes where he turns corners are done well, and the scenes where he dangles from sticking-out-things are good, but the basic mode of transport doesn't make any sense. The way he's depicted as going down the straight streets, swinging from lines connected to the buildings on the sides, he should be smacking into the side walls at the bottoms of his swings. There is a way to make it with with alternating arcs weaving back and forth, but the way he's depicted as moving, he's not curving side-to-side enough to be doing that. I think this is why the camera often doesn't show what he's attaching his webs to when he goes straight down the street. If it showed what he was attaching to, it would make it obvious that the swing was happening on the wrong arc and it would look fake in that cgi-graphics-with-bad-physics kind of way that the Hulk movie looked fake.
This is something I first noticed as a child watching the old cartoon show, and it's still a problem now. But now I'm more able to accept that it doesn't matter because everything else about the show is so implausable too, just forget about it and go with the flow. As a small child it bothered me more than it does now.
The problem with these kind of cricisms at this site is that once you set up a site to try very hard to find problems, people tend to find problems that aren't problems, just to get their entry on the page: Here's some examples:
Audio problem: It's clear that due to the tentacles' heaviness, they have to made some kind of sound when moving. But yet when Doc Ock takes the tritium from Harry in his house, he leaves without making any sound at all.
Doc Ock's normal limbs were also there, in addition to his mechanical ones (He's not called Doc Quad, after all), and therefore he could still walk normally, just holding his mechanical limbs in the air and not doing anything with them (except holding onto the loot, of course). That could still be silent. Thus the implied sneaky getaway he allegedly made while off-camera is possible.
Continuity: Doc Ock pulls the giant sun ball and its support down onto himself, so he should be under it as they descend, yet in the final shot of him sinking into the ocean, the ball is below him and he is falling after it.
No. From the shot, we see Ock in the foreground, and the ball behind him, and they are getting smaller. The critic probably interpreted this to mean that they were falling away from the camera. But when I viewed it I interpreted this as the camera's vantage point was underneath them both, and the camera was sinking faster than they were, into the depths. The way the shot looked, either interpretation works. (But I think a much larger problem is that the river is only about 60 feet deep, and that final shot makes it look like it just goes down and down and down at least several hundred feet.)
Besides, it's entirely possible, even if the critic's interpretation of the camara angles is right, that the two got turned around at some point when they were both off camera. The movie does imply that quite a few seconds have passed between the scene where Ock pulled the thing down and the underwater scene.
Continuity: After Doc Ock drops Spider-Man off at Harry's house, Spider-Man's legs, wrists and arms are bound. When he sits up after Harry unmasks him, he never breaks his legs free of the ties yet he no longer has anything holding his legs together
Things are often implied to happen off-camera in a movie. There were shots during which only the top half of spiderman is shown during that 'breaking out' scene, and so breaking out the legs could happen anywhere in there. The problem with finding errors of ommission is that they don't necessarily mean anything when there are moments that are implied to occur off camera. Otherwise everyone in the movie must be horrendously constipated since the movie is implied to take place over a period of several days, and nobody ever goes to the bathroom.
Continuity: After Peter changes into Spider-Man to deliver the pizzas and throws them onto the ledge to save the two children, the camera goes back to show the pizzas and the man living there finding them. There are only seven pizza boxes, without any damage done to them. When he actually delivers them, there are eight and a couple of them are now flattened or banged-up as they should be.
The fact that there are 8 instead of 7 - that's a problem, yes. The fact that they are now damaged when they weren't before - no that's not a problem in the slightest. Nowhere does it imply that zero time has passed between the pizza on the ledge scene and the delivering scene. Presumably the damage could have happened after the ledge scene.
You are still operating under the delusion that range checks only occur when converting types. They don't, not even in your precious Ada. I don't know Ada much beyond one semester of it back in college, but I do know that it's a computer language, and must therefore run on an actual CPU at some point. And that's enough to tell what's wrong with your claim.
