Well, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it helps you work faster... the guy/girl who can do sin(0) in their head will inevitably finish a test faster, and hence have more time to check his/her work, than the guy/girl who has to punch it into a calculator, meaning better grades. And that ignores the benefits of actually *using your brain*...
Frankly, I don't understand how you can defend the idea of needing to punch sin(0) into your calculator. I mean, honestly, if that isn't a symptom of the tool being used as a crutch, I don't know what is. How far does it need to go before you'll admit that the tool is being misused? Hey, maybe we should give calculators to the really young and screw teaching them how to add. After all, they've got *so much work* these days, why should they have to do it themselves when there's a tool to do it for them?
And as for the idea that school is somehow harder these days, I'd love to see proof of that. I'll guarantee you that the curriculum in school hasn't changed much in the last ten years, if anything, because such things just move slowly (changing curriculum is not a trivial operation).
OK, these are extreme, but do you see my point? You have to take your wife into account in your decisions. Maybe you wouldn't have made those decisions anyway, but that's irrelevant; now you can't.
That's not true, really. Well, not strictly. If something is really, truly important to me, my wife will do her best to support me. If I must do something that she can not support, we'll go our separate ways. *shrug*
Well, if that's the kind of personal boundary you face, then no wonder you don't feel restricted! I used to crochet in my teens. The boundaries I'm interested in are more... interesting.
I never claimed that one example encompassed the breadth and depth of all types of personal boundaries that I might wish to explore (hell, just the other day I was reading a pamphlet on Falun Dafa, and my wife suggested that I should check it out... I didn't, as I'm not actually interested in practicing, but if I wanted to, she would have supported me 100%). It was just *an* example. OTOH, your examples are definitely extreme...
Frankly, it sounds to me like you have much more fundamental questions about yourself than many people (ie, the original poster). In fact, based on your examples, I might conclude that you're not even sure who you are, exactly. And you're right, if that's the case, getting married is probably a bad idea... after all, if you don't know who you are, how can someone else? Talk about unfair to your potential partner... But to suggest that someone is marrying too young just because *you* don't know who you are is, IMHO, pretty narrow-minded.
I meant, and said in my reply to you, that you don't have the same opportunities for personal growth within marriage
You said you have a "subset" of opportunities. I'm saying that's not true, because your partner should be there to help and encourage you, not hinder you.
Now, if you mean that your set of life choices are supposedly limited because you have someone else to think about, consider that, if something was very important to me, my wife would make the sacrifices necessary to allow me to do whatever it is I needed to do. And the reverse is also true. ie, the metaphor of "ball-and-chain" isn't necessarily true.
Were you unable to enjoy knitting prior to getting married?
Well, that's a silly question.:) My point is that I may never have actually *done* it had I not met my wife. I would have said to myself "Hmm, I wonder how you knit?" and then left it. But my wife, hearing this, said "Well, why don't you try it!" and even helped me get supplies, pick out yarns, and so forth. In this way, she encouraged me to push through my personal boundaries ("men don't knit!") and try something new.
Oh, hardly. Since I met my wife I have grown and changed enormously, and in ways I never would have had we not met, and the same goes for her. There are many reasons for this. First, we've shared new things with each other, introduced each other to new experiences and ideas, and in that way, contributed to each other's growth. Second, we support and encourage each other in whatever we wish to explore (e.g., my knitting:), and even encourage each other to do things we might not necessarily think of, or even want to do. And in that way, we help each other push past our boundaries, which is the very essence of personal growth.
Frankly, you seem to have a rather limited view of marriage. It's a wonderful thing, and definitely not limiting...
I also think you're too young to be married, but your early marriage is associated with your personal needs to grow as individual. Maybe you've already grown all you want.
The key bit being the sentence "Maybe you've already grown all you want.", implying that getting married means he doesn't want to "grow" any more. Perhaps you meant something different, but I see no other way to interpret that sentence.
I also think you're too young to be married, but your early marriage is associated with your personal needs to grow as individual. Maybe you've already grown all you want.
So, you think being married precludes personal growth? I feel sorry for whoever you end up marrying...
I don't think the article is correct regarding disposable cars
Then what you have to say has no bearing on my post. My post was reacting to the idea of disposable cars and how they're a bad idea, and are *not* a savings simply due to improved technology.
