For all my scientific spreadsheeting purposes since 1995 or so, I have used Origin http://www.originlab.com/ . One problem is that it's only for MS Windows and doesn't run entirely correctly under Wine.
Regarding in-built programming support, it started with a in-built interpreter for their own c-style scripting language "LabTalk" (it is still present in the Origin), but they now also implement a c-compiler of some sort (which I don't use much).
I have found that it is very much a case of "the correct tool for the job". Origin is absolutely brilliant for processing large datasets and the graphing is fast and intuitive, but it is terrible for doing business-style spreadsheeting (such as storing student grades etc), for which I use LibreOffice or MS Excel.
Having said that, I do think it is fantastic that they have released the code in the first place! It is a great project for physics undergrads to play with.
I agree. As an academic scientist, I use Excel for all "Business Type" requirements, such as storing student grades and doing basic calculations. Excel is terrible for scientific analysis, especially of large datasets. For rigorous analysis of massive datasets I either code my own routines in Fortran or I use Microcal Origin and its associated scripting languages. So Origin is great for analysis and data visualisation, but is not good for storing student grades etc. The lesson: select and use the tool appropriate to the task.
And if not tweaked and fiddled, the page response times are dismal: between 5 seconds and 12 seconds PER click. That is really, really frustrating if you are trying to set up a course using it. Bb is such a monolith. So I wrote my own system from scratch, which does only one thing (quizzes) and it does it well. As a lecturer, I gave up on Bb after wrestling with it for a week.
Goldfish swimming in a small bowl of water. Water is slowly removed using a pipette until only a few mL remain. After flopping around a bit, the fish lies still. A can of Mountain dew is poured into the bowl. Fish floats to the surface, but does not respond, ie still appears dead. Mountain dew is slowly removed using a pipette (I guess for effect). Fish lies still at bottom of bowl. Fresh water is added. Fish floats motionless in the water. The terminals of a 9v battery are touched to the surface of the water. Fish jerks to "life" and swims around a bit. Video ends almost immediately after.
I had LASIK surgery on both eyes in 1997. I had -6.5 (diopters ?) in both eyes (very short sighted) and came out of the operation with 40/20 vision (better than 20/20) in both eyes.
A microkeratome (razor) was used to create the "flap". They told me that it was this device that was the "weak" link in the entire procedure as it could get stuck or could cut slightly wrong, as mentioned in the article. As the surgery is done while awake (both patient and surgeon), I was relieved when told that the microkeratome had cut successfully. I was lucky and have no complaints: I had to use several eye drops for 3 months during which time my vision was *slightly* hazy (at night) but nothing after that.
One of my eyes has become slightly astigmatic (natural process) and I am considering another LASIK procedure as it is now several generations on from my previous surgery. Good to know that the microkeratome is possibly on the way out.
I am an atmospheric chemist and my field of research is the formation of secondary organic particles. These are formed every day from the chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides and volatile orgaic compounds, in the presence of sunlight. The particles are created from a molecular level, which results in billions of ultra fine particles per cubic meter. We usually use the units "number of particles per cubic centimeter", and the number of ultrafines is huge: up to 80 000! These often have carcinogens such as benzene or toluene ad/ab-sorbed and do cause many of the bad health effects mentioned in the article. We are exposed to these ALL THE TIME. Even inside, the concentrations get up to 15 000. It seems unlikely to me that the production of even a million nano-robots (which seems to be what ppl on/. are focusing on) are going to do much, simply based on their size, but will be much more damaging based on what they are designed to do.
Does this mean that the old adage (that driving across the Atlantic in an old beat-up VolksWagen kombi filled with CD's provides greater bandwidth than the internet does), is no longer true?
As an environmental modeller (atmospheric chemistry) I tend to use FORTRAN90 for almost all major number-crunching routines (both modelling and data analysis). As I have been using F90 for quite some time, I have a decent library of my own functions and routines (like most programmers I imagine), some of which emulate things that C does much better, like string manipulation. I have found that coding in standard FORTRAN seems to be more portable across platforms than C/C++ (MSWindows, IRIX, AIX) with very little debugging or re-validation, although this is *possibly* due to me being less familiar with the latter.
I use a scientific spreadsheet program (Microcal Origin) to visualise the data or to perform small-scale post-processing, as it has a very decent scripting language (LabTalk - which is very similar to C) and v7 also allows actual C. I am told by colleagues that MATLAB is also excellent for this purpose (post-processing of data).
I agree. Once you start to selectively delete a particular type of comment, you could face situations where:
- you may be pressured to delete other kinds of comments which you may not want to (through threats of whatever nature). ie: you've deleted such-and-such, why not this here?
- You may also find yourself accountable for comments getting through which you said you'd remove.
- you may find yourself in the nasty situation where you are accused of selectively deleting stuff for your own purposes (even if you haven't - just try to prove it).
Good idea, and this has already been done by an Australian ISP (and probably others). Can't remember who. They claim that all the information a person would want can be found in their "endorsed" sites. After all, how much info can one person look at and absorb?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet it's at least a couple of orders of magnitude higher than that!
For all my scientific spreadsheeting purposes since 1995 or so, I have used Origin http://www.originlab.com/ . One problem is that it's only for MS Windows and doesn't run entirely correctly under Wine.
Regarding in-built programming support, it started with a in-built interpreter for their own c-style scripting language "LabTalk" (it is still present in the Origin), but they now also implement a c-compiler of some sort (which I don't use much).
