Of course you need maths at a higher level. Try binary subtraction by hand.
Subtraction? Try binary long division by hand (which of course involves some binary subtraction).
About 30-40% of my "Computer Architecture" course comprised of doing all kinds of random ass math in various radicies from 2 to 16 (problems often given in a mixture, requiring lots of conversions). Everything had to be done by hand with all steps shown.
All that grilling of maths in there (among the pile of other CS & Math courses I took) has actually come in handy quite often throughout my career and even non-work-related stuff.
Parking? Since when did you need "loads of parking" for a datacenter? Many of them are at or close to lights-out operations, and even "fully staffed" locations the size of a dept store still only have a handful of employees.
why do i have this suspicion that the whole bitcoin is some elaborate, very drawn out, convoluted, mutated version of a pyramid scheme?
You tell me why... because I don't see it. No referrals, no downlines, none of that telltale pyramid stuff.
First they were worth squat, then there was all kinds of marketing hype, the value skyrocketed as a result, and then bam...it crashes. A lucky few got in before the marketing (knowing it was coming) and bailed out while it was spiked. To me that more closely represents a pump & dump.
While I think it's awesome that they did this, and it sends a powerful message, there seems to be another implied flaw in the plan...
Perhaps the idea of the gub'mint giving them this loan was that it was to offset their startup/r&d/production costs in the early years before they were able to get to full on mass production (I mean large scale, like the level of other established & successful auto manufacturers). So much that with that offset, they would have been able to offer their vehicles to the public at "mass production prices" even though they weren't at that point yet. Doing this would have made their volume much higher, and thus they could have attained actual "mass production" levels quicker, at which point they operate cheaper, and thus make higher margins required to pay back the loan at (or closer to) the original term.
So in this scenario everyone wins... 1) The customer pays less 2) The company makes more sales and better establishes their brand & product with a larger market share 3) The government earns more $ on loan interest
But instead... 1) The early adopters paid more, subsidizing an early loan repayment 2) The company has less market penetration due to high prices 3) The government misses out on over half the interest revenue
But still, I can't blame them for wanting to eliminate what was probably the largest liability on their books.
They pretty much do that, just with a useless prefix and an _ instead of . as the last delimiter.
So instead of major.minor.build it is 1.major.minor_build, which means I could take your statement and easily alter it to read:
JDK 5 uses 1.5.y_z numbers, JDK 6 uses 1.6.y_z numbers, JDK 7 uses 1.7.y_z numbers. Y is incremented for feature releases and resets Z to 0. Z is incremented for security releases.
As you say, that's "Simple. Easily parseable."
The funny thing is, they never put out "feature releases" so the Y is always 0. Hey, that makes it even simpler (albeit more pointless) in a way.
Java, too, has had confusing version numbers for a good long while -- long before Oracle became involved with it. Just for example, I'm pretty sure Java 1.6 is significantly newer than Java 2.
So yeah.
It's only confusing because you are mixing real versions with marketing versions. Stop doing that.
Real world: 1.2 vs 1.6 Marketing: Java 2 vs JDK 6 (or J2SE 2 vs J2SE 6 for an edition-specific example)
So 2 is less than 6, as expected. Not as confusing anymore.
I wonder if java will ever stabalize this way? (java 8, 9, 10)
I, for one, welcome our new leading-version-number-dropping-for-readability overlords.
Well they kinda already did back in 2004 when v1.5 came out by calling it "5.0" (and retroactively applied the lost prefix to all versions back to v1.2). And with v1.6 they dropped the ".0" suffix that was gained by for the official product name.
But, that was all in marketing land. In the real world, where it really matters, it has still has the leading "1." in the version. All the devs know, understand, and accept this with little concern.
I've long wondered what it would take to get them finally bump up that major # to a "2." prefix, but don't really care if it ever happens.
From the CNN variation of TFA: "From a "At 0.01 BAC, drivers in simulators demonstrate attention problems and lane deviations. At 0.02, they exhibit drowsiness, and at 0.04, vigilance problems."
