Oculus is releasing later to coincide with the release of Duke Nukem VR. They also indicated the headset they plan to release after that one, called the "osbourne" is much better and cheaper.
It's not "no expectation of privacy". It's "no expectation that your location is kept private". Different thing.
Same difference. I expect that my location is kept private too.
If you call me on the phone, and the police asks me what you said, I can tell them. I don't know what rights I have to refuse to tell them if I don't want to, but you have no right to stop me if I decide to tell them.
Difference being that I am not friends with my telco. I can choose one from two or forego a modern convenience. The latter is an option, but runs against the freedom to pursue happiness. I want to be able to choose simple modern luxuries and conveniences without agreeing the government gets to know every where I go.
The phone company has no right to know what we were talking about, but the have the right to know your location.
Yes. They have the necessity to know it to fullfill the service.
but I expect they have the right to give it to the police.
Bingo. They should't. Just as I have attorney/client priviledge and have dr./patient priviledge
The fault here lies not with the judges who are applying the law as it is written. The problem lies with the legislators who need to pass laws recognizing the privilege should exist.
Maybe one day eventually. But students and people who actually do any work are still buying them. Usually in the form of a laptop, but often desktops if they value power and performance and longevity over portability.
There is a large exodus sure... grandma might not need a PC now that she has a tablet. But nobody is giong to write a 10 page essay on a tablet if they dont have to.
The keyboard can be worked around with bluetooth... but the ability to multi-task-- collaborate with you friends in skype, while having not one, not two, but three browser windows open at the same time various sites with information your citing, plus your editor, plus excel for that graph your working on...
Doing any real work on a tablet is a JOKE. Tablets etc might one day catch up... let you attach a keyboard, monitor, and mouse... and run your desktop apps. Yeah... that could happen.
But so what... that's still a home pc with a desktop OS, with a tablet mode... why its almost like your inventing Windows 8 / Windows 10....or Ubunutu Unity...
Yeah, T9 and iTap etc should have been available; so not quite as bad as I made it out to be... but still texting was very different then. (i guess its still that way on dumb/feature phones... but i haven't used one since the Motorola Razr 2.)
Hmmm.... typed this; using 2 spaces using regular spacebar as indents:
Simply copy and pasted this from wikipedia
; Uses S-C Assembler variant.
main ldy #$00
jsr $fded ; ROM routine, COUT, y is preserved
Then Using preview and viewing the page source I get:
; Uses S-C Assembler variant.
main ldy #$00
jsr $fded ; ROM routine, COUT, y is preserved
I'm not getting nbsp entities nor am i getting TT tags?! I'm using Firefox on Windows 7; not sure what else to say?!!
And the texter wasn't "the world champion" just some dude who won some local texting contest. Still fast, but lets not go nuts.
Oh, and it was Leno not Letterman.
There was simililar race in Australia at the time and the morse guy won there too.
10 years ago the phones they were using had those press 1 once for A, 1 twice for B, 1 three times for C, 1 for times for 1, 1 five times for !. press 2 once time for D, press 2 twice for E.... systems.
It wasn't a competition between morse and a smartphone with swyft etc.
I still give the edge to a morse expert... but not by nearly as much.
code tags of course.
And to post tags with out
< and > and & for the ampersand itself
Yeah. The kind of stuff you seem largely unfamiliar with.
Lol, yes, relax. I'm not a pure C guy and I won't offend you by pretending to be.
That's not true, and has never been. Until about 16 years ago, you had to declare your variables at the beginning of a block/compound statement. That can be well within the function.
You know, until I saw it in this thread, it never occurred to me to just open a new block for the purposes of inlining a debug declaration. Thanks, I'll use that.
As of about 16 years ago, you're even allowed to freely mix your declarations and code.
Cool beans. The one C program I do have to maintain (a small 'plugin' DLL for an embedded system) I have to compile with Visual Studio 2010, which doesn't support C99 syntax. So as of about today I'm still not allowed to, even if the rest of the world has been enjoying it for 16 years. VS2012 doesn't have it either; but i hear VS2013 does.
General hint: If your functions are so long that having to (suppose this was indeed the case) declare/define all your variables at the top becomes a serious annoyance, then chances are that your functions are too long/do too much. Fix that instead.
That's not the issue at all. The specific example I gave was the issue:
An IF DEBUG; where the variable was only used within the debug conditional.
In C++, C#, etc I've always declared and initialized anything I needed in a debug block in the debug block, except for in C where not only did i declared it at the top, but it gets its own debug block too since its only used by debug builds.
Even in a short function this is inelegant looking:
void func(int a)
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
int z = 0;
int q = 3;
z = dosomething(a, x);
y += z;
[... rest of function...]
Your note that I can start a block anywhere -- Thanks; until now it hadn't occurred to me to use that expressly to inline declarations for debug blocks.
I'm not sure about that.
ANSI C, also known as C89 and C90 depending on the year of ratification
Yes it also says:
In March 2000, ANSI adopted the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard. This standard is commonly referred to as C99.
Thus C99 is an ANSI standard, but its not "ANSI C"
When you say "ANSI C" its still C89/90.
At least that's my take on it.
// comments were added to the C standard. Not good old ANSI see but still ok.
I haven't looked at the code, but the one thing I usually trip over when having to write pure C instead of C++ that's really mostly C is that everything has to be declared at the top of the function... Always. even some variable you only use in the IF $DEBUG block, I normally declare those in the if $debug block where it occurs, rather than creating a 2nd if debug block at the top of the function just to declare it.
And stuff like that.
we have something here as exciting as cold fusion or polywater. it seems to violate newtons second law so people are looking for the escape clause. If it's real it's a huge deal because it means the fundamental problem of space travel--- bringing your propellant--- is permanently solved modulo the nitty gritty of making it more efficient.
On the otherhand, like polywater and cold fusion it's likely a reproducible experimental error that's not been identified yet. 3 groups have independently observed it so far.
My guess: it's just ions sputtered off the walls and accelerated or it's attraction towards an induced dipole in the room, neither of which would be exciting.
a year from now (or an OS update,
Or he loads up a few more of those apps for it...
I installed in on my HP ProBook 6475b laptop the other day and have only run into some minor issues.
Wifi not working after suspend on a laptop?
Crashing on reboot every 2nd time?
What you consider minor issues, I would consider deal breakers.
If the only argument is that Playboy is so bad that the cropped image is indelibly tainted by association, then I guess I'm fine with that - but the logical foundation seems shaky.
subsitute "so bad" with "controversial" and its about right. Playboy is a source of controversy, and anything coming from it IS going to be indelibly tainted by that controversy.
rational assessment of information is usually based on content rather than provenance.
I accept that the objection to the image may not be entirely rational. I also accept that, rational or not, their objection does exist.
I also note that the provenance of the image usually does come up, because its "interesting", and the inevitable recovery of the full nude image by some interested student, and the content of the resulting commentary is usually inappropriate in a computer science class. While the cropped picture itself is unobjectionable it all but inevitably triggers this chain of events.
Between that and the fact that the image itself is not in any way irreplaceable or indispensable it seems logical to replace the image.
What's wrong with the plain old internet that we need this? I'm thinking that the notion here is that by making money by limiting access that they can give people free internet. AOL.com sort of started with the notion of monetizing a walled garden to offer cheaper internet access and it did spread to eventually giving access to the whole internet. But you could also describe indentured servitude in a similar rosie way of giving people opportunities.