I use something else (duh!), but I still have the right to know this and tell everybody about it.
The point is not the repeated to death "if you don't like the license... blah, blah", but WHY I don't like the license, and why lots of people should at least know this point of view even if they disagree.
The Kororaa Project http://kororaa.org/ had a live cd that had the Nvidia drivers included that had all this in it. It was amazing. They were forced to remove the distro though because of the GPL license.
Then, to follow your analogy with garbage collection, what that user wants is a system that does some static analysis to free as much as possible as soon as a stack frame is no longer in use.
Java does this when automatically converts some heap variables to be stack variables.
But for a system with a garbage collection resembling more this idea, there is the newLisp interpreter, which not only does the analysis and frees as much as possible in a call stack pop, but because of this approach, is faster than several other interpreters with a more conservative garbage collection system.
However, maybe that's the point where the analogy breaks, because I can certainly see your argument in terms of performance, and the newLisp performance, and both use different approaches. Just because memory is ages faster than disk drives.
And then what is supposed computer science about? French fries?
FYI: computer science is about algorithms, and guess what... software is algorithmic in nature!
You can't separate a very specific piece of software from the underlying algorithms it has.
However, (and I guess that's the point you tried to make) I believe I can blame more the underlying algorithms in the MySQL engine than the ones in the webpages that use that particular engine.
If I understood the parent post, the temporary copies of the records are never deleted. That's a coding error to me.
He didn't mean about never using them, rather that at some moment, after the queries have run to completion, and all related transactions have finished the commit, and the temporary records are not needed anymore, then have those records deleted.
And they should be deleted. I surely can't understand your rant.
The fact that some universities and/or teachers post their lectures notes without a perceived cost doesn't mean that they should be free.
In fact, those lectures (I mean the global set) are probably the most valuable thing our civilization has.
If some of their creators post them for free or at low cost it's just because they love to teach and they love what they teach. If they were there for the money they would be MBAs, not teachers.
So I don't really think the teacher sells them because he wants to profit, but because he knows that most people don't value what doesn't have any cost to them. And he wants students to value what he is trying to teach, either in the classroom or reading his lectures.
You're not alone, I too wish for a JVM/CLR that can be used for languages in the lisp family. I believe that continuations affect performance as the stack is a little more complex, but I don't know Scheme compilers internals to really assert that. I don't know if parrot is any closer to it.
Continuations aren't copies of the "complete state of the context" because that includes class and function definitions and so on, they are just a way to save the remainder of the function call stack into a variable. And then use that variable as a first order function, any number of times. You can implement backtracking without using any data structure using continuations, the same way you can implement "imposible to violate" private data protection using closures. (Not that I think private members are really useful.)
Going back to closures, you don't need exotic languages, the super popular JavaScript has them;)
Java is a bitch to program when you know better languages*, you feel trapped, limited and frustrated. But compared to AJAX? Yes, it's better, if your application is complex enough. Java looks ugly though.
So may be he had very few programming skills. But it's entirely possible that he had superb programming skills** and still would though the same.
* by better languages I mean Lisp, not C#. ** try explaining closures or continuations to a Java-only programmer.
This reminds me of a division in science fiction: Hard science fiction vs soft science fiction.
Hard science fiction autors never violate the laws of physics. Just play with future but very possible technology, or dwelve in the realms of life inside stars and so on.
Soft science fiction violates whatever law it wants, just for story-telling sake. Think warp speeds.
Some autors are definitely hard science writers, when others are not.
The point is: hard science fiction is more difficult to write. You must have some physics background and stuff.
The concept seems to be going to games too, battlefield 2142 designers don't use laser weapons and any other they consider are not realistic enough.
Maybe you would like to start writing comics, and do it the hard way.
It's not about what superman strength is (duh!), but about the center of gravity of the stuff he carries.
The ice was grabbed by an edge, and it should have just cracked.
The island was grabbed from below, and with a good enough sense of equilibrium it would have worked. If superman had gone inside the island to the center of gravity of the thing, it must have worked, except that all that kriptonite would have killed him first.
And the plane scene has something left, he should have gone to catch the plane in the belly when it goes flat to the baseball field, otherwise the nose should have bended and people in the back seats would be very injuried.
No no no, don't *duck*. You should be proud of your suggestion.
Scheme is a beautiful language and for children and math and physics people, is easier to understand than traditional C syntax-based languages.
In fact, the main benefit of using a language from the lisp family is that it makes you a better programmer for the rest of your life, no matter what language you use in your job.
In a related note, I postulate LOGO, because that's what I learned when I was a child and it really helped me to grok programming. Beautiful programming.
I've read a lot of TA and I tried to play it, but it seems to me that it doesn't have the rock/paper/scissors model that other games (starcraft) have. So it doesn't appeal as much as SC as I though it would based on reviews.
That and the fact that I was unable to finish the mission against the lots of big ships with such a huge range no matter what I did.
