Traditional basic counted from 1, just like Fortran. Later ones let you define both the upper and lower bounds. It was fairly late, post C, that the default lower bound moved to 0. Strings always count from 0, so instr can return 0 if not found.
And the 0 lower bound in visual basic is an absolute pain. Excel, for example, counts from 1. So when you copy some cells into an array, where do they end up?
You do not get weird memory corruption bugs in.Net/Java. The sort that produce strange effects long after the bad code runs. Buffer overflows, accessing freed memory etc.
You do still get threading errors, which is another issue. But one nasty class of bugs is gone. Every time you read about a buffer overflow security violation think that that would never happen if they had not used C.
People do not use C/++ because they have done a careful language analysis. They use it because everyone else does and they are too lazy to learn anything else.
By the 1970s there was a general movement to type safe languages. But some of them were fascist, others just not available on all platforms. Details that force unfortunate decisions.
But the big technology developed in the 1970s generally misunderstood by slash dotters is efficient generational garbage collection algorithms developed by the Lisp community. That makes such a difference in how one goes about using memory.
For writing a micro-controller application then C will do. But for serious code, I want something that manages memory for me. Plus I want static type safety, and very efficient compilation. And today that means Java or C#/.Net. A bit bloated, no good for micro controllers, but so much more productive for larger systems.
Well written C# and Java is actually more efficient than C/++. Partially because it can do whole of program optimization. Partially because it can optimize for a particular processor rather than a generic one at a separate compile time. Partly because garbage collections minimizes the need to copy data structures (particularly in C++), and smart pointers are grossly inefficient compared to generational garbage collection. Partially because it allows focus on algorithms rather than fixing nasty bugs. There are two caveats 1. They both use stupid UTF-16 for strings and 2. They both enable much more code to be written for a given amount of effort, so people write a lot more code in them.
BTW. Probably the most evil thing that C has inflicted upon the world is counting from 0. All pre C languages count from 1, as do children. And then it all changed. And we will live with off by one errors for the rest of time.
It is cold in Washington. The left hate him. The mainstream republicans despise his buffonery. The Tea party hates him for not killing Obama-everything and bringing back slavery.
He dare not show his face in Britain, let alone Western Europe. He is in trouble over Russia and cannot go there.
But those wonderful Chinese finally treat him with the respect he most certainly deserves. They understand just how important a man Trump is. They put on a fine banquet, even applaud his grand daughter. And because they respect him, they have given him the oh so important concession that only a man of Trump's standing could achieve.
As to North Korea, Chinese human rights, Document nine, the South China Sea,.... technical details.
Just do not send passwords in the clear to the server. Kill phishing, which is the main issue. Use a nonce base hashing scheme instead.
TLS is almost worthless because it relies on the user to validate the URLs. Might as well not use it at all.
And the Secure Remote Password (SRP) algorithm has been around for a long, long time. It avoids offline John-the-ripper attacks.
The idea is that users only type in passwords in an area of the browser like the URL line which JavaScript cannot access.
Problem solved. Once and for all.
Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else can see how to make money out of plugging this hole, while there is plenty of money to be made by working around it. So I at least will not invest any time into it. Will you?
Just do not send the plain text password to the server. Use a nonce base hashing scheme instead.
TLS is almost worthless because it relies on the user to validate the URLs. Might as well not use it at all.
And the Secure Remote Password (SRP) algorithm has been around for a long, long time. It avoids offline John-the-ripper attacks.
The idea is that users only type in passwords in an area of the browser like the URL line which JavaScript cannot access.
Problem solved. Once and for all.
Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else can see how to make money out of plugging this hole, while there is plenty of money to be made by working around it. So I at least will not invest any time into it. Will you?
If you dream up a new theory about Evolution (which is controversial), then yes, you had better get it published elsewhere properly. But people are less concerned about non-controversial details like a particular cave. And most of the maths articles are largely referenced.
So there is an element of common sense here. No Original Research is a way to get rid of wacky theories without getting into arguments into the details.
There certainly are Wikipedia Nazis that love to revert everything. But by and large it works pretty sensibly. Amazingly so given that it is so completely open.
Bureaucratically minded people hate the idea of Wikipedia, and cannot believe that a fairly naive system based largely on good will could ever work. Particularly with vested commercial interests hacking away. But the proof is in the pudding. Most articles are surprisingly good. Generally much better than the fluff produced by Journalists.
So when you plug in a flash drive, you are giving control of your entire computer to it. Every time. Like when your kids give you a USB with something to print from their virus riddled school.
At least Windows is no longer supposed to automatically execute code it finds on the drive (or CD, if that is what the USB is emulating). But it is *long* over due that I should be able to plug in a USB drive and still be safe. May need special ports. Or a rule that Keyboards are only detected on startup. Etc.
The time you need visibility is foul weather. Drones, although fashionable, are not going to do it.
But if you have a bureaucracy inside the bridge, it does not matter how many systems can identify target if people do not communicate in complex ways to effect an action. In this case, they knew the other ship was there. They just ran straight into it anyway.
This sort of thing has crashed airplanes. When they went from yokes to joysticks. There was the air France one where an idiot pilot held the joystick back and the other pilot had no way of knowing.
