I often try to pick up girls by handing them large chunks of coal since it's a diamond, but in a different state. For some reason, they don't seem to go for it. Odd.
Strangely enough, no one will eat my burgers cooked over graphite (and quite frankly, graphite fires are a bit difficult to keep lit).
Carbon is one of the most versitile elements on the planet either alone or combined with other elements. Its quite worthwhile to consider a different state of it a completely different thing.
You have a point...in a way. But could you rewrite your statement without superfluous language (i.e. "supercedes the facility of overexaggeration") or vague expressions (i.e. "improve development of wisdom")? I consider that trying to sound intelligent via unclear prose is the first indicator that you might not be. Read this.
The real reason, is that the US needs to modernize. We need to take our military to the Xtreme.
This is only one in a number of changes that was obviously necessary to convert our military from a well disciplined fighting force into an Xtreme force.
Here are some of the others: -The US army is changing it's name to "Rmee Xtreme!" -War on Terror renamed to "Ultra-mega xtreme terror elimitation" -Soldiers must now practice one-liners to go along when throwing grenades. -Army camo replaced with "Xtreme metallic green" -Soldiers are issued new, cooler names upon enlistment. For example, "Joe Smith" would become "Goe sMitH Xtreme!" -Grenades are now going to be called "Ultra Xtreme Blastilators" -There will be a new branch of the military: "X-treme Fighting Ninja Monkies" -Periods (.) will be replaced with exclaimation points (!) on all official documents.
And, of course, all the weaponry will be replaced with new, Xtreme! weaponry, such as the one listed here.
Some knowledge is going to be easier to gain if you're intelligent. At least, that's the thought.
If you ask a lot of intelligent people a lot of different questions you can figure out which kinds of questions map to intelligence and which don't.
How many intelligence tests have you taken? I know that the ones I've taken were nothing like scholastic aptitude tests. The knowledge required to solve the puzzles was rudimentary. Most of it was about solving the puzzles.
The doctor, 1) Philip Mach, had a license to practice medicine 2) in New Jersey but he provided prescriptions to people throughout the United States without ever evaluating them, both of which are big no-no's.
Clearly the things I have highlighted are the issues. With a last name like "Mach," he has to have a cool first name. Philip doesn't cut it. Living in New Jersey is equally bad. Lets make some corrections:
The doctor, 1) Steelgrip Mach, had a license to practice medicine 2) in the top of his floating fortress but he provided prescriptions to people throughout the United States without ever evaluating them, both of which are big no-no's.
Much better, but it could still use a bit of work. One more time:
The ninja, Mach Steelgrip had a license to kill from the top of his floating fortress of solitude but he provided wanton destruction to people throughout the United States without ever evaluating them. This is unforgivable. The death of my parents shall be avenged.
That's a lot cooler. Lets go with that as the headline.
You've said the core of it. "Viral marketing" is just another way of saying "word of mouth advertising." Some would argue that their different - that word of mouth only encompasses data transmission using actual mouths...but that's just silly, isn't it? Word of mouth/viral marketing just means peer to peer advertising, with the majority of it done for free.
Calling it viral marketing is just spin. Kind of like saying that copying software is piracy.
That's not true at all. Card counting and varying bets are more than enough to stack the odds in your favor, and were the reason that MIT team - who never actually cheated - weren't allowed in casinos anymore.
Extensive measures were put out to specifically stop them, and to stop anyone else from repeating what they did.
Yeah, you'd have to do that somewhere around the step down transformers that deliver the last mile...isn't there something there that you could tie into?
Oh, right.
There's a large, weather-proof step-down transformer that you could put a fiber-to-AC based router into.
Except when you don't because you're sending the signal out to reach two people out on the ranch. Fortunately, there's a whole hierarchy of the things, and you could put your switch at whatever level of the hierarchy is feasible for sustainable service.
Remember, we're talking about what to do about the last mile. If you've got so many people that they're starting to have collisions, you can afford to put in more routers. This really addresses the problem of what to do when you don't.