Well, I believe that it really is all the other way around. Church people want us to be unhappy, to feel dirty with sins and all that crap in order to have to run to the church to clean at least part of it, to meet and gather with more sinners to feel you're not the only one (if some other people sins then I'm not that bad).
That's why they don't approve condoms, pills, and as the other answer to your post said, make-me-feel-happy drugs. And they control the government too (Have you ever voted for an atheist?).
Sad and scaried people are easier to control than happy and rational people.
While I agree with you that Go is probably the best game to investigate artificial intelligence, and much better than chess both for humans and computers, I found the idea in the article very sound.
Chess and Go are "full information" games. Yo always see everything you need in order to make a decision. But in poker you deal with uncertain stuff. So this is an exercise about how to deal with uncertain and incomplete knowledge.
Yes, that's why folding@home runs soooo dawn fast. Like the 20 thousand molecules for second we need to model a small part of the brain.
No, that something can be modelled in a computer doesn't mean it can be modelled in reasonable time.
Besides that, the computations are "reasonable aproximations". They are not exactly like the real thing.
In that sense all the computers in the world are not enough to model a single neuron, unless you abstract some of the processes. And if you abstract something, you are not modeling the real thing, but just doing a mathematical aproximation with some formula. Which is nice, but you have to keep in mind the limitations of your modelling. You can't declare that the modelling is the "real thing" just because "it's science" and it's infallible.
It's like the chapters in CSI where the modelling just don't fit the experimental data because they just missed some things that should be in the model from the start. They change the model and then it fits, but it's too late for the case.
Slashdot Mirror
I use something else (duh!), but I still have the right to know this and tell everybody about it.
The point is not the repeated to death "if you don't like the license... blah, blah", but WHY I don't like the license, and why lots of people should at least know this point of view even if they disagree.
http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/09/06/vistas-ui-is-b etter-than-this/
The Kororaa Project http://kororaa.org/ had a live cd that had the Nvidia drivers included that had all this in it. It was amazing. They were forced to remove the distro though because of the GPL license.
Then, to follow your analogy with garbage collection, what that user wants is a system that does some static analysis to free as much as possible as soon as a stack frame is no longer in use.
Java does this when automatically converts some heap variables to be stack variables.
But for a system with a garbage collection resembling more this idea, there is the newLisp interpreter, which not only does the analysis and frees as much as possible in a call stack pop, but because of this approach, is faster than several other interpreters with a more conservative garbage collection system.
However, maybe that's the point where the analogy breaks, because I can certainly see your argument in terms of performance, and the newLisp performance, and both use different approaches. Just because memory is ages faster than disk drives.
Nothing to do with computer science???
And then what is supposed computer science about? French fries?
FYI: computer science is about algorithms, and guess what... software is algorithmic in nature!
You can't separate a very specific piece of software from the underlying algorithms it has.
However, (and I guess that's the point you tried to make) I believe I can blame more the underlying algorithms in the MySQL engine than the ones in the webpages that use that particular engine.
If I understood the parent post, the temporary copies of the records are never deleted. That's a coding error to me.
He didn't mean about never using them, rather that at some moment, after the queries have run to completion, and all related transactions have finished the commit, and the temporary records are not needed anymore, then have those records deleted.
And they should be deleted. I surely can't understand your rant.
The fact that some universities and/or teachers post their lectures notes without a perceived cost doesn't mean that they should be free.
In fact, those lectures (I mean the global set) are probably the most valuable thing our civilization has.
If some of their creators post them for free or at low cost it's just because they love to teach and they love what they teach. If they were there for the money they would be MBAs, not teachers.
So I don't really think the teacher sells them because he wants to profit, but because he knows that most people don't value what doesn't have any cost to them. And he wants students to value what he is trying to teach, either in the classroom or reading his lectures.
You're not alone, I too wish for a JVM/CLR that can be used for languages in the lisp family.
I believe that continuations affect performance as the stack is a little more complex, but I don't know Scheme compilers internals to really assert that.
I don't know if parrot is any closer to it.
You can try this:
http://weitz.de/cl-ppcre/#parse-tree-synonym
It's in lisp, but lisp is good to learn too.
Can't anybody think of Greenpeace?
They have a born-given right to protest for everything that is ever sold!
However, I think they will find something here to bitch about, too.
Good, now we only need a Java-only programmer to see if he can understand this use of continuations using your explanation:a ges/Scheme/Teach_Yourself_Scheme_in_Fixnum_Days_en /tysch016.htm
;)
http://docs.mandragor.org/files/Programming_langu
Just kidding.
Continuations aren't copies of the "complete state of the context" because that includes class and function definitions and so on, they are just a way to save the remainder of the function call stack into a variable. And then use that variable as a first order function, any number of times. You can implement backtracking without using any data structure using continuations, the same way you can implement "imposible to violate" private data protection using closures. (Not that I think private members are really useful.)
