However, do we really want a precedent of banning certain types of emails? As much as we don't like spammers, I would much rather have to delete "Increase your ejactulation by 581%" than to worry that an encrypted email transmission was deemed illegal.
However, you still end up writting 100 different functions in either case, and calling
squarepipe.calculateFlowrate
seems no easier to remember than
squarePipe_CalculateFlowRate()
or
CalculateFlowrate(SQUAREPIPE,...)
Also, if you have generic functions across all classes, you are left with a bizarre model of pipes, bowls, steam generators, and anything else having to be under some umbrella so you can attach a "SurfaceArea" or "Volume" calculator or some other generic routine.
I've also never been a big believer of the whole "code-reuse" argument. The biggest code-reuse in practce is all done in C, and very non-OO -- libc.
Unless you already have a big simulator witten in OO style, and you need a simulator, I'm not sure of the use of OOP. If you are trying to do a large calculation, then the time you spend in trying to stick to the OOP mindset doesn't seem like it will ever pay off.
Yes, you can have a world where the physics don't behave as our world. However, you still need to be somewhat consistent. Imagine a game based off the Coyote and Roadrunner (I really don' know if a recent one exists,)
Your rules would be much different.
First person game... you can run over empty space as long as you don't look down, or hadn't been there before.
Once you start falling, your legs generally go down a lot faster than the rest of you body until it catches up, and you quickly assume a very fast constant speed.
Tunnels can be painted, but only used by the one who didn't paint them.
Extremely laughable motors can give extraordinary kicks, and small balloons can carry enormous amounts of mass.
Now, as long as these rules are consistent, you can have a very fun game. Note that things should still arc (hence some rules of our world physics are still there), but things like static friction aren't as significant until they need to produce a lot of heat.
While this book is important to know how to code rules of physics, more importantly, a consistent or at least consistently inconsistent rule set makes a game great fun.
If I "clone" some one else's activation sequence, then only one of us would need to pay the subscription, right? Are they sending down commands that knock out recievers? Can I make a device to mimic those signals?
Someone is going to have to explain how you validate that a system should be receiving a signal if there is absolutely no landline connection. Or will this turn into the same problem that DirectTV has?
Honestly, I almost completely agree with you. If I truly believed in my conspiracy theory, I would point out that if they knew the first company was going to go bankrupt, the that's actually more like fraud and a con. It's not really fair.
However, I do believe that the first company most likely thought they were actually going to be profitable-- not just be the fall guy so someone else could have the infrastructure for free.
"Hey, we could make a bundle if we didn't have to pay to build the infrastructure!"
"Ok, instead of playing politics, let's all pool some money together, convince a bunch of investors it will work, get 10x the money we put in, build it, then go broke, and take the loss as a write off."
"Great! Then we'll buy it out of Bankrupcty for less than we put in the first place! It's win-win!"
I happen to think Microsoft has put a lot of effort into determining what customers want in an application, and if they get a version for Linux, it will certainly make it a much more office friendly environment.
However, it will put a damper on the free software creators... (Why should I make a PP duplicate, why not just use PP?), and you wonder what will happen to the distributor of Linux that they side with... will there be "closed" RPMs, or even worse, a completely proprietary way of distributing executables? Will everyone who wants to run the code be expected to have a "/ms" directory?
It would be much safer if you turned the driver around, had himfacing the rear of the vehicle. Now head on collisions could have a lot of crumple space, and rear collisions would be the problem.
However, the steering wheel doesn't need to be physically linked to the wheels, so you could have force feedback elecronically, and not have to worry about it being pushed into your chest during an accident.
However, I guess it comes down to a person in a high velocity box. There are only so many configurations.
The other day I was talking with a group of non-technical people and I brought up the existence of other OS's. I mentioned Linux was a free alternative to MS.
I was then asked, "Can it get on the internet?"
I replied it could, and could do so very easily, and well before MS was able to say as much.
"But doesn't Microsoft mean 'Internet'? I thought they were the same thing."
At this point, I realized that we have lost. There's not a chance in hell we'll be able to convince the masses to change over to Linux when many make statements like, "Why bother, it works for me."
We must stop polluting the martian atmosphere! It's all man's fault! Damn those fossil fuels!
Oh wait, it's not man's fault.
Hmm. I wonder if we would pause to look at man's contribution to our own "global warming." Maybe we aren't as significant as we think.
