There is an advantage to agriculture when the population density grows. Hunter gatherers make use of what they find, at a rate of X square miles per person, and don't have permanent shelter.
Once the population grows to N persons, the total area that must be hunted/gathered is N*X, and that's too wide to be convenient once N is large.
Sedentary tribes can support greater populations and permanent shelter, because the food is grown close by. With bigger tribes, the competing hunter gatherer tribes can be driven away from the good areas which combine shelter, crops and drinkable water.
The industrial revolution (eg in England) was only made possible by
the Poor Laws, which forced people to work in approved ways to support themselves, rather than live off the land in a manner of their choosing (except for the rich, who were allowed to be idle). This created a captive workforce who lived in cities and could man the factories.
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
You know, I'm always weary when I hear or read the phrase "in real terms" bandied about. It's a major signpost for the practice of "fudging the numbers". The fact is that when data is massaged into some narrative, rather than presented in raw form with all its flaws visible, then it's impossible to criticize. You can't figure out if there's collection bias, significant outliers being dropped, or even if the sums were added up properly (don't laugh, doing something simple like calculating the standard deviation is nontrivial on a computer - the standard high school formula gives incorrect results).
The problem is, for every one like you, there's some marketing/sales person who touts cloud computing as the second coming. People and companies don't think ahead. And even those that think ahead delude themselves that they can handle the risk if it comes - except years later, they have a different job/role in the company or have simply forgotten about it.
Familiar compared to what? Not trolling, but with all the smart phones and tablets being used by people with very little clue about computers, does "looking like Windows" really help newbies compared to "looking like Linux"? The start button was always a bad design idea [what other appliance requires constantly pressing the power button before doing anything?] and it would make more sense to expose new people to a more logical / simpler / more intuitive desktop environment.
Copying Windows in OSS was fine in the late 90s, but it's too limiting today, and teaches bad habits.
The Greeks and Romans didn't think so. Their ideals of body
proportions are what we still call classical beauty.
The Venus of
Willendorf is the canonical example of a statue depicting a fat
beauty. But is that really proof that fat was viewed as beautiful in
the stone age, or could it be explained as the limited skillset of the
artist? Early representational art is certainly not very realistic
(which is no fault of the artist, just the limited state of the art)
Yeah, but don't forget mail order porn on video cassettes was all new, and there was no way the limited computer screens could compete with the new shiny.
True, but again, this overflow will show up much sooner in a smaller setting, say when the algorithm is compiled with 16-bit or even 8-bit integer variables.
You haven't shown that 2^64 is an inherent lower bound for the appearance of the overflow bug.
Incidentally, people who don't know about computer architecture wouldn't be aware about overflows, so wouldn't know to check these conditions. Something about semi-educated programmers and their ability to debug code?
Well, you really shouldn't be debugging code on petabyte datasets to begin with. If there's a bug that shows, there's a minimal dataset on which the bug shows, and that's the dataset you can ask help with.
In general, you should always develop code on a tiny sample of the dataset. Once it's fully debugged and works correctly, then you apply it on your petabyte dataset.
I suspect the simple issue is availability and graphics. Python is just not available preinstalled on any random computer, whereas a browser (which implies Javascript) is. If you're going to teach or require *any* language that's not already loaded on the computer, then half your students will never take the next step of downloading it, installing it, and trying it out. This is very important when you have no control over your students, when there's no formal classes or grades that depend on completing them. So Python or other languages never had a chance.
To be competitive with Javascript, what the Python (or any other language) devs need to do is create a plugin for every major web browser, like a Java applet, but with NO installation. You simply go to the web page and it's there to use instantly (maybe download a component that's less than 1 meg). Obviously this wouldn't be the full Python, just a tiny core language with graphics capability.
Sadly, educational suitability and the potential for bad habits is secondary to the question of availability. In the old days everybody learned BASIC instead of LOGO, because BASIC was just there, ready to use, as part of every OS of the time. To learn LOGO, you needed to 1) know it exists, and 2) be able to find/install it - that was enough of a problem to kill its systematic use by kids in their bedrooms.
The good thing about Linux is that so many major languages are pre-installed. You can rely on gcc, Perl, Python, bash being there on just about any system. Onfortunately on the web, there's only Javascript, and it happens to be a crappy language.
Hannibal: "Hello, Clarice, nice to have you for dinner. Did you notice the new tapestries? They are made of human flesh. I've been experimenting with this new adhesive you see, to walk on walls and the ceiling. I'm still looking for matching boots."
Well, there's a lot of prevarication in your comment. The first quote by Mark Lowenthal is not very encouraging:
"Intelligence is not about truth. If something were known to be true, states
would not need intelligence agencies to collect the information or analyze
it.
Truth is such an absolute term that it sets a standard that intelligence
rarely would be able to achieve.
That makes no sense. Of course it takes people and information collections to obtain the truth, even if it is already known by others. Not everyone has all the answers. But changing the meaning of truth to make it easier to claim "I done found the truth, mister" is disingenious and self-defeating.
