``It did travel in time and moved from one point to another in the universe (to stay in the same spot on earth) but it didn't "travel in space", hence no need to be a spaceship.''
Re:Amazing what happens when you're asleep
on
Sleep Mailing
·
· Score: 1
Fatty!
Nah, I'm just kidding, I've been overweight my entire life too. It sucks, I don't ever remember a time I didn't have this gut. I've always been relatively fit but I never managed to drop the gut. Part of the reason I was overweight as a child, coincidentally, is because I was born two months premature and had severe sleep apnea. It always terrified my mom. Eventually, the apnea went away, but I was still a tiny baby, so my mom overfed me quite a bit!
So, in short, I feel for ya. I'm fighting the same fight.
I think a good programmer can solve these kind of problems in any language. Sure some competitors might be more comfortable in one language or another, but in the end the meat of the solution is going to be the same anyways.
Yes, the meat of the solution is going to be the same, but the implementation may not be. The same algorithm written in different languages will run in different amounts of time. I'm sure you know this already, but every from the language type (compiled, interpreted, etc) to memory management will affect running time.
If you don't need a garbage collector (which I don't think you would for this kind of task) then don't use a language that enforces one. If you don't want the overhead of OO programming then don't use a language that was designed for OO programming.
A few years back some of the more hardcore programmers would have argued that assembly was the optimal way of doing it. What the GP was getting at was that some languages just aren't suited to solve the problem because either they don't offer appropriate tools, or they offer useless inappropriate tools.
Simply lucking into the "best real prediction" isn't enough to make the algorithm good.
but in what sense could an algorithm that doesn't perform best on the real prediction be "the actual best algorithm"?
The "best" algorithm would be one that, over a large number of tests, performs best. That means, although it might make any accurate predictions this season, or even the next, it will has a good success rate in the long run. There's no reason to abandon a good algorithm just be cause it's in a downswing.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, you're a real dick.
Your original post was unclear and you never bothered to clarify. All you've done is bitch until somebody else provided an explanation to YOUR post.
You're a real weiner, sir. Here are some tips for next time:
Here, let me help.
``It did travel in time and moved from one point to another in the universe (to stay in the same spot on earth ) but it didn't "travel in space", hence no need to be a space ship.''
He's being pedantic, folks.
This, like most phishing attempts, targets users who don't know about NoScript or basic internet safety practices.
Yelling "Install NoScript you n00bs!!1!" won't register noobs... because they're newbs.
Well done, old chap!
You made me giggle :)
whoosh.
I think the GP was talking about reaching orgasm.
I was thinking the same thing!
His Brain Age must be, like, a MILLION!
You insensitive Mod!
You could have posted non-anonymously to remove your mod.
very nice.
I wish I had mod points.
Fatty!
Nah, I'm just kidding, I've been overweight my entire life too.
It sucks, I don't ever remember a time I didn't have this gut. I've always been relatively fit but I never managed to drop the gut.
Part of the reason I was overweight as a child, coincidentally, is because I was born two months premature and had severe sleep apnea.
It always terrified my mom. Eventually, the apnea went away, but I was still a tiny baby, so my mom overfed me quite a bit!
So, in short, I feel for ya. I'm fighting the same fight.
Keep reaching for those toes!
.. because adults never drive stupidly .
There, I made you look less stupid.
Yay, I have 20/20 vision again!
Ahoy hoy,
Hear! Hear!
bye bye
I'm concerned that you care WAY too much about WoW. You seemed to have missed the point of the previous joke.
Hey! Get back under the stairs!
That seems like flawless reasoning.
What's the problem here?
Reverse polarity, lower shields, increase tachyon bursts, invert phase shifting, and, of course, divert power.
All flawless reasoning.
+7 Charisma
-100 Social Life
No, I'm Night Elf Erroneus.
He's Blood Elf Magratheus.
Sheesh!
Awesome!
Even if that isn't true, what a great gag!
Fail recovery FAIL.
Fail recovery WIN.
Lol,
Sex Conker!
Not insightful, but informative.
He's not showing any insight here. Instead, he's presenting information.
You suck. Now THAT's insight.
There doesn't seem to be any abuse of the metric system there.
Look at the description of the Google Gadget. The author has no idea how metric prefixes work.
Wow, that is a terrible Gadget.
Who the hell writes a metric clock without understanding the metric system?
This must be written by that 13 year old who painted "Anarchy Rules" on my garage door.
I think a good programmer can solve these kind of problems in any language. Sure some competitors might be more comfortable in one language or another, but in the end the meat of the solution is going to be the same anyways.
Yes, the meat of the solution is going to be the same, but the implementation may not be. The same algorithm written in different languages will run in different amounts of time. I'm sure you know this already, but every from the language type (compiled, interpreted, etc) to memory management will affect running time.
If you don't need a garbage collector (which I don't think you would for this kind of task) then don't use a language that enforces one. If you don't want the overhead of OO programming then don't use a language that was designed for OO programming.
A few years back some of the more hardcore programmers would have argued that assembly was the optimal way of doing it. What the GP was getting at was that some languages just aren't suited to solve the problem because either they don't offer appropriate tools, or they offer useless inappropriate tools.
Simply lucking into the "best real prediction" isn't enough to make the algorithm good.
but in what sense could an algorithm that doesn't perform best on the real prediction be "the actual best algorithm"?
The "best" algorithm would be one that, over a large number of tests, performs best. That means, although it might make any accurate predictions this season, or even the next, it will has a good success rate in the long run. There's no reason to abandon a good algorithm just be cause it's in a downswing.