If they were smart, they'd do it in ANSI C and just hire consultants.
It isn't that hard, but who wants to learn all of C++, or risk writing something in the "wrong" subset? Total PITA. Lots of people love C++, but they all love and hate different parts. It is the plague.
And why would career-oriented people want to get stuck doing it? It is a job for legacy code wranglers, not engineers.
But in most cases, they should be using Golang or Ruby or something. Python is the howto language, the BASIC of the modern age. The language itself is fine, but the extant volume of garbage code and bad practices makes it dubious for serious projects.
The problem is, it is up to the programmers, all of them, to be very careful. Threading in C is unsafe. You have to take every step carefully, or some part of the code will smash the toes of some other part.
That's fine for me, it sounds like it is fine for you. But it gets really hard to do something like deep learning that way without risking deadlocks.
That's why something like Go-lang is better for that sort of application; it is easier to avoid deadlocks while only using idiomatic code. And the syntax is C-like.
C is my primary language, and I gotta say, you seem pretty confused. Somebody pointed at the C runtime, and you start crying and claiming they don't understand C. That's just daft.
Run time, compile time. In C this is not complicated.
If you didn't have a runtime, how would you assign constants at compile time and have them exist in RAM at runtime? Simple, you wouldn't.
That would reduce their customer base for the product. They wouldn't do that.
They support linux, and other popular operating systems anyways.
There is not anything about web dev that would actually push them to want to lock it to a browser. This isn't the 1990s when they were doing it to push people at their language and integration tools. And even if MS of all companies was going to "go there" on browsers, why would they do it to pimp out Chromium?!
At this point only Lord Buckethead can save them. The whole rest of the country have their shoelaces stuck somewhere in the middle steps of Barnier's Staircase!
People are missing the human component to the engineering.
There are important pieces of information, such as, what exact specs are necessary for QA purposes? Are they buying parts with a different performance guarantee than the basic ranges listed in the data sheet?
If you don't actually want the part, but you want to know, how good does this part actually have to be in this application so that when it is finally built and is running modern software, it works well enough to satisfy QA requirements?
You can find that out by asking the right people, but you can't actually calculate any of that from a product breakdown.
When you're negotiating with a Chinese chip supplier, you don't actually negotiate over price. Prices are basically fixed, with the markup varying based on your relationship with the company. When you ask for lower prices, you're actually asking for them to spend less money making the product. A lot of people don't understand this, and it leads to (false) accusations of contract dishonesty.
Huawei of course, being a Chinese company, understands that perfectly. They're not going to go to some local supplier and ask for a cheaper heart rate monitor. That would be stupid of them. Instead, they're going to try to figure out the actual minimum operating specs of the part, and then ask for the price of those specs. That will be the lowest price they can hope to get. But they can't learn that from a breakdown, because many of the parts actually made will (accidentally) be higher quality than the spec. And sometimes some of the specs will be higher than needed because of the manufacturing process, and they might have access to a different basket of processes. So they need to know which specs are actually important, and which involve tradeoffs.
Yeah, it sounds like the Postal Service wanted to hire him to provide a service, and he wanted to get license fees instead, and he wasn't wise enough to see that his patent was obvious (as in, the details were already obvious to him when he thought it up, it wasn't something that required R&D).
Of course they implemented it themselves in that scenario.
Not every new business makes sense as an IP provider, most businesses only have operational value.
They exist in a muddled middle ground where they're partially the government, but also partially independent.
That's why Congress is even allowed to give them special pension rules!
So every rule of this type is a special case that the courts have to measure and balance to see how it affects the USPS. And also that means, any precedents created won't apply to anybody else, except maybe Amtrak.
I wonder how many lawyers working in the military defense industry read your comment. How many do you think spit out their beverage laughing at your comment?
Lawyers read stupid, incorrect nonsense involving their field of work multiple times a day.
They're not, and courts don't, measuring if the Postal Service counts as a "person."
They're measuring if the wording in a specific law is including the Postal Service when it uses the word "person" in a particular provision.
There are no implications outside of this exact narrow issue of patent law involving restrictions on when the Government can request a patent review.
Companies are not considered "people" by the court. That's just a colloquial simplification that isn't literally accurate. They're considered legal entities. And the precedent says that the 14th Amendment grants equal due process to all legal entities. If a law applies to corporations or not depends on the details of the law and if that law was attempting to apply only to humans, or to anybody recognized as a legal entity before the court. The actual word "person" isn't relevant, except that Congress often uses the word when writing laws, leaving the Courts to figure out which sort of provision it was.
The obvious examples are things like voting, but another easy example is a recreational fishing license compared to a commercial fishing license; one is reasonably restricted to human persons, the other usually applies to everybody, but can still be granted individually. Other types of resource access are like that; it can go either way according to the preferences of the people making the rules.
For example, I buy commercial mushroom hunting licenses from various National Forests. These licenses are only granted to individuals. If a company wants to hire people to pick mushrooms, they can't get a license themselves, they would have to require the potential employees to themselves be individual permit holders. Same for berry picking. But if you want to harvest bear grass (it is used in floral arrangements) then that license can go to a person or a company, and covers some number of employees that can be onsite at one time.
