Your conjecture (wrapping an ad hominem attack) is charming, but... Evidence, please?
KTHANXBYE!
P.S.- my experience is in big government IT contract work and internal research and development. for IR&D, absolutely anything goes. For gov't contract work, hoops have to be jumped through, but if I show a demo system with functionality that impresses the client I'll get whatever backing I need from upper management.
Thats not possible. I think you've gotta wait for the future... when you'll get caffeinated bacon and baconated grapefruit. Not to mention Admiral Crunch.
Given the United States penchant for spin, as evidenced by its political problems, we feel it necessary to warn you that U.S. Science may infact try to state that you don't exist.
Different for the POWER 5 chip, because now the Hypervisor runs in firmware but has some hooks into the OS.
But, yeah. ITs all from the mainframe world.
I mean, without this you can still run Linux on an LPAR, and you can still give that LPAR fractional CPU allotment (capped or non capped) and frational IO (ethernet, harddisk). Now you can just do it on the fly.
My $30 Casio watchface will not scratch if I rub it with a butterknife with light pressure, why should my Ipod be any different?
Completely different from the ground up. You wear the watch on your wrist; its sees a lot of action and a lot of battle damage. I've ruined watch faces of Swatch watches of old by simply bumping into a wall. Or hand rail. Or cabinet. etc.
I think a better analogy is to a digital camera. And typically you buy a case for it. And the main aperture closes to protect itself from harm. Sure, you can keep it in your pocket if you want to but its at your own risk.
And why on earth are you rubbing your watch with a butter knife?!:)
Link to article on how broadcasting grain prices helps standardize the market and prevent the small-time farmer from getting screwed.
Thats a direct example of not just technology, but technologically aided flow of information directly "empowers" (read: gives them more money) a person.
Yes, that's their true value to the debugger. However I think the concept of a "stack" is a little beyond the aims of this board game. Its also beyond most entry level programmers; witness the difficulty they have with recursion.
Clean up at the bottom and return. Yes, there are two return statements, the one right above the labeled "error_handling_section", and the one within the error_handling_section (which always returns -1).
Guard "Classes", what are these guard "CLASSES" in C? What is this "Catching" in C? Do tell me more, I'm very interested!
Now as for your more general assesment, you are absolutely correct. however it would be ignorant of me to say "All would-be programmers should learn assembly!" While they should, many won't. So in effect, what is the value for teaching a goto in a board game? Well, when they get to programming java ( a likely candidate for a first programming language) its analgous to having an exception raised and "jumping" down to the catch block.
While thats not absolutely 'correct', its still a plausible reason for inclusion in a game.
They are typing in pieces of paper. You associate their user id with each piece of paper the process. You double check their work against those pieces of paper. If they screw up too much, ALL the paper they EVER touched goes from the "DONE" pile back into the "TO BE DONE" pile.
actually, at work we went with an Open standard back in the 80s. Infact, it was the open standard; the Open System Interconnect 7 layer network stack. Who needs TCP/IP?! This was a global standard!
We certainly got screwed on that one. (and before you say anything, its not JUST a networking model; there are protocols to back it up and we have a fully working stack. Egads.)
As for the GBTW, it is typically combined with STFU. Searching Urban Dictionary is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's also a good lesson for designing things even when you *know* the environment in which it will be used...that can change and it's best to work with standards rather than the easiest, but perhaps proprietary choice.
Its statements like that which guarantees you'll never work in management.
IBM'ers show up at every conference and present. They are easily accesible. I went for the UserBlue AIX specific portions (and got access to network device driver engineers!), but if you go to the non-AIX,non-eServer HACMP stuff its a whole world of applied mainframes.
There is a community out there and IBMers are looking after it.
1) Concorde was an engineering marvel that never got stepped up with the times. Japan and France are betting they can make a much more efficient engine that would save on fuel consumption.
2) Large bodies of water. You can't fly the concord at full speed over the continental united states (pretty much squashing SST in America). But you can do it over the vastness of the pacific. If you shorten that route, business men and women will beat a path to your door, check book in hand. So would international parcel carriers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm currently wondering if I'm responding to a fan with bad argument planning skills
And we have a win-nah! Winnah!
Few have quality arugment planning skills; myself included.
No, "twarted" works if you say it with an Irish lilt.
Mekka.
And they wail so hard on their guitars it makes the pirates peepee hurt.
Now that is Real Ultimate Power!!!
Your conjecture (wrapping an ad hominem attack) is charming, but... Evidence, please?
KTHANXBYE!
P.S.- my experience is in big government IT contract work and internal research and development. for IR&D, absolutely anything goes. For gov't contract work, hoops have to be jumped through, but if I show a demo system with functionality that impresses the client I'll get whatever backing I need from upper management.
Age-old adage of corporate beauracracy once again rearing its head.
If you want results; just do it.
If you want to tread water and waste time, then by all means keep going to those meetings!
I was actually wondering if this article was about the NERC centre in Swannwick being 6 years late and grossly over budget.
/You say "Asyncrhonous Transfer Mode" and I say "Air Traffic Management"
Is Al Jean saying that Homer drinks bacon?
