If you want performance, platform independence, and less development time use a VM or JIT compiled language.
Look at performance critical applications: High profile web sites, User Customizable Modules, Super Computer projects, data base integration, etc. Any time performance is high on the list people pick Java, Lua, Lisp, Pascal, PHP, Perl, Python and sometimes JavaScript. Platform independent (byte-code) deployment is the only feasible choice. The most expensive part of a project is its development time. Using a language that reduces this essential.
One thing that VM byte-code interpreters and just in time (JIT) compilers give is the ability to tune the algorithm based on real execution profiling for multiple hardware platforms, without additional software rewrites. If you compile to machine code at some point you will run into language implementation decisions that the naive coder's control, and you will hit a wall because they could never imagine all future platforms.
The computing field changes at an accelerating rate, now with ARM, x64, and even newer x86 chips, or even newer compilers on the same hardware, newly compiled code runs faster than the old binary you build 5 years ago. It is folly to produce software that is not portable to future hardware. This means more work on the part of the platform implementers, but the gain is significant because every program benefits when you upgrade the platform without having to spend development money on a per project basis. Centralized improvements give better distributed results.
If other things like program execution speed are important (they rarely are, most frequent bottlenecks are IO latency -- even in video decoding) then use a native language interface to a compiled language like C (+ Assembly), which nearly all VM languages have support for. This allows you to take advantage of the ease of modification and make the best of programmer time, without sacrificing the ability to fine tune a small processor intensive section (for each targeted environment). Compiled languages may be faster once, but one size does not fit all -- And one set of machine code instructions is rarely fastest for all platforms, even when it's the same platform (x86 compiled for a Generic is slower than AMD or Intel specific targeted code).
HAHA -- Sure. Hey GCC complies FORTRAN, and a slew of other "languages" -- What about giving Borland and Microsoft a chance at these "tests" too? I mean, if we're testing a language in TFA, shouldn't we use a variety of runtime libraries and compilers in order to find the real "average" performance?
You jest, but what they've tested here is not a language, but a compiler and a runtime.
As someone who writes compliers, I can tell you that the language is just syntax and form. The only "performance" test you can do on a damned language is to see how fast it is to code something. Here's a basic BASIC example.
PRINT "Retarded Test is Retarded."
C:
puts( "Retarded Test is Retarded." );
Java:
System.out.println( "Retarded Test is Retarded." );
C++
std::cout << "Retarded Test is Retarded." << std::endl;
Out of all of these languages, BASIC has the most "performance" in terms of simplicity, key presses, parsing, number of symbols / tokens, etc. (for this test).
What's to keep all of these languages from to compiling (JIT for interpreted/VM languages) the above source codes down to the EXACT SAME sequence of machine code instructions?? NOTHING!!!!!!! Is BASIC now just as fast as C++ or Assembly Language for that matter?
Point being: Languages have little to do with CPU performance of compiled / executing code -- They didn't even test the damn C++ code in more than one COMPILER, which is where your real optimization happens. Seriously, I wrote a language that's a subset of JavaScript that can optionally compile to machine code, and is faster than the exact same valid JavaScript code running in your web browser. Comparable code in G++ is slower, does this now make the JavaScript language faster than C++ ???
Nothing to see here folks. They didn't test shit. If the two input programs perform the same tasks and produce the same output / results, but are simply described in two different languages, then what's to keep any sufficiently advanced optimizing compiler from generating the EXACT SAME machine code? NOTHING. Languages are how you describe to the complier what you want to do, it's the compiler / interpretor that is responsible for "CPU" performance.
Programming should be a college-level course, for those who want to go into the field.
Negative. I flipped an Apple IIe disk upside down on accident and began coding at the age of 8, in elementary school. Teacher was smart enough to find me a couple books on BASIC, and fortunately my step-father had a home computer -- MS DOS came with MS Quick BASIC, and a few simple games. Taking apart video games such as NIBBLES.BAS and GORILLAS.BAS jump started my programming career.
For Christmas I got an expensive Borland C complier (on 24 5.25" floppies) -- I was selling software (shareware) by the time I was 12 (2D Doom CAD programs -- SuperVGA! -- Level & Savegame editors). Wrote my own BBS software and ran it from 3 phone lines. PUT MYSELF THROUGH COLLEGE WITHOUT LOANS.
Though I also prefer a simple syntax highlighting/folding code editor,
I'll just say this: It is a right of passage among many Perl programmers to implement your own web templating language...
--
^-- A wise man learns from the mistakes of others... Thus, a Grammar Nazi who's re-implementing a CMS is the most wise guy.
Fuck off newb. 4channers and others frequently perform "Google Bombs" to make results rise to the top that are completely bogus. All digital "evidence" tracking / ranking systems can be gamed. If the recent spree of hacking events by script kiddies has taught you nothing -- you are truly a moron. Hint: Digital Reality is Malleable.
I hope it's your innocent balls that are nailed to a cross over fraudulent rants posted by others, implicating you in some heinous crime.
The problem is that when you are targeted as a suspect you have to rely on the intelligence of your dumb ass peers to find you innocent. Ask Joe Six Pack what an IP address is. Then, and only then, can you make these retarded statements with a clear conscience.
P.S. Lookup "Argument from authority". Then STFU for the rest of your moronic life.
While I was still teaching myself to code I worked as an electrician. I dated a girl who had horrible wiring -- Someone had ran lamp cord (the cheesy thin wires for chain hung fixtures) in the walls, and had far too many circuits per breaker; Instead of adding more breakers someone had installed larger breakers. The branch circuit wire sizes were not rated to carry the loads that the breaker was capable of providing, and thus that the circuits were capable of drawing.
Only being a Journeyman Electrician I informed her I couldn't do the work for her without a permit, and only a master electrician could pull the city permit. She needed to call an electrical contractor. I could not legally and would not otherwise help her (to do so would jeopardize my Journeyman's license), even though the house was a fire hazard. I refused to even sleep at her house, and even offered to help her pay for a portion of the repair cost if need be.
