actual language speed = the time it takes the program to run + the time it takes the program to be written.
Sure Python might be 100x or more slower than C, but the total time is usually faster. For people that need speed, they should check out Julia. It's a scripting language designed mainly for technical computing (although it is perfectly general-purpose) that is fast due to good type inference and JIT. Usually within 2x of C. It also can call Python libraries as easily as within Python.
Not for me. Comcast was trying to bone me with some rate increases (I was not supposed to be on an introductory rate, but whatever). Called, threatened to cancel. The only thing they offered me was 5 Mb instead of 50 Mb, for $10 less/month.
I should expand on this: Helmets are styrofoam (with holes in it!), and a thin plastic cover. Next time you buy a thing packed in a big box, try breaking the styrofoam. Turns out it's not very strong.
The only way the deceleration (which causes the brain damage) is reduced is if the helmet crushes in. And this will only help in a low speed crash, otherwises your head will still be decelerating after the foam crushes.
I think people tend to assign more of a protective benefit to helmets because of the psychological benefit of something over your head. In reality, brain injuries are caused by de(acceleration) which induces your brain to slosh in your skill, which styrofoam is not so awesome at preventing. It's even worse if it's torsion, which may be exacerbated by helmets.
Actually if the helmet split in two it absorbed very little of the impact energy, and did not prevent any brain damage. It would have only helped (in a low speed crash) helped if it crumpled in. It might have prevented a laceration, so that's something, I guess.
Cycling in Australia dropped 1/3 overnight when the helmet law was passed. This makes it more risky for existing cyclists, as there is safety in numbers.
The overriding public health effect is that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks in expected life by something like 30x. Thus, the 1/3 drop in cyclists results in many more premature deaths from lack of exercists.
Helmets may provide a small benefit in some crashes, but helmet laws are absolutely indefensible from a rational public health standpoint.
Hitting something going downhill at high speed is going to cause brain damage or worse whether you have a helmet or not. Crashing on descents is very, very bad news.
Styrofoam will only protect you in low speed collisions. Somebody was killed in the Giro d'Italia last year descending from hitting his head on a siderail. He was wearing a helmet, of course.
This is the problem with these kind of anecdotes: If somebody crashes wearing a helmet, and is OK, it's just assumed that the helmet saved him. If somebody is hurt and was not wearing a helmet, it's assumed that he would have been ok if he was. In reality, this is a completely fallacious assumption, and is not borne out by the data.
Helmets probably have a positive impact on low speed crashes, but it is small. Motorists would have significantly reduced fatalities if they wore motorcycle helmets (which are much more effective but impractical for bicycles), like race car drivers do, but they don't. Pedestrians have higher fatalities per kilometer than cyclists (and pedestrian fatalities are often due to brain damage), but they don't wear helmets. Why is this one activity singled out to wear a bulky safety yarmulke?
Radiation blockage is mostly a function of mass the rays have to go through. The vast majority of cosmic rays are blocked by the 14 pounds per square inch/100 kilopascals of air above us. That means that a square inch of ground at sea level has 14 pounds of air above it. A square inch section of a rack above you would probably be in the pounds as well, and would block a good portion.
Gay teens make up around 40% or more of homeless youth, usually because their parents kick them out for being gay. They are discriminated against at many homeless shelters by both staff and other homeless.
The three cities with the largest share of bike commuters are Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis. Not exactly places known for nice weather. It's just a matter of dressing well and having fenders.
Cycling reduces stresses on the city street, and cycling infrastructure is dirt cheap compared to roads. I can get around the denser parts of my city (Seattle) much faster by bike than when I drive my car or take the bus. Even though it's really hilly and it is usually rainy.
Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage). I guess they can prevent lacerations, but that's about it. Helmet advocates always quote a study from the 1980s (funded by helmet manufacturers) that showed an 84% reduction in brain injuries, but other work has not borne this out. (example)
Wearing a helmet is applying a different standard to risk than we do in many other situations. Cycling is actually slightly safer per mile than walking, yet we don't make peds wear helmets. Just the same, we could make drivers wear helmets just like race car drivers do. That would actually prevent a huge number of deaths. But we don't. So why are cyclists singled out to wear the safety yarmulkes?