Ha! I witness these issues repeatedly on a daily basis from plenty of people with zero alcohol in their system (ok, I didn't test them, but I think we can safely assume >99% of drivers had not been drinking at 8-9am for example). Let's face it, some people just suck at driving, and that makes them quite dangerous already before you even factor in alcohol. I've even experienced some of these symptoms myself on occasion w/o drinking -- especially drowsiness.
I'm all for very low tolerance of drinking and driving, but I wish the media/politicians/etc. would stop making it out to be the only problem with driving, or that it is the biggest cause of accidents and/or deaths. On some "top N causes" lists it's even down at #5 or so. What usually tops alcohol is various forms of distractions (rubbernecking, eating, fiddling with radio, etc.), and what leads that list is usually cell phone usage. Studies have been done which shown that even talking on the phone is just as dangerous (albeit in slightly different ways) as being at the current legal BAC limit. So lowering legal BAC limits will actually make talking on the phone "even worse" than DWI.
For those who are screaming "citation needed!" in their heads right now, here's one of many I quickly googled up. Plenty more out there, just go look. And that is just talking on the phone...texting and/or surfing the web is even worse, and becoming more prevalent.
I think it's time to put more of this attention & funding against cell phone usage (not to say ignore alcohol, but share the spotlight so to speak). Better driver education & more so driver training (as in actual training, like car control & stuff) would also help overall safety considerably.
It's a version string, it's not a floating point number.
If could be written as "Version 3, Release 10" in which case you would have no problem recognizing that "Version 3, Release 9" was the prior one. But remember, devs are lazy, and keystrokes are expensive, so shorthand notation just gives you the important (numeric) pieces, with a visually minimalistic delimiter.
This is even more apparent for projects with Major/Minor/Patch level designations. They are, once again, just using periods as a simple delimiter in a shorthand notation. Surely you don't complain that 2.3.32 is less than 2.3.6 do you?
Others loaded that data onto any plastic card with a magnetic stripe — an old hotel key card or an expired credit card worked fine as long as it carried the account data and correct access codes
Magnets!
Is there anything they can't do?
But seriously, why is of this of note? I'm pretty sure any magstrip carrying the right codes would work.
Yes, "any magstrip" would do, hence the "any plastic card with a magnetic stripe" text in the post you replied to. Thank you captain obvious for your oblivious observations.
Your pizza analogy is redistribution not inflation.
I think it kinda works...
A "slice" is just some arbitrary unit of measure just like a "dollar" is. There is some initial % of the whole for which it represents, and that is it's value. Basically he's saying that because the quantity of slices has increased, but the overall finite resource they came from hasn't changed a bit. The value of a slice is decreased because there are more of them, causing each one to be a smaller % of the whole pie.
It's a little different conceptually in that it re-defines the base unit of measure (changing slice size) which inherently redefines the total quantity vs. redefining the total quantity (printing more bills) which in turn redefines the "slice size" that a base unit represents. It's mathematically equivalent though.
I have never understood why people think Finder is awful. It provides all the features you get in Windows..
Like viewing the actual filesystem hierarchy as a tree of folders? Like being able to orient yourself quickly and easily within said hierarchy when an Open... dialog plops you into some seemingly arbitrary location that is not the last place you were at when opening or saving files?
I mean, there is something that kinda does that which is not a well publicized feature that is disabled by default. And even still, it doesn't show a proper tree or make jumping around the tree easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Bwahhahaha...nice. I doubt many of these young'ns will get that reference though.
"I assume your handprint will open this door whether you are conscious or not." - Commander Data, Star Trek TNG episode "A Matter of Time"
Handprint identification, please.
What happens if you get an evil bit by accident?
Just use Richy_T's "logging out" method of converting it into a dirty bit.
"The stream carried the gravels at least a few miles, or kilometers, the researchers estimated..."
You'd think by now they would have chosen a damn system of measurement and stuck with it!!!
(link for those who just heard a woosh)
Of course you need maths at a higher level. Try binary subtraction by hand.
Subtraction? Try binary long division by hand (which of course involves some binary subtraction).
