That's an idiotic argument. A pawn shop trader can easily buy and sell the watch, but it will take a few minutes to process both transactions. It simply won't happen within a second.
So where does that leave you? With a made-up analogy that doesn't fit, to justify your personal belief in the benefits of HFT. Don't build sandcastles on quicksand, and maybe you'll have better luck convincing people.
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with
symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of
the senses, emotions, and intellect."
So if I deliberately place two jugs containing a mixture of lemon pulp, sugar and water on a public table next to a cardboard sign having the string "$1" written on it, in the hope of influencing the senses of thirsty passers by and stimulating their intellect into acquiescing an exchange of green bills, then that means I'm doing art?
Sorry, that definition is terrible. Definitions are a dime a dozen. A good definition needs to 1) cover the cases that are intended and 2) not cover unrelated cases. Your definition only does 1), but completely fails at 2).
No that's nonsense. Capitalism rewards people who have capital proportionally to the amount of capital they have. It rewards the rich by allowing them to do nothing (eg Paris Hilton) or making repeated mistakes simply because they have money to burn. The more money they have, the longer it can be burned.
It penalizes the poor by making every small mistake essentially fatal in a financial sense.
The end result is a class of people who are lazy and not very smart, and offer nothing to society. But they thrive because they have money. And a class of people who are stuck at the bottom even if they're not lazy, but they can't thrive like the rich.
The right way to make capitalism reward work and ability is to abolish inheritance rights. Make everyone's assets automatically revert to the state when they die, and don't allow children to receive gifts from their parents.
That's the only way to level the playing field.
Kernel? Sorry, I wasn't talking about kernel programming - that's a quite different issue. I guess that's my bad since TFA talks about an OS in C# - I've been reading other programming related threads recently. But I was talking about high performance apps, so I guess it's tangentially related.
For kernels the point is pretty much moot. The current bunch will be around for a few decades and with all the programmer years of legacy code there's really very little likelihood of moving on from C.
Interesting benchmarks though, I'll have to look at them closely. Thanks.
Learn how to do parallelism well in C and put the time
in to code it and the result will not have to be a compromise (programming
efficiency is low priority in kernel dev I would think), I'm sure the C spec
will eventually add some better parallelism.
I'm talking about languages like Erlang which "do" parallelism out of the box, not languages like C/Java where parallelism requires thinking about threads, race conditions, and locks. You can't "fix" this, because those languages are all about reading and writing memory directly (RAM or VM it's the same issue).
But the loss of single core efficiency will be offset by the gain in programmer productivity when a language that's fully designed for parallelism appears.
But that language won't look like C because the inbuilt parallelism won't allow completely free memory access, otherwise it'll be threads, race conditions and locks all over again.
The programming language to replace C has
probably not Conceived yet, it has to brilliantly elegant and simple and at least 3-5
percent faster (C# is not that language).
The window of opportunity is there, however. The kind of speed increase you're talking about is easily possible for a language that would do parallelism well. Right now, it's bolted on existing languages with threads, and that's too hard to use properly in general. A successful language should hide threads and do parallelism implicitly whenever it can. That's where I'd look for the programming language to replace C(++).
I sometimes think that the shell language is where Lisp notation should have been headed.
In shell, the car is always a command, and the cdr are the arguments. The
pipe is sufficient to identify the sexp boundaries.
The only (major) problem is that shell is linear whereas Lisp is tree structured. For sublists, the shell solution of using backticks and string interpolation is too ugly.
There's a big difference betweem MUST and SHOULD. It's not evil to allow users to post under their real identities if they so wish, but it is evil to require real identities as a condition of service, especially when there are no guarantees about what this information will be used for or to whom it will be sold over time.
You're right of course, but I meant this in a loose sense. In the common case of imperative coding, succeeding statements are usually related so separating them by semicolons feels right to me. I've also been known to introduce extra {}'s purely for grouping, every once in a while:)
Hold on a second. Just who is domain squatting whom in disney.xxx? I get that
a corporation like Disney feels that wherever their name appears it somehow means that they own it, but to be fair,.xxx is intended to convey information to *us, the web surfing public* that we can and should expect pornographic material.
