Imo General Declaration: Fill & Download for Free

Paul liked The Who ... John liked Led Zep ... both for the same reason.There’s clear evidence of Paul McCartney very much liked The Who ... and that John liked Led Zeppelin. And, George has stories with Zep as well.This is not meant to be definitive … but it’s interesting, IMO.Generally speaking, there's more regarding the Beatle's thoughts on The Who, at least partly because since Townshend-n-co. go all the way back to ‘early Beatles days’, to 1964 (The Who’s first single, "Zoot Suit" came in '64 … and they charted three songs in the UK Top Ten in 1965: "Can't Explain," "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere," and the #2 "My Generation" {DID YOU KNOW: guess what band kept them out of the top spot? ... nah, don't bother, you'll never guess ... the Aussie band, The Seekers ["The Carnival Is Over"]}).Whereas … Led Zeppelin formed in 1968 ... when The Beatles were entering their slow death spiral {tho we didn't know it at the time of course}).The Beatles view of The Who ... some (McCartney) anecdotes(1) In Dec. 1966, The Who released their second album, A Quick One ... I knew it as Happy Jack, it's name for its US release in April '67. The album went to #4 in the UK, and the single "Happy Jack" went to #3 (to #13 in the US ... in the UK BTW, the song wasn't on the album).On the album was (besides "Happy Jack" on the US version) the great "Heat Wave" (the old Holland-Dozier tune -- my high school band covered the Who version in 67-69, as well as The Who's “Can't Explain"), plus "Boris the Spider" ... and ...A song in six-movements called "A Quick One, While He's Away." To me, it's a somewhat-forgetable 9-ish-minute clip (it's on the great Live At Leeds album {the 1995 CD re-release version} as well) ... but it's a story, about a girl whose lover has been gone "for nearly a year" so she hooks up with "Ivor the Engine Driver."And so ... it's a 'concept piece', what Pete Townshend called a "mini-opera" and, on Live at Leeds, he introduces it as "Tommy's (the great Tommy Album, 1969) parents."And ... Paul McCartney was taken with "A Quick One, While He's Away” — with it as a concept piece.In his book on classic-rock song reviews, Pretend You’re in a War, Mark Blake writes that Pete Townshend said he saw McCartney in this late ‘66/early ’67 period — Pete says Paul stopped him, and was “really raving over the album.” After praising the record as a whole, Townshend said McCartney pointed specifically to the mini-opera. Townshend recalled him saying that “A Quick One While He’s Away” was “exactly the sort of thing The Beatles were working towards.” McCartney also said The Beatles were ‘working toward’ their own mini-opera.And we all know how that turned out ... the 1967 'concept Album (who not a mini-opera), "Sgt. Something-or-other" … "Sgt. Pepperoni and Mushrooms?" ... an obscure little album, couldn't even make 50 million in sales (scoff!).So there’s that … and then, as well, John, Paul and Ringo, in the Get Back/Let It Be sessions at Twickenham TV studios -- during the 10-day period that George Harrison went AWOL -- jammed John’s approximation of the chords of the song (yes, with Yoko Ono 'participating' as well). January 10, 1969 ... so the title of the jam has a double meaning, including while George was away (tho John, the satirical one, says, "Take it, George" at the start … and then George was … AWOL! … get it? haha).The jam is not a Who cover of course, although a Who reference — since John was there n December of '68 — and performing (playing with Dirty Mac: Thomas J. Beaver's answer to Who was in the supergroup Dirty Mac?) — when the Who's played "A Quick One While He’s Away" as part of the Stones' Rock And Roll Circus TV special.Here’s the Beatles’ 1969 jam, A Quick One While He’s Away" (you might want to turn the volume down in certain spots, lol)Here's the real version, The Stones' Rock and Roll Circus, The Who, "A Quick One While He's Away"(2) There’s a second McCartney story regarding The Who. In 1967, The Who released The Who Sell Out -- including the great single off the album, “I Can See For Miles” (which went to #10 in the UK, #8 in the US).That song caught Paul’s attention, big-time (sort’ve, see below). And so when he wrote “Helter Skelter” (for The 1968 White Album), McCartney declared that he intended to write a song to top the raucousness of “I Can See For Miles.”Paul said (in 1985) about "I Can See For Miles:" “The Who had made some track that was the loudest, the most raucous rock ‘n roll, the 'dirtiest thing' they'd ever done. And we decided to do the loudest, nastiest, sweatiest rock number we could” (note that Paul did not name the song … … hmmmm …).And so ... Paul wrote "Helter Skelter" -- arguably his one 'hard rock' song, and one which he performs like to this day. One of the GREAT Paul-songs. Funny thing is ... when Paul wrote "Helter Skelter" he hadn't actually heard "I Can See For Miles" ... (in 1968 Paul said) he’d read a review of the song that