(I really don't get how anyone can consider that an argument. Seriously, how many people do you think are out there prepared to commit murder, but *not* prepared to break copyright law ?)
Let's say I write and perform a song, but using someone else's lyrics. If I commercially distribute my song, proving copyright violations is trivial, and I'm sure to go to pay up or go to jail. If I have the copyright holder to the lyrics murdered, I may be able to make it very hard to prove, and I don't don't have to pay, don't go to jail, and make large piles of money. If I have no moral problems with either, which do you think I would choose?
Okay, so they changed it. I'm sorry for posting. Though I don't think translating like that is a good idea, but then MS is full of bad ideas.
I'm pretty sure changing text streams so that end-of-line always appears as a single byte was already done before the MS-DOS days. No point in blaming MS.
1. I used voids because I didn't want to waste time writing extra crap.
"int main()" is a character shorter than "void main()"; you don't need to actually have a return statement nowadays. (Yes, really.)
2. Yeah, so I forgot the include. I was using an unfamiliar environment for code. I tested it quickly (in Linux) and my compiler didn't complain. So sue me.
Unfortunately, too many people use this as a criterion for what is correct. (I'm not saying you're one of them.)
3. The casts are not redundant. I am used to compilers which complain if you don't cast properly.
At the very least, you could write *c != '\0'.
4. I didn't indent becuase it sucks to get indentation right with html. C isn't python anyway. The compiler doesn't check indentation. It would be a waste of time. If you have trouble reading it, maybe you should go back to CS class.
Just so that I'm understanding right, you're saying indentation is a waste of time?
Maybe you should attach your style guide if you think everyone should follow it.
I don't think everyone should follow my style guide. I think everyone should follow a style guide.
5. In my original post, I was talking about their binary representation, not what they are translated to.
Yet I clarified right from the initial post that I was not talking their external ("binary") representation.
My response was because I was already pissed in general, but you seem to have an interesting habit of correcting people when they don't need to be corrected [slashdot.org]. Unfortunately, I have the same flaw.
Indeed I do. I'm not sure this was the case here, though. The poster I replied to (A beautiful mind) seemed to make a misleading claim that would lead to less portable code. When this whole story is about portability, commenting on that seems appropriate.
6. I was going on old information. I haven't programmed on MS OSes for a while, and much of that was in assembly. I already admitted that but you didn't seem to know either.
Sorry for the confusion. I don't usually program on MS systems either, but not never.
7. Not specifying str as a const works fine in the real world everywhere I've seen. You may lose the address of the original string if you change the value, but if you do that, you probably didn't want it anymore. If a compiler complains about that, it is being purely pedantic.
Instead of "char * const str", I meant declaring "char const * str". You're not allowed to modify what str points to, and trying to will cause the program to abort on several systems, so declaring str so that you cannot has a clear benefit.
8. Apparently you aren't perfect either professor, because you missed the fact I forgot a space where it prints. If there were two or more characters in the string, they would've print out 1310 instead of 13 10.
I don't recall claiming to be perfect. Anyway, you're now holding what you consider a mistake in your own code against me?
So you are saying the two bytes are magically shrunk into one?
Magically? Of course not. It's effectively a trivial search-and-replace operation performed by the C standard library. As for your code, it's broken. Firstly, main() returns int, not void. Secondly, you're calling printf() without including <stdio.h>. These are easy to get right, with or without any warnings your compiler may provide. Your code is also rather poor style, with the redundant casts, missing indentation, and const incorrectness. And more, it simply prints "10", on Windows XP, using Pelles C. If you believe this is specific to Pelles C, feel free to give a counterexample.
No, that is the external representation, not what a C (or C++) program sees. End-of-line is always read (and written) as a single byte from (and to) text files in C, and that byte is always represented as '\n'.
I don't know what value '\n' gets on Windows systems, only how it is externally represented, so I'm not sure your code would break on Windows. Even if it does, though, what's your point? If you have to resort to code of extremely poor quality to demonstrate that there is non-portable code, you're suggesting that clean code is portable. This is not necessarily true, and I strongly doubt it's even usually true.
In many languages, notably including both C and C++, line endings are always "\n". Even on Windows. All you have to do to make your application portable to Windows is make sure you open text files in text mode, and not in binary mode. The standard library will then make sure to change line endings as necessary if they are not externally represented the same.
Yes, it does. It means at the expense of my ability to give a copies of things to my friends. That ability is pretty important and losing it represents a cost, even it's not a monetary cost.
For those songs that you couldn't copy before, there's no cost. For those songs that you could copy before, does MS's player modify them so that you cannot anymore? If not (and I don't believe it does), it's not at your expense. That doesn't mean MS is doing anything good. It means I don't appreciate misuse of the language to misrepresent actions you disagree with.
And, as someone pointed out, it's costing me bandwidth.
It's an extension shared by *BSD and GNU find and xargs. Solaris is an example of a system that doesn't support -print0, and (like *BSD and GNU) does support -exec {} +, or at least that's what its docs say.
Fine. Re-phrased: there are laws in several countries against not wearing a seat belt. For those they apply to, such laws invalidate the GP's on-topic analogy. This is rather obvious, so I wish I didn't have to spell it out, but apparently someone didn't get it...
In several countries (including my own -- the Netherlands), you do have to wear a seat belt. I don't know where you're from; in which country is it optional? The USofA?
Konqueror - Although I have limited experience with this one, it looks like a good browser/file manager, but I am un-aware of any features (appart from passing that ACID2 test) that make it better than Firefox.