As such, if disney.xxx is reserved for Disney, *they* are the ones squatting on a potentially legitimate pornographic website. That's wrong, and shouldn't be encouraged. After all, xxx isn't intended for them in the first place, and they certainly have no intention of using the domain appropriately for the TLD's purpose.
Why? In English, a period represents the end of a sentence, but a semicolon indicates that the next sentence is closely related in content. In an imperative languague such as C, succeeding statements are generally closely related and should therefore be separated by semicolons.
If C were a functional language, I'd agree about the period.
They do get permission. Every cookie, bit of JS, etc was sent to your
computer as a result of a GET request from your browser.
GET is not asking for permission. A GET is an action performed by the browser software, not by the person doing the browsing. What the person is doing is clicking on an unrelated link, so implicit permission applies to the expected content of the click. In particular, hidden content (like web bugs) that merely hitches a ride on the content is not covered by the permission.
Most "surfers" don't want the hassle and are happy to be tracked. That's why
the browsers default to silently cooperating with tracking. Why do you want
to use the law to force your choice on them?
Of course, that's my point. "Surfers" don't want the hassle, so why should the browser silently cooperate? It's simpler and more transparent if 1) surfers are not being asked, 2) the browser does not cooperate, and 3) companies who insist on tracking have to jump through lots of extra hoops.
Result: Less tracking and spying as the burden of doing so without legal complications becomes too heavy for what it's worth.
That's exactly right. The ONUS should be on the sites to get individual permission for their tracking, not on you to withold permission each time.
The point being that tracking is already superfluous work that the companies go out of their way to do, so it's ok if the law says they aren't allowed to do it without even more work to get permission from every surfer.
I'm still trying to figure out how to explain what I do to Adults...
Just tell'em each morning you change into a red costume covered in black and white computer circuitry designs, and then you spend the rest of the day herding blue players to the games area for the MCP...
Write a simple BASIC program that does something fun in 10 lines. Start with
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
and keep changing / adding to the listing until it's about 10 lines long and your presentation time is up. You can illustrate the full SDLC this way. I'd make sure to use GW-BASIC in fullscreen mode, and finish the presentation by running a PACMAN clone (*) that the kids can play with.
(*) written in BASIC in case the kids want to see the code.
I doubt it. If you read Gosling interviews from the past few years, one of the ideas he likes to talk about a lot over and over is embedding millions of sensors into the world - in roads, walls, etc. Tiny little bugs that measure something, which can be combined into a completely novel picture of the world.
That's not really what Google does, they're an advertising company whose primary inputs
are words and human behaviours.
The first is closer to hands on lab work, while the second is pure data munging, and my impression is Gosling's not that interested in the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
So where does that leave you? With a made-up analogy that doesn't fit, to justify your personal belief in the benefits of HFT. Don't build sandcastles on quicksand, and maybe you'll have better luck convincing people.
So if I deliberately place two jugs containing a mixture of lemon pulp, sugar and water on a public table next to a cardboard sign having the string "$1" written on it, in the hope of influencing the senses of thirsty passers by and stimulating their intellect into acquiescing an exchange of green bills, then that means I'm doing art?
Sorry, that definition is terrible. Definitions are a dime a dozen. A good definition needs to 1) cover the cases that are intended and 2) not cover unrelated cases. Your definition only does 1), but completely fails at 2).
The end result is a class of people who are lazy and not very smart, and offer nothing to society. But they thrive because they have money. And a class of people who are stuck at the bottom even if they're not lazy, but they can't thrive like the rich.
The right way to make capitalism reward work and ability is to abolish inheritance rights. Make everyone's assets automatically revert to the state when they die, and don't allow children to receive gifts from their parents. That's the only way to level the playing field.
3) All the fridges will get stolen.
