heavy metals are made inside stars? It takes a large number of solar generations to get heavy metals in clouds which can then form into planets around a star too small to make said metals, etc.?
Actually, I believe current thinking is that we are not far into the period of time when habitable planets could have started appearing.
Imagine that the world found cheap energy. Really cheap, if not zero point energy something like being able to burn saltwater in an engine.
The economy of the world would likely become a luxery economy, probably an entertainment economy.
But don't think that means hollywood! Think Hobbies... people only want that escapist crap because they have to do things they despise to make a living. Entertainment Economy would include things like linux hacking.
Ok, so this opinion of mine is utopian crap. Sue me.
Some would say AOL was going to lose 155 Billion market cap anyway (some people say there is a recession and that the interrnet bubble burst). Luckily (for them, I mean), they merged with Time Warner before their Market Cap fell to a more realistic level, securing their place in the future. And I'm not fan of any of these parties, that's just analysis.
If all MS has to rely on "sour grapes!" fine, judges are used to seeing defendant scream that about bedraggled victims. AOL bedraggled? No, but netscape is, and AOL needs to fight while it still has resources.
>FPS games are for people that know how to identify "real" with "imagination".
freudian slip? real and imagination are supposed to be distinguished from one another, not identified together! But I know what you meant. It doesn't scare me to allow this kind of game, but I think this culture could use a quick reality check on their fantasies... you can CHOOSE fantasies... it's worth quite a lot of note to observe what fantasies are desired.
Is it appropriate to have more of this. Castle Worlfenstien picks on Nazi's, fine, I hate nazi's, but when you shoot people, it's decidedly anti-german in practice.
Would anyone mind if instead of germans screaming "ya" and dying like Quake monsters it was cowboys and digital Coronel Custers screaming "yeeha". I mean, if you know history, there are genocidal forces in most cultures history, maybe they could pick on them a bit for ballance?
I'm an expert because I played the Original Castle Wolfenstien (still a great game in emulator land)
(2) he writes exciting but surreal multidimensional stories that actually explain quantum mechanical ideas (espc. "many worlds") more than they exploit/exagerate them.
I have no idea if he has written anything recently to actually win a Hugo.
btw, Stanislaw Lem is another must for ultra-logical or mathematical cream of the crop science fiction.
>Maybe a better way to put this is that object are not ONLY metaphors.
You are totally right. A good metaphor can really lead a good object design... my emphasis was due to the fact that many people seem to only think of them as metaphors. For example, when taking a Java course the instructor told us to state our problem in english, map nouns to objects and verbs to methods! That is anathema to me. A bad way to proceed.
btw: this is because the easiest way to implement templates is to essentially copy the code generated by the template into every module that references it. Furthermore, a copy will be made of the code for each type it's used with, i.e. vector of int and vector of float create two copies for the vector code, one compiled to use ints and one to use floats.
Most current compilers now do not take this "easy" approach and share code more like you would hope. But you still get a copy of vector (etc.) for each template you declare with a different type.
Not to be facetious, but the parent post seems to indicate a misunderstanding of "objects". Objects in the software engineering sense are not metaphors. You didn't say they were but that is what is implied, why?
You said if you can't find objects in your domain.
Objects are functions associated with data, I guarantee his software problem involves data that can be organized with functions that act on that data.
Programmers need to learn that objects are not metaphors! They are collections of data and methods into a bundle, for understandability, for reuse, for reimplimentation/replacement. Unless you (a) don't know an OO language or (b) use a system that does not support OO languages or (c) have a really compelling technical reason (though these are dwindling), you should use an OO approach.
But don't let you class system structures get too deep or you waste the advantages. I'm not a purist, but I am convinced... how did I get convinced... when it became clear that the proper way to code in C was object oriented. (What? Of course you can!)
I was about to flame you (I'm sure I would have recovered) but then you went on speak of the ballance. They do compliment each other. Which is why I have my degree in Logic and work as a programmer. Damn! Why did they put Philosophy on the thing... Logic I said!
>It's like the difference between Legos and carpentry. Sure, it's a little harder to cut wood to the right length and you nails or screws to put it together, but would you want to live in a house made of legos?
I'm passing out from the happiness induced by mere consideration of this idea...
