Heh... That would depend on the person in question. Scheme didn't throw me for a loop- and I certainly fit the description you gave there. >:-D
Perhaps it's just me, I took to being able to do Lisp, Ada, PL/1, Forth, C/C++, Java, Python, Icon, Erlang, etc. equally well. Each has a way to look at the computer and a way to ask it to go do something. Some excel at a task given it (Though you may have initial difficulty getting to full speed with some tools...Erlang and other functional languages...heh...they take some getting used to...) others will let you do it, but are poor solutions.
I would have to concur. OOP is the wrong thing to teach initial concepts with. The move to OOP was done because the schools forgot that they're supposed to teach things like CS, not do like a technical school and teach them a trade (Claims of OOP being in the "real world" and therefore you need to teach them at the beginning is falling into that trap of thinking about how to teach the subject...).
Ah, but in the same vein... CS classes aren't supposed to train them for the "real world" their first semesters. SERIOUSLY. Do keep in mind that CS is really a branch of theoretical mathematics (I should know...I studied CS and made the leap to Software Engineering...) and in order to grasp the actual study, you need more than just being trained for the "real world" (If you're wondering why I'm putting that in quotes, there's a substantive (dare I say a small majority...) of development work that just simply can't use Java or "pure" C++ and there's a nearly as large subset of programming that cause more problems than they're worth because it requires REAL skill doing the task in Java or "pure" C++ and many, many of the train wrecks are caused by someone using the wrong tool because they don't understand how the tool actually works- they were trained for the "real world" by their college in a CS or Software Engineering degree and they were ill prepared to make the right decisions.). Quite simply, you teach fundamentals first, then you branch off into functional and OO programming after the fact so they understand all the tradeoffs and actually can be theoretical mathemeticians or software engineers at their discretion.
In order to be "employable" they need to know fundamentals as well as those modern languages. Those that're just taught OO actually have gaps in their knowlege coming out of college and think in a "just so" way like the parent says- and it's noit "all good" for what the business needs. Many of the high profile failures seem to stem from OO-only thinking.
Uh... Bada's been around the longest when compared to the others? WebOS was in development before Bada was announced. QNX dates back to...well...my college days over two and a half decades ago.
Religious Conservatives? Hardly. If they were, they'd not have passed the law that gives those that break our nation's laws a pass- they basically made a law that gives effective amnesty to those who are in Utah and are here in the US Illegally.
Heh... They're going to screw it up. They managed to do an even worse law that effectively gives amnesty to illegal aliens that're in Utah- that even more desperately needs repealing than this botch job we're discussing.
They were over priced compared to normal laptops and typically under-powered unless you paid a 3x premium over the laptop's price. Worse, because of battery concerns, they had less battery and less run-time on it when compared to the laptops which could field 2-4 times the capacity in most cases.
If you couple what's here in the ARM camp or what's about to start shipping samples by the end of the year from Qualcomm, NVidia, TI, and Samsung, you start seeing a differing story and they become vastly more compelling. But then, so does the tablets as a result.
Price, weight, and battery life right at the moment.
A convertable's more expensive. It consumes more battery life for only a moderate increase in performance. It is heavier by a factor of 2-6 times with the current offerings. Once you see more things like the Atrix or Always Innovating's Touchbook (if they went to an A9 configuration, that is...) you're going to see less deltas there and I'd believe the remarks that maybe "they're the future". Until then...no.
Considering that the Nook Color is $250 and can run Honeycomb decently (I'm doing it right now...surprisingly responsive, though not as awe inspiring as the Xoom is...) it kind of nukes the argument from orbit.
More to the point...the current iPhone/Android phenomenon (which is growing and quite simply doesn't have "just geeks" using them) proves that whole concept as wrong to begin with.
(Besides, with the new tablets just now showing their faces (i.e. Xoom, iPad 2.0, etc...) that $500 tablet just about matches the $200 laptop, is lighter, and has a vastly better runtime story.)
Put 5# in your hand and carry it around all day. Unless you're used to it (i.e. do it day-in, day-out...), I assure you it'll end up wearing your arms out over time and it'll eventually feel like your arm's going to fall off.
