No one asked what it could possibly theoretically used for, I asked what it could be commercialised for. Tell me how you're gonna sell that to anyone, and what you're gonna sell it as precisely, and to whom.
What? You're main problem is typos?? I code in almost nothing but C and love it, the C specification is great, but the implementation not so much. What I mean is that my debugging consists mostly of trying to improvise ways to catch memory corruption, things written where they shouldn't be written. Nothing will warn me that I'm writing outside the bounds of an array, and the few tools that are supposed to do this do this awfully unreliably. Why can't some tool just throw some warnings my way when I free an array twice, when I forgot to free an array but dereference it, go out of bounds or catch a SIGFPE?
So yeah, C is lovely, but I'd REALLY love it if things were made easy to systematically find out what's wrong with your code, instead of waiting until you get enough sufficient crashes that you often cannot even catch with your debugger, and when you do that's of no help because your program called a function it really shouldn't have right out of nowhere becomes at some point earlier (God knows where) the program wrote something where it shouldn't have.
For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?
Again, hardly my main complaint with C, I know what you mean, but I can see an issue with that. I often copy chunks of code from a place to another and don't fix the indentational offset, so if things worked like this that'd wreak havoc. Plus, everyone has their own indentation style, so it's best if these thins don't matter to the compiler.
The desire of inventors is always to get their work into the market as quickly as possible. Usually this means waiting for it to be turned into a useful, profitable invention. Mistry is bypassing this by going straight to open source.
Cut the crap. The demo is nice and couldn't help but make me smile, but what is there to commercialise? This is just the same type of novelty crap you get to see all the time these days, wearable crap, augmented reality, tangible interfaces and other paper interfaces.
You see new stuff like that everyday, from a dude making a techno beat by moving beer bottle caps around on a sheet of paper, some other dude cross fading recordings by driving around a desert area using GPS data, all these things are nice and make up for entertaining videos to post on blogs.
But these thing have a major flaw: they don't answer to any need, they don't create any need, they don't solve any problem, and they're in no way anything like basic research. They're only novel crap done by bored geeks who want to do something 'cool' (and "look cool like Tom Cruise") with their excess of free time and their love for techy crap. That's why none of these things could be commercialised. You can dick around all you want with electronics and webcams with object recognition/movement detection, but you can't sell what you do because no one needs it.
(they forget to mention the *EXTRA* fuel expense for the leading vehicle that is basically towing the others..)
Oh look, someone who doesn't know what he's talking about by tries to sound like he does just got modded up. "Trailing cars fill in the lead car's low-pressure wake, thereby cutting down pressure drag."
What? You mean that an industry based around a market worth over $50 billion a year in the USA alone (source) would try hard to make us buy all types of overly expensive craps?
When you think about it though it's kind of funny, fat people desperate to lose weight who spend thousands a year on all types of crap and who go through pains like running until they're soaking wet and nearly fainting when they don't bother to address the only reason why they're this fat in the first place : the guargantuan amounts of crap the shove in their face all day.
I almost can't understand, I'm so lazy that most of the time I can't even be bothered to eat dinner, meaning I don't often get to eat more than 2,100 calories a day. I sit on my arse all day, but you won't be surprised to hear that I'm indeed quite thin. It takes extraordinary efforts and a visit to McDonald's for me to reach the national average of 3,400 kcal a day.
Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle.
Lifestyle? That's if your 'lifestyle' is entirely defined by your eating habits.
Now if you're a skinny fuck like me and you're trying to get weight, that's more like a lifestyle change. Cause, you have to find the best way to stuff your mouth that your stomach can take, that means finding an optimal way of eating, which can mean eating 6 meals a day.
Well, it's for a good reason : if you eat say 500 kcal less than needed to keep up with your (fat) weight, if you add excercise that offset your energy needs by something like 800 kcal, then yeah, it's going to have a very significant impact on your progress.
