Lisp will probably always have this place, just like Godel's Therom will always have it's place in mathamatics, for the fact that they are so fundemental. Lisp is a meta-language, a way of describing algorithims. Metaprogramming is not a fancy trick in Lisp, but how you get it done.
With other languages, a compiler 'parses' your code into an Abstract syntax tree, in Lisp, your code is that tree.
XML documents can be represented as S-Expressions, makeing XML a poorly implemented Lisp, a la Greespun. </lispFanatic> I agree that the parens are nasty. Still, I belive FP is the way to go.
Hey! Get your crazy ideas away from my game! I bought BF1942 solely for the multiplayer experience. I've never even tried the single player, and frankly, I have no idea why anyone would. I haven't played a single player game since Doom I. (maybe a bit of Rise of Nations and the like). For me, MP is gameing.
I have nothing against you getting great single player games, but I want my games to focus on MP goodness.
Where's the fun in pulling off a knife throw to the neck instakill against your computer? AI never panics like a 12 year old boy, maybe it fakes it, but you can't smell it. There's no point in letting the AI think you haven't seen them, or prioritizing targets by who reacted first, because your only fooling an algorithm. I've never played against an AI where my internal model of it was anything more than a simple checklist of behaviours.
I think that is a very important point. None of this changes the fact that every person deserves to be evaluated individually, not as a member of a group. And it will always remain true that hard work can overcome many obstacles.
My original point was that the topic should be allowed on the table, rather than being buried under a wave of political correctness. I know it's hard not to think anyone taking about this is a racist, but it doesn't have to be that way. (I was gonna avoid pulling the race card, but you might be interested to know my grandad is black, his wife is E. Indian) Anyway, thanks for countering me with a couple well thought out points...
As far as the 0.01% goes, he was talking about tenured math professors at Harvard, a pretty competitive field. I wouldn't be too surprised if they were in the top 0.01% in mathematical ability.
The www was being used in ~92, maybe he's refering to.plan files? I agree with the idea though, as long as we've had computer to computer comunications, we've been obsessing over personal spaces.
Your example is poorly chosen. There is less correlation between g and education than IQ and education, and g has an even higher correlation to income.
I personally hate the idea. It assaults the foundation of my liberalism, that everyone is born equal. But I don't think that ignoring the facts for political correctness makes sense. This is part of Harvard Pres Lawrence H. Summers 'controversial" speech.
"It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paper-looked at the book, rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth-but 50% women, one woman for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates. From that, you can back out a difference in the implied standard deviations that works out to be about 20%. And from that, you can work out the difference out several standard deviations. If you do that calculation-and I have no reason to think that it couldn't be refined in a hundred ways-you get five to one, at the high end. Now, it's pointed out by one of the papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And that's absolutely right. But I don't think that resolves the issue at all. Because if my reading of the data is right-it's something people can argue about-that there are some systematic differences in variability in different populations, then whatever the set of attributes are that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem."
Now, this seems pretty firmly grounded in the questioning openmindedness we expect from our universities. If you disagree, and Summers has pointed out some weak spots for you to start with, I'm sure he's open to disscuss it.
Of course, the resulting PC backlash had Harvard promising $50,000,000 for anti discrimination measures in two weeks. Something is very wrong here.
There is a correlation between childhood nutrition and IQ, but it's minor compared to the genetic component, and only kicks in in cases of malnutrition.
I understand that you gotta put food on the table, and sometimes you need to do stuff you don't want to, but here's a simple fact that many people don't learn, ever.
Googles business entirely depends on their IT infrastructure. Tommy Hilfigers does not. Maybe Google knows something about "the final tier of reliability and predictability", that Hilfigers, due to their position as a clothing company, does not?
Re:now before anyone gets started
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You don't get what's to like about a company that sold everything at cost and didn't charge for shipping?
1. Singlehandedly write new functional language, compiler, and VM.
2. Get job at Google.
or....
1. Write Yet Another (fill in app here), name it after (only) ex girlfriend.
2. Still do not have job at google, write ask Slashdot.
3. ???
Hmmmmm. I'm guessing you're smarter than most of us. Oh well! It's cool that you took the time to do something like that right after school, and even cooler that there are employees who see that as valuable. Congrats.
I always thought one of the more interesting things about Carmack wasn't his original work (which is impressive) but his ability to mine academic papers for techniques useful to him. Most of the really cool things he introduced to the gaming world came from research in CGI and such (BSP's, etc). The point is, while everyone else was writing what they know, John was learning what he needed to know to make his vision.
I didn't mean to imply that those packages are without value, just that FCP was in a different class. I have spent a little time with Kino, and was impressed at the time, but really only because it was free. Your Cinelerra feature list is pretty impressive, I'll check that out next time. I'm a huge OSS advocate, but if you're doing a significant amount of work, the non-free option is often your best choice.
