The point is that the nicely laid out buggy code was more easily recognized for what it was: buggy. It was also more easily corrected. A bunch of spaghetti might only work when the sun is out - if you can't read it then you can't know what it really does. Testing is necessary but it is no substitute for understanding, which is just as necessary, and proper code structure aids understanding. It also aids the understanding of the person who wrote the code in the first place, so on those grounds it is indeed more likely to work correctly than some nasty 1000-line function.
The real threat is that the real perverts will get lost amongst the stupid witch hunt.
That is absolutely not the real threat, and if you really mean that you are one of those people causing the real problem! People are born with their sexual orientation, and that can include being attracted to very young children. These people may be perverts, sure, but there is nothing morally dubious about them as long as they do not act on their urges. Which is actually tremendously sad for them, if you think about it - they cannot have a fulfilling sexual life. The situation we have now is morally equivalent to the imprisonment of gays in times past, except I do have the impression that the public outrage today is much worse for people who did not engage in any actual sexual activity with another person.
The real threat is that the real child molesters will get lost amongst the cruel witch hunt of perverts and even non-perverts.
Now if that's what you meant with what you wrote, then fine.
It's a nice analogy, but people reading this should not that it is not accurate. The coin is not in a superposition of heads and tails before you flip it, which is why coins don't allow quantum computation. If you ever hear anything, like this, about quantum phenomena that doesn't blow your mind, it's inaccurate or you didn't understand it.
In my experience you only hand over copyright AFTER the paper has been accepted for publication, and you ARE allowed to post preprints on the internet. What you are not allowed to do is to take the final PDF that the paper prints and distribute it, even if it is word-for-word identical other than editorial changes.
I've been noticing this reliance on rote memorization in everything I've done that comes from Asia. E.g., if you read a Chess book, you will be given examples with explanations and a lot of text. If you read a Go book (a game from China), you will be given absolutely no explanation of any kind, and you are expected to pick up the concepts yourself from being presented with a large amount of examples that aren't explained - the concepts aren't even named. These books literally have no text in them, just images of Go boards. This is the wax-on-wax-off philosophy at work - do not question why you are being set a task, simply do it and trust that your better's have a good reason for having you do it. I saw a documentary where Chinese people were expected to learn English by repeating given sentences over and over until they could do so extremely quickly. Then they had to keep at it until they could say them backwards!
Which is strange, since Scientology's beliefs are no more preposterous than what many other religions believe, they are just more recent, is what I think it is. The real problem with Scientology is the organization itself, not the beliefs. At least, the beliefs are no more a problem than with other religions.
The former is within the realm of personal conviction. The latter requires a leap of faith, ergo religion.
The strongest position that a non-religous atheist can produce is something along the lines of "I am not convinced". When you leap to "you are all idiots", you have entered a position that you cannot support with facts.
BOTH are forms of "I do not take the idea of a god existing seriously," which is what really defines atheism. If you don't understand this, consider your own conviction that there is no Santa Claus. You can't tell me that you have any kind of proof that he doesn't, yet if I suggested to make it illegal to light fires in fireplaces in December so as to not light him on fire, you would think that was preposterous. Does that make you religious? It's exactly the same thing with atheism. If you just admit that to yourself, you can from then on start understanding what atheists actually think, instead of making up things you would like them to think.
In any case, any kind of knowing at all requires what you call "a leap of faith". See, deciding things on limited information is what intelligence is all about. There is nothing religious about it. You are doing it right now as you sit in your chair and fail to be amazed that you don't fall through it. Science certainly crucially depends on it.
You seem to have taken atheism to the extreme of anti-theism, which is an equally untenable position and is a form of religion all in itself.
Some people seem to derive no end of pleasure from pointing out how not believing in gods is a religion. Do you realize how stupid it makes you seem? Is bald a hair-color? Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Is a bare wall a kind of poster? Is... I give up.