The point is, if you're fat and were to eat only 1,700 calories a day, your weight would drop like a rock, without any exercise. Because I doubt your metabolism would scale back down lower than 2,000 kcal.
Yes. I wonder why so many people think they have to physically suffer in order to lose weight. Probably for the same reason people think we must suffer and make sacrifices to save the planet.
People don't get fat because they eat junk food, they get fat because they eat too many calories, junk food or not. It just happens that junk food is the best way to eat lots of calories (you can effortlessly eat yourself 1,500 kcal by picking the right meal at McDonald's). The recommended daily intake for an average adult is 2,000 kcal. Most people in the USA eat 3,400 kcal in average, and in most European countries it's also over 3,000. That's why so many people have "more to love". Just eat less calories! You don't have to eat brocolis, a calorie is a calorie, so just eat less of whatever you like to eat.
Do the math. You'll probably find that you can be fine even by skipping a meal (you might be amazed by how many calories are in your breakfast, mostly if you're the kind to eat eggs and meat), even if your diet is kind of crappy to begin with. And that's so much easier to skip breakfast (or change what's in it) than to run 45 minutes 3 times a week.
Which freedom died? The freedom of being uninsured? Yeah, makes me about as sad as when the freedom of being a slave died (actually some slaves did get sad over it, because their living conditions wouldn't improve as a result, but that's a different debate).
The creation of those bits required the harming of a child, there's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those bits.
Sure enough. The problem is that there is no such distinction. The problem with the child porn debate is that most people who partake in the debate have never seen anything that could be classified as child porn. If you've spent long enough on 4chan, you must have seen 3 types of pictures that classify as child porn : jailbait, which is teenagers taking pictures of themselves, and which is never removed by moderators because it's harmless and who's to say how old the person in the picture really is (these days it's like we legally should ask people their ID before enjoying the sight of their boobs on picture), CP which is usually about the same thing except with prepubescent children, which does get removed by mods, and the much rarer shock child porn which looks more like people's idea of child porn, that is some sick fuck doing something sick with a child/baby.
The point is, there's no distinction, and if you're found with pictures of a 15 year old with big boobs taking a picture of herself in the mirror, it'll be called child porn, and people will react as if you jacked off to picture of a guy taking a dump on a baby. In other words, the problem is with overly broad labels that are used against you to describe something you do on the most harmless end of the spectrum of what the label describes, while acting like you've did something at the worst end of the label's spectrum. That's exactly why Obama was labelled a socialist, because he actually is the FDR kind of socialist, but people used to it make him sound like the bastard child of Karl Marx and Stalin.
Virtually all our PC's, processors and hard drives are made overseas. By sending all our manufacturing overseas, we may be setting ourselves up for an attack that will make 9/11 look like lunch at Hooters.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard today. Are you really suggesting that Sony would set up a backdoor in its products to take them off remotely and that no one would hear about it long before it could happen? If they do they'll have to find something a bit more discreet than rootkits.
But the point remains it's stupid to say that about companies overseas as if those in the USA were any more worthy of trust.
Of course, what you libertarians fail to mention is that the banking sector was regulated for decades following the great depression, which had been largely caused by banks, and that we then deregulated the banks, which unsurprisingly led to this current catastrophe. The government has, once again, been forced to clean up after a bunch of private banks nearly ruined the entire country; yes, the government does a better job managing the banking system than the bankers themselves do.
Hallelujah, and here's why : banks are corporations meant to maximise profits. If you understand that, you'll understand that no one 'drives' them, they drive themselves mindlessly towards profit. Nothing's wrong with it, unless you think that you can let absolutely everything drive itself and hope it never goes off track.
That doesn't work that way, you can't have a complex environment of mindless protagonists driven by the search for profit maximisation and hope everything turns out magically alright. That gives you the kind of complicated situations we had where worthless assets were given an inflated price tags precisely to maximise profits. That's just an example of these mindless corporations driving themselves into the wall, because no one really drives them. The invisible hand isn't guided by an invisible brain. That's why you need the government to keep its hand on the steering wheel, not necessarily to drive the whole economy by itself, but to guard against anything wrong.
