Crazy people are allowed to own guns in the United States. Being careful who you cut in front of while driving was already the prudent thing to do.
(Note that I am o.k. with people owning guns, it is part of our culture and any ban would be nearly impossible to enforce, and increase the ratio of bad people who own guns to good people who own guns.)
Fair enough, but the legal standard happens to be that laws don't take effect until they are enacted; my point was not the breadth of the consensus, but that we end up having to set aside our personal disgust occasionally (in cases where there is not consensus).
Our entire justice system is predicated on the idea of erring on the side of letting wrong doers free more often than innocents are imprisoned. So sometimes, shit happens, and you try to make it better for the future.
If 'clearly unconscionable to somebody' were the legal standard, I'd be going to prison for this drink sitting next to me, Bill Clinton would be in prison for having too much fun (Rather than just lying), and so on.
# recurse using our neighbours, trying first the ones with the # least amount of free neighbours, i.e. the "loners" for ty,tx in sorted(emptyNeighbours, key=lambda c: reduce( lambda x,y: x+y, map(lambda j: InRangeAndEmpty(c[0]+j[0], c[1]+j[1]) and 1 or 0, jumps))): Fill(ty,tx,counter+1)
Idiomatic python(or at least more-so):
def sort_key(c): return sum(InRangeAndEmpty(c[0]+j[0], c[1]+j[1]) for j in jumps)
# recurse using our neighbours, trying first the ones with the # least amount of free neighbours, i.e. the "loners" for ty,tx in sorted(emptyNeighbours, key=sort_key): Fill(ty,tx,counter+1)
The nest of lambdas that he wrote the article about isn't the clearest way to write it in python (the reduce( lambda x,y: x+y,...) instead of sum(...) is particularly fun). In my code, wrapping the InRangeAndEmpty in an int() might be preferred, I'm not sure (all that would do is make it clear that the sum is counting the number of squares that are in range and empty).
Python is probably best described as multi-paradigm. Functions do happen to be first class objects (along with everything else), so a lot of stuff can be written in a functional style. The lambda keyword is little more than a way to declare a function without giving it a name.
A downside compared to lisp is that it isn't really possible to declare something as static, so optimization and compilation are more problematic (it is possible to construct a stubborn object, but names/references to that object can simply be rebound to a more flexible object, so it is hard to rely on the object being stubborn).
Poor regulation, not no regulation. You used the poor regulation to argue that unregulated industries can't work. There were billions of dollars of government funds sloshing around the mortgage market, and apparently, companies were acting as if they were going to get a government bailout if they screwed up (the mortgage money is germane, as a great deal of the risk that the CDOs were supposed to be backing was in MBSs).
To a great extent, the unregulated hedge funds did a better job than the regulated investment banks (whether what they did was particularly good for society is a different discussion). Some of them made enormous sums of money playing the fools in the CDO market.
Oil is entirely replaceable. You just need carbon, some energy, and a couple of other ingredients.
It isn't cheap to make it, or particularly sane, but it is perfectly possible.
Also, bonus news, the world economy will shut down before gas hits $20, so you won't be worrying about charging your electric vehicle, you will be worried about killing and dressing your neighbor before he kills and dresses you.
No one gives a damn about efficiency. Sure, given equal performance and convenience, most people will choose the more efficient option, but the performance and convenience damn well better be equal.
The point of bailing out the big 3 is to slow down the rate at which they dissolve, giving the 3 million people that are nearly directly dependent on them for employment more time to find other jobs, retrain or die. The thought is that the ongoing inefficiency is less costly than the other way round.
Yeah, I missed that. That has a lot more to do with bus bandwidth than it does integrated/dedicated though (which is essentially irrelevant for everything but screaming 3d performance).
It might default to software, but there is a check box for hardware overlay in the version I am using (8.6 on XP). The feature matrix suggests that there is good output support across all platforms:
Perhaps you are thinking about decoding, which is different than output (I don't think VLC can take advantage of hardware decoding, but it is not all that important for viewing movies on computers made in the last 5 years)?
You are giving them bad advice. On this 2 year old laptop with Intel 945GM graphics, outputting a 512 by 224 mpeg4 (divx) video to the second monitor, fullscreen at 1680 by 1050, takes less than 10% of the cpu (a core duo at 1.6 GHz) using directX output. A 720 by 288 video takes less than 15% cpu.
This is using VLC in hardware overlay mode, perhaps the software they are using is a little less efficient.
I think he is confusing why China abandoned their moon program. There isn't any reason to try and go there since it blew up, so it isn't that confusing that they would stop trying.
For a brand new book, the copyright should not depend strictly on their willingness to print copies of the book, there should be some period of exclusive rights (if only to sidestep the need to constantly be testing companies to see if they will publish a book). Also, crappy print-on-demand editions would pop up (which is good for the consumer, at least on some level) to stave off abandoning the rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they do the good work of maintaining a list of companies that provide good customer service?
Crazy people are allowed to own guns in the United States. Being careful who you cut in front of while driving was already the prudent thing to do.
(Note that I am o.k. with people owning guns, it is part of our culture and any ban would be nearly impossible to enforce, and increase the ratio of bad people who own guns to good people who own guns.)
Fair enough, but the legal standard happens to be that laws don't take effect until they are enacted; my point was not the breadth of the consensus, but that we end up having to set aside our personal disgust occasionally (in cases where there is not consensus).
Dementia?
Our entire justice system is predicated on the idea of erring on the side of letting wrong doers free more often than innocents are imprisoned. So sometimes, shit happens, and you try to make it better for the future.