described it as "a really screaming record" with “echo on everything.” And so, when McCartney had written “Helter Skelter,” he actually put “I Can See For Miles” on the ol' turntable and gave it a listen …and Paul said, “I heard their record, and it was quite straight (meaning traditional, not-outrageous), and it was very sort of sophisticated.” lol ... it didn’t have the screaming, heavy tape echo, and/or feedback Paul expected to hear. It was reasonable that Paul believed the review when he read it — after all, The Who was a "Freakbeat" band in the UK, and Pete Townshend had called his band's style, “Power Pop.”And, BTW, as far as The Beatles "Helter Skelter"... according to Apple studio engineer Brian Gibson, the Fab Four, after scrapping a 27-minute version of the track (the longest Beatles recording ever) ... they waited until George Martin was 'on holiday', then got “completely out of their heads (on, you know, substances)” to lay down the shorter version they eventually released. Paul’s raucous vocal definitely didn’t skimp on the screaming (or the “sweaty”). And at the end, when you hear Ringo scream, “I’ve got blisters on me fingers,” he was referring to blood on his hands after pounding the drums like a madman.Here's Paul McCartney — a great rendition of "Helter Skelter," his 2009 Grammy performance.(3) And of course there was the time in ’66 when The Who drummer Keith Moon, after getting beat up by Roger Daltry, walked up to Paul McCartney at his table in a club in London, and asked to join the Beatles. Paul said (paraphrasing), “We already have a drummer … you’ll have to ask Ringo.” lolThe Beatles and Led Zeppelin ... George and John anedotesAs for George and Zep ...(1) In the 1969 Get Back/Let It Be sessions, George was filmed being asked about Led Zep ... George was offhand in his comments: "Jimmy Page -- is he the one that was with the Yardbirds? Not that I mind psychedelic ..." (then he asked if lunch was ready, lol). And, regarding John Bonham (drums): I think he was on a session with Paul last year with some other people."There's more tho, more interesting ... on May 31, 1973, 1973, George Harrison attended a Led Zeppelin show in Los Angeles -- the band was celebrating the 25th birthday of John Bonham. Harrison was impressed by the energy and stamina of the band -- the three-hour set!George said backstage: “F*#@ me! With the Beatles we were on for 25 minutes, and could get off (sometimes) in 15.”And ... at the post-gig party, drummer John Bonham threw Harrison into the swimming pool -- fully clothed! ... then 'Bonzo' threw George's wife Patti in as well. Reportedly, a table also went out the window at the party that night, at the Continental Hyatt House. So ... a quiet little get-together!(2) Harrison, BTW, told Bonham that Zep’s problem was “you guys never do ballads.” And, according to Jimmy Page, that inspired Page to write a ballad later that year that would make Harrison take it back ... the great “The Rain Song." Page said in an interview (found in 2013's Light and Shade: Conversations with Jimmy Page): “George [Harrison] was talking to Bonzo (Bonham) one evening and said, 'The problem with you guys is that you never do ballads.' I said, 'I'll give him a ballad,' and I wrote 'Rain Song,' which appears on (the great 1973 album) Houses of the Holy. In fact, you'll notice I even quote 'Something' in the song's first two chords."(3) As for John Lennon and Zep ...At the '69 Get Back/Let It Be sessions, John was also asked about Led Zep ... he said, “I don’t really know much of what they’re about. But one thing’s for sure, Jimmy Page is a bloody good guitarist”.Then, not long after the Beatles’ breakup, Lennon did an interview with Hit Parader in which he discussed some newer bands of the day (1970).John said, "You know, I just think it’s either something I like or don’t like, or it’s heavy or it’s light. I like heavy music — I call it rock. I like Zeppelin. I’ve only heard a couple (of their songs) you know, they’re okay.”Here's Led Zeppelin, "The Rain Song," from Houses of the Holy, 1973 (1979 performance)Paul McCartney and John BonhamIn 1975, Paul actually brought John Bonham into the sessions for Wings at the Speed of Sound -- though the version of “Beware My Love” Bonzo played on didn’t get released until decades later. When the track finally appeared as a bonus cut on the album’s 2014 reissue (the video isn't available), Paul fondly recalled the session. “It was fantastic,” he said. “Bonham was always on my top-five drummer list and a great friend and ballsy drummer.”And in 1979, when McCartney recorded two tracks with his ‘rockestra’ on the final Wings album, Back to the Egg, both Bonham and bassist John Paul Jones both played in the rockestra (along with Pete Townshend and Pink Floyd's David Gilmore on guitar.) When the group performed lived at the benefit Concert for Kampuchea, they did it again on-stage.And checkout the 3:22 mark of this clip below, from 1976 … the guy with the mustache an cowboy shirt … John Bonham.

