vinyl: great cover art, about $2/album to produce, on a good player and a good album a very rich analog sound, especially in the bass region. Bad user-interface. No expiration in lifetime, especially if you never play it. cassettes: no/tiny cover art, $1/album ? to produce. Still analog sound, but sounds crappy. Limited life. CDS: no/tiny cover art, 50 cents per album to produce, easier to use than vinyl, DDD sounds like crap. ADD is better, but you still lose quality. digital: no cover art, completely portable, no physical media to pay for and minimal distribution costs per album. Quality is generally less than CDs, but always sounds better than cassettes to me.
I am not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but with a good vinyl player, album, recorder, tube amp: the sound quality should always be greater than a mass-produced digitial reproduction because you are essentially running a filter over the entire spectrum, which is most destructive on the bass frequencies.
Well said. It is about solving problems. At the undergraduate level, I would worry about overworking students. I have freshmen using emacs and C++ in a unix environment with no b*tching at all. I am flabbergasted, but VERY encouraged. I think that part of it might be that they don't know that there is a better way to do this, despite me showing them a few things (I have gotten several to adopt bash over tcsh). I don't really worry about people with that type of attitude, as they are the folks who eventually figure it out.
It drives me nuts when the science that brings us cars, cell-phones, computers, sewer systems, etc. is only called into question when it "conflicts" with some interpretation of the bible, a document that conflicts with itself.
Also note that these are the same people who were against in-vitro fertilization until it proved useful and who are rallying against stem-cell research until we find a use for it.
Of course, if they were being honest in questioning evolution and teaching other creation mythologies, then I would suggest Bhuddism, a variety of different Native American beliefs, Hindu beliefs, so on and so forth. But that's not what they're proposing. Apparently science only supports Jesus.
This is by far the biggest feature. Not having to write custom API's for using altivec is going to make this OS great, not only for performance of generic science apps, but for general application performance for apps that would require to much work to write custom loops for in Altivec.
That was about 3+ years ago, at one of Apple's low points. The stock has about quintipled ($10/80). OSX was so clearly in the right direction, albeit broken that it was indicitive of good things (iPod,Mini, Xserve clusters, etc.) of things to come.
There formula for success is the same as google's. Build an efficient user-experience over a solid backend.
Hogwash! Write first, optimize later . . . what are the chances that I can write a better sorting algorithm than one included in a standard library that was written by some who studied sorting algorithms [and thoroughly tested the code].
Or more conretely:
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
I would argue that its still important to know HOW to write these algorithms, so you know what the cost/benefits of different types of sorts are, but there is no virtue in reinventing a working wheel.
In regards to both arguments, you do both. You design (UML, etc) general architecture and interactions, design specific tests (probably hardest thing to do), code a % of the design (this is where a good PM helps), test, and start over (i.e., iterate), hopefully with fewer and fewer changes to the design and code, as you go.
Though, I do think that there is an overemphasis on design, since, almost without exception, you won't know what the final design will be until you've begun to code it. Additionally, a season programmer shouldn't waste time on designing simple patterns (i.e., singletons or command-factories), other than remarking that certain portions of the code will need a singleton or command-factory.
In general, though, you sound like a highly sane PM.
. . . but my B.S. meter exploded. This is the kind of shit that business programs spew out.
It wouldn't have been so bad, just a qualitative redeclaration of the obvious, but then they had THEformula for risk assessment. Also, keep in mind, this study was based on interviews with IT executives, not staff or customers. I'm sure that this simply consisted of a series of bubble-sheets with a few questions on it.
I guess, this is better than nothing, but, as noted in earlier posts, common-sense is still twice as good.
. As a programmer, I can tell that machine whatever I want to print on the paper, and still tell the machine internally to record something else. There's a fundamental problem with that.
The major complaint against the voter machine companies, is that they haven't been pushing against sane security or verifiability.
This is why these paper receipts are supposed to be voter-verifiable. Alluding to the previous argument about the black-box testing, each vote is an N of 1 in the black-box tests.
The only way to detect fraud or tampering right now is through massive over or under-voting. Since we can't see the code (which is fine, since there is no gaurantee it will be on polling machine, i.e., diebold), having a ballot receipt GUARANTEES a vote can be verified. This prevents tampering of both paper and electronic ballots, as there are several checks on the system.
Anyway, your point about election law is well-taken. The fact that Jimmy Carter won't certify our election has little or nothing to do with voting machines. Partisan election officials, unequal funding, and not even close to standard voting equipment make elections here, a nightmare.
