I've been working on a website recently and it has left me hating HTML+CSS versus table based layouts for "liquid" layouts. Part of the problem is it is such and utter pain in the butt to center an item with CSS in liquid layouts. You have to do some weird margin tricks utilizing the size of what you want to center. If anyone has any advice, let me know. I have read a sizeable number of tutorials each with their own clever hacks and full on plagirisms.
I have a quick question, does slashdot use "position: relative" and margins exclusively for positioning? Why use "position: relative" over the default "position: static"? Thanks for any pointers and responses in advance.
Just because the elevator cable extends out 100,000km doesn't mean you have to go the entire length of it to be where you want.
You could lift something that is more capable in the lower grav, frictionless environment of space to a suitable altitude and then use that to go whatever distance.
I thought they were somtimes baking people alive. Although my actual studies of that history is lacking, which is probably more offensive to the people than the use of the term nazi-ish.
I was browsing the screenshots of the new installer, and they looked nice. But as I was looking through them I saw reference to a "nazi-ish firewall". I'm not the type of person that is upset by this, but I can picture the people whose sensitivities would be offended by such a remark.
Maybe they should switch nazi-ish for strict. I'm not trying to be overly critical but I'm sure there are people who would find the comparisons between an overly-strict computer and a group that baked people in ovens offensive.
"As for C# - indeed the whole.net platform - it is a very straight copy of Java. Virtually nothing - from the syntax of the C# language to many of the opcodes of the virtual machine - has changed."
I remember one of the people in my lab mentioning that some Sun Engineer had created an instruction in the JVM that he was so proud of for handling exceptions or sub-routines, and it makes Java bytecode very difficlut to verify in the general case.
Microsoft removed that instruction, and ended up with a much better solution. Just an example of some things they've changed.
I have found Macro Express(http://www.macros.com/) to be the best way to script things under Windows. It lets you quickly write scripts that interact with various programs in the system to get useful things done. It even lets you get down to the level of sending messages to a Window's message handler, although I've never needed anything that complicated.
It's only downside is that it is a bit timing sensitive, and is pseudo difficult to get synchronized with the programs it is interacting with in the absence of pop-up dialog boxes. I usually end-up throwing it into some busy-wait state where it checks to see if a specific sign of a tasks completion is in existence or not.
The cool thing about it, is after the "customers" see what it can do, they tend to start working with it and even further automate their own workflow.
In all honesty, even durring the glut Microsoft was paying no where near 35k a year. They have always payed their employees well. (I worked there)
I do agree that he has a vested interest in having more people graduate with CS degrees, but it isn't so they can pay less. It is so he can get the quality people that they want. Durring the glut there were a ton of bad CS people being spat out, I was in classes with them. At the same time there were a lot of great CS students graduating as well. When less people go into the major less come out overall, and even less great ones come out.
It has been very difficult for compiler to generate optimized code for the Itanium. The Itanium is built off the idea that the compiler will do a lot of the work instead of hardware doing it at runtime.
So basically intel bet that compiler writers could pull it off and they haven't been able to. Unless apple has some magical compiler writers sitting around, I don't see how the disadvantages of itanium would change moving form x86 PC world to PowerPC world.
It's comfortable to sit sideways, the leather tastes good, and it's easier to analyze what someone is saying when you aren't looking at them. I often close my eyes or stair at blank walls when trying to listen to people.
I have all of those behaviours and I can assure you that I am no genius nor idiot.
There are a number of languages that allow you to not declare variables, and the fact that you don't have to declare variables or their types is considered one of their strengths. Look up Dynamically Typed Programming Languages on google and you will find a number of discussions.
I know you aren't talking about dynamically typed languages you are talking about declaration, but I think the arguments are the same.
The thing about programming in one of these languages is that yes you can make the BigNumber / BigNum, but declaring a variable only helps you prevent certain logical errors anyway. What not declaring variables forces you to do is focus on logic flaws that come in programming. If you make the BigNumber / BigNum mistake more than likely you will notice an error in logic. Since you are focusing on logic errors and you are provided with the tools for detecting those, you will also notice other logic errors that wouldn't have been caught by declaring variables.
That was poorly written, but I believe the heart of the argument is sound if you just read and attempt to think about it.
