To be fair to the loonies; sorry, idiots, sorry, disbelievers; they actually think that space flight is real- they just don't think that Man landed on the moon.
They almost have a point- the radiation levels were high enough to be dangerous- probably about one of the astronauts will die of a cancer caused by this. But they certainly weren't instantly fatal.
Kind of. The way to avoid the filter is to use words that are most commonly used in non spam email messages. The Bayesian classification doesn't actually recognize any kind of sales pitch per se.
They get into ADSL and other broadband (monopoly or near monopoly) solutions. That way they still get money from their customers for the broadband connection.
Truth is; long distance is now very cheap anyway, and getting cheaper all the time- the fiber systems have seen to that. Besides; voice traffic is already in the minority for of traffic worldwide as a percentage of bits carried, soon it will be basically an irrelevancy cost wise.
I'm currently using Netscape 7.0 which does this; but I've used Outlook previously and it is stupid enough to request GIFs from a web server unless you explicitly turn it off; that misfeature is on by default in both.
Whoa! Don't tell me you assume that GIFs always come with the email? Hey I've got this bridge, wanna buy one?;-)
No. I think you've missed atleast one point. Quite a lot of spammers send mail messages that contain URLs that are unique to you. If you open an email message that contains a URL like that- your browser opens the URL and that tells the spammer that the email is a good one, and they can sell it to other spammers for money- and then you're gonna get more spams.
With the filters you can go offline before checking through the list of suspected spams; that way the URLs don't resolve and the spammers don't know you are there; and you get less spam.
Ok, I used to play it a lot, but I gave up, partly cos its irritating as hell.
In theory there is actually a way to win the game, I think there's atleast 25-40 levels or more; but in practice unless you cheat and/or research the game a lot chances are you'll never, ever win it; it's just too obscure. I've known a dozen or so players- of those, maybe one has completed it, maybe once.
Still there's plenty of fun in there- robbing shop keepers is a blast, and the keystone cops turning up is fun, if a bit life shortening. Your pet dog/cat and you against the dungeon has a certain nice ambiance to it.
But ultimately the random death element got on my nerves just too much.
With this technology you don't need a framerate because you almost never change everything on the screen at once.
You do in most FPS games- modern games have a lot of grayscale and textures, dynamic lighting etc. Therefore if you turn even a tiny bit, practically every pixel needs to change, or potentially can do anyway.
You either didn't read my post well or you're choosing to not respond to my argument.
Mostly the latter, your argument is missing the point, still.
Some good practices may increase code size where other ones may decrease it.
Mostly or completely irrelevant. We are talking about different languages not different designs.
Ok, based on your argument, if I'm not interested in portability I might as well exclusively use assembly language for everything. More lines of code, but since lines of code is a valueless measure that doesn't matter. Right? Wrong!
If you've done any assembly language you'll know it takes considerably longer than, say C; for the same algorithm.
Why? What is it about certain languages that makes them harder? Why do scripting languages exist? Why is a program in Java very often shorter and more reliable than the same program in C++?
Another question is why do scripting languages like Perl exist? Answer, because many times it's quicker to use than to do the same thing in C, again you end up with less lines of code for reasonably big classes of designs.
I'm not claiming that lines of code is the answer, I'm saying it is well correlated with the answer; the true answer is things like, in C++ I have to remember to free the memory, sometimes I forget, but in Java it does it for me and I can't forget, and I don't have to write extra code to do it.
But the bottom line is, two programs coded for the same algorithm (in DIFFERENT languages), have different reliabilities and different lengths. The shorter is usually more reliable, needs less coding, less debugging, less bug fixes. Design time is about the same, of course.
Any argument that says code size is relevant is inherantly flawed.
In a sense true, but also any argument that says that code size is irrelevant is inherently flawed also. In fact as you point out:
There is an obvious correlation between code size and several of these factors.
But that's exactly my point. And if it correlates over parts of your list, then the sum of the factors correlate also. It is not a perfect correlation, but the correlation is there.
I have been writing code professionally for a long time and have worked in shops with very easy to maintain code and very hard to maintain code.
Me too. More than 15 years. And I have read the literature that you have no clue about. Still, there is a difference between writing code and maintaining code I suppose. Writing code is more to do with the language, maintaining code is more process oriented/limited in my experience. I have worked on several projects with very large systems (more than 10 million lines of code, more than 500 software engineers) there is very definitely a superlinear relationship between software size and maintenance difficulty. YMMV.
No. You're wrong. The software literature contains cross language comparisons- it shows programmer productivity is correlated with software brevity.
There's lots and lots of reason- debugging is easier, the programming language is usually closer to the problem domain if the program is shorter, typing is easier, less typos mean that successful compilation happens more quickly, often looking up the APIs in books is needed less, etc. etc.
Bottom line, everything else being equal, I'll take the shorter programming language in a heartbeat.
After the thinking 1 or 3 lines of code doesn't really matter. Just the fact that it's 1 or 3 lines of wellplanned bugfree code.
