Java as we now know it is nothing like the language as it was originally envisaged. It was originally meant to be a high level language for low powered embedded systems.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this. To be fair, it's been years since I used Eclipse, and it's probably improved out of sight (and/or computers being 1000x faster now compensates for the unwieldyness of Java) but last time I did use Eclipse, it was painfully chuggy.
Forcing people to use their real names online in a publicly accessible way is a terrible idea and will scupper your company. Facebook knows this because Google+ was/is arguably a better product, and was taking off fast, until Google started trying to force real names. Overnight, anyone with any kind of privacy concerns stopped using it and, despite Google still trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to ram Google+ down our throats any way it can, it's not really taking off.
When you see "learn to be a plumber", you think the simple stuff. Others may think more complex stuff, like soldering copper pipes, determining the correct angle of decline for waste pipes, repacking a shutoff valve, and other things that, not being a plumber myself, I do not have the knowledge to even consider as something a plumber would do.
Exactly. But imagine if we all took a semester of "basic plumbing" in high school, and it introduced just a smattering of all of these different tasks, with enough info to at least let us know how much we *don't* know about plumbing. Regardless of how much we used that knowledge in future, we'd at least have a basic appreciation for the depth and breadth of plumbing as a profession.
I think "teaching everyone to code" would be pointless in terms of everyone acquiring basic programming ability. It's just not something that most people are mentally equipped to do with any degree of fluency. But I think it would be an excellent idea for high school to include a programming course, for two reasons: First, that then the students with an undiscovered aptitude for programming would be able to start learning earlier, and so be able to make more use of their gift. And second, so that the majority of people have enough of an idea what "being good at computer" actually means, and so come away with an appreciation of just exactly how complex software development really IS. I think this would help a lot with the situation where non-technical types (whether clients, managers, shareholders, whatever) know so little about the domain that they just assume it's trivial.
If you're completely unconscious, then when you wake up, you aren't "the same" consciousness because continuity has been broken. You're merely another 'you' running on the same hardware with the same memories.
My glasses have Transition lenses, and automatically become prescription sunglasses when I'm in sunlight.
When I get Glass or some equivalent, I expect that it would be a recording set of prescription lenses that would automatically become a non-recording set of prescription lenses when required, for instance, by me turning them off. This would not be being an irresponsible jerk.
I've always thought that buying other companies is the first sign that a company has become creatively bankrupt. They now place more faith in the ability of strangers than they do in their own staff (or they'd build a competing product in-house).
The issue isn't that it's an unfamiliar abbreviation, the issue is that the TLA namespace is so horribly cluttered now that CLA could mean any one of between 74 and 85 different things.
This is my response. Getting let off because they can't prove the headset was turned on is dodging the real issue, which is whether or not it should be legal to drive with an augmented reality display active.
Even if it successfully synthesizes, there is no guarantee that it will be in any way an optimal implementation.
However, if it does synthesize into something runnable, then you've just proved an upper bound for the cost of the implementation. If the upper bound is in any way commercially feasible then it's definitely worth optimising.
It's also ill-formed (to the point of being almost meaningless) in the sense that the smallest number of gates for a given algorithm is probably going to be to implement some kind of low-end processor which then runs the algorithm as code.
What they really wanted to ask was "what's the best price/performance option for executing this algorithm, given the following expected parameters and an initial production run size of X".
The engineers were working on a work-for-hire basis, and they knew it. What they get is no different to what an incidental musician or a member of a pub band would get: An hourly wage for their labour.
Musicians who write albums and then publish them, receiving ongoing income, are more analogous to an inventor or a startup company, who design a product and then market that product, making money off the ongoing sales.
The musicians that you refer to, who work for a few years and live the rest of their lives on the royalties from that music, are the equivalent of the guy who invented and popularized the Tetra Pak milk carton.
Oh. Whelp, I've clearly been drinking the koolaid. Thanks.
(They get bonus points in the Licensing of the Press Act for conflating "unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets" with "seditious treasonable Bookes and Pamphlets." Still a staple for those trying to bundle legislation supporting their own interests in with legislation that "everybody should vote for.")
Well yes, money is why companies do things. But wait, let me get this straight - because of copyright law, a company is releasing music to the public that otherwise may never have been released?
Isn't that the entire purpose of copyright law? To encourage the release of artwork? Is this not a perfect example of copyright working as intended?
Slashdot Mirror
Java as we now know it is nothing like the language as it was originally envisaged. It was originally meant to be a high level language for low powered embedded systems.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this. To be fair, it's been years since I used Eclipse, and it's probably improved out of sight (and/or computers being 1000x faster now compensates for the unwieldyness of Java) but last time I did use Eclipse, it was painfully chuggy.