She broke up with me a week later, and two weeks after that her house burned down. I became a prime suspect for arson and attempted murder.
I was pressured into taking a polygraph test, and I submitted voluntarily (against my better judgment) -- I did have nothing to hide after all...
After the first few questions I realized there was no way I could "pass". I had wildly varying emotional responses to their questions, and even to the questioning process and machine itself (being a geek/electrician & knowledgeable about physiology, psychology and how such machines worked as well as their inaccuracies). So I broke the test. Each question I would either answer truthfully (attempting to suppress my growing anxiety), or answer truthfully while thinking of some traumatic event -- the death of my childhood friend, or some deed I had done while desperate, homeless and starving...
Thrice was the polygraph machine re-calibrated. Due to my self sabotage and increasing anxiety each test pass progressively produced worse results than the former.
The results were labeled as "inconclusive" due to my apparent trauma and contradictory results for individual answers -- How could I be both lying and truthful on the same damn question multiple times?!
By the end of the tests I was in tears over my unscrupulous methods and breach of core morals, but what choice did I have? Let them believe I even might be guilty? No, I know now I did the most honest thing I could -- I made the machine tell them how bogus it was.
These polygraph machines should be banned -- They are truly a form of cruel and unusual punishment which innocent people are pressured into being exposed to. I see now why refusal would have been a better option, but when it's your turn, you may see why that option didn't seem as good of a choice.
Hint: When the police "like you" for a crime, it can blind them to the evidence that proves you innocent, or another guilty -- The resources of the defense are usually not as formidable as that of the state, and as the saying goes: "Someone must pay"; even if no one is at fault. I mean, they prosecute under the assumption that if you are innocent, you will be found so in court -- It's not the detective's job to make sure you're not the culprit, it's to decide which culprit would most easily jailed for the crime...
Perhaps that's exactly why the hacks are occurring...
It seems like the recent outbreak of high-profile cases of computer break-ins is almost calculated to provoke legislation locking down the internet. First the kill-switch proposal, the announcement by the US military that computer intrusion would be considered an act of war, now a constant drumbeat of reporting in the media about major cracks.
Perhaps the hacks are all just being done by people who don't see how useful such stories are to those who want to assert control over the net, but it would be foolish to think that the "problem-reaction-solution" method has stopped being used by those who are after power, or to discount the possibility that some of this hacking and the publicity it receives is actually being provoked or even orchestrated by those seeking to expand government control over the internet.
Its remarkable how quickly the PATRIOT Act was "created" after 911. Most likely was waiting in a desk drawer waiting for something to polarize the public... Now we have teams of hackers that could literally be anyone, causing security problems across the board, from government, to business, to gamers. Clearly the people will now agree the government must put an end to it all...
Hmm. That reminds me of Snack-Man
on
AI Takes On Pac-Man
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I once got bored of the same old pac-man levels and made a clone called Snack-Man in JavaScript (before canvas, w/ ms paint).
When the levels are always the same, you can make certain optimizations to the AI, but when the levels can change a lot, it does add another layer of complexity. I once trained a neural network for each of the 20 levels of the clone -- the AI was as good as I was, but change the level, and it had to be re-trained.
Looks like Snack-Man it's still being hosted, IIRC, it used to work in Firefox and some version of IE, never did work all the bugs out (hence "epsilon"), oops, looks like I left the enter key = reset ghosts on too. Oh well, I've always used an honor system anyhow (game speed is controllable).
Man, just listen to those crappy MIDI tracks... (brings back memories of Y2K), at least the volume controls still work.
Ah yes, if you paste this into the address bar while paused it turns off the, er, noms, while leaving other sound effects in place... javascript:void(NOM_NOM_NOM_NOM = false);
(I guess I never did upload the version with that option toggle.)
Entering: javascript:void(debug = true);
in the address bar, then using "new game" will show the ghost's "vision" boxes.
Yep, looks like the exponential ghost-point glitch never got fixed either.
Each ghost you eat while they are "scared" doubles the point value of the next ghost you eat. So, all you have to do is keep at least one ghost edible while the others respawn, then eat more diet pills, ghosts & 1ups, and you can max out the score on the second level.
Been so long since I coded any JS... I might try to port this over to Android and give it a face lift.
Oh, back on topic -- It's pretty neat to watch TFA's AI vs AI, but IMHO, even crappy AI is good enough to best most humans.
The first incarnation of my clone used a dynamic heuristic shortest-path algorithm for the smartest ghost instances, and other techniques for the other ghosts, but it really was too hard to be enjoyable for most everyone, and the JS engines circa Y2K were too slow to run the advance AI unless you have a very fast rig. It's still pretty tricky with just "dumb magnetic" attractors -- I even had to add blind spots, and make it so the ghosts never reverse directions (unless they have to) before anyone ever got half way through.
Sometimes fun is more important than clever AI -- I guess in today's very complicated shooters and strategy games the AI would have a much harder time catching up to human opponents, but Pac-Man should be a breeze.
Uhhh - maybe you hadn't noticed, but this IS a republic, rather than a democracy. Have you not noticed that the federal government simply ASSumes that they are justified in waging war against portions of the populace, here at home? Sure, dopeheads are idiots - but you don't imprison idiots on a whim. You certainly don't kill an idiot for running away when you arrive to bust them for smoking a doobie. And, you sure as HELL don't set up corporate prisons to milk those idiots by way of taxpayers.
Democracy? Keep dreaming. When our government stops killing and/or imprisoning people for using natural plants in natural (or unnatural) ways, THEN I'll entertain the idea that we actually have a democracy.
Meanwhile, the provably addictive and habit forming drug Caffeine is in every food dispensary, and no one bats an eye if even young children have a coke and a smile...
iRiver -- The MP3 player that predated the iPod...