Even so, its still shameful to be an American at this point in time. I think that most of this was due to the "hates fags", better known as the ban gay marriage doctrine.
Its ironic that you mention that. Apache is a tool that needs great documentation (as opposed to sniffing through newsgroups), as opposed to OpenOffice, which is, for the most part, self-explanatory.
All nuclear isotopes are dangerous, especially plutonium. The radiation is what kills people. Alpha and gamma radiation is extremely deadly. When you inhale or ingest it, it radiates the inside of the body, producing cancerous cells, increasingly the likelihood of early death due to cancer.
This is what happened in and around Chernobyl (and downwind of it), its why people couldn't eat crops and animals from certain places in Europe following Chernobyl, this is what happens in Uranium mines, this is what happened to Madame Curie, this is what happened to unburned survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This should be obvious to anyone who's had highschool physics.
We may have to someday depend on nuclear energy despite its safety concerns, not because of them. Vitrification technique may someday lessen the risk, but it is still very nasty stuff, which isn't doesn't become less nasty because of blatant ignorance.
This idea would work great for games like basketball, hockey, maybe rugby.
I think that it could work baseball (and cricket) and football. There are a lot of positions where you need REALLY consistent play, like a nose-tackle or conerback. Even playing single-player, I would never choose these positions.
If you had 6 players come on a team of 11, they could then choose what positions they wanted to play. If they left (or were booted by the other members of the team or the admin), then that player would be taking over by the computers default player. The game is more FUN with more human players, but you can still play with people coming and going.
Google works because it is largely a statistical tool that uses some meta-information.
While I could see frameworks being used for very specific purposes, like searching a homogeneous (e.g., slashdot, pubmed, nytimes) web-site where all content is controlled. But extending these ideas to a heterogenous web that would no doubt take advantages of such a volunteer system is ludicrous.
I also take issue with the top-down mind-state that they will be able to predict what is useful to the user. This is why statistical importance and quantity is the only realistic method for such a massive undertaking (which google is still actively researching).
I think that the only useful research to come out of such an endeavor would be to have news-sites, as mentioned above, implement and be scanned using an ontological browser. Of course, I am not sure how this would be different than Lexus-Nexus (sp?).
I have been using arch for several months, moving completely over from CVS. Yeah, it fixes some of the stuff in cvs like moving directories and files. Its concept of branching isn't bad either. However, it completely fails simple things that cvs (and probably subversion) accomplishes with easy, like querying the differences between two branches without checking either out (the recommended solution is to check both out and perform diffs between them).
There are other anomolies, like three different ways to update and/or merge branches, "update", "replay" and "star-merge". One version would be sufficient, with options which affect clobbering, etc.
Other problems are the fact that it has to detect changes it frequently has to rebuild itself from branches back, which can tain several minutes as it goes through about 150 patch revisions. Of course, you can create a revision library to overcome this (I think).
Don't get me wrong . . . I think that arch has the potential to be a great repository tool. Most of its problems could be overcome by simply automating sane defaults and allowing LESS choice. Currently, though, if I had to do merge my code over again, I would recommend against using it.
Stuart Saves His Family was great and Superstar was . . . good. But, in general, this is a good rule of thumb. I think you're missing a lot of David Spade films, in there.
This is like the anti-argument. Not only does java come with a whole host of standard functions, including a gui, adding additional frameworks is easy, like C and java. The difference, I think, is that there simply a lot more of them for java.
If you are upset about adding additional libraries to your code to extend its functionality without re-inventing the wheel you either: - never write code that has a significant amount of functionality - enjoy writing code for things that have already been implemented by better coder(s)
There are a lot of reasons for writing in a scripting language, but I don't think you highlighted any of them. If you find using java confusing, then maybe you are using it for the wrong things.
I think that's a bit of a phallacy/myth. I think that what wins elections is getting your people out to vote. Yeah, swing voters are important, but they are what, 5% of the vote? In elections where only 50% of the populous votes, I think a better decisions is simply getting people excited about the candidate that they are voting for, which is what Dean does/did.
The alternative is having an opposition candidate so scary that it motivates you to vote against them, which is why Kerry is getting my vote.
Slashdot Mirror
intellij has a nice vim plugin that I have been using since 7.
Supports all of the modes, search / replace, etc.
The only thing I miss is the fancy window-editing, but that is more the fault of intellij than the plugin author.
I think that JnJ has a decent complaint:
h tm
http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20070809_081717.
Feel free to disagree, but this is my take:
vinyl: great cover art, about $2/album to produce, on a good player and a good album a very rich analog sound, especially in the bass region. Bad user-interface. No expiration in lifetime, especially if you never play it.
cassettes: no/tiny cover art, $1/album ? to produce. Still analog sound, but sounds crappy. Limited life.
