... the editors fault for either having an easily guessable password (the same as he luggage perhaps)
Any decent security system will track failed password attempts and start inserting delays (or extra captchas or whatever) to avoid dictionary password guessing.
Judging by the number of people I know whose Hotmail accounts have been compromised, I'm guessing Microsoft isn't aware of this basic procedure.
I think local authorities might have issued a court order requiring a set of messages to be decrypted.
Not too many people have problems with following court orders for genuine criminal investigations. It's the mass-scanning, fishing expeditions they have a problem with.
The old KGB/Stasi bosses must be having a real laugh at the way the USA is acting lately. Read all your mail, demand papers and feel you up before you can travel anywhere, more people in prison than any other country.
Americans used to joke about all that sort of stuff but guess what...?
For point (a) I am not really sure to what you mean with deniers.
Read a few posts here. The deniers' latest argument seems to be that the Earth's temperature fluctuates all by itself and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The mechanism is never stated of course, only that it was warmer in the past so it's perfectly normal to be warming up again.
And where's the actual proof that CO2 does harm? We're still in an Ice Age. We're still in an interglacial period
Fail. Temperature changes aren't spontaneous, they happen for a reason. Mostly because of changes in atmospheric composition.
When the climate reverts to the long-term norm...
It won't. Not unless the atmosphere somehow starts losing greenhouse gases. This is very unlikely given all the power stations, cows, cars, etc that are busy belching it out like there's no tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure not many people thought the only tolerable living space on the planet would be at the poles. Most people were/are thinking of two or three degrees difference (which is still enough to melt an awful lot of ice).
What the guy is actually saying is he was an alarmist out to sell boks. Now he's changing the timescale of his prediction. Nowhere is he reversing himself or saying climate change isn't happening.
No...the CPC had full hardware scrolling (the same graphics chip as the BBC) but it was hardly ever used because most Amstrad games were direct ports from the Spectrum.
The other problem was that most games needed a split screen with part scrolling and part static (eg. status panel). The CPC couldn't do that, although there was a trick you could use:
The Amstrad CPC monitors wouldn't do a vertical flyback unless they saw the flyback signal near the bottom of the screen. If you did it higher up they just kept on going downwards. You could tell the video chip to start a new video frame before this point, effectively having two different video frames shown on screen. Each one could have its own scroll offset so you got split screen scroll. "Future Knight" by Gremlin Graphics (where I worked) did this...
The downside was that sometimes the monitor would sync with the panels reversed (status panel at the top instead of at the bottom). .
Actually, isometric games like 'knight lore' were mostly monochrome on the BBC, because it was too slow to shuffle enough memory around for colour.
That... and having full color graphics chewed up 20K of RAM for the display and four times as much RAM for the all the sprite data. It simply didn't fit.
The BBC would have been 1000% more awesome if the video RAM was shadowed so it left 32K for normal use. They could have switched out the BASIC ROM to access the screen RAM or something (yeah, that's only 16K, I know...but you get the idea).
The point is: With C++ you don't have to remember. The compiler does it for you (and it never gets distracted or has a bad day...)
Stack unwinding is way more useful than that though, it allows things like exceptions.
Unexpected end of file when you're six levels deep? No problem in C++ - throw an exception and everything is cleaned up automatically. In C you have write code where every function returns an error code and you have to be religious about checking them and cleaning up properly.
This sort of code is MUCH easier and more robust in C++ than in C.
The closer to the hardware you get, the more the lines blur between the CS ideal (Big O) and the hardware reality (registers and bandwidth and machine code interleaving). You really can't optimize for one without optimizing for the other.
Sure... and C++ is just as good at this as C.
OTOH C++ is good at the big-picture stuff. C isn't.
C is a good language because it forces one to think about runtime performance.
C++ doesn't??
What can you do in C that you can't do in C++?
C++ allows you to swap in different containers, allocators and algorithms with just a typedef. C can't do that, but it's far more likely to improve performance than worrying about individual clock cycles (which C++ can also do).
Not that different. For the most part if you write C code in C++ the code works fine.
Wrong!
The difference isn't in what the compiler accepts as valid input.
C - malloc()/free()/strcat()/strdup, manual everything.
C++ - std::vector/std::string, smart pointers and stack unwinding to automate memory management for you (who needs garbage collection? Not C++ programmers...)
That's just the obvious differences... C++ supports a totally different programming style and way of thinking.
The only way to make that happen is to make the language so restricted it becomes useless.
Strongly typed languages like C++ could make the SQL injection problem go away by using SQL libraries that only accept strings of type "safe_string" (or whatever). The compiler will enforce the rest. Unfortunately C++ isn't cool or hip enough for most programmers.
(OTOH it'll probably outlive all the other languages on that list because real programmers will always appreciate it).
Slashdot Mirror
This.
... the editors fault for either having an easily guessable password (the same as he luggage perhaps)
Any decent security system will track failed password attempts and start inserting delays (or extra captchas or whatever) to avoid dictionary password guessing.
Judging by the number of people I know whose Hotmail accounts have been compromised, I'm guessing Microsoft isn't aware of this basic procedure.
Because their standard license (which is what this is) also covers youtube, etc.
Yawn. Not that old chestnut again.
Make up your minds. Either what they were saying was correct and doom was upon us because we drove SUV's, or it was exaggerated alarmism.
Absolutely no room for middle ground, here, am I right?
What other mechanism has been proposed to explain the above points? Elf farts?
Cow farts.
I think local authorities might have issued a court order requiring a set of messages to be decrypted.
