I was playing around with a factoring sieve the other day when I realized just how much my choice of language colored the algorithm I used.
If you use the same algorithm across all the languages, it prejudices your results. If you use a different algorithm for each, you end up comparing apples and oranges.
Sure, if you use the stuff in your language that requires overhead, the overhead will be there.
(Not arguing with your broad point that these new addirions to C++ will be useful.)
Goto is no way sufficient for modern programming. You also need some way to manipulate whatever passes for the (effectively stack) constructs that allow nested parameters and locals. And you need some way to hide the bulky extra code (as in text macros and such).
I got bit on this when I should have known better, back in '97 or so -- using a Fujitsu CoBOL, forgot that the old CoBOL PERFORM was kind of like the old BASIC GOSUB. Found myself trying to use recursive calls in some UI code, and the variables I was expecting to be local to the procedures were, of course, global, and my fancy UI screen would keep blowing up.
I'd have had to implement effective stacks all over that code to keep it from blowing up. Gave up and reverted to the older, much harder to understand UI.
I asked for my sister's records once and got physical film. Three months later they gave me a CD. When I said thanks, they said it was just what they were legally required to do.
Storing the film was a pain and reading the CD was a pain, but passing them to the next doc and getting them back was a lot quicker than having one hospital send them to the other.
I mean, logically, the odds that a perfect match is going to be real are high against.
So management should probably tell HR to toss the perfect matches first.
But, more to the point, why aren't tech companies training their HR people? A lot of the issues in this thread could be dealt with by having the HR participate in projects at some level and watch the employees and comparing their work to their resumes.
Moreover, your talk about them getting information from their neighbors? Many/most of them live in villages where the neighbors don't have a phone, even if they do.
You don't have to have a cutting edge communications device to benefit from a communications device. Calculation and informations storage and retrieval are additional benefits.
(1) While I wouldn't be surprised if the facts you present are true, and (2) I'm aware that there is a lot of corruption in the security industry, both IT and the more physical kind; (3) I would be unwise to the accept what you present as fact without citation/reference; and (4) I would be even less wise to accept your inference of corruption without real evidence.
Morever, getting back to the point, sure,
(1) machines can be perverted, but (2) the amount of damage done by a machine varies by its function, (3) by the physical trail left behind, and (4) by the number of functions combined in a single machine.
In terms of reportage, an optical scanner built by company X and a touch panel voting box built by the same evil company are similarly (but not equally) likely to be sabotaged. But an optical scanner can't re-write the vote, it can only miscount it. And it essentially leaves a record of the dirty deed behind. Whether anyone checks is a separate issue, a human systems issue, not a mechanical system issue. The vulnerabilities are different, as are the methods of mitigation.
Touch panels, on the other hand, unless carefully designed to report in the same way a physical ballet is designed to report, can alter the reportage and the votes themselves.
A vulnerability you perhaps have not considered is monitoring. Touch panels, since they read the vote when the vote is made, can be monitored wirelessly (by inadvertant radio noise, even) to discover the votes that individuals cast. Scanning bubble sheets can be postponed until the end of the day, and the ballots shuffled after they are drawn from the box, completely detaching the voter from the ballot (unless a precinct is unanimous).
Touch panels are useful for helping people who would have difficulty filling out a bubble chart. Even then they need to be carefully designed, and must produce a physical ballot that is not significantly different from the ones filled out by hand.
For the general voter, bubble sheets provide significantly fewer opportunities for corruption and siginificantly greater opportunities for reducing the effects of corruption.
There are just some things that simply should not be done by computer, no matter how cool they appear.
Generally, the guys at the top of a country can only do what they are allowed to do by the next strata lower.
Kim Jong Un could not suddenly open up North Korea if he wanted to. He's going to have to learn to work the old-boy network there just as his father and his grandfather did, and he is just as likely to be corrupted thereby.
