my "single core" desktop computer actually contains at least two significant processors, the CPU and the graphics card (which may very well have more processing power than the CPU)
Interesting, though the debate here seems to be over cores, which Oracle's Jacqueline Woods defines (for the context of this debate) as saying "A core is equal to a CPU".
So, Yes, a graphics card has a processor. Yes, the grahics card has a core. But the processor on a graphics card is a GPU, not a CPU. Hence, GPU (and for that matter co-processor) count does not apply. quod erat demonstrandum
In March 1923 the British mountaineer George Leigh Mallory was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, and replied, 'Because it's there'. Good enough for me. It's a noble idea and technically feasible. Wish I could help...
DNA isn't the holy grail of biology, like we all thought (instead it is a complex interaction between micro-RNA and DNA).
Interesting. I'd go out on a limb and say it was the process of translation or even protein folding that is the actual holy grail.
There are some camps that believe that the DNA->mRNA interaction (aka transcription) is less complex and more predictable than the mRNA->Protein interaction (aka translation). If my memory serves me well, the process of transcription usually produces a fairly good "copy" of the DNA sequence, while translation seems to have a few unknowns in how he sequence is transformed into AA chains. And then the way in which the proteins fold, and hence gain their function is still up for grabs.
This is what arrogance is... Instead of "Your professor obvious had no idea what he was talking about", how about: "How would the professor spot plagiarism if I did:..."
Interesting opinion. You should have probably read the entire post before your replied. I take that back. "How would you have spotted the sarcasm if you did't read..."
as one of my professors said, "if you can copy someone else's code and alter it so I can't tell, you may as well have actually done the assignment."
Your professor obviously had no idea what he was talking about. It only takes a few seconds to make the most complex program easily plagiarized and virtually undetectable.
Change the "Author" name in the header, not the formatting of the actual header - just the name.
Change all of the variable names to things that would be superficially associated with you - and ONLY YOU. For example, change a variable named intCounter to myCounter or theCounter.
Add some extra white space before and after all while loops - actually, go ahead and change all occurrences of the word "while" to "until" - they do the same thing anyway.
That should be enough to get your started. Now just kick back and relax at your favorite watering hole. Throw down a couple extra beers tonight - your secret'll be safe with us!
-Jay
...Linux on cellphones or refrigerators, just because it's so not what I envisioned it. Or on supercomputers.
I've heard that when celebrities mention they like things like Pepsi or Nike during TV interviews, they receive huge amounts of products from the manufacturers as a sort of thanks for the unsolicited and valuable publicity.
Now this writer is talking about "codeless development environments" which are (like the 5GLs and expert systems of yesteryear) supposed to replace programmers.
The way I see it, if the current demand for software systems doesn't change, this argument may possibly hold *SOME* water. However, users keep pushing what they want onto the cutting edge of what current systems can do.
For an analagous example, look at processing power. When companies come out with faster processors, do we just run the same applications, but now just faster? No. Not only do our standard applications do new and *cough cough* wonderful things, We find new and exciting uses for our extra processing power. which in turn pushes the need for even faster processors.
It seems that the extra time made available by the eases of case tools, intelligent IDEs and more intuitive syntax is being put to use implementing more sophisticated architectures, developing more robust business logic and implementing more useable software overall.
Without the increase in productivity associated with evolving programming tools (ie languages,environments,frameworks) would we have more programmers working on projects of the same scale as today, or the same number of programmers working on projects with less usability?
Slashdot Mirror
my "single core" desktop computer actually contains at least two significant processors, the CPU and the graphics card (which may very well have more processing power than the CPU)
Interesting, though the debate here seems to be over cores, which Oracle's Jacqueline Woods defines (for the context of this debate) as saying "A core is equal to a CPU".
So, Yes, a graphics card has a processor. Yes, the grahics card has a core. But the processor on a graphics card is a GPU, not a CPU. Hence, GPU (and for that matter co-processor) count does not apply. quod erat demonstrandum
Should we do it?
In March 1923 the British mountaineer George Leigh Mallory was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, and replied, 'Because it's there'. Good enough for me. It's a noble idea and technically feasible. Wish I could help...
DNA isn't the holy grail of biology, like we all thought (instead it is a complex interaction between micro-RNA and DNA).
Interesting. I'd go out on a limb and say it was the process of translation or even protein folding that is the actual holy grail.
There are some camps that believe that the DNA->mRNA interaction (aka transcription) is less complex and more predictable than the mRNA->Protein interaction (aka translation). If my memory serves me well, the process of transcription usually produces a fairly good "copy" of the DNA sequence, while translation seems to have a few unknowns in how he sequence is transformed into AA chains. And then the way in which the proteins fold, and hence gain their function is still up for grabs.
This is what arrogance is ... Instead of "Your professor obvious had no idea what he was talking about", how about: "How would the professor spot plagiarism if I did: ..."
Interesting opinion. You should have probably read the entire post before your replied. I take that back. "How would you have spotted the sarcasm if you did't read..."
Your professor obviously had no idea what he was talking about. It only takes a few seconds to make the most complex program easily plagiarized and virtually undetectable.
- Change the "Author" name in the header, not the formatting of the actual header - just the name.
- Change all of the variable names to things that would be superficially associated with you - and ONLY YOU. For example, change a variable named intCounter to myCounter or theCounter.
- Add some extra white space before and after all while loops - actually, go ahead and change all occurrences of the word "while" to "until" - they do the same thing anyway.
That should be enough to get your started. Now just kick back and relax at your favorite watering hole. Throw down a couple extra beers tonight - your secret'll be safe with us!-Jay
...Linux on cellphones or refrigerators, just because it's so not what I envisioned it. Or on supercomputers.
I've heard that when celebrities mention they like things like Pepsi or Nike during TV interviews, they receive huge amounts of products from the manufacturers as a sort of thanks for the unsolicited and valuable publicity.
Gunning for a new toy Linus?
Now this writer is talking about "codeless development environments" which are (like the 5GLs and expert systems of yesteryear) supposed to replace programmers.
The way I see it, if the current demand for software systems doesn't change, this argument may possibly hold *SOME* water. However, users keep pushing what they want onto the cutting edge of what current systems can do.
For an analagous example, look at processing power. When companies come out with faster processors, do we just run the same applications, but now just faster? No. Not only do our standard applications do new and *cough cough* wonderful things, We find new and exciting uses for our extra processing power. which in turn pushes the need for even faster processors.
It seems that the extra time made available by the eases of case tools, intelligent IDEs and more intuitive syntax is being put to use implementing more sophisticated architectures, developing more robust business logic and implementing more useable software overall.
Without the increase in productivity associated with evolving programming tools (ie languages,environments,frameworks) would we have more programmers working on projects of the same scale as today, or the same number of programmers working on projects with less usability?