For kernels the point is pretty much moot. The current bunch will be around for a few decades and with all the programmer years of legacy code there's really very little likelihood of moving on from C.
Interesting benchmarks though, I'll have to look at them closely. Thanks.
I'm talking about languages like Erlang which "do" parallelism out of the box, not languages like C/Java where parallelism requires thinking about threads, race conditions, and locks. You can't "fix" this, because those languages are all about reading and writing memory directly (RAM or VM it's the same issue).
But the loss of single core efficiency will be offset by the gain in programmer productivity when a language that's fully designed for parallelism appears. But that language won't look like C because the inbuilt parallelism won't allow completely free memory access, otherwise it'll be threads, race conditions and locks all over again.
USD.2
The window of opportunity is there, however. The kind of speed increase you're talking about is easily possible for a language that would do parallelism well. Right now, it's bolted on existing languages with threads, and that's too hard to use properly in general. A successful language should hide threads and do parallelism implicitly whenever it can. That's where I'd look for the programming language to replace C(++).
When I read the headline, I just thought "Gosh, I hope the filesystem isn't called Newman!"
The only (major) problem is that shell is linear whereas Lisp is tree structured. For sublists, the shell solution of using backticks and string interpolation is too ugly.
There's a big difference betweem MUST and SHOULD. It's not evil to allow users to post under their real identities if they so wish, but it is evil to require real identities as a condition of service, especially when there are no guarantees about what this information will be used for or to whom it will be sold over time.
Of course it's new. It's new every year to anyone who finishes high school in that year, IYKWIM.
You're right of course, but I meant this in a loose sense. In the common case of imperative coding, succeeding statements are usually related so separating them by semicolons feels right to me. I've also been known to introduce extra {}'s purely for grouping, every once in a while :)
As such, if disney.xxx is reserved for Disney, *they* are the ones squatting on a potentially legitimate pornographic website. That's wrong, and shouldn't be encouraged. After all, xxx isn't intended for them in the first place, and they certainly have no intention of using the domain appropriately for the TLD's purpose.
However (stylewise) ++var is reminiscent of foo(var), which is I think Doc Ruby's preference.
If C were a functional language, I'd agree about the period.
GET is not asking for permission. A GET is an action performed by the browser software, not by the person doing the browsing. What the person is doing is clicking on an unrelated link, so implicit permission applies to the expected content of the click. In particular, hidden content (like web bugs) that merely hitches a ride on the content is not covered by the permission.
Of course, that's my point. "Surfers" don't want the hassle, so why should the browser silently cooperate? It's simpler and more transparent if 1) surfers are not being asked, 2) the browser does not cooperate, and 3) companies who insist on tracking have to jump through lots of extra hoops.
Result: Less tracking and spying as the burden of doing so without legal complications becomes too heavy for what it's worth.
The point being that tracking is already superfluous work that the companies go out of their way to do, so it's ok if the law says they aren't allowed to do it without even more work to get permission from every surfer.
Just tell'em each morning you change into a red costume covered in black and white computer circuitry designs, and then you spend the rest of the day herding blue players to the games area for the MCP...
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
and keep changing / adding to the listing until it's about 10 lines long and your presentation time is up. You can illustrate the full SDLC this way. I'd make sure to use GW-BASIC in fullscreen mode, and finish the presentation by running a PACMAN clone (*) that the kids can play with.
(*) written in BASIC in case the kids want to see the code.
That's not really what Google does, they're an advertising company whose primary inputs are words and human behaviours.
The first is closer to hands on lab work, while the second is pure data munging, and my impression is Gosling's not that interested in the latter.
A tiny difference: Manning didn't set up shop in Ohio to create a new "Manning military" to compete with the US military...
Whatchu talkin' bout, ipX! I ain't believin' nothin' until Colin Powell calls a press conference to confirm it.
Me too.
Space Jobs?!!
There goes the iPlanet!
That's nothing. Just wait until they come out with the X-rated version of Angry Birds...
Why, does it stop you from mumbling when you're browsing Facebook? ...