Heh... AT&T's phone really had no place to put a SIM either... To re-SIM it, you have to tear it apart. So, why would it be different for the Verizon one?
Considering that the tethering app makes it look like the phone's actually the one doing the requests...sorry, don't buy that. They're likely doing the thing suggested earlier in the comments discussion- they're presuming that there's a certain bandwidth usage that's practical on a phone (yes, there is...and it's NOT what many think it is...it can be much higher...) and you "must be tethering" by going over...
It's either that or they've got a means to see what app inventory I have and I'd have more than a bit of an issue with that.
There's a bit better coverage, but they're just going to move to a provider that'll throttle their connections at 5Gb or maybe 10Gb and then bill them for the privilege at $10 per every Gb over. The ONLY reason I use Verizon is that they've got more consistent coverage for data and Voice than the others based off of personal experience.
Perhaps... The thing is, he's quite correct. A "dirty bomb" need not be loaded with just something like weapons grade Plutonium or Uranium for effect- and loading it up with some of the left-overs from a fast breeder would actually be worse.
With their past experience with nuclear reactors, unless it's a Thorium fueled unit, I'd be concerned about a mishap with that plant and would be leery of letting them build another. Seriously.
Cs-137 and Sr-90 are some of the main by-products that comprise that "waste with half-lifes measured in decades" and it's Cs-137 that comprised much of the contamination in the first mishap (and why it's so hot all around there...), and Sr-90 is quite as bad as the old cold-war days prep for nuclear war made it out to be.
Heh... Half-lifes of mere decades or less scare me as much or more than the centuries long ones. It's all in the radiation they emit- and many of the short-lived isotopes, including the ones in a breeder reactor aren't at all nice things.
For example, Co-60, which is a synthetic isotope of Cobalt, with a half-life of 5.27 years. When it decays, it does so by beta particle emission to the stable Ni-60 with a heightened energy state. When this state decays (on the moment of the decay to Ni-60...) the nucleus emits two gamma rays with energies of 1.17 and 1.33 MeV. Not very nice stuff, though it's half-life is short.
Cs-137, as another example, which is one of the main contaminants from an accidental release like Chernobyl and one of the main left-overs from a fast breeder reactor and has to be transmuted into something else. It has a half-life of about 30.17 years. It decays by direct beta emission, contrary to what I'd originally recalled about it. When it decays, it typically turns into the metastable Ba-137m, with a half-life of 2.55 minutes. When Ba-137m decays, it emits a gamma ray with an energy of 662 keV. One gram of caesium-137 has an activity of 3.215 terabecquerel- which is QUITE hot. The oxides that form from the exposure to air are water soluable. Once you get it into your system, you typically have to be dosed with Prussian Blue to force it out of your system. We won't get into what sorts of damage having it around you or in you would do to you.
Sr-90, as yet another example, which is well known from nuclear fallout from our A-bomb experimentation and use, along with being another one of the main left-overs from a fast-breeder reactor that has to be transmuted. It has a half-life of 28.8 years and has a propensity for replacing Calcium in living things since it's chemically similar to it. When it decays, it emits a 0.546 MeV beta particle and turns into Yttrium-90, which has a half life of 60 hours. When Y-90 decays, it emits a 2.28MeV beta particle and a gamma ray so weak as to "not matter".
Or, perhaps, you'd choose Na-24, with a half-life of 15 hours. It is formed under neutron bombardment within a sodium cooling loop on a fast-breeder. When it decays, it emits gamma rays with an energy of somewhere around 2.75MeV.
Three of those isotopes are products of a fast-breeder reactor- which is why there's been push back...they produce MORE of this stuff than the traditional reactors do.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh... That would depend on the person in question. Scheme didn't throw me for a loop- and I certainly fit the description you gave there. >:-D
Perhaps it's just me, I took to being able to do Lisp, Ada, PL/1, Forth, C/C++, Java, Python, Icon, Erlang, etc. equally well. Each has a way to look at the computer and a way to ask it to go do something. Some excel at a task given it (Though you may have initial difficulty getting to full speed with some tools...Erlang and other functional languages...heh...they take some getting used to...) others will let you do it, but are poor solutions.