Going back to closures, you don't need exotic languages, the super popular JavaScript has them
Cygwin is ugly... maybe it's the reason others have not attempted a good X port, but blah. And I've used cygwin and mingw a lot.
However I think you're right about X problems. A widget level protocol instead of a pixel level one would be nicer to have.
Java is a bitch to program when you know better languages*, you feel trapped, limited and frustrated.
But compared to AJAX? Yes, it's better, if your application is complex enough. Java looks ugly though.
So may be he had very few programming skills. But it's entirely possible that he had superb programming skills** and still would though the same.
* by better languages I mean Lisp, not C#.
** try explaining closures or continuations to a Java-only programmer.
You don't need to replace X. You need a MS Windows open source X server.
However development is the other way around with mono and stuff, that's linux embracing MS technology.
Yes, but it doesn't play matroska video files.
That was the end of my 9 years relationship with Winamp.
This reminds me of a division in science fiction: Hard science fiction vs soft science fiction.
Hard science fiction autors never violate the laws of physics. Just play with future but very possible technology, or dwelve in the realms of life inside stars and so on.
Soft science fiction violates whatever law it wants, just for story-telling sake. Think warp speeds.
Some autors are definitely hard science writers, when others are not.
The point is: hard science fiction is more difficult to write. You must have some physics background and stuff.
The concept seems to be going to games too, battlefield 2142 designers don't use laser weapons and any other they consider are not realistic enough.
Maybe you would like to start writing comics, and do it the hard way.
It's not about what superman strength is (duh!), but about the center of gravity of the stuff he carries.
The ice was grabbed by an edge, and it should have just cracked.
The island was grabbed from below, and with a good enough sense of equilibrium it would have worked. If superman had gone inside the island to the center of gravity of the thing, it must have worked, except that all that kriptonite would have killed him first.
And the plane scene has something left, he should have gone to catch the plane in the belly when it goes flat to the baseball field, otherwise the nose should have bended and people in the back seats would be very injuried.
No no no, don't *duck*. You should be proud of your suggestion.
Scheme is a beautiful language and for children and math and physics people, is easier to understand than traditional C syntax-based languages.
In fact, the main benefit of using a language from the lisp family is that it makes you a better programmer for the rest of your life, no matter what language you use in your job.
In a related note, I postulate LOGO, because that's what I learned when I was a child and it really helped me to grok programming. Beautiful programming.
Sounds good!
I'm looking at their homepage and watching the screenshots.
I've read a lot of TA and I tried to play it, but it seems to me that it doesn't have the rock/paper/scissors model that other games (starcraft) have. So it doesn't appeal as much as SC as I though it would based on reviews.
That and the fact that I was unable to finish the mission against the lots of big ships with such a huge range no matter what I did.
I'm welcome to suggestions.
Well, I believe that it really is all the other way around. Church people want us to be unhappy, to feel dirty with sins and all that crap in order to have to run to the church to clean at least part of it, to meet and gather with more sinners to feel you're not the only one (if some other people sins then I'm not that bad).
That's why they don't approve condoms, pills, and as the other answer to your post said, make-me-feel-happy drugs. And they control the government too (Have you ever voted for an atheist?).
Sad and scaried people are easier to control than happy and rational people.
Hah, that comment only serves to remind me of my love for LaTeX.
However, doing tables in LaTeX is a PITA.
But for math... Nothing can beat (La)TeX.
While I agree with you that Go is probably the best game to investigate artificial intelligence, and much better than chess both for humans and computers, I found the idea in the article very sound.
Chess and Go are "full information" games. Yo always see everything you need in order to make a decision. But in poker you deal with uncertain stuff. So this is an exercise about how to deal with uncertain and incomplete knowledge.
That's right, they don't support it. IIRC it doesn't work in Opera 8, and google has not updated their scripts to detect Opera 9.
I have mine identifying as Opera, because really I prefer the real GTalk and everything else works OK in Opera 9.
However my brother needs the Gtalk compatibility because he can't use a chat program at work.
You just have to enable the "Mask as Mozilla" option for the site.
Yes, that's why folding@home runs soooo dawn fast. Like the 20 thousand molecules for second we need to model a small part of the brain.
No, that something can be modelled in a computer doesn't mean it can be modelled in reasonable time.
Besides that, the computations are "reasonable aproximations". They are not exactly like the real thing.
In that sense all the computers in the world are not enough to model a single neuron, unless you abstract some of the processes. And if you abstract something, you are not modeling the real thing, but just doing a mathematical aproximation with some formula. Which is nice, but you have to keep in mind the limitations of your modelling. You can't declare that the modelling is the "real thing" just because "it's science" and it's infallible.
It's like the chapters in CSI where the modelling just don't fit the experimental data because they just missed some things that should be in the model from the start. They change the model and then it fits, but it's too late for the case.