A getter IS just a method that does not change any state. The whole point of encapsulation is that you as a client of an object should have no clue what the data representation inside the object is. If there was such a rule that a method starting with "get" could only return a member variable, then you might as well expose the variable itself in the first place, since you've just removed the whole point of having any method starting with "get" - the point being that it aids encapsulation since you DON'T know that it is in fact just returning a member variable. You might have some expectation that a method starting with "get" does not spend too long in computing its result, but that's it and it isn't something you can really rely on.
Now a getXYZ method that does change the state of the object, that's just evil.
If you can't write and manage a simple link list, a stack, a queue, and proper memory allocation in both c99 and c++, you should go back to java and leave c programming to c programmers. The guy who wrote the original article is a java programmer - look at the complaints and the references he provides.
Any kind of programmer at all can do trivial tasks like a linked list, a stack and a queue. The simple fact is that if you are paid anything above minimum wage, you are absolutely wasting your time doing so when there are perfectly good libraries that do this sort of thing very well. This has some rare exceptions where none of the available libraries are appropriate, and the key word there is rare.
There are so many theoretical & methodological problems IQ testing. Any analysis with IQ scores as a data set in inherently flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.
The problem with IQ testing has nothing to do with the science. The reason IQ is vilified is because of the unpalatable and highly inconvenient results that has been established time and time again over the last 100 years of intelligence research.
Some of the worst code I have seen written is in C++, Java and C#. OO over the top, full of OO jargon, code that wanders around a thousand method calls without solving the problem, and TOO MUCH CODE, zillions of complex libraries and dependancies.
Code that "wanders without solving the problem" is a direct consequence of writing cohesive classes that solve one problem and delegates everything it isn't responsible for. The point to appreciate such a thing is to consider the abstractions involved as the basic concepts with which to think about the program. This is an acquired skill. If you view a debug trace as the basic tool to understand your program, you will have a hard time, and that seems to be the basis of your frustration.
Exactly. Use ambiguous terms like erating if you want to ensure that other people are going to have to do global searches on erating in order to figure out what it means.
I would want anyone maintaining the code to look at the declaration to make sure they know what type it is, then look at any initialization code, before monkeying around with it.
I would want anyone writing code to look it over closely to ensure that no simple bugs have crept in. Unfortunately, we know that this is impossible to do - programmers write simple bugs, even the ones with 40 years of experience and an IQ of 200. That is why you should do everything you reasonably can to make bugs apparent, and choosing meaningful variable names is one of those things. Saying that people should read X or Y at some other place in the code may be a good idea, but it ignores that simple mistakes happen however much you try for them not to.
Those are not called achievements, those are called Feats of Strength. The achievements can all be done by all players. Many of the Feats of Strength can only be done by one player, and many have to have been done at some point in the past and so are no longer available, but that's not what this story is about.
If you are mean to the pizza delivery guy then obviously you don't deserve any pizza. Your analogy would be much better if the pizza delivery guy brings you 3 coconuts instead of the pizza you ordered, and then when you refuse to pay he makes sure you can never buy a pizza again.
All the powers disappeared during the solar eclipse in one episode, suggesting that the power is coming from the sun, though clearly not in the form of visible light since the powers also work in-doors. There is no physical contradiction in Sylar's telekinesis, since the law of action-reaction merely requires an opposite force being exerted *somewhere*, it is not required that Sylar's body be the place for that reaction to occur. E.g. his power could work by pushing against a large volume of air, buildings nearby or deep into the ground. This is exactly the same principle of how someone in a crane can move heavy things without his body being crushed - his body just controls the movement, while the real action happens somewhere outside the crane driver's body.
The actual unrealistic part of Heroes is that there just isn't any mechanism for the human body to acquire such powers without some kind of outside intervention, but that is clearly part of the setting and the kind of thing you have to accept to be able to enjoy most super hero stories.