Crude and simple works.
That said, on traditional naval boats, the helmsman working the wheel had no idea of where the ship is going. Often cannot ever see out the front. Look outs tell the officer, the officer tells the helmsman a course, and the helmsman is just like an auto pilot. This has cause other accidents.
That bit about having trouble controlling throttles and steering at the same time is dubious. Traditionally that would be done by many different people, each trained to do one tiny task -- naval ships have huge crews. But how hard can it be to handle them together? Presumably the helmsman has had some training and practice before taking primary responsibility.
One of the biggest work place accidents is falling. Nobody keeps statistics for the number of deaths due to solar installation, but it must be in the thousands world wide. Not because solar is particularly dangerous, but working on individual rooves is moderately dangerous, and there are lots and lots of them.
Contrast with nuclear where, excluding the Soviet Union, every death is a "Disaster" and there have been very, very few.
The 2011 Thoku tsunami killed some 16,000 people. Dead now.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear "disaster" killed Zero people directly. Maybe a dozen will die eventually. Maybe.
So you would think that the focus would be on tsunami protection. Better walls, better alerts etc.
But instead, it is on the nuclear "disaster". Which only happened as a result of a freak event. And lessons learned meant that the same would not happen again.
But they close down 50 nuclear plants. At huge cost.
Knee jerk reaction based on political perceptions and column inches of news print rather than any rational analysis.
TCAS technology is different, radar based. Larger planes have radar and look for other objects. Planes do not broadcast their position.
Most planes (even gliders these days) have transponders that respond with a ping to being hit with radar. But they do not broadcast a position.
Many pilots consider TCAS to be a nuisance because they are obliged to follow its instructions even though they can see the other plane and know that it is safe. This can actually lead to more dangerous behaviour. For example when taking off a pilot may avoid a steep (safer) climb if he sees another aircraft above because the TCAS will extrapolate his position and issue a directive, so they make a shallower climb that keeps them nearer to the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Traditional basic counted from 1, just like Fortran. Later ones let you define both the upper and lower bounds. It was fairly late, post C, that the default lower bound moved to 0. Strings always count from 0, so instr can return 0 if not found.
And the 0 lower bound in visual basic is an absolute pain. Excel, for example, counts from 1. So when you copy some cells into an array, where do they end up?
This is C pollution.
You do not get weird memory corruption bugs in .Net/Java. The sort that produce strange effects long after the bad code runs. Buffer overflows, accessing freed memory etc.
You do still get threading errors, which is another issue. But one nasty class of bugs is gone. Every time you read about a buffer overflow security violation think that that would never happen if they had not used C.
Have you ever measured it?
I have.
When the C++ complains that parameter 1 of a method has an inconsistent type, which one is it talking about? The 1st or the 2nd? Example of confusion.
People do not use C/++ because they have done a careful language analysis. They use it because everyone else does and they are too lazy to learn anything else.
By the 1970s there was a general movement to type safe languages. But some of them were fascist, others just not available on all platforms. Details that force unfortunate decisions.
But the big technology developed in the 1970s generally misunderstood by slash dotters is efficient generational garbage collection algorithms developed by the Lisp community. That makes such a difference in how one goes about using memory.
For writing a micro-controller application then C will do. But for serious code, I want something that manages memory for me. Plus I want static type safety, and very efficient compilation. And today that means Java or C#/.Net. A bit bloated, no good for micro controllers, but so much more productive for larger systems.
Well written C# and Java is actually more efficient than C/++. Partially because it can do whole of program optimization. Partially because it can optimize for a particular processor rather than a generic one at a separate compile time. Partly because garbage collections minimizes the need to copy data structures (particularly in C++), and smart pointers are grossly inefficient compared to generational garbage collection. Partially because it allows focus on algorithms rather than fixing nasty bugs. There are two caveats 1. They both use stupid UTF-16 for strings and 2. They both enable much more code to be written for a given amount of effort, so people write a lot more code in them.
BTW. Probably the most evil thing that C has inflicted upon the world is counting from 0. All pre C languages count from 1, as do children. And then it all changed. And we will live with off by one errors for the rest of time.
It is cold in Washington. The left hate him. The mainstream republicans despise his buffonery. The Tea party hates him for not killing Obama-everything and bringing back slavery.
He dare not show his face in Britain, let alone Western Europe. He is in trouble over Russia and cannot go there.
But those wonderful Chinese finally treat him with the respect he most certainly deserves. They understand just how important a man Trump is. They put on a fine banquet, even applaud his grand daughter. And because they respect him, they have given him the oh so important concession that only a man of Trump's standing could achieve.
As to North Korea, Chinese human rights, Document nine, the South China Sea, .... technical details.
I do not think any other western country permits this type of thing.
Just do not send passwords in the clear to the server. Kill phishing, which is the main issue. Use a nonce base hashing scheme instead.
TLS is almost worthless because it relies on the user to validate the URLs. Might as well not use it at all.
And the Secure Remote Password (SRP) algorithm has been around for a long, long time. It avoids offline John-the-ripper attacks.