CDS: no/tiny cover art, 50 cents per album to produce, easier to use than vinyl, DDD sounds like crap. ADD is better, but you still lose quality.
digital: no cover art, completely portable, no physical media to pay for and minimal distribution costs per album. Quality is generally less than CDs, but always sounds better than cassettes to me.
I am not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but with a good vinyl player, album, recorder, tube amp: the sound quality should always be greater than a mass-produced digitial reproduction because you are essentially running a filter over the entire spectrum, which is most destructive on the bass frequencies.
Suprisingly, the wikipedia discussion on analog versus digital largely agrees with this.
Well said. It is about solving problems. At the undergraduate level, I would worry about overworking students. I have freshmen using emacs and C++ in a unix environment with no b*tching at all. I am flabbergasted, but VERY encouraged. I think that part of it might be that they don't know that there is a better way to do this, despite me showing them a few things (I have gotten several to adopt bash over tcsh). I don't really worry about people with that type of attitude, as they are the folks who eventually figure it out.
Well, he was able to fund vacations for his family on taxpayers $'s so why not NASA.
The man is the throes of a slow and painful political excecution, I'm just scared what the next incarnation of Republican leader will be.
It drives me nuts when the science that brings us cars, cell-phones, computers, sewer systems, etc. is only called into question when it "conflicts" with some interpretation of the bible, a document that conflicts with itself.
Also note that these are the same people who were against in-vitro fertilization until it proved useful and who are rallying against stem-cell research until we find a use for it.
Of course, if they were being honest in questioning evolution and teaching other creation mythologies, then I would suggest Bhuddism, a variety of different Native American beliefs, Hindu beliefs, so on and so forth. But that's not what they're proposing. Apparently science only supports Jesus.
This is by far the biggest feature. Not having to write custom API's for using altivec is going to make this OS great, not only for performance of generic science apps, but for general application performance for apps that would require to much work to write custom loops for in Altivec.
That was about 3+ years ago, at one of Apple's low points. The stock has about quintipled ($10/80). OSX was so clearly in the right direction, albeit broken that it was indicitive of good things (iPod,Mini, Xserve clusters, etc.) of things to come.
There formula for success is the same as google's. Build an efficient user-experience over a solid backend.
For some reason my mind read Smeagol, initially. Talk about being interviewed by your peers.
Hogwash! Write first, optimize later . . . what are the chances that I can write a better sorting algorithm than one included in a standard library that was written by some who studied sorting algorithms [and thoroughly tested the code].
Or more conretely:
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
I would argue that its still important to know HOW to write these algorithms, so you know what the cost/benefits of different types of sorts are, but there is no virtue in reinventing a working wheel.
In regards to both arguments, you do both. You design (UML, etc) general architecture and interactions, design specific tests (probably hardest thing to do), code a % of the design (this is where a good PM helps), test, and start over (i.e., iterate), hopefully with fewer and fewer changes to the design and code, as you go.
Though, I do think that there is an overemphasis on design, since, almost without exception, you won't know what the final design will be until you've begun to code it. Additionally, a season programmer shouldn't waste time on designing simple patterns (i.e., singletons or command-factories), other than remarking that certain portions of the code will need a singleton or command-factory.
In general, though, you sound like a highly sane PM.
. . . but my B.S. meter exploded. This is the kind of shit that business programs spew out.
It wouldn't have been so bad, just a qualitative redeclaration of the obvious, but then they had THE formula for risk assessment. Also, keep in mind, this study was based on interviews with IT executives, not staff or customers. I'm sure that this simply consisted of a series of bubble-sheets with a few questions on it.
I guess, this is better than nothing, but, as noted in earlier posts, common-sense is still twice as good.
. As a programmer, I can tell that machine whatever I want to print on the paper, and still tell the machine internally to record something else. There's a fundamental problem with that.
The major complaint against the voter machine companies, is that they haven't been pushing against sane security or verifiability.
This is why these paper receipts are supposed to be voter-verifiable. Alluding to the previous argument about the black-box testing, each vote is an N of 1 in the black-box tests.
The only way to detect fraud or tampering right now is through massive over or under-voting. Since we can't see the code (which is fine, since there is no gaurantee it will be on polling machine, i.e., diebold), having a ballot receipt GUARANTEES a vote can be verified. This prevents tampering of both paper and electronic ballots, as there are several checks on the system.
