oshiar53-0

Does this mean that 0 Hz bandwidth leads to the ideal clock?

Fun fact: GB 18030 is a Unicode Transformation Format.

Example: \N{THINKING FACE}\N{FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY}\N{FACE SCREAMING IN FEAR}\N{SMILING FACE WITH SMILING EYES AND THREE HEARTS}\N{PERSON DOING CARTWHEEL}\N{FACE WITH NO GOOD GESTURE}\N{ZERO WIDTH JOINER}\N{FEMALE SIGN}\N{VARIATION SELECTOR-16}\N{EYES}\N{ON WITH EXCLAMATION MARK WITH LEFT RIGHT ARROW ABOVE}\N{SQUARED COOL}\N{VARIATION SELECTOR-16}

In UTF-8:

  00000000: f09f a494 f09f 9882 f09f 98b1 f09f a5b0  ................
  00000010: f09f a4b8 f09f 9985 e280 8de2 9980 efb8  ................
  00000020: 8ff0 9f91 80f0 9f94 9bf0 9f86 92ef b88f  ................

In GB 18030:

  00000000: 9530 cd34 9439 fc38 9530 8335 9530 d636  .0.4.9.8.0.5.0.6
  00000010: 9530 d130 9530 8535 8136 a439 a1e2 8431  .0.0.0.5.6.9...1
  00000020: 8235 9439 cf38 9439 e537 9439 8b32 8431  .5.9.8.9.7.9.2.1
  00000030: 8235                                     .5

I assume this uses thunks not unlike some lazily-evaluated languages?

Doesn't this mean that non-blocking reads from /dev/urandom can now potentially return -EAGAIN (at e.g. very early boot time)? I think that's enough to subtly (nondeterministically) break userspace, in the short time window the entropy pool is not seeded enough, even if (C) and (D) do not hold.

To be fair, it has computed the page at least once at some point...

a truely randall number

Are you mad? I didn't even criticize Unix at all!

> I think that an operating system where you can't rename or delete a file that is open by some process is idiotic beyond words,

This is not an inherent limitation of the VMS or NT architecture; I'd rather argue it's for compatibility.

> even without MS-DOS drive letter names thrown in.

This is also legacy carried over from DOS and OS/2.

How about static inline functions?

This is the insight I wanted.

Now I want to hear what FSF has to say about this...

> it's almost mandated by law that there can't be. FCC regulations require that devices be made resistant to attempts to change their function in an effort to limit people's ability to transmit stuff unintentionally (or intentionally). Modern radio protocols are heavily dependent on SDR (software defined radio), so fixed function is probably infeasible. You could make the firmware unchangeable, but now any bugs discovered in your public source code are now entirely uncorrectable.

1. You can use signed firmwares to make it both compliant and upgradable.

2. You can separate the controller/receiver and the transmitter, and only lock up/restrict the transmitter part. Alternatively, you can implement the restriction at the hardware level if feasible (effectively making it fixed function).

3. Finally, you can sell the parts individually to serve a separate market segment.

>"They should die for the cause."

In his stance, more like "proprietary driver vendors are holding hostage of patients."

Make sure you don't roll your own crypto on your way, though.

Unless when it somehow becomes the absolute necessity...or it's for your dissertation.