Your post, while interesting, is entirely orthogonal. You're discussing why cars won't become disposable in the first place. I'm discussing why disposable cars are a bad idea, in terms of energy efficiency, environmental effects, etc.
In fact, I think you're entirely correct. I don't think cars will ever become disposable, partly for the reasons you list, partly because of market forces. See, manufacturer for a car must at least make back the money they put into it, meaning thousands of dollars per car, minimum. There's no way your average consumer will swallow the idea of paying a few thousand dollars on something that's *disposable*!
Umm, the point of this article was that cars are getting to the point where they're very difficult to fix, or very expensive, due to all the high tech parts that are going into them, and that this may result in the development of "disposable cars". Therefore:
Q: "What makes you think a break down in Car C is irreparable compared to Car A?"
Actually, the compiler used is called GNU GCC. Credit where credit is due, people. Devkit Advance is just a nice, convenient packaging of GCC cross-compiled for the ARM, and the same is likely the case for that other kit you mentioned.
Of course, personally, I just built my own development environment by downloading and building my compiler and related tools by hand.
Indeed. The only console that rivals the GBA in terms of the size of it's homebrew community is the Dreamcast. Frankly, the GBA is *ridiculously* easy to develop for. You can use the standard GNU compiler chain (built to cross-compile for the ARM7TDMI), and the memory interfaces to the various hardware (VDP, etc) are incredibly simple and well documented. As for working on actual hardware, flash devices for the thing are dirt cheap, easy to find, and very easy to use. And for initial development, the emulators out there are excellent (hell, VBA can interface directly with gdb!). TBH, I can't think of a better platform for console hacking/experimentation, other than the DC, of course.:)
Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less
Sure, but at what cost?? Let's suppose you buy a new car that costs, oh, $15,000 to build, but breaks down in, say, 5 years, leaving it unrepairable. Do you *really* think, in 5 years, you could conserve $15,000 worth of fuel over the lifetime of that car in order to justify it's outright disposal? Moreover, do you think it's increased efficiency can counter-balance the environment impacts of build that car, disposing of it and building a new one?
I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may use it under any circumstances without my express permission.
Umm... wrong. That should read:
"I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may distribute it under any circumstances without my express permission."
If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person using the code is now a copyright violator! They are using MY code without MY permission.
Wrong again. Same problem:
"If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person distributing the code is now a copyright violator! They are distributing MY code without MY permission."
This is an *incredibly* important point! The GPL governs distribution! That is ALL. A person, once in possession of GPL'd code, can do anything they want with it. However, they are not allowed to distribute it unless they abide by the terms and conditions present in the GPL.
Similarly, if I purchase a book at the book store, it is mine. I own it. However, I am not allowed to distribute copies of that book, as that would be copyright infringement.
Not to belittle the man's efforts, but a raytracer is *incredibly* simple, algorithmically... hell, I could (and did) write a basic one that renders the classic reflective sphere on a checkerboard (with shadows) in an afternoon. Sure, making it small requires a few tricks, but, honestly, I've seen much more impressive things.
Someone's missing the point. If the distribution (Windows, for example) provides an out-of-the-box install that's easily exploitable (eg, RPC available to the world, IIS installed by default, etc), then it's just as fair to blame the distributor for providing such a system to it's (known to be) naive users as it is to blame the users of the system.
What's your point? My point is that Python is, as one of the parent posters said, solid and compatible in all environments. BitTorrent is evidence for this, as it exists, in Python form, on many platforms, and works on all of them. So, clearly, one doesn't need a "gatekeeper" for a language to be properly cross-platform.
Moreover, BT is proof that Python does exist on many people's desktops. What's even more interesting is that, because of the nature of Python (relatively small and compact), it's quite easy to package up a full Python program, with interpreter, and distribute it. So, unlike Java, you don't actually need a pre-existing installation, which removes one of Java's major barriers of entry to the desktop (nobody wants to download 10's of megs of runtime just to run some application).
You know, the funny thing about this is that a good coder must want to see their code actually run, right? After all, everyone wants immediate gratification. And the beauty of unit tests is it provides just that... you can actually run your code in a controlled environment easily without the need to start up an entire application/framework/etc. This is especially true of large and/or distributed applications where there's a great deal of overhead in running a full system test.
