Classes are definitely included in the language. Specifically they're included by strong typing and type-specialized functions. A type specialized function is a "class method" that dispatches on more than just the first (usually implicit) argument.
A good password for wifi, since it doesn't really need to be memorized, is one generated by something like keepass2: 15 characters long random letters numbers and punctuation:
DHDukBDL04Pt2ZT
for example (note that is not a password I use, just one I randomly generated).
Since no-one actually has to type this in more than once per device, it's really not a major problem that you can't memorize it.
Break ties on clearing orders arriving within the same 1ms timestamp granularity by simple random number generation (cryptographic, such as from/dev/urandom)
You might think this is true, but it's not. The first thing is that you give priority to earlier bids/asks which changes the incentive structure, second off, you have a single point of arrival (a timestamper network border machine), third off, you specify in the law that the clock of that point of arrival must be within 1/2 second of correct relative to some UTC standard, but that so long as it is, the time of arrival at that location according to that clock is definitive. Third off you specify the granularity of the timestamp as 1ms so that an easily attainable granularity is all that is required. This is after all a relativistic problem, there is no such thing as universal simultaneity of an action spread out around the globe (diameter of the earth is around 8000 miles so two points can easily vary in their perception of what's simultaneous by 43 ms or so)
Finally, the existence and openness of the call market changes the incentive. People can obtain liquidity by offering or asking, then canceling orders. It's not just "place orders, at the end clear them" but place orders, during the 5 second interval publish the bid/ask/quantity/spread and allow people to cancel and re-order so that the market price settles into an agreed stable level. Currently the HFT people are "eating" that bid/ask/spread/liquidity uncertainty, letting people signal their liquidity would give you all the liquidity advantage without any of the real resources (electricity, computer networks, people's time) being used up by HFT.
HFT is a loss to the world because there exists alternatives where essentially all the liquidity benefit is gotten and essentially none of the limited resources currently being used are in fact used.
The other option would be to make all markets call markets with 5 second rounds... https://www.investopedia.com/t... Everyone places their trade orders, those that match at the end of 5 seconds clear. The whole thing starts again...
This puts a 5 second granularity on all transactions, they clear at specific 5 second intervals. There is absolutely no real value created by greater than 5 second resolution. It's not like the world needs you to trade your stock within the next 3 seconds and 5 seconds from now is too late. Sorry.
Putting 1% transaction taxes is a lot, that would reduce liquidity quite a bit. But a call market structure doesn't reduce liquidity, and still eliminates the problem of people making money by sniping orders instead of providing a useful service.
It's pretty easy to run water through a gas chromatograph / mass spec and see if it has anything other than water in it, and how much of that stuff it has. A bit harder to figure out exactly what the pollutant is, but if you have a sample of the fracking water it's easy to look at the peaks the fracking water has and see if they appear in the drinking water even if you don't know the identity of the chemicals.
I think it's E-Mag = "Electricity and Magnetism", Re-Mag = "take E-Mag again", Three-mag = "take it a third time", Management = give up and take business courses.
Higher density at constant speed means higher signalling rates now vs before. We're already reading more off the disk per second at 7200 rpm than we were at 7200 rpm back when 200GB was big. Power requirements have taken a bigger position, and also at the higher densities tolerances need to be more exact and even more so at higher speeds. Going to lower spinning speeds allows you to get better results without tightening tolerances as much.
Newton's law of gravitation F = G * m * me/r^2 where m is your mass and me is the mass of the earth, r is the distance between you and the earth... well, this approximation only works if you're far from the earth and can treat the earth like a point. To do it properly when you're standing on the earth you actually have to integrate over the volume of the earth all the contributions from point-like sub-regions of the earth. But you can think of W = m g where g is the acceleration at the surface of the earth, and g depends on the mass of the earth and its distribution in space as a big sum of me_i/r_i^2 for i going from 1 to a really large number and each chunk of the earth has a different index i and a different distance r_i from you.
Look if the options are 24 minutes of random error or say 24 seconds of consistently biased error in all the devices in the hospital, I'll take the consistent bias any day. The point of all of this is so that a nurse walking into the room and seeing a blue lipped coma patient can determine things like how long has it been since the monitor whose leads fell off last recorded an accurate O2 saturation.