You can't own trademark over a single letter prefix, and Apple was not the first do use the i. When e started being used for "electronic" -- email, etc, some people used i instead to signify "Internet" (after that form became substitute for Internetwork, of course); However, The original iPod did not have Internet access, so what does Apple's i prefix mean? Nothing. It's just a prefix so they can use short names like "Cloud", "Pod", "Pad", "Tunes"or "Mac", etc without collisions with other companies and products. Despite the Jobsian spin, the undesirable but necessary prefix was chosen based on its physical appearance: Lowercase "i" is the shortest and thinnest of English letters -- It's meant to be less noticeable, hence the following capital letter that overshadows it.
When you go international with a brand/product name, there's a chance some smaller, less visible companies will have names that collide -- I'm sure Apple has a fund set aside for this instance.
Every time you find an Anonymous person. You cut them apart, with power tools on television. I mean it's all fun and games when you go after pussies who run banks and movie studios in the US but countries like Turkey or Russia's grasp of 'due process' is abstract, at best.
There's going to be a new reality show on tv - 'Pressure Drop', where they just take nerds and kick them out the helicopter.
And I'm ok with that.
Oh come now, we all see through your thinly veiled attempts to prove you are not a leader of Anonymous; Your overly outrageous statements actually support this view.
How do you explain the fact that many Anonymous members claim that they were secretly taking direction from you!?
You will be punished for your crimes against no one in particular!
Burning things is bad. No, seriously, we don't have engines that burn clean enough to not produce pollutants.
I'm aware that creating batteries also produces pollutants, but what about aluminum/ceramic super-capacitors? Reusable, Non toxic, recyclable, self preserving (I've trickled slowly increasing amounts of electricity into 25 year old aluminum/ceramic capacitor circuits to bring them back into operation -- the more you use them, the more stable they are). Surely producing and recycling aluminum capacitors has less of a carbon footprint than all engines burning things all over the world.
I'm aware that by manipulating electro magnetism, you can propel vehicles without producing exhaust pollution of any kind... Can we say that about burning fuels (besides expensive to create hydrogen / oxygen mixtures)?
Don't you think it would be better to have non polluting electric vehicles, so that we can "upgrade" the efficiency of energy production facilities and have all the vehicles take advantage of the improvements immediately (instead of having to replace every vehicle)?
Clearly there are viable alternatives to burning things, the search to find more things to burn is sort of ridiculous to me; It's like discovering the wheel, but not using them and instead just trying to breed a better cart dragger and more durable carts.
Don't get me wrong: I realize that any form of energy harvesting will impact the environment in some way, but surely their are better production means than burning things, especially when the burning is simply to heat water... It seems foolish to harvest the biological chemicals of the top-soils that we need for food production, even by burning the stalks instead of the fruits. I realize not everyone can switch to electron powered vehicles immediately, but to me it seems that this very "difficult to upgrade" problem is why we should be trying to get away from fuel burning engines...
What's so hard to understand about the birthday paradox?!
It's a mathematically provable event. Even given the very minuscule chance that a combinational event will occur, such as RNA/DNA/amino acid chains forming, if you increase the number of chances in parallel the probability quickly tends towards 1.
We found that if you take a bunch of sterilized rocks, water, CO2, Methane, etc (stuff that's here, and great quantities in other places in the universe, even in our own solar system), and zap in with static electricity (lightning, which we know happens elsewhere i.e. Mars has it) a bunch of times amino acids form. (The building blocks of life).
Now let's say there's a very small chance that a small simple strand of RNA could randomly form from a mixture of amino acids subjected to heat and cooling, lightning, and even cosmic radiation. If you have gobs and gobs of amino acids, this greatly increases the chance that life will emerge. If you comprehend the true size of the universe, and the plentiful number of stars, it's damn dear impossible to think that similar planets to our own are not out there. Their very existence also vastly increases the chance that life will form.
I would say, as a living entity, that I'm not very surprised that I'm alive. Rather, I'm surprised that anyone believes the odds that life would emerge cold no be very good without the assistance of a God. To these such people, I say: "I forbid you from using any hashing algorithms beyond MD5" I say, we should force them realize their folly in dismissing the birthday paradox...
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
I know most of you don't like that answer, but its much more sane than arguing for a giant explosion out of nothing, some accidental joining of proteins in primordial soup, and billions of years of accidental gene mutation and natural selection culminating in the world as we know it. Believing in either option requires faith, but believing in God takes less faith than believing in that!
Really, think about it.
Hmm. Not sure if troll. Meh, here goes.
We have evidence of the big bang in the form of cosmic background radiation. The big bang is an interesting anomaly, in that we don't know what caused it (that scares the shit out of me -- how do I know one isn't going to happen anywhere at any time!) However, we also see little bangs that sort of mimic big bang processes (supernovae), and evidence of other strange anomalies such as black holes (which compress and heat things beyond imagination). To me, these evidences lend credence to the big bang theory.
We have experimented by applying heat and electricity to sterilized rocks, minerals, and gases believed to prevalent in our early planetary history, and found amino acids -- The building blocks of life.
By our estimates this planet has been around for approximately 4 billion years, that's a lot of time. It doesn't seem too far fetched to think that chains of amino acids could form, and that those chains of molecules (RNA?) could replicate. It seems reasonable to think that the more sturdy of the replication techniques would naturally yield more than other forms, and that replication may be possible from within the protective, semi-permeable envelope of fatty acids (lipids), and that this may be even more conducive to replication given the increased durability and ability to keep from breaking down in a bit harsher environments.
What does sound ridiculous to me is that a mythical sky wizard was bored of all the nothingness, talked himself into creating a universe out of the nothingness (hmm, big bang?). Got bored (over eons?) with all the predictable rock collisions and stars etc, and manually assembled organic life (through trial and error? over eons?), then got bored with that and created sentient beings (with chemical computers in their heads, via trial and error? -- I mean, lots of other pretty smart chemical computer organisms exist), got bored with them, and abandoned the experiments (for some other great purpose? Perhaps to try again on another planet?).