There are two things about it I really miss in Firefox. Firstly, when the location bar is selected, and you press Tab to go select links with the keyboard, the first selected link is that at the top of the window, not that at the top of the page. Secondly, press the Control key and each link temporarily gets a key assigned to it (unless there are more links than keys). As someone who tries to avoid the mouse, simple things like that mean a lot. (I mainly use Firefox because of certain extensions now, though.)
If you really think higher correlation means causation, take a look at venganza.org again. The correlation between the lack of pirates and global warming is approaching 'certainty'. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the lack of pirates does not cause global warming. But the correlation is extremely strong.
Going the other way: it is not so obvious that global warming isn't responsible for the lack of pirates.:-)
Now, killing a "creator" so their work is pushed into the public domain is a pretty clear example of premeditated murder -
Maybe I'm wrong about what "premeditated" means exactly, but I was under the impression that you actually need to plan in advance for that. What if an opportunity presents itself? (If wishing someone dead in advance qualifies, however, then I guess I did mean premeditated.)
and since it would be well known that the work would be pushed into the public domain, profit could not be a motive,
Derivative works. It may make someone else the sole copyright holder of one.
I neither said first-degree murder nor anything about downloading songs, and if I have given any impression otherwise, please tell me what made you think so.
Who would derive enough benefit to be willing to trade off the punishment for (and stigma of) a pre-meditated murder conviction ?
Probably very few people, but there's no punishment if you don't get caught, and I would be very surprised if there is no person who thinks to be smart enough to get away with it.
Agree: "The life+70 years term is ludicrous. "To believe that anything beyond lifetime copyright impacts the incentive structure of creators takes some serious suspension of disbelief.
Hmm. Would we suddenly see all sorts of mysterious deaths of authors directly after they publish their works, if the copyright on their works would immediately end? I do agree in principle, but I think a fixed duration of copyright, regardless of how long the copyright holder lives, might be better.
Hey, I never had a problem with your claim! We're all Microsoft-hatin', Google-lovin', Linux-humpin' friends here, right?
I guess one out of three isn't bad.:)
Technically, the latter is called a regiolect. But that's splitting hairs, I know. There are also ideolects, which are linguistics distinctions on the level of the individual. Hope my professors are proud of me for remembering.
Interesting. I've never heard of those distinctions, and if they had come up, I would have remembered. But as long as it's clear what you meant by dialect, and what I meant by it, that should be good enough.
Be carefull saying that in Flanders (the northern part of Belgium)!
Although the official language in Flanders is Dutch, which is spoken both in Flanders and the Netherlands, both regions have distinct linguistic standards. Grammar and vocabulary are +99% the same;
The grammar may be (nearly?) identical, but the vocabulary has enough differences to cause serious misunderstandings.
the main differences are phonetic. A dialect is a kind of subclass of a main language. That's not the case here.
I think there may be some confusion. I did not mean that Flemish is a dialect of the language spoken in the Netherlands, but only what I said, which is that it is a dialect of the Dutch language. Do you still have a problem with my claim?
Also, the geographic area in which a particular dialect is spoken, is generally a lot smaller: most Flemish towns and villages have very distinct dialects, which are all subclasses of the Flemish/Dutch language.
That's the same (although possibly to a lesser extent) in the Netherlands, and not really relevant. A city can have a dialect even if the province or country it is in has a dialect itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what value '\n' gets on Windows systems, only how it is externally represented, so I'm not sure your code would break on Windows. Even if it does, though, what's your point? If you have to resort to code of extremely poor quality to demonstrate that there is non-portable code, you're suggesting that clean code is portable. This is not necessarily true, and I strongly doubt it's even usually true.
In many languages, notably including both C and C++, line endings are always "\n". Even on Windows. All you have to do to make your application portable to Windows is make sure you open text files in text mode, and not in binary mode. The standard library will then make sure to change line endings as necessary if they are not externally represented the same.
"Not for your benefit" != "at your expense".
It's an extension shared by *BSD and GNU find and xargs. Solaris is an example of a system that doesn't support -print0, and (like *BSD and GNU) does support -exec {} +, or at least that's what its docs say.
It wasn't meant as a joke.
According to my local newspaper, these voting machines have been used in the last two elections.
Fine. Re-phrased: there are laws in several countries against not wearing a seat belt. For those they apply to, such laws invalidate the GP's on-topic analogy. This is rather obvious, so I wish I didn't have to spell it out, but apparently someone didn't get it...
In several countries (including my own -- the Netherlands), you do have to wear a seat belt. I don't know where you're from; in which country is it optional? The USofA?
Maybe I'm wrong about what "premeditated" means exactly, but I was under the impression that you actually need to plan in advance for that. What if an opportunity presents itself? (If wishing someone dead in advance qualifies, however, then I guess I did mean premeditated.)
Derivative works. It may make someone else the sole copyright holder of one.
I neither said first-degree murder nor anything about downloading songs, and if I have given any impression otherwise, please tell me what made you think so.
Probably very few people, but there's no punishment if you don't get caught, and I would be very surprised if there is no person who thinks to be smart enough to get away with it.
Hmm. Would we suddenly see all sorts of mysterious deaths of authors directly after they publish their works, if the copyright on their works would immediately end? I do agree in principle, but I think a fixed duration of copyright, regardless of how long the copyright holder lives, might be better.
I'd say there's no fun you're missing out on -- I honestly have no idea why people still think it's funny -- but anyway, this is it.
What do you think the word "a" means?