Linas does a fine Kinski imitation, but I would not say that in any way the piece was technically mind-blowing in terms of his technique, mostly because I believe the show, as a whole, failed. I get Linas' whole casual-performance, quirky boy routine, and I've seen it work really well for him on occasions - notably his "Lituanians of Fresh Death" which was a hysterical fable/heavy metal extravaganza. However, I felt like watching the piece was like watching a brief, shallow montage of the "best of Kinski," and Linas for that matter, displaying all of Klaus's sexy, crazy antics, which are so well known already, and tapping none of Kinski's greatness or what I think is all apparent to anyone with a breadth of sensitivity, his deep pathology. I basically thought it was a cheap, short-cut piece with Linus warming up old, stale tricks that had worked for him before and depending on the interest of his subject matter to maintain the piece. Linas is funny enough that his old tricks will work marginally on new audiences, but they seem redundant to any of us who have ever seen him before. Why are artists so afraid of letting themselves change? I did enjoy any parts that featured Larissa Dooley, who I thought was riveting.

Note the new asterisks whenever we reference favoriteNumber, except for that new line right before the return.

Seth Roby graduated in May of 2003 with a double major in English and Computer Science, the Macintosh part of a three-person Macintosh, Linux, and Windows graduating triumvirate.

This is another function provided for dealing with the heap. After you've created some space in the Heap, it's yours until you let go of it. When your program is done using it, you have to explicitly tell the computer that you don't need it anymore or the computer will save it for your future use (or until your program quits, when it knows you won't be needing the memory anymore). The call to simply tells the computer that you had this space, but you're done and the memory can be freed for use by something else later on.

Our next line looks familiar, except it starts with an asterisk. Again, we're using the star operator, and noting that this variable we're working with is a pointer. If we didn't, the computer would try to put the results of the right hand side of this statement (which evaluates to 6) into the pointer, overriding the value we need in the pointer, which is an address. This way, the computer knows to put the data not in the pointer, but into the place the pointer points to, which is in the Heap. So after this line, our int is living happily in the Heap, storing a value of 6, and our pointer tells us where that data is living.

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