Nvm, I see from your other posts that you consider "input lag" to include, for example, a case where the program doesn't allow the character to hit until it lands from a jump...
But in the context of the article, input lag refers to the technical limitations of the hardware and of common input sampling approaches in code, that is the limit on how fast a user action can be detected at all.
Just to satisfy a European's curiosity...if you just can't get employment, what happens after those 2 continuous / 5 lifetime years? "Congratulations, you are now a homeless street beggar, best of luck!", or what?
"Just because something isn't known doesn't mean someone is trying to hide it."
That's not the point. The reference to obscurity here would resolve into the proposition that the Linux code base is not written clearly enough, regardless of being open source, so that even when you ("you" meaning the trained professional) look at the source, you do not see the bug. Alternatively, the bug was easy to spot but nevertheless remained undiscovered because, for some reason, nobody ever looked at that part of the code. Again, the term "obscurity" would apply for the situation having caused the bug to go unnoticed.
If not "obscurity", then what, exactly, prevented the discovery of this bug in code that has been open for all to look at for 8 years?
"Scientists are still trying to assess how the new virus behaves and how it compares to regular seasonal flu strains, which kill between 250,000 and 500,000 globally every year."
What? reading docs!? You should always guess what a function does from its name alone, and whenever your guess is wrong you should rant about the the developer having chosen a poor name for his function!
While I don't want to undermine your lifestyle choice of not paying attention to culture, if you hurry you can still catch the South Park episode (S13E01) that my joke was referring to (it will soon go offline for a month but then come back up again):
Sigh. He is promoting tolerance. When, really, did you ever see an example of anything else - instances where society promotes homosexuality itself rather than tolerance for it?
Btw, do you like troll sticks? Yeah? I thought so, because you are such a Gay Troll...
>Any search strategy has to account for local maxima and other dead ends, and in GA and other evolutionary algorithms, these means introducing the possibility that children are less optimal than their parent iterations.
It isn't necessarily true that you need to allow less optimal children to survive. You can get out of local maxima by making large enough leaps (over the entire canyon, to the next climbing hill wall). So in the case of Mona Lisa, allowing the points in the polygon to move large enough distances per mutation would allow it not to get stuck in a local maximum.
Re:"soon-to-be Leader of the Free World"
on
Obama's "ZuneGate"
·
· Score: 1
Hence, if your tests for my "int add(int x, int y)" method only test for x = 2 and y = 3, and the whole method is just a "return 5;", it's not buggy. If you wan it changed, that's a change request, mate.
I guess you could look at it that way, but it could also be interpreted simply as an added emphasis to the importance of testing.
It's not really "not a bug" because it wasn't caught in a test - rather, the fact that a bug was not caught in a test is in itself a bug! Tests should cover the agreed upon functionality. When they don't, that's a bug.
So, when the customer comes to me and says "there's a bug here, see. This thing we agreed on (that the add method should add the integers passed to it) doesn't work - it always returns 5" I don't get to reply "No that's not a bug - because I don't have a test for it! Supply a change request for such a test, mate". What I have to do is fix my tests so that they cover the agreed upon functionality, and then fix my code so that the tests pass.
The question is what functionality I and the customer have agreed upon - that's what decides what is a bug and what is a change request. That agreement should be captured in the tests, but leaving something out of a test doesn't change that agreement.
Seriously though, you are right of course that for the reasons you list, the issue is probably not that urgent. At the same time, unless the associated costs were sufficiently off-putting, I would prefer an "inclusive" system with the capacity to comfortably provide every earthling with an address rather than a system that could only provide addresses for about half of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Nvm, I see from your other posts that you consider "input lag" to include, for example, a case where the program doesn't allow the character to hit until it lands from a jump...
But in the context of the article, input lag refers to the technical limitations of the hardware and of common input sampling approaches in code, that is the limit on how fast a user action can be detected at all.
how would you trigger the pretty animation before the input lag allows you to detect the control action?
Thank you for your amazingly lucid and interesting explanation
But as soon as that happens, it is time to break out that stuff into a new method, right?
Just to satisfy a European's curiosity...if you just can't get employment, what happens after those 2 continuous / 5 lifetime years? "Congratulations, you are now a homeless street beggar, best of luck!", or what?
"Just because something isn't known doesn't mean someone is trying to hide it."
