Wasn't there a story not too long back about a community co-op ISP that was sued/shutdown by one of the big broadband providers for, essentially, providing broadband to their residents when aforementioned big-broadband-provider refused to provide the broadband themselves?
Billions of years of evolution managed to produce us, human beings, along with all other animals, plants, bugs, bacteria, viruses, etc. That same process, that has made an organism so complex as a human being, still hasn't produced a virus that has wiped us out. What makes you think we can do better?
The problem is that it is usually friends or family that ask and I have a strict no-business policy when it comes to that group. Either I do it for free or I don't do it at all. At best, I'll tell them I expect dinner, baked goods, help with some home project, etc. For all people who aren't friends or close family, my advice usually ends at "buy the 3 year warranty."
Are they actually filling the shelves with them? I have never seen any of these at the BestBuy's I've been to (granted, this is in Canada). I've also bought a PS3 fairly recently (from BestBuy).
Releasing a new spec every 6 months sounds great. However, many web developers are still supporting the nearly-decade-old IE6! Keeping a site consistent (and working) across all browsers, right now, with just HTML 4 is incredibly time-consuming. Can you imagine if we had to support 20 different versions of a spec, just to ensure it works in every possible incantation of browser!
I'm all in favor of Google, Apple and Firefox working out the standards themselves. HTML should update twice yearly, just like Ubuntu.
It is also a fantastic way to actually see what works. Essentially, we are seeing a big beta test of the HTML5 spec. No one is going to go out and build a HTML5 dependent web site, but lots of folks are building in enhancements for browsers with support. It helps ensure what makes it into the spec is what people are actually building sites with and what user's are actually using, rather than simply what the workgroup thinks people would like (or what is in their interests, for whatever reasons).
For now. Who knows, may be a certain amount of commercials watched per hour of TV will be required in the future. With current tech (DVR/on-demand TV, facial recognition, eye tracking, etc.) and legal precedences, it really isn't as far out as it seems. "You want to get up and get a beer? That's OK, we'll just pause this commercial for you until we detect that we have your attention again."
I would have been surprised had I not worked for a nuclear power plant before. I was surprised when I found out many of their computers were decades old. They've even had a couple of museums asking them if they could buy equipment off them, not realizing it was still in use.
Of course, their motto is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. When it comes to critical systems, old and known to work is better than new and unproven.
You think that's bad. I live in Canada, a market that is far behind the states in terms of movie rental options. Blockbuster Canada should have seen their U.S. counterparts continual failure as an opportunity to invest in the streaming market in Canada. Instead they focused on their brick-n-mortar stores. Now Netflix has finally moved into Canada. It was good knowing you Blockbuster Canada.
What's worse, the reason Wikileaks is supposedly dangerous is because of the intel it provides to the enemy overseas. However, what the MPAA is proposing that the government could use ACTA to block Wikileaks in America, because it's dangerous. So, what danger does Wikileaks present to the American public then?
I guess so. All software is simply a really big number. The fact that the number makes fancy GUIs, or let's you watch a movie is what matters in the courts, I think.
Yeah, that's the really nifty bit. However, I've heard that facebook is basically putting up servers as fast as they can build them. Distributed or not, it'll take a lot of server power to match facebook. Certainly possible though, and I hope it catches on.
Also, in a lot of other countries arts degrees really aren't an option. If you are going to university, you are likely going to be an engineer or a doctor.
The problem is that most people don't really care about something being open source and, unfortunately, these people usually make up the majority of the friends of people who do care. In other words, I'll use whatever everyone else is using.
It would have to run the pointer through a one-way hash. Or store extra information for each object. Either way, there's a cost to generating and storing the hash code, which seems silly when you're going to stick it right into a normal hash table (which isn't exactly the fastest data structure in existence).
Yes, but it is a small cost and, as with all things, would have to be weighed against the benefit, which I think is worth it. Also, a hash table is quite often the best, performance-wise, data structure for many problems. The only other real option (for generic data structures) is a balanced tree, which would still require something like the hash code function. Considering the alternative is often just an array you search through linearly, I don't think a hash would be all that bad;)
Slow because the JavaScript code needs to do at least one comparison and branch on every lookup. (This is in addition to the native comparison and branch done by the native hash table!)
As always, all data structures demand a cost. Expecting something for free is crazy. The O(1) expected cost of a hash is still better than the O(log n) cost of a tree, or the O(n) cost of an array (which is what you currently have to resort to). I would love a single branch and comparison.
