There is certainly the risk for some very devestating effects on the brain and body from malfunctioning mitochondria. That does however not necessarily imply that different mitochondria will work very differently when they do perform their function.
That is, of the (few) viable human mitochondria genomes we know of, there doesn't have to be much difference in function just because mutations into non-viable mitochondria genomes have strong degenerative effects. Not saying there couldn't possibly be such differences, but it would return the burden of proof to you to show some research to demonstrate this (different mDNA leading to differences in traits for example such as intelligence) to be the case.
You must be English or Greek! Successful Germans don't make that type of distinction between present and future - apparently it's how they stay so successful!
AFAIK there is no completely watertight transaction protocol (?)
Couldn't it always be claimed that a technical error is responsible for resulting in two copies?
If the sender then finds the file still on their system, perhaps it could be argued they should remove rather than play the file. But could they not just as well assume that the transfer must have been unsuccessful (otherwise the file should be gone)? And so reasonably assuming they are in the in possession of the only copy, they should be able to play the file.
If they have sold the file to the receiver, perhaps they should then go on to return the money, and at that point it would be discovered, one might think, that both parties had the file. At this point the matter could be expected to be resolved, so that only one of them had access to the file (by the other deleting their copy). But what if the file was given away? The sender might not care to attempt to resend the file if it was of no high importance and would have no reason to believe that their file protocols had behaved such that they ended up with two copies.
What if someone decided they did not like some intellectual property they bought and wanted to give it away to first taker on the Internet, but some transaction protocol screwed up so that a thousand people were able to download it before it was removed from the server? Nobody realizes anything went wrong and the file now exists in thousands of copies. In the end, how can it be assumed anyone did not get their copy of any file by an anonymous stranger giving it away over the Internet because they did not want it themselves and could not be bothered to sell it?
Well, there are software licenses that work basically like that. Usually they involve some kind of shenanigans to make sure over the network that you don't use them simultaneously, but that only underlines that the principle of such sharing schemes as you suggest should be thinkable.
According to the Swedish newspaper Expressen, at least one of the founders (Mr Neij), currently living in Bangkok, does not intend to evade his sentence.
"Fredrik Neij now lives in Bangkok and he is disappointed with the HD's ruling. But he will not stay out of the sentence. - But I'll probably try to get the punishment commuted, perhaps to electronic tagging or so, says Neij told TT."
What if the accused claims the encrypted drive contains the proof of his innocence and he desires nothing higher than to provide the court with the password but regrets that the shock of his arrest and subsequent stress of the trial has rendered him unable to recall his password?
Careful what you wish for..."Congratulations! Your new sowing machine comes with no instructions whatsoever in accordance with the principles of 'self documenting design', which means that its designers understand how to use it."
But that implies that the arraysearch function would also contain the code to run when a match is found in the array, which breaks the rule of least surprise.
Perhaps simply: if(arraysearch(array, value)){ //code to execute when item is found. } else { //code to execute when item is not found. }
Well explained. I'dd only add something about where each of them fits. Roughly, to the best of my experience, Online Transactional Processing is for supporting business activity such as when customers place orders. The order is recorded first in the OLTP database for being processed by shipment systems etc. When the order is completed it is often deleted from the OLTP database that should be kept small and nimble to be able to keep up with incoming orders in a fast and responsive way. The OLTP database, as mentioned, is highly normalized (each item in the data is saved in only one place). This is to some extent to keep the database small but also to ensure consistency in the critical business data (when the same data is saved in two places it risks getting out of synch, perhaps leading to things like orders being shipped twice etc). For the same reason of consistency it is also important that all work is encapsulated in transactions. Transactions are a way to ask that several changes to the databases that go together logically for some business reason be done in an all-or-nothing fashion. For example, all the data changes to the database associated with, say, an order being placed can be saved to the database as a unit such that if all goes well all the data is saved but if any of the data changes for the order is met with an error none of the changes in the unit should be accepted into the database (thus the "Transactional" in OLTP).