It may be almost 5.5 times the population density of California as a whole state, but consider the following, there are 8.8 Million people in NJ but compare with the actually populated portions of CA:
Los Angeles County: 9.8 M people, 2400 per square mile Orange County: 3 M people, 3800 per square mile San Francisco County: 0.8 M people, 17200 per square mile! Alameda County: 1.5 M people, 2000 per square mile. Santa Clara County: 1.8 M people, 1400 per square mile
Total population of those counties: > 16M people
and that doesn't even consider the portions of those counties that are parks etc (especially significant for Alameda I think)
So the majority of people in California live in a region that is more dense than NJ, and the total number of people involved is close to double the entire population of NJ.
See Andrew Gelman's article in American Scientist that debunks the statistics behind the "having more daughters" data at least. The largest credible effect on sex ratio is around 3% differences between boys and girls among those in famine conditions... and this effect is due primarily to nonsurvival of boy fetuses in famine conditions. The more daughters from beautiful parents effect has been overstated to be on the order of 15 to 30% differences, absolutely absurd if you even stop to think about it. The original studies do not have the statistical power to distinguish between random fluctuations and a real effect and therefore they overstate any effect that you find by the size of the standard error rather than the size of the effect..
I can certainly believe that beautiful women have more children on average though....
Scientists show that even scientists rarely really understand statistics...
It wouldn't be hard to make this double blind, you'd grind up chocolate and put it in capsules, and then grind up something inert, dye it brown, and put that in capsules. Don't tell the dispenser or the taker which group they're in. Of course the takers could open the capsules and try to guess which group they were in, but yeah, it's not impossible to do a good job double-blinding this, it's just not as interesting for the taker if they don't get to enjoy the chocolate.
Hardware random number generator using a couple of resistors, a potentiometer, and a zener diode. For additional points, use a comparator to amplify the noise. You can then talk about the physics of electron transfer across the diode junction and thermal agitation to describe why the noise occurs.
Another interesting project is a feedback controller that levitates a ball hanging below an electro-magnet. You use an LED and a phototransistor to set up a circuit that tries to keep the reflected light intensity constant, which makes the steel ball hang a certain small distance below the magnet.
Neither of these is too terribly expensive, and both have physics content, but neither is what I'd call "modern". Almost all of modern electronics involves digital integrated circuits.
Caltech (not Cal Tech) is a private university, though it receives significant public funding like any research university. However, I don't believe the development of these lectures was publicly funded.
The real reason to do this can NOT be to get better quality random numbers, since you'd be better off just hooking up a webcam with a piece of tape over the lens and hashing the resulting diode noise.
The best reason to do this is because you want to play mechanical engineer in your spare time.
As much as Lisp people want to say that Lisp lost because of the price of Lisp machines and Lisp compilers, it actually lost because it isn't a particularly practical language; that's why it hasn't had a resurgance while all these people move to haskell, erlang, clojure, et cetera.
Lisp is a beautiful language. So is Smalltalk. Neither one of them were ever ready to compete with practical languages.
The idea that LISP hasn't had a resurgence is wrong. Take a look at books published on common lisp recently. You'll see several from about 2004 to 2009. The SBCL project revived the CMUCL compiler in a cross platform and easier to improve way, which resulted in a large number of improvements. And places like common-lisp.net, clocc.sourceforge.net and cliki.net are the repositories for shared code in the free software community.
There are several webservers written in common lisp, this is not the first by a long shot, and in case you didn't know, the technology inside orbitz is written in common lisp.
The reason Common Lisp is not dominating the world is mainly that it takes a fair amount of sophistication to "get" the LISP way of doing things, and the huge availability of C based libraries.
The popularity of Python is essentially about having a LISP that has a more familiar syntax and interfaces well with C programs. Python isn't LISP but it's not very far off.
Let's assume you share this laptop with coworkers or some friends are coming over, or there's some other reason why people who might not have been exposed while you were sick will be exposed to virus particles protected by little blobs of snot on your laptop.