Perhaps the biggest issue with "truth" in intelligence work is the absolute
nature of "truth". If it is an analyst's job to find the "truth", then any
deviation from that analysis by actual events means that the analysis was a
"lie".
Yes, that's a great way to summarize the intelligence failure with Iraqi WMD.
The analysts had no truth, but sugar coated some politically motivated suspicions.
Part of what the phrase knowing the truth means is knowing when you don't know anything, and refraining from filling in the blanks with wishful thinking in that case.
So, what was the truth? In this case, the truth, as established prior to
2003, is that Saddam Hussein had the intent and capability to possess WMD.
Without physically discovering WMD themselves, all information, history, and
evidence â" even when viewed in the context of contradictory evidence â"
indicated that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Pure drivel. Hearsay isn't truth. What is true is that extensive searches after the fact didn't find any. See the difference? Facts and experimentation work. Wishful thinking and redefining truth as informed opinion don't work.
Call a spade a spade. Let's see how that makes a difference in a later part of your comment.
Unfortunately, the most important aspect â" namely, Iraq actually having WMD â"
ended up being absent. When the policy of containment with regard to Iraq
changed to a more aggressive posture after 9/11, the truth pointed to Iraqi
possession of WMD. This enabled policymakers to push forward with a policy to
remove Saddam from power. That's the simple fact, whether you want to believe
it or not (or, as some wish to do, rewrite history). This has nothing to do
with whether I, you, or anyone else believes invading Iraq was a good idea â"
that's a separate discussion.
Wrong. Hearsay and opinion pointed to Iraqi possession of WMD. See how this works? When truth isn't abused into a meaningless political football, the chain breaks where it should: At that point, cowardly policymakers can't rely on a fake truth to prop up or justify their policies. They can still decide any policy they like, but they have to stick their necks out on the chopping block to do so. "Let's invade Iraq". "Why?". "Hearsay and opinion says Iraq is a danger to the world".
After the invasion, only then did we discover that the US analysis was almost
all wrong. But was the analysis in fact wrong? This is remembered by many,
incorrectly, as an example of "politicized intelligence". In fact, it is
simply an illustration of how intelligence is not about truth, but rather is
a vehicle to inform the decisions of policy makers.
Yes, the analysis was in fact wrong. Part of politicizing intelligence is precisely claiming that the analysis wasn't wrong, or only for certain values of the truth.
Truth relies on facts, and ruthlessly excludes opinion and wishful thinking.
Within the discipline of searching for the truth, it is important that one objectively evaluates past analyses as right or wrong.
Mundane stuff is how you catch the existence of secret stuff. By sifting through a lot of boring sounding data and making connections, things that don't add up are seen, and the right questions to ask are found. That's data mining, and it's not about submarine cars and bullets shooting out of a cigar.
The reason governments go after Wikileaks is that they know this, and by the time Wikileaks or someone else finds a juicy secret, it's much too late to cover up.
Also, add a website tie-in "Where In The Universe Is Jar Jar Binks" where viewers can phone in when they spot the popular character during the episode, discretely reflected in mirrors and drinking glasses.
You clearly haven't been to Germany. Among all European countries,
Germany insists the most on teaching the evils of World War II in
its schools, and by the time they graduate, kids are sick to death of the
subject and all its related debates (eg Israel, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
The Romans and other mediterranean societies (eg Carthage) had plumbing and modern conveniences. I think they used 3 shells though...
Sedentary tribes can support greater populations and permanent shelter, because the food is grown close by. With bigger tribes, the competing hunter gatherer tribes can be driven away from the good areas which combine shelter, crops and drinkable water.
The industrial revolution (eg in England) was only made possible by the Poor Laws, which forced people to work in approved ways to support themselves, rather than live off the land in a manner of their choosing (except for the rich, who were allowed to be idle). This created a captive workforce who lived in cities and could man the factories.
Apprentice: "Ugh?"
Inventor: "Ugh! Ugh!"
Apprentice: "Ugh, Ugh?"
Inventor: "Ugh! Ugh! Ugh!"
Apprentice: "Ugh, Ugh! Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh! Ugh?"
Inventor: "Ugh! Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh! Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh! Ugh, Ugh?"
Apprentice: "Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh? Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh! Ugh, Ugh, Ugh! Ugh!"
Inventor: "Ugh!!!! Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh!! Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh!!!! Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh!!!!!!!!!!! Ugh!"
Apprentice: "Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, Ugh? Ugh, Ugh!"
Inventor: "Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! $#@% Ugh!"
Apprentice: "Ugh? Ugh? Ugh, Ugh?"
Inventor: "Ugh!"
Apprentice: "Ugh! Ugh, Ugh!"
Inventor: "Ugh!"
Apprentice: "Ugh!"
The blackboard hadn't been invented yet.
l
a
m
e
n
e
s
s
f
i
l
t
e
r
h
a
c
k
.
