Theoretically, it should be able to find the minimum of a set of numbers in O(N^0.5) instead of O(N). This is faster than a CPU, but likely slower than an equivalently priced GPU cluster.
Those are different from C pointers. Let me show you an example: //in C++ int x=1; int* y=&x; x=2; cout<<*y;//outputs 2
#in Python x=[1] #we're using an object y=x #x and y now reference the same object. If we were to modify x, y would also change. x=[2] #that link, however, is broken on assignment print(y) #outputs [1]
Star Trek has little to do with this. The theory has been researched in the past because we hoped we could use it for propulsion. At least it may find some use as shielding this way.
Today people learn, work, shop, bank, communicate, mate and basically live on the internet. Just because something happens on it doesn't make it relevant to technology.
"I had incorporated some sophisticated regular expression pattern-matching technology into AWK Brian Kernighan once took a look at the pattern-matching module that I had written and his only addition was putting a comment, 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.' As a consequence, neither Kernighan nor Weinberger would touch that part of the code. I was the one who always had to make the bug fixes to that module"
Even the source he cites admits that complex code is a bitch to maintain.
There are many exoplanet claims with both the transit method and the Doppler method. What I'd like to see is use them in the same systems to see whether they yield the same results. Right now, these are only predictions, not discoveries, and they are hard to verify.
Most of science is either the result of gradual development or trial and error. We just tend to forget about the ones who were incomplete or wrong. Do you think Newton came up with calculus all by himself? Do you think Kepler came up with the heliocentric model? Do you think Maxwell alone invented the idea of heat motion?
Originally, people thinking about quantum computing were only thinking about entanglement computers because nobody assumed that another type could exist. Then DWave built a quantum computer based on tunneling, which is clever but a completely different thing. 'Quantum computer' in most contexts refers to an entanglement computer, you can't run Shor's_algorithm on a DWave.
Maybe the two companies need different kind of employees. I can easily imagine hardware-related Apple requiring more practical skills and datacrunching Google requiring employees with some theoretical/math skills.
How was it proven? Big data makes big claims, but there aren't any studies showing that their predictions are actually true. By default, you shouldn't believe anything a business says about their own product.
Neither sending a DNT request, nor compiling a list of known trackers requires any new technology. Blocking third-party cookies is relatively efficient already, but doesn't work when the site collaborates with the advertisers to track you. Coming up with a solution to that would be actual development. Making some settings default is simply a business decision, and a bad one at that. Users who don't take the trouble of changing a few settings probably don't care much about their privacy.
If you perform a conversion in a statically typed language and it's wrong, you know the second you try and execute, but in a dynamically typed language you may not know there's a problem until you hit some edge case input, which is more likely to get out into production due to the subtle nature of it.
Dynamic typing doesn't mean those languages are typeless. Type errors like trying to add a string to a number still get caught at runtime. Unlike static languages, where a wrong cast can make the code compile and the program will never complain afterwards, leaving you wondering where those segfaults are coming from.
Do you have any examples of the classes of problem you believe dynamic typing avoids but static typing doesn't? You make the assertion that if you unit and integration test a dynamically typed language you capture more mistakes than you would with a statically typed language. I don't think that's ever the case, because static type makes capture of certain errors explicit in the implementation, the faults are unavoidable when you attempt execution, whilst dynamic typing relies on you stumbling across the error during execution, which means to capture it with unit tests means it's only as good as your unit tests which will rarely be as good as explicit and inherent capture of errors.
Static error checking is a shallow way to test your code, and will only catch simple syntactic errors, that usually don't even occur in a dynamic language with a less complicated syntax. Regardless of the language you're using, testing should be done at runtime. And dynamic languages with their flexibilty and high reflectivity make unit testing much easier and much more powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
Theoretically, it should be able to find the minimum of a set of numbers in O(N^0.5) instead of O(N). This is faster than a CPU, but likely slower than an equivalently priced GPU cluster.
