Thanks for the comment, I'm a long time UNIX user (since the early 90s) and because I see the majority of web-applications running on *NIX systems, I, personally think a grounding in UNIX is quite important. I could be wrong though, so I'm all ears to any suggestions for her.
And indeed you'll find that Irish protestants in general tended to immigrate to the southern US states and the Catholics were more likely to immigrate to the northern US states (such as they existed at the time). Even till today you'll find a higher ratio of Protestant Irish to Catholic Irish in Georgia than Massachusetts for example.
I was told a while back by a native that 10% of the south was Protestant, though he was talking of the modern day. I don't know how that number would translate historically.
They were Irish, but the unionists agreed (along with Great Britain) that Ireland should be ruled by the King and be under British rule, and subsequently they all adopt the "British" sect of Christianity (Anglicanism).
No, and the situation was and still is a lot more complicated than that.
The relationship between Unionism and Protestantism and Nationalism and Catholicism was and still is much more grey than many realise. The current situation with Northern Ireland makes this appear much more dry-cut than it actually is because NI was set up on sectarian grounds. However, historically many, in fact the majority, of the prime movers in Irish nationalism have been from Anglican backgrounds that would naively be associated with Unionism.
Also, Irish Nationalism was contrary to Unionism, but a good number of prominent Nationalists had Monarchist tendencies too, such as the founder and leader of the original Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffith[1]. Republicanism was something that came out of the more militant strains of Nationalism, as represented by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who infiltrated Sinn Fein to use it as a vehicle for their own aims.
Moreover, the vast majority of Irish Protestants have been Presbyterian, not Anglican. Anglicanism was the church of the Establishment, not the common people. Presbyterians, being Nonconformist, were subject to many of the discriminatory practices of the various penal laws, just as Catholics were, because they weren't Anglicans, albeit not to quite the same extent. Anglicanism was historically the church of the upper classes and parts of the middle class.
[1] Griffith wasn't technically what you'd call a Monarchist, but he wasn't a Republican either. He supported the idea of an independent Ireland under a dual monarchy with the United Kingdom.
> No, and the situation was and still is a lot more complicated than that.
The question was "Did they [Irish Protestants] really consider themselves "Irish", though?" and the answer is "yes".
> Moreover, the vast majority of Irish Protestants have been Presbyterian, not Anglican.
The Church of Ireland is (and has been in recent history) the second largest Christian "sect" (as I put it earlier) in Ireland after Roman Catholicism. The Church of Ireland follows Anglicanism.
Of course are many many complications to the entire subject but that wasn't the original question, I was referring to the national identification of the Protestant islanders during the time frame of Jensen's claims.
> The Church of Ireland is (and has been in recent history) the second largest Christian "sect" (as I put it earlier) in Ireland after Roman Catholicism. The Church of Ireland follows Anglicanism.
Yes, you're correct in that the CofI is slightly bigger than the Presbyterian churches. However, that's not my main point. What I was disagreeing with was your conflation of Unionism and Anglicanism, which is entirely incorrect.
In the United States, they tended to identify as "Scots-Irish", and had a much more established place in American society (for example, at least three Presidents that I know of were Scots-Irish in the 19th century).
Scots-Irish isn't quite the same thing. Those referred to as 'Scots-Irish' in the US are descendants of Scottish (largely) Presbyterian planters. People who adhere to Anglicanism generally wouldn't consider themselves or be considered 'Scots-Irish'.
About half of Irish (whole-Island) Protestants today are Presbyterians concentrated in the Ulster Plantation (Northern Ireland); those are absolutely the same ethnic group as the Scots-Irish, despite that label not being used in the UK.
Ulster Scots is a different thing than was they're referring to. Ulster Scots refers to (largely) Presbyterian descendants of Scottish planters who emigrated to the US. Adherents to the Anglican communion wouldn't necessarily consider themselves 'Ulster Scots'.
Atmel have had FPGA devices for a very long time, they also have military specification FPGAs that are probably sat in lots of hardware that would need a constant flow of replacement modules for repair.
I seem to remember that they had some early 8051 and possibly even AVR devices that had some programmable logic blocks on board too.
The suggestion is for an illegal device, no need for licenses in that case ;)
The easiest way would be to extract the pint glass graphic over the wire (sitting in middle of the HDMI cable the set top box to the TV) then transmitting that to other establishments and overlaying that graphic in between the set top box and the TV (the best bit is that you wouldn't even need to decrypt the video, just overlay the graphic).
I use an ATIV Book 9 Plus ultrabook (13.3" LED QHD+ 3200 x 1800) as my main machine - the HiDPI screen is stunning and it is something I couldn't live without now.
Up until a week or so ago, my OS was GNU/Linux Debian Jessie, my DE was Cinnamon and/or i3wm (depending on how I felt).
A week ago I switched to Fedora 21 as I have to get back up to speed with RHEL for a work project. I am now using Gnome 3.14.2, and to be perfectly honest I am pleasantly surprised with the entire experience.
Development tools: vim, gcc, python, opera-beta.
Communication tools: utox and irc.
I also run another machine that sits on a different VLAN that I use for skype, the machine is locked down with SELinux and firewall rules both inside the machine and on the Ethernet switch and router, I also use this machine if i need to view any flash content.
You should definitely have a copy of K&R on your desk.
A book I read alongside K&R was "Illustrating C" by Donald G. Alcock, even though it is out of print and quite hard to find I'd recommend hunting a copy down as it explains the concepts visually and for me, it was the only book that made things fall into place.
"You should definitely have a copy of K&R on your desk."
I ask honestly, why? Other than nostalgia and as a signal to others what does it bring the modern C programmer? I have it on my shelf, but it is part of my history.
As you say yourself, it is part of your history, you've probably forgotten which concepts that K&R taught you and the OP is trying to learn C from scratch.
The OP mentions that they are learning C to help them with their reverse engineering skills, so learning about the older ways that C was programmed is also invaluable as those insecure programming techniques are still (unfortunately) widely used today and if OP wants to exploit such bugs, then all information is useful!
You mention nostalgia, and yes that is certainly one of the reasons as in my opinion the preface, the preface to the second edition and the introduction in the K&R book are worth the cost alone.
Besides, the book is so thin and flexible and makes a perfect ultra-portable, high-definition, long-life, skills acquisition device that works well on bus journeys, flights etc. ;)
This weighed heaviest in my mind. K&R is a poor book to learn modern C. Its like saying a person starting out with Fortran today should learn from a book written for FORTRAN 77. It might be ok later once better habits have set in, but for someone who didn't live through that era, it just seems like a waste of time and money for learning modern C.
I am still convinced its a signal to others and an aspiration for what we want out of language authors, but it just isn't up to date for the task of being the first C book someone reads.
When I read it first time, it was ok to start to write C programs. When a read it again later I understood that it was much deeper and complete than it seemed first time.
Then, every time I learned something in programming using C (studying operating systems), I read K&R again and found that the answer was there even if I didn't see it before. So it was a good way for me to "validate" that I understood something new.
Note that I never used C at a very high level, and I don't know what is modern C programming, so it may not apply.
Yes, but they clearly state - "To register your payment information, we will ask your bank for a 20,00€ debit preauthorization. This will appear on your bank statement and be automatically released after 7 days.".
This is a fairly common practice to weed out stolen credit-cards and to make sure you are real subscriber/customer, no biggie.
20 eur is quite uncommon, it's usually 1 or 2 usd/eur. So I skipped reading these two lines of unassuming gray text and entered details of my disposable visa with like 5 usd on it.
