I see different technical merits in teaching asm/c/java/python/functional languages first.
There's another factor though, the reason my first formal course was a functional language: it levels the playing field between students that have grown up with C/Java/Python, and those that have never coded before. Even those with a lot of procedural programming experience can scratch their heads when presented with recursion, currying, closures, and other concepts that functional languages promote.
Re:Google doesn't want/need good outbound filterin
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
but there are some things which are pretty easy to implement, and google doesn't do many of 'em.
I'm quite curious.. which things are easy to implement that Google aren't doing... how can we know for sure?
Re:Google doesn't want/need good outbound filterin
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
Except that even Google's hardware/bandwidth resources are limited. They don't want to waste resources by hosting millions of spammers.
Also, many smtp servers will block Google IPs if the spam percentage rises too high. There have been several/. stories about XYZ blocks Gmail. Since this hurts good Google users, Google should want to avoid sending spam.
Outbound filtering is MUCH MUCH harder than inbound filtering. On the inbound side they have millions of users labelling mail. For outbound, what kind of feedback do they get except for some bounces?
This is to be expected from free mail providers. If you want quality service, including people that police spammers and watch their systems, then you obviously pay for the higher-quality email service. I suspect Yahoo, Hotmail and Gmail between them have more "police" than most other commercial providers put together.
I don't necessarily believe these free services are inherently low quality. What is true is that they are a massive target for spammers. Spammers get something from these services they don't get by sending mail directly by SMTP: DKIM and SPF authentication from (relatively) high reputation IPs.
Yes, they all go around blocking each other sometimes, but this is not new. I vaguely remember complaints about Gmail being blocked by Yahoo (or was it the other way around) a couple of years ago.
But I tend to agree that C++ is the kitchen sink of languages, and this leads to confusion. I'm sure even B.S. has shaken his head in appalled wonder at some of the things people have done with expression templates and the such.
I enjoyed The Bridge, but that's probably because I'm an engineer;)
I can't agree enough...
on
Matter
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
that Iain M. Banks is one of the most underrated Sci-Fi authors out there. He does "large scale" on an unprecedented... err.. scale. From the description of worlds, to the intelligence of the minds, to the battles they fight across the galaxy.
His descriptions of Lazy Guns is one of the funniest things I've ever read (Use of Weapons or Against a Dark Backround, I can't remember now).
But his contemporary Iain "no M" Banks stuff is not nearly as good (not bad though). What is it about Sci-Fi that lets otherwise average authors become great? Is is the chance to suspend disbelief?
This kind of illicit technology is usually (not always) about making a buck. It's cheaper to exploit software than physical chips.
Fix the world's software and then those industrious rogues might decide the expense and lengthy process of counterfitting physical chips is worthwhile compared to a quick piece of spyware.
I don't quite get the spam thing anymore. It's solved. Spam is not annoying any more. Just use one of the big free email providers and you get relatively little spam. Even most corporations do a reasonable job with 3rd party spam filters. Sure, you still get it, but it's not annoying if it's a trickle.
Don't want to use a web interface? No problem, just get the free email service to fetch your mail, then download your filtered email by POP or IMAP. Okay, there's only one provider I know that lets you do that for free, but it probably has the best spam filtering too.
So you say all this spam is clogging up bandwidth? Well I bet it's still nothing compared with the bandwidth consumed by file sharing and video web sites. The economics of spam is changing, with fewer results per email sent, and more jail time per email sent, I reckon you'd have to be nuts to be a spammer these days.
Computers are supposed to make our lives easier... right? Computers "empower" us to do more with less! Unfortunately, I'm now so empowered that my employer expects me to be a pro programmer, a graphic guru, a PR prodidgy, a sales tsar, a support supremo, and a purchasing powerhouse. Software lets me do all these things. Twenty years ago there was such a thing as a graphics department to put together adverts. Now five minutes, a quick web search, some clip-art of dubious legitimacy, and a healthy dose of "no problem, leave it with me", and I can produce the world's worst job ad that still beats the pants off our competitors.
Geez, I'd love to be really good at one thing instead of mediocre at everything. But I'm still a sucker for an app that lets me pretend I can do something that I really should be thrown in jail for, for even attempting.
So passing through all the tests on http://wanted-master-software-developers.com/ brings you to:
Ford's, success, has, the, country, almost, financially, industrially, mechanically, exhibits, in, higher, than, persons, have, thought, possible, contradictory, requirements, of, efficiency, increase, great, workers, cost, consumer, And, cost, cost, consumer, And, cost, cost, consumer, And, workers, workers, workers, workers, to, repeated, great, increase, quality, increase, great, great, increase, quality, efficiency, efficiency, which, are, of, contradictory, contradictory, requirements, of, possible, have, have, thought, possible, have, have, persons, than, than, most, persons, persons, than, most, exhibits, exhibits, exhibits, exhibits, financially, financially, financially, financially, almost, the, the, country, almost, Ford's, Ford's, success, has With alt text "list, uniquify, relativity". So the above has the be transformed again into a new url. Some kind of word frequency trick?
