Uhh, you know, ARM is a Cambridge company, as is WorldPay (now owned by RBS).
It's mandatory at this point to mention that the great pioneers were from Oxbridge: in hardware, Maurice Wilkes at Cambridge, and in software, Christopher Strachey and Tony Hoare at Oxford.
But none of it produced a damn thing for the British economy. You can't move in Cambridge for corporate research labs and companies in the Science Park doing tech for financial services and mobilecomms. All of that is great for PhD grads but doesn't lift productivity in the general economy in the way that US tech firms have enabled.
I lived in South Plainfield a few years ago and while it's solidly middle class, it's not rich. Rich is Warren, Bernards and the other towns north of 22, up in the Watchungs.
As another poster said, Plainfield is part-large detached Victorian houses on wide leafy streets, and part-Newark. North Plainfield is pure Newark, i.e. a war zone.
But none of this is relevant to the article since it refers to IL, as another poster said:-)
That guy living in a the 300K house probably bought it when it was 200K, and can easily liquidate it at a huge price advantage, barring some sort of huge house collapse (which would be more a worry with a $900K house).
The guy who bought at 200K has NO "price advantage". Sure, he has 100K equity but every homeowner gains equity when prices rise 50%. When he goes to view a house that used to cost 300K, he finds it costs 450K, and he's 50K short. Only if he takes the 100K and trades DOWN does he gain an advantage over everyone else.
Cornstarch and water is *exactly* what it's like. I met the d3o guys in London and played with the material. It's an incredibly soft gel that your fingers sink into with no pressure; but hit it and it's like hard rubber.
They can vary the elasticity. The material I saw was incredibly elastic, it stretched out to just nothing at all with no effort.
That's "free-to-air", for some definition of "free" where you pay the BBC 130 pounds every year even if you never watch any of their broadcasts.
Re:HI can I have two cans of soup and 100 minutes.
on
Supermarket VOIP
·
· Score: 1
Yes, there are (small) signs by the tills saying that if they charge you the wrong price for anything, they refund your payment and you keep the item. Your friend expected to buy a microwave for 70 pounds, but walked out of the store having paid 140 pounds for it. Full refund.
Small quibble with their self-service tills though. If you select to pay by credit/debit card, then swipe a Tesco credit card (the one that doubles as a ClubCard), the till treats it as a ClubCard only (i.e. just takes your ID, not payment) and dumps you back at the select-payment-method screen. No display of "Thanks for the ClubCard, now please pay" or anything. So you think your payment failed, and are averse to swiping again, until the assistant promise promise promises you that no payment is taken unless you get a receipt.
'Nominal typing' is the more usual way to say 'name based typing'.
As you say, a nominal type system introduces subtypes simply by declaration, while a structural type system introduces subtypes by some algorithm for matching types' features.
Can I suggest you're being a bit specific with '...consider something a duck if it inherits the "Duck" type.' ? Nominal typing applies anywhere that a subtyping relationship can be introduced, not just where there's class-based inheritance. Inheritance is merely a mechanism for code reuse and happens to introduce nominal subtypes in Java.[1]
Of course you know that the obvious non-inheritance-based introduction of nominal subtypes in Java is when a class implements an interface. I think '...consider something a duck if it declares that it is a subtype of the "Duck" type.' is the most general way to put it:-)
[1] You could imagine an object-based language with no classes or inheritance (they use delegation instead) but still with nominal types. They could arise if the programmer gives an instantiated object a name for itself and also the names of objects that will serve as its supertypes. This would require dynamic typing, though it would still be nominal:-)
Bulldog in London: £30 ($53) per month for phone service + 8Mbit/512Kbps uncapped ADSL. Trivial activation cost. Phone calls cost the same as BT.
Some people have horrendous problems getting activated with Bulldog, but the silent majority are very happy with them. It's comical that BT Broadband and Pipex sell 1 or 2Mbps as a fast service.