That's not the point. The reference to obscurity here would resolve into the proposition that the Linux code base is not written clearly enough, regardless of being open source, so that even when you ("you" meaning the trained professional) look at the source, you do not see the bug. Alternatively, the bug was easy to spot but nevertheless remained undiscovered because, for some reason, nobody ever looked at that part of the code. Again, the term "obscurity" would apply for the situation having caused the bug to go unnoticed.
If not "obscurity", then what, exactly, prevented the discovery of this bug in code that has been open for all to look at for 8 years?
I put "atomic weight of calcium" into google and it responded correctly.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/#hl=en&q=atomic+weight+of+calcium&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1&fp=NH-w64u7d1c
Gives (above the rest of the results):
"Calcium â" Atomic Mass: 40.078(4)
According to http://www.chemnetbase.com/periodic_table/elements/calcium.htm - More sources Â"
This has to be the best piece of practical advice I have heard in years! Thank you so much for sharing your insight!
"Trust me, if anyone needs a tracking device and call history checking its me"
If that's the case, I don't know why you open with "trust me" - clearly I shouldn't...
Well, stealing the link from Threni, a few posts down:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090502.wflusat0502/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090502.wflusat0502
From the link:
"Scientists are still trying to assess how the new virus behaves and how it compares to regular seasonal flu strains, which kill between 250,000 and 500,000 globally every year."
What? reading docs!? You should always guess what a function does from its name alone, and whenever your guess is wrong you should rant about the the developer having chosen a poor name for his function!
Not believing in free will could negatively impact the potential to exercise it.
Human flu genes, too.
I guess it's man-bird-pig flu - half man, half bird, half pig!
While I don't want to undermine your lifestyle choice of not paying attention to culture, if you hurry you can still catch the South Park episode (S13E01) that my joke was referring to (it will soon go offline for a month but then come back up again):
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/220762
Go on, it's a funny episode :-)
Sigh. He is promoting tolerance. When, really, did you ever see an example of anything else - instances where society promotes homosexuality itself rather than tolerance for it?
Btw, do you like troll sticks? Yeah? I thought so, because you are such a Gay Troll...
Right. Together with the birds going off, the sun coming up is how you know it is time for some sleep.
Huh? I thought 4 AM is roughly when one starts thinking that maybe it is time to wrap up the coding for the evening?
So, my comment would have been insightful, had not parent strayed off topic. ;-)
According to TFA, you don't actually know that.
I just downloaded and tried the application. The dialogs in the application look like the one shown in your screenshot. So, not an OSX dialog.
Thanks for a very good explanation.
However,
>Any search strategy has to account for local maxima and other dead ends, and in GA and other evolutionary algorithms, these means introducing the possibility that children are less optimal than their parent iterations.
It isn't necessarily true that you need to allow less optimal children to survive. You can get out of local maxima by making large enough leaps (over the entire canyon, to the next climbing hill wall). So in the case of Mona Lisa, allowing the points in the polygon to move large enough distances per mutation would allow it not to get stuck in a local maximum.
Huh?
Have you heard of Fitna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film) ?
Made by a member of the Dutch parliament.
Do you have any links to corroborate your claims that Dutch freedom of speech is so severely limited as you suggest?
So the answer, in other words, is pretty much: "no".
Hence, if your tests for my "int add(int x, int y)" method only test for x = 2 and y = 3, and the whole method is just a "return 5;", it's not buggy. If you wan it changed, that's a change request, mate.
I guess you could look at it that way, but it could also be interpreted simply as an added emphasis to the importance of testing.
It's not really "not a bug" because it wasn't caught in a test - rather, the fact that a bug was not caught in a test is in itself a bug! Tests should cover the agreed upon functionality. When they don't, that's a bug.
So, when the customer comes to me and says "there's a bug here, see. This thing we agreed on (that the add method should add the integers passed to it) doesn't work - it always returns 5" I don't get to reply "No that's not a bug - because I don't have a test for it! Supply a change request for such a test, mate". What I have to do is fix my tests so that they cover the agreed upon functionality, and then fix my code so that the tests pass.
The question is what functionality I and the customer have agreed upon - that's what decides what is a bug and what is a change request. That agreement should be captured in the tests, but leaving something out of a test doesn't change that agreement.
How else would the beast keep track of us?
Seriously though, you are right of course that for the reasons you list, the issue is probably not that urgent. At the same time, unless the associated costs were sufficiently off-putting, I would prefer an "inclusive" system with the capacity to comfortably provide every earthling with an address rather than a system that could only provide addresses for about half of us.