Yes, to me it seems ridiculous that an all powerful being, possessing the same inquisitive nature as his human creations, would not create control groups, or as much diversity as possible -- I mean, if one planet is dandy, why not billions of worlds of life? (That would be even neater to God, eh? Oh yeah, that's right... I forgot about the "Angels" o_O).
I can't fathom why many believers in God reject the process of evolution -- I mean, If I were a God I would look for some sustainable solution to life procreation and development so I didn't have to spend my whole time doing everything for everyone forever... Perhaps something exactly like evolution -- It seems the simplest way to manufacture "free will" that doesn't require God's constant exertion of power. I myself do not believe a God exists, but if you do, at least give the guy some credit for what he's done!
Seriously, we can not win the drug war. All this is doing around the world id funding these kinds of ppl. Taliban and AQ make loads of money from drugs. So do American gangs.
The only real solution is for America to legalize ALL drugs, and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs. In addition, the production and sale of such is also heavily regulated. A whiff of a connection with ANY gang and you can not do anything. Get caught using illegal drugs? Not a problem. The state provides housing for 5 years. Get caught bringing in, or selling drugs? Again, not a problem 20 years.
That still sounds fucking illegal to me. FYI: It's now legal to brew your own beer and make your own wine (at least in Texas, you know, one of those Mexican border states...) Guess what? The "Microbrewery" industry took off -- Big watered-down (corn/cheap) beer companies are now emulating some of the more flavorful beers. Imports of foreign beers are on the rise as many people discover that variety is the spice of life instead of only drinking X brand.
Since alcohol was decriminalized, I've not seen a single gangster pedaling booze. Since home production and use, and local distribution (within reason) is now permitted so long as you're not selling the brew, the American beer market has been revolutionized, creating opportunities for small business owners and hobbyists alike.
I think recreational drug use should be legal in all forms. Before you rebut, please take a moment to consider how strongly regulated the addictive substance Caffeine is. Caffeine has been proven much more addictive than marijuana, yet no one bats an eye when people give it to children or even babies! (Caffeinated carbonated drinks). For many people the first thing they do each day is partake in a little recreational drug use (Coffee).
It's hard to find a store that sells multiple forms of food, that doesn't also distribute the recreational drug Caffeine in some form. Even in concentrated forms as "Energy Drinks" or pills, it's still acceptable for a minor to purchase. o_O
As a race we've been using "drugs" for thousands of years -- Some might say it's in our nature to do so. Making laws against human nature is folly, and the primary tool of a police state. We are also beings of communication -- now that we have powerful communication machines we've never had more restriction on our abilities to communicate. See: copyright laws. It's all part of the same process...
Decent is a game I wish still existed. Same with Wing Commander. These games (both space flight/combat) were very fun, and Descent had some very fun multiplayer.
Oh, It still exists., now on wiiware...
Since the source code was released, it's been and ported to at least XP (don't know about Vista or 7 -- been a while since I had a MS OSs).
(Wait...What the hell am I doing replying to an Anonymous Coward's wall of text?!)
"If there is a corrupt official taking million dollar bribes from the Russians, maybe that should be public knowledge rather than hidden in a WikiLeaks cable?" he said.
...
"When I was at the White House, I would have loved to have the kind of information that was leaked.
I had top secret clearance and I still couldn't get access to those kinds of memos without a lot of trouble."
...
The professor encouraged CEDA members and chief executive officers to follow the example of WikiLeaks, bypassing the public relations departments and being more open with their staff and customers.
Could you explain how these captions do not support my statement?
(::sigh:: You know... I try to be helpful, but what's the point if I get modded "troll" by other TL;DRers?)
Twitter is awesome because it combines the immediacy of lurking in an IRC server along with the permanence of IRC chat logs, with the exclusivity and privacy of a proprietary public web service, without all that needless distributed redundancy or openness! Best of all, it's available for free to everyone* -- even the most computer illiterate website visitor can use it! * everyone except advertizers or developers who wish to aggregate its data.
Twitter is similar to IRC, except it's accessible via a web page (like mibbit, or webchat.freenode). Essentially: everyone gets their own IRC channel, and Twitter keeps a massive global chat log. To "follow" someone is to/j [roomname]. Each room is permanently OPd by only one user, and no one can have/mode +v except the op. To have a conversation people have to/join each other's rooms or send/privmsg (dm) to each other.
Twitter is also similar to IRC in that the implementers agree the system isn't quite as efficient as it should be, and service errors can occur. Except that when a net-split happens (fail-whale), no one can use Twitter whereas some IRC users may be temporarily disconnected, but can still talk.
Twitter is so much better than IRC, because unlike IRC (or usenet, or a BBS / forum), you are limited to 140 characters, and there is a simple API for advertisers to search a single common database for customer interests and trends. The 140 character limit is neat because it penalizes pompous-assholes that like to use big words like "monosyllabic", and this also promotes URL masking (shortening), so you never know if a link is goatse or not... More importantly the character limit restricts everyone to the lowest common denominator: people sending messages via mobile phones (you know, the dumb phones that don't have an IRC client or Internet capabilities). With Twitter: Now there's no-excuse not to be sharing your most insightful quips with the world at all times!
Twitter is amazing for famous people because they can point to the number of people idling in their chat room and say, "Look at how much marketing potential I have!" even while most people are AFK.
Also, (now, this is the most important difference) Twitter is better because anyone can run their own IRC node and start their own social network, but only Twitter can host Twitter!
A book doesn't need to be controversial to be worthwhile. Far from it.
And breaking the laws you disagree with is just another way of beign a thug. Trying to change the law is one thing but to break it is not a valid form of protest.
Rosa parks was the worse thug of all.
Hint: Sometimes, when you want to stand up for your freedom against oppressive laws you have to break them. Especially if breaking the law harms no one...
If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.
Ah, but computers are relatively new, so using "Powers of Christ" "on a computer" will surely be patentable.
I mean, gestures aren't patentable, unless you're using them on a computer, and math isn't patentable -- unless it's the instructions that make up software in a computer...