Anyway, your point about election law is well-taken. The fact that Jimmy Carter won't certify our election has little or nothing to do with voting machines. Partisan election officials, unequal funding, and not even close to standard voting equipment make elections here, a nightmare.
Apparently they were already there , not that it mattered.
Even so, its still shameful to be an American at this point in time. I think that most of this was due to the "hates fags", better known as the ban gay marriage doctrine.
Its ironic that you mention that. Apache is a tool that needs great documentation (as opposed to sniffing through newsgroups), as opposed to OpenOffice, which is, for the most part, self-explanatory.
All nuclear isotopes are dangerous, especially plutonium. The radiation is what kills people. Alpha and gamma radiation is extremely deadly. When you inhale or ingest it, it radiates the inside of the body, producing cancerous cells, increasingly the likelihood of early death due to cancer.
This is what happened in and around Chernobyl (and downwind of it), its why people couldn't eat crops and animals from certain places in Europe following Chernobyl, this is what happens in Uranium mines, this is what happened to Madame Curie, this is what happened to unburned survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This should be obvious to anyone who's had highschool physics.
We may have to someday depend on nuclear energy despite its safety concerns, not because of them. Vitrification technique may someday lessen the risk, but it is still very nasty stuff, which isn't doesn't become less nasty because of blatant ignorance.
This idea would work great for games like basketball, hockey, maybe rugby.
I think that it could work baseball (and cricket) and football. There are a lot of positions where you need REALLY consistent play, like a nose-tackle or conerback. Even playing single-player, I would never choose these positions.
If you had 6 players come on a team of 11, they could then choose what positions they wanted to play. If they left (or were booted by the other members of the team or the admin), then that player would be taking over by the computers default player. The game is more FUN with more human players, but you can still play with people coming and going.
Bourne's back on the grid!
The world is a safe place.
Google works because it is largely a statistical tool that uses some meta-information.
While I could see frameworks being used for very specific purposes, like searching a homogeneous (e.g., slashdot, pubmed, nytimes) web-site where all content is controlled. But extending these ideas to a heterogenous web that would no doubt take advantages of such a volunteer system is ludicrous.
I also take issue with the top-down mind-state that they will be able to predict what is useful to the user. This is why statistical importance and quantity is the only realistic method for such a massive undertaking (which google is still actively researching).
I think that the only useful research to come out of such an endeavor would be to have news-sites, as mentioned above, implement and be scanned using an ontological browser. Of course, I am not sure how this would be different than Lexus-Nexus (sp?).
I have been using arch for several months, moving completely over from CVS. Yeah, it fixes some of the stuff in cvs like moving directories and files. Its concept of branching isn't bad either. However, it completely fails simple things that cvs (and probably subversion) accomplishes with easy, like querying the differences between two branches without checking either out (the recommended solution is to check both out and perform diffs between them).
There are other anomolies, like three different ways to update and/or merge branches, "update", "replay" and "star-merge". One version would be sufficient, with options which affect clobbering, etc.
Other problems are the fact that it has to detect changes it frequently has to rebuild itself from branches back, which can tain several minutes as it goes through about 150 patch revisions. Of course, you can create a revision library to overcome this (I think).
Don't get me wrong . . . I think that arch has the potential to be a great repository tool. Most of its problems could be overcome by simply automating sane defaults and allowing LESS choice. Currently, though, if I had to do merge my code over again, I would recommend against using it.
Its like Waking Life, but without the interesting animation. Pure, unadulterated, mental masturbation.
Stuart Saves His Family was great and Superstar was . . . good. But, in general, this is a good rule of thumb. I think you're missing a lot of David Spade films, in there.
This is like the anti-argument. Not only does java come with a whole host of standard functions, including a gui, adding additional frameworks is easy, like C and java. The difference, I think, is that there simply a lot more of them for java.
If you are upset about adding additional libraries to your code to extend its functionality without re-inventing the wheel you either:
- never write code that has a significant amount of functionality
- enjoy writing code for things that have already been implemented by better coder(s)
There are a lot of reasons for writing in a scripting language, but I don't think you highlighted any of them. If you find using java confusing, then maybe you are using it for the wrong things.
I think that's a bit of a phallacy/myth. I think that what wins elections is getting your people out to vote. Yeah, swing voters are important, but they are what, 5% of the vote? In elections where only 50% of the populous votes, I think a better decisions is simply getting people excited about the candidate that they are voting for, which is what Dean does/did.
The alternative is having an opposition candidate so scary that it motivates you to vote against them, which is why Kerry is getting my vote.
As we say at the mac user's forum, je prends le fromage dans mon pantalon.