Beginners tend to use global variables and long, imperative structures for pretty much everything no matter what language they're using. They also tend to use the same control structures for everything until they start understanding other ones. And forget about OOP or functions. These things are advanced.
What they end up with is something that's supremely simple, but very, very dirty. The code doesn't scale at all. It almost has to be completely rewritten by hand even if they comment their work.
So simple can be bad. So what about advanced things? One primary thing that people do that's advanced is add syntactic sugar to make it easier for them to follow. An example of this is using Templates in C++, or "autoload" in perl. You really have to understand the inner workings of your language to do these things, but if you know them it eliminates code that doesn't contain anything meaningful (thus making it the code less complex to follow).
The list doesn't end there. What framework do you choose to do your design in? Using a suitable framework may be more complex for small projects, but considerably less complex for giant ones. Frameworks are usually very advanced topics, because they don't usually carry over between languages at all.
I'd like to think that I write less complex, cleaner, more advanced code than most PHP writers.
I would argue the point that it's better on the eyes. LCD monitors have a smaller range of possible output colors. Also, maybe you get no flicker, but modern monitors can easily do refresh rates so high that humans can't detect the flicker.
17" LCDs are $250, but 21" flat-screen Trinitron tube CRTs can be gotten for around $100.
I would VERY, VERY much prefer the big honkin' dinosaur with more screen real estate, more vibrant colors and a lower cost. The only disadvantage is it's size and power consumption, but for the benefits, I think it's worth it.
I really don't think any company can make money from meer support of a product.
The problem is that meerkats, or meers for short, can't use computers. Further, they don't usually have any money to buy things with. You'd be hard-pressed to even find a meerkat that can talk. Companies hoping to make money from meer support are using a business model that's destined to fail.
Clearly the way to go is to make money from human product support. Dog, gorilla, or ninja product support are also possibilities, though these are much more shaky business models, and should probably be accompanied by other revenue streams.
Its relevant because this is a discussion of Microsoft. As far as humor goes...your sense of it is clearly broken. Study up so that you can emulate it.
Not every data structure is an n-dimensional array
Oversimplification of my argument. We're not talking about all of them, we're talking about nested conditions, which are logically equivalent to n-d arrays. Incidentally, any finite length data structure can be represented as an n-d array, as I'm sure you're aware.
half a dozen nested function calls with the same complexity but less clarity
You're proving my point...half a dozen nested function calls is harder to understand. Obviously you haven't selected a transformation that makes the algorithm easier to understand. That doesn't mean there isn't one.
complex matching of subgraphs, an area of continuing mathematical research where there are few "good" solutions
I used to work in image processing. Same thing: no good solutions, but a large solution space. Its a lot easier to think about a sparse matrix holding conditions representing different parts of the solution space than it is to do six level nesting.
I can at least see on a single piece of paper I wouldn't consider the matrix-handling library part of the algorithm. If you don't, the end result will take up less space.
Reputation doesn't mean that you write good code. Good code and bad code both work most of the time. Good code is just more maintainable and usually more flexible.
Any n dimensional structure (including a logic block) can be transformed into a 2 dimensional structure. It's the basis for relational databases - which were created specifically to keep things like 6-level deep nesting from happening.
Programming is about simplifying algorithms so that they are usable in a computer, and more importantly (usually) easier to maintain for people. If you can't or won't do a transformation as simple as that, you're not writing very good code - which may or may not mean that you're a bad programmer.
You don't want to even think about your job when you're not on duty?
You're in the wrong line of work.
There are some of us that have trouble tearing ourselves away from ours. I can't help but talking about it outside of work, and I certainly couldn't solve nearly as many problems if I didn't think about it when I am not working. Also, I don't think I'd do nearly as well if I wasn't taking little breaks like the one I'm taking now...the intermingling is so very important.
I couldn't stand to be a cog in the machine for 8 hours a day, and a man the rest of the day. I need to be human all of the time. My mind and personal life are my own and I choose to spend them working on what I'm working on.
So...the sun is a planet, and the moon is a planet, and Pluto may or may not be a planet depending on your definition of how much light counts as "light polution" (there's always some), and how good a telescope counts as "amateur."