Some people are concerned about the general mechanics of ride-sharing:That drivers don't make enough to support themselves when taking into account the full cost of operating the vehicle.That ride-sharing is unfair competition to taxi companies who invested heavily in medallion programs, thinking that their government-approved oligopoly would endure.That getting into random strangers' cars is inherently dangerous and risky compared to licensed taxis (though it seems that this is easily debunked, given that the reputation / star system used by Uber and Lyft holds drivers more accountable for bad behavior than taxis).That insurance coverage is murky and insufficient in the event of an accident.That "surge pricing" is an unfair and predatory tactic (I don't buy this at all).And some concerns are specific to Uber and/or Travis:That the company has engaged in unfair anti-competitive behavior in respect to Lyft (ordering and cancelling rides, etc).That the fact the company has not IPOed yet suggests that it has something to hide (I don't buy this -- I'd stay private too if I could raise money with a snap of my fingers, like Uber has been able to).That Uber is an inherently unsustainable business (for more on this, check out this article from my friend Andrew: Confession: I Don't Think Uber is Actually a Great Business (Yet)).That the company is generally arrogant and has a history of behaving in a threatening manner to journalists.That Travis is a sexist, smarmy jerk (I don't agree but whatever).That Travis has openly declared his intentions to replace all of Uber's human drivers with autonomous vehicles, thereby putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work (IMO, this is going to happen regardless of what Uber intends to do or not -- better to embrace the inevitable than be delusional about reality. On the bright side: Soon we won't have auto fatalities anymore.)They're doing really well, which is controversial in-and-of itself. Haters gon' hate, yo.

This smells like a homework assignment.But, since others have already given answers that would probably satisfy your teacher, I may as well show how I would do it, since it’s different from what I’ve seen elsewhere, and I think it’s a solid step up from the most commonly given advice.For some reason, it seems like every FAQ and example I saw in my formative C programming years had you use typedef to create a function pointer type alias. And, I didn’t really know another way for the first ~24 years I programmed C. I learned how to create function pointer types, and didn’t dig deeper.The syntax for that is ugly and counterintuitive though, due to C’s precedence rules. If you’re curious what that looks like, don’t worry: I’ll show it after I show the approach I advocate.I learned a better way from a coworker just a few years ago. Judging by the other answers I’ve seen on Quora, this approach is not known widely enough.The C standard itself shows a better way: You can use typedef to create a function type alias that isn’t a pointer type. For OP's function signature, you'd write the following.// Declares homework_function as type  // representing a function taking  // three ints, and returning a float:  typedef float hmwk_fxn(int, int, int); That syntax looks identical to the prototype you’d use for a function that shares that signature, only with the keyword typedef placed in front of it.Then, declaring a variable that holds a pointer to that type looks like any other pointer declaration:// Assumes somefunc is float  // somefunc(int, int, int). hmwk_fxn *fxn = somefunc; That reads “fxn is a pointer-to-hmwk_fxn” in the same way that “int *pi” reads “pi is a pointer-to-int”.Notice that you do not need to take the address of somefunc: C handles that for you.C++ builds on C. Therefore, you can use typedef in the same way in C++ as you would in C.As of C++11, you could instead declare a type alias with using.[1][1][1][1] All you do is change typedef to using followed by =, and then move the type name out of the declarator on the right and plop it in-between using and =:// Declares homework_function as type  // representing a function taking // three ints, and returning a float: using hmwk_fxn = float(int, int, int); You still use the resulting type in exactly the same way, other than that you might move the asterisk to meet common C++ style recommendations:hmwk_fxn* fxn = somefunc; To call a function by this pointer, just name the pointer as if it were a function name:int a, b, c;  // ... set up a, b, and c  // ... with meaningful values.  hmwk_fxn* example = somefunc; float result = example(a, b, c); You do not need to explicitly dereference the function pointer to call the function, since function call expressions are actually defined in terms of pointers to functions.I mean… you can if you want; however, if you do, C and C++ will just silently undo it. The following line also calls example():// same as above float result2 = (*example)(a, b, c); That extra (*) wrapped around example accomplishes nothing, ultimately.If you follow the method I described above, the typedef looks like the function prototype you’re interested in matching, and the variable declaration looks like a pointer declaration. C++11’s using declaration doesn’t improve on that, really. This is one place where C++’s using statement actually feels more like a slight step backward. (But only slight.)IMO, that’s a big readability win over the alternative advice, which is to create a type alias for a function pointer type:typedef float (*hmwk_fxn_ptr)(int,int,int); // C using hmwk_fxn_ptr = float(*)(int,int,int); // C++11  Notice the extra parentheses and the extra asterisk? It just looks awkward. It works, sorta. Variable declarations hide the fact they’re pointers, which is why I added _ptr to the type name:hmwk_fxn_ptr fxn = somefunc; If it weren’t for ptr in the type’s name, would you even guess that’s a pointer without looking up the type’s definition?IMO, in general, embedding a pointer type inside a typedef ends up being a bad idea. I liked the idea 20 - 25 years ago, but experience suggests it’s a false economy and a premature “optimization.” Make types that represent values, and express which variables hold pointers more explicitly.Footnotes[1] Type alias, alias template (since C++11)[1] Type alias, alias template (since C++11)[1] Type alias, alias template (since C++11)[1] Type alias, alias template (since C++11)