About 30-40% of my "Computer Architecture" course comprised of doing all kinds of random ass math in various radicies from 2 to 16 (problems often given in a mixture, requiring lots of conversions). Everything had to be done by hand with all steps shown.
All that grilling of maths in there (among the pile of other CS & Math courses I took) has actually come in handy quite often throughout my career and even non-work-related stuff.
...once PWR mode is enabled.
At which point all efficiency goes out the windo...err...tailpipe.
It's saying that the person who wrote it fails at using English.
OMG, I just realized that WLAN is an anagram of LAWN.
Then get of my WLAN you high bandwidth whippersnapper!
Parking? Since when did you need "loads of parking" for a datacenter? Many of them are at or close to lights-out operations, and even "fully staffed" locations the size of a dept store still only have a handful of employees.
Symantec?
why do i have this suspicion that the whole bitcoin is some elaborate, very drawn out, convoluted, mutated version of a pyramid scheme?
You tell me why... because I don't see it. No referrals, no downlines, none of that telltale pyramid stuff.
First they were worth squat, then there was all kinds of marketing hype, the value skyrocketed as a result, and then bam...it crashes. A lucky few got in before the marketing (knowing it was coming) and bailed out while it was spiked. To me that more closely represents a pump & dump.
While I think it's awesome that they did this, and it sends a powerful message, there seems to be another implied flaw in the plan...
Perhaps the idea of the gub'mint giving them this loan was that it was to offset their startup/r&d/production costs in the early years before they were able to get to full on mass production (I mean large scale, like the level of other established & successful auto manufacturers). So much that with that offset, they would have been able to offer their vehicles to the public at "mass production prices" even though they weren't at that point yet. Doing this would have made their volume much higher, and thus they could have attained actual "mass production" levels quicker, at which point they operate cheaper, and thus make higher margins required to pay back the loan at (or closer to) the original term.
So in this scenario everyone wins...
1) The customer pays less
2) The company makes more sales and better establishes their brand & product with a larger market share
3) The government earns more $ on loan interest
But instead...
1) The early adopters paid more, subsidizing an early loan repayment
2) The company has less market penetration due to high prices
3) The government misses out on over half the interest revenue
But still, I can't blame them for wanting to eliminate what was probably the largest liability on their books.
They pretty much do that, just with a useless prefix and an _ instead of . as the last delimiter.
So instead of major.minor.build it is 1.major.minor_build, which means I could take your statement and easily alter it to read:
JDK 5 uses 1.5.y_z numbers, JDK 6 uses 1.6.y_z numbers, JDK 7 uses 1.7.y_z numbers. Y is incremented for feature releases and resets Z to 0. Z is incremented for security releases.
As you say, that's "Simple. Easily parseable."
The funny thing is, they never put out "feature releases" so the Y is always 0. Hey, that makes it even simpler (albeit more pointless) in a way.
Java, too, has had confusing version numbers for a good long while -- long before Oracle became involved with it. Just for example, I'm pretty sure Java 1.6 is significantly newer than Java 2.
So yeah.
It's only confusing because you are mixing real versions with marketing versions. Stop doing that.
Real world: 1.2 vs 1.6
Marketing: Java 2 vs JDK 6 (or J2SE 2 vs J2SE 6 for an edition-specific example)
So 2 is less than 6, as expected. Not as confusing anymore.
>
I wonder if java will ever stabalize this way? (java 8, 9, 10)
I, for one, welcome our new leading-version-number-dropping-for-readability overlords.
Well they kinda already did back in 2004 when v1.5 came out by calling it "5.0" (and retroactively applied the lost prefix to all versions back to v1.2). And with v1.6 they dropped the ".0" suffix that was gained by for the official product name.
But, that was all in marketing land. In the real world, where it really matters, it has still has the leading "1." in the version. All the devs know, understand, and accept this with little concern.
I've long wondered what it would take to get them finally bump up that major # to a "2." prefix, but don't really care if it ever happens.
