provide DNA samples for a project that determines what percentage of drivers are operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol at given times.
How the fuck - I mean HOW THE FUCK - are you expected to determine if someone is under the influence of drink or drugs by checking their DNA?
That would imply that every time you take a drink (or smoke anything, including tobacco), you induce DNA changes in your cheek cells. And therefore, get cancer. Now, I do know that both drinking and smoking are associated with increased cancer rates, but they're not 100% cancer rates.
Someone has been writing absolute shit "science journalism".
It went back up again a bit after last week's dip (to about 975). That was all the idiots thinking they were going to make money after the Chinese thing caused a crash...
Isn't that what the white-collar thieves and scoundrels call a "dead cat bounce".
"What do people that have contributed to the code base get?"
Whatever they negotiated whenever they engaged their contracts.
"So, you'd prefer a Pearl Harbor of your very own?"
Do you think you would have had a Pearl Habor if USA didn't started an oil war on Japan first?
On the other hand, intelligence services be damned, what were your politicians thinking? Didn't they learn anything out of Port Arthur battle?
The one I'm interested in is count... basie
I tried that example. It has a syntax error.
If I fix the syntax error -- by parenthesizing b=f(a) and c=g(b) -- then there's no warning with GCC 4.5, -O2 -Wall -Wextra.
Or remove the name from the parameter in the definition, if you are not using it.
That's not legal in C, at least through C99. (I actually thought it wasn't in C++ either, but apparently it is.)
So the solution is either to turn off that specific warning (usually means it's off in all files)...
Just a note: recent versions of GCC have (finally) gotten the ability to enable and disable many warnings for regions of code through the #pragma diagnostic.
...or add a dummy use case for the parameter
So you add (void)param;. Big whoop. What's worse, typing a few extraneous keystrokes, or spending an hour debugging something elsewhere that the compiler could have told you about?
(Or, possibly even better, you define an UNUSED_PARAM macro and then write foo(int x, int UNUSED_PARAM(y)) or similar. On MSVC, UNUSED_PARAM(a) expands to nothing, and on GCC-compatibile compilers it expands to a __attribute__((unused)) or something like that. That won't work everywhere though, but if you're in the realm of desktop software it will probably work well enough.)
In my firm opinion, it's almost always better to change your code slightly to eliminate the more common warnings (e.g. -Wall, though I also like -Wextra) than it is to disable the warnings because they are too noisy.
Secondly, are their really compilers that would optimize away that if statement?
Probably. Here's an even more impressive example.
The Windows ZPT doesn't affect what your uninitialized-malloc region will contain: I'm 98% sure that all reasonable (non-embedded) OSs zero pages before they map them into a process's memory space for security reasons. The ZPT only means that there is usually a pool of pre-zeroed pages sitting around, and so it doesn't have to go clear one out on demand. (I also don't know what happens on Linux in terms of whether it does this in the background or not.)
There weren't exactly large groups running around to intermingle.
Precisely. At this time the entire humanoid population of Europe was under a hundred thousand. Less than a football (any shape or rules) stadium full, spread over an entire continent.
At which sort of population density, almost everyone you meet has at least one great grandparent in common with you (a modern definition of "incest") ; most people you meet on a daily basis have a grandparent in common with you.
So, for both Neander-boys and Neander-girls, you get what you can get. If they hadn't, then they'd have become extinct within a couple of tens of years, instead of a couple of myriads (10^5) of years. Seen in that light, it wasn't an unsuccessful strategy.
Earlier this month, China's central bank warned that Bitcoin was "not legally protected," had no "real meaning", and barred financial institutions from using the currency. That ban was extended to 3rd-party providers on Tuesday (though with a deadline of Jan 31st / Chinese New Year), and last night 3rd-party provider YeePay complied with the ban. In consequence the Chinese Bitcoin exchange BTC China announced that they could not accept deposits in yuan ; overnight, the exchange's value for Bitcoin has fallen to half it's earlier values.
All the theorising about the value of Bitcoin in opening up a new economy is moot if users can't either put money into the currency, or exchange the currency for one that they can use in the Real World."
Link to Original Source