A copy of the order is also saved to the Online Analytical Processing database, where is does typically not become deleted so soon and its data may be saved redundantly in multiple copies (denormalization) to speed up queries. The purpose of this database is not to support customers placing orders, but to support managers asking questions about "what is historically our most popular shoe color in December" and things like that (the "Analysis" in OLAP).
No, he would have spent three hours searching his house until he found his old DVD (at least that's what I would have done and I took it to be what GP meant) if the pirate bay option had not been there. There would never have been any more money going to the game company or anyone else, only a net productivity loss (three wasted hours) to the benefit of absolutely no-one.
If I started coding today I think I would go about it roughly thusly:
1) google "Game coding tutorial HTML5" or similar, 2) Find the code listings, run them, modify them a little to see what happens but eventually be annoyed that I don't really know what the magic incantations in javascript etc mean 3) Google "javascript introduction" and spend some time just writing "Hello world" apps and such, trying to learn basic javascript, until I got bored with that. 4) Return to the game code, be absolutely gratified by discovering I indeed understand a little more of the magic incantations, do a bit more targeted modifications of the code to see if I can actually predict the outcomes at all....until I got bored with what I could do with my current level of understanding and return to the course in basic javascript to learn more (repeat from 3, basically). At some point you may know so much general javascript that you can continue learning more about javascript itself by looking directly at the game code and realize how it must work.
As long as you find some little "loop" like that where you actually have fun all the time while learning, chances are good you will end up knowing quite a lot about how to program.
But what if it leads to few of the College trained developers you hire being able to code their way out of a wet paper bag precisely because before they enrolled they had already been coding as a hobby for years, an interest that was initially sparked by an online javascript course?
If by "people look down on it" you are suggesting veteran programmers look down on beginner courses because beginner courses have been around for ages, I would care to disagree. I am fairly sure many veteran programmers indeed began their careers with just such beginner courses, way back when, which corroborates your assertion that such courses have been around for ages but gives no insight into why anyone would look down on such courses...which leads me to guess that maybe you mean that it is the _hype_ that is being looked down on? In that case, sure, hype can look a bit laughable to a veteran who has perhaps seen the object in question being hyped several times before. On the other hand, perhaps for a few veteran coders it was some hype that once helped them to find their way to a beginner course that set them on their path to become veterans. So even the hype can have a purpose and should not be looked down on, in my opinion.
But perhaps you didn't at all mean "veteran programmers" by "people" ? On the other hand, I don't see how junior programmers would have enough experience to look down on the material they are still learning from, and the general public (assuming they know even less about programming than the junior programmer) would consequently have even less experience to draw on when looking down on the material.
So perhaps you meant "intermediary programmers"? In that case I must agree I have sometimes seen tendencies of some intermediary programmers who are overly eager to distinguish themselves from junior programmers to look down on material suited for the juniors, but it is an approach that rarely lasts for very long, and I would frankly advice against such advocacy as a way to establish one's experience as a coder as it is fairly transparent.
"Just for starters, if you proclaimed that a Z80 with a stripe on it was the most awesome thing ever, anyone who actually knows what a Z80 and carse what it does is would laugh at you, and they'd be right."
But what about an all white casing where the user cannot change the battery? Slam dunk, right?
If your premise is that you need less people I think statistics indicate that helping people in need would be your best bet (in addition to sounding, as you put it, less bad). As I understand the general mechanism, people tend to compensate for uncertainty regarding the survival of their offspring by having more children. With access to for example better medication, the argument goes, parents can afford to have fewer babies.
Slashdot Mirror
"For example, we are pretty sure that most europeans are descended from Neanderthals"
Link, please?
Another logical fallacy would be:
1) Z = X + Y (learning genealogy + campaigning on genealogy)
2) Y is negative (something wrong with campaigning on genealogy)
Therefore X is negative
There is certainly the risk for some very devestating effects on the brain and body from malfunctioning mitochondria. That does however not necessarily imply that different mitochondria will work very differently when they do perform their function.
