but my body tends to want a day longer than 24 hours,
You and everybody else. Welcome to the human race, where the default normal physiology is perfectly adapted to a 25 hour day. Actually something like 24h 50-odd minutes, I think. Why 25 hours and not what actually exists? Nobody knows, but there are lots of theories (all untestable and unprovable).
We were playing that map just last Thursday! Man, we need to get these guys some Teamspeak headsets and they can join our regular Spearhead deathmatch sessions.
EE is without a doubt one of the most fun RTS games I've ever played. Start off in the prehistoric era and finish up in postmodern nanotechnological warfare. The fact that the maps can be truly gigantic makes for some neat changes in strategy (even modern aircraft need refueling, etc).
Re:I like Baxter, but...
on
Coalescent
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
having the entire human race obsessed with waging war on the Xeelee because we can't stand being second best?
Most of the dupes are Taco's. For him to take your suggestions would require Taco to actually read his own website... which he's never shown any evidence of doing.
His behavior didn't exactly lessen the impression either, looked like he was nobility or something, high above us mere mortals.
Heheheheh. Much the way programmers on/. look at their users. Much the way the managers look at the programmers. Much the way CS majors look at accounting majors.
Easy to see why you're a troll. I never recommended Java. I never said any of the things you attribute to me. I said that I was surprised that you still think C is required for good performance (having obtained good neural net performance with not-C in the past). That's all. That leaves a lot of other languages besides C and Java.
I sense a constant argument between yourself and your coworkers over the use if Java. If you need to have that argument here on slashdot, fine, but don't put words in my mouth or place me in positions where I have claimed no place.
All good compilers use at least one intermediate language.
You're thinking the same thing I thought. As a compiler geek, when I hear "intermediate language," I think of exactly this same thing, a temporary representation of the code for checking and/or optimization purposes.
The more I thought about the (poorly-written) article, the more I think that perhaps they mean a new assembly language. Which from a viewpoint of the compiler, especially one like GCC, is not an intermediate language, but the final product. (Some compilers compile directly to machine code, essentially being both the compiler and the assembler, but those are often not portable/retargetable.
I posted about this earlier, but haven't seen a followup yet: which of these two is being proposed? Dunno yet.
The low-level software would have some support for existing computer languages. But users would gain maximum benefit when they generated the low-level code based on the new technical computing language Sun has asked IBM and Cray to help define.
Huh?
So, how many languages are being proposed here? A new "low-level" one, plus a higher-level "technical computing language" designed to make the most of the lower-level one? Just what's so special about this new low-level language that requires a specific new language to get the "maximum benefit" out of it? I don't have to write in Java to be able to compile to the JVM bytecode. For that matter, I could write in Java and compile to some other assembly language.
New back-ends ("low-level languages," if I understand the article) are added to GCC all the time. We never needed to add a whole 'nother front-end just for them.
I suspect that the real situation is less weird, and the journalist got confused... or heck, who knows, maybe they're proposing half a dozen new languages. It's Sun, after all.
Maybe now I won't have to write my neural network in C for performance:-)
Odd. I wouldn't have thought you'd need to do that these days anyway.
Well then don't quote the entire message. Trim old stuff. Heck, if it's a just a two-line summary response that you're writing, don't quote anything. It's not like the old mail still isn't sitting around from two hours before.:-)
It simply requires people to stop that horribly moronic "top-posting" style of response.
If I want to respond piecemeal to an email, the only sane way to do it is to write my responses in between your paragraphs.
As responses accumulate, back and forth, other readers see an easy-to-read flow of conversation. And "other readers" will include myself, reading old mail weeks/months/years after the fact.
Trying to respond point-by-point while keeping all of your text preceeding the other person's text is hopeless. And fucking stupid to boot. English reads down the page, you top-posting mouth-breathing idiots, not "scroll all the way to the bottom, scroll up a bit, read the paragraph downwards, scroll upwards over it, read the response downwards until you get to the previous text, scroll back upwards again, lather, rinse, repeat, until eventually you get to the top." I call for the painful tortuous death of whichever "human interface engineer" thought this would ever be a good idea and made it the default mode of GUI mailers.
...was the scene in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, where Santa Claus distributes weapons for Christmas presents, to help the war of resistance being led by the kids^Wfreedom fighters^W^Wterrorists.