I am responding to the slashdot post, not the article. If you wanted to each programmer to see the code their own way instead, you WOULD NOT store the formatting as part of the underlying representation. Instead you would store the formatting as part of the display transform, so that each user would see the source code differently.
The stuff we use now stores the formatting as part of the file and that is part of the problem (although it could be worked around).
It saddens me to see that kind of gross semantic error made in the slashdot post, I'm hoping the actual article does not perpetuate this fallacy.
When you can just open "Computer Architecture: A Quantitavie Approach, 3rd Edition" by Hennessy and Patterson to page 855 and find out that in summary: Google has 3 sites (two west coast, one east) Each site connected with 1 OC48 Each OC48 hooks up to 2 Foundry BigIron 8000... 80 Pc's per rack * 40 racks(at an example site) = 3200 PC's. A google site is not a homogenous set of PC's instead there are different types of PC's that are being upgraded on different cycles based on the price/performance ratio.
If you want more info get the patterson hennessy book that I mentioned. Not the other version they sell. This one rocks way harder. You get to learn fun things like Tomosulo's algorithm.
If I am violating any copy rights feel free to remove this post.
Sure the lecturers talk a little slow, but this gives you a chance to try and think ahead of what they are about to say and challenge yourself. I usually use the lecture slow time, or when people ask questions to try to take the material and see what applications or extensions to it I can imagine. It's kind of fun and I think it helps work out my brain a bit more than just hearing the information rush past me, although I have no proof of that.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been working on a website recently and it has left me hating HTML+CSS versus table based layouts for "liquid" layouts. Part of the problem is it is such and utter pain in the butt to center an item with CSS in liquid layouts. You have to do some weird margin tricks utilizing the size of what you want to center. If anyone has any advice, let me know. I have read a sizeable number of tutorials each with their own clever hacks and full on plagirisms.
I have a quick question, does slashdot use "position: relative" and margins exclusively for positioning? Why use "position: relative" over the default "position: static"? Thanks for any pointers and responses in advance.
Just because the elevator cable extends out 100,000km doesn't mean you have to go the entire length of it to be where you want.
You could lift something that is more capable in the lower grav, frictionless environment of space to a suitable altitude and then use that to go whatever distance.
you just got added to my friends list, and I just got added to your fans.
I choose 1 or 3 for obvious reasons.
I thought they were somtimes baking people alive. Although my actual studies of that history is lacking, which is probably more offensive to the people than the use of the term nazi-ish.
I was browsing the screenshots of the new installer, and they looked nice. But as I was looking through them I saw reference to a "nazi-ish firewall". I'm not the type of person that is upset by this, but I can picture the people whose sensitivities would be offended by such a remark.
Maybe they should switch nazi-ish for strict. I'm not trying to be overly critical but I'm sure there are people who would find the comparisons between an overly-strict computer and a group that baked people in ovens offensive.
This sounds like one of those statements that future generations look back at and laugh.
How many roads must a vector graphics program draw before it becomes a vector graphics program?
"As for C# - indeed the whole .net platform - it is a very straight copy of Java. Virtually nothing - from the syntax of the C# language to many of the opcodes of the virtual machine - has changed."
I remember one of the people in my lab mentioning that some Sun Engineer had created an instruction in the JVM that he was so proud of for handling exceptions or sub-routines, and it makes Java bytecode very difficlut to verify in the general case.
Microsoft removed that instruction, and ended up with a much better solution. Just an example of some things they've changed.
I have found Macro Express(http://www.macros.com/) to be the best way to script things under Windows. It lets you quickly write scripts that interact with various programs in the system to get useful things done. It even lets you get down to the level of sending messages to a Window's message handler, although I've never needed anything that complicated.
It's only downside is that it is a bit timing sensitive, and is pseudo difficult to get synchronized with the programs it is interacting with in the absence of pop-up dialog boxes. I usually end-up throwing it into some busy-wait state where it checks to see if a specific sign of a tasks completion is in existence or not.
The cool thing about it, is after the "customers" see what it can do, they tend to start working with it and even further automate their own workflow.
How do I determine if I am a dummy with a CS Masters degree or an intelligent person with a CS Masters degree?
I lack a certain amount of self-confidence that the "less-insightful" people around me seem to have in spades.