Now, if it turns out that the government didn't indicate clearly that something was restricted to individuals, of if their reasoning was arbitrary and capricious, then they can't restrict something to individuals in that case. But that's only because of due process, not because of some corporate right to be an individual. That's what is at stake here; it isn't entirely clear of there is an intentional restriction in this case, or just clumsy wording. The 14th Amendment will cause that to generally be resolved in the way that restricts the rights of the affected parties the least amount; eg, granting the corporation the right to do the thing. At least until or unless Congress clarifies the matter.
It doesn't really matter if he's single, all that matters is if he left behind assets. If so, then the debts potentially affect whoever the assets were left to. If not, then the rest of it doesn't matter.
Maybe master writing intelligible sentences before worrying about entomology.... "How badly broken is... " reads way better than "How badly is... broken" . Holy crap. I am a native english speaker and this whole article was tedious to read.
If you're a native English speaker and can't understand it, golly, how badly is your parser broken?!
That is exactly the sort of nonsense up with which decent people do not put.
And if you thought entomology was tedious, try etymology! At least with entomology you have basic instincts about avoiding bites to keep you awake. Also, the pictures are more interesting.
My local University Library even has banks of automatic book scanners in case somebody wants to add a book from the shelves to the digital collection. Instead of the old "photocopy the whole text" strategy that was in common use in the past.
Unfortunately, it is only available to staff and students; I have a library card that lets me check out books, but I don't have access to the digital copies or the book scanners.
Depends; did they actually implement the same thing, with the same affects on others? Or, being a backward country drowning in corruption, would it be implemented in an entire different way, even if it had been written the same?
The idiocy in the story is conflating the entire non-Indian international economy with "silicon valley." But if it is good or bad for them that they implement the rules differently than Europe, that's up to them. But they're guaranteed to continue to have less integration with international commerce than they would if they were actually using the European system.
Slashdot Mirror
This is slashdot, but the flashers and the biggest boobs are men.
The best way for your situation is to just scan the pages by hand, using a consumer scanning tool, and then upload it to archive.org for preservation.
In the olden days, we had monstrous goat trolls that could even attack us with ASCII... pictographs. And hot grits.
Darn whippersnappers think mild homophobia is edgy, or something. Stay away from history books, kids, it will scar your innocent eyes.
If they were smart, they'd do it in ANSI C and just hire consultants.
It isn't that hard, but who wants to learn all of C++, or risk writing something in the "wrong" subset? Total PITA. Lots of people love C++, but they all love and hate different parts. It is the plague.
And why would career-oriented people want to get stuck doing it? It is a job for legacy code wranglers, not engineers.
But in most cases, they should be using Golang or Ruby or something. Python is the howto language, the BASIC of the modern age. The language itself is fine, but the extant volume of garbage code and bad practices makes it dubious for serious projects.
Show me somebody who can multitask, and I'll show you somebody who can always sound like they did something.
Strictly speaking, if you're writing spaghetti code there is no reason to rely on a language. or other arbitrary rules.
Threading in C is pretty straighforwards.
The problem is, it is up to the programmers, all of them, to be very careful. Threading in C is unsafe. You have to take every step carefully, or some part of the code will smash the toes of some other part.
That's fine for me, it sounds like it is fine for you. But it gets really hard to do something like deep learning that way without risking deadlocks.
That's why something like Go-lang is better for that sort of application; it is easier to avoid deadlocks while only using idiomatic code. And the syntax is C-like.
All mammals have boobs.
C is my primary language, and I gotta say, you seem pretty confused. Somebody pointed at the C runtime, and you start crying and claiming they don't understand C. That's just daft.
Run time, compile time. In C this is not complicated.
If you didn't have a runtime, how would you assign constants at compile time and have them exist in RAM at runtime? Simple, you wouldn't.
Who cares?
That would reduce their customer base for the product. They wouldn't do that.
They support linux, and other popular operating systems anyways.
There is not anything about web dev that would actually push them to want to lock it to a browser. This isn't the 1990s when they were doing it to push people at their language and integration tools. And even if MS of all companies was going to "go there" on browsers, why would they do it to pimp out Chromium?!
They didn't have enough dupes to meet the post quota, so we get this.
Go out and find some news and save us if you don't like it.
That's just one single IP address, and not a valid one at that.
I assumed it was shorthand for a CIDR address aligned to 8 bits.
How do central Europeans write dotted quad notation?
They're too poor for that to create any ambiguity. They don't have that many of anything.
At this point only Lord Buckethead can save them. The whole rest of the country have their shoelaces stuck somewhere in the middle steps of Barnier's Staircase!
Hail Lord Protector Buckethead!
People are missing the human component to the engineering.
There are important pieces of information, such as, what exact specs are necessary for QA purposes? Are they buying parts with a different performance guarantee than the basic ranges listed in the data sheet?
If you don't actually want the part, but you want to know, how good does this part actually have to be in this application so that when it is finally built and is running modern software, it works well enough to satisfy QA requirements?
You can find that out by asking the right people, but you can't actually calculate any of that from a product breakdown.