That is, of the (few) viable human mitochondria genomes we know of, there doesn't have to be much difference in function just because mutations into non-viable mitochondria genomes have strong degenerative effects. Not saying there couldn't possibly be such differences, but it would return the burden of proof to you to show some research to demonstrate this (different mDNA leading to differences in traits for example such as intelligence) to be the case.
You are both wrong!
"Lets revisit this in 5 years..."
You must be English or Greek! Successful Germans don't make that type of distinction between present and future - apparently it's how they stay so successful!
AFAIK there is no completely watertight transaction protocol (?)
Couldn't it always be claimed that a technical error is responsible for resulting in two copies?
If the sender then finds the file still on their system, perhaps it could be argued they should remove rather than play the file. But could they not just as well assume that the transfer must have been unsuccessful (otherwise the file should be gone)? And so reasonably assuming they are in the in possession of the only copy, they should be able to play the file.
If they have sold the file to the receiver, perhaps they should then go on to return the money, and at that point it would be discovered, one might think, that both parties had the file. At this point the matter could be expected to be resolved, so that only one of them had access to the file (by the other deleting their copy). But what if the file was given away? The sender might not care to attempt to resend the file if it was of no high importance and would have no reason to believe that their file protocols had behaved such that they ended up with two copies.
What if someone decided they did not like some intellectual property they bought and wanted to give it away to first taker on the Internet, but some transaction protocol screwed up so that a thousand people were able to download it before it was removed from the server? Nobody realizes anything went wrong and the file now exists in thousands of copies. In the end, how can it be assumed anyone did not get their copy of any file by an anonymous stranger giving it away over the Internet because they did not want it themselves and could not be bothered to sell it?
Well, there are software licenses that work basically like that. Usually they involve some kind of shenanigans to make sure over the network that you don't use them simultaneously, but that only underlines that the principle of such sharing schemes as you suggest should be thinkable.
According to the Swedish newspaper Expressen, at least one of the founders (Mr Neij), currently living in Bangkok, does not intend to evade his sentence.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2696506/hovrattens-pirate-bay-domar-star-fast
Google translate:
"Fredrik Neij now lives in Bangkok and he is disappointed with the HD's ruling. But he will not stay out of the sentence.
- But I'll probably try to get the punishment commuted, perhaps to electronic tagging or so, says Neij told TT."
It is bricked.
What if the accused claims the encrypted drive contains the proof of his innocence and he desires nothing higher than to provide the court with the password but regrets that the shock of his arrest and subsequent stress of the trial has rendered him unable to recall his password?
Careful what you wish for..."Congratulations! Your new sowing machine comes with no instructions whatsoever in accordance with the principles of 'self documenting design', which means that its designers understand how to use it."
But that implies that the arraysearch function would also contain the code to run when a match is found in the array, which breaks the rule of least surprise.
Perhaps simply:
//code to execute when item is found.
//code to execute when item is not found.
if(arraysearch(array, value)){
} else {
}
It can if you reapply the trick of staring hard enough at the experiment output until you see the desired result.
Well explained. I'dd only add something about where each of them fits. Roughly, to the best of my experience, Online Transactional Processing is for supporting business activity such as when customers place orders. The order is recorded first in the OLTP database for being processed by shipment systems etc. When the order is completed it is often deleted from the OLTP database that should be kept small and nimble to be able to keep up with incoming orders in a fast and responsive way. The OLTP database, as mentioned, is highly normalized (each item in the data is saved in only one place). This is to some extent to keep the database small but also to ensure consistency in the critical business data (when the same data is saved in two places it risks getting out of synch, perhaps leading to things like orders being shipped twice etc). For the same reason of consistency it is also important that all work is encapsulated in transactions. Transactions are a way to ask that several changes to the databases that go together logically for some business reason be done in an all-or-nothing fashion. For example, all the data changes to the database associated with, say, an order being placed can be saved to the database as a unit such that if all goes well all the data is saved but if any of the data changes for the order is met with an error none of the changes in the unit should be accepted into the database (thus the "Transactional" in OLTP).