Yes, but experienced programmers tend to spend less time thinking and more time typing; and the thinking you do is often the same or similar for the different languages.
Also, there are some subtle issues that increased program length gives- the chances of a typo increase with program length- compact code is often easier code, for example in TCL it can take one line to create a button on the screen, whereas in Java it takes about 4- and the Java code is more obscure, and you probably have to check the API to get it right. In C you may have to discard storage after use; in Java you don't need that code- less to break, less to think about. And so on.
There's lots of little things- and it's not inevitable, it's just a correlation; that is mentioned in the literature.
Making cross language comparisons is quite difficult; you'd have to take lots of software engineers, normalise for experience and give them the same task to write in different languages, and measure how long they took and how many lines popped out.
I disagree. If I write an elegant solution that takes up 500 lines, and you write a clunky solution that takes 1000 lines, who was more productive?
That's exactly my point; perhaps I should have said negatively correlated. The 500 line solution is better- and the same thing written in certain languages tend to be more compact, and hence those languages are generally more productive. C isn't especially, C++ is often a little worse if anything, Java is more compact, Perl even more so.
Of course compactness isn't everything; APL programs are very compact, but can be totally unreadable. Still, more compact languages are usually better, upto a point.
It's a show filmed in America, yet there are British cars all over the place. Minis haven't been imported legally in America since the sixties. They're all over the place in Junkyard Wars.
Incidentally, there is some evidence that, for most, of the standard of living in the USA is no higher than, say, Sweden. The number of people with obscene amounts of money skew the statistics. CEOs have been getting ~1000x the salary of the lowest in the company- although it may be dropping slightly now.
Yes, well Russia has been communist for quite a while- it is a very inefficient system; and their land is nothing like as good as American land; to climb out of an agricultural society, you need the farming to be good enough that you have spare people.
China, ever since about 12th century, it has employed an isolationist policy. That means that it doesn't get the influx of ideas from the other countries that allow a country to improve. America, Britain, Japan and Europe in general have been passing the ideas around with abandon- and some of these ideas stick and make lots of money.
The British Empire was built on trade initially; but once we had an empire, then it was built on the resources of that empire- it tended to act much like an internal market.
Japan is another story. The Japanese manipulated their economy- for example they introduced regulations that pushed up the price of land. This mean that in order to be able to afford to live anywhere the Japanese had to work like maniacs. This in turn meant that the per capita productivity was really good, which in turn lead to Japan being rich. Of course the Japanese were living in quite small living quarters... And of course the crash occured when this system fell apart is a sight to behold.
No, that's not the reason. Mainly it's just because it's one country covering a lot of territory with pretty decent natural resources.
Being one big country means it has a huge internal market- this means that goods can be made cheaper just because of economies of scale; that in turn means it competed well abroad. Of course that meant that more money came into the country, and that pushes up the standard of living, until the goods no longer compete so well... and it balances out, but that's still where the USA is now.
Being fairly well off helped during the second world war; America had lots of weapons, and so it was able to cut 'deals' with Britain- loans that aren't yet repaid. America left WWII as the major player on the world stage.
It's unclear how or whether attitude helped with these things.
"...because american people are more 'tv-articulate'"
I don't know I would take this as a compliment.
No no. All she's saying is that she's found that Americans tend to perform better on camera, because of cultural norms of how to behave in that situation.
She's not saying you watch more, although you lazy TV couch potato North Americans doubtless do;-)
Slashdot Mirror
They almost have a point- the radiation levels were high enough to be dangerous- probably about one of the astronauts will die of a cancer caused by this. But they certainly weren't instantly fatal.
So it's really only sensitive to phraseology.
What do you mean? Picking out keywords is how the moderation system actually works isn't it?
Truth is; long distance is now very cheap anyway, and getting cheaper all the time- the fiber systems have seen to that. Besides; voice traffic is already in the minority for of traffic worldwide as a percentage of bits carried, soon it will be basically an irrelevancy cost wise.
Whoa! Don't tell me you assume that GIFs always come with the email? Hey I've got this bridge, wanna buy one? ;-)
With the filters you can go offline before checking through the list of suspected spams; that way the URLs don't resolve and the spammers don't know you are there; and you get less spam.
Ok, I used to play it a lot, but I gave up, partly cos its irritating as hell.
In theory there is actually a way to win the game, I think there's atleast 25-40 levels or more; but in practice unless you cheat and/or research the game a lot chances are you'll never, ever win it; it's just too obscure. I've known a dozen or so players- of those, maybe one has completed it, maybe once.
Still there's plenty of fun in there- robbing shop keepers is a blast, and the keystone cops turning up is fun, if a bit life shortening. Your pet dog/cat and you against the dungeon has a certain nice ambiance to it.
But ultimately the random death element got on my nerves just too much.