I don't really think that definition works. You've moved the arbitrariness to very difficult to decide things.
Double-Planet: Two Planets of comparable mass orbiting one another in a system orbiting a star, who are both tidally coupled so as to always show the same face to each other in a system with a center of gravity that is not within either body.
Is it impossible for the center of mass to be outside of both and for them not to be tidally coupled? Is it impossible for two bodies to be tidally coupled and have the center of mass be inside one body?
Is there any reason you even need this second condition to specify a double-planet?
Also...why did you pick two, specifically? What's to stop 15 planetesimals from all orbitting a center of mass that happens to be outside of them all?
there's something about it's design that absolutely screams that it wasn't built by people who were interested in building a solid gaming machine first.
Of course, having it on a processor that very few people develop for besides palm with an operating system that was designed mostly for batch processing would argue differently.
Do you know how many video media players there are for Windows embedded devices? Do you know how many there are for PalmOS? There's a rather marked disparity, especially considering that PalmOS had the market when video started coming to embedded devices.
It's technically difficult to develop graphics apps of any kind on a Palm device, and the result is not very portable to other devices (in case, for instance, you want to make and sell multiple versions of your game). Considering all of this and that Zodiac was an untested device, it's most likely that developers felt that it wasn't worth the risk.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing your missing is that its a lot easier to lose parts of the transmission with IR transmissions vs radio transmissions.
Increasing the baud rate means decreasing the reliability.
There are already plenty of PDAs with irda that won't work with each other because of problems picking up the signal. This will only get worse.
I'm not looking forward to ever being required to use one of the least reliable transfer protocols on a regular basis. Hopefully this won't take off.
Yes.
Clearly, they are the same.
I often try to pick up girls by handing them large chunks of coal since it's a diamond, but in a different state. For some reason, they don't seem to go for it. Odd.
Strangely enough, no one will eat my burgers cooked over graphite (and quite frankly, graphite fires are a bit difficult to keep lit).
Carbon is one of the most versitile elements on the planet either alone or combined with other elements. Its quite worthwhile to consider a different state of it a completely different thing.
You have a point...in a way. But could you rewrite your statement without superfluous language (i.e. "supercedes the facility of overexaggeration") or vague expressions (i.e. "improve development of wisdom")?
I consider that trying to sound intelligent via unclear prose is the first indicator that you might not be. Read this.
None of these are real reasons.
The real reason, is that the US needs to modernize. We need to take our military to the Xtreme.
This is only one in a number of changes that was obviously necessary to convert our military from a well disciplined fighting force into an Xtreme force.
Here are some of the others:
-The US army is changing it's name to "Rmee Xtreme!"
-War on Terror renamed to "Ultra-mega xtreme terror elimitation"
-Soldiers must now practice one-liners to go along when throwing grenades.
-Army camo replaced with "Xtreme metallic green"
-Soldiers are issued new, cooler names upon enlistment. For example, "Joe Smith" would become "Goe sMitH Xtreme!"
-Grenades are now going to be called "Ultra Xtreme Blastilators"
-There will be a new branch of the military: "X-treme Fighting Ninja Monkies"
-Periods (.) will be replaced with exclaimation points (!) on all official documents.
And, of course, all the weaponry will be replaced with new, Xtreme! weaponry, such as the one listed here.
Further, the reasoning behind these categories is the meaning of intelligence.
Given any activity which uses one of these intelligences, someone with said intelligence will have natural skill.
So someone with high kinesthetic intelligence will be naturally adept at both bowling and water skiing, and any number of other physical sports.
What would "basketball intelligence" even mean? Basketball is a sport, not a broad classification of possible activities.
It seems to me that the GP is confusing skills with aptitudes.
Aren't they interrelated?
Some knowledge is going to be easier to gain if you're intelligent. At least, that's the thought.
If you ask a lot of intelligent people a lot of different questions you can figure out which kinds of questions map to intelligence and which don't.
How many intelligence tests have you taken? I know that the ones I've taken were nothing like scholastic aptitude tests. The knowledge required to solve the puzzles was rudimentary. Most of it was about solving the puzzles.