Those are different from C pointers. Let me show you an example:
//in C++ //outputs 2
int x=1;
int* y=&x;
x=2;
cout<<*y;
#in Python
x=[1] #we're using an object
y=x #x and y now reference the same object. If we were to modify x, y would also change.
x=[2] #that link, however, is broken on assignment
print(y) #outputs [1]
Star Trek has little to do with this. The theory has been researched in the past because we hoped we could use it for propulsion. At least it may find some use as shielding this way.
I don't think that would benefit them, otherwise they would've done it already...oh, wait.
Today people learn, work, shop, bank, communicate, mate and basically live on the internet. Just because something happens on it doesn't make it relevant to technology.
then they won't be part of the web.
Common Lisp is faster, and at least as dynamic as Javascript. Not that JS compilers aren't good, but they are not the leading edge.
Even the source he cites admits that complex code is a bitch to maintain.
Complex problems are defined as problems with no simple solution. The article is not just simple, it's a tautology.
Just because they had no chance of success doesn't mean they aren't guilty.
Africa has the most to lose with global warming.
There are many exoplanet claims with both the transit method and the Doppler method. What I'd like to see is use them in the same systems to see whether they yield the same results. Right now, these are only predictions, not discoveries, and they are hard to verify.
I don't know what methods these rankings use, but calling the ultimately communist-controlled Hongkong freeer than America is a misuse of the word.
This is not America. You can't just publish a photo of someone without their consent.
Most of science is either the result of gradual development or trial and error. We just tend to forget about the ones who were incomplete or wrong. Do you think Newton came up with calculus all by himself? Do you think Kepler came up with the heliocentric model? Do you think Maxwell alone invented the idea of heat motion?
Originally, people thinking about quantum computing were only thinking about entanglement computers because nobody assumed that another type could exist. Then DWave built a quantum computer based on tunneling, which is clever but a completely different thing. 'Quantum computer' in most contexts refers to an entanglement computer, you can't run Shor's_algorithm on a DWave.
Enemy? China is your biggest economic partner.
Maybe the two companies need different kind of employees. I can easily imagine hardware-related Apple requiring more practical skills and datacrunching Google requiring employees with some theoretical/math skills.
Innovation sometimes leads to a dead end. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
How was it proven? Big data makes big claims, but there aren't any studies showing that their predictions are actually true. By default, you shouldn't believe anything a business says about their own product.
Neither sending a DNT request, nor compiling a list of known trackers requires any new technology. Blocking third-party cookies is relatively efficient already, but doesn't work when the site collaborates with the advertisers to track you. Coming up with a solution to that would be actual development.
Making some settings default is simply a business decision, and a bad one at that. Users who don't take the trouble of changing a few settings probably don't care much about their privacy.
Hacking is only a tool of the more sophisticated businesses, breaking in to steal computers with business data is also quite common.
How do you think they got there?
If you perform a conversion in a statically typed language and it's wrong, you know the second you try and execute, but in a dynamically typed language you may not know there's a problem until you hit some edge case input, which is more likely to get out into production due to the subtle nature of it.
Dynamic typing doesn't mean those languages are typeless. Type errors like trying to add a string to a number still get caught at runtime. Unlike static languages, where a wrong cast can make the code compile and the program will never complain afterwards, leaving you wondering where those segfaults are coming from.
Do you have any examples of the classes of problem you believe dynamic typing avoids but static typing doesn't? You make the assertion that if you unit and integration test a dynamically typed language you capture more mistakes than you would with a statically typed language. I don't think that's ever the case, because static type makes capture of certain errors explicit in the implementation, the faults are unavoidable when you attempt execution, whilst dynamic typing relies on you stumbling across the error during execution, which means to capture it with unit tests means it's only as good as your unit tests which will rarely be as good as explicit and inherent capture of errors.
Static error checking is a shallow way to test your code, and will only catch simple syntactic errors, that usually don't even occur in a dynamic language with a less complicated syntax. Regardless of the language you're using, testing should be done at runtime. And dynamic languages with their flexibilty and high reflectivity make unit testing much easier and much more powerful.
Free speech only applies to government censorship. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want on someone else's site.