You do in most FPS games- modern games have a lot of grayscale and textures, dynamic lighting etc. Therefore if you turn even a tiny bit, practically every pixel needs to change, or potentially can do anyway.
Strangely enough, that's more or less how they met ;-)
Mostly the latter, your argument is missing the point, still.
Some good practices may increase code size where other ones may decrease it.
Mostly or completely irrelevant. We are talking about different languages not different designs.
Ok, based on your argument, if I'm not interested in portability I might as well exclusively use assembly language for everything. More lines of code, but since lines of code is a valueless measure that doesn't matter. Right? Wrong!
If you've done any assembly language you'll know it takes considerably longer than, say C; for the same algorithm.
Why? What is it about certain languages that makes them harder? Why do scripting languages exist? Why is a program in Java very often shorter and more reliable than the same program in C++?
Another question is why do scripting languages like Perl exist? Answer, because many times it's quicker to use than to do the same thing in C, again you end up with less lines of code for reasonably big classes of designs.
I'm not claiming that lines of code is the answer, I'm saying it is well correlated with the answer; the true answer is things like, in C++ I have to remember to free the memory, sometimes I forget, but in Java it does it for me and I can't forget, and I don't have to write extra code to do it.
But the bottom line is, two programs coded for the same algorithm (in DIFFERENT languages), have different reliabilities and different lengths. The shorter is usually more reliable, needs less coding, less debugging, less bug fixes. Design time is about the same, of course.
In a sense true, but also any argument that says that code size is irrelevant is inherently flawed also. In fact as you point out:
There is an obvious correlation between code size and several of these factors.
But that's exactly my point. And if it correlates over parts of your list, then the sum of the factors correlate also. It is not a perfect correlation, but the correlation is there.
Me too. More than 15 years. And I have read the literature that you have no clue about. Still, there is a difference between writing code and maintaining code I suppose. Writing code is more to do with the language, maintaining code is more process oriented/limited in my experience. I have worked on several projects with very large systems (more than 10 million lines of code, more than 500 software engineers) there is very definitely a superlinear relationship between software size and maintenance difficulty. YMMV.
There's lots and lots of reason- debugging is easier, the programming language is usually closer to the problem domain if the program is shorter, typing is easier, less typos mean that successful compilation happens more quickly, often looking up the APIs in books is needed less, etc. etc.
Bottom line, everything else being equal, I'll take the shorter programming language in a heartbeat.
Yes, but experienced programmers tend to spend less time thinking and more time typing; and the thinking you do is often the same or similar for the different languages.
Also, there are some subtle issues that increased program length gives- the chances of a typo increase with program length- compact code is often easier code, for example in TCL it can take one line to create a button on the screen, whereas in Java it takes about 4- and the Java code is more obscure, and you probably have to check the API to get it right. In C you may have to discard storage after use; in Java you don't need that code- less to break, less to think about. And so on.
There's lots of little things- and it's not inevitable, it's just a correlation; that is mentioned in the literature.
Making cross language comparisons is quite difficult; you'd have to take lots of software engineers, normalise for experience and give them the same task to write in different languages, and measure how long they took and how many lines popped out.
That's exactly my point; perhaps I should have said negatively correlated. The 500 line solution is better- and the same thing written in certain languages tend to be more compact, and hence those languages are generally more productive. C isn't especially, C++ is often a little worse if anything, Java is more compact, Perl even more so.
Of course compactness isn't everything; APL programs are very compact, but can be totally unreadable. Still, more compact languages are usually better, upto a point.
It does correlate fairly well with programmer productivity however.
That's nothing, you should see what they do to monkeys! No cooking required!
Yeah. Grey ones.
Unlike American politicians, not everything is for sale.
Incidentally, there is some evidence that, for most, of the standard of living in the USA is no higher than, say, Sweden. The number of people with obscene amounts of money skew the statistics. CEOs have been getting ~1000x the salary of the lowest in the company- although it may be dropping slightly now.
China, ever since about 12th century, it has employed an isolationist policy. That means that it doesn't get the influx of ideas from the other countries that allow a country to improve. America, Britain, Japan and Europe in general have been passing the ideas around with abandon- and some of these ideas stick and make lots of money.
Japan is another story. The Japanese manipulated their economy- for example they introduced regulations that pushed up the price of land. This mean that in order to be able to afford to live anywhere the Japanese had to work like maniacs. This in turn meant that the per capita productivity was really good, which in turn lead to Japan being rich. Of course the Japanese were living in quite small living quarters... And of course the crash occured when this system fell apart is a sight to behold.
Being fairly well off helped during the second world war; America had lots of weapons, and so it was able to cut 'deals' with Britain- loans that aren't yet repaid. America left WWII as the major player on the world stage.
It's unclear how or whether attitude helped with these things.
I don't know I would take this as a compliment.
No no. All she's saying is that she's found that Americans tend to perform better on camera, because of cultural norms of how to behave in that situation.
She's not saying you watch more, although you lazy TV couch potato North Americans doubtless do ;-)