Leaky because the bucket has to hold onto the object (which is ok in some situations but not in others).
Yes, but the "other situations" are an entirely different beast, demanding direct language support. I think that is a different problem worth discussing on its own.
Difficult to test because usually the first item in the bucket will be the one you want, but sometimes it won't.
Sorry, I still don't see how this is hard to test. If I was testing a hash, one of my tests would definitely be with 2 objects that produce the same hash code.
A moving garbage collector would need to keep extra information around, because a hash-of-a-pointer changes when the object's location changes.
Good point, though that just means you don't use the address of the pointer; though clearly this folds back to your first point.
All this said, direct language support for an object->values map would solve my problem just as well. Having a weak version would be fantastic too.
Here's the thing though; collisions are OK. Why would an implementation that doesn't give away sensitive information be slow? I don't understand why buckets make the code slow, leaky, or difficult to test. The data structure (we are talking about a Hash here) has been around for decades and there are tons of great reference implementations if you need one. I also don't understand why a GC would have to keep extra information for an object whose hash code method was called. It being called in no way implies that we wish to retain this object; that's what references are for. If it is stored in a bucket in a hash, then that problem is already solved for us. Otherwise, it is a programmer error to presume that the object should still exist; or in any way be retrievable. That said, weak references and "WeakMap"s certainly are a feature that needs to be supported by the language itself. However, I fail to see how this is the best way to solve a problem that doesn't actually require weak references to begin with.
In all honesty, the lack of actual real "object ID"s is one of the most annoying features of Javascript to me. Not that I want to see an object's "address" or something, but I just want something similar to Java's hashCode function (ie. required for all objects). As it stands, there is no good generic hash function for a Javascript object (and most toString()s return "[object Object]"). Checking to see if an object is in a set of objects will require an O(n) search, unless the user can provide some sane hash or comparison function, or you require the object itself to implement a sane hash or comparison method; both these require some limits on the type of object being used.
No, it's just different. Javascript is the C of dynamic languages. Ruby or Python, like, C# or Java, provide not just a language chalk-full of features, but also an environment with tons of built-in libraries. Javascript, by itself, is pretty bare, but its power comes from its simplicity (much like C). I like C and Javascript because, as languages, there really isn't a whole lot to them. The complexity comes from everything built on top of it (including other languages). You can make C or Javascript as simple or as complex as needed for your project.
A large store near the University I went to had an agreement with the University student council. They agreed to hire mostly students from the U to work there, but the students could only work for 2 terms (8 months), then they got canned. Most of the time, this was seen as a win-win. Lots of students got some cash and some work experience they could put on a resume and the store got cheap labour. During my time at school though, the student workers "went on strike" over this practice, claiming it was unfair, etc. The irony is that they wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place if their predecessors hadn't been canned first.
I like to think that most people go into these types of work environments knowing what'll happen in X amount of time. The idea is to use that time wisely, gain some experience, and get out before you get canned. My wife was at a similar job right out of University. Instead of waiting out her 3 years and complaining at the end of it, she excelled at her job and got to know people in the department she wanted to work in. Within a year she had moved to that department (and got a hefty raise with it), and shortly after that was hired full-time.
One of my profs who published a successful textbook did indeed get pressured by the publisher to add, as he put it, "a couple of pages," so they could publish a new version. He refused. That said, many of my professors would give page references and homework questions for the last 2 or 3 revisions of the textbook, not just the most recent.
No. Kids, even kids with ADHD, like to socialize. Kids with severe ADHD just can't do it though. They can't stay focused to play a full game of tag or something with a group of kids, or even have a conversation. Pretending the kid with no friends prefers it that way is just wishful thinking on your part.
I think there was a story here a short while back where a Canadian judge ruled that just having the picture in your cache doesn't make you a criminal. I think the reasoning was that a cached photo was not enough to prove intent, which is a big part of most charges.
Yet I'm still more than just a complicated chemical reaction, billions of years in the making. Our "self awareness" is not something that can be explained away with current science. Yes, as an outside observer looking in at everyone else, it makes perfect sense; humans (and all animals) are just complicated machines, a bunch of inputs and outputs controlled by a lump of grey matter. But, there is still something there that disconnects you from everyone else; trapped in your head for your ~80 years. I'm not saying this is a soul, but calling people childish, who are merely trying to name something we clearly don't understand, is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't there a story not too long back about a community co-op ISP that was sued/shutdown by one of the big broadband providers for, essentially, providing broadband to their residents when aforementioned big-broadband-provider refused to provide the broadband themselves?