The idea is that users only type in passwords in an area of the browser like the URL line which JavaScript cannot access.
Problem solved. Once and for all.
Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else can see how to make money out of plugging this hole, while there is plenty of money to be made by working around it. So I at least will not invest any time into it. Will you?
Just do not send the plain text password to the server. Use a nonce base hashing scheme instead.
TLS is almost worthless because it relies on the user to validate the URLs. Might as well not use it at all.
And the Secure Remote Password (SRP) algorithm has been around for a long, long time. It avoids offline John-the-ripper attacks.
The idea is that users only type in passwords in an area of the browser like the URL line which JavaScript cannot access.
Problem solved. Once and for all.
Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else can see how to make money out of plugging this hole, while there is plenty of money to be made by working around it. So I at least will not invest any time into it. Will you?
This type of government editing is a real danger to Wikipedia, and recognized.
It is worth your while to fight. I had a similar issue over a page on Terrorism. It took a lot of persistence, but got through.
Play the game. Get other editors involved. Make complaints to the adudicators etc.
Yes and no, in practice.
If you dream up a new theory about Evolution (which is controversial), then yes, you had better get it published elsewhere properly. But people are less concerned about non-controversial details like a particular cave. And most of the maths articles are largely referenced.
So there is an element of common sense here. No Original Research is a way to get rid of wacky theories without getting into arguments into the details.
There certainly are Wikipedia Nazis that love to revert everything. But by and large it works pretty sensibly. Amazingly so given that it is so completely open.
Bureaucratically minded people hate the idea of Wikipedia, and cannot believe that a fairly naive system based largely on good will could ever work. Particularly with vested commercial interests hacking away. But the proof is in the pudding. Most articles are surprisingly good. Generally much better than the fluff produced by Journalists.
Wikipedia is a good news story on human nature.
So when you plug in a flash drive, you are giving control of your entire computer to it. Every time. Like when your kids give you a USB with something to print from their virus riddled school.
At least Windows is no longer supposed to automatically execute code it finds on the drive (or CD, if that is what the USB is emulating). But it is *long* over due that I should be able to plug in a USB drive and still be safe. May need special ports. Or a rule that Keyboards are only detected on startup. Etc.
Most famous British engine in the war. Bit rude of SpaceX to reuse the name.
The piece of code I just wrote is a creation of the Lord. Including the bugs which are all part of His plan.
So, if there are 100 billion wild males, how many sterile ones do you need? A metric shit load?
An MBA means you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
So, you cannot find a single source of statistics either. Just safety waffle.
Like I said,
Nobody keeps statistics for the number of deaths due to solar installation,
The time you need visibility is foul weather. Drones, although fashionable, are not going to do it.
But if you have a bureaucracy inside the bridge, it does not matter how many systems can identify target if people do not communicate in complex ways to effect an action. In this case, they knew the other ship was there. They just ran straight into it anyway.
The NBN is for very large HD television.
You do not need it for small mobile. Nor for general web surfing etc.
Makes a pretty good UI.
This sort of thing has crashed airplanes. When they went from yokes to joysticks. There was the air France one where an idiot pilot held the joystick back and the other pilot had no way of knowing.
Crude and simple works.
That said, on traditional naval boats, the helmsman working the wheel had no idea of where the ship is going. Often cannot ever see out the front. Look outs tell the officer, the officer tells the helmsman a course, and the helmsman is just like an auto pilot. This has cause other accidents.
That bit about having trouble controlling throttles and steering at the same time is dubious. Traditionally that would be done by many different people, each trained to do one tiny task -- naval ships have huge crews. But how hard can it be to handle them together? Presumably the helmsman has had some training and practice before taking primary responsibility.
One of the biggest work place accidents is falling. Nobody keeps statistics for the number of deaths due to solar installation, but it must be in the thousands world wide. Not because solar is particularly dangerous, but working on individual rooves is moderately dangerous, and there are lots and lots of them.
Contrast with nuclear where, excluding the Soviet Union, every death is a "Disaster" and there have been very, very few.
Citation please. Wikipedia says Zero.
The 2011 Thoku tsunami killed some 16,000 people. Dead now.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear "disaster" killed Zero people directly. Maybe a dozen will die eventually. Maybe.
So you would think that the focus would be on tsunami protection. Better walls, better alerts etc.
But instead, it is on the nuclear "disaster". Which only happened as a result of a freak event. And lessons learned meant that the same would not happen again.
But they close down 50 nuclear plants. At huge cost.
Knee jerk reaction based on political perceptions and column inches of news print rather than any rational analysis.
But because he proposed it, the left will scream that he is wrong.
TCAS technology is different, radar based. Larger planes have radar and look for other objects. Planes do not broadcast their position.
Most planes (even gliders these days) have transponders that respond with a ping to being hit with radar. But they do not broadcast a position.
Many pilots consider TCAS to be a nuisance because they are obliged to follow its instructions even though they can see the other plane and know that it is safe. This can actually lead to more dangerous behaviour. For example when taking off a pilot may avoid a steep (safer) climb if he sees another aircraft above because the TCAS will extrapolate his position and issue a directive, so they make a shallower climb that keeps them nearer to the ground.