If we want to change things, we have to do it ourselves, and that is either by open opposition or by working from within. Neither way is free of opportunities for corruption, but giving up lets things just get worse.
Optical scanner at least as easily hacked? To what purpose? Do they then destroy the paper ballots before there is a chance for a physical recount?
And, okay, that level of distrust of the judicial system is warranted, perhaps, sometimes, but give some specifics.
And if things are that bad in the judicial system, touchscreen's lack of physical record separable from identity is still a lot easy to do social engineering on than the paper ballot, which is what you seem not to understand.
Granted on the Safari limitations, but Safari is not all there is and Android is not iOS.
This whole article just smelled at the time like an excuse for shills to trumpet Microsoft's latest attempt to come from behind and claim the leading edge it never has been able to actually get. I probably misread a bit of sarcasm in the posts.
The reason for the knee-jerk reaction is that Microsoft has consistantly pushed much better products out of the market with its unreasoning need to pretend it is leading-edge. They use their weight, whatever weight they can exert or conjur up, to re-define the market to not include whatever need the better stuff answered, and then they trumpet about how great a job they do while they secretly try to re-create the functions they've suppressed in their own products.
It's a tactic of repressive regimes from time immemorial. And BASIC gets a bit of the acrimony because Microsoft used it.
Anyway, it's nice to have a good programmable calculator built into devices with the processing power and enough extra storage, but I prefer bc/dc to BASIC for that purpose. Lisp, Ruby, Perl, Python, lots of other options, and even Javascript is not a bad option. And Microware's basic09 was a nice BASIC, too, back then.
But Forth does have a goto, you just don't usually teach the bootstrapping words. (BRANCH and 0BRANCH, or whatever your version of Forth calls those. Some manage to build the thing without leaving the words in the resulting vocabulary, but that's kind of like deciding you don't need some version of <BUILDS / DOES> .
Do you know the meaning of the expression, "cherry picking", when applied to arguments?
That's setting aside the contextual errors.
That little link you are so enamored of is ignoring a huge chunk of history. Leaving handles off is trivial. If we want to talk about handles, what Apple did with the clamshell iBook was innovative in a design sense.
All Apple did with the design of either the iPad or the iPhone was take the design the next logical step as technology improved.
And not everyone agrees that design patents were a good innovation. There was a time, you know, when they did not exist in the free country that was the US back then.
From someone whose sig currently says nothing scales like COBOL, well, is that sig supposed to be sarcastic? Or are you taking about as long as you don't have to change the program any?
On your use of QBasic to write a simple program that parses an archive of email from your bounce address and creates a list of addresses to be removed from your contact list, tell me, would you have chosen QBASIC if you hadn't been doing it to annoy your co-worker?
And, if you now wanted to take that annoyance program and change it to try retrying the addresses once before clearing an address from your contact book, how hard would that be? And if you had chosen to use perl instead?
We've found BASIC for Android and iOS, it does not require the dev system, and I think someone already noticed that the dev system for WP7 isn't really free as in beer, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I was playing around with a factoring sieve the other day when I realized just how much my choice of language colored the algorithm I used.
If you use the same algorithm across all the languages, it prejudices your results. If you use a different algorithm for each, you end up comparing apples and oranges.
Sure, if you use the stuff in your language that requires overhead, the overhead will be there.
(Not arguing with your broad point that these new addirions to C++ will be useful.)
Goto is no way sufficient for modern programming. You also need some way to manipulate whatever passes for the (effectively stack) constructs that allow nested parameters and locals. And you need some way to hide the bulky extra code (as in text macros and such).
I got bit on this when I should have known better, back in '97 or so -- using a Fujitsu CoBOL, forgot that the old CoBOL PERFORM was kind of like the old BASIC GOSUB. Found myself trying to use recursive calls in some UI code, and the variables I was expecting to be local to the procedures were, of course, global, and my fancy UI screen would keep blowing up.
I'd have had to implement effective stacks all over that code to keep it from blowing up. Gave up and reverted to the older, much harder to understand UI.