As for the people responding to you saying "what the hell is wrong with you", I would say that anyone watching something like Heroes and NOT having thoughts like "where is the power coming from?" pop into their mind... they should ask for a refund on any education they may have (not) participated in.
These problems have no efficient solution if (and only if) P != NP. That is if there is a polynomial (efficient) solution for any of these, then there is a polynomial time solution for all. We don't know WHETHER THAT'S TRUE. Computer scientists suspect very strongly that there is no polynomial time solution for these problems, but it isn't known for sure.
It's true that many computer scientists will routinely say things like "this result holds assuming that P != NP, but no one thinks that P = NP". In reality the only thing that they or anyone else really knows about this is that no one has so far been able to prove that P = NP. The reason that many are so fond of underscoring how much they don't think that P = NP is that you can get results and so publish papers by assuming that P != NP, but you look mildly stupid for doing so if you don't also say "and hey, I do think that P != NP". Have a whole group of people with this incentive and then you get this sort of confusion where people think that surely P does not equal NP.
I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips. I always end up switching back to Intel.
It's real for you because it is in your head - you are seeing what you expect to see.
Your statement just reminded me of a joke about men, which touches upon slavery as well.
"What do you call a handcuffed man? Trustworthy."
OK, so I just found that on the internet. Still, it occurs to me that I don't remember ever hearing a man make a joke about women in real life, but I have heard women make jokes about men. The thing is, one is acceptable and the other is not. Isn't that funny?
The summary should have included a link to Byfield's original post, which explains the basis for his claim of sexism in FOSS:
In other words, women's participation in FOSS development is over seventeen times lower than it is in proprietary software development.
Now, isn't that by itself enough to get you thinking?
It gets me thinking that you just like all the rest of us don't know how to properly interpret that number. If you want me to take that number seriously as an indicator of sexism, you better have some research to pin down such a slippery claim.
Indeed, most people are more sensitive to slavery and people being whipped/tortured than we are with a man telling a joke about women... is this disturbing to you?
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that the nicely laid out buggy code was more easily recognized for what it was: buggy. It was also more easily corrected. A bunch of spaghetti might only work when the sun is out - if you can't read it then you can't know what it really does. Testing is necessary but it is no substitute for understanding, which is just as necessary, and proper code structure aids understanding. It also aids the understanding of the person who wrote the code in the first place, so on those grounds it is indeed more likely to work correctly than some nasty 1000-line function.
The real threat is that the real perverts will get lost amongst the stupid witch hunt.
That is absolutely not the real threat, and if you really mean that you are one of those people causing the real problem! People are born with their sexual orientation, and that can include being attracted to very young children. These people may be perverts, sure, but there is nothing morally dubious about them as long as they do not act on their urges. Which is actually tremendously sad for them, if you think about it - they cannot have a fulfilling sexual life. The situation we have now is morally equivalent to the imprisonment of gays in times past, except I do have the impression that the public outrage today is much worse for people who did not engage in any actual sexual activity with another person. The real threat is that the real child molesters will get lost amongst the cruel witch hunt of perverts and even non-perverts. Now if that's what you meant with what you wrote, then fine.
It's a nice analogy, but people reading this should not that it is not accurate. The coin is not in a superposition of heads and tails before you flip it, which is why coins don't allow quantum computation. If you ever hear anything, like this, about quantum phenomena that doesn't blow your mind, it's inaccurate or you didn't understand it.
In my experience you only hand over copyright AFTER the paper has been accepted for publication, and you ARE allowed to post preprints on the internet. What you are not allowed to do is to take the final PDF that the paper prints and distribute it, even if it is word-for-word identical other than editorial changes.
You do realize that certain kinds of information is illegal all over? I'm sure you can think of something.
