b) The leap in the reverse direction, to functional languages, is mostly a simple matter of wrapping blocks in headers and return statements.
Nay, no, notta. Functional languages make you think completely differently about how the computer operates. Simply wrapping things up like that is how you get spaghetti code. The budding programmer will tend to keep writing this way for a long time. Some never grow out of it.
If you start in a language with these two attributes, you're already 1 - 2 years into a collegiate computer science degree.
That's the biggest indictment of CS curriculums I've ever read.
You only see that in Dan Brown novels because it's too dumb of an idea to be actually implemented. Short of a massive breakthrough in computer speeds that they've somehow managed to keep secret, even all the secret government supercomputers in the world would have a hard time breaking AES-128 or RSA-4096 in a reasonable amount of time.
If the government needs to break somebody's crypto, it's done through side-channel attacks. Anything else is a waste of effort.
So you'll avoid hyperinflation by engaging in the very herd-behaviour patterns that cause it?
The herd will be getting t-shirts and bed sheets, not thinking through the implications. But if it's raining money, then money will be useless very shortly. In this instance, it is in my personal best interest to have my assets in something that isn't currency. It's not converting it to land/gold/stocks/whatever that would be causing hyperinflation here. It's the fact that there's a sudden oversupply of money.
I hear arguments all the time of the form "$x/bbl oil will make energy technology x economically viable.", as though there would be capacity in an economy to re-equip its industry at a time when the vast majority of its people cannot obtain food or fuel and their homes are underwater. That doesn't work at all.
It is, in fact, a great argument for Keynesian economics. Things like windmills, solar, and nuclear plants become more and more economically viable as the price of fossil fuels rise. All the more so when the externalities are included in the price. In this situation, there is an oversupply of labor combined with an undersupply of capital. Running up government deficits to solve both problems may sound like a suicide plan, but does anybody have a better idea?
Unfortunately economics today is a counterproductive pseudoscience that compromises people's critical faculties . . .
Nonsense. Economics has ideas like "externalities" that tell you that not only is government intervention not evil, but is often necessary. Even Austrian economists do not ignore this point--they just give different suggestions on how to fix it.
Economists actually have thought out these problems. Too often, their advice gets passed off as either socialism or corporate whoring.
You can be finding a more efficient shirt. I'll be running to the bank, to convert my money into directly tangible assets, in order not to be hit by the hyperinflation that will happen shortly.
What I'm arguing against here is what I see as a deeply misinformed understanding of economics amongst the environmentalist movement. I hear arguments all the time of the form "spend the money on solar/wind/whatever once, and it's free forever!". That doesn't work at all.
Economics isn't about money. It's about how to most effectively manage limited resources. The amount of sunlight hitting the Earth, as well as the amount of sunlight hitting a given plot of land, is very much a limited resource. Sunlight cannot be correctly called free under any realistic economic system.
Fuel is not free, in terms of opportunity cost. In other words, putting up a 20% efficient solar converter loses you the opportunity to put in a 50% efficient converter instead. Converting this to monetary value is left as an exercise to the reader.
Further, capital and maintenance costs mean something. Since equipment has an expected lifespan, it's not true that you spend (for example) $100k now and its free energy forever. If the plant is expected to last 50 years, then the initial capital cost can be amortized at $2k/year.
If your home came with 100 acres of unused field, sure, you can totally work this out at home.
Otherwise, no. Carnot Efficiency always favors creating the highest energy differential you can, which in turn means that centralized energy production will always be more efficient.
And they usually define "server" with a phrase such as "A server includes, but is not limited to, any and all devices which accept unsolicited inbound connection attempts".
Then frankly, you have simple networking needs. Once things go beyond basic web and email access, NAT ends up being a pain for either the end user or the net code developer, or sometimes both.
If/b/tards could be effectual, they wouldn't be/b/tards. Instead, we'll be subjected to their normal blather of incoherent teenage rage. In other times, they would be painting anarchy symbols on overpasses. These days, they take down web sites nobody cares about, so at least they've been sectioned off to a place where they do less damage.
There are improvements to make, but not much. Most of the fundamental parts of OS design were done decades ago. From there, it's mostly a matter of quibbling over details and implementing new hardware drivers.
