A person's email address is fairly unlikely to be static over the span of their career. Especially in case of researchers who may very well move to other universities (in other countries).
I'm having hard time seeing how there is a greater chance of injury from picking non-resisting people up than from using pepper spray. Some of the people at UC Davis were coughing blood for an hour afterwards (internal bleeding, whee).
Well, I guess the standard police procedure for picking someone up might include smashing their head into the ground a few times or something. But assuming the police use no more violence than necessary (for reasonable definitions of necessary), I don't see just picking the people up and arresting them having greater chance of injury than pepper spray, which is guaranteed to cause injuries (just of varying severity - from irritation up to death in case of an unlucky asthmatic victim).
To keep a reasonable guarantueed price with apps, you'd have to set an inflated asking price, which probably isn't possible as I'd expect Amazon to demand the lowest/equal price around. Even if it was possible it would cripple regular sales of you app.
If you'd RTFA, you would have noticed that Amazon demands the lowest/equal it's ever been sold for. And then you get paid 20% of that.
Of course there's nothing in it that you can't do in C, seeing as both are Turing complete. But many of F#'s features are such that you'd need to reimplement major parts of F# to do the same thing in C. For example, the type system, pattern matching or partial function application. And you still wouldn't get them at language syntax level.
There are no optimizations in any HLL that can't be done in C, provided you reimplement the HLL's runtime in C. The point being that you're not going to be able to apply runtime optimization techniques without a high level runtime. At which point the question is, do you really want to code $HLL in C or in $HLL?
Language is indeed a part of culture - it shapes how a person thinks. It's pretty difficult to think about things you have no words for. On the other hand, writing is just a serialised form of a language and for most languages, does not contain different concepts than the aurally serialised form. So different written forms of a language would be mostly* equivalent.
*Things like artistic calligraphy and puns aren't likely to remain the same from one writing system to another, though.
Multiple workspaces? You have me there. Then again, I have never heard most people wish for that.
Those people probably have never used a multiple workspace -capable window manager. The benefits only show when you've adjusted to having a large number of open windows being feasible. Once you do keep enough windows open that it's not sensible to keep them in a single workspace, you can organize them by purpose. For example, on my work computer my default configuration is email and browser in one workspace, IDE and other dev tools in another, testing environment in a third and a fourth workspace that gets used for whatever tasks I don't want cluttering up the other workspaces but aren't big enough things to create a new dedicated workspace for.
Now, I could make do without multiple workspaces, but then my single workspace would be somewhat cluttered and I'd have to close programs I'm not constantly using to keep it from getting really cluttered. And that adds overhead as I then have to reopen the programs and either wait for them to restore their state - if they even can - or manually set them back up.
One can write a Haskell version of factorial that looks pretty much the same as the F# version:
factorial:: Num a => a -> a factorial n =
case n of
0 -> 1
_ -> n * factorial (n - 1)
This contains similar pattern matching expression, even using the same match-anything-pattern-keyword '_' and some additional polymorphism syntax in the type signature. The type signature could be left out and what's shown is what the compiler would then automatically derive.
That is a very good point. I have always wondered about that with Nuclear that if the knowledge was somehow lost regarding the need to proactively contain nuclear waste, this waste could eventually end up causing widespread environmental disaster and actually the DNA destruction of life itself. Nuclear waste, what makes it particularly horrific is the radiation literally blasts DNA to peices, no life will survive that.
part of the reason the US wanted to store this stuff in a central location was that by putting it all in one spot it is much easier to maintain and monitor, and if it did leak the mess would be centralised at one place. The abondment of the plan to store it there was nothing more than political posturing as it is far more dangerous to leave the stuff where it is now.
You are so incredibly wrong that it's not really possible to explain to you without taking a few books worth of words. But to start with everything you seem to know about molecular biology, radioactivity and nuclear waste is more or less wrong.
You're working on biased data. All of the Roman stuff still standing is grossly overspecced. Everything they did not overspec has fallen apart by now. We could build to last as long if we wanted to, it is merely that we choose not to (because it would be more expensive - this may not be a good choice, but it would be difficult to convince the accountants of that). It is our knowledge of physics that lets us decide how sturdy we want to build.
"Natural elements", "Possible elements", WTF? And how much are you willing to be on, for example, element 114 never having been created in a supernova?
Congratulations, you reclassified most objects in the solar system as planets. For example, consider any comet. What's it in orbit around? How does that differ from Pluto, since you're only considering which other object it's in orbit around?
Functional purity makes I/O a major mess. Monads are complex, unintuitive and unwieldy. I think I spent over one month only trying to warp my mind around that. It does not help that Haskellers keep repeating that "monads are really simple", there is a reason why they are the most asked-about topic in newsgroups.
I'm suspecting that's because they really are quite simple. You can think of monads in general as a way to formally define types of computation that may have a context in which they operate. There're error monads like Maybe, where the computation may fail at a step, aborting the rest of the computation. State monads like State, where the computation has access to implicit state. Non-determinism in List, which computes all possible results. And IO, which is a bit like a state monad where your state is the whole of the rest of the world. Try reading Real World Haskell? The text is available online.