> Absolutely nothing comes up on Google when I search myself.
Congratulations! It looks like you are not notable.
A lot depends on your name. A Mr John Smith, or Ms Jane Smith, will hardly ever be notable according to Google. If you are really unfortunate, you have a name like "Michael Jordan". There is a quite famous computer scientist with this name. It's pretty hard to find out anything about him!
On the other hand, as far as I can figure my real name is unique on Google apart from a character in a play. I get about 5 pages worth of hits before spurious junk gets in the way.
Moral of the story: feel good if the ego-search works, don't feel bad if it doesn't.
Second moral: John Smith has a similar impact on the net as it does in real life:)
It would be tough to do this for personal audio, like computer speakers. Firstly, the speakers are very specialised and far from cheap. Secondly, I seem to remember there had to be a minimum distance between you and the speakers for it to be effective. Lastly, I also seem to remember that the whole room was filled with a faint but rather annoying high-pitched humming noise, even though only the target could hear the audio. You wouldn't notice that in a noisy environment though. And yeah, the bass performance sucks:)
Anyway, that was a dodgy lab setup. I'm hope the commercial units are more effective.
I was involved in a university experiment with this technology. It's very difficult to make it work well, so, all privacy annoyances aside, I'm deeply impressed on a technical level.
It's really freaky when someone waves these ultrasonic speakers around and the sound washes over you like a spotlight. But in our experiments the sound was really tinny, just like a paranoid voice in your head;)
Glad to see the moderators take my view, but as the original poster I feel an overwhelming need to reply anyway.
1) Maths is the more accepted UK/Australian version. I'm Australian.
2) The full version is Mathematics, even in US english. Note the s. It's plural. There is no singular version. You can't do a mathematic and so you can't do a math. But hey, I say Lego in stead of Legos, so I can't talk.
Flammability: despite the name, Kindle's probably don't burn well. A definite negative for the Puritan at heart.
Ever price a media-rated safe? The Kindle is likely to fail at temperatures that wouldn't damage a well-made book. The Kindle is plastic. Plastic melts and burn into an unrecognizable lump.
True, true. I gess I should have said:
(In)flammability: they probably kill you from the fumes while you watch them burn.
and the "too hot" comment, I can burn a book with a magnifying glass on a summer day, i doubt this device is vulnerable to that attack....without a huge lens Hmm.... yes. But if I burn a Kindle I release many, many toxins into the air. However, I regret even mentioning tbe burning of books.
But the world "Attack" raises another point. It's not possible to hack or rootkit a real book.
depends on the book, toss one in some water, it will be in bad condition, and then it will grow mold, and be eaten away. Very true. But I suspect Kindle's also don't react well to water.
Books are: Most of what you said applies to candles as well, but we still like our electric lights.
(That's my second candle post today!) Try lighting a candle, or turning on an electric light, during take-off. I think you'll get a similar response to both.
My point is that the Kindle seems to offer very little over a regular book. The difference between a candle and a lightbulb is huge. The difference between a book and a Kindle is.. well.. regression. Yes, you can download books for $10 a pop. But only after a $400 up front investment (is that before or after sales taxes? I never groked the U.S. habit of *not* advertising the real price). There's been a couple of flippant replies about books being "abacus" technology, but does anyone have a *real* reason why the Kindle could be superior to a good old fashioned book? I mean sure, this is/., but should we really just love technology for technoligies sake?
Slashdot Mirror
I see different technical merits in teaching asm/c/java/python/functional languages first.
There's another factor though, the reason my first formal course was a functional language: it levels the playing field between students that have grown up with C/Java/Python, and those that have never coded before. Even those with a lot of procedural programming experience can scratch their heads when presented with recursion, currying, closures, and other concepts that functional languages promote.
but there are some things which are pretty easy to implement, and google doesn't do many of 'em.
I'm quite curious.. which things are easy to implement that Google aren't doing... how can we know for sure?
Except that even Google's hardware/bandwidth resources are limited. They don't want to waste resources by hosting millions of spammers.
/. stories about XYZ blocks Gmail. Since this hurts good Google users, Google should want to avoid sending spam.
Also, many smtp servers will block Google IPs if the spam percentage rises too high. There have been several
Outbound filtering is MUCH MUCH harder than inbound filtering. On the inbound side they have millions of users labelling mail. For outbound, what kind of feedback do they get except for some bounces?
I don't necessarily believe these free services are inherently low quality. What is true is that they are a massive target for spammers. Spammers get something from these services they don't get by sending mail directly by SMTP: DKIM and SPF authentication from (relatively) high reputation IPs.
Yes, they all go around blocking each other sometimes, but this is not new. I vaguely remember complaints about Gmail being blocked by Yahoo (or was it the other way around) a couple of years ago.
Languages don't kill programs, ;)
programmers do
But I tend to agree that C++ is the kitchen sink of languages, and this leads to confusion. I'm sure even B.S. has shaken his head in appalled wonder at some of the things people have done with expression templates and the such.