Linux 2.6 is a mature kernel. "Mature" meaning "no reason to make fundamental design changes". Not unless there are fundamental changes to how computers operate.
Much of this applies just as equally to the Windows kernel, too.
Not at all. It's relativity. No frame of reference is special, but it's easier to talk about things within our own frame of reference for practicality's sake. It's only anthropocentric in the sense that we can't observe things in a reference frame other than our own.
There are astrophysics professors who insist on the idea that if the light cone hasn't hit us yet, then it hasn't happened. No matter if you agree or not, it definitely makes sentence construction easier.
A while back, Sony hosted a hot lap contest in GT5: Prologue. The first one was High Speed Ring, where the final turn is a long turn with guard rails on the side. If you want to do it the cheap way, you can enter into the turn much too fast, then grind along the guard rails with the gas to the floor. You'll enter the straight much faster than you should. So you do it once, enter the straight really fast, then do it again to get the best time.
Sony refused to cull out entries that did this. Funny thing was that when I downloaded the top replay in the contest, my split times were catching up through the middle of the track. I'm hardly the best driver, but I'm sure that I was better than the "top" player.
Needless to say, a proper damage model would stop this misbehavior.
Doesn't matter. Your house wiring couldn't take it. At US standard 120V, 900kW would need wiring that could take 7500A. Even with a doubled circuit of 240V, you need 3750A. The highest rated circuit breakers in my house cut off at 30A.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, Sony has just gone and proved that the only DRM that remains unhacked is the kind that nobody cares to hack. See also: SACD.
I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
Either way, really. Procedural languages turn into a spaghetti mess. Functional languages won't work at all.
b) The leap in the reverse direction, to functional languages, is mostly a simple matter of wrapping blocks in headers and return statements.
Nay, no, notta. Functional languages make you think completely differently about how the computer operates. Simply wrapping things up like that is how you get spaghetti code. The budding programmer will tend to keep writing this way for a long time. Some never grow out of it.
If you start in a language with these two attributes, you're already 1 - 2 years into a collegiate computer science degree.
That's the biggest indictment of CS curriculums I've ever read.
You only see that in Dan Brown novels because it's too dumb of an idea to be actually implemented. Short of a massive breakthrough in computer speeds that they've somehow managed to keep secret, even all the secret government supercomputers in the world would have a hard time breaking AES-128 or RSA-4096 in a reasonable amount of time.
If the government needs to break somebody's crypto, it's done through side-channel attacks. Anything else is a waste of effort.
Came to thread for this comment. Disappointed that it's at the bottom of the page, and left by an Anon Cow.
So you'll avoid hyperinflation by engaging in the very herd-behaviour patterns that cause it?
The herd will be getting t-shirts and bed sheets, not thinking through the implications. But if it's raining money, then money will be useless very shortly. In this instance, it is in my personal best interest to have my assets in something that isn't currency. It's not converting it to land/gold/stocks/whatever that would be causing hyperinflation here. It's the fact that there's a sudden oversupply of money.
I hear arguments all the time of the form "$x/bbl oil will make energy technology x economically viable.", as though there would be capacity in an economy to re-equip its industry at a time when the vast majority of its people cannot obtain food or fuel and their homes are underwater. That doesn't work at all.
It is, in fact, a great argument for Keynesian economics. Things like windmills, solar, and nuclear plants become more and more economically viable as the price of fossil fuels rise. All the more so when the externalities are included in the price. In this situation, there is an oversupply of labor combined with an undersupply of capital. Running up government deficits to solve both problems may sound like a suicide plan, but does anybody have a better idea?
Unfortunately economics today is a counterproductive pseudoscience that compromises people's critical faculties . . .
Nonsense. Economics has ideas like "externalities" that tell you that not only is government intervention not evil, but is often necessary. Even Austrian economists do not ignore this point--they just give different suggestions on how to fix it.
Economists actually have thought out these problems. Too often, their advice gets passed off as either socialism or corporate whoring.
You can be finding a more efficient shirt. I'll be running to the bank, to convert my money into directly tangible assets, in order not to be hit by the hyperinflation that will happen shortly.
