I hate the phrase. Most of the time when I hear it used it's by someone who refuses to even consider new ideas. Besides, most of the real world is fake so if it doesn't work that way "in the real world" then it must be right. QED;)
More seriously, the real world is not fixed and arguing that things are one way because they've always been that way and therefore can't change is a cop out, IMO. I do agree with you that not all wild theories are practical or even make sense but there are better arguments to use against them.
A recent grad will learn the hard way that inertia is a powerful force which can grind you down until your brain fossilises and you're scoffing at new ideas just because they're new. Beware.
Agreed. 0.9 feels *much* faster than 0.8 - about twice as fast rendering this page on/. for example.
I'm running a fairly high end system (not bragging, just providing a data point), so maybe it's taking advantage of that and the difference isn't so great on older hardware.
Re:"vows to mend his ways by teaching others about
on
Spammer Apologizes
·
· Score: 1
Nah, it's easy. Consider the source and refer to rule #1. He's lying.
If you focus on the fact that he was gay you're falling into the same trap that led to his suicide. Turing was a genius and his work in computing is what he should - and I think would want to - be remembered for, not his preferred source of friction.
True, and when you're reading, say, a part number it's important to get each character right. A simple change which reduces the chance of error sounds like a no-brainer.
I think caps are more amibigous in poor quality copies. For example, B and 8 can look very similar.
The smaller features of lower case get muddy faster.
True, but those features are more varied than the ones used in upper case, so they're less likely to be mis-recognised. The difference between O and Q is much less than that between o and q. Sure there are counter-examples like i and l, but I think lower case has the edge.
Even though we textually shout at the fabricators/contruction guys, every now and then someone installs a checkvalve backwards or forgets to grout some 10,000# machinery.
Y'know that could be because ALL CAPS is harder to comprehend than lower case. I don't have a link but I've definitely heard of studies that prove this.
Maybe it's time to rethink the standard now that engineering drawings are computer printed and handwriting isn't such an issue.
Been there, done that. My advice is to take the job for a year and then go back to school.
You'll have to be determined to get back in, but that year will be one of the best educational experiences you can have. It'll give you a better idea of what type of job you really want - your interests might not match your ideal job and it's better to find that out before you spend all that time getting what could turn out to be the wrong degree.
In my case, I discovered that I was far more suited to embedded systems programming than electronics engineering. I got back into school, switched to comp-sci and it was the best decision I ever made.
You will have to be determined though. It isn't easy to drop a nice salary and go back to being a penniless student, and people will ask hard questions about why you first dropped out of school and then dropped out of a job.
And a laptop is expensive compared to a cheap desktop. Do you see a pattern here?
Miniaturisation costs, and in this case it's worth it. The key thing about the Zaurus (I have an SL5000) is that having a keyboard makes it more like a tiny laptop than a PDA.
Most important of all, it's great for playing nethack on the bus:p
Reasonable points, and we seem to be largely in agreement. Those few kilobytes of hot-spot can make an enormous difference to performance when optimised for the target host, which is why they need to be compiled for the specific target host. There is of course the problem of actually identifying the hot-spots which is by no means easy...
First of all, a well designed application shouldn't have that kind of conditional compile time dependancies. It's possible to do that all at runtime.
Are you familiar with the phrase "lowest common denominator"?
How about "code bloat"?
A well designed application takes advantage of a system's unique strengths - e.g. CPU specific compiler optimisations and available system libraries - without turning into a multi-megabyte monster.
A well designed *non-trivial* application compiles in just what's needed; no more, no less.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate the phrase. Most of the time when I hear it used it's by someone who refuses to even consider new ideas. Besides, most of the real world is fake so if it doesn't work that way "in the real world" then it must be right. QED ;)
More seriously, the real world is not fixed and arguing that things are one way because they've always been that way and therefore can't change is a cop out, IMO. I do agree with you that not all wild theories are practical or even make sense but there are better arguments to use against them.
A recent grad will learn the hard way that inertia is a powerful force which can grind you down until your brain fossilises and you're scoffing at new ideas just because they're new. Beware.
The first thing to realise about the "Real World" is that it's mostly fake.
