Here's a slightly inaccurate explanation that will hopefully give you the gist:
P problems are easy to solve with computers. The number of operations required to solve them can be described by some polynomial, for example for a problem of size X, perhaps X-squared steps. In this example, a problem of size 100 would take 100-squared = 10,000 computer operations. Virtually any modern computer can do 10,000 operations faster than you can blink.
NP problems are hard to solve with computers. The best known computer solution to such a problem might typically take exponentially many computer operations (for example, if the problem has X elements, it might take 2 to the power X operations to solve). In this example, a problem of size 100 would take 2 to the 100th = 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 operations. This would take the fastest supercomputer on earth more than 4 million years to solve.
NP-hard problems are even worse, for reasons which are difficult to explain without really getting into the theory.
There are almost no games where it's true random. It's pretty universally simulated random, and in fact poorly simulated random because quality PRNGs are typically slow. The advent of MT a few years ago at least improved the quality, but it's still PRNG.
They are thinking that the columbine kids said they hated people too. And that the admins from that school have a terrible reputation for failing to pay attention to a serious problem.
His willingness to pay voluntarily will neither have a tangible result (he's too poor to put a meaningful dent in the US budget), nor change policy. His unwillingness to pay voluntarily might help to change policy.
It's because there's a (significant!) per-tool overhead. If I can use the same tool for everything I do, I can be much more efficient. Recognizing that there are limits to this and that a small number of tools is probably best is beyond most people.
LISP loses, and will continue to lose until they address the fact that the imperative-c-style is the right choice 90% of the time, and that the core advantages of lisp apply only to the other 10%. Which is why the languages that focus on getting the 90% right, and finding some way to manage the other 10% effectively will forever be leaving LISP in their wake.
+1, and one that too many people underestimate. It's why ruby struggles, the IDE/toolchain sucks with the single exception of rails.
And why I love Gosu: Syntax : powerful, yet comfortable (c/java derived and not 'out there' like scala) Access: calls into java, so a huge set of libs already available. ronin/tosa if you want to find out what rails could have been. Community: small (definitely its weakest point right now), but supportive IDEs and tools: oh yeah. Light years ahead of all the other '4th gen' languages.
Sadly, I think given his total works, he's at best a mediocre author overall, who had a high peak. He wrote a space sci fi series. I read it because I was really a big fan of Thomas Covenant and had loved the writing.
Slashdot Mirror
The life-caused fatality rate is actually only something like 93.5% based on available evidence.
Here's a slightly inaccurate explanation that will hopefully give you the gist:
P problems are easy to solve with computers. The number of operations required to solve them can be described by some polynomial, for example for a problem of size X, perhaps X-squared steps. In this example, a problem of size 100 would take 100-squared = 10,000 computer operations. Virtually any modern computer can do 10,000 operations faster than you can blink.
NP problems are hard to solve with computers. The best known computer solution to such a problem might typically take exponentially many computer operations (for example, if the problem has X elements, it might take 2 to the power X operations to solve). In this example, a problem of size 100 would take 2 to the 100th = 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 operations. This would take the fastest supercomputer on earth more than 4 million years to solve.
NP-hard problems are even worse, for reasons which are difficult to explain without really getting into the theory.
There are almost no games where it's true random. It's pretty universally simulated random, and in fact poorly simulated random because quality PRNGs are typically slow. The advent of MT a few years ago at least improved the quality, but it's still PRNG.
Harder than QWOP?
The fun trick will be to point this at a 45% efficient photovoltaic panel to generate the electricity.
Was your post joking? You dropped part of the units. The /s was fairly important.
They are thinking that the columbine kids said they hated people too. And that the admins from that school have a terrible reputation for failing to pay attention to a serious problem.
His willingness to pay voluntarily will neither have a tangible result (he's too poor to put a meaningful dent in the US budget), nor change policy. His unwillingness to pay voluntarily might help to change policy.
It's because there's a (significant!) per-tool overhead. If I can use the same tool for everything I do, I can be much more efficient.
Recognizing that there are limits to this and that a small number of tools is probably best is beyond most people.
No seriously. When OO became a fad he figured out how to build up macros to support an OO model.
My dad did. Maybe he's behind this. But he was a first generation programmer. Trying to get him to move on from assembly was a pointless endeavor.
Making my point for me my friend.
But you still don't do it then. You have your lawyers do it.
If you don't want to be arrested for murdering your neighbor, yes.
Yeah, it's in the author notes for fatal revenant.
Even the author doesn't think they're as good. If you do, you are a truly rare exception.
LISP loses, and will continue to lose until they address the fact that the imperative-c-style is the right choice 90% of the time, and that the core advantages of lisp apply only to the other 10%. Which is why the languages that focus on getting the 90% right, and finding some way to manage the other 10% effectively will forever be leaving LISP in their wake.
My experience maintaining c++ code suggests you may be incorrect about real c++ programmers carrying on and writing code that doesn't do that.
+1, and one that too many people underestimate. It's why ruby struggles, the IDE/toolchain sucks with the single exception of rails.
And why I love Gosu:
Syntax : powerful, yet comfortable (c/java derived and not 'out there' like scala)
Access: calls into java, so a huge set of libs already available. ronin/tosa if you want to find out what rails could have been.
Community: small (definitely its weakest point right now), but supportive
IDEs and tools: oh yeah. Light years ahead of all the other '4th gen' languages.
He omitted 'php' from serious php developer. Probably because we'd all have laughed at the notion.
John Carter of Mars rings some kind of bell, I'm not sure it quite qualifies as forgotten. ;-)
Sadly, I think given his total works, he's at best a mediocre author overall, who had a high peak.
He wrote a space sci fi series. I read it because I was really a big fan of Thomas Covenant and had loved the writing.
Don't read it.
People always like different parts. For me the Illearth War was the best. Maybe because it was so dark.
Seconded ... if you miss our on THS why bother reading the other two?
It would be hard to argue that Farmer is forgotten with his books getting turned into movies.
Terrible, terrible movies as usual. But still.