The fact that you can use it with C++ means that C++ isn't at a disadvantage in terms of library. So then C++ has advantages, but not disadvantages: that was the point.
C++ does have classes, integrated associative arrays (std::map), variable-length arrays (std::vector) and usable string manipulation (std::string). STL components are a standard part of C++. Then, together with the Boost library, you pretty much have everything that the PHP runtime library has.
There are reasons why PHP has popularity over C++, but these technical issues aren't it.
I didn't mind PHP until I tried porting a a PHP text processing application I'd written into C++. The conversion into C++ (with STL and Boost) was essentially line-for-line, so the lines of code was the same, but the C++ was more readable. The PHP runtime was 32ms, while the C++ was 1.9ms.
Even in PHP territory, PHP wasn't giving any advantages, but several disadvantages.
If the Dutch lived in California, Texas, or Florida, rather than Holland, then maybe they wouldn't need A/C for 90% of the year there either.
A/C use is partly climate, but also a lot to do with attitude, dress culture, and in how you adjust to your surroundings and what you let your body become accustomed to. Remember that the reason those areas are densely populated is that people migrated there by choice in the years before A/C was available
How the hell did this bit of poor reading comprehension get a 5 informative ranking??
Probably because the mods actually read it. The point was that design actually does matter because poor design led to the devices failing. There's no good having high output capacity if the thing only lasts for a week before it needs to be fixed.
Typical yield of a 1kW panel is around 1000kWh per year. So that's 5 years. But then you need to take into account packaging, installation, electronics, maintenance, time value of money.... Maybe 10 years.
On the other side of this, the annual burning also changed the landscape to favour eucalypt species that are hardy to fires and regrow quickly. The problem is that these species are also extremely flammable. So in regularly burning, it has changed the ecology into one that burns easier.
In Australia, shingled roofs are extremely rare - most are either sheet metal or concrete tiles. Most new houses have brick veneer wall cladding. The cavity and insulation in the framing gives better energy use performance, and concrete will tend to get more prohibitive as time goes on due to its high embodied energy.
Windows are still a problem in terms of fire entry, regardless of wall construction. In fire-risk areas, some people do install steel shutters to help against this.
Most likely that was sarcasm, to point out how Apple's claims are also flawed. It's not hard to work out that most cars will go through at least 5 sets of tires through their life of various owners.
It varies in different countries. In some countries "professor" is only used of a senior position in a university, above that of lecturer and associate professor.
"A road tax based on CO2 emisions".... that should be a fuel tax, right?
For a given fuel type, in a modern engine, the CO2 emission is very close to proportional to the volume of fuel burnt. I guess a "fuel tax" doesn't sound as modern and environmental as a "CO2 emissions tax" though.
and as well, change the current fuel tax into a distance tax, that way at least there's no advantage for those people who bought high-efficiency cars. Maybe take it a step further, and make the fuel free, and just charge every car the same amount for distance, regardless of its efficiency.
Environmentally and economically its much better just to tax the fuel. Raising the fuel tax helps increase the marginal advantage in using efficient vehicles. It's also much simpler to implement involving only a few fuel distribution points, rather that millions of individual vehicles.
Presumably they have in mind that people just don't like fuel tax, and would rather pay more in a distance tax - either that or they just want to know where everyone is all the time. The other thing it would give them is the ability to implement industry protectionism, in subsidising some local industries though lower taxation so they can compete with interstate or overseas competition better.
This tech offers some nice advantages when it's all working well, but when things do go wrong, you're often more at the mercy of manufacturer for overpriced parts and service. The more complex the designs are, the harder it is for competition to exist for replacement parts. Hence, you can end up being forced to pay $2000+ for a replacement controller unit (that costs $100 to make) simply because its not viable for anyone to make an alternative.
From the Google study, it would appear that there was a brand of hard drive that ran cool and was unreliable. If there's a correlation between brand/model/design and temperature (which there will be), then the temperature study may just be showing that up.
To get a meaningful result, it would require taking a population of the same drive and comparing the effects of temperature on it.
Warranties beyond about two years become largely meaningless for this purpose, because after a drive is getting older people often won't bother claiming warranty for what is by then such a small drive. The cost of shipping/transport is likely to be more than the marginal $/GB on a new drive.