The doctor, 1) Philip Mach, had a license to practice medicine 2) in New Jersey but he provided prescriptions to people throughout the United States without ever evaluating them, both of which are big no-no's.
Clearly the things I have highlighted are the issues. With a last name like "Mach," he has to have a cool first name. Philip doesn't cut it. Living in New Jersey is equally bad. Lets make some corrections:
The doctor, 1) Steelgrip Mach, had a license to practice medicine 2) in the top of his floating fortress but he provided prescriptions to people throughout the United States without ever evaluating them, both of which are big no-no's.
Much better, but it could still use a bit of work. One more time:
The ninja, Mach Steelgrip had a license to kill from the top of his floating fortress of solitude but he provided wanton destruction to people throughout the United States without ever evaluating them. This is unforgivable. The death of my parents shall be avenged.
That's a lot cooler. Lets go with that as the headline.
You've said the core of it. "Viral marketing" is just another way of saying "word of mouth advertising." Some would argue that their different - that word of mouth only encompasses data transmission using actual mouths...but that's just silly, isn't it? Word of mouth/viral marketing just means peer to peer advertising, with the majority of it done for free.
Calling it viral marketing is just spin. Kind of like saying that copying software is piracy.
That's not true at all. Card counting and varying bets are more than enough to stack the odds in your favor, and were the reason that MIT team - who never actually cheated - weren't allowed in casinos anymore.
Extensive measures were put out to specifically stop them, and to stop anyone else from repeating what they did.
Yeah, you'd have to do that somewhere around the step down transformers that deliver the last mile...isn't there something there that you could tie into?
Oh, right.
There's a large, weather-proof step-down transformer that you could put a fiber-to-AC based router into.
Except when you don't because you're sending the signal out to reach two people out on the ranch. Fortunately, there's a whole hierarchy of the things, and you could put your switch at whatever level of the hierarchy is feasible for sustainable service.
Remember, we're talking about what to do about the last mile. If you've got so many people that they're starting to have collisions, you can afford to put in more routers. This really addresses the problem of what to do when you don't.
None of these things are the same at all.
Beginners tend to use global variables and long, imperative structures for pretty much everything no matter what language they're using.
They also tend to use the same control structures for everything until they start understanding other ones. And forget about OOP or functions. These things are advanced.
What they end up with is something that's supremely simple, but very, very dirty. The code doesn't scale at all. It almost has to be completely rewritten by hand even if they comment their work.
So simple can be bad. So what about advanced things? One primary thing that people do that's advanced is add syntactic sugar to make it easier for them to follow. An example of this is using Templates in C++, or "autoload" in perl. You really have to understand the inner workings of your language to do these things, but if you know them it eliminates code that doesn't contain anything meaningful (thus making it the code less complex to follow).
The list doesn't end there. What framework do you choose to do your design in? Using a suitable framework may be more complex for small projects, but considerably less complex for giant ones. Frameworks are usually very advanced topics, because they don't usually carry over between languages at all.
I'd like to think that I write less complex, cleaner, more advanced code than most PHP writers.
Yeah, but you won't have any trouble finding replacements for anyone you lose because ninjas are totally sweet. Everyone wants to work for ninjas.
I would argue the point that it's better on the eyes. LCD monitors have a smaller range of possible output colors. Also, maybe you get no flicker, but modern monitors can easily do refresh rates so high that humans can't detect the flicker.
17" LCDs are $250, but 21" flat-screen Trinitron tube CRTs can be gotten for around $100.
I would VERY, VERY much prefer the big honkin' dinosaur with more screen real estate, more vibrant colors and a lower cost. The only disadvantage is it's size and power consumption, but for the benefits, I think it's worth it.
I really don't think any company can make money from meer support of a product.
The problem is that meerkats, or meers for short, can't use computers. Further, they don't usually have any money to buy things with. You'd be hard-pressed to even find a meerkat that can talk. Companies hoping to make money from meer support are using a business model that's destined to fail.