(Prolog, for example, cannot be written in Java - it requires assembler)
Java and assembler are both Turing-complete. Therefore any program that can be written in assembler can be written in Java.
Think about the core features of a Prolog interpreter - unification and backtracking. Why do you think you can't write these in Java, where you have a fair amount of expressive power. Or in a functional language with even more expressive power, like higher-order functions?
(As an aside: What do you mean by 'Java'? You probably meant the Java language, but think about Java bytecode - it *is* an assembly language. And it's exactly as powerful as x86 assembler, though its expressive capabilities are different since it assumes a different (virtual) machine architecture. So if I can write a Prolog interpreter in x86 assembler, I can write it in Java bytecode. And since the mapping from Java source to Java bytecode is fairly straightforward, I hope you agree that I can write a Prolog interpreter in Java source too.)
You admit that you lack accounting knowledge, but you wanted to code an accounts payable application yourself? Using open source software won't magically give you accounting domain knowledge. At least GreatPlains offered a framework for setting up an accounting system, even if your management mishandled the implementation.
As you now hack up some PHP+mysql app, you've hit the core problem mentioned by many, many others: users don't know what they want. ("The department that need(s) automation dont know what to automate and cannot come to conclusions.") But accounts payable is a *standard business function*. It's been implemented thousands of times before by companies like yours. Your staff don't need to know what to automate; in this task, they're hamstrung by 1) being accountants, not software or process designers, and 2) being used to the manual way they do their jobs.
So call up your suppliers, your trade association, the other companies in your building, whatever...someone who's done A.P. before. Ask who they used for implementation. Then call up vendors and ask how they handle the key requirements and pitfalls that you've heard. Stand on the shoulders of giants:-)
(Or, if you insist on coding something yourself, consider this: if you're automating a department that is 100% manual today, there is bound to be some very simple feature (in your eyes) that absolutely blows the staff away. "You mean we can list all the accounts 30 days past due in Chicago? With one click? Wow, that used to take Marge half a day to work out.")
(Oh, and your management needs to take charge and decide if they're going with an external vendor or an in-house solution. With the best will in the world, it sounds like you're torn between two completely incompatible implementations right now.)
Unfortunately, the building that gets blown up is IBM! Look carefully at the sequence; there's a shot from a helicopter circling the roof where the people are cheering, and you briefly see a big white IBM logo on the side of the building. Then it cuts back to the face of a woman on the roof looking up at the death ray energizing, confirming that it's the building with people on top (i.e. IBM) that's about to blow up.
The next shot is from way down the street, looking back at the building as the death ray destroys it. The building suddenly has a tall spire (it's the Empire State Building as shown in the movie poster), so maybe they cut from another city to New York. The fact remains that a building with people on its roof gets blown up, and that means IBM.
(I was interning for IBM at the time ID4 came out and took the afternoon off to see a preview, so we all got very excited to see exactly who the aliens were targeting first:-)
The alien ship could be SCO or Apple (who sponsored ID4).
Madison and Chatham are *extremely* well-off towns. (Avi Rubin's AT&T Labs are in Florham Park, next door to Madison.) Stores around there are well-staffed:-)
Am I the only one who thinks the (ex-)husband planned the whole thing? When the SWAT team arrives and stops Whitaker from escaping, the camera lingers on Foster's face for ages - she is clearly shown *realising something*. We see her bloody husband on the floor, then the captured Whitaker with his hands up, and then her again. I was just waiting for her to tell the police who the mastermind was! Maybe the lame scene in the park at the very end was swapped in after negative testing to an ending where Whitaker gets away and the husband gets busted.
More evidence? The perceptive daughter was sure the husband wouldn't turn up, then he did (to collect his loot!), and when he was shooting at the mean guy (who later got sledgehammered), he missed like 5 times in a row. That husband guy wanted the thieves to escape, and took a beating to disguise his role to Foster.