I use the Gimp every week. I could reboot and use photoshop, but for most things the Gimp is good enough. But I still think the Gimp is kinda crappy compared to PS, and could be radically improved. I think sometimes the OSS community does itself a disfavour by trying to upsell the OSS projects out there as comparable to their professional counterparts when they aren't.
You make a good point, that maybe he's not too familiar with his equipment and that's keeping him from doing better work, but the only way we get better tech is by consumers bitching.
Slashdot Mirror
The little playing around I did with Ruby on Rails was very impressive, I understand why it's getting hyped.
Going totally OT, in my part of the world 'on rails' is an euphemism for 'on coke'. Is this widespread, or just local to my area (BC)
With other languages, a compiler 'parses' your code into an Abstract syntax tree, in Lisp, your code is that tree.
- C is a programming language
- Lisp is a data description language
- XML is crippled Lisp with no semantics.
It's not a sin in Lisp.
XML documents can be represented as S-Expressions, makeing XML a poorly implemented Lisp, a la Greespun.
</lispFanatic>
I agree that the parens are nasty. Still, I belive FP is the way to go.
I have nothing against you getting great single player games, but I want my games to focus on MP goodness.
Where's the fun in pulling off a knife throw to the neck instakill against your computer? AI never panics like a 12 year old boy, maybe it fakes it, but you can't smell it. There's no point in letting the AI think you haven't seen them, or prioritizing targets by who reacted first, because your only fooling an algorithm. I've never played against an AI where my internal model of it was anything more than a simple checklist of behaviours.
I think that is a very important point. None of this changes the fact that every person deserves to be evaluated individually, not as a member of a group. And it will always remain true that hard work can overcome many obstacles.
As far as the 0.01% goes, he was talking about tenured math professors at Harvard, a pretty competitive field. I wouldn't be too surprised if they were in the top 0.01% in mathematical ability.
The www was being used in ~92, maybe he's refering to .plan files? I agree with the idea though, as long as we've had computer to computer comunications, we've been obsessing over personal spaces.
Sorry! I forgot to add that that link doesn't support that conclusion. It does collect a lot of cross cultural data though...
Your example is poorly chosen. There is less correlation between g and education than IQ and education, and g has an even higher correlation to income.
link
I personally hate the idea. It assaults the foundation of my liberalism, that everyone is born equal. But I don't think that ignoring the facts for political correctness makes sense. This is part of Harvard Pres Lawrence H. Summers 'controversial" speech.
"It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paper-looked at the book, rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth-but 50% women, one woman for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates. From that, you can back out a difference in the implied standard deviations that works out to be about 20%. And from that, you can work out the difference out several standard deviations. If you do that calculation-and I have no reason to think that it couldn't be refined in a hundred ways-you get five to one, at the high end. Now, it's pointed out by one of the papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And that's absolutely right. But I don't think that resolves the issue at all. Because if my reading of the data is right-it's something people can argue about-that there are some systematic differences in variability in different populations, then whatever the set of attributes are that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem."
Now, this seems pretty firmly grounded in the questioning openmindedness we expect from our universities. If you disagree, and Summers has pointed out some weak spots for you to start with, I'm sure he's open to disscuss it.
Of course, the resulting PC backlash had Harvard promising $50,000,000 for anti discrimination measures in two weeks. Something is very wrong here.
There is a correlation between childhood nutrition and IQ, but it's minor compared to the genetic component, and only kicks in in cases of malnutrition.
Your numbers are a bit off, IMO, I'd add ~5 points to the Asians and Ashkenazi.
We've alread seen /. in CSS.
Happiness != SizeOfPaycheque
Ahhh, but it's reliable spam.
Googles business entirely depends on their IT infrastructure. Tommy Hilfigers does not. Maybe Google knows something about "the final tier of reliability and predictability", that Hilfigers, due to their position as a clothing company, does not?
You don't get what's to like about a company that sold everything at cost and didn't charge for shipping?
2. Get job at Google.
or....
1. Write Yet Another (fill in app here), name it after (only) ex girlfriend.
2. Still do not have job at google, write ask Slashdot.
3. ???
Hmmmmm. I'm guessing you're smarter than most of us. Oh well! It's cool that you took the time to do something like that right after school, and even cooler that there are employees who see that as valuable. Congrats.
I always thought one of the more interesting things about Carmack wasn't his original work (which is impressive) but his ability to mine academic papers for techniques useful to him. Most of the really cool things he introduced to the gaming world came from research in CGI and such (BSP's, etc). The point is, while everyone else was writing what they know, John was learning what he needed to know to make his vision.
I use the Gimp every week. I could reboot and use photoshop, but for most things the Gimp is good enough. But I still think the Gimp is kinda crappy compared to PS, and could be radically improved. I think sometimes the OSS community does itself a disfavour by trying to upsell the OSS projects out there as comparable to their professional counterparts when they aren't.
FCP is a stellar app, and the apps you link to don't really compare.
You make a good point, that maybe he's not too familiar with his equipment and that's keeping him from doing better work, but the only way we get better tech is by consumers bitching.