We need to make sure cell phones remain inexpensive for all consumers to afford.
Those who want affordable cell phone won't buy smartphones. I don't think Apple has a single patent that touches commodity cell phone. Don't be overly concerned.
As another bilingual person, I disagree. You don't think about it every time you say something, of course, but you only need to think about it once - and you definitely will, at the stage where you still speak foreign language by mentally translating it back & forth to your native one - and then it sticks.
Bingo.
You need to refine the concept and divide an idea/word into its different idea/translations. Once you are fluent, you are already done. For instance, it is very hard to mistakenly come up with "accept -> außer" or "accept -> eccetto" or "accept -> nozoku". Therefore, once you've refined that concept you'll never use "accept" instead of "except".
Seeing how the "same" word translate differently in another language helps to fix in your mind the differences between: - capitol / capital - principle / principal - affect / effect - its et al - theirs et al
I could go on, but these silly mistakes mostly happen to speakers ignorant of their own native language. Bilingualism kills that ignorance.
I wonder what would happen if we applied good old 19 out of 20 statistical certainty.
Take all recent peer-reviewed predictions, the last 5 or 10 years, and remove the Fundy Bay grade 2% and the la-la-la 2%. Would we converge to a coherent range of effect, or do we need another 5 years to reach 19/20 consensus?
Gambit-C is a scheme to C compiler. So I assume it is not using standard malloc() and free() to manage memory. Your parent was talking about using the memory management by the stdlib and adding an GC on top of it. You are talking about generating C code and integrating an GC into it, not relying on malloc/free.
Gambit does "compile to C as an intermediate language", although only using C as a VM. Which is not writing OO code in C, I'll admit.
Similarly, a compiler using C as intermediate will be forced to use a conservative garbage collector such as the Boehm GC. Using more efficient solutions such as a copying garbage collector is simply not possible without knowledge of the stack layout.
Gambit-C uses C as intermediate and still has a full copying GC. Maybe that's not quite what you meant.
My accelerator got stuck on the highway. I disengaged the clutch and managed to get to a garage. No engine damage, no risk of accident. Manual transmission makes it easy.
Mandatory neutral-override with 3krpm limit would make more sense IMO.
BTW, Bill Gates has tons of child porn on his computers and that is a fact, in fact most Republicans host and profit from child porn and I can proof it.
Same here. Once you've printed 100s of copies to cover the walls and ceiling it's too late to fix bad registration, trapping or low-quality fonts.
That's only true when the annual probabilities are independent. In the case of asteroids, that's probably a reasonable approximation. But tsunamis are generated by earthquakes, and the probability that you have a large earthquake in year n is not independent of whether you had a large earthquake in year n-1. When, specifically, a quake is going to happen is pretty random, but energies build over time until released.
Still, I don't think being 100 years overdue makes any sense.
The first approximation of energy released is how many times you roll 1d6 until you hit 6 and release the energy, where rolling 20 times or more and releasing 20+ units of energy happens 2.6% of the time.
The second approach is how often do you hit a snag that can support 100+ years of energy buildup. If it happens every 1000 years, such a snag has around 1:900 of happening and being at least "100 years overdue" happens 90% of the time. Completely back of the envelope, so don't believe any of it.
In the case of programming, this means we need languages that average programmers can use to good effect and which will maximize their productivity (such as by making it difficult to create difficult-to-debug bugs).
Yes, I hate this approach because it entail dumbing down instead of improving. I will add that "difficult-to-debug" is the birthmark of imperative programming. If students first learned functional programming and oddballs like Prolog, their mind wouldn't be hobbled by imperative programming and we could have a top 10%. Once you've learned to modulate the accelerator, you can do it on an automatic too.
If average people are "too stupid" to grasp a particular language and use it effectively, the problem isn't the people, it's the language, unless your entire goal is to make a language that's reserved for the top 1% of programmers.
Most drivers are "too stupid" to learn to drive well: they have automatic transmission and keep hitting the brakes because they cannot modulate the accelerator. Had they started on manual they would have ended up better drivers.