Probably the most annoying part was the blatantly racist scenes of part of The Last Battle. (There's an entire Narnian race called "Darkies"? What the fuck?)
...because something even more invasive would be put in its place. The Devil that ya know, and all that.
We don't even need to pass new laws to restrict the use of the SSN, because we already have them. It's not supposed to be used for any identification purpose other than actual Social Security.
Once again, the problem is not lack of laws. It's lack of enforcement. (Look at Bush and Kenny Boy, and tell me if you're surprised.)
There are a tonne of characters in the book who are offered the ring, and yet refuse it. Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel; Frodo offers it to all of them, and they all refuse.
But the book shows all of them being tempted by it, and refusing. The book only shows Faramir sitting around with Frodo and Sam, saying no thanks, not interested.
I tend to think of Faramir more as a foil to Boromir; Faramir is what Boromir should have been.
I don't think we disagree on anything there. What's more, I think Faramir is a model of what Denetheor should have been; of course, if that had been the case, Book Five would have been a lot shorter.:-)
Because I can't get Win2k or WinXP to run Dungeon Master, one of the most stress-reducing games I've ever played. (Also, one of the few games where you're encouraged to be bad, but doesn't draw inane comments from the moral majority. *grin* But that's beside the point.)
Not many work environments where beating the living crap out of your employees is an advised strategy...
Indeed. The author of the review could learn a lot from your attitude.
For example, he didn't like Jackson and Company's decision on making Faramir a jackass initially. I vsn sympathize with that, I didn't either. Neither did the actor. And then they explained to him (and to the viewers of the documentary DVDs) the problem with Faramir in the book.
One of the many reasons Faramir is so kick-ass in my mind -- as well as being Tolkien's favorite character -- is because, when told about the presence of the Ring in his patrol territory, he answers, "I would not pick this thing up even if it lay by the side of the road." Think about that for a moment.
See, while it's a great moment of personal integrity, it completely undermines the horrible eroding strength of the Ring. What, here's someone who's not tempted at all by the most powerful artifact in the Third Age? Fuck the Hobbits, then -- give it to this dude, he can stroll into Mordor and toss it into the fire without a moment of doubt. Instead of failing, as Frodo technically does.
If you think that hordes of moviegoers wouldn't be talking about this "massive plot hole" as they left the theatre, think again.
So, they decided to make Faramir as vulnerable as everyone else to the lure of power. And instead of a static Faramir as in the book, where he's strong and good and self-disciplined when we meet him, and in the end is still strong and good and self-disciplined (and married), here we get to see Faramir overcome the temptation of the Ring, and progress to being more self-disciplined than he started out. I think Tolkien would count that as a victory.
Personally, I don't consider either version of Faramir superior to the other. The incredibly powerful "I do not love the sword for its brightness" passage can still be read without the movie "tainting" it or anything like that.
On a side note, it's moving to browse through the weblog of someone who has died recently.
I find it interesting in general to track -- in retrospect -- major events in blogs and email. For example, my own email archives have a conversation between me and another person, discussing how we're going to go skydiving the next day.
The next email is dated about three weeks later, "here's some other event we missed while I was in the hospital."
The 2-minute-bundle is more or less what I did. But it was some years ago, when I was young and foolish, and hadn't ever changed a tire on my own before. So it took a while.
One extra gallon per 300 needed? That's not a contingency plan.
It was "There are bases there with air strips I can land at"
Except that those bases have repeatedly and publicly stated that THIS IS THE WRONG THING TO BELIEVE. This jerkoff isn't the first amateur half-ass to get stranded in Antartica and expect scientific bases to suddenly bail him out. Even the slightest amount of pre-trip research would have told him that they do not have spare fuel.
Its the same contigency plan I have every day when I leave for work. I understand that if I am involved in an accident and am incapacitated, that total strangers will actually stop and help.
The "I've always relied on the kindness of strangers" approach? Nothing personal, pal, but that's fucking stupid. "I don't need to pack the trunk with flares or a spare tire or a jack or a blanket or a gallon of water or some food -- surely within minutes of the breakdown/accident/whatever, some random person will come by and give me all the supplies I need."