Slashdot Mirror
o_O
Are you implying that what the source code looks like has anything to do with its ability to be used in mathematical models
For Science?
Also: "useless" -- I do not think this word means what you think it means...
Look at performance critical applications: High profile web sites, User Customizable Modules, Super Computer projects, data base integration, etc. Any time performance is high on the list people pick Java, Lua, Lisp, Pascal, PHP, Perl, Python and sometimes JavaScript. Platform independent (byte-code) deployment is the only feasible choice. The most expensive part of a project is its development time. Using a language that reduces this essential.
One thing that VM byte-code interpreters and just in time (JIT) compilers give is the ability to tune the algorithm based on real execution profiling for multiple hardware platforms, without additional software rewrites. If you compile to machine code at some point you will run into language implementation decisions that the naive coder's control, and you will hit a wall because they could never imagine all future platforms.
The computing field changes at an accelerating rate, now with ARM, x64, and even newer x86 chips, or even newer compilers on the same hardware, newly compiled code runs faster than the old binary you build 5 years ago. It is folly to produce software that is not portable to future hardware. This means more work on the part of the platform implementers, but the gain is significant because every program benefits when you upgrade the platform without having to spend development money on a per project basis. Centralized improvements give better distributed results.
If other things like program execution speed are important (they rarely are, most frequent bottlenecks are IO latency -- even in video decoding) then use a native language interface to a compiled language like C (+ Assembly), which nearly all VM languages have support for. This allows you to take advantage of the ease of modification and make the best of programmer time, without sacrificing the ability to fine tune a small processor intensive section (for each targeted environment). Compiled languages may be faster once, but one size does not fit all -- And one set of machine code instructions is rarely fastest for all platforms, even when it's the same platform (x86 compiled for a Generic is slower than AMD or Intel specific targeted code).
HAHA -- Sure. Hey GCC complies FORTRAN, and a slew of other "languages" -- What about giving Borland and Microsoft a chance at these "tests" too? I mean, if we're testing a language in TFA, shouldn't we use a variety of runtime libraries and compilers in order to find the real "average" performance?
You jest, but what they've tested here is not a language, but a compiler and a runtime.
As someone who writes compliers, I can tell you that the language is just syntax and form. The only "performance" test you can do on a damned language is to see how fast it is to code something. Here's a basic BASIC example.
PRINT "Retarded Test is Retarded."
C:
puts( "Retarded Test is Retarded." );
Java:
System.out.println( "Retarded Test is Retarded." );
C++
std::cout << "Retarded Test is Retarded." << std::endl;
Out of all of these languages, BASIC has the most "performance" in terms of simplicity, key presses, parsing, number of symbols / tokens, etc. (for this test).
What's to keep all of these languages from to compiling (JIT for interpreted/VM languages) the above source codes down to the EXACT SAME sequence of machine code instructions?? NOTHING!!!!!!! Is BASIC now just as fast as C++ or Assembly Language for that matter?
Point being: Languages have little to do with CPU performance of compiled / executing code -- They didn't even test the damn C++ code in more than one COMPILER, which is where your real optimization happens. Seriously, I wrote a language that's a subset of JavaScript that can optionally compile to machine code, and is faster than the exact same valid JavaScript code running in your web browser. Comparable code in G++ is slower, does this now make the JavaScript language faster than C++ ???
Nothing to see here folks. They didn't test shit. If the two input programs perform the same tasks and produce the same output / results, but are simply described in two different languages, then what's to keep any sufficiently advanced optimizing compiler from generating the EXACT SAME machine code? NOTHING. Languages are how you describe to the complier what you want to do, it's the compiler / interpretor that is responsible for "CPU" performance.
Why?
Programming should be a college-level course, for those who want to go into the field.
Negative. I flipped an Apple IIe disk upside down on accident and began coding at the age of 8, in elementary school. Teacher was smart enough to find me a couple books on BASIC, and fortunately my step-father had a home computer -- MS DOS came with MS Quick BASIC, and a few simple games. Taking apart video games such as NIBBLES.BAS and GORILLAS.BAS jump started my programming career.
For Christmas I got an expensive Borland C complier (on 24 5.25" floppies) -- I was selling software (shareware) by the time I was 12 (2D Doom CAD programs -- SuperVGA! -- Level & Savegame editors). Wrote my own BBS software and ran it from 3 phone lines. PUT MYSELF THROUGH COLLEGE WITHOUT LOANS.
You, sir, sicken me. GTFO my Internet.
Though I also prefer a simple syntax highlighting/folding code editor,
I'll just say this: It is a right of passage among many Perl programmers to implement your own web templating language...
--
^-- A wise man learns from the mistakes of others... Thus, a Grammar Nazi who's re-implementing a CMS is the most wise guy.
Fuck off newb. 4channers and others frequently perform "Google Bombs" to make results rise to the top that are completely bogus. All digital "evidence" tracking / ranking systems can be gamed. If the recent spree of hacking events by script kiddies has taught you nothing -- you are truly a moron. Hint: Digital Reality is Malleable.
I hope it's your innocent balls that are nailed to a cross over fraudulent rants posted by others, implicating you in some heinous crime.
The problem is that when you are targeted as a suspect you have to rely on the intelligence of your dumb ass peers to find you innocent. Ask Joe Six Pack what an IP address is. Then, and only then, can you make these retarded statements with a clear conscience.
P.S. Lookup "Argument from authority". Then STFU for the rest of your moronic life.
While I was still teaching myself to code I worked as an electrician. I dated a girl who had horrible wiring -- Someone had ran lamp cord (the cheesy thin wires for chain hung fixtures) in the walls, and had far too many circuits per breaker; Instead of adding more breakers someone had installed larger breakers. The branch circuit wire sizes were not rated to carry the loads that the breaker was capable of providing, and thus that the circuits were capable of drawing.
