AKMA's Random Thoughts

December 31, 2002

AKMA the Grey

Rex Masterson (whom you may know as Alex Golub) brings the epic cycle of danger, heroism, space, anthropology, unspeakable horror, hermeneutics, halakhah, emacs vs. vi, and dishwashing to its completion in Episode V of My Weekend with Leuschke (if you missed the preceding episodes—one can scarcely suppose you did—you may refresh your acquaintance with them at Episode I, IIa, (intermission), IIb, III, and IV).

At a moment such as this, one naturally begins thinking about the movie deal to follow. Rex, of course, gets one of the big-name stars such as Ben Affleck. For the role of AKMA, one would need a middle-aged, mid-level actor who’s not reluctant to leave top billing to the money players. Michael Caine and Sean Connery are rather older than I; Gabriel Byrne has done the ponderous theological roles to death; Viggo Mortensen would command too much money and attention these days (plus, he’s way better-looking than I). I wonder if Kevin Spacey is available?

Posted by AKMA at December 31, 2002 10:44 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Hold out for Nicholas Cage.

Happy New Year, AKMA! Happy New Year Margaret! Happy New Year Si, Nate, and Pippa -- and the little four legged critters, too!

Posted by: Burningbird at December 31, 2002 04:37 PM

How about John Tuturro, or is it turturro? The wonderful actor in lots of Coen Bros. movies? He's very adaptable. I would never have guessed he could play a Southern boy until 'O Brother Where art Thou?'

Posted by: Susan at December 31, 2002 05:18 PM

Or Nicholas Cage. In fact, I think Cage would do a great AKMA, a classic moment in the history of world cinema—but I doubt we could afford him. Maybe Alex can induce the producer to pitch this to him as an art film (“Best Supporting Actor written all over it!”). . . .

Posted by: AKMA at December 31, 2002 05:40 PM

Oooh, I'd be tickled pink to get John Turturro! Thanks for the compliment!

Posted by: AKMA at December 31, 2002 05:40 PM

You should be Brent Spiner. Evidence at limature

Posted by: Trevor at January 2, 2003 06:24 PM

A variable leads a simple life, full of activity but quite short (measured in nanoseconds, usually). It all begins when the program finds a variable declaration, and a variable is born into the world of the executing program. There are two possible places where the variable might live, but we will venture into that a little later.

Posted by: Roman at January 13, 2004 02:07 AM

The Stack is just what it sounds like: a tower of things that starts at the bottom and builds upward as it goes. In our case, the things in the stack are called "Stack Frames" or just "frames". We start with one stack frame at the very bottom, and we build up from there.

Posted by: Aveline at January 13, 2004 02:07 AM

This back and forth is an important concept to understand in C programming, especially on the Mac's RISC architecture. Almost every variable you work with can be represented in 32 bits of memory: thirty-two 1s and 0s define the data that a simple variable can hold. There are exceptions, like on the new 64-bit G5s and in the 128-bit world of AltiVec

Posted by: Elizabeth at January 13, 2004 02:07 AM

This variable is then used in various lines of code, holding values given it by variable assignments along the way. In the course of its life, a variable can hold any number of variables and be used in any number of different ways. This flexibility is built on the precept we just learned: a variable is really just a block of bits, and those bits can hold whatever data the program needs to remember. They can hold enough data to remember an integer from as low as -2,147,483,647 up to 2,147,483,647 (one less than plus or minus 2^31). They can remember one character of writing. They can keep a decimal number with a huge amount of precision and a giant range. They can hold a time accurate to the second in a range of centuries. A few bits is not to be scoffed at.

Posted by: Richard at January 13, 2004 09:26 AM

That gives us a pretty good starting point to understand a lot more about variables, and that's what we'll be examining next lesson. Those new variable types I promised last lesson will finally make an appearance, and we'll examine a few concepts that we'll use to organize our data into more meaningful structures, a sort of precursor to the objects that Cocoa works with. And we'll delve a little bit more into the fun things we can do by looking at those ever-present bits in a few new ways.

Posted by: Emanuel at January 13, 2004 09:26 AM

But some variables are immortal. These variables are declared outside of blocks, outside of functions. Since they don't have a block to exist in they are called global variables (as opposed to local variables), because they exist in all blocks, everywhere, and they never go out of scope. Although powerful, these kinds of variables are generally frowned upon because they encourage bad program design.

Posted by: Justinian at January 13, 2004 09:27 AM