Collection in C++ doesn't suck at all. It's extremely nice, and a joy to program with. If you are the type to hide your pointers by converting them to a string representation, or XORing them, or doing otherwise stupid tricks with your code, then garbage collection will not help you. In fact, NOTHING will help you. Code like that is best deleted.
If you're writing C++ programs, you should be using a garbage collector, such as Geodesics, or the Boehm collector available freely on the net. I've heard various objections to collection, mostly boiling down to speed issues. At least with the Boehm collector, you can choose to manually manage some memory yourself. In that case, it should be treated as an optimization problem. Write your program with the collector, then profile it. Anywhere you can pinpoint the collector as a major slowdown, handle the memory yourself.
And what would be the point of a nuclear hand grenade, with a yield of.5 lb TNT? Real TNT is a far superior material for that: it's more reliable, it's less delicate, it requires less maintenance, theft isn't an international issue, it isn't radioactive, and it leaves little pollution.
Even for the purposes of bunker busting, I can't see using nukes. Even if we have to keep soldiers stationed outside bunkers for a year, it beats using a nuke on it.
Let me be the first to say
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
that John Ashcroft is harming our country more than any terrorists could dream of doing.
The article said that a car uses 300 parts that use magnetism. I can't think of anything more than the cassette tape player, and that's optional. Maybe in the dashboard there's some?
Wait, the solenoids that are on the starter. But what others?
Please, go over to human resources and beg them to show you how they keep track of employees. I know for sure that our HR department can figure out what my home address is, even though my name is Patrick.
That's amazing! It's exactly the same reason that Hungarian notation is just plain tasteless. Remembering the variable is one thing. Remember the variable and the type is TWO things. If the type spec has two parts, then the variable and the two parts is THREE things. But wait, what's the order of the typespec? That's FOUR things. Throw in a little case into the mix and before you know it, you can't remember the variable anymore.
Anyway, for my on-topic suggestion, if you've got 4000 machines to administer, use the names of towns. There's a lot of towns to go through before you start having to use names like Palo (in Michigan).
Not a problem. Have the admin make a short name for your machine that corresponds to the symbol. I actually have to add a couple letters, because two character names aren't allowed. I just made some bash aliases like this:
alias sshpt='ssh platinum' alias sshbe='ssh beryllium' alias sshru='ssh rubidium'
and so on.
You could fixup the short names with a prefix like this:
If Jon would post a new idea once in a while, he might not get so much grief. For example, his current article is just about as obvious as they come. Of course there's a tech gap. I think that most of us reading/. had the experience at an early age of reading about why the sky is blue, and then trying to discuss it with someone else. Here are some scenarios.
1) Hey Mom, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (mom) That's nice dear. Why don't you sit down and watch your cartoons.
2) Hey Dad, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (dad) How 'bout those Cubbies, don't they suck this year?
3) Hey playground bully, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (bully) WHACK!
4) Hey sister, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (sis) Who cares, dork.
All Jon has pointed out is that this tech gap which is obvious even at the level of the individual, also has larger structure associated with race and geography. Pretty much like everything else. Will his next article be about the knitting gap? Knitting is concentrated in old ladies, with hardly any teenage boys knowing anything about knitting. Yawn.
Are there bunkers in existence that are not vulnerable to the conventional bunker busters? Might those bunkers be in Iraq? I am mighty skeptical that there's a bunker in existence that can't be destroyed by a large precisely targeted conventional bomb. The only exception to this would be a bunker that's extremely deep, but a small nuke would also have trouble with this. Probably nothing that can't be solved with a larger nuke. Funny (not funny haha) how we all thought 5 years ago that since the Russians are our friends we didn't have to worry about nuclear war, and now our President might actually use nukes in an upcoming war.
What makes you think that you can't rationalize things away? Even after being presented with absolute facts?
Facts cannot be rationalized away. When confronted with a statement such as 2+2=4, rationalization is immediately revealed. Denial of a fact is not rational.
I could just picture you saying, "Yeah, but how do we know that that is one inch? Yeah, but how do we know that that ruler is accurate? Yeah, but how do know that the standard hasn't changed? Yeah, but how do know...", and on, and on, and on.