If 'clearly unconscionable to somebody' were the legal standard, I'd be going to prison for this drink sitting next to me, Bill Clinton would be in prison for having too much fun (Rather than just lying), and so on.
Or a generator expression and sum.
lambda c: sum(InRangeAndEmpty(c[0]+j[0], c[1]+j[1]) for j in jumps)
It might be even better to have a function called CountValidJumps or count_valid_jumps and pass that to the sort.
His code:
# recurse using our neighbours, trying first the ones with the
# least amount of free neighbours, i.e. the "loners"
for ty,tx in sorted(emptyNeighbours, key=lambda c: reduce(
lambda x,y: x+y,
map(lambda j: InRangeAndEmpty(c[0]+j[0], c[1]+j[1]) and 1 or 0,
jumps))):
Fill(ty,tx,counter+1)
Idiomatic python(or at least more-so):
def sort_key(c):
return sum(InRangeAndEmpty(c[0]+j[0], c[1]+j[1]) for j in jumps)
# recurse using our neighbours, trying first the ones with the
# least amount of free neighbours, i.e. the "loners"
for ty,tx in sorted(emptyNeighbours, key=sort_key):
Fill(ty,tx,counter+1)
The nest of lambdas that he wrote the article about isn't the clearest way to write it in python (the reduce( lambda x,y: x+y,...) instead of sum(...) is particularly fun). In my code, wrapping the InRangeAndEmpty in an int() might be preferred, I'm not sure (all that would do is make it clear that the sum is counting the number of squares that are in range and empty).
Python is probably best described as multi-paradigm. Functions do happen to be first class objects (along with everything else), so a lot of stuff can be written in a functional style. The lambda keyword is little more than a way to declare a function without giving it a name.
A downside compared to lisp is that it isn't really possible to declare something as static, so optimization and compilation are more problematic (it is possible to construct a stubborn object, but names/references to that object can simply be rebound to a more flexible object, so it is hard to rely on the object being stubborn).
Poor regulation, not no regulation. You used the poor regulation to argue that unregulated industries can't work. There were billions of dollars of government funds sloshing around the mortgage market, and apparently, companies were acting as if they were going to get a government bailout if they screwed up (the mortgage money is germane, as a great deal of the risk that the CDOs were supposed to be backing was in MBSs).
To a great extent, the unregulated hedge funds did a better job than the regulated investment banks (whether what they did was particularly good for society is a different discussion). Some of them made enormous sums of money playing the fools in the CDO market.
A lot of pickup trucks retail for less than $20k.
A lot of them don't, but still, a lot of them do.
Some of that $75 an hour is younger union members finishing up helping the automakers fund the promises that they made to the older union members.
Seeing as the new deals are a lot different than the old deals, they are bending over and taking it.
Calling the financial sector unregulated is like calling purple a squirrel.
I think government regulation is, in many cases, going to be better than the alternative, but that particular example is just horrible.
Oil is entirely replaceable. You just need carbon, some energy, and a couple of other ingredients.
It isn't cheap to make it, or particularly sane, but it is perfectly possible.
Also, bonus news, the world economy will shut down before gas hits $20, so you won't be worrying about charging your electric vehicle, you will be worried about killing and dressing your neighbor before he kills and dresses you.
Technology doesn't have to be cutting edge.
For example:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/itw-corncob-tt1001.html
No one gives a damn about efficiency. Sure, given equal performance and convenience, most people will choose the more efficient option, but the performance and convenience damn well better be equal.
The point of bailing out the big 3 is to slow down the rate at which they dissolve, giving the 3 million people that are nearly directly dependent on them for employment more time to find other jobs, retrain or die. The thought is that the ongoing inefficiency is less costly than the other way round.
Yeah, I missed that. That has a lot more to do with bus bandwidth than it does integrated/dedicated though (which is essentially irrelevant for everything but screaming 3d performance).
It might default to software, but there is a check box for hardware overlay in the version I am using (8.6 on XP). The feature matrix suggests that there is good output support across all platforms:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html
Perhaps you are thinking about decoding, which is different than output (I don't think VLC can take advantage of hardware decoding, but it is not all that important for viewing movies on computers made in the last 5 years)?
You should have offered them unimaginable sums of money.
Everything has a price. The other way to interpret your story is that you didn't find theirs.
You are giving them bad advice. On this 2 year old laptop with Intel 945GM graphics, outputting a 512 by 224 mpeg4 (divx) video to the second monitor, fullscreen at 1680 by 1050, takes less than 10% of the cpu (a core duo at 1.6 GHz) using directX output. A 720 by 288 video takes less than 15% cpu.
This is using VLC in hardware overlay mode, perhaps the software they are using is a little less efficient.
I think he is confusing why China abandoned their moon program. There isn't any reason to try and go there since it blew up, so it isn't that confusing that they would stop trying.
For a brand new book, the copyright should not depend strictly on their willingness to print copies of the book, there should be some period of exclusive rights (if only to sidestep the need to constantly be testing companies to see if they will publish a book). Also, crappy print-on-demand editions would pop up (which is good for the consumer, at least on some level) to stave off abandoning the rights.
You are talking about dissemination, not publication. Copyright encourages publication by giving the rights holder influence over dissemination.
Is bigot a word you use when you want to try to make other people feel bad?
That was the fear mongering that the other poster was talking about.
So I had to look up "culture jamming" and it appears to be justifying being an asshole by being arrogant. Is that about right?