Put simply : the government driving the entire economy doesn't work long (see USSR), and letting the economy drive itself works about as long as it takes for it to drive itself into the next wall, which isn't very long either. The solution is to let things run themselves with someone to oversee, set boundaries and make sure nothing goes wrong. That's how the USA worked from FDR to Nixon, and how it works again since '08 Bush.
Funny, I went to school to become a network administrator, and there I was taught that if you want absolute security between two networks you need to make sure they're physically disconnect.
That's very reassuring to see that no one can be arsed to worry about that when it comes to power plants, which security are an issue of national security. Surely there must be some security regulations there?
Yeah, but form the point of view of justice, it doesn't even matter, as I pointed out there are many reasons why they shouldn't allow that kind of thing.
So, the Military has multi-million dollar radar systems, operated by a team of specialists, that think a 30,000 pound airplane is a bumble bee.
Haha dumbass! Radars don't think the airplane is a bumble bee, the airplane is designed to have the radar cross section the size of a bumble bee, as to avoid detection entirely. The radars don't think it's a bumble bee, they just can't detect it, because the plane was specially designed to avoid their detection!
Wow, your moronity is mind blowing. That's really something exceptional you have there. I mean it, sounds like the kind of stupidity that is so intense that it actually becomes your best asset, like, people could pay to hear dumb shit like that!!
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't they have googled the name first? You'd kind of expect at least that from them..
Not like Go is such a great name anyway. They should run a poll to decide the name. With enough luck it'll get called Marblecake or Colbert++.
It's called "Lets Go!"
I'll make sure to try that.
No one asked what it could possibly theoretically used for, I asked what it could be commercialised for. Tell me how you're gonna sell that to anyone, and what you're gonna sell it as precisely, and to whom.
Valgrind only works on Linux, I only dev for Windows and Mac OS X. And it has its shortcomings, it doesn't always work right.
What? You're main problem is typos?? I code in almost nothing but C and love it, the C specification is great, but the implementation not so much. What I mean is that my debugging consists mostly of trying to improvise ways to catch memory corruption, things written where they shouldn't be written. Nothing will warn me that I'm writing outside the bounds of an array, and the few tools that are supposed to do this do this awfully unreliably. Why can't some tool just throw some warnings my way when I free an array twice, when I forgot to free an array but dereference it, go out of bounds or catch a SIGFPE?
So yeah, C is lovely, but I'd REALLY love it if things were made easy to systematically find out what's wrong with your code, instead of waiting until you get enough sufficient crashes that you often cannot even catch with your debugger, and when you do that's of no help because your program called a function it really shouldn't have right out of nowhere becomes at some point earlier (God knows where) the program wrote something where it shouldn't have.
For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?
Again, hardly my main complaint with C, I know what you mean, but I can see an issue with that. I often copy chunks of code from a place to another and don't fix the indentational offset, so if things worked like this that'd wreak havoc. Plus, everyone has their own indentation style, so it's best if these thins don't matter to the compiler.
Moar Wikipedia CP!! That's some sick shit right there! Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on this! The Sistine Chapel does though.
The desire of inventors is always to get their work into the market as quickly as possible. Usually this means waiting for it to be turned into a useful, profitable invention. Mistry is bypassing this by going straight to open source.
Cut the crap. The demo is nice and couldn't help but make me smile, but what is there to commercialise? This is just the same type of novelty crap you get to see all the time these days, wearable crap, augmented reality, tangible interfaces and other paper interfaces.
You see new stuff like that everyday, from a dude making a techno beat by moving beer bottle caps around on a sheet of paper, some other dude cross fading recordings by driving around a desert area using GPS data, all these things are nice and make up for entertaining videos to post on blogs.