Moreover, unit tests make the test-develop cycle a *lot* shorter, especially on large projects, since you can easily run your code. Thus, you're wasting less time testing and more time coding... sounds like a great deal to me!
So, in my mind, any coder that doesn't feel like writing tests isn't, in fact, a particularly good coder. Or, perhaps, they're doing their job for all the wrong reasons. I code because I want to see the fruits of my labour, and unit tests are a great way to quickly and easily see the results of my work.
Don't understand how extradition works, do you? Repeat after me: A country will never agree to extradite someone for breaking a law in another country unless they were physically in the other country when the law was broken. To put it another way, a Canadian in Canada will not be extradited to the US for doing something in Canada that is against US law.
You just said it... get a heart rate monitor. They're invaluable if you're serious about exercising with the purpose of burning calories. They're also very important if you're first starting out, as you can ensure that you aren't *exceeding* your target heart rate.
Agreed completely. If you're going to use the roads, you're a vehicle, and hence you should obey the same traffic laws. This includes realizing that, as a cyclist, you have no more right of way than any other vehicle on the road.
Although, for sheer, long-term caloric intake, you can't beat fat and protein. Of course, it's important to keep a balance, but if you're having trouble getting the calories, a general increase of fat, protein, and complex carbs is a better idea than consuming "instant calories", as those calories, as you say, can increase blood sugar and insulin levels (which strains the pancreas) while at the same time only providing short-term energy.
It's also incredibly important to eat *frequently*. 5-6 times a day if you can. It's better for your body (no insulin spikes) and keeps the energy levels up.
Well, you're partly right about calorie burning. Building muscle creates the infrastructure necessary to burn calories. But it's the cardiovascular exercise (ie, 30-40 minutes *in your target heart rate!*) that actually burns the calories. The key thing to realize is that it's the muscles that do the burning... so, more muscle == more calories burned.
Everything else you said is bang on, though. Resistance training is an important key to good health.
Slashdot Mirror
Got proof for your fairy tales? 'cuz I *have* proof for mine. Dumbass...
Well, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it helps you work faster... the guy/girl who can do sin(0) in their head will inevitably finish a test faster, and hence have more time to check his/her work, than the guy/girl who has to punch it into a calculator, meaning better grades. And that ignores the benefits of actually *using your brain*...
Frankly, I don't understand how you can defend the idea of needing to punch sin(0) into your calculator. I mean, honestly, if that isn't a symptom of the tool being used as a crutch, I don't know what is. How far does it need to go before you'll admit that the tool is being misused? Hey, maybe we should give calculators to the really young and screw teaching them how to add. After all, they've got *so much work* these days, why should they have to do it themselves when there's a tool to do it for them?
And as for the idea that school is somehow harder these days, I'd love to see proof of that. I'll guarantee you that the curriculum in school hasn't changed much in the last ten years, if anything, because such things just move slowly (changing curriculum is not a trivial operation).
OK, these are extreme, but do you see my point? You have to take your wife into account in your decisions. Maybe you wouldn't have made those decisions anyway, but that's irrelevant; now you can't.
That's not true, really. Well, not strictly. If something is really, truly important to me, my wife will do her best to support me. If I must do something that she can not support, we'll go our separate ways. *shrug*
Well, if that's the kind of personal boundary you face, then no wonder you don't feel restricted! I used to crochet in my teens. The boundaries I'm interested in are more... interesting.
I never claimed that one example encompassed the breadth and depth of all types of personal boundaries that I might wish to explore (hell, just the other day I was reading a pamphlet on Falun Dafa, and my wife suggested that I should check it out... I didn't, as I'm not actually interested in practicing, but if I wanted to, she would have supported me 100%). It was just *an* example. OTOH, your examples are definitely extreme...
Frankly, it sounds to me like you have much more fundamental questions about yourself than many people (ie, the original poster). In fact, based on your examples, I might conclude that you're not even sure who you are, exactly. And you're right, if that's the case, getting married is probably a bad idea... after all, if you don't know who you are, how can someone else? Talk about unfair to your potential partner... But to suggest that someone is marrying too young just because *you* don't know who you are is, IMHO, pretty narrow-minded.
