Nerds do not memorize meaningless trivia without good reason.
What are the good reasons for being able to:
recite scenes from Monty Python movies/episodes verbatim, name 5 or more droids from Star Wars (original trilogy) not counting R2-D2 or C-3PO, recite monster stats for an edition of D&D, tell you his favorite XKCD comics by number, etc.
Yes, nerds hate trivia. That's why they prowl the Internet all day long. There's no trivia there.
Children don't walk to school any more. There are too many boogiemen on the streets. Sad, but true. How will today's child admonish their children about how tough they had it. They don't even walk to school uphill, in the snow, one way.
I felt the same way before I tried Python. The whitespace requirements really are not such a big deal. My only remaining issue with is it is terrible for posting code snippets to the web since not all sites allow you to use the PRE tag.
Awesome. I don't buy Apple products. Now no one else can do this without paying Apple. Who's going to do that? I'll never have to deal with this. Awesome. Thanks, Apple.
The real killer is Quicken. Yeah, gnucash has most of the same functionality. But it took so long for my mother to get use to Quicken that if I tried to switch her to gnucash I don't know if I could handle the "where do I do this?" questions.
You would not do the hour of labor for $150 unless you felt $150 was worth MORE than one hour of your time. I would not pay $150 for that hour of labor unless I thought that hour of labor was worth MORE than $150. Both of us come out of deal thinking we got the better half. Both of us are better off afterward. Pretending this is a zero-sum game only works if you forget that in every transaction both parties think they are getting the better part of the deal.
As for your contention that it is zero-sum for the resources: If you don't take my $150, you will get $0 for an hour not spent performing this labor. And $150 in my pocket has no value until I spend it. Resources only have value when they are traded. And generally, they are only traded when both parties feel they will gain something by trading.
Where I have a problem with this is when it is applied globally. If as I say, transaction "always" benefit both parties then growth should be expected and economics should be the study of delta growth (growth acceleration?). If both parties always benefit from trade then the yardstick for the economy should based on how much more benefit I get today than I got yesterday and not the amount I benefited.
There was a time when Patent Law and Copyright Law were in lockstep and now they are not. I think its time that we bring them back together, for better or worse.
Don't say things like that. Someone will get the bright idea to extend patents until 90 years after the death of the inventor.
No, that's what tough love is for. Sorry, you broke that DVD. It doesn't work any more. Maybe Mommy and Daddy will buy you a new one for your birthday. You have to watch something else or do you want Daddy to turn off the TV?
Granted, it doesn't get my 4 year old to treat the DVDs any better but having him change the DVDs rather than asking Daddy to (and getting the occasional lesson in consequences to boot) means letting him touch the DVDs. It's not like I want to see Wiggly Wiggly Christmas, AGAIN.
Yes, in the abstract. Now find the original copy of Title 17 and feed it into git/hg/svn/whatever. Then apply all the laws passed since the date of that copy as patches. Do you really think that could be automated?
But when you are talking about a list, you are talking about something that is inserted and deleted from randomly. That's the whole point of using a list O(1) inserts and deletes. If you back the list with an array, you lose that access feature.
Yes, the list is contiguous in memory but that list is just a list of object pointers. The data is scattered around the heap just like the linked list data is scattered around the heap. Fast access to the object pointer does not yield any speed boosts. In C++ you could create an array of actual objects and then all the objects are contiguous in memory and incrementing to the next object is incrementing a point by sizeof(theObject). For small objects, you might be within the range of the memory cache on each increment. The managed object system most likely cannot possibly put the actual objects into contiguous memory and so you still have the cache misses when dereferencing the object pointers.
So, tell us again who understands access characteristics of linked lists and array lists better?
The number of sketches that have not aged well is a very small number. One of the best things about MP was that it stayed as far away from topical subjects as possible. Most MP aged very well (ubiquitous runny cheese jokes).
The problem you have with Word is you don't know how to use it. It can do all the things you say and more. It can create hierarchical sections (like h1, h2, h3). It can autoindex. It can footnote and endnote. You can annotate a Word doc. What it does not do correctly is Page level formatting. That is something you need for (ironically) pre-press work. My personal copy of Word 97 has features I use that I've still yet to find in Open Office 3. The other nice thing about sticking with Word 97 is it is not as bloated as its modern counterpart so it runs nice and fast on modern hardware.
The usher isn't told your father died. He is told to find you and inform you that there is an emergency call from a specified phone number. He doesn't talk to your mother half out of her mind on the phone.
* allowed for easy, efficient string concatenation
Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad, right? Null-terminated strings are absolutely the worst for string concatenation. To concat a bunch of strings C-style requires that you get the total length of the strings. strlen is O(n) where n is the length of the string. Next you have to copy the text. strcpy is O(n) of course but strcat is O(n+m) where n is the string being copied and m is the string appended to. The first thing strcat has to do is walk to the end of the first string to find the end. But we've walked that string how many times before? Totally inefficient using the standard library. If strcat and strcpy had been specified to return the end of the string being written to it wouldn't be so bad. But they weren't.
Slashdot Mirror
I did? Maybe the fifty-year old programmers did punch-cards professionally. But not us early 40s guys.
What are the good reasons for being able to:
recite scenes from Monty Python movies/episodes verbatim,
name 5 or more droids from Star Wars (original trilogy) not counting R2-D2 or C-3PO,
recite monster stats for an edition of D&D,
tell you his favorite XKCD comics by number,
etc.