The worst thing is the Haskell community's coding standards. Single-letter variables are common, and I actually read some delirious rant about this being necessary "because it's so abstract you cannot name it". If it's so abstract you cannot name it, you abstracted too much, or you don't understand what you are doing. There seems to be a proliferation of operators, since Haskell foolishly allows to define new ones, even completely useless ones like $. Coding function with undocumented one-liners seems to be considered a virtue.
OK. Let's take the simple example of map: -- | Gives the list obtained by applying the given function to each element of the given list. map:: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] map f (e:es) = f e : map f es map _ [] = []
What longer variable names would you use there and would those really make it more understandable?
Presence of one-letter variable names generally indicates that the function doesn't care about the internal details of the value in that variable. That could be due to either the function being polymoprhic (where it can't access the internals) or operating on simple types like numbers (where there are no internal details to care about).
$ is occasionally handy when creating a partial application. For example: fs:: [a -> b] v:: a map ($ v) fs
That's in addition to cutting out extra parens when you're applying multiple functions: f1 (f2 (f3 (f4 v)))
vs. f1 $ f2 $ f3 $ f4 v
One of the places where custom operators are very usefull is with combinator libraries. Making the most commonly used low-level combinators operators helps keep the code using the combinators reasonably short and thus more readable than if they were bloodyLongNamesFullySpelledOut.
Because antibiotics are given constantly, regardless of whether the animal is sick or not. Which is an excellent way of making the antibiotic in question useless due to immunization of the bacteria.
The situations are largely different in Iran currently vs America during the independence. And there is also the very important matter of US having interfered with Iran before, with negative consequences for the people in general. So interfering in favor of the opposition would pretty much kill their support from the general public - in Iran, US-backing means US-puppet and they have no reason to believe it would be different this time. Hell, probably the best way for US to support the opposition would be to declare support for the government, though how you'd do that and still be believable I have no idea.
The duration has been retroactively extended whenever any works are about to fall out of scope. So it effectively never ends. Moreover, even if the duration were not to be extended anymore, from the point of an actual human it never ends, since the duration is longer than a human lifetime already.
Slashdot Mirror
A person's email address is fairly unlikely to be static over the span of their career. Especially in case of researchers who may very well move to other universities (in other countries).
It raises the question. To beg a question is a different thing.
I'm having hard time seeing how there is a greater chance of injury from picking non-resisting people up than from using pepper spray. Some of the people at UC Davis were coughing blood for an hour afterwards (internal bleeding, whee).
Well, I guess the standard police procedure for picking someone up might include smashing their head into the ground a few times or something. But assuming the police use no more violence than necessary (for reasonable definitions of necessary), I don't see just picking the people up and arresting them having greater chance of injury than pepper spray, which is guaranteed to cause injuries (just of varying severity - from irritation up to death in case of an unlucky asthmatic victim).
To keep a reasonable guarantueed price with apps, you'd have to set an inflated asking price, which probably isn't possible as I'd expect Amazon to demand the lowest/equal price around. Even if it was possible it would cripple regular sales of you app.
If you'd RTFA, you would have noticed that Amazon demands the lowest/equal it's ever been sold for. And then you get paid 20% of that.
Situationally advantageous is all that's really needed to make the change stick in an evolutionary branch.
Of course there's nothing in it that you can't do in C, seeing as both are Turing complete. But many of F#'s features are such that you'd need to reimplement major parts of F# to do the same thing in C. For example, the type system, pattern matching or partial function application. And you still wouldn't get them at language syntax level.
There are no optimizations in any HLL that can't be done in C, provided you reimplement the HLL's runtime in C. The point being that you're not going to be able to apply runtime optimization techniques without a high level runtime. At which point the question is, do you really want to code $HLL in C or in $HLL?
Language is indeed a part of culture - it shapes how a person thinks. It's pretty difficult to think about things you have no words for. On the other hand, writing is just a serialised form of a language and for most languages, does not contain different concepts than the aurally serialised form. So different written forms of a language would be mostly* equivalent.
*Things like artistic calligraphy and puns aren't likely to remain the same from one writing system to another, though.
Multiple workspaces? You have me there. Then again, I have never heard most people wish for that.
Those people probably have never used a multiple workspace -capable window manager. The benefits only show when you've adjusted to having a large number of open windows being feasible. Once you do keep enough windows open that it's not sensible to keep them in a single workspace, you can organize them by purpose. For example, on my work computer my default configuration is email and browser in one workspace, IDE and other dev tools in another, testing environment in a third and a fourth workspace that gets used for whatever tasks I don't want cluttering up the other workspaces but aren't big enough things to create a new dedicated workspace for.
Now, I could make do without multiple workspaces, but then my single workspace would be somewhat cluttered and I'd have to close programs I'm not constantly using to keep it from getting really cluttered. And that adds overhead as I then have to reopen the programs and either wait for them to restore their state - if they even can - or manually set them back up.
