You are right of course - it's why I said "about" and not "exactly - in a large enough sample set that is more or less normally distributed, about half of the people will be using more than the average. Now, it IS possible that phone bandwidth usage is a massively skewed distribution, with a lot of people somewhere on the low end, a few people using several orders of magnitude more, and nothing in between.
In that case, those people in the high-end spike would be complaining to high heaven.
Probably on slashdot.
That was my mistake, right?;-)
Introvert here too - yet I really don't like to miss our company lunch. We don't talk - we play games (usually cardgames). Conversation just "happens" while we are playing, sometimes, and it's not nearly as draining as having to sit with people for an hour (or even half an hour) trying to keep a semblance of conversation going.
The people participating aren't on the same project teams - we're not even all in the same company.
I actually only really see the 3D effect when the slider is near (but not at) zero - everything else my eyes just don't resolve. But it works very well even at that setting, at least for me.
-1 wrong.
Well, not wrong if "being liked" is the only thing you want to do. You can never get everything done with everyone by simply keeping the peace. However being a good manager includes being liked or at least thought fair, most of the time.
The math was trivial. The Latin wasn't so bad, but in modern times, it's not applicable. The Greek is a thorough waste of time.
Latin and Greek were still two important languages for the more "difficult" (read: higher esteem) secondary education here in Belgium when I was in that system, about 16 years ago now. If you did Latin/Greek in high school you were considered part of the intellectual elite (Not that I actually agree with that assessment). That system probably still exists that way knowing how fast things change here.
I did Latin/Greek for a year, the Greek drove me insane. Then I did Latin/Math for another year which was better except for the horrific math teacher. Then I moved abroad to the UK where they thought I was insane for wanting to continue to do Latin and higher-level French in my free-time, but even there a teacher was available to teach that Latin and French, and I wasn't the only one doing it.
Are those languages applicable to real world situation? Probably not. But then again, I remember what French language education was like in the UK - and the average "pass" level there wasn't applicable in the real world either:-). To me it's just about mastering non-obvious topics. Kinda like learning to program in Lisp.
Yeah, well, if you want to do any business in the US (which is a helluva market to just ignore), then yes it's even a European developer's nemesis.
Considering the insanely litigious nature of many of the people/companies in the USA these days, and the way the courts tend to work, it has come to the point that many companies are starting to find it really is better to ignore the USA market, because you simply cannot come out on top anymore.
Your last line is totally on, and yet you seem to miss the point of CMU's move (at least as I perceive it). OOD/OOP is no silver bullet. Nothing is. It's high time that teaching institutions stop creating this perception that OOD/OOP supersedes functional programming or structured programming. OOD/OOP is just another tool in the toolbox, and a pragmatic developer should know all of the tools.
It's also true that the landscape has changed quite significantly in the past 5 years or so, with the rise of multi-core. Some tools that were cutting-edge before are now not quite so perfectly suited to common tasks. It's not that different from when OOP started to become "in vogue", and the C-developers were saying "we've been doing this for years with function pointers" or something along those lines.
Point is: whatever the language, it always come with support that you don't want to cope with in 95% of the case. Garbage collection (a la java) is one of these. Mem Protection, FPU, virtual memory (remember handles in MacOS before X ?) etc. I don't want to re-implement them, thanks.
Not knowing why all these support features are a good thing most of the time, but a bad thing some of the time, makes you a far worse programmer.
The cry of the fresh-out-of-college Java programmers here at this C++ shop is "I shouldn't have to do memory management!". I take them on a tour of some custom allocators that sped up certain heavy core algorithms by an order of magnitude to show them that sometimes you do have to do memory management. Then I show them shared_ptr and scoped_ptr to show them that even hardcore C++-developers have admitted that most of the time you don't want to.
But maybe I'm an anomaly - I enjoyed working with 64Kb windows into a several MB memory space back in the day - and I also enjoyed the day that flat memory addressing got rid of that requirement. These are all just problems to solve, and like you say, once I have learned about them and solved them once, I'm not going to solve them again. But I think everyone should tackle at least a subset of some of these low-level problems at least once in their career to appreciate how low-level things can get at times.
Doing all of the above with "exception safety" without having to write a ass-ton of "finally" blocks (though I _do_ whish C++ had "finally" 8-).
I hope none of your non-trivial destructors allow any exceptions to escape, or you will not be exception safe after all.