From the CNN variation of TFA: "From a "At 0.01 BAC, drivers in simulators demonstrate attention problems and lane deviations. At 0.02, they exhibit drowsiness, and at 0.04, vigilance problems."
Ha! I witness these issues repeatedly on a daily basis from plenty of people with zero alcohol in their system (ok, I didn't test them, but I think we can safely assume >99% of drivers had not been drinking at 8-9am for example). Let's face it, some people just suck at driving, and that makes them quite dangerous already before you even factor in alcohol. I've even experienced some of these symptoms myself on occasion w/o drinking -- especially drowsiness.
I'm all for very low tolerance of drinking and driving, but I wish the media/politicians/etc. would stop making it out to be the only problem with driving, or that it is the biggest cause of accidents and/or deaths. On some "top N causes" lists it's even down at #5 or so. What usually tops alcohol is various forms of distractions (rubbernecking, eating, fiddling with radio, etc.), and what leads that list is usually cell phone usage. Studies have been done which shown that even talking on the phone is just as dangerous (albeit in slightly different ways) as being at the current legal BAC limit. So lowering legal BAC limits will actually make talking on the phone "even worse" than DWI.
For those who are screaming "citation needed!" in their heads right now, here's one of many I quickly googled up. Plenty more out there, just go look. And that is just talking on the phone...texting and/or surfing the web is even worse, and becoming more prevalent.
I think it's time to put more of this attention & funding against cell phone usage (not to say ignore alcohol, but share the spotlight so to speak). Better driver education & more so driver training (as in actual training, like car control & stuff) would also help overall safety considerably.
It's a version string, it's not a floating point number.
If could be written as "Version 3, Release 10" in which case you would have no problem recognizing that "Version 3, Release 9" was the prior one. But remember, devs are lazy, and keystrokes are expensive, so shorthand notation just gives you the important (numeric) pieces, with a visually minimalistic delimiter.
This is even more apparent for projects with Major/Minor/Patch level designations. They are, once again, just using periods as a simple delimiter in a shorthand notation. Surely you don't complain that 2.3.32 is less than 2.3.6 do you?
That would more literally translate into something like you having cars on your feet.
This is a bit different.
Thanks to big Silicon Valley Research arms, it's the same old tech, but fresh new name! Sell it!!!!
Yeah, you notice how they even managed to score a "the cloud" reference in TFS? As soon as I saw that I stopped reading.
Others loaded that data onto any plastic card with a magnetic stripe — an old hotel key card or an expired credit card worked fine as long as it carried the account data and correct access codes
Magnets!
Is there anything they can't do?
But seriously, why is of this of note? I'm pretty sure
any magstrip carrying the right codes would work.
Yes, "any magstrip" would do, hence the "any plastic card with a magnetic stripe" text in the post you replied to.
Thank you captain obvious for your oblivious observations.
Doesn't matter...he's got the license, and is likely going to sell them.
He meant that he moved on to the next "article" on /.
Your pizza analogy is redistribution not inflation.
I think it kinda works...
A "slice" is just some arbitrary unit of measure just like a "dollar" is. There is some initial % of the whole for which it represents, and that is it's value. Basically he's saying that because the quantity of slices has increased, but the overall finite resource they came from hasn't changed a bit. The value of a slice is decreased because there are more of them, causing each one to be a smaller % of the whole pie.
It's a little different conceptually in that it re-defines the base unit of measure (changing slice size) which inherently redefines the total quantity vs. redefining the total quantity (printing more bills) which in turn redefines the "slice size" that a base unit represents. It's mathematically equivalent though.
I just use butterflies.
And I use braces .. or "curly brackets" for the vocabularily challenged.
I have never understood why people think Finder is awful. It provides all the features you get in Windows..
Like viewing the actual filesystem hierarchy as a tree of folders? Like being able to orient yourself quickly and easily within said hierarchy when an Open... dialog plops you into some seemingly arbitrary location that is not the last place you were at when opening or saving files?
I mean, there is something that kinda does that which is not a well publicized feature that is disabled by default. And even still, it doesn't show a proper tree or make jumping around the tree easy.