Oh, and you are wrong about Design Patterns. It's a great book that helps break old procedural patterns of design, and helps to define a set of OO concepts from which actual implimentations can be made. If you have people trying to impliment those patterns like monkeys, I don't think they understand... it's a book, it's a list of ideas.
They also show how to write an OO parser, and say, don't do this. It's a book about thinking. About asking, how can this system use cooperating objects.
AND: learn algorithms?!?!?! Talk about boilerplate solutions!
The meaning is in there somewhere... viva the literal translation. Frankly, I'd like a word-translation only, leave it to me to deduce the foriegn grammar!
>Again the "Trojan Machine" history wrote - as the most expensive broken coffee machine of the world.
This translation again good enough was. The meaning, not missing, but about a coffee machine encrypted.
But the design is probably flawed at the modular level as well... you will find making cleaner versions of modules in place is like making a fossil... in place replacement can turn flesh to stone, but it will keep the overall shape unchanged. In the case of hard to maintain or troublesome code, this is probably not what you want. If it is... you could just debug the modules and not rewrite them.
Yeah, why leave development to people that like and understand computers. They must be bitter useless people since they were shunned in high school anyway. They should just be assigned slave roles and told what to do by people smart enough to beer binge regularly in college. Yes, I know, nerds beer binge, but I mean with girls.
Pathetic Crocodile Hunter show!? That guy is great! He's a caring ecologist! Maybe you should get out, see a crocodile, see a koala. You are on an amazing continent, go experience it!
Slashdot Mirror
not only do you have a good point, but I went to the site in your sig and (did you make this yourself) because if so, I'm impressed. Great toy!
I think it would take longer than 500 years.
And: did you know:
heavy metals are made inside stars? It takes a large number of solar generations to get heavy metals in clouds which can then form into planets around a star too small to make said metals, etc.?
Actually, I believe current thinking is that we are not far into the period of time when habitable planets could have started appearing.
Imagine that the world found cheap energy. Really cheap, if not zero point energy something like being able to burn saltwater in an engine.
The economy of the world would likely become a luxery economy, probably an entertainment economy.
But don't think that means hollywood! Think Hobbies... people only want that escapist crap because they have to do things they despise to make a living. Entertainment Economy would include things like linux hacking.
Ok, so this opinion of mine is utopian crap. Sue me.
>Maybe he can't do the insanely-ingenious thing himself any more
repent! Maybe he can't... I'm going to just forget you said that.
Some would say AOL was going to lose 155 Billion market cap anyway (some people say there is a recession and that the interrnet bubble burst). Luckily (for them, I mean), they merged with Time Warner before their Market Cap fell to a more realistic level, securing their place in the future. And I'm not fan of any of these parties, that's just analysis.
If all MS has to rely on "sour grapes!" fine, judges are used to seeing defendant scream that about bedraggled victims. AOL bedraggled? No, but netscape is, and AOL needs to fight while it still has resources.
>FPS games are for people that know how to identify "real" with "imagination".
freudian slip? real and imagination are supposed to be distinguished from one another, not identified together! But I know what you meant. It doesn't scare me to allow this kind of game, but I think this culture could use a quick reality check on their fantasies... you can CHOOSE fantasies... it's worth quite a lot of note to observe what fantasies are desired.
Is it appropriate to have more of this. Castle Worlfenstien picks on Nazi's, fine, I hate nazi's, but when you shoot people, it's decidedly anti-german in practice.
Would anyone mind if instead of germans screaming "ya" and dying like Quake monsters it was cowboys and digital Coronel Custers screaming "yeeha". I mean, if you know history, there are genocidal forces in most cultures history, maybe they could pick on them a bit for ballance?
I'm an expert because I played the Original Castle Wolfenstien (still a great game in emulator land)
Please read the (free?) manual for information (if you don't mind).
Yes, I know I can say "fucking" on slashdot, but I prefer not to.
If it is, the casting is great!
I don't remember the part where the hero gets laid.
slashdotters have to read Greg Egan.
(1) he is a programmer.
(2) he writes exciting but surreal multidimensional stories that actually explain quantum mechanical ideas (espc. "many worlds") more than they exploit/exagerate them.
I have no idea if he has written anything recently to actually win a Hugo.
btw, Stanislaw Lem is another must for ultra-logical or mathematical cream of the crop science fiction.
