... as if I was implying that Intel has done something wrong.
Those of us who live near the beast already understand everything that Intel does wrong - in terms of how it subjects its manufacturing employees to time theft, to how it pollutes local environments. Working at Intel is considered a last resort around here. The benefits to any "encouragement" they give to minorities in STEM will first go to any other company in the area which generally provide better working conditions. They're known for doing the minimal amount required by law. What else do you expect? It's a big company with many rentiers to support.
Is "totally committed" the same as "100% committed" in business speak? I think they both mean "We'll do whatever it takes to keep the most money rolling in." But that's probably cynical, as the operators of corporations have nothing but the kindest of motives towards their customers in their generous hearts.
Because experience has shown (a) it's not been used much when available because people aren't used to using it and (b) people don't use it because it makes the code fragile. Why? Because changes in the block structure of the code through which the break travels can potentially break the break. This becomes worse the higher the number of the break becomes. And, more to the point, these jumpings back to the wrong level of code tend to introduce subtle errors in already deeply-nested code which is hard enough to debug. It's been tried. It's a bad idea as a general construct.
(defun func ()
(with-resource1 (x (acquire-resource1))
(with-resource2 (y (acquire-resource2))
(with-resource3 (z (acquire-resource3));;; Do stuff with the resources ))))
with the "with-" macros handling any local bindings and/or cleanup for the resource. It's a well-known pattern.
Geddy Lee Should stick to his main skills of playing bass (very skillfully, BTW) and singing (if you can stand his voice), as his thoughts on forestry seem to be just as good as his political ones. In many cases, cutting down tall trees is the right thing to do for a healthier ecosystem. But what do I know, I just happen to live in one of major wood producing states in the country.
I worry about people who get their philosophical ideals from rock stars. But not too much, they're usually harmless.
Because software engineering can be very frustrating. For example, when you can fix a bug that's taken you weeks to diagnose with a one-character fix. Some people feel a sense of relief and accomplishment at this. Some people get frustrated. His wife is probably one of the latter. I tend to vacillate between the two feelings.
Toss on top of it things like Agilistas fighting process traditionalists, UX "designers" butting in and design worse interfaces than you can come up with, brogrammers, hipsters, and other denizens of the modern programming world invading the space and I could see how anyone, let alone women, would avoid it like the plague.
Don't put the fscking radio, XM satellite stuff, BlueTooth toys and other garbage on the same CAN as the ECM/TCM.But then how would I get my downloadable security software upgrades into the components on different CANs without duplicating my download mechanism across both CANs? That might cost me as much as a couple dollars per car - the horror! (I'm not being that sarcastic here about the cost - in the volumes these guys deal in, a nickle cost savings can translate to millions of dollars on the company's bottom line). Whether it would be worth the cost to the company to replicate software upgrade paths in the face of the inevitable security risks will eventually be left to the free market unless short-circuited by legislation like that proposed. I would put in snarky comment about free market, blah, blah, blah, but I figure most folks can infer it already, as well as most conservative rejoinders. So, unless it's some new or important valuation function change to consider or particularly non-obvious philosophical rejoinder, please spare us all - we've heard them before and your writing style isn't that special.
The World is now infested with those I see as social justice warriors and organized causes censoring and controlling vast swaths of information to make sure it maintains their particular view on the world.
FTFY. The fact that the world has moved on, leaving your cherished worldview behind, doesn't mean it's getting worse for everyone.
Java has facilities that could be used for tail recursion optimization, but Java language implementations aren't required (maybe aren't allowed, due to the language specification) to use it. It's available, but not dependable.
It's a fucking technology, not a moral decision. You use each when it's appropriate.
Recursion is a tool best used when (a) the design is made more clear by its use and (b) you can afford the stack overflow and/or issues in languages without proper tail call support. For instance, tree search can often be coded much more understandably and with fewer errors with a recursive solution. The same with factorial and other functions defined recursively. Others, not so much - want to dick about with an array? Use an iterative construct, preferably a high-level one, like map/foreach/etc.
I've not actually used recursion in a long time, mainly because most language designers are too fucking lazy these days to put proper tail recursion into their language designs, the higher level functional iteration constructs are becoming available in the languages I'm using, and data's becoming too big.
Metallic/garlic taste would tend to indicate some sort of Sulphur/Selenium compounds in whatever you were tasting. I could see that coming from volcanic ash.
Huh? Grow a thicker skin? Although I agree in general that people have no right not to be offended, If someone and their friends send repeated threats to me saying that they were going to kill me (like Sarkeesian got), it appears to go past the "grow a thicker skin" stage. Just sayin'. If you can't say you disagree with someone without making threats, you're probably too fucking stupid or emotionally out of control to be online anyway.
No, but many of the jobs you might have had were automated out of existence. Meaning that the ratio of jobs to applicants is shrinking because automation now creates fewer jobs than they replace. Either way, you'll be out of work eventually.
The idea has been floated in the US before. It would probably fail at the Supreme Court level as freedom of speech includes the right to speak anonymously.