So in this way a manufacturer can get away with a long warranty, without necessarily incurring a cost for unreliability.
With zero evaporative emissions as a component, it makes sense that the classification is only relevant in states that require vapor recovery at refuelling. Otherwise, each time you fill up the tank you expel all the vapor into the atmosphere, making a joke of any zero evaporative emissions from the other components of the vehicle. In that sense it would be misleading to sell a car as PZEV in a state that doesn't have the infrastructure to support it.
For a huge number of computers, the energy efficiency is governed by the idle power draw, and not the loaded power. In that case AMD is way ahead of Intel at the moment on account of the motherboards for AMD chips using much less power at idle. Ecologically speaking though, the energy consumed while a PC is on is dwarfed by the energy consumed in manufacturing and transporting the parts.
I don't know why the comments of people having troubles finding a Dvorak keyboard... if learning Dvorak, it is better not to have one. For me, switching to Dvorak had two distinct benefits. One was the reduced finger movement, but the other less expected one was that by retaining a standard Qwerty keyboard and not moving the key caps was it would force me to touch type properly with no cheating. Its best just as a software key remapping, and for the past couple of years that has been easy on the major operating systems / windowing environments. In my experience, the only downside is when you need to use one-hand hunt and peck when holding something in the other hand.
I'd suggest that the best use for a keyboard with physical Dvorak layout would be to learn to touch-type Qwerty.
Skencil (was called Sketch) is a good basic editor that has been stable for a long time. It's particularly interesting to people making diagrams for LaTeX, because of the SketchLatex and skLatex plugins to handle latex math formatting visually within the editor.
Also, there is IPE and XFig should at least rate a mention.
1) Less finger movement for typical English sentences. This is easily verifiable, and not questioned AFAIK. 2) The keycaps on typical keyboards don't match the letter assignment, so you aren't tempted to look a the keys. 3) It is supported by modern operating systems and can be used with readily available keyboards.
These are real benefits, and not hype. In contrast, much of the argument against Dvorak is based on hype arguing against hype. Though they argee QWERTY was never optimised for touch typing, Dvorak proponents these days don't necessarily say that the QWERTY was deliberately designed to slow typing down. It is hype to say they are saying that hype.
But still, Dvorak was designed with touch typing in mind and without the constraints of key jamming, and althogh not the best possible design, it is more efficient. I would expect it to be the most efficient layout possible when walking up to a stock computer with XP on it and adjusting settings. So it isn't the most optimal data entry method possible, but it is still the best without going to custom hardware and/or software.
The link you give seems to just be hype debunking things that people didn't believe in the first place. Even Dvorak proponents will believe that widely spaced common letters is good, and that is one of the things that the Dvorak keyboard does do even more than qwerty.
So what you are doing is inventing extra "benefits" that can be disproved, and then based on than, extending it to say that all benefits are disproved.
It's like saying "A security vulnerability was found in Linux, so it is isn't secure after all, and so most the benefits of Linux are hype. You should be concerned with the architecture of the computer as a whole rather than just the operating system."
Your point isn't very clear here. It seems to me that the time has only recently arrived when you can easily choose your layout. In older operating system releases you usually had to fiddle around a lot to get a dvorak layout, and maybe have to install extra software components, but now it is generally fairly easy to swap a computer over. Default installs of windows XP and mac OSX allow a unprivileged user to switch, and linux installs will if they have the right packages installed.
Unless you want the printing on the keycaps to match the layout, which IMHO is a bad thing, swapping a computer to a different layout is typically easy. So the days of choosing between keyboard layouts are just arriving.
I was concerned about some of those issues before switching to Dvorak, but didn't find it to be a problem after learning the layout for a while. ls -la seemed awkward initially, but now seems to flow fine. Then the control sequences that originally had some location significance are just learnt as letters anyhow, and once you are touch typing, they don't matter much where they are physically on the board. Your brain does the logical remapping for you. Then it just comes down to the overall efficiency of the finger movements. In QWERTY hjkl is on the home row, but on the down-side, two of those letters share the same finger. So it is a bit each way.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you can use it with C++ means that C++ isn't at a disadvantage in terms of library. So then C++ has advantages, but not disadvantages: that was the point.