The second is that anyone who uses the phrase "in the real world" in an argument is undoubtedly wrong.
HTH
They also missed out Autocode, which was a little higher level than asembler and still predated FORTRAN.
Agreed. 0.9 feels *much* faster than 0.8 - about twice as fast rendering this page on /. for example.
I'm running a fairly high end system (not bragging, just providing a data point), so maybe it's taking advantage of that and the difference isn't so great on older hardware.
Nah, it's easy. Consider the source and refer to rule #1. He's lying.
No no no, lock them in a room with two forks and three plates of spaghetti and see who starves.
If you focus on the fact that he was gay you're falling into the same trap that led to his suicide. Turing was a genius and his work in computing is what he should - and I think would want to - be remembered for, not his preferred source of friction.
True, and when you're reading, say, a part number it's important to get each character right. A simple change which reduces the chance of error sounds like a no-brainer.
I think caps are more amibigous in poor quality copies. For example, B and 8 can look very similar.
The smaller features of lower case get muddy faster.
True, but those features are more varied than the ones used in upper case, so they're less likely to be mis-recognised. The difference between O and Q is much less than that between o and q. Sure there are counter-examples like i and l, but I think lower case has the edge.
Even though we textually shout at the fabricators/contruction guys, every now and then someone installs a checkvalve backwards or forgets to grout some 10,000# machinery.
Y'know that could be because ALL CAPS is harder to comprehend than lower case. I don't have a link but I've definitely heard of studies that prove this.
Maybe it's time to rethink the standard now that engineering drawings are computer printed and handwriting isn't such an issue.
I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously?
Other analysts. They analyse each others analyses.
cf. Historians in the Foundation trilogy.
As somebody with eyes in my head, perhaps I can add some comments on why this winning entry does not communicate well - it's crap.
Been there, done that. My advice is to take the job for a year and then go back to school.
You'll have to be determined to get back in, but that year will be one of the best educational experiences you can have. It'll give you a better idea of what type of job you really want - your interests might not match your ideal job and it's better to find that out before you spend all that time getting what could turn out to be the wrong degree.
In my case, I discovered that I was far more suited to embedded systems programming than electronics engineering. I got back into school, switched to comp-sci and it was the best decision I ever made.
You will have to be determined though. It isn't easy to drop a nice salary and go back to being a penniless student, and people will ask hard questions about why you first dropped out of school and then dropped out of a job.
Good luck.
I thought that was how we all got to be alive.
I contend that it is impractical, and quite possibly impossible to effectively play an FPS game using only text.
BANG! You're dead.
That is a price of a cheap laptop.
:p
And a laptop is expensive compared to a cheap desktop. Do you see a pattern here?
Miniaturisation costs, and in this case it's worth it. The key thing about the Zaurus (I have an SL5000) is that having a keyboard makes it more like a tiny laptop than a PDA.
Most important of all, it's great for playing nethack on the bus
*tries to look humble*
I'd just like to thank all the people who made this possible; I couldn't have done it without you. Thank-you for the award, I'll treasure it always.
*wipes away tear*
I run an adult link list, IE is still going strong
Proof positive that IE users are wankers.
I'm sure whoever made the call was only following orders.
The American education system?
Definitely.
Nope, it's a contraction of "petroleum spirits".
Matthew, selfish is not the one who wants to get a tangible reward for his work. Selfish is the one who denies that reward.
*Applause*
That is so true, and so well put.
Reasonable points, and we seem to be largely in agreement. Those few kilobytes of hot-spot can make an enormous difference to performance when optimised for the target host, which is why they need to be compiled for the specific target host. There is of course the problem of actually identifying the hot-spots which is by no means easy...
First of all, a well designed application shouldn't have that kind of conditional compile time dependancies. It's possible to do that all at runtime.
Are you familiar with the phrase "lowest common denominator"?
How about "code bloat"?
A well designed application takes advantage of a system's unique strengths - e.g. CPU specific compiler optimisations and available system libraries - without turning into a multi-megabyte monster.
A well designed *non-trivial* application compiles in just what's needed; no more, no less.