Only being a Journeyman Electrician I informed her I couldn't do the work for her without a permit, and only a master electrician could pull the city permit. She needed to call an electrical contractor. I could not legally and would not otherwise help her (to do so would jeopardize my Journeyman's license), even though the house was a fire hazard. I refused to even sleep at her house, and even offered to help her pay for a portion of the repair cost if need be.
She broke up with me a week later, and two weeks after that her house burned down. I became a prime suspect for arson and attempted murder.
I was pressured into taking a polygraph test, and I submitted voluntarily (against my better judgment) -- I did have nothing to hide after all...
After the first few questions I realized there was no way I could "pass". I had wildly varying emotional responses to their questions, and even to the questioning process and machine itself (being a geek/electrician & knowledgeable about physiology, psychology and how such machines worked as well as their inaccuracies). So I broke the test. Each question I would either answer truthfully (attempting to suppress my growing anxiety), or answer truthfully while thinking of some traumatic event -- the death of my childhood friend, or some deed I had done while desperate, homeless and starving...
Thrice was the polygraph machine re-calibrated. Due to my self sabotage and increasing anxiety each test pass progressively produced worse results than the former.
The results were labeled as "inconclusive" due to my apparent trauma and contradictory results for individual answers -- How could I be both lying and truthful on the same damn question multiple times?!
By the end of the tests I was in tears over my unscrupulous methods and breach of core morals, but what choice did I have? Let them believe I even might be guilty? No, I know now I did the most honest thing I could -- I made the machine tell them how bogus it was.
These polygraph machines should be banned -- They are truly a form of cruel and unusual punishment which innocent people are pressured into being exposed to. I see now why refusal would have been a better option, but when it's your turn, you may see why that option didn't seem as good of a choice.
Hint: When the police "like you" for a crime, it can blind them to the evidence that proves you innocent, or another guilty -- The resources of the defense are usually not as formidable as that of the state, and as the saying goes: "Someone must pay"; even if no one is at fault. I mean, they prosecute under the assumption that if you are innocent, you will be found so in court -- It's not the detective's job to make sure you're not the culprit, it's to decide which culprit would most easily jailed for the crime...
It seems like the recent outbreak of high-profile cases of computer break-ins is almost calculated to provoke legislation locking down the internet. First the kill-switch proposal, the announcement by the US military that computer intrusion would be considered an act of war, now a constant drumbeat of reporting in the media about major cracks.
Perhaps the hacks are all just being done by people who don't see how useful such stories are to those who want to assert control over the net, but it would be foolish to think that the "problem-reaction-solution" method has stopped being used by those who are after power, or to discount the possibility that some of this hacking and the publicity it receives is actually being provoked or even orchestrated by those seeking to expand government control over the internet.
Its remarkable how quickly the PATRIOT Act was "created" after 911. Most likely was waiting in a desk drawer waiting for something to polarize the public... Now we have teams of hackers that could literally be anyone, causing security problems across the board, from government, to business, to gamers. Clearly the people will now agree the government must put an end to it all...
I once got bored of the same old pac-man levels and made a clone called Snack-Man in JavaScript (before canvas, w/ ms paint).
When the levels are always the same, you can make certain optimizations to the AI, but when the levels can change a lot, it does add another layer of complexity. I once trained a neural network for each of the 20 levels of the clone -- the AI was as good as I was, but change the level, and it had to be re-trained.
Looks like Snack-Man it's still being hosted, IIRC, it used to work in Firefox and some version of IE, never did work all the bugs out (hence "epsilon"), oops, looks like I left the enter key = reset ghosts on too. Oh well, I've always used an honor system anyhow (game speed is controllable).
Man, just listen to those crappy MIDI tracks... (brings back memories of Y2K), at least the volume controls still work.
Ah yes, if you paste this into the address bar while paused it turns off the, er, noms, while leaving other sound effects in place...
javascript:void(NOM_NOM_NOM_NOM = false);
(I guess I never did upload the version with that option toggle.)
Entering: javascript:void(debug = true);
in the address bar, then using "new game" will show the ghost's "vision" boxes.
Yep, looks like the exponential ghost-point glitch never got fixed either.
Each ghost you eat while they are "scared" doubles the point value of the next ghost you eat. So, all you have to do is keep at least one ghost edible while the others respawn, then eat more diet pills, ghosts & 1ups, and you can max out the score on the second level.
Been so long since I coded any JS... I might try to port this over to Android and give it a face lift.
Oh, back on topic -- It's pretty neat to watch TFA's AI vs AI, but IMHO, even crappy AI is good enough to best most humans.
The first incarnation of my clone used a dynamic heuristic shortest-path algorithm for the smartest ghost instances, and other techniques for the other ghosts, but it really was too hard to be enjoyable for most everyone, and the JS engines circa Y2K were too slow to run the advance AI unless you have a very fast rig. It's still pretty tricky with just "dumb magnetic" attractors -- I even had to add blind spots, and make it so the ghosts never reverse directions (unless they have to) before anyone ever got half way through.
Sometimes fun is more important than clever AI -- I guess in today's very complicated shooters and strategy games the AI would have a much harder time catching up to human opponents, but Pac-Man should be a breeze.
Uhhh - maybe you hadn't noticed, but this IS a republic, rather than a democracy. Have you not noticed that the federal government simply ASSumes that they are justified in waging war against portions of the populace, here at home? Sure, dopeheads are idiots - but you don't imprison idiots on a whim. You certainly don't kill an idiot for running away when you arrive to bust them for smoking a doobie. And, you sure as HELL don't set up corporate prisons to milk those idiots by way of taxpayers.
Democracy? Keep dreaming. When our government stops killing and/or imprisoning people for using natural plants in natural (or unnatural) ways, THEN I'll entertain the idea that we actually have a democracy.
Meanwhile, the provably addictive and habit forming drug Caffeine is in every food dispensary, and no one bats an eye if even young children have a coke and a smile...
(War on "drugs" my ass.)
iRiver -- The MP3 player that predated the iPod...