Running on an actual CPU means there's no such thing as a data type that stores numbers from 1 to 10 and is unable to store anything else. Not on a computer made up of binary numbers. a 3 bit number can store from 0 to 7, a 4 bit number from 0 to 15. There cannot be any such thing as a type that stores a number from 1 to 10. What actually exists when you have that type is a larger integer of some sort, maybe an 8-bit integer, maybe a 32 bit integer - maybe even a tiny 4-bit integer, but the point is that there's no such thing as a 3.3219-bit number, and that means the only way to ensure it will never have a number larger than 10 is to check for it at runtime. So you are still doing a lot of bounds checking, only you are doing the checks every time the range variable changes instead of doing it every time the range variable is used in an array reference. You have successfully removed the check from the array reference merely by putting it somewhere else instead, not by actually getting rid of it or it's overhead.
That guarantee that the index variable is in the range of 1..10 didn't come for free without the cpu doing runtime checks. It happened at exactly the same expense as bounds checking the array - it just happened a bit earlier in the process.
Oh, and by the way, I'm sick of you talking about how "C programers" think. I'm a programmer. Period. C is just one of many languages I use.
Sometimes it is impossible to be simultaneously honest and polite, as in this example. When that happens, I chose to have honesty win out over politeness.
It isn't common knowlege *because* of the aforementioned blinders. Something that simple and basic is something we expect everyone else to know about us, but we don't bother learning about them.
So, the moderators aren't even bothering to read the comments then? Countering someone's incorrect claim with a counterexample now counts as 'flamebait'???!
Yes, it does sound ridiculous because the concept of what you experinece is different from what is really out there in a few ways. There is quite clearly a "reality" that is merely being mapped into conscious experience, but is seperate from it. Therefore to say that reality is being altered when your mind is being altered makes no sense. Your mind wasn't even showing you reality in the first place. You're saying that our disconnect from reality means that both drugged and nondrugged experiences are both real. I'm saying that neither one is, but one is closer than the other.
When I'm perfectly sober (which is all the time), and I look at a table, I see BOTH a table and a rectangular shape. The two perceptions occur simultaneously at two different levels of conscious thought - just like when someone says the word "Cat" I imagine a furry animal while at the same time perceiving a 'k' sound followed by a 'ah' sound, followed by a 't' sound.
The conscious mind is not a single one-layer entity. Human beings can think different thoughts in parallel, provided they aren't all at the same level of complexity. Or at least, I'm assuming they can because I know that "I" can do so.
Quicken, Photoshop, and 3D CAD (SolidWorks). I rely on those programs. Make Linux run them and I'll switch immediately. Until then, I suffer with MS crap, along with the rest of the world.
Your reaction makes perfect sense - use what OS you need to to run the apps you want - but your post also contains the incorrect implication that there's something that Linux could do to make those apps run on it. There isn't. It's entirely in the hands of the application writers, and market forces. That's not something linux itself can change. It's a social problem, not a technical one. The apps don't exist on linux because the companies that make them don't think the effort to port would bring them enough new customers. This has nothing do to with any deficiencies in the OS itself. None.
I'd hazard a guess that every molecule of H20 on earth was at some point once a part of a rainfall, and will likely be again part of a rainfall. Therefore all water on the planet fits your definition of condensed water.
Only if you think of the atmosphere as being made of water, with some pesky air getting mixed in with it. i.e. airplanes don't fly - they swim through rather rarefied water.
That's interesting considering it's physically impossible to be allergic to marijuana
Why is it impossible? Allergies are not caused by ANY danger in the allergen itself. Allergies are caused by your own body's immune system falsely labeling a particular thing as being dangerous when it really isn't. All the symptoms of an allergy are the same as the symptoms of a cold or flu bug - extra mucus production, coughing, raised temperatures, nausea, swelling etc - are all actually being caused by your OWN body. Those reactions are ways you fight off the foreign intruder. Your body chooses to raise the temperature, because your body is better able to survive the ordeal of being too hot than a lot of foriegn microbes are. Your body chooses to produce extra mucus, to trap the microbes at the source and keep them from passing into the lungs. Your body initiates nausea to try to expell the bad microbes from your stomach. etc, etc etc. All an allergy is, is your own body choosing to kick in those reactions in response to something that wasn't actually a threat after all, but it has a bad pattern-recognition that has "learned" incorrectly that a particular thing is bad for you, and that mistake is now stuck in your system and it won't undo it.
So, sure, someone could be allergic to marijuana. People can be allergic to just about *anything* that enters the body through the air. Anything that gives off fumes, dust, or particles. This says nothing about the danger of the actual thing in question - just about the relative stupidity of the human immune system.
