Re: Semicolons and curly braces, forever.
Hmm. Learning how dd works by trial and error sounds interesting.
8168 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
For reference, the "solution" in the UK is two-fold.
The vast majority do nothing at all. Tax is deducted through Pay-As-You-Earn by your employer, who has no idea of any special circumstances that might apply to you but no-one (including the Inland Revenue) gives a shit as long as the bottom line is close enough.
Secondly, if your case is more complicated or you are a masochist, then you can fill out a tax return on the Inland Revenue's website. Again, as far as I am aware, no human being actually checks the numbers in most cases because most folks are honest and the amount paid is probably close enough for government work.
I assume that checks are made in a randomly selected number of cases, and in cases where the numbers are well outside 1-sigma of the population average. But basically ... most people do nothing and most of the rest use the government website and almost certainly no-one in the UK pays the right amount of tax. Still, the system seems to work well enough that no-one wants to spend more time or money on a new one.
Probably all true, but it doesn't help you. The central problem for ia64, known at the time and still unsolved, is that real-world code is gnarly. It has data depencies every half dozen instructions and branches every couple of dozen.
You could have an infinite number of execution units and feed the entire program to the CPU in one truly epic instruction, and you still wouldn't have any more parallelism than a modern out-of-order CPU.
It's worse. CreateProcess actually lets you feed two strings, one for the launched app and one for the arguments, but for various reasons I (and possibly others) have long considered that one should leave the first string empty and put the executable as the first "argument".
This is far from obvious, but certainly plays more nicely if the program being launched expects argv[0] to be the program name, which many command-line programs do.
Fixing CMD.EXE (or COMMAND.COM)? According to Raymond Chen it was considered, but by the time you have added enough warts to let existing .BAT files run you find that you haven't fixed anything.
That's why PowerShell exists (and was designed from scratch, with no "compatibility" for .BAT files).
Probably worth pointing out that there are people who object to linux shell scripts that only run on bash. The choices facing anyone who wants to fix a design error without breaking ecisting users have always been the same -- you can't really do it so it's just a question of how many people you want to piss off now (by making a new thing) versus how many in the future (by not making one).
The numbers don't lie. One branch every 10 cyckes as an average seems fair, possibly even conservative, so the 50% drop is probably also fair.
Of course, if you are running trusted software on silicon that you own and your browser isn't attempting to be a real-time platform in its own right, then you needn't worry about any of this.
1375 is, in fact, within the date range usually described as "Middle English", known to squillions of school-children through being force-fed Chaucer as part of their "English" curriculum. Singular 'they' is, therefore, arguably older than English. Not quite as old as 'it', however, since that appears to have been invented in the 1100s as a way of avoiding being gender-specific for inanimate objects. Using 'it' to avoid mis-genering nouns is, of course, medieval woke shit and therefore OK.
There is radio, for now, but the price of a broadcasting licence presumes that the audience are humans, who might go on to buy a copy so that they can choose when to listen. If the audience now includes AIs that will only ever listen once to derive the full effect, I expect the cost of a broadcasting licence to (massively) increase to reflect that.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Professional photography was severely hit when technology allowed rank amateurs to get good enough results. It meant that a lot of lucrative work disappeared and the only survivors were the ones who were either really good or had access to a sufficient volume of more difficult assignments.
AI will soon start creating good enough muzak for jingles, background noise or TV theme tunes. None of those need to be great, but they are all currently good earners for a jobbing composer.
The average user wants an email client that displays a list of what's come in. Pretty much *every* other feature is an impediment. In particular, the ability to make me "late" for a meeting in my calendar by sending an email to me is an unmitigated evil that should be burned, poisoned, stabbed and flayed (along with its authors).
For those who don't want to risk it, a "I’m a psychic medium on Medium. •BA in Psychology •Substitute teacher •Lover of pink" is trying to sell small lumps of rock to people who have larger lumps of inanimate matter between their ears. Fairly harmless, as these things go.
But the AI doesn't perceive anything. The resulting code has an unresolved external dependency (that termonoligy is already more specific than hallucination and is long-established) which is then turned into an attack vector by providing some malware of the same name.