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
BOOOOORING! Let me go and change that definition on wikipedia ;-)
You know, I'm always weary when I hear or read the phrase "in real terms" bandied about. It's a major signpost for the practice of "fudging the numbers". The fact is that when data is massaged into some narrative, rather than presented in raw form with all its flaws visible, then it's impossible to criticize. You can't figure out if there's collection bias, significant outliers being dropped, or even if the sums were added up properly (don't laugh, doing something simple like calculating the standard deviation is nontrivial on a computer - the standard high school formula gives incorrect results).
Here you are then, sir. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. Thank you for your cooperation.
It's good to repeat the message regularly.
Copying Windows in OSS was fine in the late 90s, but it's too limiting today, and teaches bad habits.
The Venus of Willendorf is the canonical example of a statue depicting a fat beauty. But is that really proof that fat was viewed as beautiful in the stone age, or could it be explained as the limited skillset of the artist? Early representational art is certainly not very realistic (which is no fault of the artist, just the limited state of the art)
Ha! Only for values of geek near not. But I guess that was your point.
Holy crap! If he used calculus to compute 50*50000 that must have been a three-whiteboard solution at least.
Yeah, but don't forget mail order porn on video cassettes was all new, and there was no way the limited computer screens could compete with the new shiny.
Incidentally, people who don't know about computer architecture wouldn't be aware about overflows, so wouldn't know to check these conditions. Something about semi-educated programmers and their ability to debug code?
In general, you should always develop code on a tiny sample of the dataset. Once it's fully debugged and works correctly, then you apply it on your petabyte dataset.
To be competitive with Javascript, what the Python (or any other language) devs need to do is create a plugin for every major web browser, like a Java applet, but with NO installation. You simply go to the web page and it's there to use instantly (maybe download a component that's less than 1 meg). Obviously this wouldn't be the full Python, just a tiny core language with graphics capability.
Sadly, educational suitability and the potential for bad habits is secondary to the question of availability. In the old days everybody learned BASIC instead of LOGO, because BASIC was just there, ready to use, as part of every OS of the time. To learn LOGO, you needed to 1) know it exists, and 2) be able to find/install it - that was enough of a problem to kill its systematic use by kids in their bedrooms.
The good thing about Linux is that so many major languages are pre-installed. You can rely on gcc, Perl, Python, bash being there on just about any system. Onfortunately on the web, there's only Javascript, and it happens to be a crappy language.
What? Do they even have spring in Ireland? I thought it was all volcanic rock and ice and lutefisk all year round :)
Hannibal: "Hello, Clarice, nice to have you for dinner. Did you notice the new tapestries? They are made of human flesh. I've been experimenting with this new adhesive you see, to walk on walls and the ceiling. I'm still looking for matching boots."
Didn't Lincoln die like in 1865? That's a pretty long half life for Navigators.
That makes no sense. Of course it takes people and information collections to obtain the truth, even if it is already known by others. Not everyone has all the answers. But changing the meaning of truth to make it easier to claim "I done found the truth, mister" is disingenious and self-defeating.
Yes, that's a great way to summarize the intelligence failure with Iraqi WMD. The analysts had no truth, but sugar coated some politically motivated suspicions.
Part of what the phrase knowing the truth means is knowing when you don't know anything, and refraining from filling in the blanks with wishful thinking in that case.
Pure drivel. Hearsay isn't truth. What is true is that extensive searches after the fact didn't find any. See the difference? Facts and experimentation work. Wishful thinking and redefining truth as informed opinion don't work. Call a spade a spade. Let's see how that makes a difference in a later part of your comment.
Wrong. Hearsay and opinion pointed to Iraqi possession of WMD. See how this works? When truth isn't abused into a meaningless political football, the chain breaks where it should: At that point, cowardly policymakers can't rely on a fake truth to prop up or justify their policies. They can still decide any policy they like, but they have to stick their necks out on the chopping block to do so. "Let's invade Iraq". "Why?". "Hearsay and opinion says Iraq is a danger to the world".
Yes, the analysis was in fact wrong. Part of politicizing intelligence is precisely claiming that the analysis wasn't wrong, or only for certain values of the truth.
Truth relies on facts, and ruthlessly excludes opinion and wishful thinking. Within the discipline of searching for the truth, it is important that one objectively evaluates past analyses as right or wrong.
The reason governments go after Wikileaks is that they know this, and by the time Wikileaks or someone else finds a juicy secret, it's much too late to cover up.
Eloquent: 1. able to express oneself clearly and well. 2. clearly conveying a special meaning. 3. very dignified in form, tone, or style.
Those aren't spikes! Those are Iron Grips! The brand bacteriophages prefer.
Also, add a website tie-in "Where In The Universe Is Jar Jar Binks" where viewers can phone in when they spot the popular character during the episode, discretely reflected in mirrors and drinking glasses.
Oh, shut up, Wesley!
You clearly haven't been to Germany. Among all European countries, Germany insists the most on teaching the evils of World War II in its schools, and by the time they graduate, kids are sick to death of the subject and all its related debates (eg Israel, etc).