C++ does have classes, integrated associative arrays (std::map), variable-length arrays (std::vector) and usable string manipulation (std::string). STL components are a standard part of C++. Then, together with the Boost library, you pretty much have everything that the PHP runtime library has.
There are reasons why PHP has popularity over C++, but these technical issues aren't it.
I didn't mind PHP until I tried porting a a PHP text processing application I'd written into C++. The conversion into C++ (with STL and Boost) was essentially line-for-line, so the lines of code was the same, but the C++ was more readable. The PHP runtime was 32ms, while the C++ was 1.9ms.
Even in PHP territory, PHP wasn't giving any advantages, but several disadvantages.
If the Dutch lived in California, Texas, or Florida, rather than Holland, then maybe they wouldn't need A/C for 90% of the year there either.
A/C use is partly climate, but also a lot to do with attitude, dress culture, and in how you adjust to your surroundings and what you let your body become accustomed to. Remember that the reason those areas are densely populated is that people migrated there by choice in the years before A/C was available
How the hell did this bit of poor reading comprehension get a 5 informative ranking??
Probably because the mods actually read it. The point was that design actually does matter because poor design led to the devices failing. There's no good having high output capacity if the thing only lasts for a week before it needs to be fixed.
Typical yield of a 1kW panel is around 1000kWh per year. So that's 5 years. But then you need to take into account packaging, installation, electronics, maintenance, time value of money.... Maybe 10 years.
On the other side of this, the annual burning also changed the landscape to favour eucalypt species that are hardy to fires and regrow quickly. The problem is that these species are also extremely flammable. So in regularly burning, it has changed the ecology into one that burns easier.
In Australia, shingled roofs are extremely rare - most are either sheet metal or concrete tiles. Most new houses have brick veneer wall cladding. The cavity and insulation in the framing gives better energy use performance, and concrete will tend to get more prohibitive as time goes on due to its high embodied energy.
Windows are still a problem in terms of fire entry, regardless of wall construction. In fire-risk areas, some people do install steel shutters to help against this.
Most likely that was sarcasm, to point out how Apple's claims are also flawed. It's not hard to work out that most cars will go through at least 5 sets of tires through their life of various owners.
The sad thing is a that openoffice's support is even more a joke. Why does it not at least use LaTeX notation?
It varies in different countries. In some countries "professor" is only used of a senior position in a university, above that of lecturer and associate professor.
Oregon... the state that rewards the polluters in gas guzzling cars.
"A road tax based on CO2 emisions".... that should be a fuel tax, right?
For a given fuel type, in a modern engine, the CO2 emission is very close to proportional to the volume of fuel burnt. I guess a "fuel tax" doesn't sound as modern and environmental as a "CO2 emissions tax" though.
and as well, change the current fuel tax into a distance tax, that way at least there's no advantage for those people who bought high-efficiency cars. Maybe take it a step further, and make the fuel free, and just charge every car the same amount for distance, regardless of its efficiency.
Environmentally and economically its much better just to tax the fuel. Raising the fuel tax helps increase the marginal advantage in using efficient vehicles. It's also much simpler to implement involving only a few fuel distribution points, rather that millions of individual vehicles.
Presumably they have in mind that people just don't like fuel tax, and would rather pay more in a distance tax - either that or they just want to know where everyone is all the time. The other thing it would give them is the ability to implement industry protectionism, in subsidising some local industries though lower taxation so they can compete with interstate or overseas competition better.
This tech offers some nice advantages when it's all working well, but when things do go wrong, you're often more at the mercy of manufacturer for overpriced parts and service. The more complex the designs are, the harder it is for competition to exist for replacement parts. Hence, you can end up being forced to pay $2000+ for a replacement controller unit (that costs $100 to make) simply because its not viable for anyone to make an alternative.
From the Google study, it would appear that there was a brand of hard drive that ran cool and was unreliable. If there's a correlation between brand/model/design and temperature (which there will be), then the temperature study may just be showing that up.
To get a meaningful result, it would require taking a population of the same drive and comparing the effects of temperature on it.
Warranties beyond about two years become largely meaningless for this purpose, because after a drive is getting older people often won't bother claiming warranty for what is by then such a small drive. The cost of shipping/transport is likely to be more than the marginal $/GB on a new drive.
