That's actually bullshit. Like coding, you _have_ to start from a list of simple instructions before you can learn do anything creative. Also, using a recipe means you get the same result as last time without having to re-invent anything. (Kind of like cut'n'pasting shellsort if you can't be bothered re-writing it from memory.)
BTW, I have a dynamite recipe for chilli con skippy which I'll share if I ever get around to writing it down.
I've had one of these chairs at just about every place I've worked for the last 10 years or so. I even had one at home 'til my kids broke the kneepad by putting all their weight on it. I'm trying to persuade my current employer to get one, as my back is worse now than it's been for a long time (although that's partly due to age and a fat gut pulling on my spine, i have to admit). They're magic (at least for me).
Yeah... I think I installed Linux on my PC back about then (or maybe a bit earlier)... it was considerably more reliable than the Win3.1 that coexisted on the same box 'til I foolishly replaced it with Win98 (Win3.1, not Linux).
... "If it's crap, eventually 'the market' will reject it"...
This view of markets depends on all players being fully informed and making rational decisions based on that information (hence the designation 'economic rationalism'). These two assumptions are, in fact, nearly always false in the real world, which is why neoliberal economic theory has consistently failed to deliver on its promises.
I don't believe flowcharting (flowcharts!! who uses flowcharts these days?) and logic structures is even close to sufficient. They certainly _won't_ help anyone understand functional or logical languages, or LISP for that matter.
To reply to the original question, we used a rather fine book called, iirc, 'The Anatomy of Programming Languages' (can't remember who wrote it) to give us an insight into programming in languages other than C when I was at university. It covered imperative and declarative languages without getting too wrapped around the axles about the fine details of language syntax. There was a section on the object oriented model, and also on functional and logic-programming languages.
There are a number of problems with nuclear power, one of which is that the net energy required to build one then decommission it when it has passed its design life is about the same as the amount of energy you get out of it while it's running. So you only get a net gain of energy if you continue to run them after they are no longer (relatively) safe.
Actually, I tried to think of a fact - any fact - no matter how inconvenient or otherwise - that looked like it might support creationism, and guess what?
I'll be very surprised if _you_ can think of one either.
Some - but not all - of our UN*X system administrators have university degrees, but the degrees are in things like mining engineering, surveying, etc. They generally aren't IT degrees. Really, if you have or can get the appropriate experience, it's swings and roundabouts.
Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof...
on
The Magic Box Hoax
·
· Score: 0
Additionally, this pre-dated patent law, I think. It would've been possible (in principle) to reverse-engineer it and steal Harrison's ideas, although it's unlikely that the Astronomer-Royal of the day (Maskeyne?) would have been bright enough. (In fact, this is pretty much how some of the copies demanded by the Longitude Board were produced.)
The problem is, of course, that LaTex, groff and sgml aren't exactly user-friendly. The very small percentage of the computer-using population who've even *heard* of these tools, let alone know how to use them will, unfortunately, have absolutely no impact on sales of Word.
Sloppy language, sure, but the philosophical basis for this thought, that the mind is nothing more than a manifestation of electro-chemical brain activity, was fleshed out in the 1950's I believe, by a couple of Australian philosophers, Jack Smart (who taught me) and some other bloke whose name eludes me for the moment. It's a much neater theory than any that involve the Mind vs the Body. Occam's Razor rules!
Actually... even tho' Galileo turns out to have been pretty much on the money... most of his 'evidence' was dodgy and the book he wrote about it contained a number of falsehoods and outrageous claims. A rather fine book called 'The Sleepwalkers' documents this, as does a history written recently (ie within the last twenty years) by a Jesuit. Even scientists aren't immune to distorting the facts to 'prove' a fondly-held theory.
Re:Doesn't the earth receive more?
on
Lunar Power
·
· Score: 0
Well... the ozone layer isn't going to be a problem for too much longer...
I normally drive an even cheaper car than this - the *mighty* Subaru Sherpa (which cost me about $A500). (I believe you can't get them in the US, as they aren't considered particularly safe.) It has the raw, throbbing power of a 2-cylinder 600cc motor (yeah, yeah... _I've_ owned motorcycles with a bigger engine too) and it costs about $A20 (that's about $US10) to fill its 5 gall tank. Which'll haul you from here to the moon and back, just about.
Added to that, no-one would even consider stealing it, so you don't ever have to find a solution to _that_ problem.
I used a C implementation of Ackermann's Function (the definition of which eludes me, although I _do_ remember it was recursive) to crash a Data General unix box some years ago (the stack just grew and grew 'til it found some faulty memory). The sales engineers were quite impressed.
Let's face it - with a lot of data, you'll _always_ be better off with a (disk based imitiation of a) N-way tape sort. Bubble sort, insertion sort, quicksort,... are only usable if you can fit all your data into memory (although that's getting easier these days).
Slashdot Mirror
No.
9600 baud _roughly_ equates to 9.6kbit (but it's not a strict relationship). Perhaps the poster meant 0.96Kbyte/s.
That's actually bullshit. Like coding, you _have_ to start from a list of simple instructions before you can learn do anything creative. Also, using a recipe means you get the same result as last time without having to re-invent anything. (Kind of like cut'n'pasting shellsort if you can't be bothered re-writing it from memory.)