The top 1% programmer are way above average, not because they are smarter but because they are willing to stop and try different things until they understand it well enough. Of course the "pedal pusher" will never learn anything more than the bare minimum.
Code without side-effect is hard to write but much easier to understand. Which would you rather debug 6 months later?
More to the point, there is a much older invention called a "travois", which is basically a pair of long sticks with a basket or netting between to carry the cargo. The travois was used for centuries before the invention of the wheel, if not thousands of years.
Well, duh! Ayla invented it during the last glaciation. That's about 30k years ago.
As you probably already know, if the program is proprietary nobody will be able to determine if the program is DRM-free or not.
I have to agree with the co-poster: this is laughable.
You could technically have some DRM-laden software that stops working for free in 2013 but you have no reason to cater to paranoid players about that. I am sure someone will have fun decompiling your program to check for that, source or no source.
Now, if there is any randomness or hidden information and you haven't protected it against cheating, you (and your non-cheating players) may prefer there are no hacked version flying around. But it doesn't look like it's an issue in your case.
So bank shows fed a fraction of loan, fed loans bank dollar. Bank owes fed $1.01 (simplifying here). Bank loans $1 dollar to you and you owe bank say $1.05. The problem is that we've created $1 of money and $1.05 of debt. The 5 cents doesn't exist and therefore is impossible to pay back. So where do you get it? Well at some point it comes from the only place it can. Someone else borrowing another dollar from a bank who borrows from the Fed... So now we have $2 created and $2.10 worth of debt. If we pay the original $1.05 debt, there is only $0.95 money left to pay the new $1.05 debt.
That's ok because the Fed pays back $1.01 on the obligation it put out, and that guy got $1.02 out of his short-term deposit. Moreover, it used to cost $1.00 for sliced bread but now it costs $1.01. We're still 1 cent short, but Wall Street took it.
It was terribad. None of the CG of that show is realistic. Instant mass-driver hit on the Moon, visible laser beams, exploding satellites, space pirates matching trajectory, inertia-free fighters, no reaction mass. It was all there. They forgot the edu part of edutainment.
Our space-tech is either going to advance at a humdrum, linear pace, in which case we're never getting out of this solar system. Or it'll advance by leaps and bounds in which case just going back to the Moon, or building a rocket capable of going to Mars is pointless in the long run.
Maybe the "leaps and bounds" are due to discrete events. Did we master the oceans because everyone tried to replicate Columbus bonanza?
Someone, sometime, is going to try and succeed. Then everyone else will try to follow. Maybe trying today will fail, but maybe not trying today or tomorrow will mean we will still fail in 50 years. You cannot succeed without effort.
Then I realized that in some emergency situations, a lane change is absolutely required. Vibrating the steering wheel is ok, but if it's forcing you to move back to your lane, then this could cause accidents.
Yeah, right. If it takes you more than a mile to change lane, it must be a real emergency. If the system activates in less than a 1000 feet, it must be buggy.
Use the same 26 pseudo-words to generate passwords. Always pick the same letters from the website, say ST from slashdot: - Sierra Tango (or mangle it to ierraango) - Lyndon Truman, as there's no S president (reduced alphabet) - Street of my friend T. (or day month year phone city app familyname) For secure password, the hint is used as the generator in case I forget.
Even if I end up using the same 50 words in all my passwords, my list will be different from anyone else's. If you manage to connect me to many of my password, you could start guessing the others. Which is the only reason why the algorithm need to change over time.
It is even possible to prove the nonexistence of something with only a single property... such as the existence of a number that is equivalent to itself plus 1. There is absolutely no number, in any number system defined by mathematics, that satisfies this criteria.
Slashdot Mirror
So why doesn’t the DLC require the same amount of thorough testing, mastering, etc.?
It could. What's the lead time for printing boxes, pressing cds and shipping them to retailers?
Now, I don't buy DRM or DLC so I don't care anyway. Maybe that's why I can play fair.
We need to make sure cell phones remain inexpensive for all consumers to afford.
Those who want affordable cell phone won't buy smartphones. I don't think Apple has a single patent that touches commodity cell phone. Don't be overly concerned.