I've been noticing this reliance on rote memorization in everything I've done that comes from Asia. E.g., if you read a Chess book, you will be given examples with explanations and a lot of text. If you read a Go book (a game from China), you will be given absolutely no explanation of any kind, and you are expected to pick up the concepts yourself from being presented with a large amount of examples that aren't explained - the concepts aren't even named. These books literally have no text in them, just images of Go boards. This is the wax-on-wax-off philosophy at work - do not question why you are being set a task, simply do it and trust that your better's have a good reason for having you do it. I saw a documentary where Chinese people were expected to learn English by repeating given sentences over and over until they could do so extremely quickly. Then they had to keep at it until they could say them backwards!
Which is strange, since Scientology's beliefs are no more preposterous than what many other religions believe, they are just more recent, is what I think it is. The real problem with Scientology is the organization itself, not the beliefs. At least, the beliefs are no more a problem than with other religions.
Oh, I disagree completely.
Atheism - "I do not believe there is a god"
Anti-theism - "There is not a god"
The former is within the realm of personal conviction. The latter requires a leap of faith, ergo religion.
The strongest position that a non-religous atheist can produce is something along the lines of "I am not convinced". When you leap to "you are all idiots", you have entered a position that you cannot support with facts.
BOTH are forms of "I do not take the idea of a god existing seriously," which is what really defines atheism. If you don't understand this, consider your own conviction that there is no Santa Claus. You can't tell me that you have any kind of proof that he doesn't, yet if I suggested to make it illegal to light fires in fireplaces in December so as to not light him on fire, you would think that was preposterous. Does that make you religious? It's exactly the same thing with atheism. If you just admit that to yourself, you can from then on start understanding what atheists actually think, instead of making up things you would like them to think. In any case, any kind of knowing at all requires what you call "a leap of faith". See, deciding things on limited information is what intelligence is all about. There is nothing religious about it. You are doing it right now as you sit in your chair and fail to be amazed that you don't fall through it. Science certainly crucially depends on it.
You seem to have taken atheism to the extreme of anti-theism, which is an equally untenable position and is a form of religion all in itself.
Some people seem to derive no end of pleasure from pointing out how not believing in gods is a religion. Do you realize how stupid it makes you seem? Is bald a hair-color? Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Is a bare wall a kind of poster? Is... I give up.
getRisk is still so much better than Risk.
A getter IS just a method that does not change any state. The whole point of encapsulation is that you as a client of an object should have no clue what the data representation inside the object is. If there was such a rule that a method starting with "get" could only return a member variable, then you might as well expose the variable itself in the first place, since you've just removed the whole point of having any method starting with "get" - the point being that it aids encapsulation since you DON'T know that it is in fact just returning a member variable. You might have some expectation that a method starting with "get" does not spend too long in computing its result, but that's it and it isn't something you can really rely on. Now a getXYZ method that does change the state of the object, that's just evil.
If you can't write and manage a simple link list, a stack, a queue, and proper memory allocation in both c99 and c++, you should go back to java and leave c programming to c programmers. The guy who wrote the original article is a java programmer - look at the complaints and the references he provides.
Any kind of programmer at all can do trivial tasks like a linked list, a stack and a queue. The simple fact is that if you are paid anything above minimum wage, you are absolutely wasting your time doing so when there are perfectly good libraries that do this sort of thing very well. This has some rare exceptions where none of the available libraries are appropriate, and the key word there is rare.
There are so many theoretical & methodological problems IQ testing. Any analysis with IQ scores as a data set in inherently flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.
The problem with IQ testing has nothing to do with the science. The reason IQ is vilified is because of the unpalatable and highly inconvenient results that has been established time and time again over the last 100 years of intelligence research.
Some of the worst code I have seen written is in C++, Java and C#. OO over the top, full of OO jargon, code that wanders around a thousand method calls without solving the problem, and TOO MUCH CODE, zillions of complex libraries and dependancies.
Code that "wanders without solving the problem" is a direct consequence of writing cohesive classes that solve one problem and delegates everything it isn't responsible for. The point to appreciate such a thing is to consider the abstractions involved as the basic concepts with which to think about the program. This is an acquired skill. If you view a debug trace as the basic tool to understand your program, you will have a hard time, and that seems to be the basis of your frustration.