And the network providers (at least until the FCC regulates) have a right, as private carriers, to demand your real name before you're let on their network. Once the FCC gets involved, you still might need to. Talking on the internet is not standing in the street corner talking and could very well be seen by this or a future SC as an activity that, like radio broadcasting, could require identification and even a license. Certainly, if asshats don't start acting better on the interwebs, I could see this happening soon.
It's relatively nice as far as VMs go, better designed than the JVM. This was a piece of good engineering work from Microsoft and I'm glad they're opening it. Welcome to the new world, MS guys. You don't seem to be acting quite so black and white anymore. Good on you.
And to the naysayers... well, it's a start. Be kind.
This. The record companies are in the VC business - they make a lot of small bets on artists and hope for the 100x payoff, since they really don't know which of the flakes they've signed is going to hit big. That being said, nowadays it's really a pretty low-margin business for everyone involved. I sure as hell wouldn't invest in a record label.
I also wouldn't sign a deal other than a 360 with a label these days, because with a simple record deal you get close to nada and end up owing the company in most cases. With a 360, at least you get some tour support, marketing support, connections to other label artists, etc., even if you do get raped in the end - plus that tour/marketing support can get you a larger tour if you're good enough, which ultimately is the best shot you've got to break out. The record companies are good at one thing - getting your face and music before the public. Maximize their use for this because for you, financially, as an artist, that's about all you're going to get from them.
You do know that layoffs lead to your most experienced productive staff leaving, because it's easy for them to get employment elsewhere right?
Why yes. That's why IBM can do this, I'd be surprised if they had any "experienced productive" staff left.
Actually, I got great support from the iSeries guys about a dozen years ago when I was working on them for an employer, but I'm sure that's changed since then. And, also, since then, I haven't seen IBM gear on another job.
Maybe if Congress weren't busy sucking Zuck and Gates and Larry's dicks, they'd actually call hearings as to why CS grads were earning less if there were this huge shortage of programmers. Either (a) our economic models are somehow incredibly wrong, (b) we're teaching CS students absolutely nothing useful, or (c) it was a ruse to lower labor costs to increase profits all along.
Other than that, I'll just say I have a suspicion as to which of those three causes is most pertinent.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it about diversity, or just having more engineers in the job market so that wages can be kept low?
Intel (and other large companies) says: Why argue when you can have both?
Do people not know how to hire the best candidate anymore?
Anymore? Did they ever?
... as if I was implying that Intel has done something wrong.
Those of us who live near the beast already understand everything that Intel does wrong - in terms of how it subjects its manufacturing employees to time theft, to how it pollutes local environments. Working at Intel is considered a last resort around here. The benefits to any "encouragement" they give to minorities in STEM will first go to any other company in the area which generally provide better working conditions. They're known for doing the minimal amount required by law. What else do you expect? It's a big company with many rentiers to support.
Is "totally committed" the same as "100% committed" in business speak? I think they both mean "We'll do whatever it takes to keep the most money rolling in." But that's probably cynical, as the operators of corporations have nothing but the kindest of motives towards their customers in their generous hearts.
Because experience has shown (a) it's not been used much when available because people aren't used to using it and (b) people don't use it because it makes the code fragile. Why? Because changes in the block structure of the code through which the break travels can potentially break the break. This becomes worse the higher the number of the break becomes. And, more to the point, these jumpings back to the wrong level of code tend to introduce subtle errors in already deeply-nested code which is hard enough to debug. It's been tried. It's a bad idea as a general construct.
Well, to me, this is even more clear:
(defun func ()
(with-resource1 (x (acquire-resource1))
(with-resource2 (y (acquire-resource2))
(with-resource3 (z (acquire-resource3))
))))
with the "with-" macros handling any local bindings and/or cleanup for the resource. It's a well-known pattern.
A real man, I see. Not that I disagree, being a real man myself!
to prove that a program is type-safe.
Which usually is, as it has almost always been, the least of one's worries.
Geddy Lee Should stick to his main skills of playing bass (very skillfully, BTW) and singing (if you can stand his voice), as his thoughts on forestry seem to be just as good as his political ones. In many cases, cutting down tall trees is the right thing to do for a healthier ecosystem. But what do I know, I just happen to live in one of major wood producing states in the country.
I worry about people who get their philosophical ideals from rock stars. But not too much, they're usually harmless.
Because software engineering can be very frustrating. For example, when you can fix a bug that's taken you weeks to diagnose with a one-character fix. Some people feel a sense of relief and accomplishment at this. Some people get frustrated. His wife is probably one of the latter. I tend to vacillate between the two feelings.
Toss on top of it things like Agilistas fighting process traditionalists, UX "designers" butting in and design worse interfaces than you can come up with, brogrammers, hipsters, and other denizens of the modern programming world invading the space and I could see how anyone, let alone women, would avoid it like the plague.
