I remember a saying when I was learning programming;-
With C it is easy to shoot yourself in the foot, with C++ it is a lot harder, but when you do shoot yourself in the foot you take your entire leg off.
Pity you never bothered to find out who said it or in what context...
I think 1996 just called and wants it's Usenet flamewar back.
UTF8 is great for storing data in files, but
The problem lies squarely with C.
If they'd used C++ instead of C, heartbleed would never have happened - std::containers don't need to store their size as a separate variable.
Luckily for us, the people responsible for maintaining the Linux Kernel understand the difference between C and C++ and their software isn't full of manual memory management and arguments over which version of malloc()/free() to use. Oh, wait...
Most authors back in Asimov's day saw the world like that - astrogators using books of navigation tables, slide rules, taking sextant readings from the stars, etc.
You don't need 4K^2 pixels. Your "retina" can't see them anyway, apparently. At least if you're hardware is "iPC" compatible.
Sure, and your retina can't see VGA resolution resolution either.
Not if you stand far enough away from the screen...
Good catch...
The article makes it abundantly clear that this it's satire.
I'm guessing the submitter didn't bother to click his own link.
Imagine that Cray computer decides to make a personal computer. It has
a 150 MHz processor, 200 megabytes of RAM, 1500 megabytes of disk
storage, a screen resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels, relies entirely on
voice recognition for input, fits in your shirt pocket and costs $300.
What's the first question that the computer community asks?
"Is it PC compatible?"
(Source unknown...)
A timely reminder why users should stick with a stable, proven OS such as Win7 (and to a lesser extent, WinXP).
???
A lot of their Windows XP stuff requires SP3. Is this any different?
She says she'd be OK with a "safe" vaccine.
Fair enough, let's go with that for a moment:
How will she decide when a vaccine is "safe"? What science will she use to make that decision...?
In other news: 44% of Slashdot readers have never posted a single comment.
Even if all that *was* junk, it doesn't mean today's science is also junk.
eg. Medicine in the 19th century was almost all quackery. Today? A lot less so.
WikiPedia may be the wrong thing to point to if you want "scientific journals".
If you can provide some examples of where Wikipedia is wrong about something non-trivial, please do...
On the other hand, some things (like animals and pedestrians) require some means of illumination at night.
I wonder how we ever managed to survive before electric light...
Oh, wait, humans can actually see by starlight alone.
You're not going to read a book or do rocket surgery but you can walk around outdoors without electric lights even when there's no moon. I've done plenty of hiking, etc. under a full moon.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
