Can we please adopt languages that are not susceptible to buffer overflow/underrun errors? It's really pathetic that after all these years that's still a huge cause of security issues.
That's down to programmers, not languages.
eg. C++ done properly is as safe as Java. Modern C++ compilers have bounds checking enabled by default for all STL containers (on "operator[]", not just "at()"). If you're seeing overflows it's because of uneducated C programmers who think they're too cool to use them (eg. Linus Torvalds).
SQL injection attacks are similar. Everybody knows about them, everybody knows how to avoid them, but people are still coding them.
C64 hardware was good at character-map based, scrolling graphics but if you needed more than eight sprites on horizontal line you had problems.
The Spectrum was bitmapped graphics, it was bad at scrolling but you could have more sprites and do more 3D stuff, eg. there were quite a few fully-interactive isometric-view games and even some filled-3D-polygon games (Starstrike) which the C64 was really bad at.
Sound was pretty bad, yes, but it was a lot cheaper than a C64.
I liken it to giving a car to a starting driver. The Sinclair and other older microcomputers were like giving a kid a 20-yr old Honda Civic with a manual transmission. Slow, dependable, bland, hard to get in trouble with it, you have to know how to drive it to make it go, you can really get a feel for how the thing wants to drive. The newer, much more powerful computers of today could be like giving that same kid a Porsche - powerful, fast, stylish, easy to get in trouble with, easy to wreck at high speeds, you may never understand its inner-workings because they are too much to learn.
Most "wide of the mark" analogy ever...?
Owning a civic doesn't require lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine.
But there was really no comparison. The BBC had a proper keyboard and tons of connectors on the back/underneath. Not just connections for printers, serial ports and floppy disks either, it was the Arduino of its day.
The only real problem was the graphics eating up two thirds of the RAM.
Yep. The TSA's job is safety (hence the 'S') and there's no indication this guy was trying to do anything unsafe, he's just an asshole trying to buck the ticketing system.
At the very least I assume that suicide bombers will have valid ID and a boarding pass that matches it.
Except for one important detail: In politics there's never any retractions.
Seriously though, is anybody really surprised that there's wannabe idiots in science? Why should science be any different than any other human activity?
what else, if anything, I'd be spending my money and free time on, if there wasn't a whole world of electronics. Maybe I'd spend more time and money on other hobbies, like music.
Don't let the RIAA hear you say that...they'll have you 'silenced'.
Slashdot Mirror
Since about 2010 you'll have to try pretty hard to find a platform that doesn't have a C++ compiler with move semantics.
Even before that STL containers had a "swap()" function that worked pretty well for moving data.
A pocket knife doesn't implicitly create objects or fail to cleanup if you forget to make your destructor virtual.
What compiler are you using? Mine gives me a warning if I forget that (and has done for at least the last eight years or so).
Can we please adopt languages that are not susceptible to buffer overflow/underrun errors? It's really pathetic that after all these years that's still a huge cause of security issues.
That's down to programmers, not languages.
eg. C++ done properly is as safe as Java. Modern C++ compilers have bounds checking enabled by default for all STL containers (on "operator[]", not just "at()"). If you're seeing overflows it's because of uneducated C programmers who think they're too cool to use them (eg. Linus Torvalds).
SQL injection attacks are similar. Everybody knows about them, everybody knows how to avoid them, but people are still coding them.
...but how is it 'transmitted'? That implies an installed transmitter, ie. malware.
Remember when Americans used to joke about communism and say "papers please" in funny voices...?
Everybody should read this before commenting on whether school text books are any good...
That only accounts for a couple of hundred of them
I'm credited on a lot of Gremlin Graphics games... ;-)
where did you get your statistics of 'Most Spectrum owners' from?
Out of my backside of course.
OTOH I was a salaried Spectrum games programmer back in the 1980s working for one of the major companies.
it meant that games simply could never be as nice looking as the competition.
That doesn't mean they were 'worse'.
Spectrum owners were jealous of C64 music, C64 owners were jealous of the isometric adventure games on the Spectrum.
It's a different style of graphics.
C64 hardware was good at character-map based, scrolling graphics but if you needed more than eight sprites on horizontal line you had problems.
The Spectrum was bitmapped graphics, it was bad at scrolling but you could have more sprites and do more 3D stuff, eg. there were quite a few fully-interactive isometric-view games and even some filled-3D-polygon games (Starstrike) which the C64 was really bad at.
Sound was pretty bad, yes, but it was a lot cheaper than a C64.
The good thing about those computers was that
- they left something for the owners to do, today you can get ready made software for almost every need
Most Spectrum owners never programmed them, they just put cassette tapes in the player and typed LOAD"".
I liken it to giving a car to a starting driver. The Sinclair and other older microcomputers were like giving a kid a 20-yr old Honda Civic with a manual transmission. Slow, dependable, bland, hard to get in trouble with it, you have to know how to drive it to make it go, you can really get a feel for how the thing wants to drive. The newer, much more powerful computers of today could be like giving that same kid a Porsche - powerful, fast, stylish, easy to get in trouble with, easy to wreck at high speeds, you may never understand its inner-workings because they are too much to learn.
Most "wide of the mark" analogy ever...?
Owning a civic doesn't require lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine.
Nearly three times as much...
But there was really no comparison. The BBC had a proper keyboard and tons of connectors on the back/underneath. Not just connections for printers, serial ports and floppy disks either, it was the Arduino of its day.
The only real problem was the graphics eating up two thirds of the RAM.
How do you sell five million "copies" of a computer?
Ummm ... I always assumed a suicide bomber would have a valid ID and matching boarding pass. It's not difficult.
This grand announcement is just another huge pile of TSA theater.
Yep. The TSA's job is safety (hence the 'S') and there's no indication this guy was trying to do anything unsafe, he's just an asshole trying to buck the ticketing system.
At the very least I assume that suicide bombers will have valid ID and a boarding pass that matches it.
sign of sensibility from TSA... the world will end in 2012
Not really. There's no sign that he was a threat to the safety of the aircraft, he's just an asshole doing illegal stuff.
The 'S' part of the TSA stands for 'safety'. They're not there to enforce laws.
What's their refresh rate? Is the 100x power saving only in direct sunlight with the backlight turned off?
Maybe a wind turbine on the roof to recharge as you drive...
There's more money in it now.
Not really, but there's more people competing for it. That means more incentive for the managers to exaggerate the importance/success of their work.
It is just like politics.
Except for one important detail: In politics there's never any retractions.
Seriously though, is anybody really surprised that there's wannabe idiots in science? Why should science be any different than any other human activity?
what else, if anything, I'd be spending my money and free time on, if there wasn't a whole world of electronics. Maybe I'd spend more time and money on other hobbies, like music.
Don't let the RIAA hear you say that...they'll have you 'silenced'.
And how many time have there been failures of nuclear power plants on ships?
Statistics: There's not many nuclear ships. Given that nuclear reactors hardly ever fail on land you wouldn't expect a lot of failures on ships.
Recharge in less then 5 minutes?
Driving out of your way to go to a gas station will seem like a real drag when you start to see everybody else charging their cars at home...