You can't own trademark over a single letter prefix, and Apple was not the first do use the i. When e started being used for "electronic" -- email, etc, some people used i instead to signify "Internet" (after that form became substitute for Internetwork, of course); However, The original iPod did not have Internet access, so what does Apple's i prefix mean? Nothing. It's just a prefix so they can use short names like "Cloud", "Pod", "Pad", "Tunes"or "Mac", etc without collisions with other companies and products. Despite the Jobsian spin, the undesirable but necessary prefix was chosen based on its physical appearance: Lowercase "i" is the shortest and thinnest of English letters -- It's meant to be less noticeable, hence the following capital letter that overshadows it.
When you go international with a brand/product name, there's a chance some smaller, less visible companies will have names that collide -- I'm sure Apple has a fund set aside for this instance.
Every time you find an Anonymous person. You cut them apart, with power tools on television. I mean it's all fun and games when you go after pussies who run banks and movie studios in the US but countries like Turkey or Russia's grasp of 'due process' is abstract, at best.
There's going to be a new reality show on tv - 'Pressure Drop', where they just take nerds and kick them out the helicopter.
And I'm ok with that.
Oh come now, we all see through your thinly veiled attempts to prove you are not a leader of Anonymous; Your overly outrageous statements actually support this view.
How do you explain the fact that many Anonymous members claim that they were secretly taking direction from you!?
You will be punished for your crimes against no one in particular!
Burning things is bad. No, seriously, we don't have engines that burn clean enough to not produce pollutants.
I'm aware that creating batteries also produces pollutants, but what about aluminum/ceramic super-capacitors? Reusable, Non toxic, recyclable, self preserving (I've trickled slowly increasing amounts of electricity into 25 year old aluminum/ceramic capacitor circuits to bring them back into operation -- the more you use them, the more stable they are). Surely producing and recycling aluminum capacitors has less of a carbon footprint than all engines burning things all over the world.
I'm aware that by manipulating electro magnetism, you can propel vehicles without producing exhaust pollution of any kind... Can we say that about burning fuels (besides expensive to create hydrogen / oxygen mixtures)?
Don't you think it would be better to have non polluting electric vehicles, so that we can "upgrade" the efficiency of energy production facilities and have all the vehicles take advantage of the improvements immediately (instead of having to replace every vehicle)?
Clearly there are viable alternatives to burning things, the search to find more things to burn is sort of ridiculous to me; It's like discovering the wheel, but not using them and instead just trying to breed a better cart dragger and more durable carts.
Don't get me wrong: I realize that any form of energy harvesting will impact the environment in some way, but surely their are better production means than burning things, especially when the burning is simply to heat water... It seems foolish to harvest the biological chemicals of the top-soils that we need for food production, even by burning the stalks instead of the fruits. I realize not everyone can switch to electron powered vehicles immediately, but to me it seems that this very "difficult to upgrade" problem is why we should be trying to get away from fuel burning engines...
What's so hard to understand about the birthday paradox?!
It's a mathematically provable event. Even given the very minuscule chance that a combinational event will occur, such as RNA/DNA/amino acid chains forming, if you increase the number of chances in parallel the probability quickly tends towards 1.
We found that if you take a bunch of sterilized rocks, water, CO2, Methane, etc (stuff that's here, and great quantities in other places in the universe, even in our own solar system), and zap in with static electricity (lightning, which we know happens elsewhere i.e. Mars has it) a bunch of times amino acids form. (The building blocks of life).
Now let's say there's a very small chance that a small simple strand of RNA could randomly form from a mixture of amino acids subjected to heat and cooling, lightning, and even cosmic radiation. If you have gobs and gobs of amino acids, this greatly increases the chance that life will emerge. If you comprehend the true size of the universe, and the plentiful number of stars, it's damn dear impossible to think that similar planets to our own are not out there. Their very existence also vastly increases the chance that life will form.
I would say, as a living entity, that I'm not very surprised that I'm alive. Rather, I'm surprised that anyone believes the odds that life would emerge cold no be very good without the assistance of a God. To these such people, I say: "I forbid you from using any hashing algorithms beyond MD5" I say, we should force them realize their folly in dismissing the birthday paradox...
Life: Birthday paradox. Simples.
I know most of you don't like that answer, but its much more sane than arguing for a giant explosion out of nothing, some accidental joining of proteins in primordial soup, and billions of years of accidental gene mutation and natural selection culminating in the world as we know it. Believing in either option requires faith, but believing in God takes less faith than believing in that!
Really, think about it.
Hmm. Not sure if troll. Meh, here goes.
We have evidence of the big bang in the form of cosmic background radiation. The big bang is an interesting anomaly, in that we don't know what caused it (that scares the shit out of me -- how do I know one isn't going to happen anywhere at any time!) However, we also see little bangs that sort of mimic big bang processes (supernovae), and evidence of other strange anomalies such as black holes (which compress and heat things beyond imagination). To me, these evidences lend credence to the big bang theory.
We have experimented by applying heat and electricity to sterilized rocks, minerals, and gases believed to prevalent in our early planetary history, and found amino acids -- The building blocks of life.
By our estimates this planet has been around for approximately 4 billion years, that's a lot of time. It doesn't seem too far fetched to think that chains of amino acids could form, and that those chains of molecules (RNA?) could replicate. It seems reasonable to think that the more sturdy of the replication techniques would naturally yield more than other forms, and that replication may be possible from within the protective, semi-permeable envelope of fatty acids (lipids), and that this may be even more conducive to replication given the increased durability and ability to keep from breaking down in a bit harsher environments.
What does sound ridiculous to me is that a mythical sky wizard was bored of all the nothingness, talked himself into creating a universe out of the nothingness (hmm, big bang?). Got bored (over eons?) with all the predictable rock collisions and stars etc, and manually assembled organic life (through trial and error? over eons?), then got bored with that and created sentient beings (with chemical computers in their heads, via trial and error? -- I mean, lots of other pretty smart chemical computer organisms exist), got bored with them, and abandoned the experiments (for some other great purpose? Perhaps to try again on another planet?).