I meant, and said in my reply to you, that you don't have the same opportunities for personal growth within marriage
:) My point is that I may never have actually *done* it had I not met my wife. I would have said to myself "Hmm, I wonder how you knit?" and then left it. But my wife, hearing this, said "Well, why don't you try it!" and even helped me get supplies, pick out yarns, and so forth. In this way, she encouraged me to push through my personal boundaries ("men don't knit!") and try something new.
You said you have a "subset" of opportunities. I'm saying that's not true, because your partner should be there to help and encourage you, not hinder you.
Now, if you mean that your set of life choices are supposedly limited because you have someone else to think about, consider that, if something was very important to me, my wife would make the sacrifices necessary to allow me to do whatever it is I needed to do. And the reverse is also true. ie, the metaphor of "ball-and-chain" isn't necessarily true.
Were you unable to enjoy knitting prior to getting married?
Well, that's a silly question.
Oh, hardly. Since I met my wife I have grown and changed enormously, and in ways I never would have had we not met, and the same goes for her. There are many reasons for this. First, we've shared new things with each other, introduced each other to new experiences and ideas, and in that way, contributed to each other's growth. Second, we support and encourage each other in whatever we wish to explore (e.g., my knitting :), and even encourage each other to do things we might not necessarily think of, or even want to do. And in that way, we help each other push past our boundaries, which is the very essence of personal growth.
Frankly, you seem to have a rather limited view of marriage. It's a wonderful thing, and definitely not limiting...
You said, and I quote:
I also think you're too young to be married, but your early marriage is associated with your personal needs to grow as individual. Maybe you've already grown all you want.
The key bit being the sentence "Maybe you've already grown all you want.", implying that getting married means he doesn't want to "grow" any more. Perhaps you meant something different, but I see no other way to interpret that sentence.
I also think you're too young to be married, but your early marriage is associated with your personal needs to grow as individual. Maybe you've already grown all you want.
So, you think being married precludes personal growth? I feel sorry for whoever you end up marrying...
I don't think the article is correct regarding disposable cars
Then what you have to say has no bearing on my post. My post was reacting to the idea of disposable cars and how they're a bad idea, and are *not* a savings simply due to improved technology.
Your post, while interesting, is entirely orthogonal. You're discussing why cars won't become disposable in the first place. I'm discussing why disposable cars are a bad idea, in terms of energy efficiency, environmental effects, etc.
In fact, I think you're entirely correct. I don't think cars will ever become disposable, partly for the reasons you list, partly because of market forces. See, manufacturer for a car must at least make back the money they put into it, meaning thousands of dollars per car, minimum. There's no way your average consumer will swallow the idea of paying a few thousand dollars on something that's *disposable*!
Umm, the point of this article was that cars are getting to the point where they're very difficult to fix, or very expensive, due to all the high tech parts that are going into them, and that this may result in the development of "disposable cars". Therefore:
Q: "What makes you think a break down in Car C is irreparable compared to Car A?"
A: "That's the theory the article is positing".
Please, RTFA.
How 'bout this?
Actually, the compiler used is called GNU GCC. Credit where credit is due, people. Devkit Advance is just a nice, convenient packaging of GCC cross-compiled for the ARM, and the same is likely the case for that other kit you mentioned.
Of course, personally, I just built my own development environment by downloading and building my compiler and related tools by hand.
Indeed. The only console that rivals the GBA in terms of the size of it's homebrew community is the Dreamcast. Frankly, the GBA is *ridiculously* easy to develop for. You can use the standard GNU compiler chain (built to cross-compile for the ARM7TDMI), and the memory interfaces to the various hardware (VDP, etc) are incredibly simple and well documented. As for working on actual hardware, flash devices for the thing are dirt cheap, easy to find, and very easy to use. And for initial development, the emulators out there are excellent (hell, VBA can interface directly with gdb!). TBH, I can't think of a better platform for console hacking/experimentation, other than the DC, of course. :)
Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less
Sure, but at what cost?? Let's suppose you buy a new car that costs, oh, $15,000 to build, but breaks down in, say, 5 years, leaving it unrepairable. Do you *really* think, in 5 years, you could conserve $15,000 worth of fuel over the lifetime of that car in order to justify it's outright disposal? Moreover, do you think it's increased efficiency can counter-balance the environment impacts of build that car, disposing of it and building a new one?