As another bilingual person, I disagree. You don't think about it every time you say something, of course, but you only need to think about it once - and you definitely will, at the stage where you still speak foreign language by mentally translating it back & forth to your native one - and then it sticks.
Bingo.
You need to refine the concept and divide an idea/word into its different idea/translations. Once you are fluent, you are already done. For instance, it is very hard to mistakenly come up with "accept -> außer" or "accept -> eccetto" or "accept -> nozoku". Therefore, once you've refined that concept you'll never use "accept" instead of "except".
So, let me add:
- accept / except
Seeing how the "same" word translate differently in another language helps to fix in your mind the differences between:
- capitol / capital
- principle / principal
- affect / effect
- its et al
- theirs et al
I could go on, but these silly mistakes mostly happen to speakers ignorant of their own native language. Bilingualism kills that ignorance.
I wonder what would happen if we applied good old 19 out of 20 statistical certainty.
Take all recent peer-reviewed predictions, the last 5 or 10 years, and remove the Fundy Bay grade 2% and the la-la-la 2%. Would we converge to a coherent range of effect, or do we need another 5 years to reach 19/20 consensus?
Gambit-C is a scheme to C compiler. So I assume it is not using standard malloc() and free() to manage memory.
Your parent was talking about using the memory management by the stdlib and adding an GC on top of it.
You are talking about generating C code and integrating an GC into it, not relying on malloc/free.
Gambit does "compile to C as an intermediate language", although only using C as a VM. Which is not writing OO code in C, I'll admit.
Similarly, a compiler using C as intermediate will be forced to use a conservative garbage collector such as the Boehm GC. Using more efficient solutions such as a copying garbage collector is simply not possible without knowledge of the stack layout.
Gambit-C uses C as intermediate and still has a full copying GC. Maybe that's not quite what you meant.
As long as they did it in French, too, everything should be okay.
You know how good them ex-Refomer are at French, they couldn't come up with a better translation than "vote NPD!"
Considering how often our PM said we were getting an erection, I'm not surprised we got the shaft.
Often, the dissent strengthens the theory, leads to new branches of study, or points out actual flaws that need to be adjusted.
Yes, in the same way idiots make things idiot-proof. We should respect them for how they force us to push for improvements.
My accelerator got stuck on the highway. I disengaged the clutch and managed to get to a garage. No engine damage, no risk of accident. Manual transmission makes it easy.
Mandatory neutral-override with 3krpm limit would make more sense IMO.
BTW, Bill Gates has tons of child porn on his computers and that is a fact, in fact most Republicans host and profit from child porn and I can proof it.
Same here. Once you've printed 100s of copies to cover the walls and ceiling it's too late to fix bad registration, trapping or low-quality fonts.
That's only true when the annual probabilities are independent. In the case of asteroids, that's probably a reasonable approximation. But tsunamis are generated by earthquakes, and the probability that you have a large earthquake in year n is not independent of whether you had a large earthquake in year n-1. When, specifically, a quake is going to happen is pretty random, but energies build over time until released.
Still, I don't think being 100 years overdue makes any sense.
The first approximation of energy released is how many times you roll 1d6 until you hit 6 and release the energy, where rolling 20 times or more and releasing 20+ units of energy happens 2.6% of the time.
The second approach is how often do you hit a snag that can support 100+ years of energy buildup. If it happens every 1000 years, such a snag has around 1:900 of happening and being at least "100 years overdue" happens 90% of the time. Completely back of the envelope, so don't believe any of it.
In the case of programming, this means we need languages that average programmers can use to good effect and which will maximize their productivity (such as by making it difficult to create difficult-to-debug bugs).
Yes, I hate this approach because it entail dumbing down instead of improving. I will add that "difficult-to-debug" is the birthmark of imperative programming. If students first learned functional programming and oddballs like Prolog, their mind wouldn't be hobbled by imperative programming and we could have a top 10%. Once you've learned to modulate the accelerator, you can do it on an automatic too.
If average people are "too stupid" to grasp a particular language and use it effectively, the problem isn't the people, it's the language, unless your entire goal is to make a language that's reserved for the top 1% of programmers.
