But Pluto is still a planet. It's not an asteroid or a comet and it orbits the sun. Thus it's a planet.
So anything we discover out there that's not an asteroid or a comet becomes a planet? How about the MESSENGER spacecraft? Oh, you meant to exclude artificial objects? Ok, how about 2004 XR190? Oh, you meant to exclude trans-Neptunian objects? Ok, how about interstellar dust? Hmm, defining the word "planet" isn't that simple after all.
It's silly to define a word like "planet" in terms of what it's not. There will always be new things we discover out there that we don't want to call "planets" and so we'll have to keep updating the definition. Instead, the IAU made an effort to define what a planet is.
If we don't use the terms defined by specialists in the field, what should we use? Should we still be diagnosing women with female hysteria?
Forth by blocking evil use you are also blocking good use. Example all this extra features could be used to calculate the safest way to deploy food to 3rd world countries, increasing distribution and reducing risk to troops.
He was sure that if men traversed the Van Allen Belts, they would become poisoned by radioactivity and die.
Do you have a reference for this? I find it hard to believe he so radically overestimated the damage due to the radiation his own devices had measured.
Indeed. Otherwise, Intel would have risen for the same reason, and it hasn't. The market apparently still thinks the price war is detrimental to both sides.
I'm not saying that compilers are really great. Just that it's infeasible to do a good job optimizing a large application manually, and that the quality of code you could produce with a reasonable (ie. commercially competitive) amount of manpower would be inferior to that produced by a compiler.
In response to your aside, I am a compiler writer, and I sometimes thing the same thing about people who write applications.:-)
Well, generally you'll have faster code if you code it in assembly.
No, generally you'll have slower code. In a few specific, well-chosen places, you may get faster code. If you had unlimited time, patience, and performance tuning expertise, then you could beat the compiler on a large application, but how realistic is that?
Coding large apps in assembly is usually way beyond the point of diminishing returns in terms of performance.
So we "still can get good performance" from C? The implication is that C will somehow become overcome by some unnamed high-elvel language soon.
When I see that we "still can get good performance", all that means to me is that we used to get good performance, and we continue to do so today. If I say "cars are still a convenient way to travel", I'm not implying that something else is about to overtake them. When I say "my children are still my two favourite people" that doesn't mean some new people are right around the corner.
Stuff isn't held in orbit by rockets or strings. It's held there by the centrifugal force you get from your orbital speed. If you only decrease your orbital kinetic energy by 1%, then you'll still have 99% of the centrifugal force you started with, and you'll only decrease your orbital radius (actually the semi-major axis) by 1%.
The baseball analogy breaks down partly because (I presume) you're imagining that the car travels in a straight line. If, instead, it's hurtling in a circle around a tree at 100MPH, I think you'd find it impossible to hit that tree with a baseball unless you're Nolan Ryan.
That's the single lamest argument I've ever heard. The Linux kernel could be used for evil, and we all know the Linux kernel itself is not evil, THEREFORE IT'S OK TO DESIGN MORE EFFECTIVE LAND MINES.
Slashdot Mirror
So anything we discover out there that's not an asteroid or a comet becomes a planet? How about the MESSENGER spacecraft? Oh, you meant to exclude artificial objects? Ok, how about 2004 XR190? Oh, you meant to exclude trans-Neptunian objects? Ok, how about interstellar dust? Hmm, defining the word "planet" isn't that simple after all.
It's silly to define a word like "planet" in terms of what it's not. There will always be new things we discover out there that we don't want to call "planets" and so we'll have to keep updating the definition. Instead, the IAU made an effort to define what a planet is.
If we don't use the terms defined by specialists in the field, what should we use? Should we still be diagnosing women with female hysteria?
Better than what? "Troll"?
Too bad Display Postscript didn't really seem to go anywhere. Did it evolve into anything?
Any mods want to consider countering the Troll mod?
Indeed. Otherwise, Intel would have risen for the same reason, and it hasn't. The market apparently still thinks the price war is detrimental to both sides.
That's $2000/second.
How would you know whether you were getting a discount?
Ok, that is interesting. Games are a domain I'm not familiar with. Thanks.
I'm not saying that compilers are really great. Just that it's infeasible to do a good job optimizing a large application manually, and that the quality of code you could produce with a reasonable (ie. commercially competitive) amount of manpower would be inferior to that produced by a compiler.
In response to your aside, I am a compiler writer, and I sometimes thing the same thing about people who write applications. :-)
I'm not disputing the implication that change is possible; I'm disputing the implication that change is likely.
Coding large apps in assembly is usually way beyond the point of diminishing returns in terms of performance.
He's talking about extremely large masses (eg. a bowling ball with the mass of Jupiter) in which case he's actually right.
The baseball analogy breaks down partly because (I presume) you're imagining that the car travels in a straight line. If, instead, it's hurtling in a circle around a tree at 100MPH, I think you'd find it impossible to hit that tree with a baseball unless you're Nolan Ryan.
Sorry if this is a dumb question. I'm often mystified by accounting.
You have it completely backward. Tabs are meant to make things line up. That is their purpose in life.
Yes. We had to do this for my dog once. Vile indeed.
Well said.
That's the single lamest argument I've ever heard. The Linux kernel could be used for evil, and we all know the Linux kernel itself is not evil, THEREFORE IT'S OK TO DESIGN MORE EFFECTIVE LAND MINES.