I would have to concur. OOP is the wrong thing to teach initial concepts with. The move to OOP was done because the schools forgot that they're supposed to teach things like CS, not do like a technical school and teach them a trade (Claims of OOP being in the "real world" and therefore you need to teach them at the beginning is falling into that trap of thinking about how to teach the subject...).
How about the Ericcson AXD301 ATM switching system, with over a million lines of Erlang?
Or...how about RabbitMQ?
Or...how about Facebook's Chat backend?
There's quite a bit more than you think and the three I referred to were using Erlang- there's loads more with some of the other functional languages.
Ah, but in the same vein... CS classes aren't supposed to train them for the "real world" their first semesters. SERIOUSLY. Do keep in mind that CS is really a branch of theoretical mathematics (I should know...I studied CS and made the leap to Software Engineering...) and in order to grasp the actual study, you need more than just being trained for the "real world" (If you're wondering why I'm putting that in quotes, there's a substantive (dare I say a small majority...) of development work that just simply can't use Java or "pure" C++ and there's a nearly as large subset of programming that cause more problems than they're worth because it requires REAL skill doing the task in Java or "pure" C++ and many, many of the train wrecks are caused by someone using the wrong tool because they don't understand how the tool actually works- they were trained for the "real world" by their college in a CS or Software Engineering degree and they were ill prepared to make the right decisions.). Quite simply, you teach fundamentals first, then you branch off into functional and OO programming after the fact so they understand all the tradeoffs and actually can be theoretical mathemeticians or software engineers at their discretion.
In order to be "employable" they need to know fundamentals as well as those modern languages. Those that're just taught OO actually have gaps in their knowlege coming out of college and think in a "just so" way like the parent says- and it's noit "all good" for what the business needs. Many of the high profile failures seem to stem from OO-only thinking.
Considering that the dock's just circuitry tied back to something like the Atrix, there's no OS as such on the device.
Uh... Bada's been around the longest when compared to the others? WebOS was in development before Bada was announced. QNX dates back to...well...my college days over two and a half decades ago.
Too late. It's already THERE...
Nook Honeycomb "Howto"...
I'm using it on my Nook and have the Nook app on it in this mode...along with Angry Birds, etc. Sorry, not buying that line either.
Religious Conservatives? Hardly. If they were, they'd not have passed the law that gives those that break our nation's laws a pass- they basically made a law that gives effective amnesty to those who are in Utah and are here in the US Illegally.
Heh... They're going to screw it up. They managed to do an even worse law that effectively gives amnesty to illegal aliens that're in Utah- that even more desperately needs repealing than this botch job we're discussing.
Nook Color: 7" tablet reader with an OMAP3 at 800 MHz and can boot Honeycomb and Froyo off of a microSD.
They were over priced compared to normal laptops and typically under-powered unless you paid a 3x premium over the laptop's price. Worse, because of battery concerns, they had less battery and less run-time on it when compared to the laptops which could field 2-4 times the capacity in most cases.
If you couple what's here in the ARM camp or what's about to start shipping samples by the end of the year from Qualcomm, NVidia, TI, and Samsung, you start seeing a differing story and they become vastly more compelling. But then, so does the tablets as a result.
Price, weight, and battery life right at the moment.
A convertable's more expensive. It consumes more battery life for only a moderate increase in performance. It is heavier by a factor of 2-6 times with the current offerings. Once you see more things like the Atrix or Always Innovating's Touchbook (if they went to an A9 configuration, that is...) you're going to see less deltas there and I'd believe the remarks that maybe "they're the future". Until then...no.
Considering that the Nook Color is $250 and can run Honeycomb decently (I'm doing it right now...surprisingly responsive, though not as awe inspiring as the Xoom is...) it kind of nukes the argument from orbit.
More to the point...the current iPhone/Android phenomenon (which is growing and quite simply doesn't have "just geeks" using them) proves that whole concept as wrong to begin with.
(Besides, with the new tablets just now showing their faces (i.e. Xoom, iPad 2.0, etc...) that $500 tablet just about matches the $200 laptop, is lighter, and has a vastly better runtime story.)
