The biggest problem with exceptions is that they get thrown too far, changing them into comefroms (the opposite of a goto). And like gotos, they encourage spaghetti code. The best way to deal with them is to limit them to thrown exceptions only to their callers. That way, all exceptions become part of the subroutine's interface. Remember, for a programmer, out of sight is out of mind. If it's not part of the interface, it will be forgotten. For those who are interested, you can read my blog for details and an example.
Completely overlooking the fact that before Twitter there was less to distract them. And overlooking the fact that those who may have to do something else, like write a term paper, may want to follow the game via Twitter. Reducing access _always_ means reducing your audience.
China's censorship will suppress ideas and reduce innovation. They are currently enjoying an economic boom but that will slow down as wages increase (and they will). How does China expect people to innovate when they're afraid of collaborating? Censorship never helps an economy.
I always thought that putting a radio-telescope on the back side of the moon would be a good idea since the moon would block all the electromagnetic noise from Earth. Two could be installed, one just over the curve near the north pole and one near the south pole. This would give a baseline of appropriately the diameter of the moon. It would be one, big ear.
I remember Z80, Pascal and BASIC. And I disagree with you. The tech landscape is less volatile now than back when everything was new. Nowadays, everyone is too conservative, unwilling to take a chance. And the patents wars don't help.
I would say that for the next 5 years, smartphones and tablets will be the rage, so getting involved with them is your best bet. And learn to speak Chinese or Hindi. Being able to swear at the hardware guys in their own language is always a bonus.;)
But the US was the world leader for the second half of the 20th century largely because of the scientific advances it made in atomic physics, agriculture, electronics, computers, and space, to mention a few. That's the point of the video: stop the science and kiss world-leadership goodbye.
A presidential candidate that support creationism is not a religious kook? An anti-science president will mean the US won't be a world leader in this century.
Why you shouldn't let religious kooks run the government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w Scientific progress stopped because mathematics are created by the devil.
How come when the drug cartels use creating financing, governments get so upset but when banks do the same thing, they are rewarded by having their debts pay off for them?
Everyone thinks the problem with automatic trading is that the computers can crash the market before anyone realizes it. But there is a bigger problem: run away stock prices. What happens if suddenly every stock was worth 1,000,000,000 times what it was a few seconds ago? What would that do to the economy?
95% of the people will give something back if given the chance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/15/interview-dr-love-paul-zak Creating laws that don't work to try to cope with 5% of the population while ignoring, sorry not just ignoring but preventing the 95% from paying you is the fast track to the poor house.
MBAs are taught finance. When their company gets into trouble, that's what they turn to. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So, MBAs try to fiance to get out of trouble. Things like cost cutting. In the article, employees were complaining about the difficulty in finding a whiteboards and the lack of office supplies. Microsoft's stack ranking system was to determine which employee to get rid of. Again, cost cutting. But you can't save a business by cost cutting. You can only save it thru sales. Bill is a good salesman. Steve isn't. Steve can't save the company and I think it's too late for Bill to make a comeback.
MBAs can't run businesses. It's that simple. When Bill ran it, everything was great. When Steve took over, everything went downhill. The same happened in Apple: When Steve was in charge, Apple grew. When Steve was fired, downhill. When Steve was brought back, more growth. The same with HP. Moral: don't let MBAs run your company, it'll tank.
Good for your son; he well on his way. But I would suggest getting better tools, such as a syntax-sensitive editor (I don't know how he can stand Notepad). I suggest that he look into other FLOSS tools like GIMP and Inkscape. And learn how to use git!
The 2-body problem has been completely solved. For n=3, solutions exist for special cases. A general solution in terms of first integrals is known to be impossible. An exact theoretical solution for arbitrary n can be given in terms of Taylor series, but in practice such an infinite series must be truncated, giving an approximate solution. In addition, many solutions by numerical integration exist, but these too are approximate solutions.
Solutions to any desired precision is not the general case.
"There is no general solution to the N-body problem. That has no bearing on whether the problem is solvable..."
This does not make sense. If there is no solution, it's not solvable. Yes, sometimes in special circumstances, it can be solved but so what? The general case has been proven to be unsolvable. QED.
The N-body problem has been proven to have no general solution. That means the future is not predictable. And this is without Relativity and quantum mechanics. The only way to determine what happens in the future is to wait and see. Everything else is just a guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, writing five exception handlers, each just throwing the exception again is so much better than handling it once.
Yes, it is. Not being thorough is bad always engineering.
The biggest problem with exceptions is that they get thrown too far, changing them into comefroms (the opposite of a goto). And like gotos, they encourage spaghetti code. The best way to deal with them is to limit them to thrown exceptions only to their callers. That way, all exceptions become part of the subroutine's interface. Remember, for a programmer, out of sight is out of mind. If it's not part of the interface, it will be forgotten. For those who are interested, you can read my blog for details and an example.