Don't put the fscking radio, XM satellite stuff, BlueTooth toys and other garbage on the same CAN as the ECM/TCM.But then how would I get my downloadable security software upgrades into the components on different CANs without duplicating my download mechanism across both CANs? That might cost me as much as a couple dollars per car - the horror! (I'm not being that sarcastic here about the cost - in the volumes these guys deal in, a nickle cost savings can translate to millions of dollars on the company's bottom line). Whether it would be worth the cost to the company to replicate software upgrade paths in the face of the inevitable security risks will eventually be left to the free market unless short-circuited by legislation like that proposed. I would put in snarky comment about free market, blah, blah, blah, but I figure most folks can infer it already, as well as most conservative rejoinders. So, unless it's some new or important valuation function change to consider or particularly non-obvious philosophical rejoinder, please spare us all - we've heard them before and your writing style isn't that special.
The World is now infested with those I see as social justice warriors and organized causes censoring and controlling vast swaths of information to make sure it maintains their particular view on the world.
FTFY. The fact that the world has moved on, leaving your cherished worldview behind, doesn't mean it's getting worse for everyone.
Java has facilities that could be used for tail recursion optimization, but Java language implementations aren't required (maybe aren't allowed, due to the language specification) to use it. It's available, but not dependable.
It's a fucking technology, not a moral decision. You use each when it's appropriate.
Recursion is a tool best used when (a) the design is made more clear by its use and (b) you can afford the stack overflow and/or issues in languages without proper tail call support. For instance, tree search can often be coded much more understandably and with fewer errors with a recursive solution. The same with factorial and other functions defined recursively. Others, not so much - want to dick about with an array? Use an iterative construct, preferably a high-level one, like map/foreach/etc.
I've not actually used recursion in a long time, mainly because most language designers are too fucking lazy these days to put proper tail recursion into their language designs, the higher level functional iteration constructs are becoming available in the languages I'm using, and data's becoming too big.
Why aren't you just configuring your own VM image and starting with that?
Metallic/garlic taste would tend to indicate some sort of Sulphur/Selenium compounds in whatever you were tasting. I could see that coming from volcanic ash.
Huh? Grow a thicker skin? Although I agree in general that people have no right not to be offended, If someone and their friends send repeated threats to me saying that they were going to kill me (like Sarkeesian got), it appears to go past the "grow a thicker skin" stage. Just sayin'. If you can't say you disagree with someone without making threats, you're probably too fucking stupid or emotionally out of control to be online anyway.
No, but many of the jobs you might have had were automated out of existence. Meaning that the ratio of jobs to applicants is shrinking because automation now creates fewer jobs than they replace. Either way, you'll be out of work eventually.
The idea has been floated in the US before. It would probably fail at the Supreme Court level as freedom of speech includes the right to speak anonymously.
And the network providers (at least until the FCC regulates) have a right, as private carriers, to demand your real name before you're let on their network. Once the FCC gets involved, you still might need to. Talking on the internet is not standing in the street corner talking and could very well be seen by this or a future SC as an activity that, like radio broadcasting, could require identification and even a license. Certainly, if asshats don't start acting better on the interwebs, I could see this happening soon.
It's relatively nice as far as VMs go, better designed than the JVM. This was a piece of good engineering work from Microsoft and I'm glad they're opening it. Welcome to the new world, MS guys. You don't seem to be acting quite so black and white anymore. Good on you.
And to the naysayers... well, it's a start. Be kind.
This. The record companies are in the VC business - they make a lot of small bets on artists and hope for the 100x payoff, since they really don't know which of the flakes they've signed is going to hit big. That being said, nowadays it's really a pretty low-margin business for everyone involved. I sure as hell wouldn't invest in a record label.
I also wouldn't sign a deal other than a 360 with a label these days, because with a simple record deal you get close to nada and end up owing the company in most cases. With a 360, at least you get some tour support, marketing support, connections to other label artists, etc., even if you do get raped in the end - plus that tour/marketing support can get you a larger tour if you're good enough, which ultimately is the best shot you've got to break out. The record companies are good at one thing - getting your face and music before the public. Maximize their use for this because for you, financially, as an artist, that's about all you're going to get from them.
You do know that layoffs lead to your most experienced productive staff leaving, because it's easy for them to get employment elsewhere right?
Why yes. That's why IBM can do this, I'd be surprised if they had any "experienced productive" staff left.
Actually, I got great support from the iSeries guys about a dozen years ago when I was working on them for an employer, but I'm sure that's changed since then. And, also, since then, I haven't seen IBM gear on another job.
what do you have to do to get the strip club treatment?
At least $150K/year. Get ordering!
Maybe if Congress weren't busy sucking Zuck and Gates and Larry's dicks, they'd actually call hearings as to why CS grads were earning less if there were this huge shortage of programmers. Either (a) our economic models are somehow incredibly wrong, (b) we're teaching CS students absolutely nothing useful, or (c) it was a ruse to lower labor costs to increase profits all along.
Other than that, I'll just say I have a suspicion as to which of those three causes is most pertinent.
That explains it...