But these thing have a major flaw: they don't answer to any need, they don't create any need, they don't solve any problem, and they're in no way anything like basic research. They're only novel crap done by bored geeks who want to do something 'cool' (and "look cool like Tom Cruise") with their excess of free time and their love for techy crap. That's why none of these things could be commercialised. You can dick around all you want with electronics and webcams with object recognition/movement detection, but you can't sell what you do because no one needs it.
(they forget to mention the *EXTRA* fuel expense for the leading vehicle that is basically towing the others..)
Oh look, someone who doesn't know what he's talking about by tries to sound like he does just got modded up. "Trailing cars fill in the lead car's low-pressure wake, thereby cutting down pressure drag."
Again, "The problem is that there is no such distinction", legally.
Good point! How does that work though? Like.. how does you body deal with so few calories left for its regular energy needs?
What? You mean that an industry based around a market worth over $50 billion a year in the USA alone (source) would try hard to make us buy all types of overly expensive craps?
When you think about it though it's kind of funny, fat people desperate to lose weight who spend thousands a year on all types of crap and who go through pains like running until they're soaking wet and nearly fainting when they don't bother to address the only reason why they're this fat in the first place : the guargantuan amounts of crap the shove in their face all day.
I almost can't understand, I'm so lazy that most of the time I can't even be bothered to eat dinner, meaning I don't often get to eat more than 2,100 calories a day. I sit on my arse all day, but you won't be surprised to hear that I'm indeed quite thin. It takes extraordinary efforts and a visit to McDonald's for me to reach the national average of 3,400 kcal a day.
Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle.
Lifestyle? That's if your 'lifestyle' is entirely defined by your eating habits.
Now if you're a skinny fuck like me and you're trying to get weight, that's more like a lifestyle change. Cause, you have to find the best way to stuff your mouth that your stomach can take, that means finding an optimal way of eating, which can mean eating 6 meals a day.
Well, it's for a good reason : if you eat say 500 kcal less than needed to keep up with your (fat) weight, if you add excercise that offset your energy needs by something like 800 kcal, then yeah, it's going to have a very significant impact on your progress.
The point is, if you're fat and were to eat only 1,700 calories a day, your weight would drop like a rock, without any exercise. Because I doubt your metabolism would scale back down lower than 2,000 kcal.
Well duh, if you say that something weights more than something else, that's obviously not by pound! :D
Yes. I wonder why so many people think they have to physically suffer in order to lose weight. Probably for the same reason people think we must suffer and make sacrifices to save the planet.
People don't get fat because they eat junk food, they get fat because they eat too many calories, junk food or not. It just happens that junk food is the best way to eat lots of calories (you can effortlessly eat yourself 1,500 kcal by picking the right meal at McDonald's). The recommended daily intake for an average adult is 2,000 kcal. Most people in the USA eat 3,400 kcal in average, and in most European countries it's also over 3,000. That's why so many people have "more to love". Just eat less calories! You don't have to eat brocolis, a calorie is a calorie, so just eat less of whatever you like to eat.
Do the math. You'll probably find that you can be fine even by skipping a meal (you might be amazed by how many calories are in your breakfast, mostly if you're the kind to eat eggs and meat), even if your diet is kind of crappy to begin with. And that's so much easier to skip breakfast (or change what's in it) than to run 45 minutes 3 times a week.
Which freedom died? The freedom of being uninsured? Yeah, makes me about as sad as when the freedom of being a slave died (actually some slaves did get sad over it, because their living conditions wouldn't improve as a result, but that's a different debate).
Oh noes, someone doesn't care that someone else doesn't care! You gave him a dose of his own medicine right there! lolers!
The creation of those bits required the harming of a child, there's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those bits.
Sure enough. The problem is that there is no such distinction. The problem with the child porn debate is that most people who partake in the debate have never seen anything that could be classified as child porn. If you've spent long enough on 4chan, you must have seen 3 types of pictures that classify as child porn : jailbait, which is teenagers taking pictures of themselves, and which is never removed by moderators because it's harmless and who's to say how old the person in the picture really is (these days it's like we legally should ask people their ID before enjoying the sight of their boobs on picture), CP which is usually about the same thing except with prepubescent children, which does get removed by mods, and the much rarer shock child porn which looks more like people's idea of child porn, that is some sick fuck doing something sick with a child/baby.