It was named by a marketroid, as big business-related things usually are.
I see you are successfully ignoring the stealth aspect. Or maybe you think an employer has the right to spy on employees? (note spy vs monitor)
Because using the camera is in fact using the patent. Read the article for details of how this happens to be so.
One can write a Haskell version of factorial that looks pretty much the same as the F# version:
This contains similar pattern matching expression, even using the same match-anything-pattern-keyword '_' and some additional polymorphism syntax in the type signature. The type signature could be left out and what's shown is what the compiler would then automatically derive.
That is a very good point. I have always wondered about that with Nuclear that if the knowledge was somehow lost regarding the need to proactively contain nuclear waste, this waste could eventually end up causing widespread environmental disaster and actually the DNA destruction of life itself. Nuclear waste, what makes it particularly horrific is the radiation literally blasts DNA to peices, no life will survive that.
part of the reason the US wanted to store this stuff in a central location was that by putting it all in one spot it is much easier to maintain and monitor, and if it did leak the mess would be centralised at one place. The abondment of the plan to store it there was nothing more than political posturing as it is far more dangerous to leave the stuff where it is now.
You are so incredibly wrong that it's not really possible to explain to you without taking a few books worth of words. But to start with everything you seem to know about molecular biology, radioactivity and nuclear waste is more or less wrong.
They could turn those AK-47s that are so easy to come by on the assholes that are fucking up their country.
The warlord is dead! Long live the warlord!
You're working on biased data. All of the Roman stuff still standing is grossly overspecced. Everything they did not overspec has fallen apart by now. We could build to last as long if we wanted to, it is merely that we choose not to (because it would be more expensive - this may not be a good choice, but it would be difficult to convince the accountants of that). It is our knowledge of physics that lets us decide how sturdy we want to build.
Okular. Now mod parent down -1 Ignorant.
"Natural elements", "Possible elements", WTF? And how much are you willing to be on, for example, element 114 never having been created in a supernova?
They don't. All adults have the right to vote, regardless of criminal status (including people in prison at the time of the vote).
Congratulations, you reclassified most objects in the solar system as planets. For example, consider any comet. What's it in orbit around? How does that differ from Pluto, since you're only considering which other object it's in orbit around?
Functional purity makes I/O a major mess. Monads are complex, unintuitive and unwieldy. I think I spent over one month only trying to warp my mind around that. It does not help that Haskellers keep repeating that "monads are really simple", there is a reason why they are the most asked-about topic in newsgroups.
I'm suspecting that's because they really are quite simple. You can think of monads in general as a way to formally define types of computation that may have a context in which they operate. There're error monads like Maybe, where the computation may fail at a step, aborting the rest of the computation. State monads like State, where the computation has access to implicit state. Non-determinism in List, which computes all possible results. And IO, which is a bit like a state monad where your state is the whole of the rest of the world.
Try reading Real World Haskell? The text is available online.
The worst thing is the Haskell community's coding standards. Single-letter variables are common, and I actually read some delirious rant about this being necessary "because it's so abstract you cannot name it". If it's so abstract you cannot name it, you abstracted too much, or you don't understand what you are doing. There seems to be a proliferation of operators, since Haskell foolishly allows to define new ones, even completely useless ones like $. Coding function with undocumented one-liners seems to be considered a virtue.
OK. Let's take the simple example of map: :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
-- | Gives the list obtained by applying the given function to each element of the given list.
map
map f (e:es) = f e : map f es
map _ [] = []
What longer variable names would you use there and would those really make it more understandable?
Presence of one-letter variable names generally indicates that the function doesn't care about the internal details of the value in that variable. That could be due to either the function being polymoprhic (where it can't access the internals) or operating on simple types like numbers (where there are no internal details to care about).
$ is occasionally handy when creating a partial application. For example: :: [a -> b] :: a
fs
v
map ($ v) fs
That's in addition to cutting out extra parens when you're applying multiple functions:
f1 (f2 (f3 (f4 v)))
vs.
f1 $ f2 $ f3 $ f4 v
One of the places where custom operators are very usefull is with combinator libraries. Making the most commonly used low-level combinators operators helps keep the code using the combinators reasonably short and thus more readable than if they were bloodyLongNamesFullySpelledOut.
Because antibiotics are given constantly, regardless of whether the animal is sick or not. Which is an excellent way of making the antibiotic in question useless due to immunization of the bacteria.
The situations are largely different in Iran currently vs America during the independence. And there is also the very important matter of US having interfered with Iran before, with negative consequences for the people in general. So interfering in favor of the opposition would pretty much kill their support from the general public - in Iran, US-backing means US-puppet and they have no reason to believe it would be different this time. Hell, probably the best way for US to support the opposition would be to declare support for the government, though how you'd do that and still be believable I have no idea.
Different trajectories and velocities relative to Earth.
The duration has been retroactively extended whenever any works are about to fall out of scope. So it effectively never ends. Moreover, even if the duration were not to be extended anymore, from the point of an actual human it never ends, since the duration is longer than a human lifetime already.