I'd be up for the ROU name "Immutable Destruction"
Well,
;)
I enjoyed The Bridge, but that's probably because I'm an engineer
that Iain M. Banks is one of the most underrated Sci-Fi authors out there. He does "large scale" on an unprecedented... err.. scale. From the description of worlds, to the intelligence of the minds, to the battles they fight across the galaxy.
His descriptions of Lazy Guns is one of the funniest things I've ever read (Use of Weapons or Against a Dark Backround, I can't remember now).
But his contemporary Iain "no M" Banks stuff is not nearly as good (not bad though). What is it about Sci-Fi that lets otherwise average authors become great? Is is the chance to suspend disbelief?
Or am I just biased towards Sci-Fi?
...he's just hit just hitched a ride with the closest near light-speed ride to Alpha Centauri. He'll be back in 100 years at age 99!
This kind of illicit technology is usually (not always) about making a buck. It's cheaper to exploit software than physical chips.
Fix the world's software and then those industrious rogues might decide the expense and lengthy process of counterfitting physical chips is worthwhile compared to a quick piece of spyware.
I don't quite get the spam thing anymore. It's solved. Spam is not annoying any more. Just use one of the big free email providers and you get relatively little spam. Even most corporations do a reasonable job with 3rd party spam filters. Sure, you still get it, but it's not annoying if it's a trickle.
Don't want to use a web interface? No problem, just get the free email service to fetch your mail, then download your filtered email by POP or IMAP. Okay, there's only one provider I know that lets you do that for free, but it probably has the best spam filtering too.
So you say all this spam is clogging up bandwidth? Well I bet it's still nothing compared with the bandwidth consumed by file sharing and video web sites. The economics of spam is changing, with fewer results per email sent, and more jail time per email sent, I reckon you'd have to be nuts to be a spammer these days.
Phishing on the other hand.. now that's bad.
I loved this article...
Computers are supposed to make our lives easier... right? Computers "empower" us to do more with less! Unfortunately, I'm now so empowered that my employer expects me to be a pro programmer, a graphic guru, a PR prodidgy, a sales tsar, a support supremo, and a purchasing powerhouse. Software lets me do all these things. Twenty years ago there was such a thing as a graphics department to put together adverts. Now five minutes, a quick web search, some clip-art of dubious legitimacy, and a healthy dose of "no problem, leave it with me", and I can produce the world's worst job ad that still beats the pants off our competitors.
Geez, I'd love to be really good at one thing instead of mediocre at everything. But I'm still a sucker for an app that lets me pretend I can do something that I really should be thrown in jail for, for even attempting.
Congratulations! It looks like you are not notable.
A lot depends on your name. A Mr John Smith, or Ms Jane Smith, will hardly ever be notable according to Google. If you are really unfortunate, you have a name like "Michael Jordan". There is a quite famous computer scientist with this name. It's pretty hard to find out anything about him!
On the other hand, as far as I can figure my real name is unique on Google apart from a character in a play. I get about 5 pages worth of hits before spurious junk gets in the way.
Moral of the story: feel good if the ego-search works, don't feel bad if it doesn't.
Second moral: John Smith has a similar impact on the net as it does in real life
It would be tough to do this for personal audio, like computer speakers. Firstly, the speakers are very specialised and far from cheap. Secondly, I seem to remember there had to be a minimum distance between you and the speakers for it to be effective. Lastly, I also seem to remember that the whole room was filled with a faint but rather annoying high-pitched humming noise, even though only the target could hear the audio. You wouldn't notice that in a noisy environment though. And yeah, the bass performance sucks :)
Anyway, that was a dodgy lab setup. I'm hope the commercial units are more effective.
I was involved in a university experiment with this technology. It's very difficult to make it work well, so, all privacy annoyances aside, I'm deeply impressed on a technical level.
;)
It's really freaky when someone waves these ultrasonic speakers around and the sound washes over you like a spotlight. But in our experiments the sound was really tinny, just like a paranoid voice in your head
Glad to see the moderators take my view, but as the original poster I feel an overwhelming need to reply anyway.
1) Maths is the more accepted UK/Australian version. I'm Australian.
2) The full version is Mathematics, even in US english. Note the s. It's plural. There is no singular version. You can't do a mathematic and so you can't do a math. But hey, I say Lego in stead of Legos, so I can't talk.
Ever price a media-rated safe? The Kindle is likely to fail at temperatures that wouldn't damage a well-made book. The Kindle is plastic. Plastic melts and burn into an unrecognizable lump.
True, true. I gess I should have said:(In)flammability: they probably kill you from the fumes while you watch them burn.
But the world "Attack" raises another point. It's not possible to hack or rootkit a real book.
(That's my second candle post today!) Try lighting a candle, or turning on an electric light, during take-off. I think you'll get a similar response to both.
My point is that the Kindle seems to offer very little over a regular book. The difference between a candle and a lightbulb is huge. The difference between a book and a Kindle is
Yes! And none of the disadvantages of a modern computer at the same time!
<quote>An apostrophe means "look out, here comes an 's'!"</quote>
No it doesn't.
^