A copy of the order is also saved to the Online Analytical Processing database, where is does typically not become deleted so soon and its data may be saved redundantly in multiple copies (denormalization) to speed up queries. The purpose of this database is not to support customers placing orders, but to support managers asking questions about "what is historically our most popular shoe color in December" and things like that (the "Analysis" in OLAP).
No, he would have spent three hours searching his house until he found his old DVD (at least that's what I would have done and I took it to be what GP meant) if the pirate bay option had not been there. There would never have been any more money going to the game company or anyone else, only a net productivity loss (three wasted hours) to the benefit of absolutely no-one.
if($sense == $it_is_a_little_bit_complicated){ // explain why here
};
If I started coding today I think I would go about it roughly thusly:
1) google "Game coding tutorial HTML5" or similar,
2) Find the code listings, run them, modify them a little to see what happens but eventually be annoyed that I don't really know what the magic incantations in javascript etc mean
3) Google "javascript introduction" and spend some time just writing "Hello world" apps and such, trying to learn basic javascript, until I got bored with that.
4) Return to the game code, be absolutely gratified by discovering I indeed understand a little more of the magic incantations, do a bit more targeted modifications of the code to see if I can actually predict the outcomes at all....until I got bored with what I could do with my current level of understanding and return to the course in basic javascript to learn more (repeat from 3, basically). At some point you may know so much general javascript that you can continue learning more about javascript itself by looking directly at the game code and realize how it must work.
As long as you find some little "loop" like that where you actually have fun all the time while learning, chances are good you will end up knowing quite a lot about how to program.
But what if it leads to few of the College trained developers you hire being able to code their way out of a wet paper bag precisely because before they enrolled they had already been coding as a hobby for years, an interest that was initially sparked by an online javascript course?
If by "people look down on it" you are suggesting veteran programmers look down on beginner courses because beginner courses have been around for ages, I would care to disagree. I am fairly sure many veteran programmers indeed began their careers with just such beginner courses, way back when, which corroborates your assertion that such courses have been around for ages but gives no insight into why anyone would look down on such courses...which leads me to guess that maybe you mean that it is the _hype_ that is being looked down on? In that case, sure, hype can look a bit laughable to a veteran who has perhaps seen the object in question being hyped several times before. On the other hand, perhaps for a few veteran coders it was some hype that once helped them to find their way to a beginner course that set them on their path to become veterans. So even the hype can have a purpose and should not be looked down on, in my opinion.
But perhaps you didn't at all mean "veteran programmers" by "people" ? On the other hand, I don't see how junior programmers would have enough experience to look down on the material they are still learning from, and the general public (assuming they know even less about programming than the junior programmer) would consequently have even less experience to draw on when looking down on the material.
So perhaps you meant "intermediary programmers"? In that case I must agree I have sometimes seen tendencies of some intermediary programmers who are overly eager to distinguish themselves from junior programmers to look down on material suited for the juniors, but it is an approach that rarely lasts for very long, and I would frankly advice against such advocacy as a way to establish one's experience as a coder as it is fairly transparent.
I'll even bet he's just the type to go around downloading and using free open source software without paying a penny for it!
So on this island no-body can ever have a week off from hunting pigs or their other duties?
What if the pig hunter produced some extra pigs along with saving up extra shells so that the other two could still buy pig during the week off?
And if the pig hunter can have a week off, does that imply the economy at large also isn't screwed?
"Just for starters, if you proclaimed that a Z80 with a stripe on it was the most awesome thing ever, anyone who actually knows what a Z80 and carse what it does is would laugh at you, and they'd be right."
But what about an all white casing where the user cannot change the battery? Slam dunk, right?
"A good technical foot soldier can extrapolate the reasons behind good high-level technical decisions"
You mean that someone did business while golfing?
If your premise is that you need less people I think statistics indicate that helping people in need would be your best bet (in addition to sounding, as you put it, less bad). As I understand the general mechanism, people tend to compensate for uncertainty regarding the survival of their offspring by having more children. With access to for example better medication, the argument goes, parents can afford to have fewer babies.
A rock is not evil. Does that imply it is good?