I have found that it is very much a case of "the correct tool for the job". Origin is absolutely brilliant for processing large datasets and the graphing is fast and intuitive, but it is terrible for doing business-style spreadsheeting (such as storing student grades etc), for which I use LibreOffice or MS Excel.
Spot on.
Having said that, I do think it is fantastic that they have released the code in the first place! It is a great project for physics undergrads to play with.
Nice to see that the code is commented and documented throughout.
OK, the code is neat and legible with good names for vars etc, but why are there absolutely no comments *anywhere*?
I agree. As an academic scientist, I use Excel for all "Business Type" requirements, such as storing student grades and doing basic calculations. Excel is terrible for scientific analysis, especially of large datasets. For rigorous analysis of massive datasets I either code my own routines in Fortran or I use Microcal Origin and its associated scripting languages. So Origin is great for analysis and data visualisation, but is not good for storing student grades etc. The lesson: select and use the tool appropriate to the task.
FORTRAN: You get your work done. Your foot remains fine and there is no multiple personality disorder.
And if not tweaked and fiddled, the page response times are dismal: between 5 seconds and 12 seconds PER click. That is really, really frustrating if you are trying to set up a course using it. Bb is such a monolith. So I wrote my own system from scratch, which does only one thing (quizzes) and it does it well. As a lecturer, I gave up on Bb after wrestling with it for a week.
How does it ever get off the ground?
Thrust on liftoff: 2.85 mN (765 klbf)
Goldfish swimming in a small bowl of water. Water is slowly removed using a pipette until only a few mL remain. After flopping around a bit, the fish lies still. A can of Mountain dew is poured into the bowl. Fish floats to the surface, but does not respond, ie still appears dead. Mountain dew is slowly removed using a pipette (I guess for effect). Fish lies still at bottom of bowl. Fresh water is added. Fish floats motionless in the water. The terminals of a 9v battery are touched to the surface of the water. Fish jerks to "life" and swims around a bit. Video ends almost immediately after.
The whole thing is done to really crappy "music".
I had LASIK surgery on both eyes in 1997. I had -6.5 (diopters ?) in both eyes (very short sighted) and came out of the operation with 40/20 vision (better than 20/20) in both eyes.
A microkeratome (razor) was used to create the "flap". They told me that it was this device that was the "weak" link in the entire procedure as it could get stuck or could cut slightly wrong, as mentioned in the article. As the surgery is done while awake (both patient and surgeon), I was relieved when told that the microkeratome had cut successfully. I was lucky and have no complaints: I had to use several eye drops for 3 months during which time my vision was *slightly* hazy (at night) but nothing after that.
One of my eyes has become slightly astigmatic (natural process) and I am considering another LASIK procedure as it is now several generations on from my previous surgery. Good to know that the microkeratome is possibly on the way out.
I am an atmospheric chemist and my field of research is the formation of secondary organic particles. These are formed every day from the chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides and volatile orgaic compounds, in the presence of sunlight. The particles are created from a molecular level, which results in billions of ultra fine particles per cubic meter. We usually use the units "number of particles per cubic centimeter", and the number of ultrafines is huge: up to 80 000! These often have carcinogens such as benzene or toluene ad/ab-sorbed and do cause many of the bad health effects mentioned in the article. We are exposed to these ALL THE TIME. Even inside, the concentrations get up to 15 000. It seems unlikely to me that the production of even a million nano-robots (which seems to be what ppl on /. are focusing on) are going to do much, simply based on their size, but will be much more damaging based on what they are designed to do.
I could go on blah blah blah, but I won't.
Imagine a beowulf cl...
Does this mean that the old adage (that driving across the Atlantic in an old beat-up VolksWagen kombi filled with CD's provides greater bandwidth than the internet does), is no longer true?
OFF-TOPIC
"Tons of people.."
Always interesting that people use a mass descripter to indicate a quantity of people.
1 Ton of people = 13 people (@ 75kg each)
As an environmental modeller (atmospheric chemistry) I tend to use FORTRAN90 for almost all major number-crunching routines (both modelling and data analysis). As I have been using F90 for quite some time, I have a decent library of my own functions and routines (like most programmers I imagine), some of which emulate things that C does much better, like string manipulation. I have found that coding in standard FORTRAN seems to be more portable across platforms than C/C++ (MSWindows, IRIX, AIX) with very little debugging or re-validation, although this is *possibly* due to me being less familiar with the latter.
I use a scientific spreadsheet program (Microcal Origin) to visualise the data or to perform small-scale post-processing, as it has a very decent scripting language (LabTalk - which is very similar to C) and v7 also allows actual C. I am told by colleagues that MATLAB is also excellent for this purpose (post-processing of data).
Hammurabi's Code of Laws
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.
I agree. Once you start to selectively delete a particular type of comment, you could face situations where:
- you may be pressured to delete other kinds of comments which you may not want to (through threats of whatever nature). ie: you've deleted such-and-such, why not this here?
- You may also find yourself accountable for comments getting through which you said you'd remove.
- you may find yourself in the nasty situation where you are accused of selectively deleting stuff for your own purposes (even if you haven't - just try to prove it).
Good idea, and this has already been done by an Australian ISP (and probably others). Can't remember who. They claim that all the information a person would want can be found in their "endorsed" sites. After all, how much info can one person look at and absorb?