Re:Need to team up with thinkgeek.com
on
Binary Watch
·
· Score: 1
While some of their stuff could be considered overproced (much like any retailer), a lot of their stuff is actually quite reasonable. When I bought the Digital Wallet for a friend's present, we looked at 8-10 different merchants, and Thinkgeek had the best price.
I'll also say that I've used them for relatives: "What do you want for Christmas/Birthday/etc." "Anything from Thinkgeek." It's pretty much filled with stuff I'd like to have, but nothing I can't live without.
Amazing,/. decided not to post an article about an activist returning to the US from the Mideast telling an unconfirmed story about how somebody mentioned something about a post.
While I don't know what the editors use as criteria to pick a post with, I must say that this doesn't seem to unreasonable to leave off the main site.
So if they had never wanted to release the information in the first place, in the name of national security, few people would have a problem with it. Instead, they released it, and they think they made a mistake.
If they had released all they ways to track our submarines, including frequencies that they emit and likely positions, why wouldn't that be fair game to take back? So they compromised it, but if your ass is hangin' out, you don't just walk around going, "Oh well, I guess everyone's already seen it, I shouldn't bother covering it now."
I was thinking that a little rack of RLX's would make a nice "Load Generator" for a stress-testing some given cluster configuration. If you have 24 clients pumping requests as fast as they can, depending on the service, you should be able to flood a few machines with that.
Maybe RLX should look into providing this as an alternative service. "Need 1000 clients to pound your system on a local network? Call us and we'll drive over with a van and a cable to hook into your system."
We also just worked up a cluster of these, and I dealt with the people there (also very positive experience). We asked about the ability to power cycle and send the blades into and out of sleep mode.
The guy there told me that they had fixed a problem with the sleep state recently (I was talking to him July/August), and that there were some other issues with power cycling they were working with.
Ok, so you were defining bases as "A base is a system that I can represent any number in" Thus, the statement "Any number can be represented in any base" seems very silly. I was attempting to point out that base one (unary), cannot represent fractions, but it is still considered a base.
And I had never attempted to do fractions in unary before, so I was attempting as decent translation as I could, saying that
.1111 = 1/(1+1+1+1). I understand that's not how you'd normally represent fractions in unary. But since unary isn't a system with positions to begin with, I'm not sure why it'd be wrong.
Re:Just what Perl needs - more syntax
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 1
No, I'm matching the $_ against the regular expression, and you don't have to start it with "my"
Re:Just what Perl needs - more syntax
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 1
I hate to tell you, but while I would use this as a technique to add string reg exs to a program that wasn't doing that as its main thing, I would think you still can't beat
Re:Just what Perl needs - more syntax
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I know this was stated a bit more elegantly by another responder, but I thoughtg I'd point out some personal experience.
I used to be a die-hard C-only fan. I coded everything in C. Then I had to start scanning logs for certain patterns and keeping counts. Unless you find the right libraries, this is painful to write. Then I was introduced to awk.
Wow. Awk did seem like the tool to use. It had the matching strength I needed, and that seemed good enough so I wrote around 20 little awk scripts through which I'd pipe my data to get one thing done, and then another thing done. What I found was that awk wasn't very nice when it came to repeating files, or simply storing entire files in arrays for later processing.
Then a friend showed me Perl. All those little awk scripts seemed pointless. I have made a different dichotomy in my mind: if I want to do something very numerical on a large set of numbers, I use C. If I want to do something involving lots of strings (and I don't need to manipulate on the byte level very often), I use Perl.
Now, I have had people try to introduce me to Java, and to Python, but I really cannot see how Java makes a numerical C program easier, or how it makes a stringy Perl program easier.
So maybe what you've said is the right way to do it...
Imagine having centers around the country with 20 or so computers networked together. Then all the cenetrs are networked together as well. One center would be one "Nation" at a time, and the "General" of the group could watch his troops in action, as well as control a big board to show the state of the game at any given time.
Money could be made by also allowing people to log on and observe the game proceeding from home, and making comments, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I hate spam.
However, do we really want a precedent of banning certain types of emails? As much as we don't like spammers, I would much rather have to delete "Increase your ejactulation by 581%" than to worry that an encrypted email transmission was deemed illegal.
calcTotalFlowRate(Array_of_Pipe* pipe) {
double sum = 0;
for (int i=0; i less_than pipe.length; i++) {
sum+=calculateFlowRate(pipe+i,pipe[i].type);
}
Done.