So, attacks against the Constitution would be grounds for stripping a Congressperson of his or her nationality.
They've lost their sense of irony, as well.
Funny. I would have sworn I felt abused by all the advertised features in VC/VS that didn't work in my case.
I hear that there's this syndrome where the abusee ends up always trying to defend the abuser.
I asked for my sister's records once and got physical film. Three months later they gave me a CD. When I said thanks, they said it was just what they were legally required to do.
Storing the film was a pain and reading the CD was a pain, but passing them to the next doc and getting them back was a lot quicker than having one hospital send them to the other.
in other words,
"I suppose I could care less if I cared enough to think about how much I care."
A lot of idioms are abbreviated, including most of the idioms you use every day.
I'm wondering if the OP is considering sysadmin?
School and coding experience ought to count for quite a bit, especially in companies that don't want BOFH sysadmins.
(Strictly hypothetical, however.)
I mean, logically, the odds that a perfect match is going to be real are high against.
So management should probably tell HR to toss the perfect matches first.
But, more to the point, why aren't tech companies training their HR people? A lot of the issues in this thread could be dealt with by having the HR participate in projects at some level and watch the employees and comparing their work to their resumes.
FWIW, the parent post linked his indelicate utterance with another on wikipedia (the famous "... let them eat cake.")
The wikipedia article was interesting, as well, because I didn't know that the evidence points away from Marie Antoinette having said it.
Why are they stuck in poverty?
Sure, part of it is the lack of resources.
But another huge part is lack of information.
Moreover, your talk about them getting information from their neighbors? Many/most of them live in villages where the neighbors don't have a phone, even if they do.
You don't have to have a cutting edge communications device to benefit from a communications device. Calculation and informations storage and retrieval are additional benefits.
MUHAHAHAHAHA is not the best irony flag.
(For the clueless, cracking dictionaries tend to include foreign language words, for whatever matches "foreign" in your world.)
Any way you do it, you need more than one word, preferably at least three, and you have to be careful that the resulting phrase is not common.
Uhm, yeah, you say such things, but,
(1) While I wouldn't be surprised if the facts you present are true, and
(2) I'm aware that there is a lot of corruption in the security industry, both IT and the more physical kind;
(3) I would be unwise to the accept what you present as fact without citation/reference; and
(4) I would be even less wise to accept your inference of corruption without real evidence.
Morever, getting back to the point, sure,
(1) machines can be perverted, but
(2) the amount of damage done by a machine varies by its function,
(3) by the physical trail left behind, and
(4) by the number of functions combined in a single machine.
In terms of reportage, an optical scanner built by company X and a touch panel voting box built by the same evil company are similarly (but not equally) likely to be sabotaged. But an optical scanner can't re-write the vote, it can only miscount it. And it essentially leaves a record of the dirty deed behind. Whether anyone checks is a separate issue, a human systems issue, not a mechanical system issue. The vulnerabilities are different, as are the methods of mitigation.
Touch panels, on the other hand, unless carefully designed to report in the same way a physical ballet is designed to report, can alter the reportage and the votes themselves.
A vulnerability you perhaps have not considered is monitoring. Touch panels, since they read the vote when the vote is made, can be monitored wirelessly (by inadvertant radio noise, even) to discover the votes that individuals cast. Scanning bubble sheets can be postponed until the end of the day, and the ballots shuffled after they are drawn from the box, completely detaching the voter from the ballot (unless a precinct is unanimous).
Touch panels are useful for helping people who would have difficulty filling out a bubble chart. Even then they need to be carefully designed, and must produce a physical ballot that is not significantly different from the ones filled out by hand.
For the general voter, bubble sheets provide significantly fewer opportunities for corruption and siginificantly greater opportunities for reducing the effects of corruption.
There are just some things that simply should not be done by computer, no matter how cool they appear.
Why not base 64 or 16?
Generally, the guys at the top of a country can only do what they are allowed to do by the next strata lower.
