High level languages need not be slower than low level languages?
Not that I believe that myself.
Although in theory low level languages can always be faster, the real-world situation is that a high level language with good optimisation is likely to be faster than the low level language because tweaking of the low-level code is limited by cost and timescale constraints.
True enough. And since every rule has to have a complement,
0a: Assuming that you don't need to learn any of that theory: algorithms, data structures, normalisation and so on
I thought the article was going to fall into that trap, but it avoided it. Some of the examples were web programs, but the overall points were widely applicable.
Mirrors and fibre-optic are exactly what I was thinking of. And of course, the sun is always shining somewhere (although I grant that making use of that fact would involve a significant initial expenditure of energy).
That's only if you want to convert form of the solar energy. As the poster indicated, this is about producing light, and plenty of the solar energy we receive is already in that form and needs no toxic chemicals or energy to convert.
If it's bought to be used it would only have to be towed to the nearest shipyard willing and capable of refitting it. It's presumably already in a shipyard capable of refitting it, and they might be willing for the right customer and price.
I have to ask the older among us (i'm in my 20's), have things always been so silly in politics? I mean, they've always been silly, but *this* silly? It seems like things are getting over the top crazy.
Well, Juvenal was complaining about it almost 2000 years ago. I figure no, it's not really getting worse, it's just that its way of being bad keeps shifting so it seems to be getting worse.
Didn't he once say something to the effect that if he ever got into a position of power then his first act would be to set up an inquiry into the abuses he'd be bound to commit? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
Exactly. Pictures of naked people will do nothing worse than give them unrealistic expectations of the adult human form, and the pictures they see on TV and on posters of clothed people will do just the same. If they find two girls, one cup, though -- well, kids can be picky eaters at the best of times, I dread to think how long it could take to get them eating again. And do we really want them trying to do a goatse?
When we went anywhere in the car I stood up in the front seat so I could see out the window. My kids used those Maggie Simpson carseats, sometimes in a 2-door car whose seatback had no lock. AND WE ALL TALKED TO STRANGERS!
There might be an element of selection bias, though. We are the ones that survived that. Few if any of those who didn't survive are posting on slashdot.
What good would a legal effort do? They change the law so that what they do is legal. Unless it hits a constitutional issue, which it's unlikely to, then a legal challenge is pretty much doomed to fail.
Those studies are fascinating, because they deal with all of the shades of gray that appear in the world. There aren't strict rule sets that force a black and white way of solving things.
That was the biggest jolt when I started doing the humanities. In engineering and CS, when I turned in an assignment I usually had a pretty good idea how well I'd done, because there was usually a correct answer, and there was usually a way I could check the answer I'd submitted. In the humanities there is rarely a correct answer and what matters is how well you consider conflicting arguments and evidence and how well you make your own argument. I suspect this is why, although there are fiercely-held positions in the humanities, the humanities are much less prone to "religious" wars than geekdom is. The "pure" geek expects there to be a single correct answer to "how should a program be indented" or "how should variables be named". The humanities person is far more likely to see the issues as debatable.
I've done a search of an online Bible. I can't find it anywhere. My guess is that it's in Nabbler's tradition so he assumes it must be in the Bible somewhere, without checking.
I never disputed that it was cheating (though only at a marginal level), I only disputed the claim that humanities degrees are not at the same academic level as science and engineering degrees.
On one course I did at college (pre-university) one guy was struggling badly with calculus. He'd failed badly once, and had to pass his resit to stay on the course and to keep his job (for which the course was mandatory). Two of us sat there and coached him, not in the whole calculus syllabus but in the three specific types of problem that had always come up on the paper before ("If it's a polynomial times a trig function, integrate by parts..."). At the end of that, if he'd been presented with a random calculus problem he would have had no clue at all how to proceed. But he knew the types of problem the examiner always set, and he passed comfortably. Incidentally, he never once needed calculus in his job. Was that cheating? Well, he was supposed to learn the syllabus, but used somebody else's knowledge to extract just those bits he needed to get through the assessment. How is that different to what happened in the case of that book assignment?
I remember doing a management training course on which it was hammered into us that "it's easier to apologise than to ask permission". Considering the company I was working for had the capacity to kill members of the public by the hundred if we got things wrong, and I was in the department responsible to make sure all other departments played by the rules to make sure things didn't go wrong, I was rather concerned that managers were being explicitly taught to ignore the rules, including the safety rules.
There is no sense. Since Spitting image went off the air politicians here have had basically a get out of jail free card for everything short of killing babies.
Bremner, Bird and Fortune covered a lot of the same territory as Spitting Image, but in a different way. And Private Eye does the job very well in the print medium.
Slashdot Mirror
High level languages need not be slower than low level languages?
Not that I believe that myself.
Although in theory low level languages can always be faster, the real-world situation is that a high level language with good optimisation is likely to be faster than the low level language because tweaking of the low-level code is limited by cost and timescale constraints.