Yes, nerds hate trivia. That's why they prowl the Internet all day long. There's no trivia there.
Children don't walk to school any more. There are too many boogiemen on the streets. Sad, but true. How will today's child admonish their children about how tough they had it. They don't even walk to school uphill, in the snow, one way.
I felt the same way before I tried Python. The whitespace requirements really are not such a big deal. My only remaining issue with is it is terrible for posting code snippets to the web since not all sites allow you to use the PRE tag.
Awesome. I don't buy Apple products. Now no one else can do this without paying Apple. Who's going to do that? I'll never have to deal with this. Awesome. Thanks, Apple.
Nate, read the text you quoted again. How does one travel in the opposite direction and the same direction at the same time?
The real killer is Quicken. Yeah, gnucash has most of the same functionality. But it took so long for my mother to get use to Quicken that if I tried to switch her to gnucash I don't know if I could handle the "where do I do this?" questions.
Remove the content too. It's all meaningless stuff like this post.
You would not do the hour of labor for $150 unless you felt $150 was worth MORE than one hour of your time. I would not pay $150 for that hour of labor unless I thought that hour of labor was worth MORE than $150. Both of us come out of deal thinking we got the better half. Both of us are better off afterward. Pretending this is a zero-sum game only works if you forget that in every transaction both parties think they are getting the better part of the deal.
As for your contention that it is zero-sum for the resources: If you don't take my $150, you will get $0 for an hour not spent performing this labor. And $150 in my pocket has no value until I spend it. Resources only have value when they are traded. And generally, they are only traded when both parties feel they will gain something by trading.
Where I have a problem with this is when it is applied globally. If as I say, transaction "always" benefit both parties then growth should be expected and economics should be the study of delta growth (growth acceleration?). If both parties always benefit from trade then the yardstick for the economy should based on how much more benefit I get today than I got yesterday and not the amount I benefited.
Commercial Games. That's who.
Nah, far more likely to be related to IBM's Headquarters in Armonk. Does IBM still do any fabrication in Poughkeepsie?
Don't say things like that. Someone will get the bright idea to extend patents until 90 years after the death of the inventor.
Did you mean "This is the copulatingly most brilliant invention ever"?
No, that's what tough love is for. Sorry, you broke that DVD. It doesn't work any more. Maybe Mommy and Daddy will buy you a new one for your birthday. You have to watch something else or do you want Daddy to turn off the TV?
Granted, it doesn't get my 4 year old to treat the DVDs any better but having him change the DVDs rather than asking Daddy to (and getting the occasional lesson in consequences to boot) means letting him touch the DVDs. It's not like I want to see Wiggly Wiggly Christmas, AGAIN.
I could sell mine?
Yes, in the abstract. Now find the original copy of Title 17 and feed it into git/hg/svn/whatever. Then apply all the laws passed since the date of that copy as patches. Do you really think that could be automated?
But when you are talking about a list, you are talking about something that is inserted and deleted from randomly. That's the whole point of using a list O(1) inserts and deletes. If you back the list with an array, you lose that access feature.
Yeah, I don't get his motive. He doesn't want to get out in 20 months on good behavior? He prefers to serve the whole sentence.
Yes, the list is contiguous in memory but that list is just a list of object pointers. The data is scattered around the heap just like the linked list data is scattered around the heap. Fast access to the object pointer does not yield any speed boosts. In C++ you could create an array of actual objects and then all the objects are contiguous in memory and incrementing to the next object is incrementing a point by sizeof(theObject). For small objects, you might be within the range of the memory cache on each increment. The managed object system most likely cannot possibly put the actual objects into contiguous memory and so you still have the cache misses when dereferencing the object pointers.
So, tell us again who understands access characteristics of linked lists and array lists better?
The number of sketches that have not aged well is a very small number. One of the best things about MP was that it stayed as far away from topical subjects as possible. Most MP aged very well (ubiquitous runny cheese jokes).
Where has Monty Python not aged well?
If it does more than wget, doesn't that mean it already has too many features?
How many uncensored ninja dictionaries do you think will be submitted?
The problem you have with Word is you don't know how to use it. It can do all the things you say and more. It can create hierarchical sections (like h1, h2, h3). It can autoindex. It can footnote and endnote. You can annotate a Word doc. What it does not do correctly is Page level formatting. That is something you need for (ironically) pre-press work. My personal copy of Word 97 has features I use that I've still yet to find in Open Office 3. The other nice thing about sticking with Word 97 is it is not as bloated as its modern counterpart so it runs nice and fast on modern hardware.
The usher isn't told your father died. He is told to find you and inform you that there is an emergency call from a specified phone number. He doesn't talk to your mother half out of her mind on the phone.
* allowed for easy, efficient string concatenation
Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad, right? Null-terminated strings are absolutely the worst for string concatenation. To concat a bunch of strings C-style requires that you get the total length of the strings. strlen is O(n) where n is the length of the string. Next you have to copy the text. strcpy is O(n) of course but strcat is O(n+m) where n is the string being copied and m is the string appended to. The first thing strcat has to do is walk to the end of the first string to find the end. But we've walked that string how many times before? Totally inefficient using the standard library. If strcat and strcpy had been specified to return the end of the string being written to it wouldn't be so bad. But they weren't.