The reason it's so hard to find ways to cure an allergy is that the cure is to alter your immune system, telling it, "Please cross off Foo from your list of big bad dangerous things you like to fight against. It was added by mistake." And we haven't found a way to do that without also crossing off *other* things from that list - things that it would be dangerous to cross off, like "the common cold".
Re:Regarding conciousness
on
Lysergically Yours
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No. Nothing puts you in a different state of reality. It just puts up an additional filter between your mind and reality. We've already discovered ways in which our direct senses are already a bit of a distortion of reality - for example, our sense of color is just a crude approximation of the actual spectrum, and it is inaccurate and it can be fooled (for example, red light and green light do not actually combine to form yellow light, but it looks like they do simply because our eyes cannot disginguish between one single yellow spike on the spectrum and two smaller red and green spikes on the spectrum - both result in the same data reaching the brain. Shine that light through a prism to split out the rainbow and you can see the difference, but look at it directly and you cannot.)
So our senses are already an abstraction of reality. Taking drugs does NOT alter your reality anymore than putting on color-tinted glasses does. While wearing the glasses the color of objects changes in your vision, but the reality of them hasn't been affected in the slightest.
To say that taking drugs puts you in a different reality is to argue in favor of solipsism.
The only time a bound need to be checked is when a type is converted. As long as you are within one type no checks are needed since the bound are already garaneed.
And exactly *how* is it that the bound is guaranteed in what you are talking about? Oh, that's right - by checking it every time, just like I SAID. It doesn't happen by magic pixies.
Consider your: auto char x[10];
Now, I try to say:
int a = 5 int i = 2*a + 1;// i now is 11 x[i] = 'Z';// attempt to set the 11th char of x, which is out of bounds.
To keep that from screwing up, there needs to be bounds check, right there, and it needs to be done at RUNTIME. No conversion is being done.
So when you claim that in strongly typed languages that the bounds checks on arrays are only done when converting types, you are 100% wrong. The bounds checks have to happen EVERY time you use a variable for an array index.
I know the technique of which you speak. It is not fast. It's not the sort of thing you can do en masse, like scanning e-mails for keywords can be done.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with your disdain for the Taleban (I would extend that to anyone attempting a theocracy), it's important to point out that according to the article the radio in question was invented well before they were in power. It was his first real invention.
(Of note, if you look at the dates of inventions in the list shown, is how it goes right from an invention in 1972 to one in 1996, with nothing in-between. Apparently he didn't do a whole lot during the soviet occupation.)
Indeed. An automobile tire is designed to spread the weight out over an area. (I think I've heard of this concept before called "pressure...") And that means that if you want to know how much a car will hurt when it runs over your foot, don't look at the weight of the car. Look at the pressure of the tire. A bicyclist running over your foot hurts more than a car does, because the bike tire is higher pressure. Sure the bike weighs a lot less, but that weight will be concentrated onto a very small area of your foot.
30 meters of copper wire makes a noticable resistor in a circuit that is only operating on a small voltage like 5 or 12 volts. Thus the voltage you get at the wall socket would vary tremendously depending on how far the socket is from the house's transformer. (or you'd have to use much more expensive house wiring.)
This would mean the standard would have to have a large tolerance window on the voltage the appliace should expect to receive from the wall socket, enough of one to be largely useless. (There is some tolerance in the large voltage AC currents too, but from the point of view of a relative ratio, the difference between, say, 107 volts and 110 volts is not nearly as signifigant as the difference between 9 volts and 12 volts, even though both are only "three volts apart".)
(By the way, in response to another point you mentioned, there do exist AC motors.)
You claim, as near as I can tell, that the adaption of AC is the reason for having the mistake of there only existing a small number of power plants, each putting out a large capacity, instead of a large number of smaller local plants.
On this I call bullshit, because while AC *can* work over longer distances, it doesn't *have to*. One could build a short range AC power system just as easily as a short range DC one. And yet they still didn't end up doing it that way. Why? Because it's not actually better that way as you claim. Operating an electrical plant has an overhead cost that is rather signifigant, and so it's cheaper to have one plant putting out a lot of power than having 100 plants putting out a little power each. Consider the analogy of mass transit. Operating a compact car is cheaper, uses less fuel, and produces less pollution than operating a passenger bus. But if you need to move 40 people across town, with the bus you only "pay" that overhead cost once, and so moving 40 people on one bus is still less of a waste overall than moving ten compact cars with four people in each one.