Billions of years of evolution managed to produce us, human beings, along with all other animals, plants, bugs, bacteria, viruses, etc. That same process, that has made an organism so complex as a human being, still hasn't produced a virus that has wiped us out. What makes you think we can do better?
The problem is that it is usually friends or family that ask and I have a strict no-business policy when it comes to that group. Either I do it for free or I don't do it at all. At best, I'll tell them I expect dinner, baked goods, help with some home project, etc. For all people who aren't friends or close family, my advice usually ends at "buy the 3 year warranty."
Are they actually filling the shelves with them? I have never seen any of these at the BestBuy's I've been to (granted, this is in Canada). I've also bought a PS3 fairly recently (from BestBuy).
Releasing a new spec every 6 months sounds great. However, many web developers are still supporting the nearly-decade-old IE6! Keeping a site consistent (and working) across all browsers, right now, with just HTML 4 is incredibly time-consuming. Can you imagine if we had to support 20 different versions of a spec, just to ensure it works in every possible incantation of browser!
I'm all in favor of Google, Apple and Firefox working out the standards themselves. HTML should update twice yearly, just like Ubuntu.
Who do you think the committee is made up of?
It is also a fantastic way to actually see what works. Essentially, we are seeing a big beta test of the HTML5 spec. No one is going to go out and build a HTML5 dependent web site, but lots of folks are building in enhancements for browsers with support. It helps ensure what makes it into the spec is what people are actually building sites with and what user's are actually using, rather than simply what the workgroup thinks people would like (or what is in their interests, for whatever reasons).
For now. Who knows, may be a certain amount of commercials watched per hour of TV will be required in the future. With current tech (DVR/on-demand TV, facial recognition, eye tracking, etc.) and legal precedences, it really isn't as far out as it seems. "You want to get up and get a beer? That's OK, we'll just pause this commercial for you until we detect that we have your attention again."
I would have been surprised had I not worked for a nuclear power plant before. I was surprised when I found out many of their computers were decades old. They've even had a couple of museums asking them if they could buy equipment off them, not realizing it was still in use.
Of course, their motto is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. When it comes to critical systems, old and known to work is better than new and unproven.
You think that's bad. I live in Canada, a market that is far behind the states in terms of movie rental options. Blockbuster Canada should have seen their U.S. counterparts continual failure as an opportunity to invest in the streaming market in Canada. Instead they focused on their brick-n-mortar stores. Now Netflix has finally moved into Canada. It was good knowing you Blockbuster Canada.
I'm happily streaming music from Last.fm for $3/m in Canada. I recommend it too.
What's worse, the reason Wikileaks is supposedly dangerous is because of the intel it provides to the enemy overseas. However, what the MPAA is proposing that the government could use ACTA to block Wikileaks in America, because it's dangerous. So, what danger does Wikileaks present to the American public then?
I guess so. All software is simply a really big number. The fact that the number makes fancy GUIs, or let's you watch a movie is what matters in the courts, I think.
Yeah, that's the really nifty bit. However, I've heard that facebook is basically putting up servers as fast as they can build them. Distributed or not, it'll take a lot of server power to match facebook. Certainly possible though, and I hope it catches on.
Also, in a lot of other countries arts degrees really aren't an option. If you are going to university, you are likely going to be an engineer or a doctor.
The problem is that most people don't really care about something being open source and, unfortunately, these people usually make up the majority of the friends of people who do care. In other words, I'll use whatever everyone else is using.
It would have to run the pointer through a one-way hash. Or store extra information for each object. Either way, there's a cost to generating and storing the hash code, which seems silly when you're going to stick it right into a normal hash table (which isn't exactly the fastest data structure in existence).
Yes, but it is a small cost and, as with all things, would have to be weighed against the benefit, which I think is worth it. Also, a hash table is quite often the best, performance-wise, data structure for many problems. The only other real option (for generic data structures) is a balanced tree, which would still require something like the hash code function. Considering the alternative is often just an array you search through linearly, I don't think a hash would be all that bad ;)
Slow because the JavaScript code needs to do at least one comparison and branch on every lookup. (This is in addition to the native comparison and branch done by the native hash table!)
As always, all data structures demand a cost. Expecting something for free is crazy. The O(1) expected cost of a hash is still better than the O(log n) cost of a tree, or the O(n) cost of an array (which is what you currently have to resort to). I would love a single branch and comparison.