Kim Jong Un could not suddenly open up North Korea if he wanted to. He's going to have to learn to work the old-boy network there just as his father and his grandfather did, and he is just as likely to be corrupted thereby.
If we want to change things, we have to do it ourselves, and that is either by open opposition or by working from within. Neither way is free of opportunities for corruption, but giving up lets things just get worse.
Optical scanner at least as easily hacked? To what purpose? Do they then destroy the paper ballots before there is a chance for a physical recount?
And, okay, that level of distrust of the judicial system is warranted, perhaps, sometimes, but give some specifics.
And if things are that bad in the judicial system, touchscreen's lack of physical record separable from identity is still a lot easy to do social engineering on than the paper ballot, which is what you seem not to understand.
Granted on the Safari limitations, but Safari is not all there is and Android is not iOS.
This whole article just smelled at the time like an excuse for shills to trumpet Microsoft's latest attempt to come from behind and claim the leading edge it never has been able to actually get. I probably misread a bit of sarcasm in the posts.
The reason for the knee-jerk reaction is that Microsoft has consistantly pushed much better products out of the market with its unreasoning need to pretend it is leading-edge. They use their weight, whatever weight they can exert or conjur up, to re-define the market to not include whatever need the better stuff answered, and then they trumpet about how great a job they do while they secretly try to re-create the functions they've suppressed in their own products.
It's a tactic of repressive regimes from time immemorial. And BASIC gets a bit of the acrimony because Microsoft used it.
Anyway, it's nice to have a good programmable calculator built into devices with the processing power and enough extra storage, but I prefer bc/dc to BASIC for that purpose. Lisp, Ruby, Perl, Python, lots of other options, and even Javascript is not a bad option. And Microware's basic09 was a nice BASIC, too, back then.
Or am I forgetting what the strikeout tag was?
erk
Microsoft did the world a lot of damage with their versions of BASIC. You have to allow for a bit of residual acrimony.
(MetrowareMicroware's basic09 was kind of fun, way back when.)
Microsoft did the world a lot of damage with their versions of BASIC. You have to allow for a bit of residual acrimony.
(Metroware's basic09 was kind of fun, way back when.)
Heh.
But Forth does have a goto, you just don't usually teach the bootstrapping words. (BRANCH and 0BRANCH, or whatever your version of Forth calls those. Some manage to build the thing without leaving the words in the resulting vocabulary, but that's kind of like deciding you don't need some version of <BUILDS / DOES> .
Do you know the meaning of the expression, "cherry picking", when applied to arguments?
That's setting aside the contextual errors.
That little link you are so enamored of is ignoring a huge chunk of history. Leaving handles off is trivial. If we want to talk about handles, what Apple did with the clamshell iBook was innovative in a design sense.
All Apple did with the design of either the iPad or the iPhone was take the design the next logical step as technology improved.
And not everyone agrees that design patents were a good innovation. There was a time, you know, when they did not exist in the free country that was the US back then.
From someone whose sig currently says nothing scales like COBOL, well, is that sig supposed to be sarcastic? Or are you taking about as long as you don't have to change the program any?
On your use of QBasic to write a simple program that parses an archive of email from your bounce address and creates a list of addresses to be removed from your contact list, tell me, would you have chosen QBASIC if you hadn't been doing it to annoy your co-worker?
And, if you now wanted to take that annoyance program and change it to try retrying the addresses once before clearing an address from your contact book, how hard would that be? And if you had chosen to use perl instead?
One of the problems with sarcasm is that sometimes it is too subtle.
And one of the problems with whack-a-mole shill hunting is that it's sometimes hard to tell where to wield the hammer.
One thing's sure, this article was definitely fertile ground for shills.
No, actually, I think you did deny it pretty thoroughly.
We've found BASIC for Android and iOS, it does not require the dev system, and I think someone already noticed that the dev system for WP7 isn't really free as in beer, either.