No. The energy combustion releases is the same energy that is 'released' when the chemicals involve bond.
A molecule of water is a lower 'energy state' than the separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules would be.
So to be able to 'split' the water, into hydrogen and oxygen without inputting energy is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
This is not the same as applying a reactant, that causes the elements to do this - energy can be released from one reaction, as an input into another one.
Some days I like apples, some days I like oranges. I wouldn't say oranges are better than apples.
I agree, it's about intelligence and co-operative measures. What I was kind of aiming at though, was the mediocre female programmers get drubbed of of the industry via the collective weight of prejudice, where a male programmer might not so much. So you get less of the 'lower percentiles' to dilute the average, as they've gone and got jobs in a different market sector - where even if they are mediocre at it, they don't have to put up with the 'oh wow, a girl programmer!!1111one' crap, that I _have_ seen all too often.
It's a lot easier to deal with when you excel at what you do.
Repeating what the code actually says, in 'non geek' is redundant commenting IMO - if anyone doesn't know enough about the code to know what that 'for' line says (like the original coder, given the comment is incorrect;p) then they have no business touching the code at all.
I work on the assumption that the next person to read the code will have at least a vague idea of what the programming language is, and how to speak it, so comments are the subtext to explain what happens, where, and where any obfuscations are. (Deliberately obfuscating is bad; occasionally it's unavoidable, and therefore needs more comment)
Indeed. Comments are _not_ for describing that a for loop, is a for loop. It's for describing what your 'for' loop is actually doing, and bits that may need attention drawing to them (like the 'next;' statement 5 lines down).
But hey, males and females alike can be sloppy at writing comments. I'm terrible at times when I'm going at 'full hack' to the point where I come back later, and wonder WTF _I_ was doing, and have to re-do it, to figure out what the hell it does. (And then I comment it)
So yes, I can see women writing 'better' code, but I still think that's more likely to be a matter of training and discipline, as much as anything else. Or perhaps the 'female geek' effect - in a word where you'll be faced with massive prejudice and pressure, the 'female techy' is typically (and yes, I realise this is a broad generalisation) even more hardcore than male counterparts - simply because she's there because she _really_ wants to, and has had to face a lot of uphill struggle to get there. This seems to hold true in petrolhead circles too (see, I can do car analogies too) - the few 'girl racers' I've met, have extremely extreme car mods, and rigs, because they're competing against everyone else _and_ the gender stereotype.
I was about to point out there here in the UK, we have a third party. And a whole bunch of 'other parties'. But then realised that actually, you're right. We do have a load of parties here in the UK, and only two of them ever seem remotely credible outside the 'tactical voting' game.
Phones automatically going to silent in a cinema is cool.
Being unable to prevent it happening is what people find objectionable.
There are things that override 'manners', because otherwise they wouldn't _be_ manners. For example my gym has a 'no phones' policy. I'm required to carry my phone, because I'm on call. The gym staff actually don't mind this in the slightest.
That's before we get into the realm where some monkey fails to configure his 'manners broadcasty thing' correctly, either due to stupidity or malice.
I'd be entirely happy with my phone detecting I was in a Cinema, and setting itself to 'silent'. I would be much less happy to find that my phone was not possible to override in doing this. Sometimes there's stuff that overrides 'manners' (not to mention the possibilty for someone else to enforce rules inappropriately).
IMO it'd have been ok if they just hadn't dug up the guy on the other ship, to go slasher on them.
I mean, the psychologist guy was clearly starting to go a bit baffy. Let 'em find the other ship, find the crew gone all toasty and burned, and gradually figure out what happened, just in time for their own to do the same to them. (And then push butan to detonate the thingy at the last moment, in a heroic standoff thingummy)
The vast majority of that money was already pissed away, embezzeled and used to strengthen the position of 'the elite'.
So what would be different there? Except maybe a small margin would end up trickling down into places that really needed it, rather than ended up turning a moderately disfunctional dictatorship, into an absolutely anarchic hellhole.
Maybe it's a fraud to say that any sum of money could save the world. Maybe it's just optimism. But for sure if a government is pretending to use money for good, sometimes it manages to do it accidentally anyway. A trillion dollars of grain, education or volunteer workers, EVEN WITH massive waste, would still be money better spent.
Consider that, according to sources like Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs, the Worldwatch Institute, and the United Nations, with that same money the world could:
Eliminate extreme poverty around the world (cost $135 billion in the first year, rising to $195 billion by 2015.)
Achieve universal literacy (cost $5 billion a year.)
Immunize every child in the world against deadly diseases (cost $1.3 billion a year.)
That my friends, is a hell of an opportunity cost.
It can _always_ get worse. Just take a look at... erm. How about Iraq? Despotic oppressor, overthrown, whole country goes bonkers and descends into anarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
A molecule of water is a lower 'energy state' than the separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules would be.