Leaky because the bucket has to hold onto the object (which is ok in some situations but not in others).
Yes, but the "other situations" are an entirely different beast, demanding direct language support. I think that is a different problem worth discussing on its own.
Difficult to test because usually the first item in the bucket will be the one you want, but sometimes it won't.
Sorry, I still don't see how this is hard to test. If I was testing a hash, one of my tests would definitely be with 2 objects that produce the same hash code.
A moving garbage collector would need to keep extra information around, because a hash-of-a-pointer changes when the object's location changes.
Good point, though that just means you don't use the address of the pointer; though clearly this folds back to your first point.
All this said, direct language support for an object->values map would solve my problem just as well. Having a weak version would be fantastic too.
Here's the thing though; collisions are OK. Why would an implementation that doesn't give away sensitive information be slow? I don't understand why buckets make the code slow, leaky, or difficult to test. The data structure (we are talking about a Hash here) has been around for decades and there are tons of great reference implementations if you need one. I also don't understand why a GC would have to keep extra information for an object whose hash code method was called. It being called in no way implies that we wish to retain this object; that's what references are for. If it is stored in a bucket in a hash, then that problem is already solved for us. Otherwise, it is a programmer error to presume that the object should still exist; or in any way be retrievable. That said, weak references and "WeakMap"s certainly are a feature that needs to be supported by the language itself. However, I fail to see how this is the best way to solve a problem that doesn't actually require weak references to begin with.
In all honesty, the lack of actual real "object ID"s is one of the most annoying features of Javascript to me. Not that I want to see an object's "address" or something, but I just want something similar to Java's hashCode function (ie. required for all objects). As it stands, there is no good generic hash function for a Javascript object (and most toString()s return "[object Object]"). Checking to see if an object is in a set of objects will require an O(n) search, unless the user can provide some sane hash or comparison function, or you require the object itself to implement a sane hash or comparison method; both these require some limits on the type of object being used.
No, it's just different. Javascript is the C of dynamic languages. Ruby or Python, like, C# or Java, provide not just a language chalk-full of features, but also an environment with tons of built-in libraries. Javascript, by itself, is pretty bare, but its power comes from its simplicity (much like C). I like C and Javascript because, as languages, there really isn't a whole lot to them. The complexity comes from everything built on top of it (including other languages). You can make C or Javascript as simple or as complex as needed for your project.
A large store near the University I went to had an agreement with the University student council. They agreed to hire mostly students from the U to work there, but the students could only work for 2 terms (8 months), then they got canned. Most of the time, this was seen as a win-win. Lots of students got some cash and some work experience they could put on a resume and the store got cheap labour. During my time at school though, the student workers "went on strike" over this practice, claiming it was unfair, etc. The irony is that they wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place if their predecessors hadn't been canned first.
I like to think that most people go into these types of work environments knowing what'll happen in X amount of time. The idea is to use that time wisely, gain some experience, and get out before you get canned. My wife was at a similar job right out of University. Instead of waiting out her 3 years and complaining at the end of it, she excelled at her job and got to know people in the department she wanted to work in. Within a year she had moved to that department (and got a hefty raise with it), and shortly after that was hired full-time.
One of my profs who published a successful textbook did indeed get pressured by the publisher to add, as he put it, "a couple of pages," so they could publish a new version. He refused. That said, many of my professors would give page references and homework questions for the last 2 or 3 revisions of the textbook, not just the most recent.
No. Kids, even kids with ADHD, like to socialize. Kids with severe ADHD just can't do it though. They can't stay focused to play a full game of tag or something with a group of kids, or even have a conversation. Pretending the kid with no friends prefers it that way is just wishful thinking on your part.
I think there was a story here a short while back where a Canadian judge ruled that just having the picture in your cache doesn't make you a criminal. I think the reasoning was that a cached photo was not enough to prove intent, which is a big part of most charges.
Yet I'm still more than just a complicated chemical reaction, billions of years in the making. Our "self awareness" is not something that can be explained away with current science. Yes, as an outside observer looking in at everyone else, it makes perfect sense; humans (and all animals) are just complicated machines, a bunch of inputs and outputs controlled by a lump of grey matter. But, there is still something there that disconnects you from everyone else; trapped in your head for your ~80 years. I'm not saying this is a soul, but calling people childish, who are merely trying to name something we clearly don't understand, is silly.
I think the idea is for the authors to get more money on a sale of their book, rather than making the e-books cheaper.