Well Pascal is a pretty good measure of pressure, one Newton per square meter is a nice metric number. Yet for daily life we always use kilo- and hecto-Pascals, so perhaps it is a bit under-rated.

Maybe that is what happened to the Patriots' footballs?

Like in C, the winning sequence starts with a 0:

Step 0) Don't do any criminal activity.

That's it, there are no more steps (not even profit!). So much can be avoided by following step 0 first.

I perhaps forgot the /sarcasm tag, but the point I was making:

Actually that example is not even valid Python code, you'll get an 'n not defined'. Furthermore you need to indent it properly. You probably want something like this:

def primes_upto(limit):
        is_prime = [False] * 2 + [True] * (limit - 1)
        for n in range(int(limit**0.5 + 1.5)):
                if is_prime[n]:
                        for i in range(n*n, limit+1, n):
                                is_prime[i] = False
        return [i for i, prime in enumerate(is_prime) if prime]

And VB6 you can actually do this on one line :)

Sub Eratost() : Dim sieve() As Boolean : Dim n As Integer, i As Integer, j As Integer: n = InputBox("limit:", n) : ReDim sieve(n) : For i = 1 To n : sieve(i) = True : Next i : For i = 2 To n : If sieve(i) Then : For j = i * 2 To n Step i : sieve(j) = False : Next j : End If : Next i : For i = 2 To n : If sieve(i) Then Debug.Print i : Next i : End Sub 'Eratost

If you want one-liner programs, we should really force people to use perl which is famous for that. Python is not friendly to 'one-liner' types of programs because it forces indentation.

But really, the parser is supposed to work with you, not against you, so why not write it on several lines to help readability? I fail to see how writing code on one line really proves its power.

For bragging rights, you could go full-genius mode [instead of full-retard] with APL (change 100 to whatever you want the vector of primes to be) :

(~vv.×v)/v1100

EDIT: Damn it, you can't even put APL code in Slashdot. Here is a link to explain the code

That is such an idiotic statement that I won't even bother continuing the discussion. This link is the wikipedia page. And is Linus himself speaking about the mix of kernel architectures.

The people who push systemd have serious issues with reality it seems. Pulseaudio is a brain damaged piece of software and one of the first things to be removed in any distribution.

Actually the performance arguments are the only arguments. Everyone is agreed that separating the various components is necessary for system stability. Yet for machines like home computers it is simply not possible. It is only with the relative advance of hardware that the microkernel can actually get close to a monolithic kernel in terms of performance. The address space separation always comes at the cost of inter-process communication and context-switching which necessarily have performance consequences. It is this performance consequence that made Windows NT, originally designed on a microkernel architecture, move towards a hybrid kernel. However even Windows engineers have struggled to move towards a microkernel, with Vista being the first version I believe which had some drivers run in user mode.

Actually the monolithic kernel has already lost the marketshare battle. There are far more Mac and Windows installations than all Linux distributions combined. These are all microkernel or hybrid-kernel architectures.

You make an error in thinking that history has already been written. Unless you are a prophet of some sort, there is no way you can tell us what the tide of history is at this moment. Systemd may indeed be the end of Linux in server space, as many serious companies are already migrating to the BSDs. How large this migration may be we won't know until the statistics are taken after the fact. I'm old enough to remember the commercials for "New Coke", which was vaunted to be the formula to crush the competition. In reality the competition destroyed Coca-Cola. Systemd is all about marketing, and nothing about engineering. It too will fail and be replaced, just like PulseAudio by ALSA.

Actually, no. The modern linux kernel is far more modular than in the beginning. Now you have kernel 'modules' that can be unloaded during runtime, which wasn't possible in the past. In the end the real debate was HOW to accomplish the modularity, not whether to make the kernel modular or not. The modern linux kernel is not as monolithic as it used to be, and has absorbed many of the features of the microkernel.

You can run the kernel with any number of modules according to the functionality that you need, with various levels of dependancy. There are even distributions that remove all of these modules for embedded devices. You still have a kernel that provides a way to speak to the hardware it supports even without the other modules.

Systemd is nothing like this. You cannot run systemd without journald for instance, not simply because of a dependency but due to bad design. There is no reason on earth that an init system would need a specific journal daemon, and yet you cannot run systemd without journald. To use any other journaling software you have to use the output of journald. Thus journald is not separate from systemd in any meaningful term.

And who in their right mind makes a logging daemon write to binary files? That is just retarded. The first thing you look on a machine that has failed in some way is to look at the log, and the tool to look at the log is almost always from another machine that is different than the one you are looking at [because that one is broken, duh]. A technician will use tools that he has on hand, which sometimes is only a text editor, or even just cat. To expect someone to install another piece of software on their machine just so they can see what happened to the server IS JUST FUCKING INSANE.

You perhaps know that one of the reasons slashdot itself (one of the major tech sites on the internet) doesn't support unicode fully is not only due to the laziness of the developers. Gmail until recently also had difficulties. The DNS system as well has all sorts of troubles with the Russian 'a' and the ASCII 'a'. Just selecting through several pages of memory to draw the right symbol is not going to happen without some cost.

"Displaying text and pictures" is not so simple as it may sound. Do you remember the JPEG flaw that was used as an exploit in Internet Explorer?

I'm not against supporting all sorts of character sets, but we can't imagine that it doesn't come without a price and potentially with several possible dangers.

IF Wingdings fonts makes my computer run as slow as molasses and weakens its security, then it is simply a flaw and not a feature. If our beloved web browser programmers however spend more time on implementing emoj than web standards, we have a problem. If they can get it to work without destroying fundamental functionality, I don't really care.

Another reason browsers are way too bloated. This stuff does not come for free. Not to mention the possible security implications. What happens when a malformed emoj is put in the address field? What about in the preferences? What about as a http-header?

Seriously, some features should just not be implemented, just like kids should not be given everything they ask for. Not everything you want is good for you, nor good for the internet.

And get off my lawn.

If you using a lot of terminals, I would suggest using a tiled window manager like i3. New terminal is only a key press away and it is very efficient once you master it.

AKA Publicity Stunt. They are riding the coat-tails of the Sony hack and want everyone to talk about X Box.

The option "Find/Fix/End Relationship" is a bit like the old DOS prompt :

Data error reading Drive C:
Abort, Retry, Fail?

Funny thing is that none of the options ever worked in DOS either....

If you are using a SSH tunnel or similarly with a VPN, you are already doing 'everything' over SSH, that is to say the whole network connection. Even my X11 server is using it right now.

However HTTP/S, SMTP and the like are protocols, not transport mechanisms.

True, the table is a question of space/accuracy trade-off.

The process of correcting is in the interpolation, which is why I included the additional links in the same thread.

For instance in the simple manner of simple linear interpolation one can interpolate an arbitrary \epsilon between two table values. Repeating this brings us closer to a fixed point. The book that I linked to gives also many other ways of interpolation, as well as the article. It is this interpolation that is the manner of finding increased accuracy.

The article I linked to states that the method that he employs shows a noticeable gain over recalculating the value [though it is not the same function in discussion]. As in most algorithms it depends a lot on what is more important - space or time.

And a nice pdf paper illustrating this technique and its merits