What if you have an optimal big O solution, but the constant in front is big? Cutting that constant in 1/4 while still getting the same scaling as working set grows has obvious benefits. You obviously have no experience writing a piece of software where performance matters and good performance is difficult to achieve given your workload and hardware.
You're wrong about that.
However, I also have experience writing software where *correctness* matters, and if I trade a but of constant-level efficiency to get robust maintainable code, then I've come out ahead.
It doesn't do any good to have your program finish in one day instead of four, if the output is wrong.
How ironic that the predicted Asteroid Human-Extinction event would be man made?
Yes, but how are they going to accomplish it by the end of the year?
Methinks the Mayans were overoptimistic about technology development. But then again "billionaire" probably sounded like a rather lot of money to them.
Java floating point management is flawed by design. Using java for controlling anything serious opens up a Pandora box: just look at this (and look here if you don't know dr. Kahan)
Using *any* floating point for anything serious opens Pandora's box.
That't why universities teach all those fantsy courses in numerical processing.
Higher level languages tend to help minimize *developer* time, at the expense of run-time.
If you're really interested in run time, you should be more concerned with asymptotic ("big-O") performance rather than basic code efficiency.
Also, no amount of speed-up makes up for code that is wrong. The proper reason for choosing a higher-level language is that its readability contributes to correctness.
People still use this? I remember this being a toy language for kids to learn how to program.
That's an odd use, since it's utterly unlike most programming languages. Basically a "program" is a knowledge base expressed as logical implications, and Logo is an inference engine runs on that data.
I disagree. Theories are the end product of science.
And the notion of "the scientific method" tends to be overblown. Even the most unschooled layman instinctively follows hypothesis testing when troubleshooting anything at all.
From what I've seen from libertarian supporters it generally actually means:
1. very low to no taxes. Keep the government out of my wallet. 2. very few regulations. Keep the government out of my business/gun collection/telling me who and who I can't serve in my own shop. 3. very little redistribution. See 1. I keep mine, you keep yours.
Which when translated means, "let rich people do whatever they want, and under no circumstances spend my tax money on people poorer than me". Plus the gun thing.
IOW, most present-day libertarians are just Republicans without the pretense of a Mandate from God.
51% still trust Fox News with their lives, and the other 49% would die for the Huffington Post.
Actually I think the USA has 25%-30% of knee-jerkers on each side, and the remaining 40%-50% still show some amount of independence. Polls on political topics rarely go out of the 25%-to-75% or 75%-to-25% range.
So when you see a politically charged poll, subtract 25 or 30 percent off each end, and rescale what's left to see what the non-partisan elements of the public think about the topic.
No, uneducated democracies are bad. The assumption that one persons' opinion is automatically granted the same validity as another's is the core of the problem.
I don't think it's entirely a matter of education. Even educated people can be tempted to vote for what's good for themselves in the short term, even if it's bad for everybody in the longer term.
OTOH, parliamentary systems allow extremist minorities to get representatives elected, then exploit the need for coalition building to magnify their influence.
I think this is how fascists and communists have taken over a number of democratic societies. Get a foot in the door, then apply leverage.
But methinks Occam's Razor suggests that there is a powerful, sinister organization which is ruthlessly stamping out any leaders who even start to surface.
before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3
I wonder how much of this kind of stuff is the work of 'Anonymous' style vigilantes, who think they should attack anyone and everyone that they don't approve of for some reason.
Perpetual non-state cyberwar may be the future of the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
If Harvard paves the way with this, how long until other academic bodies follow suit and cut off companies such as Elsevier?
As soon as an on-line open-access journal gets the same impact factor as the traditional Elsevier or IEEE journals, the old ones are dead.
Asymptotic complexity is about what happens for inputs that are both worst case and arbitrarily (read: infinitely) large.
Uh, no. For some algorithms a very small n can be intractable.
What if you have an optimal big O solution, but the constant in front is big? Cutting that constant in 1/4 while still getting the same scaling as working set grows has obvious benefits. You obviously have no experience writing a piece of software where performance matters and good performance is difficult to achieve given your workload and hardware.
You're wrong about that.
However, I also have experience writing software where *correctness* matters, and if I trade a but of constant-level efficiency to get robust maintainable code, then I've come out ahead.
It doesn't do any good to have your program finish in one day instead of four, if the output is wrong.
the potential returns could dwarf the US national debt
If you take the current price of platinum and multiply it by the amount that you could obtain from asteroid mining.
However, what is going to happen to the price if you bring that much to the market?
