The mind control devices must be some kind of BIOS interface... so a better question is "will these *sharks* run Linux?"
Stronger, can we extend this to penguins? They're amphibious!
makes sense to me... the perfect utility platform
on
Linux On Older Hardware
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My first Linux box was on old hardware, a 486 DX-2 50 in fact. Netscape was a bit slow, but it made a grade dial-up gateway. In fact, I still have the same machine, it has just slowly been upgraded piece by piece to an AMD K6, RAID-1 file-server and internet gateway using an 802.11 USB stick. At one point it also was my answering machine and it emailed me mp3s of voice messages it recorded using a 33.6 voice modem I got on eBay for $1. Now it boots from a compressed initrd so it can put the RAID to sleep so it isn't so loud.
> why in the world would you want to limit your market?
Step 1. Make a very good product that a lot of people want
Step 2. Limit its availablility, to help keep demand alive
Step 3. Profit!
Is that not how Apple functions? I see them slowly degrading into a position of greed, but otherwise they still have their "We're more sophisticated than you" attitude.
> why not bring in all the money they can? It is just assinine if they do not.
This makes sense if your *only* goal is Step 3. I haven't see Apple as that kind of company... yet. They still have quality.
Doesn't matter much. Sometimes they just turn the lights on to go through an orange light and then turn them off again.
Also, I know a cop that learned in while shadowing another officer to turn off the dash light so passengers can't see the speedometer because otherwise they get harassed on the way to the jail - "the speed-limit ain't seventy!"
"So I think the only thing that would make them happy would be if we all had devices that covered our ears. Every time we started to hear a song, it would ask us to verify that we want such and such money charged to our credit card account, otherwise it would cancel the music out."
It will be much easier for the Ministry of Truth to revise history when we can no longer record it.
But maybe the EU will launch a DRM-free satellite radio project...
> Operator overloading is indeed a carnival of confusion that would have been best avoided.
Actually, on the contrary, the entire purpose of operator overloading is to reduce complexity. std::auto_ptr would not be able to hide the memory management semantics from you and still act like a pointer without this feature.
If you do any serious development on any scale, you have problems MUCH bigger to solve then to worry about a tiny semantic. To do any problem solving on a large scale, you need to express and capture your problems as the smallest factors possible, test them in isolation, then scale your usage of that solution. Anything the language can do to hide the fact that you had to solve that problem in the first place will help you keep more important things in your head. So yes, operator overloading works best when the symbols are the natural way you would want to solve a problem, when they are intuitive.
I think one of the main problems with overloading is you can't control precedence, if you could we would probably be writing:
std::cout = "Hello world!" + std::endl;
But if it was implemented that way right now we would be using ()'s all over the place.
Slashdot Mirror
The mind control devices must be some kind of BIOS interface... so a better question is "will these *sharks* run Linux?"
Stronger, can we extend this to penguins? They're amphibious!
My first Linux box was on old hardware, a 486 DX-2 50 in fact. Netscape was a bit slow, but it made a grade dial-up gateway. In fact, I still have the same machine, it has just slowly been upgraded piece by piece to an AMD K6, RAID-1 file-server and internet gateway using an 802.11 USB stick. At one point it also was my answering machine and it emailed me mp3s of voice messages it recorded using a 33.6 voice modem I got on eBay for $1. Now it boots from a compressed initrd so it can put the RAID to sleep so it isn't so loud.
> why in the world would you want to limit your market? Step 1. Make a very good product that a lot of people want Step 2. Limit its availablility, to help keep demand alive Step 3. Profit! Is that not how Apple functions? I see them slowly degrading into a position of greed, but otherwise they still have their "We're more sophisticated than you" attitude. > why not bring in all the money they can? It is just assinine if they do not. This makes sense if your *only* goal is Step 3. I haven't see Apple as that kind of company... yet. They still have quality.
Doesn't matter much. Sometimes they just turn the lights on to go through an orange light and then turn them off again. Also, I know a cop that learned in while shadowing another officer to turn off the dash light so passengers can't see the speedometer because otherwise they get harassed on the way to the jail - "the speed-limit ain't seventy!"
"So I think the only thing that would make them happy would be if we all had devices that covered our ears. Every time we started to hear a song, it would ask us to verify that we want such and such money charged to our credit card account, otherwise it would cancel the music out."
It will be much easier for the Ministry of Truth to revise history when we can no longer record it.
But maybe the EU will launch a DRM-free satellite radio project...
> Operator overloading is indeed a carnival of confusion that would have been best avoided.
Actually, on the contrary, the entire purpose of operator overloading is to reduce complexity. std::auto_ptr would not be able to hide the memory management semantics from you and still act like a pointer without this feature.
If you do any serious development on any scale, you have problems MUCH bigger to solve then to worry about a tiny semantic. To do any problem solving on a large scale, you need to express and capture your problems as the smallest factors possible, test them in isolation, then scale your usage of that solution. Anything the language can do to hide the fact that you had to solve that problem in the first place will help you keep more important things in your head. So yes, operator overloading works best when the symbols are the natural way you would want to solve a problem, when they are intuitive.
I think one of the main problems with overloading is you can't control precedence, if you could we would probably be writing:
std::cout = "Hello world!" + std::endl;
But if it was implemented that way right now we would be using ()'s all over the place.