I love C++ as well, but "doing lots of stuff in destructors" and "exception safety" are like cats and dogs living together.
as a practicing scientist (phd in molecular biology) although a poor speller, I think this falsifiable thing is silly
actual, real scientists don't worry much about falisfiability and other philosophical concepts, just as most programmers don't worry to much about CompSci theory
real scientists are to busy doing experiments, writing papers, turning coffee into theorems, etc
I think there's some funny stuff in your coffee if you're doing experiments on non-falsifiable theories.
A quick search reveals statistics that the top 5% also have about 60% of the total wealth - and while that figure may be somewhat inaccurate and the merits of using wealth vs. income are also debatable, I think that indicates that within an order of magnitude the top 5% are pretty much just paying what they should be paying in a linear tax system relative to their wealth.
And that's before we start discussing progressive tax systems, the cost necessities, cost of living, etc.. Those might not be up your economic-political street but if you're trying to find the ephemeral "fair" balance should be considered.
Remark though that I personally, as a citizen of the Commie Pinko European Union, believe that nomatter how much the lower 95% would like to get their hands on more of the top 5%'s money, they'll never get it without bloodshed (and even then they might lose), because that top 5% has access to any and all means of keeping their money away from the masses. Most of those means are perfectly legal, but even if the legal means do not suffice that top 5% has the best chance of pulling the more nebulous ways off with impunity.
Car analogy: P=NP - it's like everyone has always thought the supermarket was on the other side of the ocean, but it turns out that it's just a short drive down the street. The street may be flooded though.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right of course - it's why I said "about" and not "exactly - in a large enough sample set that is more or less normally distributed, about half of the people will be using more than the average. Now, it IS possible that phone bandwidth usage is a massively skewed distribution, with a lot of people somewhere on the low end, a few people using several orders of magnitude more, and nothing in between. ;-)
In that case, those people in the high-end spike would be complaining to high heaven.
Probably on slashdot.
That was my mistake, right?
Once they work every angle for increasing profits they go after the handful using more than the average.
That "handful" is and always will be about 50% of their users.
Toyota already did with their Prius. I think the official term is "smug".
Hah, MP > YP.
Introvert here too - yet I really don't like to miss our company lunch. We don't talk - we play games (usually cardgames). Conversation just "happens" while we are playing, sometimes, and it's not nearly as draining as having to sit with people for an hour (or even half an hour) trying to keep a semblance of conversation going.
The people participating aren't on the same project teams - we're not even all in the same company.
I actually only really see the 3D effect when the slider is near (but not at) zero - everything else my eyes just don't resolve. But it works very well even at that setting, at least for me.
money and making the wrong decisions for their lower-in-the-chain enemies
Fixed that for you ;-)
-1 wrong.
Well, not wrong if "being liked" is the only thing you want to do. You can never get everything done with everyone by simply keeping the peace. However being a good manager includes being liked or at least thought fair, most of the time.
No, but the promoted person dies.
The math was trivial. The Latin wasn't so bad, but in modern times, it's not applicable. The Greek is a thorough waste of time.
Latin and Greek were still two important languages for the more "difficult" (read: higher esteem) secondary education here in Belgium when I was in that system, about 16 years ago now. If you did Latin/Greek in high school you were considered part of the intellectual elite (Not that I actually agree with that assessment). That system probably still exists that way knowing how fast things change here. :-). To me it's just about mastering non-obvious topics. Kinda like learning to program in Lisp.
I did Latin/Greek for a year, the Greek drove me insane. Then I did Latin/Math for another year which was better except for the horrific math teacher. Then I moved abroad to the UK where they thought I was insane for wanting to continue to do Latin and higher-level French in my free-time, but even there a teacher was available to teach that Latin and French, and I wasn't the only one doing it.
Are those languages applicable to real world situation? Probably not. But then again, I remember what French language education was like in the UK - and the average "pass" level there wasn't applicable in the real world either
Reading the Sun also raises the heartrate and blood pressure of anyone with half a brain.
What, that's not enough?
No, we want more asbestos! (Two hints: 1. Monty Python's The Life of Brian. 2. The Simpsons. )
Yeah, well, if you want to do any business in the US (which is a helluva market to just ignore), then yes it's even a European developer's nemesis.