And for that matter, is there that much of a market for it? Will we all be wearing platinum belt buckles in 50 years?
How ironic that the predicted Asteroid Human-Extinction event would be man made?
Yes, but how are they going to accomplish it by the end of the year?
Methinks the Mayans were overoptimistic about technology development. But then again "billionaire" probably sounded like a rather lot of money to them.
This allows bigger construction in space.
Which is needed for ... ?
Orbiting whore-houses for the miners?
Actually, I think this is worth doing on a "because it's there" basis. If you've got the money and want to spend it that way.
For my values, it beats buying a football team or a casino.
when I see it happening.
Does anyone know what the (plausible) ROI for this is?
Java floating point management is flawed by design. Using java for controlling anything serious opens up a Pandora box: just look at this (and look here if you don't know dr. Kahan)
Using *any* floating point for anything serious opens Pandora's box.
That't why universities teach all those fantsy courses in numerical processing.
...since you can get ten times as much done in a single line of perl.
Yes and you will be the only human on earth that knows what it does.
That's why we call it a "write-only" programming language.
Higher level languages tend to help minimize *developer* time, at the expense of run-time.
If you're really interested in run time, you should be more concerned with asymptotic ("big-O") performance rather than basic code efficiency.
Also, no amount of speed-up makes up for code that is wrong. The proper reason for choosing a higher-level language is that its readability contributes to correctness.
>19 - Logo - 0.652%
People still use this? I remember this being a toy language for kids to learn how to program.
That's an odd use, since it's utterly unlike most programming languages. Basically a "program" is a knowledge base expressed as logical implications, and Logo is an inference engine runs on that data.
Interesting that the top one is only 30x more common than the 20th. I would have guessed 2-3 orders of magnitude.
Looks like the distribution might follow a power law.
science is about method, not about theories
I disagree. Theories are the end product of science.
And the notion of "the scientific method" tends to be overblown. Even the most unschooled layman instinctively follows hypothesis testing when troubleshooting anything at all.
From what I've seen from libertarian supporters it generally actually means:
1. very low to no taxes. Keep the government out of my wallet.
2. very few regulations. Keep the government out of my business/gun collection/telling me who and who I can't serve in my own shop.
3. very little redistribution. See 1. I keep mine, you keep yours.
Which when translated means, "let rich people do whatever they want, and under no circumstances spend my tax money on people poorer than me". Plus the gun thing.
IOW, most present-day libertarians are just Republicans without the pretense of a Mandate from God.
Then the Right Wing Hate Machine trying desperately to blame Obama for the mess Bush and his party got us into.
To be fair, some Democratic legislators voted in favor of the deregulation that let the banks get us into this mess.
51% still trust Fox News with their lives, and the other 49% would die for the Huffington Post.
Actually I think the USA has 25%-30% of knee-jerkers on each side, and the remaining 40%-50% still show some amount of independence. Polls on political topics rarely go out of the 25%-to-75% or 75%-to-25% range.
So when you see a politically charged poll, subtract 25 or 30 percent off each end, and rescale what's left to see what the non-partisan elements of the public think about the topic.
It's time to refresh the tree of liberty?
The politicians are trying to refresh it with natural fertilizer.
_Prove_ your Sky Fairie exists right fucking now and I'll recant and bend my knee before him/her/it's Noodly Appendage.
But - but - but - If the Sky Fairie doesn't exist, where do fairie cakes come from?
No, uneducated democracies are bad. The assumption that one persons' opinion is automatically granted the same validity as another's is the core of the problem.
I don't think it's entirely a matter of education. Even educated people can be tempted to vote for what's good for themselves in the short term, even if it's bad for everybody in the longer term.
OTOH, parliamentary systems allow extremist minorities to get representatives elected, then exploit the need for coalition building to magnify their influence.
I think this is how fascists and communists have taken over a number of democratic societies. Get a foot in the door, then apply leverage.
But methinks Occam's Razor suggests that there is a powerful, sinister organization which is ruthlessly stamping out any leaders who even start to surface.
Yes, it's called "money".
11 years ago.
I suppose you're implicating Iran in the 9/11 attacks, though it's hard to imagine anyone could be so ignorant.
Most of the participants came from "friendly" countries.
before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3
I wonder how much of this kind of stuff is the work of 'Anonymous' style vigilantes, who think they should attack anyone and everyone that they don't approve of for some reason.
Perpetual non-state cyberwar may be the future of the internet.
Who wanted a picture of that?
It's a popular meme. Ann Romney says we won't really know her husband until they unzip him for us.