I am not a solipcist. On the contrary, it is religious people who have that tendancy. When they say things such as "not everything can be thought of as based on evidence" or "I believe in Jesus despite the complete lack of evidence". This is not a rational position, and those who hold it do not realize just how close they really are to statements such as the one you gave in the example.
"I'm a paleantological expert. It's obvious that you are being closed minded."
You should not accept an answer like that. The burden of proof is on the paleantologist, and his dismissal of your questions isn't likely to convince you, is it?
Yet, we can see that there was *never* any brontasaurus, and those who were sceptical, were rightfully so. The paleontologists abused their status and taught false ideas. Logic is very frail, and it doesn't help nearly as much as universities may indoctrinate their followers to believe.
So, you are suggesting that we rely on things such as superstition to decide between two ideas? I am amazed, that you can say that, and also accuse me (I think that was you who said it) of being intellectually dishonest.
Jesus said it himself. "Blessed is he who believes without seeing." That statement is the antithesis of science, and the antithesis of thinking. The idea that a person should not use their brain to think through the problems and options that face us all is repugnant to me, and should be repugnant to every person with a brain. And now you're telling me essentially that thinking is a useless thing, and that what a person gets at a university is indoctrination.
But your way is hardly any better, since you can't give any answer at all to my questions. I ask "why?" and you answer "because". Because is not an answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Collection in C++ doesn't suck at all. It's extremely nice, and a joy to program with. If you are the type to hide your pointers by converting them to a string representation, or XORing them, or doing otherwise stupid tricks with your code, then garbage collection will not help you. In fact, NOTHING will help you. Code like that is best deleted.
No, if you obscure the pointers that way, or maybe using a logical XOR, the collector won't be able to see them and the memory will leak.
But, why would you do this?
If you're writing C++ programs, you should be using a garbage collector, such as Geodesics, or the Boehm collector available freely on the net. I've heard various objections to collection, mostly boiling down to speed issues. At least with the Boehm collector, you can choose to manually manage some memory yourself. In that case, it should be treated as an optimization problem. Write your program with the collector, then profile it. Anywhere you can pinpoint the collector as a major slowdown, handle the memory yourself.
Would that start a nuclear war? Well, yes.
.5 lb TNT? Real TNT is a far superior material for that: it's more reliable, it's less delicate, it requires less maintenance, theft isn't an international issue, it isn't radioactive, and it leaves little pollution.
And what would be the point of a nuclear hand grenade, with a yield of
Even for the purposes of bunker busting, I can't see using nukes. Even if we have to keep soldiers stationed outside bunkers for a year, it beats using a nuke on it.
that John Ashcroft is harming our country more than any terrorists could dream of doing.
The article said that a car uses 300 parts that use magnetism. I can't think of anything more than the cassette tape player, and that's optional. Maybe in the dashboard there's some?
Wait, the solenoids that are on the starter. But what others?
In my host file? Can I do that?
So make them towns in Argentina.
That's only up to about 3100 or so.
Your head is a wetland?
3 thousand, not 7.
YOU want a road...or does your CAR want a road? Think about it. There's ways to have everything that we have now, and not own a personal car.
Please, go over to human resources and beg them to show you how they keep track of employees. I know for sure that our HR department can figure out what my home address is, even though my name is Patrick.
Sheesh.
I don't think you have any Elvis in you. Those unpronouncable names won't inspire anyone to gyrate their hips.
That's amazing! It's exactly the same reason that Hungarian notation is just plain tasteless. Remembering the variable is one thing. Remember the variable and the type is TWO things. If the type spec has two parts, then the variable and the two parts is THREE things. But wait, what's the order of the typespec? That's FOUR things. Throw in a little case into the mix and before you know it, you can't remember the variable anymore.
Anyway, for my on-topic suggestion, if you've got 4000 machines to administer, use the names of towns. There's a lot of towns to go through before you start having to use names like Palo (in Michigan).
Not a problem. Have the admin make a short name for your machine that corresponds to the symbol. I actually have to add a couple letters, because two character names aren't allowed. I just made some bash aliases like this:
1 68.8.8
alias sshpt='ssh platinum'
alias sshbe='ssh beryllium'
alias sshru='ssh rubidium'
and so on.