However, you still end up writting 100 different functions in either case, and calling
squarepipe.calculateFlowrate
seems no easier to remember than
squarePipe_CalculateFlowRate()
or
CalculateFlowrate(SQUAREPIPE,...)
Also, if you have generic functions across all classes, you are left with a bizarre model of pipes, bowls, steam generators, and anything else having to be under some umbrella so you can attach a "SurfaceArea" or "Volume" calculator or some other generic routine.
I've also never been a big believer of the whole "code-reuse" argument. The biggest code-reuse in practce is all done in C, and very non-OO -- libc.
Unless you already have a big simulator witten in OO style, and you need a simulator, I'm not sure of the use of OOP. If you are trying to do a large calculation, then the time you spend in trying to stick to the OOP mindset doesn't seem like it will ever pay off.
For example, in the case of a 15' 1600 x 1200 UXGA panel
Good God man! This would look great behind a 12" stonehenge...
Would that be "whelming" then?
Yes, you can have a world where the physics don't behave as our world. However, you still need to be somewhat consistent. Imagine a game based off the Coyote and Roadrunner (I really don' know if a recent one exists,)
Your rules would be much different.
First person game... you can run over empty space as long as you don't look down, or hadn't been there before.
Once you start falling, your legs generally go down a lot faster than the rest of you body until it catches up, and you quickly assume a very fast constant speed.
Tunnels can be painted, but only used by the one who didn't paint them.
Extremely laughable motors can give extraordinary kicks, and small balloons can carry enormous amounts of mass.
Now, as long as these rules are consistent, you can have a very fun game. Note that things should still arc (hence some rules of our world physics are still there), but things like static friction aren't as significant until they need to produce a lot of heat.
While this book is important to know how to code rules of physics, more importantly, a consistent or at least consistently inconsistent rule set makes a game great fun.
If I "clone" some one else's activation sequence, then only one of us would need to pay the subscription, right? Are they sending down commands that knock out recievers? Can I make a device to mimic those signals?
Someone is going to have to explain how you validate that a system should be receiving a signal if there is absolutely no landline connection. Or will this turn into the same problem that DirectTV has?
Honestly, I almost completely agree with you. If I truly believed in my conspiracy theory, I would point out that if they knew the first company was going to go bankrupt, the that's actually more like fraud and a con. It's not really fair.
However, I do believe that the first company most likely thought they were actually going to be profitable-- not just be the fall guy so someone else could have the infrastructure for free.
I can imagine a room of 30-50 wealth guys.
"Hey, we could make a bundle if we didn't have to pay to build the infrastructure!"
"Ok, instead of playing politics, let's all pool some money together, convince a bunch of investors it will work, get 10x the money we put in, build it, then go broke, and take the loss as a write off."
"Great! Then we'll buy it out of Bankrupcty for less than we put in the first place! It's win-win!"
I happen to think Microsoft has put a lot of effort into determining what customers want in an application, and if they get a version for Linux, it will certainly make it a much more office friendly environment.
However, it will put a damper on the free software creators... (Why should I make a PP duplicate, why not just use PP?), and you wonder what will happen to the distributor of Linux that they side with... will there be "closed" RPMs, or even worse, a completely proprietary way of distributing executables? Will everyone who wants to run the code be expected to have a "/ms" directory?
It would be much safer if you turned the driver around, had himfacing the rear of the vehicle. Now head on collisions could have a lot of crumple space, and rear collisions would be the problem.
However, the steering wheel doesn't need to be physically linked to the wheels, so you could have force feedback elecronically, and not have to worry about it being pushed into your chest during an accident.
However, I guess it comes down to a person in a high velocity box. There are only so many configurations.
The other day I was talking with a group of non-technical people and I brought up the existence of other OS's. I mentioned Linux was a free alternative to MS.
I was then asked, "Can it get on the internet?"
I replied it could, and could do so very easily, and well before MS was able to say as much.
"But doesn't Microsoft mean 'Internet'? I thought they were the same thing."
At this point, I realized that we have lost. There's not a chance in hell we'll be able to convince the masses to change over to Linux when many make statements like, "Why bother, it works for me."
We must stop polluting the martian atmosphere! It's all man's fault! Damn those fossil fuels!