Most drivers are "too stupid" to learn to drive well: they have automatic transmission and keep hitting the brakes because they cannot modulate the accelerator. Had they started on manual they would have ended up better drivers.
The top 1% programmer are way above average, not because they are smarter but because they are willing to stop and try different things until they understand it well enough. Of course the "pedal pusher" will never learn anything more than the bare minimum.
Code without side-effect is hard to write but much easier to understand. Which would you rather debug 6 months later?
More to the point, there is a much older invention called a "travois", which is basically a pair of long sticks with a basket or netting between to carry the cargo. The travois was used for centuries before the invention of the wheel, if not thousands of years.
Well, duh! Ayla invented it during the last glaciation. That's about 30k years ago.
As you probably already know, if the program is proprietary nobody will be able to determine if the program is DRM-free or not.
I have to agree with the co-poster: this is laughable.
You could technically have some DRM-laden software that stops working for free in 2013 but you have no reason to cater to paranoid players about that. I am sure someone will have fun decompiling your program to check for that, source or no source.
Now, if there is any randomness or hidden information and you haven't protected it against cheating, you (and your non-cheating players) may prefer there are no hacked version flying around. But it doesn't look like it's an issue in your case.
So bank shows fed a fraction of loan, fed loans bank dollar. Bank owes fed $1.01 (simplifying here). Bank loans $1 dollar to you and you owe bank say $1.05. The problem is that we've created $1 of money and $1.05 of debt. The 5 cents doesn't exist and therefore is impossible to pay back. So where do you get it? Well at some point it comes from the only place it can. Someone else borrowing another dollar from a bank who borrows from the Fed... So now we have $2 created and $2.10 worth of debt. If we pay the original $1.05 debt, there is only $0.95 money left to pay the new $1.05 debt.
That's ok because the Fed pays back $1.01 on the obligation it put out, and that guy got $1.02 out of his short-term deposit. Moreover, it used to cost $1.00 for sliced bread but now it costs $1.01. We're still 1 cent short, but Wall Street took it.
Inflation is good.
It was terribad. None of the CG of that show is realistic. Instant mass-driver hit on the Moon, visible laser beams, exploding satellites, space pirates matching trajectory, inertia-free fighters, no reaction mass. It was all there. They forgot the edu part of edutainment.
Our space-tech is either going to advance at a humdrum, linear pace, in which case we're never getting out of this solar system. Or it'll advance by leaps and bounds in which case just going back to the Moon, or building a rocket capable of going to Mars is pointless in the long run.
Maybe the "leaps and bounds" are due to discrete events. Did we master the oceans because everyone tried to replicate Columbus bonanza?
Someone, sometime, is going to try and succeed. Then everyone else will try to follow. Maybe trying today will fail, but maybe not trying today or tomorrow will mean we will still fail in 50 years. You cannot succeed without effort.
some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying that the killing of Armenians was not genocide)
Well, if it's falsifiable it's not a belief. And if it has been proven wrong, it's a lie.
And are those examples part of the Criminal Code, or the Civil one?
Stop adjectivizing quantum verbs, they don't like it.
Then I realized that in some emergency situations, a lane change is absolutely required. Vibrating the steering wheel is ok, but if it's forcing you to move back to your lane, then this could cause accidents.
Yeah, right. If it takes you more than a mile to change lane, it must be a real emergency. If the system activates in less than a 1000 feet, it must be buggy.
Use the same 26 pseudo-words to generate passwords. Always pick the same letters from the website, say ST from slashdot:
- Sierra Tango (or mangle it to ierraango)
- Lyndon Truman, as there's no S president (reduced alphabet)
- Street of my friend T. (or day month year phone city app familyname)
For secure password, the hint is used as the generator in case I forget.
Even if I end up using the same 50 words in all my passwords, my list will be different from anyone else's. If you manage to connect me to many of my password, you could start guessing the others. Which is the only reason why the algorithm need to change over time.
It is even possible to prove the nonexistence of something with only a single property... such as the existence of a number that is equivalent to itself plus 1. There is absolutely no number, in any number system defined by mathematics, that satisfies this criteria.
Aleph-zero?