No. Even though it's called CERN. The research is very much sub-nuclear. And although the energies are higher, this also means the particles involved decay quickly. Similarly in nature, they're created with high energies, but don't last long. The A-bomb relies on the natural abundance of uranium or plutonium. These are unstable elements that can be triggered into decaying in a chain reaction. The particles at the LHC need a lot of energy to create, and they decay quickly. It's been suggested they could make an anti-matter bomb. You'd need to use a lot more energy making the anti-matter than would be released in the bomb. Anti-matter is hard to store: it will interact with any matter destructively. No one can make anti-matter in enough quantity. Even if they could, and despite the great energy efficiencies, plutonium and uranium is so much more practical, along with some fusion fuel, that the relatively low energy efficiencies of a nuclear bomb, isn't a problem.
strings terminated by a binary zero rather than their physical size. Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?
One advantage to null-terminated strings is that there's typical only one format - well one for each character type at least. For length encoded strings, the format depends on the register size, and the endianness of the platform. Of course C does not enforce the use of zero-terminated strings. Not even for string literals.
If the autonomous car is reliable there should be no need for a drivers' license, for the same reason I wouldn't be required to have one if driven by a chauffeur.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you have emotion or desire without consciousness?
No. Even though it's called CERN. The research is very much sub-nuclear. And although the energies are higher, this also means the particles involved decay quickly. Similarly in nature, they're created with high energies, but don't last long. The A-bomb relies on the natural abundance of uranium or plutonium. These are unstable elements that can be triggered into decaying in a chain reaction. The particles at the LHC need a lot of energy to create, and they decay quickly. It's been suggested they could make an anti-matter bomb. You'd need to use a lot more energy making the anti-matter than would be released in the bomb. Anti-matter is hard to store: it will interact with any matter destructively. No one can make anti-matter in enough quantity. Even if they could, and despite the great energy efficiencies, plutonium and uranium is so much more practical, along with some fusion fuel, that the relatively low energy efficiencies of a nuclear bomb, isn't a problem.
What's wrong with nudity?
I suspect that Mantle would run a lot better on the AMD hardware though. DirectX 12 will end up with the most support.
I would, but it involves having two different homes and switching between them twice a year.
Maybe it's the one-hour shift to their sleeping-pattern, twice each year, they object to?
So you want to go to work earlier. Why change the clocks too?
What I'd hate most would be the fact that Greenwich would never be on Greenwich Mean Time!
How about if I don't look, but the cat does?
The state consists of a superposition of the cat looking at itself, and it being dead.
Or how about instead of a cat, we put you in the box.
The state consists of a superposition of you seeing an alive cat, and you seeing a dead cat.
Are you alowed [sic.] to look at yourself or does it only work if I do it?
If you do it, it's a superposition. If I do it the cat is either dead of alive.
What if we're both in the box?
The cat is either dead or alive.
It would have been better if they'd gone with Windows 11. One better.
To be fair: So is C.
What if they want to use an unsigned byte?
No fireballs in space? Wrong! Spaceship occupants need atmosphere.
You'll only get fireballs inside the atmosphere. In space, you'll get jets.
Yet Another Responsible Gun Owner Shoots His Own Penis
Could easily be solved by not pointing a gun at anything you don't want to lose. How difficult can that be?
The C pre-processor is the duct tape of C programming.
The first version was the standard ANSI C behaviour.
i.e. for (expr1; expr2; expr3) statement
was basically the same as
expr1;
while (expr2) {
statement
expr3;
}
It kind of makes sense in C, as arrays are basically pointers. e.g. p[i] == *(p + i)
strings terminated by a binary zero rather than their physical size. Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?
One advantage to null-terminated strings is that there's typical only one format - well one for each character type at least. For length encoded strings, the format depends on the register size, and the endianness of the platform. Of course C does not enforce the use of zero-terminated strings. Not even for string literals.
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { something(); }
I remember when some compilers would treat this like:
int i; for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { something(); }
and others like this:
{ for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) something(); }
As the standard, for whatever reason, decide to change it. So much for not breaking existing code.
"one" + "two" = "three"?
I am not saying we will find FTL travel method - but they are assuming we won't which is foolish.
There's a lot of evidence we won't. We would have found it by now if someone has discovered it in the future.
If the autonomous car is reliable there should be no need for a drivers' license, for the same reason I wouldn't be required to have one if driven by a chauffeur.
They might. Imagine a machine that can be used to eliminate whatever "enemy" you want, but also takes the blame too.
I think garbage collection is a library issue, not something that should be in the core language by default.
I'd like to see runtime reflection with the proviso that it's static. It's my thinking that reflection should be compile-time for a compiled language.
Just don't go into Paris until you've picked your passengers up.