BTW, I have a dynamite recipe for chilli con skippy which I'll share if I ever get around to writing it down.
If you had tobasco sauce as well, you could probably make fairly plain tuna tacos.
I've had one of these chairs at just about every place I've worked for the last 10 years or so. I even had one at home 'til my kids broke the kneepad by putting all their weight on it. I'm trying to persuade my current employer to get one, as my back is worse now than it's been for a long time (although that's partly due to age and a fat gut pulling on my spine, i have to admit). They're magic (at least for me).
Yeah ... I think I installed Linux on my PC back about then (or maybe a bit earlier) ... it was considerably more reliable than the Win3.1 that coexisted on the same box 'til I foolishly replaced it with Win98 (Win3.1, not Linux).
I think you got that the wrong way round.
... "If it's crap, eventually 'the market' will reject it" ...
This view of markets depends on all players being fully informed and making rational decisions based on that information (hence the designation 'economic rationalism'). These two assumptions are, in fact, nearly always false in the real world, which is why neoliberal economic theory has consistently failed to deliver on its promises.
A series of ugly experiences with punch-cards and FORTRAN VI turned me into a luddite for about 20 years.
They're similar enough. They both use (ugh!) tail recursion.
BTW, I have programmed in prolog for a living.
I don't believe flowcharting (flowcharts!! who uses flowcharts these days?) and logic structures is even close to sufficient. They certainly _won't_ help anyone understand functional or logical languages, or LISP for that matter.
To reply to the original question, we used a rather fine book called, iirc, 'The Anatomy of Programming Languages' (can't remember who wrote it) to give us an insight into programming in languages other than C when I was at university. It covered imperative and declarative languages without getting too wrapped around the axles about the fine details of language syntax. There was a section on the object oriented model, and also on functional and logic-programming languages.
I recommend this book.
Yeah ... this is just another solution in search of a problem.
There are a number of problems with nuclear power, one of which is that the net energy required to build one then decommission it when it has passed its design life is about the same as the amount of energy you get out of it while it's running. So you only get a net gain of energy if you continue to run them after they are no longer (relatively) safe.
Actually, I tried to think of a fact - any fact - no matter how inconvenient or otherwise - that looked like it might support creationism, and guess what?
I'll be very surprised if _you_ can think of one either.
Some - but not all - of our UN*X system administrators have university degrees, but the degrees are in things like mining engineering, surveying, etc. They generally aren't IT degrees. Really, if you have or can get the appropriate experience, it's swings and roundabouts.
Additionally, this pre-dated patent law, I think. It would've been possible (in principle) to reverse-engineer it and steal Harrison's ideas, although it's unlikely that the Astronomer-Royal of the day (Maskeyne?) would have been bright enough. (In fact, this is pretty much how some of the copies demanded by the Longitude Board were produced.)
The problem is, of course, that LaTex, groff and sgml aren't exactly user-friendly. The very small percentage of the computer-using population who've even *heard* of these tools, let alone know how to use them will, unfortunately, have absolutely no impact on sales of Word.
Actually, your claim that Galileo offered empirical support for his theory is false (see my earlier post). Read some history of science.
Sloppy language, sure, but the philosophical basis for this thought, that the mind is nothing more than a manifestation of electro-chemical brain activity, was fleshed out in the 1950's I believe, by a couple of Australian philosophers, Jack Smart (who taught me) and some other bloke whose name eludes me for the moment. It's a much neater theory than any that involve the Mind vs the Body. Occam's Razor rules!
eat shit and die?
Actually ... even tho' Galileo turns out to have been pretty much on the money ... most of his 'evidence' was dodgy and the book he wrote about it contained a number of falsehoods and outrageous claims. A rather fine book called 'The Sleepwalkers' documents this, as does a history written recently (ie within the last twenty years) by a Jesuit. Even scientists aren't immune to distorting the facts to 'prove' a fondly-held theory.
Well ... the ozone layer isn't going to be a problem for too much longer ...
Doctors are smart ... a dubious proposition. Even if many of them are, they don't need to be, as (like mechanics) they are technicians.
I normally drive an even cheaper car than this - the *mighty* Subaru Sherpa (which cost me about $A500). (I believe you can't get them in the US, as they aren't considered particularly safe.) It has the raw, throbbing power of a 2-cylinder 600cc motor (yeah, yeah ... _I've_ owned motorcycles with a bigger engine too) and it costs about $A20 (that's about $US10) to fill its 5 gall tank. Which'll haul you from here to the moon and back, just about.
Added to that, no-one would even consider stealing it, so you don't ever have to find a solution to _that_ problem.
I used a C implementation of Ackermann's Function (the definition of which eludes me, although I _do_ remember it was recursive) to crash a Data General unix box some years ago (the stack just grew and grew 'til it found some faulty memory). The sales engineers were quite impressed.
Let's face it - with a lot of data, you'll _always_ be better off with a (disk based imitiation of a) N-way tape sort. Bubble sort, insertion sort, quicksort, ... are only usable if you can fit all your data into memory (although that's getting easier these days).