Not too many people have problems with following court orders for genuine criminal investigations. It's the mass-scanning, fishing expeditions they have a problem with.
The old KGB/Stasi bosses must be having a real laugh at the way the USA is acting lately. Read all your mail, demand papers and feel you up before you can travel anywhere, more people in prison than any other country.
Americans used to joke about all that sort of stuff but guess what...?
What exactly is the "natural process" behind it? What causes it? Where does the heat for the warm periods come from?
For point (a) I am not really sure to what you mean with deniers.
Read a few posts here. The deniers' latest argument seems to be that the Earth's temperature fluctuates all by itself and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The mechanism is never stated of course, only that it was warmer in the past so it's perfectly normal to be warming up again.
And where's the actual proof that CO2 does harm? We're still in an Ice Age. We're still in an interglacial period
Fail. Temperature changes aren't spontaneous, they happen for a reason. Mostly because of changes in atmospheric composition.
When the climate reverts to the long-term norm...
It won't. Not unless the atmosphere somehow starts losing greenhouse gases. This is very unlikely given all the power stations, cows, cars, etc that are busy belching it out like there's no tomorrow.
Who's "we"?
I'm pretty sure not many people thought the only tolerable living space on the planet would be at the poles. Most people were/are thinking of two or three degrees difference (which is still enough to melt an awful lot of ice).
What the guy is actually saying is he was an alarmist out to sell boks. Now he's changing the timescale of his prediction. Nowhere is he reversing himself or saying climate change isn't happening.
You can have more than two colors on screen, just not more than two in any 8x8 pixel character.
No...the CPC had full hardware scrolling (the same graphics chip as the BBC) but it was hardly ever used because most Amstrad games were direct ports from the Spectrum.
The other problem was that most games needed a split screen with part scrolling and part static (eg. status panel). The CPC couldn't do that, although there was a trick you could use:
The Amstrad CPC monitors wouldn't do a vertical flyback unless they saw the flyback signal near the bottom of the screen. If you did it higher up they just kept on going downwards. You could tell the video chip to start a new video frame before this point, effectively having two different video frames shown on screen. Each one could have its own scroll offset so you got split screen scroll. "Future Knight" by Gremlin Graphics (where I worked) did this...
The downside was that sometimes the monitor would sync with the panels reversed (status panel at the top instead of at the bottom). .
Actually, isometric games like 'knight lore' were mostly monochrome on the BBC, because it was too slow to shuffle enough memory around for colour.
That ... and having full color graphics chewed up 20K of RAM for the display and four times as much RAM for the all the sprite data. It simply didn't fit.
The BBC would have been 1000% more awesome if the video RAM was shadowed so it left 32K for normal use. They could have switched out the BASIC ROM to access the screen RAM or something (yeah, that's only 16K, I know...but you get the idea).
(just need to remember to free).
The point is: With C++ you don't have to remember. The compiler does it for you (and it never gets distracted or has a bad day...)
Stack unwinding is way more useful than that though, it allows things like exceptions.
Unexpected end of file when you're six levels deep? No problem in C++ - throw an exception and everything is cleaned up automatically. In C you have write code where every function returns an error code and you have to be religious about checking them and cleaning up properly.
This sort of code is MUCH easier and more robust in C++ than in C.
That particular story is from: "What do you care what other people think?"
But yeah, read ANYTHING by Feynman. You'll be a better person afterwards.
Yes, I found that.
What I couldn't find was a 'download' link. Anyone...?
When you have some junior coder sticking a virtual function call inside a for loop because he doesn't the three levels of pointers being applied
You'd rather he put in a switch? LOL.
If a function needs to be virtual it needs to be virtual. Period.
If not, delete the word "virtual" and the code is 'fixed'. Good luck finding all those switch statements when you add a new object type.
Yawn. Not that rubbish again...
I think more games are written in Flash than C++...
The closer to the hardware you get, the more the lines blur between the CS ideal (Big O) and the hardware reality (registers and bandwidth and machine code interleaving). You really can't optimize for one without optimizing for the other.
Sure ... and C++ is just as good at this as C.
OTOH C++ is good at the big-picture stuff. C isn't.
C is a good language because it forces one to think about runtime performance.
C++ doesn't??
What can you do in C that you can't do in C++?
C++ allows you to swap in different containers, allocators and algorithms with just a typedef. C can't do that, but it's far more likely to improve performance than worrying about individual clock cycles (which C++ can also do).
Not that different.
For the most part if you write C code in C++ the code works fine.
Wrong!
The difference isn't in what the compiler accepts as valid input.
C - malloc()/free()/strcat()/strdup, manual everything.
C++ - std::vector/std::string, smart pointers and stack unwinding to automate memory management for you (who needs garbage collection? Not C++ programmers...)
That's just the obvious differences ... C++ supports a totally different programming style and way of thinking.
Summary contains 2008 data, article contains current data. C is awesome incarnate: lean, readable and full of low level goodness.
One word: Bollocks.
Question: Why aren't you using assembly language? It has even more of the low level goodness of C...!
When you have the answer to that typed up, substitute C/C++ for asm/C and you'll understand what C++ programmers think of C programmers.
How on earth can you think that malloc()/free()/strcat()/strdup() and raw pointers is good programming practice?
The only way to make that happen is to make the language so restricted it becomes useless.
Strongly typed languages like C++ could make the SQL injection problem go away by using SQL libraries that only accept strings of type "safe_string" (or whatever). The compiler will enforce the rest. Unfortunately C++ isn't cool or hip enough for most programmers.
(OTOH it'll probably outlive all the other languages on that list because real programmers will always appreciate it).