Clearly the way to go is to make money from human product support. Dog, gorilla, or ninja product support are also possibilities, though these are much more shaky business models, and should probably be accompanied by other revenue streams.
Its relevant because this is a discussion of Microsoft. As far as humor goes...your sense of it is clearly broken. Study up so that you can emulate it.
Here you go.
Read the part about "hyperbole."
Not every data structure is an n-dimensional array
Oversimplification of my argument. We're not talking about all of them, we're talking about nested conditions, which are logically equivalent to n-d arrays. Incidentally, any finite length data structure can be represented as an n-d array, as I'm sure you're aware.
half a dozen nested function calls with the same complexity but less clarity
You're proving my point...half a dozen nested function calls is harder to understand. Obviously you haven't selected a transformation that makes the algorithm easier to understand. That doesn't mean there isn't one.
complex matching of subgraphs, an area of continuing mathematical research where there are few "good" solutions
I used to work in image processing. Same thing: no good solutions, but a large solution space. Its a lot easier to think about a sparse matrix holding conditions representing different parts of the solution space than it is to do six level nesting.
I can at least see on a single piece of paper
I wouldn't consider the matrix-handling library part of the algorithm. If you don't, the end result will take up less space.
Yes, it is.
Next on the agenda: is genocide really that bad of an idea?
Reputation doesn't mean that you write good code. Good code and bad code both work most of the time.
Good code is just more maintainable and usually more flexible.
Any n dimensional structure (including a logic block) can be transformed into a 2 dimensional structure. It's the basis for relational databases - which were created specifically to keep things like 6-level deep nesting from happening.
Programming is about simplifying algorithms so that they are usable in a computer, and more importantly (usually) easier to maintain for people. If you can't or won't do a transformation as simple as that, you're not writing very good code - which may or may not mean that you're a bad programmer.
My job has no overtime, and no middle-managers.
There are 14 of us in my company, and my company's success is my success.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
You don't want to even think about your job when you're not on duty?
You're in the wrong line of work.
There are some of us that have trouble tearing ourselves away from ours. I can't help but talking about it outside of work, and I certainly couldn't solve nearly as many problems if I didn't think about it when I am not working. Also, I don't think I'd do nearly as well if I wasn't taking little breaks like the one I'm taking now...the intermingling is so very important.
I couldn't stand to be a cog in the machine for 8 hours a day, and a man the rest of the day. I need to be human all of the time. My mind and personal life are my own and I choose to spend them working on what I'm working on.
So...the sun is a planet, and the moon is a planet, and Pluto may or may not be a planet depending on your definition of how much light counts as "light polution" (there's always some), and how good a telescope counts as "amateur."
I don't really think that definition works. You've moved the arbitrariness to very difficult to decide things.
Double-Planet: Two Planets of comparable mass orbiting one another in a system orbiting a star, who are both tidally coupled so as to always show the same face to each other in a system with a center of gravity that is not within either body.
Is it impossible for the center of mass to be outside of both and for them not to be tidally coupled? Is it impossible for two bodies to be tidally coupled and have the center of mass be inside one body?
Is there any reason you even need this second condition to specify a double-planet?
Also...why did you pick two, specifically? What's to stop 15 planetesimals from all orbitting a center of mass that happens to be outside of them all?
Sorry...tired.
I agree. Stupid idea to start there.
there's something about it's design that absolutely screams that it wasn't built by people who were interested in building a solid gaming machine first.
Of course, having it on a processor that very few people develop for besides palm with an operating system that was designed mostly for batch processing would argue differently.
Do you know how many video media players there are for Windows embedded devices? Do you know how many there are for PalmOS? There's a rather marked disparity, especially considering that PalmOS had the market when video started coming to embedded devices.
It's technically difficult to develop graphics apps of any kind on a Palm device, and the result is not very portable to other devices (in case, for instance, you want to make and sell multiple versions of your game). Considering all of this and that Zodiac was an untested device, it's most likely that developers felt that it wasn't worth the risk.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before I saw somebody I know on slashdot through independent means.
:)
It took a long time though. This is my 1213th comment in more than half a decade.