On my keyboard "n" and "m" are directly side by side. But thank you for the correction.
Yes, some Basalts might contain some Ca...
However it is completely impossible to convert the Ca or CaO that is deeper than a few atoms/molecules from the surface into CaCO3.
In reality you can turn basalt into limestone. This is chemistry, not alchemy. No, you can't.
If you would grind it into dust, then you could convert 10% (if that is the fraction of CaO) into CaCO3. The remaining 90% would stay what they are. Silicon...
Exactly: (the rest of basalt is basically just sand) and that is 90% of it, according to your own numbers.
If you want to grind it down to dust and use it as a kind of "fertilizer" you could have mentioned that in your post before instead of claiming "you can convert basalt into lime stone", which you cant.
We did not talk about numbers but about your ridiculous claims: solar causes more death than nuclear, solar causes more CO2 than nuclear, solar is more expensive than nuclear etc. p.p.
No idea why you need links when the news are all over the place that wind and solar are the cheapest power production means we can install... since a decade or more.
Strange that every statistic shows something different:D Germany is the leading exporter. And France is alternating between an leading importer for a few years and then being a small exporter again.
Regarding CO2 emissions in electric power generation, obviously France looks much better there than Germany. No one doubted that.
My point simply was: a decent amount of electric power (roughly 10% of Frances usage) is produced by Germany.
By following the calling convention of the code I call. You do know that some calling conventions require you to have an 'empty word' on the stack for the return value? Some push arguments from left to right, others from right to left? Some use registers. Some use arbitrary memory, and pass a pointer to it in a register, or on the stack? There are probably a dozen 'common calling conventions' and a few hundret rare ones. Register windows come to mind...
I have no problem with you. However your explanation (again) makes no sense at all. I might have a problem with your way of coding... or explaining... or justifying your code.
But then again, you are not in my team, or I would ban you to cook coffee and do errands...
From your explanaitions it is clear to me you are beyond teaching how to program.
You seriously should switch to languages like Python where topics like this don't raise up.
256 bytes, but that is 128 return adresses. 6502 CPU. Of course you could run your own stack and use your own jump subroutine and return logic, like SWEET16 did.
Hey Idiot! It looks like Germany still hasn't figured out that shutting down nuclear power will increase their CO2 output. Looks like Germany is the counry in the world that has reduced its CO2 output the most...
Sorry, that is plain wrong. Basically everything regarding padding - and even ordering of fields - is implementation dependent and not specified in any standard.
Supposing short is 16bits and int is 32bits and long is 64bits and word size/register size is 64bits, code like this: struct {
short s1;
long l1;
short s2;
int i1; };
The above would be heavily padded...
And can be reordered e.g. into: struct {
short s1, s2;
int i1;
long l1; };
To avoid that, you need to do your own padding with 0 sized bitfields.
c) C and C++ are more versatile than any other languages because you can program at a register level if you choose to. Just try it, then look at the assembly code... "register" most likely got ignored.
(until program exit - I think Java requires all objects are collected on program exit) No it does not. Why would it? That would be completely pointless, and how exactly do you "collect" an object that still is referenced at the moment the program "exits"?
You have no clue about GCs, nor has ESR... so you arguing with it about it is moot.
Hint: I can probably describe 5 real time garbage collection algorithms/variations from my mind, and implement one in about 3 days. Hm, perhaps one day... but my C++ is rusty.
Another hint: real time most likely does not mean what you think it means.
Slashdot Mirror
On my keyboard "n" and "m" are directly side by side.
But thank you for the correction.
Yes, some Basalts might contain some Ca ...
However it is completely impossible to convert the Ca or CaO that is deeper than a few atoms/molecules from the surface into CaCO3.
In reality you can turn basalt into limestone. This is chemistry, not alchemy.
No, you can't.
If you would grind it into dust, then you could convert 10% (if that is the fraction of CaO) into CaCO3. ...
The remaining 90% would stay what they are. Silicon
Exactly: (the rest of basalt is basically just sand) and that is 90% of it, according to your own numbers.
If you want to grind it down to dust and use it as a kind of "fertilizer" you could have mentioned that in your post before instead of claiming "you can convert basalt into lime stone", which you cant.
