A 10-inch screen is too small for hard-core gaming, and if you start to build a tablet that's bigger, is becomes less mobile, and less of a "tablet" and more of a "laptop".
These sorts of statements are so over-the-top. No ipad is going to replace my desktop at work, nor my gaming laptop at home. Apple's success in the last decade has been in part by doubling-down on particular demographics, but notions like these seem to suggest that Apple's success might clouding their perception a tad.
The paper doesn't seem to be relying on the theory of climate change being true..
Re-read the opening paragraph. The author's stance is obvious, but doesn't come out and explicitly say "all who don't wholly buy into global warming ideas are idiots", because that would be too easy of an attack point. Rather, they set up a straw man and let the reader knock it down. Yes, you could say strictly speaking that the methodology of the study doesn't need to assume the validity of global warming, but then that only begs the question of why the author's opening paragraph was stated in the way that it was. They could have simply said "global warming is a controversial subject...", and still provided the same motivation.
For simple programs this might make sense, but for more complicated scientific programming, a function may do something rather complicated, have caveats, and may do something similar to another function (but not quite). You're going to end up with a function name that's 5 lines long. Comments have their place.
Social Security was initially set up to be where retirement was around the average life expectancy. It hasn't changed because no politician wanted to commit political suicide, even though life expectancy has gone up. The whole notion of having "retirement years" for every average joe resulted.
Every government agency and recipient of government funds receiving cuts has their own sob story right now - some more valid than others. Well, welcome to reality, where we are currently experiencing a recession.
Having been in academia, and then subsequently being out in the "real world", I really don't have a lot of respect for these guys. They have a propped-up lifestyle and worldview that only works when there's little to no accountability and a steady stream of cash that they don't have to generate (though grant-writing really does suck). I'll listen to those whose blue-sky research has actually translated into a real-life breakthrough (though usually those types have gotten guaranteed lifetime funding already), but for the others... welcome to reality, where we are currently in a recession. Also, their protesting methodology reminds me of undergrad activist groups, not professionals.
In the specific context of a debate, I would have to disagree. Though, to be sure, there is the time and place for fact-finding, but that's not what I'm referring to.
In this case I have to side with Microsoft. Verifying that stuff doesn't do bad things on their console is both necessary and costs money. Furthermore, this implicitly imposes a due diligence standard on software devs and what they release. I hate the practice of turning customers into beta testers. I don't feel bad for Fez at all.
put the $300-some dollars that I saved by going Nexus and put that up on the shelf. I think that would make me happier than any cardboard box.
Of course, then I'll eventually spend it... hmmmm...
A friend of mine is now a prof, and he says that tuition increases are mostly due to bigger and better cafe's, sport stadiums, better gyms and dorms... things peripheral to the actual education part of higher-education. He also said they if they don't keep up with these things, the college up the road will, and students will want to got there instead. The implication is that most students get enamored with the biggest and best, borrow however much from whomever (after all this is COLLEGE), and not worry about the debt because once they graduate, someone will OBVIOUSLY give them a well-paying job to pay it off, because a degree makes you a superstar (or so the college says).
It's a vicious cycle of enable-ment and nativity on the part of the consumer - the student. It's pretty obvious that there has to be a breaking point somewhere - the question is whether or not we'll be the new Greece.
No it isn't. For a complexity of O(n^2), one instance of n = bizillion will take much, much longer than a bizillion instances of n = 1. What you said will only hold true for complexity O(n). And like I said, in the latter case (n = 1, or something small), implementation details can outweigh algorithmic efficiency.
No, that's not always the case. Yes, you do want to have your algorithms as efficient as possible, but code efficiency can still make an order-of-magnitude difference in many cases, and there are times in a competitive market where if you don't get that extra speed-up, your competitor will. The bottom-line is that there's no clear winner here - it all depends on the motivation, the code complexity and size, programmer talent, and the like.
The problem is that a lot of researchers and scientists who write these things aren't trained in good programming practices, and most of the good programmers don't have the background to do a lot of the advanced math stuff properly.
Never said NPR was anti-fox, and I never defended Fox. I think the Murdochs are getting what's coming to them. Also never said that all news is intentionally biased. I am saying that it sometimes is, and it sometimes is unintentionally so. You really need to read things more carefully and not read things into stuff. And usually when people resort to ad hominem, it's because they can't find anything else more objective to support their argument.
I believe he was stating his personal feelings, not trying represent NPR in that moment. Saying it is moronic to make a candid though politically-incorrect observation about politically-charged issue... well I guess it was if you want to keep working for NPR, but it only exposes what they consider is "journalistic objectivity". Btw, Murchoch et al. I agree is getting what's coming to them.
So are you racist against cars then? Not wanting to get blown up in a plane is not racism. Neither is refusing to ignore why 9/11 and the like took place simply because it doesn't it doesn't fancy the politically-correct idealists. Being racist would be being uncomfortable around them for their own sake, and he clearly was not saying that at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know if people older than 30 in Russia would agree with you.
Indeed. Apple culture groupthink - a fine example of pitfalls of extrapolation.
A 10-inch screen is too small for hard-core gaming, and if you start to build a tablet that's bigger, is becomes less mobile, and less of a "tablet" and more of a "laptop".