>Maybe a better way to put this is that object are not ONLY metaphors.
You are totally right. A good metaphor can really lead a good object design... my emphasis was due to the fact that many people seem to only think of them as metaphors. For example, when taking a Java course the instructor told us to state our problem in english, map nouns to objects and verbs to methods! That is anathema to me. A bad way to proceed.
btw: this is because the easiest way to implement templates is to essentially copy the code generated by the template into every module that references it. Furthermore, a copy will be made of the code for each type it's used with, i.e. vector of int and vector of float create two copies for the vector code, one compiled to use ints and one to use floats.
Most current compilers now do not take this "easy" approach and share code more like you would hope. But you still get a copy of vector (etc.) for each template you declare with a different type.
Not to be facetious, but the parent post seems to indicate a misunderstanding of "objects". Objects in the software engineering sense are not metaphors. You didn't say they were but that is what is implied, why?
You said if you can't find objects in your domain.
Objects are functions associated with data, I guarantee his software problem involves data that can be organized with functions that act on that data.
Programmers need to learn that objects are not metaphors! They are collections of data and methods into a bundle, for understandability, for reuse, for reimplimentation/replacement. Unless you (a) don't know an OO language or (b) use a system that does not support OO languages or (c) have a really compelling technical reason (though these are dwindling), you should use an OO approach.
But don't let you class system structures get too deep or you waste the advantages. I'm not a purist, but I am convinced... how did I get convinced... when it became clear that the proper way to code in C was object oriented. (What? Of course you can!)
I was about to flame you (I'm sure I would have recovered) but then you went on speak of the ballance. They do compliment each other. Which is why I have my degree in Logic and work as a programmer. Damn! Why did they put Philosophy on the thing... Logic I said!
or actually, that those 14 BOUGHT all the other ones. It's actually still the same people, but they work for AOL etc., as Departments.
>It's like the difference between Legos and carpentry. Sure, it's a little harder to cut wood to the right length and you nails or screws to put it together, but would you want to live in a house made of legos?
I'm passing out from the happiness induced by mere consideration of this idea...
Oh, and you are wrong about Design Patterns. It's a great book that helps break old procedural patterns of design, and helps to define a set of OO concepts from which actual implimentations can be made. If you have people trying to impliment those patterns like monkeys, I don't think they understand... it's a book, it's a list of ideas.
They also show how to write an OO parser, and say, don't do this. It's a book about thinking. About asking, how can this system use cooperating objects.
AND: learn algorithms?!?!?! Talk about boilerplate solutions!
I hope 4000 lines of that is comments (per week). Otherwise I'm petrified.
The meaning is in there somewhere... viva the literal translation. Frankly, I'd like a word-translation only, leave it to me to deduce the foriegn grammar!
>Again the "Trojan Machine" history wrote - as the most expensive broken coffee machine of the world.
This translation again good enough was. The meaning, not missing, but about a coffee machine encrypted.
But the design is probably flawed at the modular level as well... you will find making cleaner versions of modules in place is like making a fossil... in place replacement can turn flesh to stone, but it will keep the overall shape unchanged. In the case of hard to maintain or troublesome code, this is probably not what you want. If it is... you could just debug the modules and not rewrite them.
You are going to rewrite the system from scratch. Design from scratch. Your new design might be able to use some old code, if the old code is useful.
A large scale retrofit is really an oxymoron.
IMHO, but with 15 years experience.
can we possibly change the ideal system just slightly so that sneaky and underhanded counts as invalidation?
-?
Yeah, why leave development to people that like and understand computers. They must be bitter useless people since they were shunned in high school anyway. They should just be assigned slave roles and told what to do by people smart enough to beer binge regularly in college. Yes, I know, nerds beer binge, but I mean with girls.
I'm from California... amazingly, I have seen a bear, I have seen a rattle snake, I have seen Hippies.
I'm now in Hawaii... I have seen a coconut tree, I have seen a Sea Turtle, and eels, and I plan to see a manta ray.
I guess I'm lucky cause I'm sure I sit behind these screens as much as the rest of us.
Pathetic Crocodile Hunter show!? That guy is great! He's a caring ecologist! Maybe you should get out, see a crocodile, see a koala. You are on an amazing continent, go experience it!
re: Dundee... Ok, I agree with you there.