The truck was Goliath, and smashed up KITT good and proper in the Las Vegas desert. Michael eventually beat it by realising that although Goliath had lots of armouring, it had no equivalent of KITT, so uhhh I can't remember what he did and have lost the book:-(
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, you know, ARM is a Cambridge company, as is WorldPay (now owned by RBS).
It's mandatory at this point to mention that the great pioneers were from Oxbridge: in hardware, Maurice Wilkes at Cambridge, and in software, Christopher Strachey and Tony Hoare at Oxford.
But none of it produced a damn thing for the British economy. You can't move in Cambridge for corporate research labs and companies in the Science Park doing tech for financial services and mobilecomms. All of that is great for PhD grads but doesn't lift productivity in the general economy in the way that US tech firms have enabled.
As another poster said, Plainfield is part-large detached Victorian houses on wide leafy streets, and part-Newark. North Plainfield is pure Newark, i.e. a war zone.
But none of this is relevant to the article since it refers to IL, as another poster said :-)
The guy who bought at 200K has NO "price advantage". Sure, he has 100K equity but every homeowner gains equity when prices rise 50%. When he goes to view a house that used to cost 300K, he finds it costs 450K, and he's 50K short. Only if he takes the 100K and trades DOWN does he gain an advantage over everyone else.
Cornstarch and water is *exactly* what it's like. I met the d3o guys in London and played with the material. It's an incredibly soft gel that your fingers sink into with no pressure; but hit it and it's like hard rubber.
They can vary the elasticity. The material I saw was incredibly elastic, it stretched out to just nothing at all with no effort.
That's "free-to-air", for some definition of "free" where you pay the BBC 130 pounds every year even if you never watch any of their broadcasts.
Yes, there are (small) signs by the tills saying that if they charge you the wrong price for anything, they refund your payment and you keep the item. Your friend expected to buy a microwave for 70 pounds, but walked out of the store having paid 140 pounds for it. Full refund.
Small quibble with their self-service tills though. If you select to pay by credit/debit card, then swipe a Tesco credit card (the one that doubles as a ClubCard), the till treats it as a ClubCard only (i.e. just takes your ID, not payment) and dumps you back at the select-payment-method screen. No display of "Thanks for the ClubCard, now please pay" or anything. So you think your payment failed, and are averse to swiping again, until the assistant promise promise promises you that no payment is taken unless you get a receipt.
'Nominal typing' is the more usual way to say 'name based typing'.
:-)
:-)
As you say, a nominal type system introduces subtypes simply by declaration, while a structural type system introduces subtypes by some algorithm for matching types' features.
Can I suggest you're being a bit specific with '...consider something a duck if it inherits the "Duck" type.' ? Nominal typing applies anywhere that a subtyping relationship can be introduced, not just where there's class-based inheritance. Inheritance is merely a mechanism for code reuse and happens to introduce nominal subtypes in Java.[1]
Of course you know that the obvious non-inheritance-based introduction of nominal subtypes in Java is when a class implements an interface. I think '...consider something a duck if it declares that it is a subtype of the "Duck" type.' is the most general way to put it
[1] You could imagine an object-based language with no classes or inheritance (they use delegation instead) but still with nominal types. They could arise if the programmer gives an instantiated object a name for itself and also the names of objects that will serve as its supertypes. This would require dynamic typing, though it would still be nominal
No mystery about Mike Lesk: Bellcore, then the NSF, now Rutgers.
Bulldog in London: £30 ($53) per month for phone service + 8Mbit/512Kbps uncapped ADSL. Trivial activation cost. Phone calls cost the same as BT.
Some people have horrendous problems getting activated with Bulldog, but the silent majority are very happy with them. It's comical that BT Broadband and Pipex sell 1 or 2Mbps as a fast service.
(Prolog, for example, cannot be written in Java - it requires assembler)
Java and assembler are both Turing-complete. Therefore any program that can be written in assembler can be written in Java.