I almost died from exposure less than 20 miles from home (snowstorm, -15 degrees F, freezing rain, and a flat tire), and I live in fucking Ohio, the dullest place on earth. In a major city, too, not the boonies. Fortunately, I had a heavy blanket and a good spare tire in the car. After getting it changed, I drove straight to the hospital to be treated for frostbite. Not another vehicle ever drove by; if I'd waited for a total stranger I'd likely be dead.
That was Ohio. This dipshit went to Antartica and planned less than I did.
Er, well, that's an unfair exaggeration. I apologize to the monkeys.
Inventory was actually performed by the cheapest per-hour temp worker at the lowest-bidding contractor. He came around our branch with a label-printer and a notepad. The external hard drive array got labeled "computer" (whatever makes the most noise in the room is invariably labeled "the computer"). The monitors got labeled "computer". The actual computers got labeled "hard drive," or in one case, "backup system". The tape drive jukebox got labeled "CDR-OM" [sic].
The grandparent post is way way wrong; there are no government/military systems for which there is no standard. If it doesn't have a committee-decided standard, it isn't allowed. Period.
But when the systems can't even be found because the inventory list is a work of fiction, it's largely a waste.
The Makefile.in -> Makefile translation is purely a sed operation. It doesn't even involve any regexs, just 's/@fixed_text@/other_fixed_text/g', which is entirely bounded by how good the sed implementation is. (Only a DFA engine is required, so if sed simply assumes that something tricky is going to happen and uses an NFA, or doesn't even have a DFA engine, then it's going to be needlessly slow. I've seen the time go from 20+ seconds to less than one second simply by replacing sed.)
BTW, I see you're one of the GNU libstdc++ maintainers
Shit! They've found me! *rolling dive under the tables towards the door*
any particular reason why one can't key a hash_map with a string (vs char*) without grafting on one's own hash definition?
Main reason: you're supposed to come up with a situation-specific hash function all the time, for all types. The predefined ones are just guesses.
As for std::string in particular, we've resisted adding one- er, actually, that's not quite right. There're at least two in there already, of varying degrees of portability. (One's in the standard locales somewhere, and one's off in the SGI extensions.) Anyhow.
We've resisted making any of those functions the default for a couple additional reasons. There's a strong bias against adding nonstandard entities to the standard library -- once they're in, they're almost impossible to remove. Ever. No matter how stupid they turn out to be, or what comes along to replace them. (Witness strstreams, for example.)
Also, hashing containers have finally gotten a decent proposal made, and are in the process of being added to the official library. But they won't look like the old HP/SGI hash_map stuff. We really don't want to maintain stuff that's about to be replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
You and everybody else. Welcome to the human race, where the default normal physiology is perfectly adapted to a 25 hour day. Actually something like 24h 50-odd minutes, I think. Why 25 hours and not what actually exists? Nobody knows, but there are lots of theories (all untestable and unprovable).
We were playing that map just last Thursday! Man, we need to get these guys some Teamspeak headsets and they can join our regular Spearhead deathmatch sessions.
EE is without a doubt one of the most fun RTS games I've ever played. Start off in the prehistoric era and finish up in postmodern nanotechnological warfare. The fact that the maps can be truly gigantic makes for some neat changes in strategy (even modern aircraft need refueling, etc).
I have no problem envisioning America doing it.
Most of the dupes are Taco's. For him to take your suggestions would require Taco to actually read his own website... which he's never shown any evidence of doing.
Heheheheh. Much the way programmers on /. look at their users. Much the way the managers look at the programmers. Much the way CS majors look at accounting majors.
Easy to see why you're a troll. I never recommended Java. I never said any of the things you attribute to me. I said that I was surprised that you still think C is required for good performance (having obtained good neural net performance with not-C in the past). That's all. That leaves a lot of other languages besides C and Java.
I sense a constant argument between yourself and your coworkers over the use if Java. If you need to have that argument here on slashdot, fine, but don't put words in my mouth or place me in positions where I have claimed no place.
You're thinking the same thing I thought. As a compiler geek, when I hear "intermediate language," I think of exactly this same thing, a temporary representation of the code for checking and/or optimization purposes.
The more I thought about the (poorly-written) article, the more I think that perhaps they mean a new assembly language. Which from a viewpoint of the compiler, especially one like GCC, is not an intermediate language, but the final product. (Some compilers compile directly to machine code, essentially being both the compiler and the assembler, but those are often not portable/retargetable.
I posted about this earlier, but haven't seen a followup yet: which of these two is being proposed? Dunno yet.