Take a cotton ball, soak it in isopropyl rubbing alcohol 70% concentration (commonly available at drugstore), squeeze some of the alcohol out so you aren't just dribbling it all over, and then rub down the keyboard, mousepad, screen, case etc with the cotton ball.
let it dry for a minute or two. Repeat. Wipe off the excess with a dry cotton ball.
You're good to go. Do the same to your phone and any other gadget you might share with a friend or coworker.
It also does a good job of getting grime off your keyboard.
Do robots make typos? Do they make the same typos each time, or different ones?
Based on the slashdot articles that get posted. I would say YES.
Actually it's pretty easy to add random convincing misspellings to text, you could use a database from something like usenet, and a spell checker to map misspelled words to their real counterparts, and then have a straightforward algorithm for replacing some set of words with misspellings, and you could tune that for consistency. It would be easier than many other aspects of faking papers.
Out of order execution is where special silicon on the processor tries to figure out the best way to run your code by reordering the instructions to use more of the processor features at once.
In order execution doesn't require all that special silicon and therefore frees up die space.
So one approach is to try to make your one processor as efficient as possible at executing instructions.
Another approach is to make your processor relatively simple, and get lots of them on the die so you can have many threads at once.
I personally prefer the multiple cores, because I think there is plenty of room for parallelism in software. HOwever this guy is basically claiming that intel is trying to get both, more cores and smarter cores. They're relying on Moore's law to shrink the size of their out of order execution logic so that they can get more smart cores on die.
In the absence of constant selective pressure to maintain antibiotic resistance, the resistance is lost in the population. There's some research on this topic that I read and which you can probably find by careful searching of PubMed.
Eliminating antibiotics in animal feed, preventing people from flushing meds down the drain, more targeted treatment and effective babysitting of the worst 5% or so of the chronic homeless (which cause most of the health care costs, see Gladwell's article in The New Yorker), and improving the hospital transmission problem (many people who contract resistant strains do so when they go to a hospital for some other reason) will go a LONG way towards reducing this problem without any new drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Classes are definitely included in the language. Specifically they're included by strong typing and type-specialized functions. A type specialized function is a "class method" that dispatches on more than just the first (usually implicit) argument.
Goto is implemented via the @goto macro.
A good password for wifi, since it doesn't really need to be memorized, is one generated by something like keepass2: 15 characters long random letters numbers and punctuation:
DHDukBDL04Pt2ZT
for example (note that is not a password I use, just one I randomly generated).
Since no-one actually has to type this in more than once per device, it's really not a major problem that you can't memorize it.
Break ties on clearing orders arriving within the same 1ms timestamp granularity by simple random number generation (cryptographic, such as from /dev/urandom)
You might think this is true, but it's not. The first thing is that you give priority to earlier bids/asks which changes the incentive structure, second off, you have a single point of arrival (a timestamper network border machine), third off, you specify in the law that the clock of that point of arrival must be within 1/2 second of correct relative to some UTC standard, but that so long as it is, the time of arrival at that location according to that clock is definitive. Third off you specify the granularity of the timestamp as 1ms so that an easily attainable granularity is all that is required. This is after all a relativistic problem, there is no such thing as universal simultaneity of an action spread out around the globe (diameter of the earth is around 8000 miles so two points can easily vary in their perception of what's simultaneous by 43 ms or so)
Finally, the existence and openness of the call market changes the incentive. People can obtain liquidity by offering or asking, then canceling orders. It's not just "place orders, at the end clear them" but place orders, during the 5 second interval publish the bid/ask/quantity/spread and allow people to cancel and re-order so that the market price settles into an agreed stable level. Currently the HFT people are "eating" that bid/ask/spread/liquidity uncertainty, letting people signal their liquidity would give you all the liquidity advantage without any of the real resources (electricity, computer networks, people's time) being used up by HFT.
HFT is a loss to the world because there exists alternatives where essentially all the liquidity benefit is gotten and essentially none of the limited resources currently being used are in fact used.
The other option would be to make all markets call markets with 5 second rounds... https://www.investopedia.com/t... Everyone places their trade orders, those that match at the end of 5 seconds clear. The whole thing starts again...