As an additional point, helment laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight. Fewer cyclists means drivers are less likely to expect them. In addition, there is evidence that cyclists wearing helments engage in riskier behavior as a form of risk-compensation.
The problem with Octave is that it just generally sucks balls at everything. It's commonly an order of magnitude slower or more than Matlab. It's compatible with simple scripts that only use basic library functions, but if you start talking about plotting and such, it isn't.
Of course, Matlab is actually a horrible language itself. Everything is a double. One function per m-file (I know, local functions, but you can't call them from the outside). It's really sad that everyone is so locked into it.
Julia is the best choice, IMO. R and Numpy/Scipy are also loads better.
I'm using Julia for most of my work. It's very usable. There's good libraries for most common tasks now, and for anything that there isn't, Python functions can be called (with automatic conversion to Numpy arrays, etc) with no wrapper with a package called PyCall. This is a feature that Julia developers should really make more noise about.
For example, suppose I want to do a simple plot of a two vectors x and y: ________________ using PyCall #import the module @pyimport matplotlib.pyplot as plt #import the Python module itself plt.plot(x,y) plot.show ------------- That's it. A window with the plot shows up, exactly as it would in python.
Apart from that, Julia has many innovative features. A good type system and multiple dispatch make for a very elegant and fast language. As well, like lisp, code is data like any other, allowing for useful macros (the @pyimport is actually a macro call). I used to use Matlab, and then Python/Numpy, but a really haven't looked back after moving to Julia.
Slashdot Mirror
actual language speed = the time it takes the program to run + the time it takes the program to be written.
Sure Python might be 100x or more slower than C, but the total time is usually faster. For people that need speed, they should check out Julia. It's a scripting language designed mainly for technical computing (although it is perfectly general-purpose) that is fast due to good type inference and JIT. Usually within 2x of C. It also can call Python libraries as easily as within Python.
Not for me. Comcast was trying to bone me with some rate increases (I was not supposed to be on an introductory rate, but whatever). Called, threatened to cancel. The only thing they offered me was 5 Mb instead of 50 Mb, for $10 less/month.
I now have DSL.
I should expand on this: Helmets are styrofoam (with holes in it!), and a thin plastic cover. Next time you buy a thing packed in a big box, try breaking the styrofoam. Turns out it's not very strong.
The only way the deceleration (which causes the brain damage) is reduced is if the helmet crushes in. And this will only help in a low speed crash, otherwises your head will still be decelerating after the foam crushes.
I think people tend to assign more of a protective benefit to helmets because of the psychological benefit of something over your head. In reality, brain injuries are caused by de(acceleration) which induces your brain to slosh in your skill, which styrofoam is not so awesome at preventing. It's even worse if it's torsion, which may be exacerbated by helmets.
Actually if the helmet split in two it absorbed very little of the impact energy, and did not prevent any brain damage. It would have only helped (in a low speed crash) helped if it crumpled in. It might have prevented a laceration, so that's something, I guess.
Cycling in Australia dropped 1/3 overnight when the helmet law was passed. This makes it more risky for existing cyclists, as there is safety in numbers.
The overriding public health effect is that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks in expected life by something like 30x. Thus, the 1/3 drop in cyclists results in many more premature deaths from lack of exercists.
Helmets may provide a small benefit in some crashes, but helmet laws are absolutely indefensible from a rational public health standpoint.
Hitting something going downhill at high speed is going to cause brain damage or worse whether you have a helmet or not. Crashing on descents is very, very bad news.
Styrofoam will only protect you in low speed collisions. Somebody was killed in the Giro d'Italia last year descending from hitting his head on a siderail. He was wearing a helmet, of course.
This is the problem with these kind of anecdotes: If somebody crashes wearing a helmet, and is OK, it's just assumed that the helmet saved him. If somebody is hurt and was not wearing a helmet, it's assumed that he would have been ok if he was. In reality, this is a completely fallacious assumption, and is not borne out by the data.