If not, it's an arbitrary decision. And it leaves their government opened to be sued.
...because they would rather work smart than work hastily.
Completely overlooking the fact that before Twitter there was less to distract them. And overlooking the fact that those who may have to do something else, like write a term paper, may want to follow the game via Twitter. Reducing access _always_ means reducing your audience.
Once more, human stupidity rears its ugly head. Limiting people's access limits their interest. Example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/13423720996/draconian-downloading-law-japan-goes-into-effect-music-sales-drop.shtml They can kiss good-bye to their students support for sports...and their future alumni support too.
What's ironic is that communism is supposed to be about the power of the people...
Communism has become Newspeak for totalitarianism. Just like the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Bad governments can change the meaning of words faster than you can think.
China's censorship will suppress ideas and reduce innovation. They are currently enjoying an economic boom but that will slow down as wages increase (and they will). How does China expect people to innovate when they're afraid of collaborating? Censorship never helps an economy.
Yes, Richard has shown that you don't have to be disagreeing to be insulting.
I always thought that putting a radio-telescope on the back side of the moon would be a good idea since the moon would block all the electromagnetic noise from Earth. Two could be installed, one just over the curve near the north pole and one near the south pole. This would give a baseline of appropriately the diameter of the moon. It would be one, big ear.
I remember Z80, Pascal and BASIC. And I disagree with you. The tech landscape is less volatile now than back when everything was new. Nowadays, everyone is too conservative, unwilling to take a chance. And the patents wars don't help. I would say that for the next 5 years, smartphones and tablets will be the rage, so getting involved with them is your best bet. And learn to speak Chinese or Hindi. Being able to swear at the hardware guys in their own language is always a bonus. ;)
But the US was the world leader for the second half of the 20th century largely because of the scientific advances it made in atomic physics, agriculture, electronics, computers, and space, to mention a few. That's the point of the video: stop the science and kiss world-leadership goodbye.
A presidential candidate that support creationism is not a religious kook? An anti-science president will mean the US won't be a world leader in this century.
Why you shouldn't let religious kooks run the government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w Scientific progress stopped because mathematics are created by the devil.
How come when the drug cartels use creating financing, governments get so upset but when banks do the same thing, they are rewarded by having their debts pay off for them?
Everyone thinks the problem with automatic trading is that the computers can crash the market before anyone realizes it. But there is a bigger problem: run away stock prices. What happens if suddenly every stock was worth 1,000,000,000 times what it was a few seconds ago? What would that do to the economy?
Laws won't work. Even death by torture did stop infringement: http://torrentfreak.com/and-when-even-the-death-penalty-doesnt-deter-copying-what-then-110807/
95% of the people will give something back if given the chance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/15/interview-dr-love-paul-zak Creating laws that don't work to try to cope with 5% of the population while ignoring, sorry not just ignoring but preventing the 95% from paying you is the fast track to the poor house.
MBAs are taught finance. When their company gets into trouble, that's what they turn to. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So, MBAs try to fiance to get out of trouble. Things like cost cutting. In the article, employees were complaining about the difficulty in finding a whiteboards and the lack of office supplies. Microsoft's stack ranking system was to determine which employee to get rid of. Again, cost cutting. But you can't save a business by cost cutting. You can only save it thru sales. Bill is a good salesman. Steve isn't. Steve can't save the company and I think it's too late for Bill to make a comeback.
MBAs can't run businesses. It's that simple. When Bill ran it, everything was great. When Steve took over, everything went downhill. The same happened in Apple: When Steve was in charge, Apple grew. When Steve was fired, downhill. When Steve was brought back, more growth. The same with HP. Moral: don't let MBAs run your company, it'll tank.
Good for your son; he well on his way. But I would suggest getting better tools, such as a syntax-sensitive editor (I don't know how he can stand Notepad). I suggest that he look into other FLOSS tools like GIMP and Inkscape. And learn how to use git!
From Wikipedia:
The 2-body problem has been completely solved. For n=3, solutions exist for special cases. A general solution in terms of first integrals is known to be impossible. An exact theoretical solution for arbitrary n can be given in terms of Taylor series, but in practice such an infinite series must be truncated, giving an approximate solution. In addition, many solutions by numerical integration exist, but these too are approximate solutions.
Solutions to any desired precision is not the general case.
"There is no general solution to the N-body problem. That has no bearing on whether the problem is solvable..." This does not make sense. If there is no solution, it's not solvable. Yes, sometimes in special circumstances, it can be solved but so what? The general case has been proven to be unsolvable. QED.
You mean your solar system, which has been stable for billions of years. It is not, however, a solution to the general case.
The problem is that inverse-squared fields are not polynomials.
The N-body problem has been proven to have no general solution. That means the future is not predictable. And this is without Relativity and quantum mechanics. The only way to determine what happens in the future is to wait and see. Everything else is just a guess.