This puts a 5 second granularity on all transactions, they clear at specific 5 second intervals. There is absolutely no real value created by greater than 5 second resolution. It's not like the world needs you to trade your stock within the next 3 seconds and 5 seconds from now is too late. Sorry.
Putting 1% transaction taxes is a lot, that would reduce liquidity quite a bit. But a call market structure doesn't reduce liquidity, and still eliminates the problem of people making money by sniping orders instead of providing a useful service.
It's pretty easy to run water through a gas chromatograph / mass spec and see if it has anything other than water in it, and how much of that stuff it has. A bit harder to figure out exactly what the pollutant is, but if you have a sample of the fracking water it's easy to look at the peaks the fracking water has and see if they appear in the drinking water even if you don't know the identity of the chemicals.
I think it's E-Mag = "Electricity and Magnetism", Re-Mag = "take E-Mag again", Three-mag = "take it a third time", Management = give up and take business courses.
Higher density at constant speed means higher signalling rates now vs before. We're already reading more off the disk per second at 7200 rpm than we were at 7200 rpm back when 200GB was big. Power requirements have taken a bigger position, and also at the higher densities tolerances need to be more exact and even more so at higher speeds. Going to lower spinning speeds allows you to get better results without tightening tolerances as much.
Newton's law of gravitation F = G * m * me/r^2 where m is your mass and me is the mass of the earth, r is the distance between you and the earth... well, this approximation only works if you're far from the earth and can treat the earth like a point. To do it properly when you're standing on the earth you actually have to integrate over the volume of the earth all the contributions from point-like sub-regions of the earth. But you can think of W = m g where g is the acceleration at the surface of the earth, and g depends on the mass of the earth and its distribution in space as a big sum of me_i/r_i^2 for i going from 1 to a really large number and each chunk of the earth has a different index i and a different distance r_i from you.
Look if the options are 24 minutes of random error or say 24 seconds of consistently biased error in all the devices in the hospital, I'll take the consistent bias any day. The point of all of this is so that a nurse walking into the room and seeing a blue lipped coma patient can determine things like how long has it been since the monitor whose leads fell off last recorded an accurate O2 saturation.
find . -newer last_backup_timestamp | cpio -o snapshot$(date +%Y%m%d) && touch last_backup_timestamp
It may be almost 5.5 times the population density of California as a whole state, but consider the following, there are 8.8 Million people in NJ but compare with the actually populated portions of CA:
Los Angeles County: 9.8 M people, 2400 per square mile
Orange County: 3 M people, 3800 per square mile
San Francisco County: 0.8 M people, 17200 per square mile!
Alameda County: 1.5 M people, 2000 per square mile.
Santa Clara County: 1.8 M people, 1400 per square mile
Total population of those counties: > 16M people
and that doesn't even consider the portions of those counties that are parks etc (especially significant for Alameda I think)
So the majority of people in California live in a region that is more dense than NJ, and the total number of people involved is close to double the entire population of NJ.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_GCTPH1.US05PR&prodType=table
See Andrew Gelman's article in American Scientist that debunks the statistics behind the "having more daughters" data at least. The largest credible effect on sex ratio is around 3% differences between boys and girls among those in famine conditions... and this effect is due primarily to nonsurvival of boy fetuses in famine conditions. The more daughters from beautiful parents effect has been overstated to be on the order of 15 to 30% differences, absolutely absurd if you even stop to think about it. The original studies do not have the statistical power to distinguish between random fluctuations and a real effect and therefore they overstate any effect that you find by the size of the standard error rather than the size of the effect..
I can certainly believe that beautiful women have more children on average though....
Scientists show that even scientists rarely really understand statistics...
It wouldn't be hard to make this double blind, you'd grind up chocolate and put it in capsules, and then grind up something inert, dye it brown, and put that in capsules. Don't tell the dispenser or the taker which group they're in. Of course the takers could open the capsules and try to guess which group they were in, but yeah, it's not impossible to do a good job double-blinding this, it's just not as interesting for the taker if they don't get to enjoy the chocolate.
Hardware random number generator using a couple of resistors, a potentiometer, and a zener diode. For additional points, use a comparator to amplify the noise. You can then talk about the physics of electron transfer across the diode junction and thermal agitation to describe why the noise occurs.