The article is very light on details.
Huh?
So, how many languages are being proposed here? A new "low-level" one, plus a higher-level "technical computing language" designed to make the most of the lower-level one? Just what's so special about this new low-level language that requires a specific new language to get the "maximum benefit" out of it? I don't have to write in Java to be able to compile to the JVM bytecode. For that matter, I could write in Java and compile to some other assembly language.
New back-ends ("low-level languages," if I understand the article) are added to GCC all the time. We never needed to add a whole 'nother front-end just for them.
I suspect that the real situation is less weird, and the journalist got confused... or heck, who knows, maybe they're proposing half a dozen new languages. It's Sun, after all.
Odd. I wouldn't have thought you'd need to do that these days anyway.
Well then don't quote the entire message. Trim old stuff. Heck, if it's a just a two-line summary response that you're writing, don't quote anything. It's not like the old mail still isn't sitting around from two hours before.
It simply requires people to stop that horribly moronic "top-posting" style of response.
If I want to respond piecemeal to an email, the only sane way to do it is to write my responses in between your paragraphs. As responses accumulate, back and forth, other readers see an easy-to-read flow of conversation. And "other readers" will include myself, reading old mail weeks/months/years after the fact.
Trying to respond point-by-point while keeping all of your text preceeding the other person's text is hopeless. And fucking stupid to boot. English reads down the page, you top-posting mouth-breathing idiots, not "scroll all the way to the bottom, scroll up a bit, read the paragraph downwards, scroll upwards over it, read the response downwards until you get to the previous text, scroll back upwards again, lather, rinse, repeat, until eventually you get to the top." I call for the painful tortuous death of whichever "human interface engineer" thought this would ever be a good idea and made it the default mode of GUI mailers.
...was the scene in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, where Santa Claus distributes weapons for Christmas presents, to help the war of resistance being led by the kids^Wfreedom fighters^W^Wterrorists.
Probably the most annoying part was the blatantly racist scenes of part of The Last Battle. (There's an entire Narnian race called "Darkies"? What the fuck?)
...because something even more invasive would be put in its place. The Devil that ya know, and all that.
We don't even need to pass new laws to restrict the use of the SSN, because we already have them. It's not supposed to be used for any identification purpose other than actual Social Security.
Once again, the problem is not lack of laws. It's lack of enforcement. (Look at Bush and Kenny Boy, and tell me if you're surprised.)
Then what are they editing? Fixing wrong things is what editors em>do. Or at least, add some commentary.
Actually, I'm glad you mentioned this, because I had no clue what DIVX was. I read the article and was like, "I don't have a DivX player, oh well
If the /. "editors" actually lived to to their claimed titles, they could correct these things.
But the book shows all of them being tempted by it, and refusing. The book only shows Faramir sitting around with Frodo and Sam, saying no thanks, not interested.
I don't think we disagree on anything there. What's more, I think Faramir is a model of what Denetheor should have been; of course, if that had been the case, Book Five would have been a lot shorter. :-)
Because I can't get Win2k or WinXP to run Dungeon Master, one of the most stress-reducing games I've ever played. (Also, one of the few games where you're encouraged to be bad, but doesn't draw inane comments from the moral majority. *grin* But that's beside the point.)
Not many work environments where beating the living crap out of your employees is an advised strategy...
Indeed. The author of the review could learn a lot from your attitude.
For example, he didn't like Jackson and Company's decision on making Faramir a jackass initially. I vsn sympathize with that, I didn't either. Neither did the actor. And then they explained to him (and to the viewers of the documentary DVDs) the problem with Faramir in the book.
One of the many reasons Faramir is so kick-ass in my mind -- as well as being Tolkien's favorite character -- is because, when told about the presence of the Ring in his patrol territory, he answers, "I would not pick this thing up even if it lay by the side of the road." Think about that for a moment.
See, while it's a great moment of personal integrity, it completely undermines the horrible eroding strength of the Ring. What, here's someone who's not tempted at all by the most powerful artifact in the Third Age? Fuck the Hobbits, then -- give it to this dude, he can stroll into Mordor and toss it into the fire without a moment of doubt. Instead of failing, as Frodo technically does.
If you think that hordes of moviegoers wouldn't be talking about this "massive plot hole" as they left the theatre, think again.