Forcing people to use their real names online in a publicly accessible way is a terrible idea and will scupper your company. Facebook knows this because Google+ was/is arguably a better product, and was taking off fast, until Google started trying to force real names. Overnight, anyone with any kind of privacy concerns stopped using it and, despite Google still trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to ram Google+ down our throats any way it can, it's not really taking off.
They were on display...
In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet...
Stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard!
When you see "learn to be a plumber", you think the simple stuff. Others may think more complex stuff, like soldering copper pipes, determining the correct angle of decline for waste pipes, repacking a shutoff valve, and other things that, not being a plumber myself, I do not have the knowledge to even consider as something a plumber would do.
Exactly. But imagine if we all took a semester of "basic plumbing" in high school, and it introduced just a smattering of all of these different tasks, with enough info to at least let us know how much we *don't* know about plumbing. Regardless of how much we used that knowledge in future, we'd at least have a basic appreciation for the depth and breadth of plumbing as a profession.
I think "teaching everyone to code" would be pointless in terms of everyone acquiring basic programming ability. It's just not something that most people are mentally equipped to do with any degree of fluency. But I think it would be an excellent idea for high school to include a programming course, for two reasons: First, that then the students with an undiscovered aptitude for programming would be able to start learning earlier, and so be able to make more use of their gift. And second, so that the majority of people have enough of an idea what "being good at computer" actually means, and so come away with an appreciation of just exactly how complex software development really IS. I think this would help a lot with the situation where non-technical types (whether clients, managers, shareholders, whatever) know so little about the domain that they just assume it's trivial.
What does "the original consciousness" even mean?
If you're completely unconscious, then when you wake up, you aren't "the same" consciousness because continuity has been broken. You're merely another 'you' running on the same hardware with the same memories.
Zing! :)
My glasses have Transition lenses, and automatically become prescription sunglasses when I'm in sunlight.
When I get Glass or some equivalent, I expect that it would be a recording set of prescription lenses that would automatically become a non-recording set of prescription lenses when required, for instance, by me turning them off. This would not be being an irresponsible jerk.
I've always thought that buying other companies is the first sign that a company has become creatively bankrupt. They now place more faith in the ability of strangers than they do in their own staff (or they'd build a competing product in-house).
The issue isn't that it's an unfamiliar abbreviation, the issue is that the TLA namespace is so horribly cluttered now that CLA could mean any one of between 74 and 85 different things.
Write this story. Do it.
Winter is coming.
This is my response. Getting let off because they can't prove the headset was turned on is dodging the real issue, which is whether or not it should be legal to drive with an augmented reality display active.
What were you expecting? Low-Cost Morphing Power Rangers? :P
You've already broken rule one, idiot. Stop telling people things! You're going to regret it!
Quite.
Even if it successfully synthesizes, there is no guarantee that it will be in any way an optimal implementation.
However, if it does synthesize into something runnable, then you've just proved an upper bound for the cost of the implementation. If the upper bound is in any way commercially feasible then it's definitely worth optimising.
It's also ill-formed (to the point of being almost meaningless) in the sense that the smallest number of gates for a given algorithm is probably going to be to implement some kind of low-end processor which then runs the algorithm as code.
What they really wanted to ask was "what's the best price/performance option for executing this algorithm, given the following expected parameters and an initial production run size of X".
Oh man, that stuff. It's like the Time Cube of liquid soap.
No-one will ever prove that any given challenge can't be accomplished.
Except this one.
Maybe.
The engineers were working on a work-for-hire basis, and they knew it. What they get is no different to what an incidental musician or a member of a pub band would get: An hourly wage for their labour.
Musicians who write albums and then publish them, receiving ongoing income, are more analogous to an inventor or a startup company, who design a product and then market that product, making money off the ongoing sales.
The musicians that you refer to, who work for a few years and live the rest of their lives on the royalties from that music, are the equivalent of the guy who invented and popularized the Tetra Pak milk carton.
Oh. Whelp, I've clearly been drinking the koolaid. Thanks.
(They get bonus points in the Licensing of the Press Act for conflating "unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets" with "seditious treasonable Bookes and Pamphlets." Still a staple for those trying to bundle legislation supporting their own interests in with legislation that "everybody should vote for.")
Barring issues with excess fat, sodium etc, is a diet that contains all the necessary micronutrients still an "unhealthy" diet?
You mean back when it was made with actual oranges, which contain Vitamin C?
Well yes, money is why companies do things. But wait, let me get this straight - because of copyright law, a company is releasing music to the public that otherwise may never have been released?
Isn't that the entire purpose of copyright law? To encourage the release of artwork? Is this not a perfect example of copyright working as intended?
...and subprime lending really DID destroy the U.S. economy.