That's true now, but I was referring to a time (long ago) when I was studying engineering, a lot of verbage in textbooks was dedicated to comparison of keypresses between RPN and the usual type of so-called algebraic calculator that was then common.
As for aesthetics, I agree, but don't care much one way or the other any more...:-)
I'm quite comfortable with both entry modes, and I agree RPN doesn't take long to learn. But at least I know that if I lend my TI-89 to someone. I don't have to worry that they'll crash the machine by using it wrong. That actually happened to my HP48G+ once in a lab assessment; I didn't manage to get the calculator to recover until hours later.
But I would argue that the learning to generate simple programs in TI-basic is probably easier and more intuitive than in UserRPL. I know there are C compilers for both machines, but it is convenient to be able to cobble together a script for a specific job in one's lunch-break without having to carry around the user's manual.
One way in which the TI-89 (and upwards) blows away my HP48G+ is in integration. The HP is so slow at definite integrals that it is actually quicker to get out a piece of paper and a pencil and do it the old way. The TI, however, spits out the answer almost instantaneously.
The HP48G+ is identical to the HP48GX with the one exception that it doesn't have the memory expansion slot. I have one, and it's still nice, but I mostly use a Texas Instruments TI-89 now. It is much faster than the HP48G, though it doesn't have native RPN.
RPN is a neat way to be able to chain calculations, but it's now a myth that it saves keypresses when compared to modern "real" algebraic calculators.
There's a difference, however, when a software company sits on its hands and fails to fix known holes, as (ahem) "that" company has on more occasions than I am prepared to take the time to count.
At least the bugs in most (all?) critical OSS tend to get fixed, usually within hours of their being reported, and usually before the holes have time to get exploited. (Sure, admins have to keep up with the advisories, but that is not unique to any OS.) You can't find fault with that.
The shitheads could have the decency to apologise gracefully, rather than coming out with this claptrap:
Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," Colin J. Zick, the Foley Hoag lawyer, wrote
This copy should be human readable so the voter can chack that the machine did indeed register his desired choices
There's a problem here. It's easy to print out an individual's choices, but it's just as easy to munge them internally to represent what someone else wants. A much better means of auditing the process is needed. After all, nobody expects every single voter to stick around and make sure his vote got counted.
If that happens to be open source, so much the better
If you claim to have a democracy, then you don't have a choice. The source code for the software has to be verifiable as being (a) secure and (b) being the same source code as that on which the ballot is being run.
Hopefully the america they inherrit won't be completely fucked...
The rest of the world can dream, I guess, of a sexually frustrated America doomed to a state of incomplete fuckedness and quietly dissapearing up its own arsehole as a consequence of this defect in reproductive capacity...
Here in Australia, you can tell your ISP whatever you want, but the fact remains that there are very few uncapped broadband accounts, unless you are prepared to uncap the amount you are prepared to pay for one.
It's optional for now. It makes sense from Microsoft's point of view to introduce obnoxious, intrusive programs as "optional features", so that when they incorporate it as a hard-wired component of their other products they can gull the gullible by putting a "positive" swing on the announcement.
"Now including..."
Let's face it; Microsoft is not making money out of people who actually have a handle on what Microsoft are doing to manipulate the market. They are making money by exploiting the stupidity of business managers or by exploiting the ignorance of your grandmother.
as in the original post run through the autoclave to sterilize it.
Although I have yet to see any kind of phone that can stand an autoclave, I personally know three hospital workers who have solved their own mobile phone problems by drowning the machines in the toilet:-)
Microsoft's record for interoperability with other technologies so far has not been good. Let's face it, different versions of their own technologies are not particularly interoperable from an output-file-format point of view.
I'm not going to hold my breath; it's more likely we'll see more software designed to lock in their own users and lock out the rest of the world, regardless of current PR bleating.
If they want to convince "us" (namely the OSS community/free world/whatever you want to call it) they have to come up with actions, not blather. We've had enough of the latter.
I'll start worrying about the accuracy of asteroid collision prediction after they manage to figure out how to predict rain 3 days from now with better than 70% accuracy
Your meteorological office is obviously a hell of a lot better than ours then. Here in Perth, Western Australia the accuracy is about 45% for predictions for the same day. They would get statistically better results if they simply said "the weather today will be pretty much like it was yesterday".
As far as I'm concerned, if the world's going to get wiped out by a big chunk of rock in 10 minutes' time, I'd be happier not knowing about it. It's not as if we're really in a position to do anything about it anyway.
Anyway, thank you for taking part in an entertaining religious flamewar. LOL
Well, Pthhrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllbtt! to you too, script-kiddie!:-D
But seriously, your objections to the absence of WHILE/REPEAT UNTIL/and so forth are somewhat silly. If you really want to code in GWBASIC just do so, don't whine that another language doesn't work the same way.
If you still remember your Fortran, you might just as well keep using it if that's what gets the job done. If you want to do your stuff in a way that is currently trendy, use C or C++. I've made a number of pro-Fortran posts on this topic since I'm another greybeard (figuratively speaking), but I have to admit that every line of compiled code I've written in the last 5 years or more has been in C. Both are excellent. Ultimately, it all depends on what fits your headspace.
