As much as I love forwarded X11 apps, its rarely efficient over moderate to slow links. I can't justify using over 1Mbit of uplink traffic just to use my editor over the wire when even a VNC session is more efficient.
1Mbit? Back in the day, we ran X11 over dialup modems, and we liked it. Or at least thought it was semi-OK.
You know lots of Linux/Unix/*BSD systems don't have an X server, right? (Actually the majority of them don't)
And they don't need one--the post you're replying to is suggesting to run the X server on the local machine and run X clients on the remote machine, forwarding the connections over SSH.
Here's the main reason I don't use Vim (or Emacs, for that matter): it's a "stateful" editor.
Insert mode? Command mode? Etc. etc.
If you think Emacs is stateful, aren't all editors stateful by your definition? Most people do not consider Emacs to be stateful. Sure, you can press Meta or Ctrl to start some multi-key command, but you can press Alt or Ctrl in Windows Notepad too. What makes vi stateful is that after you've typed a command, you're still in command mode and must type another command. In Emacs and Notepad, after you've typed a command, you're ready to insert text again.
When did his name change from Satoshi to Dorian? Did I miss something? The last article said they found him because his name literally was Satoshi.
1973. From the original Newsweek article, "At the age of 23, after graduating from California State Polytechnic University, he changed his name to "Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto," according to records filed with the U.S. District Court of Los Angeles in 1973."
doesn't speak/understand English that well
I don't buy that part... he's been in the US since he was about 10 years old, and has been here for 50 years. He's been working alongside English-speakers--i.e., he's immersed in the language. He's a smart guy. Therefore his English is comparable to a native's. I'm from an immigrant background too, and have many friends who moved to the US when they were around 10 (+/- a few years). They haven't been here as long as Nakamoto has, but their English is native-level. Some still have a bit of an accent, but they don't have any problems understanding or speaking English.
What dumb phone provides tethering?
I haven't been paying attention to the current crop of dumb phones, but back when I was using them, it was pretty much a standard feature. E.g., Nokia 8290 had a v.32 modem and an IR port, and IR was pretty common on laptops of the day. Point the two at each other, and you can start a PPP connection to your dialup ISP. Then when GPRS data became popular, I had a Siemens M46, which didn't have an IR port, but if you got the data cable, you could plug it into a serial port and tether by setting up a PPP connection that dialed a special phone number (*99# or something like that). And my last dumb phone was a Motorola V195, which showed up as a serial port when you plugged in the USB cable, and again, you could tether by setting up a PPP connection. Actually, I think you could also tether over Bluetooth DUN, although I may be thinking of another phone.
>literally be a bomb on wheels
No it is neither literally, nor figuratively a bomb on wheels. It will catch fire though, with plenty of warning and safety features, if punctured. As I understand if you were in the Tesla when it caught fire in the battery packs, you probably wouldn't burn to death.
But the comment you're replying to wasn't talking about the Tesla. It was talking about a hypothetical electric car powered by lithium polymer batteries, of the same chemistry that an iPhone uses. One of those may very well be a bomb on wheels.
Maybe he should behead his opponent and then shout, "Are you not entertained?"
For those who don't believe in reading TFA, it includes a relevant image
/. missed the Digg and then the Reddit train.
Doesn't surprise me, still has teh same shitty interface more or less from the late 90s. Won't even tell me if someone replied to one of my comments without me looking manually. Doesn't display correctly on tablet/phone, can't select post display setting on said devices.
This so called tech site sucks in a lot of ways.
Not sure how you expect to get notified of replies as AC... try logging in, and you'll have the option of various forms of notifications when someone replies to your comments. And a phone/tablet site was launched a few months ago: http://m.slashdot.org/
Myth? The link says: "Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. "
Yes, but the link also says that the only version of NT that used Spider's code is 3.1. The myth started when people ran strings on various commandline network utilities in Windows 2000, such as ftp.exe, and saw the UC Berkeley copyright message. Apparently, they confused the TCP/IP stack in the kernel with the usermode utilities or something. Bottom line is that NT doesn't use the BSD TCP/IP stack.
All three editions of the ISO C standard (1990, 1999, and 2011) permit main to have an implementation-defined type.
Even in a hosted environment? The C89 draft I found only lists "int main(void)" and "int main(int argc, char *argv[])" (2.1.2.2); it doesn't have the "or in some other implementation-defined manner." that C99 has.
That actually breaks the C standard, but I suppose control systems aren't much worried about portability.
The ANSI C standard defines two types of implementations: "hosted" and "freestanding". An embedded system would most likely be considered a freestanding implementation, in which case, the entry point function can be whatever the implementation defines it to be. It might not even be named "main" (but if it is, it could return void if that's what the implementation says). That said, C99 allows main() to return void, even in a hosted implementation: 5.1.2.2.1 gives "some other implementation-defined manner." as one of the options for main's definition. It notes in 5.1.2.2.3 that "If the return type is not compatible with int, the termination status returned to the host environment is unspecified."
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