When you're negotiating with a Chinese chip supplier, you don't actually negotiate over price. Prices are basically fixed, with the markup varying based on your relationship with the company. When you ask for lower prices, you're actually asking for them to spend less money making the product. A lot of people don't understand this, and it leads to (false) accusations of contract dishonesty.
Huawei of course, being a Chinese company, understands that perfectly. They're not going to go to some local supplier and ask for a cheaper heart rate monitor. That would be stupid of them. Instead, they're going to try to figure out the actual minimum operating specs of the part, and then ask for the price of those specs. That will be the lowest price they can hope to get. But they can't learn that from a breakdown, because many of the parts actually made will (accidentally) be higher quality than the spec. And sometimes some of the specs will be higher than needed because of the manufacturing process, and they might have access to a different basket of processes. So they need to know which specs are actually important, and which involve tradeoffs.
Yeah, it sounds like the Postal Service wanted to hire him to provide a service, and he wanted to get license fees instead, and he wasn't wise enough to see that his patent was obvious (as in, the details were already obvious to him when he thought it up, it wasn't something that required R&D).
Of course they implemented it themselves in that scenario.
Not every new business makes sense as an IP provider, most businesses only have operational value.
They exist in a muddled middle ground where they're partially the government, but also partially independent.
That's why Congress is even allowed to give them special pension rules!
So every rule of this type is a special case that the courts have to measure and balance to see how it affects the USPS. And also that means, any precedents created won't apply to anybody else, except maybe Amtrak.
I wonder how many lawyers working in the military defense industry read your comment. How many do you think spit out their beverage laughing at your comment?
Lawyers read stupid, incorrect nonsense involving their field of work multiple times a day.
I doubt they even find it funny.
They're not, and courts don't, measuring if the Postal Service counts as a "person."
They're measuring if the wording in a specific law is including the Postal Service when it uses the word "person" in a particular provision.
There are no implications outside of this exact narrow issue of patent law involving restrictions on when the Government can request a patent review.
Companies are not considered "people" by the court. That's just a colloquial simplification that isn't literally accurate. They're considered legal entities. And the precedent says that the 14th Amendment grants equal due process to all legal entities. If a law applies to corporations or not depends on the details of the law and if that law was attempting to apply only to humans, or to anybody recognized as a legal entity before the court. The actual word "person" isn't relevant, except that Congress often uses the word when writing laws, leaving the Courts to figure out which sort of provision it was.
The obvious examples are things like voting, but another easy example is a recreational fishing license compared to a commercial fishing license; one is reasonably restricted to human persons, the other usually applies to everybody, but can still be granted individually. Other types of resource access are like that; it can go either way according to the preferences of the people making the rules.
For example, I buy commercial mushroom hunting licenses from various National Forests. These licenses are only granted to individuals. If a company wants to hire people to pick mushrooms, they can't get a license themselves, they would have to require the potential employees to themselves be individual permit holders. Same for berry picking. But if you want to harvest bear grass (it is used in floral arrangements) then that license can go to a person or a company, and covers some number of employees that can be onsite at one time.
Now, if it turns out that the government didn't indicate clearly that something was restricted to individuals, of if their reasoning was arbitrary and capricious, then they can't restrict something to individuals in that case. But that's only because of due process, not because of some corporate right to be an individual. That's what is at stake here; it isn't entirely clear of there is an intentional restriction in this case, or just clumsy wording. The 14th Amendment will cause that to generally be resolved in the way that restricts the rights of the affected parties the least amount; eg, granting the corporation the right to do the thing. At least until or unless Congress clarifies the matter.
It doesn't really matter if he's single, all that matters is if he left behind assets. If so, then the debts potentially affect whoever the assets were left to. If not, then the rest of it doesn't matter.
You might really want to pare it down to a specific era, or else it is going to take you hundreds of years to complete your thesis.
Maybe master writing intelligible sentences before worrying about entomology. ... "How badly broken is... " reads way better than "How badly is ... broken" . Holy crap. I am a native english speaker and this whole article was tedious to read.
If you're a native English speaker and can't understand it, golly, how badly is your parser broken?!
That is exactly the sort of nonsense up with which decent people do not put.
And if you thought entomology was tedious, try etymology! At least with entomology you have basic instincts about avoiding bites to keep you awake. Also, the pictures are more interesting.
My local University Library even has banks of automatic book scanners in case somebody wants to add a book from the shelves to the digital collection. Instead of the old "photocopy the whole text" strategy that was in common use in the past.
Unfortunately, it is only available to staff and students; I have a library card that lets me check out books, but I don't have access to the digital copies or the book scanners.
It is a bit excessive to expect slashdot editors to know the difference between a user and success on the internet.
Depends; did they actually implement the same thing, with the same affects on others? Or, being a backward country drowning in corruption, would it be implemented in an entire different way, even if it had been written the same?
The idiocy in the story is conflating the entire non-Indian international economy with "silicon valley." But if it is good or bad for them that they implement the rules differently than Europe, that's up to them. But they're guaranteed to continue to have less integration with international commerce than they would if they were actually using the European system.