Put 5# in your hand and carry it around all day. Unless you're used to it (i.e. do it day-in, day-out...), I assure you it'll end up wearing your arms out over time and it'll eventually feel like your arm's going to fall off.
If it were... They'd have already taken over. Those've been around off and on for YEARS now.
Heh... AT&T's phone really had no place to put a SIM either... To re-SIM it, you have to tear it apart. So, why would it be different for the Verizon one?
Verizon's using it for their LTE offering... The other tech that others was pushing kind of dropped off the face of the earth as best as I can tell.
Considering that the tethering app makes it look like the phone's actually the one doing the requests...sorry, don't buy that. They're likely doing the thing suggested earlier in the comments discussion- they're presuming that there's a certain bandwidth usage that's practical on a phone (yes, there is...and it's NOT what many think it is...it can be much higher...) and you "must be tethering" by going over...
It's either that or they've got a means to see what app inventory I have and I'd have more than a bit of an issue with that.
Heh... You're kidding, right?
There's a bit better coverage, but they're just going to move to a provider that'll throttle their connections at 5Gb or maybe 10Gb and then bill them for the privilege at $10 per every Gb over. The ONLY reason I use Verizon is that they've got more consistent coverage for data and Voice than the others based off of personal experience.
Perhaps... The thing is, he's quite correct. A "dirty bomb" need not be loaded with just something like weapons grade Plutonium or Uranium for effect- and loading it up with some of the left-overs from a fast breeder would actually be worse.
With their past experience with nuclear reactors, unless it's a Thorium fueled unit, I'd be concerned about a mishap with that plant and would be leery of letting them build another. Seriously.
Cs-137 and Sr-90 are some of the main by-products that comprise that "waste with half-lifes measured in decades" and it's Cs-137 that comprised much of the contamination in the first mishap (and why it's so hot all around there...), and Sr-90 is quite as bad as the old cold-war days prep for nuclear war made it out to be.
I'm curius about LFTR and Pebble Bed, which seem to be the "right" direction if you're going to do Fission power right a the moment.
Heh... Half-lifes of mere decades or less scare me as much or more than the centuries long ones. It's all in the radiation they emit- and many of the short-lived isotopes, including the ones in a breeder reactor aren't at all nice things.
For example, Co-60, which is a synthetic isotope of Cobalt, with a half-life of 5.27 years. When it decays, it does so by beta particle emission to the stable Ni-60 with a heightened energy state. When this state decays (on the moment of the decay to Ni-60...) the nucleus emits two gamma rays with energies of 1.17 and 1.33 MeV. Not very nice stuff, though it's half-life is short.
Cs-137, as another example, which is one of the main contaminants from an accidental release like Chernobyl and one of the main left-overs from a fast breeder reactor and has to be transmuted into something else. It has a half-life of about 30.17 years. It decays by direct beta emission, contrary to what I'd originally recalled about it. When it decays, it typically turns into the metastable Ba-137m, with a half-life of 2.55 minutes. When Ba-137m decays, it emits a gamma ray with an energy of 662 keV. One gram of caesium-137 has an activity of 3.215 terabecquerel- which is QUITE hot. The oxides that form from the exposure to air are water soluable. Once you get it into your system, you typically have to be dosed with Prussian Blue to force it out of your system. We won't get into what sorts of damage having it around you or in you would do to you.
Sr-90, as yet another example, which is well known from nuclear fallout from our A-bomb experimentation and use, along with being another one of the main left-overs from a fast-breeder reactor that has to be transmuted. It has a half-life of 28.8 years and has a propensity for replacing Calcium in living things since it's chemically similar to it. When it decays, it emits a 0.546 MeV beta particle and turns into Yttrium-90, which has a half life of 60 hours. When Y-90 decays, it emits a 2.28MeV beta particle and a gamma ray so weak as to "not matter".
Or, perhaps, you'd choose Na-24, with a half-life of 15 hours. It is formed under neutron bombardment within a sodium cooling loop on a fast-breeder. When it decays, it emits gamma rays with an energy of somewhere around 2.75MeV.
Three of those isotopes are products of a fast-breeder reactor- which is why there's been push back...they produce MORE of this stuff than the traditional reactors do.