We did not talk about numbers but about your ridiculous claims: solar causes more death than nuclear, solar causes more CO2 than nuclear, solar is more expensive than nuclear etc. p.p.
No idea why you need links when the news are all over the place that wind and solar are the cheapest power production means we can install ... since a decade or more.
Strange that every statistic shows something different :D
Germany is the leading exporter.
And France is alternating between an leading importer for a few years and then being a small exporter again.
Regarding CO2 emissions in electric power generation, obviously France looks much better there than Germany. No one doubted that.
My point simply was: a decent amount of electric power (roughly 10% of Frances usage) is produced by Germany.
This is focused more on 2016 and more a news than a "report":
http://energypost.eu/france-ca...
This is focused on 2014 and an energy report:
Two, you know about :D (actually I don't know more either).
There is no "standard" which asks for those two.
As I said before: designing a system where every function frees the first argument, instead of freeing it yourself, is WRONG.
But I wish you good luck with your programming career.
By following the calling convention of the code I call. ...
You do know that some calling conventions require you to have an 'empty word' on the stack for the return value?
Some push arguments from left to right, others from right to left?
Some use registers.
Some use arbitrary memory, and pass a pointer to it in a register, or on the stack?
There are probably a dozen 'common calling conventions' and a few hundret rare ones.
Register windows come to mind
I have no problem with you. ... or explaining ... or justifying your code.
However your explanation (again) makes no sense at all.
I might have a problem with your way of coding
But then again, you are not in my team, or I would ban you to cook coffee and do errands ...
From your explanaitions it is clear to me you are beyond teaching how to program.
You seriously should switch to languages like Python where topics like this don't raise up.
Good luck.
256 bytes, but that is 128 return adresses.
6502 CPU.
Of course you could run your own stack and use your own jump subroutine and return logic, like SWEET16 did.
The Titanic begs to differ!
No no no, you get it all wrong!
Meters, liters, kilometers have no plural!
2.16kilometer (no s) is 1.34 miles!
You don't describe conservatives, you describe (religious?) nut cracks.
If you can transform basalt into line stone, you as well can transform lead into gold ... or what ever.
Hey Idiot! ...
It looks like Germany still hasn't figured out that shutting down nuclear power will increase their CO2 output.
Looks like Germany is the counry in the world that has reduced its CO2 output the most
Sorry, that is plain wrong.
Basically everything regarding padding - and even ordering of fields - is implementation dependent and not specified in any standard.
Supposing short is 16bits and int is 32bits and long is 64bits and word size/register size is 64bits, code like this:
...
struct {
short s1;
long l1;
short s2;
int i1;
};
The above would be heavily padded
And can be reordered e.g. into:
struct {
short s1, s2;
int i1;
long l1;
};
To avoid that, you need to do your own padding with 0 sized bitfields.
What is wrong with you?
I gave you a honest tip, as you ignored all the other posts/answers and answer to them the same nonsense over and over again.
Why the funk is your example function freeing its first argument? And how can you come to the idea that this makes any sense?
He did not ask who he is, but what fast or realtime software he wrote ;D
Just nitpicking, of course.
c) C and C++ are more versatile than any other languages because you can program at a register level if you choose to. ... "register" most likely got ignored.
Just try it, then look at the assembly code
That is nonsense.
That is actually insightful!
(until program exit - I think Java requires all objects are collected on program exit)
No it does not.
Why would it?
That would be completely pointless, and how exactly do you "collect" an object that still is referenced at the moment the program "exits"?
You have no clue about GCs, nor has ESR ... so you arguing with it about it is moot.
Hint: I can probably describe 5 real time garbage collection algorithms/variations from my mind, and implement one in about 3 days. Hm, perhaps one day ... but my C++ is rusty.
Another hint: real time most likely does not mean what you think it means.
You write them in the exact same way you write them in C ... or C++.
Smart pointers, just like ordinary pointers, still require you to new/create the objects.
Or do they spring out of nothing?
C++ has no multi process handling or job control either, so what is your point?
And remember: if you see no idiots on your team, you are the idiot.
It is the opposite around. Idiots always believe all the others are idiots.