Yes, to me it seems ridiculous that an all powerful being, possessing the same inquisitive nature as his human creations, would not create control groups, or as much diversity as possible -- I mean, if one planet is dandy, why not billions of worlds of life? (That would be even neater to God, eh? Oh yeah, that's right... I forgot about the "Angels" o_O).
I can't fathom why many believers in God reject the process of evolution -- I mean, If I were a God I would look for some sustainable solution to life procreation and development so I didn't have to spend my whole time doing everything for everyone forever... Perhaps something exactly like evolution -- It seems the simplest way to manufacture "free will" that doesn't require God's constant exertion of power. I myself do not believe a God exists, but if you do, at least give the guy some credit for what he's done!
Seriously, we can not win the drug war. All this is doing around the world id funding these kinds of ppl. Taliban and AQ make loads of money from drugs. So do American gangs.
The only real solution is for America to legalize ALL drugs, and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs. In addition, the production and sale of such is also heavily regulated. A whiff of a connection with ANY gang and you can not do anything. Get caught using illegal drugs? Not a problem. The state provides housing for 5 years. Get caught bringing in, or selling drugs? Again, not a problem 20 years.
That still sounds fucking illegal to me. FYI: It's now legal to brew your own beer and make your own wine (at least in Texas, you know, one of those Mexican border states...) Guess what? The "Microbrewery" industry took off -- Big watered-down (corn/cheap) beer companies are now emulating some of the more flavorful beers. Imports of foreign beers are on the rise as many people discover that variety is the spice of life instead of only drinking X brand.
Since alcohol was decriminalized, I've not seen a single gangster pedaling booze. Since home production and use, and local distribution (within reason) is now permitted so long as you're not selling the brew, the American beer market has been revolutionized, creating opportunities for small business owners and hobbyists alike.
I think recreational drug use should be legal in all forms. Before you rebut, please take a moment to consider how strongly regulated the addictive substance Caffeine is. Caffeine has been proven much more addictive than marijuana, yet no one bats an eye when people give it to children or even babies! (Caffeinated carbonated drinks). For many people the first thing they do each day is partake in a little recreational drug use (Coffee).
It's hard to find a store that sells multiple forms of food, that doesn't also distribute the recreational drug Caffeine in some form. Even in concentrated forms as "Energy Drinks" or pills, it's still acceptable for a minor to purchase. o_O
As a race we've been using "drugs" for thousands of years -- Some might say it's in our nature to do so. Making laws against human nature is folly, and the primary tool of a police state. We are also beings of communication -- now that we have powerful communication machines we've never had more restriction on our abilities to communicate. See: copyright laws. It's all part of the same process...
Decent is a game I wish still existed. Same with Wing Commander. These games (both space flight/combat) were very fun, and Descent had some very fun multiplayer.
Oh, It still exists., now on wiiware... Since the source code was released, it's been and ported to at least XP (don't know about Vista or 7 -- been a while since I had a MS OSs).
(Wait...What the hell am I doing replying to an Anonymous Coward's wall of text?!)
If they stuck him down he would have become more powerful than they could ever imagine.
Could you explain how these captions do not support my statement?
(::sigh:: You know... I try to be helpful, but what's the point if I get modded "troll" by other TL;DRers?)
Government "secrets" shouldn't be -- red-tape makes it hard to get the info you need anyhow.
Twitter is awesome because it combines the immediacy of lurking in an IRC server along with the permanence of IRC chat logs, with the exclusivity and privacy of a proprietary public web service, without all that needless distributed redundancy or openness! Best of all, it's available for free to everyone* -- even the most computer illiterate website visitor can use it!
* everyone except advertizers or developers who wish to aggregate its data.
Twitter is similar to IRC, except it's accessible via a web page (like mibbit, or webchat.freenode). Essentially: everyone gets their own IRC channel, and Twitter keeps a massive global chat log. To "follow" someone is to /j [roomname]. Each room is permanently OPd by only one user, and no one can have /mode +v except the op. To have a conversation people have to /join each other's rooms or send /privmsg (dm) to each other.
Twitter is also similar to IRC in that the implementers agree the system isn't quite as efficient as it should be, and service errors can occur. Except that when a net-split happens (fail-whale), no one can use Twitter whereas some IRC users may be temporarily disconnected, but can still talk.
Twitter is so much better than IRC, because unlike IRC (or usenet, or a BBS / forum), you are limited to 140 characters, and there is a simple API for advertisers to search a single common database for customer interests and trends. The 140 character limit is neat because it penalizes pompous-assholes that like to use big words like "monosyllabic", and this also promotes URL masking (shortening), so you never know if a link is goatse or not... More importantly the character limit restricts everyone to the lowest common denominator: people sending messages via mobile phones (you know, the dumb phones that don't have an IRC client or Internet capabilities). With Twitter: Now there's no-excuse not to be sharing your most insightful quips with the world at all times!
Twitter is amazing for famous people because they can point to the number of people idling in their chat room and say, "Look at how much marketing potential I have!" even while most people are AFK.
Also, (now, this is the most important difference) Twitter is better because anyone can run their own IRC node and start their own social network, but only Twitter can host Twitter!
I am Spartacus!
No, I am Spartacus!
No, he's not -- I am Spartacus!
I am Spartacus!
No, I am Spartacus!
A book doesn't need to be controversial to be worthwhile. Far from it. And breaking the laws you disagree with is just another way of beign a thug. Trying to change the law is one thing but to break it is not a valid form of protest.
Rosa parks was the worse thug of all.
Hint: Sometimes, when you want to stand up for your freedom against oppressive laws you have to break them. Especially if breaking the law harms no one...
If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.
Ah, but computers are relatively new, so using "Powers of Christ" "on a computer" will surely be patentable.
I mean, gestures aren't patentable, unless you're using them on a computer, and math isn't patentable -- unless it's the instructions that make up software in a computer...