I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may use it under any circumstances without my express permission.
Umm... wrong. That should read:
"I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may distribute it under any circumstances without my express permission."
If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person using the code is now a copyright violator! They are using MY code without MY permission.
Wrong again. Same problem:
"If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person distributing the code is now a copyright violator! They are distributing MY code without MY permission."
This is an *incredibly* important point! The GPL governs distribution! That is ALL. A person, once in possession of GPL'd code, can do anything they want with it. However, they are not allowed to distribute it unless they abide by the terms and conditions present in the GPL.
Similarly, if I purchase a book at the book store, it is mine. I own it. However, I am not allowed to distribute copies of that book, as that would be copyright infringement.
That is just sick and wrong...
Not to belittle the man's efforts, but a raytracer is *incredibly* simple, algorithmically... hell, I could (and did) write a basic one that renders the classic reflective sphere on a checkerboard (with shadows) in an afternoon. Sure, making it small requires a few tricks, but, honestly, I've seen much more impressive things.
Someone's missing the point. If the distribution (Windows, for example) provides an out-of-the-box install that's easily exploitable (eg, RPC available to the world, IIS installed by default, etc), then it's just as fair to blame the distributor for providing such a system to it's (known to be) naive users as it is to blame the users of the system.
What's your point? My point is that Python is, as one of the parent posters said, solid and compatible in all environments. BitTorrent is evidence for this, as it exists, in Python form, on many platforms, and works on all of them. So, clearly, one doesn't need a "gatekeeper" for a language to be properly cross-platform.
Moreover, BT is proof that Python does exist on many people's desktops. What's even more interesting is that, because of the nature of Python (relatively small and compact), it's quite easy to package up a full Python program, with interpreter, and distribute it. So, unlike Java, you don't actually need a pre-existing installation, which removes one of Java's major barriers of entry to the desktop (nobody wants to download 10's of megs of runtime just to run some application).
You know, the funny thing about this is that a good coder must want to see their code actually run, right? After all, everyone wants immediate gratification. And the beauty of unit tests is it provides just that... you can actually run your code in a controlled environment easily without the need to start up an entire application/framework/etc. This is especially true of large and/or distributed applications where there's a great deal of overhead in running a full system test.
Moreover, unit tests make the test-develop cycle a *lot* shorter, especially on large projects, since you can easily run your code. Thus, you're wasting less time testing and more time coding... sounds like a great deal to me!
So, in my mind, any coder that doesn't feel like writing tests isn't, in fact, a particularly good coder. Or, perhaps, they're doing their job for all the wrong reasons. I code because I want to see the fruits of my labour, and unit tests are a great way to quickly and easily see the results of my work.
Ever use BitTorrent?
Don't understand how extradition works, do you? Repeat after me: A country will never agree to extradite someone for breaking a law in another country unless they were physically in the other country when the law was broken. To put it another way, a Canadian in Canada will not be extradited to the US for doing something in Canada that is against US law.
You just said it... get a heart rate monitor. They're invaluable if you're serious about exercising with the purpose of burning calories. They're also very important if you're first starting out, as you can ensure that you aren't *exceeding* your target heart rate.
Agreed completely. If you're going to use the roads, you're a vehicle, and hence you should obey the same traffic laws. This includes realizing that, as a cyclist, you have no more right of way than any other vehicle on the road.
Although, for sheer, long-term caloric intake, you can't beat fat and protein. Of course, it's important to keep a balance, but if you're having trouble getting the calories, a general increase of fat, protein, and complex carbs is a better idea than consuming "instant calories", as those calories, as you say, can increase blood sugar and insulin levels (which strains the pancreas) while at the same time only providing short-term energy.
It's also incredibly important to eat *frequently*. 5-6 times a day if you can. It's better for your body (no insulin spikes) and keeps the energy levels up.
Well, you're partly right about calorie burning. Building muscle creates the infrastructure necessary to burn calories. But it's the cardiovascular exercise (ie, 30-40 minutes *in your target heart rate!*) that actually burns the calories. The key thing to realize is that it's the muscles that do the burning... so, more muscle == more calories burned.
Everything else you said is bang on, though. Resistance training is an important key to good health.