Another interesting project is a feedback controller that levitates a ball hanging below an electro-magnet. You use an LED and a phototransistor to set up a circuit that tries to keep the reflected light intensity constant, which makes the steel ball hang a certain small distance below the magnet.
Neither of these is too terribly expensive, and both have physics content, but neither is what I'd call "modern". Almost all of modern electronics involves digital integrated circuits.
Caltech (not Cal Tech) is a private university, though it receives significant public funding like any research university. However, I don't believe the development of these lectures was publicly funded.
Yes, this.
The real reason to do this can NOT be to get better quality random numbers, since you'd be better off just hooking up a webcam with a piece of tape over the lens and hashing the resulting diode noise.
The best reason to do this is because you want to play mechanical engineer in your spare time.
The idea that LISP hasn't had a resurgence is wrong. Take a look at books published on common lisp recently. You'll see several from about 2004 to 2009. The SBCL project revived the CMUCL compiler in a cross platform and easier to improve way, which resulted in a large number of improvements. And places like common-lisp.net, clocc.sourceforge.net and cliki.net are the repositories for shared code in the free software community.
There are several webservers written in common lisp, this is not the first by a long shot, and in case you didn't know, the technology inside orbitz is written in common lisp.
The reason Common Lisp is not dominating the world is mainly that it takes a fair amount of sophistication to "get" the LISP way of doing things, and the huge availability of C based libraries.
The popularity of Python is essentially about having a LISP that has a more familiar syntax and interfaces well with C programs. Python isn't LISP but it's not very far off.
Let's assume you share this laptop with coworkers or some friends are coming over, or there's some other reason why people who might not have been exposed while you were sick will be exposed to virus particles protected by little blobs of snot on your laptop.
Take a cotton ball, soak it in isopropyl rubbing alcohol 70% concentration (commonly available at drugstore), squeeze some of the alcohol out so you aren't just dribbling it all over, and then rub down the keyboard, mousepad, screen, case etc with the cotton ball.
let it dry for a minute or two. Repeat.
Wipe off the excess with a dry cotton ball.
You're good to go. Do the same to your phone and any other gadget you might share with a friend or coworker.
It also does a good job of getting grime off your keyboard.
I suggest using between $10 and $15 worth of disk and then never worrying again about it.
Do robots make typos? Do they make the same typos each time, or different ones?
Based on the slashdot articles that get posted. I would say YES.
Actually it's pretty easy to add random convincing misspellings to text, you could use a database from something like usenet, and a spell checker to map misspelled words to their real counterparts, and then have a straightforward algorithm for replacing some set of words with misspellings, and you could tune that for consistency. It would be easier than many other aspects of faking papers.
Out of order execution is where special silicon on the processor tries to figure out the best way to run your code by reordering the instructions to use more of the processor features at once.
In order execution doesn't require all that special silicon and therefore frees up die space.
So one approach is to try to make your one processor as efficient as possible at executing instructions.
Another approach is to make your processor relatively simple, and get lots of them on the die so you can have many threads at once.
I personally prefer the multiple cores, because I think there is plenty of room for parallelism in software. HOwever this guy is basically claiming that intel is trying to get both, more cores and smarter cores. They're relying on Moore's law to shrink the size of their out of order execution logic so that they can get more smart cores on die.
In the absence of constant selective pressure to maintain antibiotic resistance, the resistance is lost in the population. There's some research on this topic that I read and which you can probably find by careful searching of PubMed.
Eliminating antibiotics in animal feed, preventing people from flushing meds down the drain, more targeted treatment and effective babysitting of the worst 5% or so of the chronic homeless (which cause most of the health care costs, see Gladwell's article in The New Yorker), and improving the hospital transmission problem (many people who contract resistant strains do so when they go to a hospital for some other reason) will go a LONG way towards reducing this problem without any new drugs.
Get yourself a Scheme interpreter or compiler and watch These Online Lectures from MIT's most famous computer science class
I might suggest buying a copy of the textbook as well. you can definitely get it used.
To give some more follow up information, I noticed that
This site from TU-muenchen has relatively recent HINT benchmark graphs for Opteron and P4 and Xeon processors.