Thats not possible. I think you've gotta wait for the future... when you'll get caffeinated bacon and baconated grapefruit. Not to mention Admiral Crunch.
Given the United States penchant for spin, as evidenced by its political problems, we feel it necessary to warn you that U.S. Science may infact try to state that you don't exist.
Keep a sharp watch!
signed,
Advisory Panel
t's a Java Bittorrent client.. so all those people that are allergic to Java might want to avoid it.
;)
So THATs why its soo slow!!!
j/k
Simultaneous Multi Threading is an even cooler feature of the POWER 5 chip!
Here's a pdf.
Different for the POWER 5 chip, because now the Hypervisor runs in firmware but has some hooks into the OS.
But, yeah. ITs all from the mainframe world.
I mean, without this you can still run Linux on an LPAR, and you can still give that LPAR fractional CPU allotment (capped or non capped) and frational IO (ethernet, harddisk). Now you can just do it on the fly.
My $30 Casio watchface will not scratch if I rub it with a butterknife with light pressure, why should my Ipod be any different?
:)
Completely different from the ground up. You wear the watch on your wrist; its sees a lot of action and a lot of battle damage. I've ruined watch faces of Swatch watches of old by simply bumping into a wall. Or hand rail. Or cabinet. etc.
I think a better analogy is to a digital camera. And typically you buy a case for it. And the main aperture closes to protect itself from harm. Sure, you can keep it in your pocket if you want to but its at your own risk.
And why on earth are you rubbing your watch with a butter knife?!
These are not only good for PDAs, but they make them for digital camera screens, too. Its clear, its plastic, it'll take the dings, and its cheap.
Isn't it obvious?
Link to article on how broadcasting grain prices helps standardize the market and prevent the small-time farmer from getting screwed.
Thats a direct example of not just technology, but technologically aided flow of information directly "empowers" (read: gives them more money) a person.
Who knows how laptops could be used!
Yes, that's their true value to the debugger. However I think the concept of a "stack" is a little beyond the aims of this board game. Its also beyond most entry level programmers; witness the difficulty they have with recursion.
Clean up at the bottom and return. Yes, there are two return statements, the one right above the labeled "error_handling_section", and the one within the error_handling_section (which always returns -1).
Guard "Classes", what are these guard "CLASSES" in C? What is this "Catching" in C? Do tell me more, I'm very interested!
Now as for your more general assesment, you are absolutely correct. however it would be ignorant of me to say "All would-be programmers should learn assembly!" While they should, many won't. So in effect, what is the value for teaching a goto in a board game? Well, when they get to programming java ( a likely candidate for a first programming language) its analgous to having an exception raised and "jumping" down to the catch block.
While thats not absolutely 'correct', its still a plausible reason for inclusion in a game.
I just wrote code today that had a bunch of gotos in it.
pass in a string pointer, and if your return code was -1 log the string.
If you use Exceptions in Java or Ada under the covers they are just jumps.
They are typing in pieces of paper. You associate their user id with each piece of paper the process. You double check their work against those pieces of paper. If they screw up too much, ALL the paper they EVER touched goes from the "DONE" pile back into the "TO BE DONE" pile.
It makes perfect sense.
Individuals input is periodically checked for accuracy. As more mistakes are found, you get less and less work (as in, you get fired).
When a data entry clerk is let go, all of their previous work is re-worked.
actually, at work we went with an Open standard back in the 80s. Infact, it was the open standard; the Open System Interconnect 7 layer network stack. Who needs TCP/IP?! This was a global standard!
We certainly got screwed on that one.
(and before you say anything, its not JUST a networking model; there are protocols to back it up and we have a fully working stack. Egads.)
As for the GBTW, it is typically combined with STFU. Searching Urban Dictionary is left as an exercise for the reader.
Apparently I have gotten into a leadership position, because I have people explaining my jokes for me.
Pretty cool, actually.
The "GBTW!!!" was the cincher that should have pushed it over the edge for you.
It's also a good lesson for designing things even when you *know* the environment in which it will be used...that can change and it's best to work with standards rather than the easiest, but perhaps proprietary choice.
Its statements like that which guarantees you'll never work in management.
GBTW!!!
Well, sort of. Here's the group: Share.
IBM'ers show up at every conference and present. They are easily accesible. I went for the UserBlue AIX specific portions (and got access to network device driver engineers!), but if you go to the non-AIX,non-eServer HACMP stuff its a whole world of applied mainframes.
There is a community out there and IBMers are looking after it.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Seriously. Thats just all there is to it.
/has been to many cons
//knew of GenCon as "Teh Grandaddy"
///got tired of the lame-ness of the general gaming population
1) Concorde was an engineering marvel that never got stepped up with the times. Japan and France are betting they can make a much more efficient engine that would save on fuel consumption.
2) Large bodies of water. You can't fly the concord at full speed over the continental united states (pretty much squashing SST in America). But you can do it over the vastness of the pacific. If you shorten that route, business men and women will beat a path to your door, check book in hand. So would international parcel carriers.