Think about the core features of a Prolog interpreter - unification and backtracking. Why do you think you can't write these in Java, where you have a fair amount of expressive power. Or in a functional language with even more expressive power, like higher-order functions?
(As an aside: What do you mean by 'Java'? You probably meant the Java language, but think about Java bytecode - it *is* an assembly language. And it's exactly as powerful as x86 assembler, though its expressive capabilities are different since it assumes a different (virtual) machine architecture. So if I can write a Prolog interpreter in x86 assembler, I can write it in Java bytecode. And since the mapping from Java source to Java bytecode is fairly straightforward, I hope you agree that I can write a Prolog interpreter in Java source too.)
I don't want to seem mean but:
:-)
You admit that you lack accounting knowledge, but you wanted to code an accounts payable application yourself? Using open source software won't magically give you accounting domain knowledge. At least GreatPlains offered a framework for setting up an accounting system, even if your management mishandled the implementation.
As you now hack up some PHP+mysql app, you've hit the core problem mentioned by many, many others: users don't know what they want. ("The department that need(s) automation dont know what to automate and cannot come to conclusions.") But accounts payable is a *standard business function*. It's been implemented thousands of times before by companies like yours. Your staff don't need to know what to automate; in this task, they're hamstrung by 1) being accountants, not software or process designers, and 2) being used to the manual way they do their jobs.
So call up your suppliers, your trade association, the other companies in your building, whatever...someone who's done A.P. before. Ask who they used for implementation. Then call up vendors and ask how they handle the key requirements and pitfalls that you've heard. Stand on the shoulders of giants
(Or, if you insist on coding something yourself, consider this: if you're automating a department that is 100% manual today, there is bound to be some very simple feature (in your eyes) that absolutely blows the staff away. "You mean we can list all the accounts 30 days past due in Chicago? With one click? Wow, that used to take Marge half a day to work out.")
(Oh, and your management needs to take charge and decide if they're going with an external vendor or an in-house solution. With the best will in the world, it sounds like you're torn between two completely incompatible implementations right now.)
Unfortunately, the building that gets blown up is IBM! Look carefully at the sequence; there's a shot from a helicopter circling the roof where the people are cheering, and you briefly see a big white IBM logo on the side of the building. Then it cuts back to the face of a woman on the roof looking up at the death ray energizing, confirming that it's the building with people on top (i.e. IBM) that's about to blow up.
:-)
The next shot is from way down the street, looking back at the building as the death ray destroys it. The building suddenly has a tall spire (it's the Empire State Building as shown in the movie poster), so maybe they cut from another city to New York. The fact remains that a building with people on its roof gets blown up, and that means IBM.
(I was interning for IBM at the time ID4 came out and took the afternoon off to see a preview, so we all got very excited to see exactly who the aliens were targeting first
The alien ship could be SCO or Apple (who sponsored ID4).
Madison and Chatham are *extremely* well-off towns. (Avi Rubin's AT&T Labs are in Florham Park, next door to Madison.) Stores around there are well-staffed :-)
(* Rantings and spoilage follow *)
Am I the only one who thinks the (ex-)husband planned the whole thing? When the SWAT team arrives and stops Whitaker from escaping, the camera lingers on Foster's face for ages - she is clearly shown *realising something*. We see her bloody husband on the floor, then the captured Whitaker with his hands up, and then her again. I was just waiting for her to tell the police who the mastermind was! Maybe the lame scene in the park at the very end was swapped in after negative testing to an ending where Whitaker gets away and the husband gets busted.
More evidence? The perceptive daughter was sure the husband wouldn't turn up, then he did (to collect his loot!), and when he was shooting at the mean guy (who later got sledgehammered), he missed like 5 times in a row. That husband guy wanted the thieves to escape, and took a beating to disguise his role to Foster.
The truck was Goliath, and smashed up KITT good and proper in the Las Vegas desert. Michael eventually beat it by realising that although Goliath had lots of armouring, it had no equivalent of KITT, so uhhh I can't remember what he did and have lost the book :-(