True enough. And since every rule has to have a complement, 0a: Assuming that you don't need to learn any of that theory: algorithms, data structures, normalisation and so on
I thought the article was going to fall into that trap, but it avoided it. Some of the examples were web programs, but the overall points were widely applicable.
Really? Whatever reason? Here in the UK they'd get into trouble for saying "Sorry, we won't do business with you because you're black."
Are you sure the pressure is in that direction?
I don't know about funding, but it's driving copyright legislation.
After all, the Disney theme parks are not exactly noted for their historical or scientific accuracy or their freedom from ideology, are they?
Mirrors and fibre-optic are exactly what I was thinking of. And of course, the sun is always shining somewhere (although I grant that making use of that fact would involve a significant initial expenditure of energy).
Who said anything about hold and release?
That's only if you want to convert form of the solar energy. As the poster indicated, this is about producing light, and plenty of the solar energy we receive is already in that form and needs no toxic chemicals or energy to convert.
If it's bought to be used it would only have to be towed to the nearest shipyard willing and capable of refitting it. It's presumably already in a shipyard capable of refitting it, and they might be willing for the right customer and price.
I have to ask the older among us (i'm in my 20's), have things always been so silly in politics? I mean, they've always been silly, but *this* silly? It seems like things are getting over the top crazy.
Well, Juvenal was complaining about it almost 2000 years ago. I figure no, it's not really getting worse, it's just that its way of being bad keeps shifting so it seems to be getting worse.
Thanks, I was sure it was him.
Didn't he once say something to the effect that if he ever got into a position of power then his first act would be to set up an inquiry into the abuses he'd be bound to commit? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
Nope. Bread and circuses.
Exactly. Pictures of naked people will do nothing worse than give them unrealistic expectations of the adult human form, and the pictures they see on TV and on posters of clothed people will do just the same. If they find two girls, one cup, though -- well, kids can be picky eaters at the best of times, I dread to think how long it could take to get them eating again. And do we really want them trying to do a goatse?
Yeah, I've seen the /. trolls too.
When we went anywhere in the car I stood up in the front seat so I could see out the window. My kids used those Maggie Simpson carseats, sometimes in a 2-door car whose seatback had no lock. AND WE ALL TALKED TO STRANGERS!
There might be an element of selection bias, though. We are the ones that survived that. Few if any of those who didn't survive are posting on slashdot.
What good would a legal effort do? They change the law so that what they do is legal. Unless it hits a constitutional issue, which it's unlikely to, then a legal challenge is pretty much doomed to fail.
Those studies are fascinating, because they deal with all of the shades of gray that appear in the world. There aren't strict rule sets that force a black and white way of solving things.
That was the biggest jolt when I started doing the humanities. In engineering and CS, when I turned in an assignment I usually had a pretty good idea how well I'd done, because there was usually a correct answer, and there was usually a way I could check the answer I'd submitted. In the humanities there is rarely a correct answer and what matters is how well you consider conflicting arguments and evidence and how well you make your own argument. I suspect this is why, although there are fiercely-held positions in the humanities, the humanities are much less prone to "religious" wars than geekdom is. The "pure" geek expects there to be a single correct answer to "how should a program be indented" or "how should variables be named". The humanities person is far more likely to see the issues as debatable.
That has nothing to do with whether Humanities or numerate subjects are a higher academic standard.
I've done a search of an online Bible. I can't find it anywhere. My guess is that it's in Nabbler's tradition so he assumes it must be in the Bible somewhere, without checking.
I never disputed that it was cheating (though only at a marginal level), I only disputed the claim that humanities degrees are not at the same academic level as science and engineering degrees.
On one course I did at college (pre-university) one guy was struggling badly with calculus. He'd failed badly once, and had to pass his resit to stay on the course and to keep his job (for which the course was mandatory). Two of us sat there and coached him, not in the whole calculus syllabus but in the three specific types of problem that had always come up on the paper before ("If it's a polynomial times a trig function, integrate by parts..."). At the end of that, if he'd been presented with a random calculus problem he would have had no clue at all how to proceed. But he knew the types of problem the examiner always set, and he passed comfortably. Incidentally, he never once needed calculus in his job. Was that cheating? Well, he was supposed to learn the syllabus, but used somebody else's knowledge to extract just those bits he needed to get through the assessment. How is that different to what happened in the case of that book assignment?
I remember doing a management training course on which it was hammered into us that "it's easier to apologise than to ask permission". Considering the company I was working for had the capacity to kill members of the public by the hundred if we got things wrong, and I was in the department responsible to make sure all other departments played by the rules to make sure things didn't go wrong, I was rather concerned that managers were being explicitly taught to ignore the rules, including the safety rules.
There is no sense. Since Spitting image went off the air politicians here have had basically a get out of jail free card for everything short of killing babies.
Bremner, Bird and Fortune covered a lot of the same territory as Spitting Image, but in a different way. And Private Eye does the job very well in the print medium.