Nautical lingo often contains vocabulary from a mix of many languages, because for a long time it was the one vocation where people of mixed languages got thrown together in one job, and the one vocation where someone might actually travel to more than a few different countries in a lifetime, and be exposed to a variety of languages.
So using the french "du jour" with the english "rig" is perfectly plausable. Nautical lingo is almost its own seperate language anyway (When have you ever heard "rig" used in english to mean "collection of nets and ropes that hold a structure in place", in some context OTHER than sailing?)
I don't know if the poster is right or not about the origin of the word, but the fact that it contains a mix of french and english, by itself, is not the problem you make it out to be.
Or a digital camera with a USB interface.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem and I don't know how to solve it. App companies won't spend the effort to port their software to linux unless there's a big enough market to justify the effort. And the linux market will always be small so long as people can't run the apps they want on linux. (These kinds of problems *are* solvable, but as they are social, not techincal, they can only be solved in baby steps and trying to rush them has no effect.)
Ooh. Let's have another "It's all the fault of the evil application developers"-rant
Where did I say, or even imply "evil". I did say the ball was in their court. I did not say this made them evil. Either show me where I did, or apologise for your misrepresentation.
Your post was in response to a point that I never made.
Linux programs do not make calls directly to the video card more than Windows ones do. In fact, It is just the opposite - originally programs written for Windows had to talk to the video card directly to do any three-D, but more recently layers got written to make the abstraction so this is no longer required. In Linux, originally all video card work HAD to be done through drivers and direct access was disallowed and it is only recently that direct access to the video cards became a possiblity. So I have no idea what you are trying to refer to here by making the false implication that Windows abstracts the video card and while Linux does not.
If they just want to make up some element, and give it some comic-book properties, there's nothing wrong with that. But they should just make up a new name instead of using something existing and changing its properties.
Spidey's swinging isn't plausable, actually. The scenes where he turns corners are done well, and the scenes where he dangles from sticking-out-things are good, but the basic mode of transport doesn't make any sense. The way he's depicted as going down the straight streets, swinging from lines connected to the buildings on the sides, he should be smacking into the side walls at the bottoms of his swings. There is a way to make it with with alternating arcs weaving back and forth, but the way he's depicted as moving, he's not curving side-to-side enough to be doing that. I think this is why the camera often doesn't show what he's attaching his webs to when he goes straight down the street. If it showed what he was attaching to, it would make it obvious that the swing was happening on the wrong arc and it would look fake in that cgi-graphics-with-bad-physics kind of way that the Hulk movie looked fake.
This is something I first noticed as a child watching the old cartoon show, and it's still a problem now. But now I'm more able to accept that it doesn't matter because everything else about the show is so implausable too, just forget about it and go with the flow. As a small child it bothered me more than it does now.
The problem with these kind of cricisms at this site is that once you set up a site to try very hard to find problems, people tend to find problems that aren't problems, just to get their entry on the page: Here's some examples:
Audio problem: It's clear that due to the tentacles' heaviness, they have to made some kind of sound when moving. But yet when Doc Ock takes the tritium from Harry in his house, he leaves without making any sound at all.
Doc Ock's normal limbs were also there, in addition to his mechanical ones (He's not called Doc Quad, after all), and therefore he could still walk normally, just holding his mechanical limbs in the air and not doing anything with them (except holding onto the loot, of course). That could still be silent. Thus the implied sneaky getaway he allegedly made while off-camera is possible.
Continuity: Doc Ock pulls the giant sun ball and its support down onto himself, so he should be under it as they descend, yet in the final shot of him sinking into the ocean, the ball is below him and he is falling after it.
No. From the shot, we see Ock in the foreground, and the ball behind him, and they are getting smaller. The critic probably interpreted this to mean that they were falling away from the camera. But when I viewed it I interpreted this as the camera's vantage point was underneath them both, and the camera was sinking faster than they were, into the depths. The way the shot looked, either interpretation works. (But I think a much larger problem is that the river is only about 60 feet deep, and that final shot makes it look like it just goes down and down and down at least several hundred feet.)