So in this way a manufacturer can get away with a long warranty, without necessarily incurring a cost for unreliability.
With zero evaporative emissions as a component, it makes sense that the classification is only relevant in states that require vapor recovery at refuelling. Otherwise, each time you fill up the tank you expel all the vapor into the atmosphere, making a joke of any zero evaporative emissions from the other components of the vehicle. In that sense it would be misleading to sell a car as PZEV in a state that doesn't have the infrastructure to support it.
For a huge number of computers, the energy efficiency is governed by the idle power draw, and not the loaded power. In that case AMD is way ahead of Intel at the moment on account of the motherboards for AMD chips using much less power at idle. Ecologically speaking though, the energy consumed while a PC is on is dwarfed by the energy consumed in manufacturing and transporting the parts.
I don't know why the comments of people having troubles finding a Dvorak keyboard... if learning Dvorak, it is better not to have one. For me, switching to Dvorak had two distinct benefits. One was the reduced finger movement, but the other less expected one was that by retaining a standard Qwerty keyboard and not moving the key caps was it would force me to touch type properly with no cheating. Its best just as a software key remapping, and for the past couple of years that has been easy on the major operating systems / windowing environments. In my experience, the only downside is when you need to use one-hand hunt and peck when holding something in the other hand.
I'd suggest that the best use for a keyboard with physical Dvorak layout would be to learn to touch-type Qwerty.
Skencil (was called Sketch) is a good basic editor that has been stable for a long time. It's particularly interesting to people making diagrams for LaTeX, because of the SketchLatex and skLatex plugins to handle latex math formatting visually within the editor.
Also, there is IPE and XFig should at least rate a mention.
Some benefits of Dvoark:
1) Less finger movement for typical English sentences. This is easily verifiable, and not questioned AFAIK.
2) The keycaps on typical keyboards don't match the letter assignment, so you aren't tempted to look a the keys.
3) It is supported by modern operating systems and can be used with readily available keyboards.
These are real benefits, and not hype. In contrast, much of the argument against Dvorak is based on hype arguing against hype. Though they argee QWERTY was never optimised for touch typing, Dvorak proponents these days don't necessarily say that the QWERTY was deliberately designed to slow typing down. It is hype to say they are saying that hype.
But still, Dvorak was designed with touch typing in mind and without the constraints of key jamming, and althogh not the best possible design, it is more efficient. I would expect it to be the most efficient layout possible when walking up to a stock computer with XP on it and adjusting settings. So it isn't the most optimal data entry method possible, but it is still the best without going to custom hardware and/or software.
The link you give seems to just be hype debunking things that people didn't believe in the first place. Even Dvorak proponents will believe that widely spaced common letters is good, and that is one of the things that the Dvorak keyboard does do even more than qwerty.
So what you are doing is inventing extra "benefits" that can be disproved, and then based on than, extending it to say that all benefits are disproved.
It's like saying "A security vulnerability was found in Linux, so it is isn't secure after all, and so most the benefits of Linux are hype. You should be concerned with the architecture of the computer as a whole rather than just the operating system."
Your point isn't very clear here. It seems to me that the time has only recently arrived when you can easily choose your layout. In older operating system releases you usually had to fiddle around a lot to get a dvorak layout, and maybe have to install extra software components, but now it is generally fairly easy to swap a computer over. Default installs of windows XP and mac OSX allow a unprivileged user to switch, and linux installs will if they have the right packages installed.
Unless you want the printing on the keycaps to match the layout, which IMHO is a bad thing, swapping a computer to a different layout is typically easy. So the days of choosing between keyboard layouts are just arriving.
I was concerned about some of those issues before switching to Dvorak, but didn't find it to be a problem after learning the layout for a while. ls -la seemed awkward initially, but now seems to flow fine. Then the control sequences that originally had some location significance are just learnt as letters anyhow, and once you are touch typing, they don't matter much where they are physically on the board. Your brain does the logical remapping for you. Then it just comes down to the overall efficiency of the finger movements. In QWERTY hjkl is on the home row, but on the down-side, two of those letters share the same finger. So it is a bit each way.