Oh wait, it's not man's fault.
Hmm. I wonder if we would pause to look at man's contribution to our own "global warming." Maybe we aren't as significant as we think.
While some of their stuff could be considered overproced (much like any retailer), a lot of their stuff is actually quite reasonable. When I bought the Digital Wallet for a friend's present, we looked at 8-10 different merchants, and Thinkgeek had the best price.
I'll also say that I've used them for relatives: "What do you want for Christmas/Birthday/etc." "Anything from Thinkgeek." It's pretty much filled with stuff I'd like to have, but nothing I can't live without.
Now, I won't plug them anymore.
Amazing, /. decided not to post an article about an activist returning to the US from the Mideast telling an unconfirmed story about how somebody mentioned something about a post.
While I don't know what the editors use as criteria to pick a post with, I must say that this doesn't seem to unreasonable to leave off the main site.
Titanic! Dead ahead!
So if they had never wanted to release the information in the first place, in the name of national security, few people would have a problem with it. Instead, they released it, and they think they made a mistake.
If they had released all they ways to track our submarines, including frequencies that they emit and likely positions, why wouldn't that be fair game to take back? So they compromised it, but if your ass is hangin' out, you don't just walk around going, "Oh well, I guess everyone's already seen it, I shouldn't bother covering it now."
I was thinking that a little rack of RLX's would make a nice "Load Generator" for a stress-testing some given cluster configuration. If you have 24 clients pumping requests as fast as they can, depending on the service, you should be able to flood a few machines with that.
Maybe RLX should look into providing this as an alternative service. "Need 1000 clients to pound your system on a local network? Call us and we'll drive over with a van and a cable to hook into your system."
They "slept".
We also just worked up a cluster of these, and I dealt with the people there (also very positive experience). We asked about the ability to power cycle and send the blades into and out of sleep mode.
The guy there told me that they had fixed a problem with the sleep state recently (I was talking to him July/August), and that there were some other issues with power cycling they were working with.
Ok, so you were defining bases as "A base is a system that I can represent any number in" Thus, the statement "Any number can be represented in any base" seems very silly. I was attempting to point out that base one (unary), cannot represent fractions, but it is still considered a base.
And I had never attempted to do fractions in unary before, so I was attempting as decent translation as I could, saying that
.1111 = 1/(1+1+1+1). I understand that's not how you'd normally represent fractions in unary. But since unary isn't a system with positions to begin with, I'm not sure why it'd be wrong.
No, I'm matching the $_ against the regular expression, and you don't have to start it with "my"
I hate to tell you, but while I would use this as a technique to add string reg exs to a program that wasn't doing that as its main thing, I would think you still can't beat
($firstname,$lastname,$age)=/([A-Za-z]+) ([A-Za-z]+) (\d+)/;
I know this was stated a bit more elegantly by another responder, but I thoughtg I'd point out some personal experience.
I used to be a die-hard C-only fan. I coded everything in C. Then I had to start scanning logs for certain patterns and keeping counts. Unless you find the right libraries, this is painful to write. Then I was introduced to awk.
Wow. Awk did seem like the tool to use. It had the matching strength I needed, and that seemed good enough so I wrote around 20 little awk scripts through which I'd pipe my data to get one thing done, and then another thing done. What I found was that awk wasn't very nice when it came to repeating files, or simply storing entire files in arrays for later processing.
Then a friend showed me Perl. All those little awk scripts seemed pointless. I have made a different dichotomy in my mind: if I want to do something very numerical on a large set of numbers, I use C. If I want to do something involving lots of strings (and I don't need to manipulate on the byte level very often), I use Perl.
Now, I have had people try to introduce me to Java, and to Python, but I really cannot see how Java makes a numerical C program easier, or how it makes a stringy Perl program easier.
Just my little experience.
BTW, all numbers can be represented with any base system. heh
How about fractions in base-1?
.1 = 1
.11 = 0.5
.111 = 0.25
.1111 = 0.125
And thus how would you represent 0.2?
So maybe what you've said is the right way to do it...
Imagine having centers around the country with 20 or so computers networked together. Then all the cenetrs are networked together as well. One center would be one "Nation" at a time, and the "General" of the group could watch his troops in action, as well as control a big board to show the state of the game at any given time.
Money could be made by also allowing people to log on and observe the game proceeding from home, and making comments, etc.