I would want anyone maintaining the code to look at the declaration to make sure they know what type it is, then look at any initialization code, before monkeying around with it.
I would want anyone writing code to look it over closely to ensure that no simple bugs have crept in. Unfortunately, we know that this is impossible to do - programmers write simple bugs, even the ones with 40 years of experience and an IQ of 200. That is why you should do everything you reasonably can to make bugs apparent, and choosing meaningful variable names is one of those things. Saying that people should read X or Y at some other place in the code may be a good idea, but it ignores that simple mistakes happen however much you try for them not to.
Those are not called achievements, those are called Feats of Strength. The achievements can all be done by all players. Many of the Feats of Strength can only be done by one player, and many have to have been done at some point in the past and so are no longer available, but that's not what this story is about.
If you are mean to the pizza delivery guy then obviously you don't deserve any pizza. Your analogy would be much better if the pizza delivery guy brings you 3 coconuts instead of the pizza you ordered, and then when you refuse to pay he makes sure you can never buy a pizza again.
All the powers disappeared during the solar eclipse in one episode, suggesting that the power is coming from the sun, though clearly not in the form of visible light since the powers also work in-doors. There is no physical contradiction in Sylar's telekinesis, since the law of action-reaction merely requires an opposite force being exerted *somewhere*, it is not required that Sylar's body be the place for that reaction to occur. E.g. his power could work by pushing against a large volume of air, buildings nearby or deep into the ground. This is exactly the same principle of how someone in a crane can move heavy things without his body being crushed - his body just controls the movement, while the real action happens somewhere outside the crane driver's body.
The actual unrealistic part of Heroes is that there just isn't any mechanism for the human body to acquire such powers without some kind of outside intervention, but that is clearly part of the setting and the kind of thing you have to accept to be able to enjoy most super hero stories.
As for the people responding to you saying "what the hell is wrong with you", I would say that anyone watching something like Heroes and NOT having thoughts like "where is the power coming from?" pop into their mind... they should ask for a refund on any education they may have (not) participated in.
These problems have no efficient solution if (and only if) P != NP. That is if there is a polynomial (efficient) solution for any of these, then there is a polynomial time solution for all. We don't know WHETHER THAT'S TRUE. Computer scientists suspect very strongly that there is no polynomial time solution for these problems, but it isn't known for sure.
It's true that many computer scientists will routinely say things like "this result holds assuming that P != NP, but no one thinks that P = NP". In reality the only thing that they or anyone else really knows about this is that no one has so far been able to prove that P = NP. The reason that many are so fond of underscoring how much they don't think that P = NP is that you can get results and so publish papers by assuming that P != NP, but you look mildly stupid for doing so if you don't also say "and hey, I do think that P != NP". Have a whole group of people with this incentive and then you get this sort of confusion where people think that surely P does not equal NP.
I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips. I always end up switching back to Intel.
It's real for you because it is in your head - you are seeing what you expect to see.
So use XP and be merry!
Your statement just reminded me of a joke about men, which touches upon slavery as well.
"What do you call a handcuffed man? Trustworthy."
OK, so I just found that on the internet. Still, it occurs to me that I don't remember ever hearing a man make a joke about women in real life, but I have heard women make jokes about men. The thing is, one is acceptable and the other is not. Isn't that funny?
The summary should have included a link to Byfield's original post, which explains the basis for his claim of sexism in FOSS:
Now, isn't that by itself enough to get you thinking?
It gets me thinking that you just like all the rest of us don't know how to properly interpret that number. If you want me to take that number seriously as an indicator of sexism, you better have some research to pin down such a slippery claim.
Indeed, most people are more sensitive to slavery and people being whipped/tortured than we are with a man telling a joke about women... is this disturbing to you?
Clever. You didn't answer his question, instead you made the argument that people dismissing the problem is a proof of the problem. That's not true.