You could fixup the short names with a prefix like this:
ip-pt=192.168.8.78
ip-c=192.168.8.6
ip-o=192.
then you could do this:
telnet ip-pt
rather than typing out telnet platinum or telnet americium
The atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107, and that's not an integer either.
Atomic weights are averages that are biased by the abundance of each isotope.
I cannot poke fun of a craft that has given the world those extremely useful 'T' shaped pins.
If Jon would post a new idea once in a while, he might not get so much grief. For example, his current article is just about as obvious as they come. Of course there's a tech gap. I think that most of us reading /. had the experience at an early age of reading about why the sky is blue, and then trying to discuss it with someone else. Here are some scenarios.
1) Hey Mom, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (mom) That's nice dear. Why don't you sit down and watch your cartoons.
2) Hey Dad, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (dad) How 'bout those Cubbies, don't they suck this year?
3) Hey playground bully, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (bully) WHACK!
4) Hey sister, let's talk about why the sky is blue. (sis) Who cares, dork.
All Jon has pointed out is that this tech gap which is obvious even at the level of the individual, also has larger structure associated with race and geography. Pretty much like everything else. Will his next article be about the knitting gap? Knitting is concentrated in old ladies, with hardly any teenage boys knowing anything about knitting. Yawn.
Alternative that works just as well. I call this the "Cask of Amantilladobot".
1) Roboticise a dump truck.
2) Drive dump truck up to cave entrance with a pile of rocks.
3) dump rocks, blocking entrance.
No nukes required.
Are there bunkers in existence that are not vulnerable to the conventional bunker busters? Might those bunkers be in Iraq? I am mighty skeptical that there's a bunker in existence that can't be destroyed by a large precisely targeted conventional bomb. The only exception to this would be a bunker that's extremely deep, but a small nuke would also have trouble with this. Probably nothing that can't be solved with a larger nuke. Funny (not funny haha) how we all thought 5 years ago that since the Russians are our friends we didn't have to worry about nuclear war, and now our President might actually use nukes in an upcoming war.
Are you sure your name isn't really OverWork@Code?
Oh oh, your compelling argument has convinced me!
It's easy to see why evolution is a hard concept for you to grasp. Trust me, after you go through it once, things will be much easier for you.
What makes you think that you can't rationalize things away? Even after being presented with absolute facts?
Facts cannot be rationalized away. When confronted with a statement such as 2+2=4, rationalization is immediately revealed. Denial of a fact is not rational.
I could just picture you saying, "Yeah, but how do we know that that is one inch? Yeah, but how do we know that that ruler is accurate? Yeah, but how do know that the standard hasn't changed? Yeah, but how do know...", and on, and on, and on.
I am not a solipcist. On the contrary, it is religious people who have that tendancy. When they say things such as "not everything can be thought of as based on evidence" or "I believe in Jesus despite the complete lack of evidence". This is not a rational position, and those who hold it do not realize just how close they really are to statements such as the one you gave in the example.
"I'm a paleantological expert. It's obvious that you are being closed minded."
You should not accept an answer like that. The burden of proof is on the paleantologist, and his dismissal of your questions isn't likely to convince you, is it?
Yet, we can see that there was *never* any brontasaurus, and those who were sceptical, were rightfully so. The paleontologists abused their status and taught false ideas. Logic is very frail, and it doesn't help nearly as much as universities may indoctrinate their followers to believe.
So, you are suggesting that we rely on things such as superstition to decide between two ideas? I am amazed, that you can say that, and also accuse me (I think that was you who said it) of being intellectually dishonest.
Jesus said it himself. "Blessed is he who believes without seeing." That statement is the antithesis of science, and the antithesis of thinking. The idea that a person should not use their brain to think through the problems and options that face us all is repugnant to me, and should be repugnant to every person with a brain. And now you're telling me essentially that thinking is a useless thing, and that what a person gets at a university is indoctrination.
But your way is hardly any better, since you can't give any answer at all to my questions. I ask "why?" and you answer "because". Because is not an answer.