I'm not being confrontational, I'm looking for a proper method to determine my location in the intelligence hierarchy.
In all honesty, even durring the glut Microsoft was paying no where near 35k a year. They have always payed their employees well. (I worked there)
I do agree that he has a vested interest in having more people graduate with CS degrees, but it isn't so they can pay less. It is so he can get the quality people that they want. Durring the glut there were a ton of bad CS people being spat out, I was in classes with them. At the same time there were a lot of great CS students graduating as well. When less people go into the major less come out overall, and even less great ones come out.
It has been very difficult for compiler to generate optimized code for the Itanium. The Itanium is built off the idea that the compiler will do a lot of the work instead of hardware doing it at runtime.
So basically intel bet that compiler writers could pull it off and they haven't been able to. Unless apple has some magical compiler writers sitting around, I don't see how the disadvantages of itanium would change moving form x86 PC world to PowerPC world.
It's comfortable to sit sideways, the leather tastes good, and it's easier to analyze what someone is saying when you aren't looking at them. I often close my eyes or stair at blank walls when trying to listen to people.
I have all of those behaviours and I can assure you that I am no genius nor idiot.
They would show up as logic errors because the program would not behave as you expected.
I just spell checked it, there were no spelling mistakes. Did I make word choice errors? Were the errors gramatical?
There are a number of languages that allow you to not declare variables, and the fact that you don't have to declare variables or their types is considered one of their strengths. Look up Dynamically Typed Programming Languages on google and you will find a number of discussions.
I know you aren't talking about dynamically typed languages you are talking about declaration, but I think the arguments are the same.
The thing about programming in one of these languages is that yes you can make the BigNumber / BigNum, but declaring a variable only helps you prevent certain logical errors anyway. What not declaring variables forces you to do is focus on logic flaws that come in programming. If you make the BigNumber / BigNum mistake more than likely you will notice an error in logic. Since you are focusing on logic errors and you are provided with the tools for detecting those, you will also notice other logic errors that wouldn't have been caught by declaring variables.
That was poorly written, but I believe the heart of the argument is sound if you just read and attempt to think about it.
...it is both of the things mentioned in the post.
VIIV =
64 bit chip
with
2 Cores
2 P5's and 64 bits...
Some marketing guy/gal at Intel is hugging himself/herself over this one.
I am responding to the slashdot post, not the article. If you wanted to each programmer to see the code their own way instead, you WOULD NOT store the formatting as part of the underlying representation. Instead you would store the formatting as part of the display transform, so that each user would see the source code differently.
The stuff we use now stores the formatting as part of the file and that is part of the problem (although it could be worked around).
It saddens me to see that kind of gross semantic error made in the slashdot post, I'm hoping the actual article does not perpetuate this fallacy.
Why do multiplies when you can just as easily do
A = A+B
B = A-B
A = A-B
I'm in a compiler group at a major university, and microsoft is more than happy to give us software and support.
"Try to be clever and and 'beat' people in arguments and you'll only piss people off." ...
"Although I'd make the case that one tells you to get involved and the other tells you how to suceed when you get involved."
So what did he do to you, why are you trying to piss him off?
As long as your theorem is not one of the ones that may not be provable under Godel's incompleteness theorem.
When you can just open "Computer Architecture: A Quantitavie Approach, 3rd Edition" by Hennessy and Patterson to page 855 and find out that in summary: ...
Google has 3 sites (two west coast, one east)
Each site connected with 1 OC48
Each OC48 hooks up to 2 Foundry BigIron 8000
80 Pc's per rack * 40 racks(at an example site)
= 3200 PC's.
A google site is not a homogenous set of PC's instead there are different types of PC's that are being upgraded on different cycles based on the price/performance ratio.
If you want more info get the patterson hennessy book that I mentioned. Not the other version they sell. This one rocks way harder. You get to learn fun things like Tomosulo's algorithm.
If I am violating any copy rights feel free to remove this post.
Sure the lecturers talk a little slow, but this gives you a chance to try and think ahead of what they are about to say and challenge yourself. I usually use the lecture slow time, or when people ask questions to try to take the material and see what applications or extensions to it I can imagine. It's kind of fun and I think it helps work out my brain a bit more than just hearing the information rush past me, although I have no proof of that.