The point is, there's no distinction, and if you're found with pictures of a 15 year old with big boobs taking a picture of herself in the mirror, it'll be called child porn, and people will react as if you jacked off to picture of a guy taking a dump on a baby. In other words, the problem is with overly broad labels that are used against you to describe something you do on the most harmless end of the spectrum of what the label describes, while acting like you've did something at the worst end of the label's spectrum. That's exactly why Obama was labelled a socialist, because he actually is the FDR kind of socialist, but people used to it make him sound like the bastard child of Karl Marx and Stalin.
I guess my real point is, LEGALIZE JAILBAIT.
Virtually all our PC's, processors and hard drives are made overseas. By sending all our manufacturing overseas, we may be setting ourselves up for an attack that will make 9/11 look like lunch at Hooters.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard today. Are you really suggesting that Sony would set up a backdoor in its products to take them off remotely and that no one would hear about it long before it could happen? If they do they'll have to find something a bit more discreet than rootkits.
But the point remains it's stupid to say that about companies overseas as if those in the USA were any more worthy of trust.
Of course, what you libertarians fail to mention is that the banking sector was regulated for decades following the great depression, which had been largely caused by banks, and that we then deregulated the banks, which unsurprisingly led to this current catastrophe. The government has, once again, been forced to clean up after a bunch of private banks nearly ruined the entire country; yes, the government does a better job managing the banking system than the bankers themselves do.
Hallelujah, and here's why : banks are corporations meant to maximise profits. If you understand that, you'll understand that no one 'drives' them, they drive themselves mindlessly towards profit. Nothing's wrong with it, unless you think that you can let absolutely everything drive itself and hope it never goes off track.
That doesn't work that way, you can't have a complex environment of mindless protagonists driven by the search for profit maximisation and hope everything turns out magically alright. That gives you the kind of complicated situations we had where worthless assets were given an inflated price tags precisely to maximise profits. That's just an example of these mindless corporations driving themselves into the wall, because no one really drives them. The invisible hand isn't guided by an invisible brain. That's why you need the government to keep its hand on the steering wheel, not necessarily to drive the whole economy by itself, but to guard against anything wrong.
Put simply : the government driving the entire economy doesn't work long (see USSR), and letting the economy drive itself works about as long as it takes for it to drive itself into the next wall, which isn't very long either. The solution is to let things run themselves with someone to oversee, set boundaries and make sure nothing goes wrong. That's how the USA worked from FDR to Nixon, and how it works again since '08 Bush.
Funny, I went to school to become a network administrator, and there I was taught that if you want absolute security between two networks you need to make sure they're physically disconnect.
That's very reassuring to see that no one can be arsed to worry about that when it comes to power plants, which security are an issue of national security. Surely there must be some security regulations there?
"In America" certainly includes any country in either North or South America.
No, you 2 euro-cent troll, that would be "In the Americas". "In America" or "En America" or "En Amérique" all refer specifically to the USA.
Yeah, but form the point of view of justice, it doesn't even matter, as I pointed out there are many reasons why they shouldn't allow that kind of thing.
Wow, holy shit you're one dumb mother fucker!
So, the Military has multi-million dollar radar systems, operated by a team of specialists, that think a 30,000 pound airplane is a bumble bee.
Haha dumbass! Radars don't think the airplane is a bumble bee, the airplane is designed to have the radar cross section the size of a bumble bee, as to avoid detection entirely. The radars don't think it's a bumble bee, they just can't detect it, because the plane was specially designed to avoid their detection!
Wow, your moronity is mind blowing. That's really something exceptional you have there. I mean it, sounds like the kind of stupidity that is so intense that it actually becomes your best asset, like, people could pay to hear dumb shit like that!!