I don't see that introducing the term "hallucinate" does anything for clarity. On the contrary, it seems to blind people to just what a fucking stupid balls up this actually is.
I don't think they can be held liable for the actions of another adult. Their background does, however, completely nail any idea that their son couldn't be expected to understand the consequences of his actions. He appears to have taken several billion dollars of other people's money and just spent it on himself and his friends with no realistic prospect of ever being able to pay it back. The rest of us need to be protected from people like that.
I'm asking about the fair number of articles I've read on this site in recent years about how various ad-blockers have changed policy to allow "good ads" and how Google's changes to how their plug-ins work have led some ad-blocker authors to claim that it stops them from effectively filtering content. I assumed that this was common knowledge among the readership here, but based on the downvote pile-on perhaps that isn't the case.
"All that money to do something we do not need already have."
We already have a system for issuing passports. Put some money into issuing a passport to all 16-year olds who don't already have them. (You could organise it through the schools so that persistent truants don't get one.)
Then issue a credit-card sized summary of the passport's photo page and use that as your proof of age.
Since the hard part of verifying the identity of the applicant has (presumably) already been solved by the passport office, I bet that would be cheaper than this proposal, quicker to roll out, and have fewer failures. As an added bonus, the extra resources to the passport office would help the rest of us.
"It's an open secret that US Aircraft Carriers are no longer safe operating in those waters due to advances in drone and missile swarms."
Oh sure. Try taking out a US carrier sometime. No need to tell us how you got on. We'll probably be able to hear Uncle Sam's reply from just about anywhere on the globe.
Thunderbird can talk to exchange using a paid-for add-in. I used to use it but then my Exchange stopped serving anything except trusted clients and that didn't include "thunderbird on a linux box outside the usual domain". A fair admin policy decision, but not a technical limitation. A friendly Exchange admin might even enable the IMAP support, in which case no add-in is required. Again, a policy decision rather than a technical limitation.
Perhaps if MS really screw up Outlook, Exchange admins might be irritated in their own daily usage and be open to the idea of facilitating broader access.
I think you are confusing two things. Win3 could run in "real mode" where it did indeed do all that shuffling. It was a fantastic overlay manager and ran quite happily on an actual 8088. Sane users ran in "386-enhanced" mode where the windows kernel was a protected mode OS moving segments by fiddling with descriptors.
Then of course there wasthe third thing, where DOS device drivers were "supported" by running them in the first VM and redirecting all device I/O from other VMs into the first one so the poor little DOS driver never had to worry about being "instanced".
Impressive, in a depressing way, that it ever worked.
“I have written a PM app that hangs the system (sometimes quite graphically)”
This was a design flaw in OS/2 (or Presentation Manager) which MS avoided in NT. PM used a single thread for keyboard and mouse input (which put it at the mercy of one badly written app. NT decided very early on (that is, entirely within code that they controlled) which app would get the input and maintained a separate input queue for each app.
I suspect that if OS/2 had won the day then this design flaw would have been fixed. (Perhaps it was. I didn't keep up after it was clear they'd lost the market.) But it was definitely there and MS definitely learned the lesson.
"The existence of _MS_ OS/2 2 shows it didn't happen like that and even as MS was getting ready to launch Win3, it had MS OS/2 2, lacking only the WPS."
I'm a little puzzled by this. I too, was around at the time and I was aleays under the impression that Win3 was a bodge job: taking the (beta) OS/2 kernel and running the latest development version of Windows (then a 286-friendly but strictly 16-bit system) in one of the virtual DOS boxes. This explains why Win3's "virtual device drivers" used the same "linear executable" format as OS/2 device drivers. They were basically the same.
Microsoft's real commercial genius was to realise that there were bog-all OS/2 programs (all 16-bit) but lots of Win1 and Win2 programs, so what people would actually buy was a better way of running the latter, not the former. Win3 was that better way.
It was also possible, though I can't recall the details, to launch Windows in such a way that only KRNL386.EXE was loaded and not GDI.EXE or USER.EXE. this gave you a DOS session running in the virtual DOS box. It was a nice illustration of how 16-bit Windows was always just a fancy DOS program, but it wasn't actually useful because at the time there was really only one DPMI-capable program in the universe and that was Windows.