Helmets probably have a positive impact on low speed crashes, but it is small. Motorists would have significantly reduced fatalities if they wore motorcycle helmets (which are much more effective but impractical for bicycles), like race car drivers do, but they don't. Pedestrians have higher fatalities per kilometer than cyclists (and pedestrian fatalities are often due to brain damage), but they don't wear helmets. Why is this one activity singled out to wear a bulky safety yarmulke?
There's daily flights to the pole from McMurdo...
It's only in the winter you can't fly.
Everyone knows what Linux and Java are on Slashdot. Clearly, most people don't know what Docker is.
It's customary to put a brief explanation of what the fuck the article is about in the summary.
So it doesn't have to do with pants?
here
Radiation blockage is mostly a function of mass the rays have to go through. The vast majority of cosmic rays are blocked by the 14 pounds per square inch/100 kilopascals of air above us. That means that a square inch of ground at sea level has 14 pounds of air above it. A square inch section of a rack above you would probably be in the pounds as well, and would block a good portion.
I'm pretty sure his ego can't fit in 512 mb.
If it's cosmic rays causing a lot of the problem, the extra material of the racks above would make a difference.
Yeah because everyone has the time to fuck around compiling stuff and dealing with update nightmares.
Package managers are there for a reason.
Ah, yes, since you've never needed it, nobody else will. MRSA is already killing more people in the US than AIDS.
How about let's not use the anti-science mouthbreathers at the Register as a source.
Wow, you're a fucking blowhard.
Gay teens make up around 40% or more of homeless youth, usually because their parents kick them out for being gay. They are discriminated against at many homeless shelters by both staff and other homeless.
Not tolerating my intolerance is intolerant!
Fundies are the biggest bunch of persecution-complex crybabies. However, Card goes way beyond that though. He is truly loony.
The three cities with the largest share of bike commuters are Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis. Not exactly places known for nice weather. It's just a matter of dressing well and having fenders.
Cycling reduces stresses on the city street, and cycling infrastructure is dirt cheap compared to roads. I can get around the denser parts of my city (Seattle) much faster by bike than when I drive my car or take the bus. Even though it's really hilly and it is usually rainy.
Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage). I guess they can prevent lacerations, but that's about it. Helmet advocates always quote a study from the 1980s (funded by helmet manufacturers) that showed an 84% reduction in brain injuries, but other work has not borne this out. (example)
Wearing a helmet is applying a different standard to risk than we do in many other situations. Cycling is actually slightly safer per mile than walking, yet we don't make peds wear helmets. Just the same, we could make drivers wear helmets just like race car drivers do. That would actually prevent a huge number of deaths. But we don't. So why are cyclists singled out to wear the safety yarmulkes?
As an additional point, helment laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight. Fewer cyclists means drivers are less likely to expect them. In addition, there is evidence that cyclists wearing helments engage in riskier behavior as a form of risk-compensation.
The problem with Octave is that it just generally sucks balls at everything. It's commonly an order of magnitude slower or more than Matlab. It's compatible with simple scripts that only use basic library functions, but if you start talking about plotting and such, it isn't.
Of course, Matlab is actually a horrible language itself. Everything is a double. One function per m-file (I know, local functions, but you can't call them from the outside). It's really sad that everyone is so locked into it.
Julia is the best choice, IMO. R and Numpy/Scipy are also loads better.
I'm using Julia for most of my work. It's very usable. There's good libraries for most common tasks now, and for anything that there isn't, Python functions can be called (with automatic conversion to Numpy arrays, etc) with no wrapper with a package called PyCall. This is a feature that Julia developers should really make more noise about.
For example, suppose I want to do a simple plot of a two vectors x and y:
________________
using PyCall #import the module
@pyimport matplotlib.pyplot as plt #import the Python module itself
plt.plot(x,y)
plot.show
-------------
That's it. A window with the plot shows up, exactly as it would in python.
Apart from that, Julia has many innovative features. A good type system and multiple dispatch make for a very elegant and fast language. As well, like lisp, code is data like any other, allowing for useful macros (the @pyimport is actually a macro call). I used to use Matlab, and then Python/Numpy, but a really haven't looked back after moving to Julia.
Are you outside of Britain? The BBC World Service is significantly more cerebral and less sensational than domestic BBC.
The average welder makes more than the average IT guy. I wouldn't call it a crappy job.