Besides, it's entirely possible, even if the critic's interpretation of the camara angles is right, that the two got turned around at some point when they were both off camera. The movie does imply that quite a few seconds have passed between the scene where Ock pulled the thing down and the underwater scene.
Continuity: After Doc Ock drops Spider-Man off at Harry's house, Spider-Man's legs, wrists and arms are bound. When he sits up after Harry unmasks him, he never breaks his legs free of the ties yet he no longer has anything holding his legs together
Things are often implied to happen off-camera in a movie. There were shots during which only the top half of spiderman is shown during that 'breaking out' scene, and so breaking out the legs could happen anywhere in there. The problem with finding errors of ommission is that they don't necessarily mean anything when there are moments that are implied to occur off camera. Otherwise everyone in the movie must be horrendously constipated since the movie is implied to take place over a period of several days, and nobody ever goes to the bathroom.
Continuity: After Peter changes into Spider-Man to deliver the pizzas and throws them onto the ledge to save the two children, the camera goes back to show the pizzas and the man living there finding them. There are only seven pizza boxes, without any damage done to them. When he actually delivers them, there are eight and a couple of them are now flattened or banged-up as they should be.
The fact that there are 8 instead of 7 - that's a problem, yes. The fact that they are now damaged when they weren't before - no that's not a problem in the slightest. Nowhere does it imply that zero time has passed between the pizza on the ledge scene and the delivering scene. Presumably the damage could have happened after the ledge scene.
You are still operating under the delusion that range checks only occur when converting types. They don't, not even in your precious Ada. I don't know Ada much beyond one semester of it back in college, but I do know that it's a computer language, and must therefore run on an actual CPU at some point. And that's enough to tell what's wrong with your claim.
Running on an actual CPU means there's no such thing as a data type that stores numbers from 1 to 10 and is unable to store anything else. Not on a computer made up of binary numbers. a 3 bit number can store from 0 to 7, a 4 bit number from 0 to 15. There cannot be any such thing as a type that stores a number from 1 to 10. What actually exists when you have that type is a larger integer of some sort, maybe an 8-bit integer, maybe a 32 bit integer - maybe even a tiny 4-bit integer, but the point is that there's no such thing as a 3.3219-bit number, and that means the only way to ensure it will never have a number larger than 10 is to check for it at runtime. So you are still doing a lot of bounds checking, only you are doing the checks every time the range variable changes instead of doing it every time the range variable is used in an array reference. You have successfully removed the check from the array reference merely by putting it somewhere else instead, not by actually getting rid of it or it's overhead.
That guarantee that the index variable is in the range of 1..10 didn't come for free without the cpu doing runtime checks. It happened at exactly the same expense as bounds checking the array - it just happened a bit earlier in the process.
Oh, and by the way, I'm sick of you talking about how "C programers" think. I'm a programmer. Period. C is just one of many languages I use.
Sometimes it is impossible to be simultaneously honest and polite, as in this example. When that happens, I chose to have honesty win out over politeness.
It isn't common knowlege *because* of the aforementioned blinders. Something that simple and basic is something we expect everyone else to know about us, but we don't bother learning about them.
So, the moderators aren't even bothering to read the comments then? Countering someone's incorrect claim with a counterexample now counts as 'flamebait'???!
Yes, it does sound ridiculous because the concept of what you experinece is different from what is really out there in a few ways. There is quite clearly a "reality" that is merely being mapped into conscious experience, but is seperate from it. Therefore to say that reality is being altered when your mind is being altered makes no sense. Your mind wasn't even showing you reality in the first place. You're saying that our disconnect from reality means that both drugged and nondrugged experiences are both real. I'm saying that neither one is, but one is closer than the other.
When I'm perfectly sober (which is all the time), and I look at a table, I see BOTH a table and a rectangular shape. The two perceptions occur simultaneously at two different levels of conscious thought - just like when someone says the word "Cat" I imagine a furry animal while at the same time perceiving a 'k' sound followed by a 'ah' sound, followed by a 't' sound.
The conscious mind is not a single one-layer entity. Human beings can think different thoughts in parallel, provided they aren't all at the same level of complexity. Or at least, I'm assuming they can because I know that "I" can do so.