Considering the insanely litigious nature of many of the people/companies in the USA these days, and the way the courts tend to work, it has come to the point that many companies are starting to find it really is better to ignore the USA market, because you simply cannot come out on top anymore.
Yeah, there's that, but what else has Bell ever done for us?
Your last line is totally on, and yet you seem to miss the point of CMU's move (at least as I perceive it). OOD/OOP is no silver bullet. Nothing is. It's high time that teaching institutions stop creating this perception that OOD/OOP supersedes functional programming or structured programming. OOD/OOP is just another tool in the toolbox, and a pragmatic developer should know all of the tools.
It's also true that the landscape has changed quite significantly in the past 5 years or so, with the rise of multi-core. Some tools that were cutting-edge before are now not quite so perfectly suited to common tasks. It's not that different from when OOP started to become "in vogue", and the C-developers were saying "we've been doing this for years with function pointers" or something along those lines.
"This too, shall pass"
Point is: whatever the language, it always come with support that you don't want to cope with in 95% of the case. Garbage collection (a la java) is one of these. Mem Protection, FPU, virtual memory (remember handles in MacOS before X ?) etc. I don't want to re-implement them, thanks.
Not knowing why all these support features are a good thing most of the time, but a bad thing some of the time, makes you a far worse programmer. The cry of the fresh-out-of-college Java programmers here at this C++ shop is "I shouldn't have to do memory management!". I take them on a tour of some custom allocators that sped up certain heavy core algorithms by an order of magnitude to show them that sometimes you do have to do memory management. Then I show them shared_ptr and scoped_ptr to show them that even hardcore C++-developers have admitted that most of the time you don't want to.
But maybe I'm an anomaly - I enjoyed working with 64Kb windows into a several MB memory space back in the day - and I also enjoyed the day that flat memory addressing got rid of that requirement. These are all just problems to solve, and like you say, once I have learned about them and solved them once, I'm not going to solve them again. But I think everyone should tackle at least a subset of some of these low-level problems at least once in their career to appreciate how low-level things can get at times.
The same system prevents most slashdotters from RTFA.
Doing all of the above with "exception safety" without having to write a ass-ton of "finally" blocks (though I _do_ whish C++ had "finally" 8-).
I hope none of your non-trivial destructors allow any exceptions to escape, or you will not be exception safe after all. I love C++ as well, but "doing lots of stuff in destructors" and "exception safety" are like cats and dogs living together.
Let's not forget that you'd have nothing to breathe, either.
Maybe he was dictating?
as a practicing scientist (phd in molecular biology) although a poor speller, I think this falsifiable thing is silly
actual, real scientists don't worry much about falisfiability and other philosophical concepts, just as most programmers don't worry to much about CompSci theory
real scientists are to busy doing experiments, writing papers, turning coffee into theorems, etc
I think there's some funny stuff in your coffee if you're doing experiments on non-falsifiable theories.
And tax breaks for the rich? They pay all the taxes (the top-5% pays almost 68% of the taxes!), so they are likely candidates for tax breaks.
A quick search reveals statistics that the top 5% also have about 60% of the total wealth - and while that figure may be somewhat inaccurate and the merits of using wealth vs. income are also debatable, I think that indicates that within an order of magnitude the top 5% are pretty much just paying what they should be paying in a linear tax system relative to their wealth.
And that's before we start discussing progressive tax systems, the cost necessities, cost of living, etc.. Those might not be up your economic-political street but if you're trying to find the ephemeral "fair" balance should be considered.
Remark though that I personally, as a citizen of the Commie Pinko European Union, believe that nomatter how much the lower 95% would like to get their hands on more of the top 5%'s money, they'll never get it without bloodshed (and even then they might lose), because that top 5% has access to any and all means of keeping their money away from the masses. Most of those means are perfectly legal, but even if the legal means do not suffice that top 5% has the best chance of pulling the more nebulous ways off with impunity.
Of course there is the possibility that you don't know what "summary execution" actually means.
Isn't that when you post a scathing, flaming reply based on only the slashdot summary, without RTFA?
That's what I was going for, yes, glad I achieved that lofty goal :)
Car analogy: P=NP - it's like everyone has always thought the supermarket was on the other side of the ocean, but it turns out that it's just a short drive down the street. The street may be flooded though.
Is it a coincidence that google "loses" 150.000 GMail accounts, and suddenly China cleans up it's spam problem?