So, they decided to make Faramir as vulnerable as everyone else to the lure of power. And instead of a static Faramir as in the book, where he's strong and good and self-disciplined when we meet him, and in the end is still strong and good and self-disciplined (and married), here we get to see Faramir overcome the temptation of the Ring, and progress to being more self-disciplined than he started out. I think Tolkien would count that as a victory.
Personally, I don't consider either version of Faramir superior to the other. The incredibly powerful "I do not love the sword for its brightness" passage can still be read without the movie "tainting" it or anything like that.
I find it interesting in general to track -- in retrospect -- major events in blogs and email. For example, my own email archives have a conversation between me and another person, discussing how we're going to go skydiving the next day.
The next email is dated about three weeks later, "here's some other event we missed while I was in the hospital."
I said it isn't allowed. I didn't say it doesn't happen anyway.
*shrug* We were pretty good about following those rules, because we knew that if we didn't, we'd get hacked.
The 2-minute-bundle is more or less what I did. But it was some years ago, when I was young and foolish, and hadn't ever changed a tire on my own before. So it took a while.
One extra gallon per 300 needed? That's not a contingency plan.
Except that those bases have repeatedly and publicly stated that THIS IS THE WRONG THING TO BELIEVE. This jerkoff isn't the first amateur half-ass to get stranded in Antartica and expect scientific bases to suddenly bail him out. Even the slightest amount of pre-trip research would have told him that they do not have spare fuel.
The "I've always relied on the kindness of strangers" approach? Nothing personal, pal, but that's fucking stupid. "I don't need to pack the trunk with flares or a spare tire or a jack or a blanket or a gallon of water or some food -- surely within minutes of the breakdown/accident/whatever, some random person will come by and give me all the supplies I need."
I almost died from exposure less than 20 miles from home (snowstorm, -15 degrees F, freezing rain, and a flat tire), and I live in fucking Ohio, the dullest place on earth. In a major city, too, not the boonies. Fortunately, I had a heavy blanket and a good spare tire in the car. After getting it changed, I drove straight to the hospital to be treated for frostbite. Not another vehicle ever drove by; if I'd waited for a total stranger I'd likely be dead.
That was Ohio. This dipshit went to Antartica and planned less than I did.
...is performed by monkeys.
Er, well, that's an unfair exaggeration. I apologize to the monkeys.
Inventory was actually performed by the cheapest per-hour temp worker at the lowest-bidding contractor. He came around our branch with a label-printer and a notepad. The external hard drive array got labeled "computer" (whatever makes the most noise in the room is invariably labeled "the computer"). The monitors got labeled "computer". The actual computers got labeled "hard drive," or in one case, "backup system". The tape drive jukebox got labeled "CDR-OM" [sic].
The grandparent post is way way wrong; there are no government/military systems for which there is no standard. If it doesn't have a committee-decided standard, it isn't allowed. Period.
But when the systems can't even be found because the inventory list is a work of fiction, it's largely a waste.
Sorry, I'm not trying to suggest that the effect is completely graviational. It's only "as if" the dimples are there.
The Makefile.in -> Makefile translation is purely a sed operation. It doesn't even involve any regexs, just 's/@fixed_text@/other_fixed_text/g', which is entirely bounded by how good the sed implementation is. (Only a DFA engine is required, so if sed simply assumes that something tricky is going to happen and uses an NFA, or doesn't even have a DFA engine, then it's going to be needlessly slow. I've seen the time go from 20+ seconds to less than one second simply by replacing sed.)
Shit! They've found me! *rolling dive under the tables towards the door*
Main reason: you're supposed to come up with a situation-specific hash function all the time, for all types. The predefined ones are just guesses.
As for std::string in particular, we've resisted adding one- er, actually, that's not quite right. There're at least two in there already, of varying degrees of portability. (One's in the standard locales somewhere, and one's off in the SGI extensions.) Anyhow.
We've resisted making any of those functions the default for a couple additional reasons. There's a strong bias against adding nonstandard entities to the standard library -- once they're in, they're almost impossible to remove. Ever. No matter how stupid they turn out to be, or what comes along to replace them. (Witness strstreams, for example.)
Also, hashing containers have finally gotten a decent proposal made, and are in the process of being added to the official library. But they won't look like the old HP/SGI hash_map stuff. We really don't want to maintain stuff that's about to be replaced.