These sorts of statements are so over-the-top. No ipad is going to replace my desktop at work, nor my gaming laptop at home. Apple's success in the last decade has been in part by doubling-down on particular demographics, but notions like these seem to suggest that Apple's success might clouding their perception a tad.
The paper doesn't seem to be relying on the theory of climate change being true..
Re-read the opening paragraph. The author's stance is obvious, but doesn't come out and explicitly say "all who don't wholly buy into global warming ideas are idiots", because that would be too easy of an attack point. Rather, they set up a straw man and let the reader knock it down. Yes, you could say strictly speaking that the methodology of the study doesn't need to assume the validity of global warming, but then that only begs the question of why the author's opening paragraph was stated in the way that it was. They could have simply said "global warming is a controversial subject...", and still provided the same motivation.
For simple programs this might make sense, but for more complicated scientific programming, a function may do something rather complicated, have caveats, and may do something similar to another function (but not quite). You're going to end up with a function name that's 5 lines long. Comments have their place.
there is when you use that belief to impose upon other people's lives with it.
That sword cuts in both directions, mind you.
Social Security was initially set up to be where retirement was around the average life expectancy. It hasn't changed because no politician wanted to commit political suicide, even though life expectancy has gone up. The whole notion of having "retirement years" for every average joe resulted.
Every government agency and recipient of government funds receiving cuts has their own sob story right now - some more valid than others. Well, welcome to reality, where we are currently experiencing a recession.
Having been in academia, and then subsequently being out in the "real world", I really don't have a lot of respect for these guys. They have a propped-up lifestyle and worldview that only works when there's little to no accountability and a steady stream of cash that they don't have to generate (though grant-writing really does suck). I'll listen to those whose blue-sky research has actually translated into a real-life breakthrough (though usually those types have gotten guaranteed lifetime funding already), but for the others... welcome to reality, where we are currently in a recession. Also, their protesting methodology reminds me of undergrad activist groups, not professionals.
In the specific context of a debate, I would have to disagree. Though, to be sure, there is the time and place for fact-finding, but that's not what I'm referring to.
It's released under GPL. There's no "promise" that this will stay open, but then suddenly not be. *cough*java*cough*
In this case I have to side with Microsoft. Verifying that stuff doesn't do bad things on their console is both necessary and costs money. Furthermore, this implicitly imposes a due diligence standard on software devs and what they release. I hate the practice of turning customers into beta testers. I don't feel bad for Fez at all.
put the $300-some dollars that I saved by going Nexus and put that up on the shelf. I think that would make me happier than any cardboard box. Of course, then I'll eventually spend it... hmmmm...
This will happen by 2015, and they forgot to mention hover-conversion.
A friend of mine is now a prof, and he says that tuition increases are mostly due to bigger and better cafe's, sport stadiums, better gyms and dorms... things peripheral to the actual education part of higher-education. He also said they if they don't keep up with these things, the college up the road will, and students will want to got there instead. The implication is that most students get enamored with the biggest and best, borrow however much from whomever (after all this is COLLEGE), and not worry about the debt because once they graduate, someone will OBVIOUSLY give them a well-paying job to pay it off, because a degree makes you a superstar (or so the college says). It's a vicious cycle of enable-ment and nativity on the part of the consumer - the student. It's pretty obvious that there has to be a breaking point somewhere - the question is whether or not we'll be the new Greece.
No it isn't. For a complexity of O(n^2), one instance of n = bizillion will take much, much longer than a bizillion instances of n = 1. What you said will only hold true for complexity O(n). And like I said, in the latter case (n = 1, or something small), implementation details can outweigh algorithmic efficiency.
Big-O notation stuff only really starts to matter when n is large, but if you're dealing with a bizillion instances where n is small?
No, that's not always the case. Yes, you do want to have your algorithms as efficient as possible, but code efficiency can still make an order-of-magnitude difference in many cases, and there are times in a competitive market where if you don't get that extra speed-up, your competitor will. The bottom-line is that there's no clear winner here - it all depends on the motivation, the code complexity and size, programmer talent, and the like.
The problem is that a lot of researchers and scientists who write these things aren't trained in good programming practices, and most of the good programmers don't have the background to do a lot of the advanced math stuff properly.
Never said NPR was anti-fox, and I never defended Fox. I think the Murdochs are getting what's coming to them. Also never said that all news is intentionally biased. I am saying that it sometimes is, and it sometimes is unintentionally so. You really need to read things more carefully and not read things into stuff. And usually when people resort to ad hominem, it's because they can't find anything else more objective to support their argument.
I believe he was stating his personal feelings, not trying represent NPR in that moment. Saying it is moronic to make a candid though politically-incorrect observation about politically-charged issue... well I guess it was if you want to keep working for NPR, but it only exposes what they consider is "journalistic objectivity". Btw, Murchoch et al. I agree is getting what's coming to them.
I never meant to say that Fox doesn't have it's biases, I'm only saying that they're not alone.
No, but what is true in my world is that Ad hominem means admitting defeat.
So are you racist against cars then? Not wanting to get blown up in a plane is not racism. Neither is refusing to ignore why 9/11 and the like took place simply because it doesn't it doesn't fancy the politically-correct idealists. Being racist would be being uncomfortable around them for their own sake, and he clearly was not saying that at all.