So to be able to 'split' the water, into hydrogen and oxygen without inputting energy is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
This is not the same as applying a reactant, that causes the elements to do this - energy can be released from one reaction, as an input into another one.
On the plus side, at least we now know what happened to the dinosaurs.
It does. Not all programming languages have such luxuries.
I agree, it's about intelligence and co-operative measures. What I was kind of aiming at though, was the mediocre female programmers get drubbed of of the industry via the collective weight of prejudice, where a male programmer might not so much. So you get less of the 'lower percentiles' to dilute the average, as they've gone and got jobs in a different market sector - where even if they are mediocre at it, they don't have to put up with the 'oh wow, a girl programmer!!1111one' crap, that I _have_ seen all too often.
It's a lot easier to deal with when you excel at what you do.
I work on the assumption that the next person to read the code will have at least a vague idea of what the programming language is, and how to speak it, so comments are the subtext to explain what happens, where, and where any obfuscations are. (Deliberately obfuscating is bad; occasionally it's unavoidable, and therefore needs more comment)
But hey, males and females alike can be sloppy at writing comments. I'm terrible at times when I'm going at 'full hack' to the point where I come back later, and wonder WTF _I_ was doing, and have to re-do it, to figure out what the hell it does. (And then I comment it)
Not worse, nor better really, just ... different
So yes, I can see women writing 'better' code, but I still think that's more likely to be a matter of training and discipline, as much as anything else. Or perhaps the 'female geek' effect - in a word where you'll be faced with massive prejudice and pressure, the 'female techy' is typically (and yes, I realise this is a broad generalisation) even more hardcore than male counterparts - simply because she's there because she _really_ wants to, and has had to face a lot of uphill struggle to get there. This seems to hold true in petrolhead circles too (see, I can do car analogies too) - the few 'girl racers' I've met, have extremely extreme car mods, and rigs, because they're competing against everyone else _and_ the gender stereotype.
The fact that you could even THINK to draw that comparison makes me massively angry.
And herein lies the fundamental, underlying flaw with 'DRM'
I was about to point out there here in the UK, we have a third party. And a whole bunch of 'other parties'. But then realised that actually, you're right. We do have a load of parties here in the UK, and only two of them ever seem remotely credible outside the 'tactical voting' game.
Being unable to prevent it happening is what people find objectionable.
There are things that override 'manners', because otherwise they wouldn't _be_ manners. For example my gym has a 'no phones' policy. I'm required to carry my phone, because I'm on call. The gym staff actually don't mind this in the slightest.
That's before we get into the realm where some monkey fails to configure his 'manners broadcasty thing' correctly, either due to stupidity or malice.
The right to carry guns is a splendid example of why democracy is fundamentally flawed - what's popular isn't really correlated to what's clever.
I'd be entirely happy with my phone detecting I was in a Cinema, and setting itself to 'silent'. I would be much less happy to find that my phone was not possible to override in doing this. Sometimes there's stuff that overrides 'manners' (not to mention the possibilty for someone else to enforce rules inappropriately).
I mean, the psychologist guy was clearly starting to go a bit baffy. Let 'em find the other ship, find the crew gone all toasty and burned, and gradually figure out what happened, just in time for their own to do the same to them. (And then push butan to detonate the thingy at the last moment, in a heroic standoff thingummy)
No no, the other side is cooler. The one we're nearer when it's winter. So they can wait until then to go.
Sorry, call me a cynic, but I just don't think 'middle America' is going to buck the trend.
Let's not forget:
Price tag of war in Iraq ($2 trillion)
Guantanamo Bay
But at the end of the day, I don't think it'll matter. The average voter will be choosing the middle class white guy.
The early consoles were significantly cheaper than the 'same gen' PC, simply because the PC had to be able to do more stuff at once.
And at the same time, the early PCs were ... challenges to get going. And consoles were 'slap in cart, wave controler and go' type gaming.
These are converging. The high end consoles still work off the shelf, but have more and more 'technofunk' going on. The price tag increases.
The PC market on the other hand, gets cheaper, more commoditized and also 'idiot proof'.
Won't be too much longer before you can't tell the difference.
I knew those rubber swords and pointy ears would come in useful one day.
So what would be different there? Except maybe a small margin would end up trickling down into places that really needed it, rather than ended up turning a moderately disfunctional dictatorship, into an absolutely anarchic hellhole.
Maybe it's a fraud to say that any sum of money could save the world. Maybe it's just optimism. But for sure if a government is pretending to use money for good, sometimes it manages to do it accidentally anyway. A trillion dollars of grain, education or volunteer workers, EVEN WITH massive waste, would still be money better spent.
One that stays bought.
It can _always_ get worse. Just take a look at ... erm. How about Iraq? Despotic oppressor, overthrown, whole country goes bonkers and descends into anarchy.
Personally I've been paying attention to the Democrat nomination, because I'm watching to see if racism triumphs over sexism.
It's largely irrelevant though, as the middle class white guy will win.
Because North Korea would use them.