There is no edict writ in 300-foot letters of flame that says "THOU SHALT/SHALT NOT USE GOTO". I have to admit that from time to time I have used a GOTO (in Fortran IV) but I haven't lost much sleep over it. This is ultimately more of a philosophical argument than a practical one. Sure, Dijkstra was a brilliant man, but he didn't have a monopoly on sensible ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true now, but I was referring to a time (long ago) when I was studying engineering, a lot of verbage in textbooks was dedicated to comparison of keypresses between RPN and the usual type of so-called algebraic calculator that was then common.
As for aesthetics, I agree, but don't care much one way or the other any more... :-)
But I would argue that the learning to generate simple programs in TI-basic is probably easier and more intuitive than in UserRPL. I know there are C compilers for both machines, but it is convenient to be able to cobble together a script for a specific job in one's lunch-break without having to carry around the user's manual.
One way in which the TI-89 (and upwards) blows away my HP48G+ is in integration. The HP is so slow at definite integrals that it is actually quicker to get out a piece of paper and a pencil and do it the old way. The TI, however, spits out the answer almost instantaneously.
RPN is a neat way to be able to chain calculations, but it's now a myth that it saves keypresses when compared to modern "real" algebraic calculators.
I won't argue that, as it's true.
There's a difference, however, when a software company sits on its hands and fails to fix known holes, as (ahem) "that" company has on more occasions than I am prepared to take the time to count.
At least the bugs in most (all?) critical OSS tend to get fixed, usually within hours of their being reported, and usually before the holes have time to get exploited. (Sure, admins have to keep up with the advisories, but that is not unique to any OS.) You can't find fault with that.
Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," Colin J. Zick, the Foley Hoag lawyer, wrote
What an asswipe.
There's a problem here. It's easy to print out an individual's choices, but it's just as easy to munge them internally to represent what someone else wants. A much better means of auditing the process is needed. After all, nobody expects every single voter to stick around and make sure his vote got counted.
If you claim to have a democracy, then you don't have a choice. The source code for the software has to be verifiable as being (a) secure and (b) being the same source code as that on which the ballot is being run.
The rest of the world can dream, I guess, of a sexually frustrated America doomed to a state of incomplete fuckedness and quietly dissapearing up its own arsehole as a consequence of this defect in reproductive capacity...
OK, I'll shut up now :-)
Yes, probably more than I trust the future governor of California to put together a word with more than one syllable in the right order...
Or, for that matter, more than I would trust a former US President and former governor of California to remember what he had for breakfast :-).
But my favourite game of yesteryear was Rodent's Revenge :-)
Here in Australia, you can tell your ISP whatever you want, but the fact remains that there are very few uncapped broadband accounts, unless you are prepared to uncap the amount you are prepared to pay for one.
"Now including..."
Let's face it; Microsoft is not making money out of people who actually have a handle on what Microsoft are doing to manipulate the market. They are making money by exploiting the stupidity of business managers or by exploiting the ignorance of your grandmother.
Much as those of us outside the US might appreciate this, I'm afraid you're dreaming.
I wouldn't. I used to work for a company producing banking software, and have first hand experience of their tightfistedness.
And it wouldn't do to underestimate their stupidity when it comes to security, either.
Although I have yet to see any kind of phone that can stand an autoclave, I personally know three hospital workers who have solved their own mobile phone problems by drowning the machines in the toilet :-)
I'm not going to hold my breath; it's more likely we'll see more software designed to lock in their own users and lock out the rest of the world, regardless of current PR bleating.
If they want to convince "us" (namely the OSS community/free world/whatever you want to call it) they have to come up with actions, not blather. We've had enough of the latter.
Sorry, just realised you were replying to a post that was below my threshold - my bad...
And you need to lear[n] about hyperbole
I know what the word means. Your point is what?
Your meteorological office is obviously a hell of a lot better than ours then. Here in Perth, Western Australia the accuracy is about 45% for predictions for the same day. They would get statistically better results if they simply said "the weather today will be pretty much like it was yesterday".
As far as I'm concerned, if the world's going to get wiped out by a big chunk of rock in 10 minutes' time, I'd be happier not knowing about it. It's not as if we're really in a position to do anything about it anyway.
Well, Pthhrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllbtt! to you too, script-kiddie! :-D
But seriously, your objections to the absence of WHILE/REPEAT UNTIL/and so forth are somewhat silly. If you really want to code in GWBASIC just do so, don't whine that another language doesn't work the same way.
If you still remember your Fortran, you might just as well keep using it if that's what gets the job done. If you want to do your stuff in a way that is currently trendy, use C or C++. I've made a number of pro-Fortran posts on this topic since I'm another greybeard (figuratively speaking), but I have to admit that every line of compiled code I've written in the last 5 years or more has been in C. Both are excellent. Ultimately, it all depends on what fits your headspace.
There is no edict writ in 300-foot letters of flame that says "THOU SHALT/SHALT NOT USE GOTO". I have to admit that from time to time I have used a GOTO (in Fortran IV) but I haven't lost much sleep over it. This is ultimately more of a philosophical argument than a practical one. Sure, Dijkstra was a brilliant man, but he didn't have a monopoly on sensible ideas.
Good for her, I hope you're proud of her :-)