What I'm arguing against here is what I see as a deeply misinformed understanding of economics amongst the environmentalist movement. I hear arguments all the time of the form "spend the money on solar/wind/whatever once, and it's free forever!". That doesn't work at all.
Economics isn't about money. It's about how to most effectively manage limited resources. The amount of sunlight hitting the Earth, as well as the amount of sunlight hitting a given plot of land, is very much a limited resource. Sunlight cannot be correctly called free under any realistic economic system.
I've never seen a home energy system that actually works out that way, once all the numbers are crunched.
You can hope, but we both know that this is Slashdot.
That's because Brazil is slash-and-burning rain forest land to farm sugar cane. As currently practiced, its no more sustainable than oil.
Fuel is not free, in terms of opportunity cost. In other words, putting up a 20% efficient solar converter loses you the opportunity to put in a 50% efficient converter instead. Converting this to monetary value is left as an exercise to the reader.
Further, capital and maintenance costs mean something. Since equipment has an expected lifespan, it's not true that you spend (for example) $100k now and its free energy forever. If the plant is expected to last 50 years, then the initial capital cost can be amortized at $2k/year.
If your home came with 100 acres of unused field, sure, you can totally work this out at home.
Otherwise, no. Carnot Efficiency always favors creating the highest energy differential you can, which in turn means that centralized energy production will always be more efficient.
. . . Ariane charges about the same prices
Per launch, yes, but the Falcon 9 can carry a lot more up for the same price.
Well, hey, at least modern medicine doesn't use leaches anymore. Except when they do.
And they usually define "server" with a phrase such as "A server includes, but is not limited to, any and all devices which accept unsolicited inbound connection attempts".
Which would cover any VoIP device.
It seems like a pretty sturdy bridge to me.
Then frankly, you have simple networking needs. Once things go beyond basic web and email access, NAT ends up being a pain for either the end user or the net code developer, or sometimes both.
If /b/tards could be effectual, they wouldn't be /b/tards. Instead, we'll be subjected to their normal blather of incoherent teenage rage. In other times, they would be painting anarchy symbols on overpasses. These days, they take down web sites nobody cares about, so at least they've been sectioned off to a place where they do less damage.
There are improvements to make, but not much. Most of the fundamental parts of OS design were done decades ago. From there, it's mostly a matter of quibbling over details and implementing new hardware drivers.
Linux 2.6 is a mature kernel. "Mature" meaning "no reason to make fundamental design changes". Not unless there are fundamental changes to how computers operate.
Much of this applies just as equally to the Windows kernel, too.
Not at all. It's relativity. No frame of reference is special, but it's easier to talk about things within our own frame of reference for practicality's sake. It's only anthropocentric in the sense that we can't observe things in a reference frame other than our own.
There are astrophysics professors who insist on the idea that if the light cone hasn't hit us yet, then it hasn't happened. No matter if you agree or not, it definitely makes sentence construction easier.
The penalty system was on, it's just that it isn't quite perfect. If you tap the wall carefully with the back of the car, it won't penalize you.
Here's a video that shows the track/direction I'm talking about (though not the cheat):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsrioeEEw8
You can probably find all the top replays for the course to use the cheat.
A while back, Sony hosted a hot lap contest in GT5: Prologue. The first one was High Speed Ring, where the final turn is a long turn with guard rails on the side. If you want to do it the cheap way, you can enter into the turn much too fast, then grind along the guard rails with the gas to the floor. You'll enter the straight much faster than you should. So you do it once, enter the straight really fast, then do it again to get the best time.
Sony refused to cull out entries that did this. Funny thing was that when I downloaded the top replay in the contest, my split times were catching up through the middle of the track. I'm hardly the best driver, but I'm sure that I was better than the "top" player.
Needless to say, a proper damage model would stop this misbehavior.
Thing is, if Kinect drivers were open source, you could see a lot of applications that aren't games. Use your imagination.
Doesn't matter. Your house wiring couldn't take it. At US standard 120V, 900kW would need wiring that could take 7500A. Even with a doubled circuit of 240V, you need 3750A. The highest rated circuit breakers in my house cut off at 30A.