Quicken, Photoshop, and 3D CAD (SolidWorks). I rely on those programs. Make Linux run them and I'll switch immediately. Until then, I suffer with MS crap, along with the rest of the world.
Your reaction makes perfect sense - use what OS you need to to run the apps you want - but your post also contains the incorrect implication that there's something that Linux could do to make those apps run on it. There isn't. It's entirely in the hands of the application writers, and market forces. That's not something linux itself can change. It's a social problem, not a technical one. The apps don't exist on linux because the companies that make them don't think the effort to port would bring them enough new customers. This has nothing do to with any deficiencies in the OS itself. None.
I'd hazard a guess that every molecule of H20 on earth was at some point once a part of a rainfall, and will likely be again part of a rainfall. Therefore all water on the planet fits your definition of condensed water.
Only if you think of the atmosphere as being made of water, with some pesky air getting mixed in with it. i.e. airplanes don't fly - they swim through rather rarefied water.
That's interesting considering it's physically impossible to be allergic to marijuana
Why is it impossible? Allergies are not caused by ANY danger in the allergen itself. Allergies are caused by your own body's immune system falsely labeling a particular thing as being dangerous when it really isn't. All the symptoms of an allergy are the same as the symptoms of a cold or flu bug - extra mucus production, coughing, raised temperatures, nausea, swelling etc - are all actually being caused by your OWN body. Those reactions are ways you fight off the foreign intruder. Your body chooses to raise the temperature, because your body is better able to survive the ordeal of being too hot than a lot of foriegn microbes are. Your body chooses to produce extra mucus, to trap the microbes at the source and keep them from passing into the lungs. Your body initiates nausea to try to expell the bad microbes from your stomach. etc, etc etc. All an allergy is, is your own body choosing to kick in those reactions in response to something that wasn't actually a threat after all, but it has a bad pattern-recognition that has "learned" incorrectly that a particular thing is bad for you, and that mistake is now stuck in your system and it won't undo it.
So, sure, someone could be allergic to marijuana. People can be allergic to just about *anything* that enters the body through the air. Anything that gives off fumes, dust, or particles. This says nothing about the danger of the actual thing in question - just about the relative stupidity of the human immune system.
The reason it's so hard to find ways to cure an allergy is that the cure is to alter your immune system, telling it, "Please cross off Foo from your list of big bad dangerous things you like to fight against. It was added by mistake." And we haven't found a way to do that without also crossing off *other* things from that list - things that it would be dangerous to cross off, like "the common cold".
No. Nothing puts you in a different state of reality. It just puts up an additional filter between your mind and reality. We've already discovered ways in which our direct senses are already a bit of a distortion of reality - for example, our sense of color is just a crude approximation of the actual spectrum, and it is inaccurate and it can be fooled (for example, red light and green light do not actually combine to form yellow light, but it looks like they do simply because our eyes cannot disginguish between one single yellow spike on the spectrum and two smaller red and green spikes on the spectrum - both result in the same data reaching the brain. Shine that light through a prism to split out the rainbow and you can see the difference, but look at it directly and you cannot.)
So our senses are already an abstraction of reality. Taking drugs does NOT alter your reality anymore than putting on color-tinted glasses does. While wearing the glasses the color of objects changes in your vision, but the reality of them hasn't been affected in the slightest.
To say that taking drugs puts you in a different reality is to argue in favor of solipsism.
The only time a bound need to be checked is when a type is converted. As long as you are within one type no checks are needed since the bound are already garaneed.
And exactly *how* is it that the bound is guaranteed in what you are talking about? Oh, that's right - by checking it every time, just like I SAID. It doesn't happen by magic pixies.
Consider your: auto char x[10];
Now, I try to say:
int a = 5
int i = 2*a + 1;
x[i] = 'Z';
To keep that from screwing up, there needs to be bounds check, right there, and it needs to be done at RUNTIME. No conversion is being done.
So when you claim that in strongly typed languages that the bounds checks on arrays are only done when converting types, you are 100% wrong. The bounds checks have to happen EVERY time you use a variable for an array index.
I know the technique of which you speak. It is not fast. It's not the sort of thing you can do en masse, like scanning e-mails for keywords can be done.