Re:Structured programming and perl
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 1
To clarify. I mean it is not inherently a structured programming language. Sure enough, as I say in the next sentence it can even do object oriented programming which is about a structured as it can get. But its the ease of quick scripts that makes perl my daily language. If you have used python you know it is more inherently structured (right down to the test layout) than perl is. Python does not "feel" like a scripting language, its data types are more typed than perls, common operations from reading a file to grepping require formal commands and library imports, and it is highly unsuited to "1-liners" or quick scripts by comparison to perl.
and that's what is valuable about perl, its capability for a lack of formality.
Re:Structured programming and perl
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 1
Oh you silly boy: visualize hyphenation
my work I find it is 50% a-get-the-job-done-parsing -language and 25% sequencer-of-programs-and-deamons and 25% major-object-oriented-programming-effort (often a cgi).
Structured programming and perl
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The reason I like perl is it is not a structured programming language. In my work I find it is 50% a get the job done parsing language and 25% sequencer of programs and deamons and 25% major ojbect oriented programming effort often a cgi.
Thus I worry that perl has Python-envy. I've tried to use python several times but always go back to perl. The reason is my daily need for a parser dominates my choice of language and maintains my fluency, since I dont want to have to be fluent in both, perl becomes my language of choice for advanced tasks too, even though python might be better for strcutrued programming.
So my question is, is perl 6 making make perl a structued language like python? Would it be a good idea if perl did not develop any further for fear of becoming too complicated and thus disorganized. (witness the evolution of java from clean slate to giant mess with intricate redundant libraries half of which are deprecated).
Better read the previos post "I designed and built one". It answers your question. In fact the synthetic array method does allow you to dynamically vary the number of pixels.
repost
Yep I built a electonic video camera that had megarhertz frame rates 8 years ago. I patented it too. Actually two different designs.
C.E.M. Strauss, "Synthetic Array Heterodyne Detection: A single Element Detector Acts As An Array", Optics Letters, Vol 19, No. 20, 1609(1994)
and
B.J. Cooke, A.E. Galbraith, B.E. Laubscher, C.E.M. Strauss, N.L. Olivias, Grubler, A.W. laser field Imaging through fourier Transform Hetrodyne, proc of SPIE, 3707, 390-408, (1999)
the problem with pixelated detectors is reading out the darn pixels fast enough. Normally this is done by some sort of bucket brigade across the ccd or some sort of serial memory access across a cmos array. very slow. And parallel access to an entire ray is absurdly complicated and expensive
In my approach I solved this problem by multiplexing all of the pixel signals onto the same single wire. Each pixel when activated creates an osciliory signal at a unique frequency. All of these are combined on a single wire out put (amplified by a single fast amplifier) and then the AC signal is digitized by a single fast digitizer and streamed to a hard disk. The frame rate is determined by the frequency separation between the pixels, so if the oscillation frequency is a megahertz then a frame can be resolved every microsecond. This process is continuos and can go on for as long as you have disk space.
the other cool feature is that the chip you do this on is a single pixel chip! not a pixelated array. the pixels come from painting the chip with a rainbow of light. for a 1-D example, imagine red light on the left edge and blue light on the right. when a reference signal comes in it beats with the light. the beat frequency that gets ouput is determined by where (left to right) the incoming beam hit.
of course the good news and the bad news is that this is intended for active remote sensing where one is illumunating a target with a single frequency laser. It does not work with ambient light (note the second articele referenced above will work with polychormatic light) . The good news is that the detection method is hetrodyne detection which has shot noise limited detection sensitivity even on a crappy photo detector. thus the system is capable of detecting a single photon of light.
Another cool feature is that one can do doppler detection with this too since any frequency shift in the target's reflected shifts the pixel frequency. This could be used for example the image bllod flowing in veins, find moving objects in noisy scenes (e.g. submarines, air planes) or any number of flow imaging concepts. The heterodyne detection means its sensitive enough to do at very long distances (say space), or to use it for imaging through very dense media (for example, imaging through the side of a vein or through breast or brain tissue.
A description of how it works in stilted patent language can be read on line here
Another cool feature is that one can do doppler detection with this too since any frequency shift in the target's reflected shifts the pixel frequency. This could be used for example the image bllod flowing in veins, find moving objects in noisy scenes (e.g. submarines, air planes) or any number of flow imaging concepts. The heterodyne detection means its sensitive enough to do at very long distances (say space), or to use it for imaging through very dense media (for example, imaging through the side of a vein or through breast or brain tissue.
Yep I built a electonic video camera that had megarhertz frame rates 8 years ago. I patented it too. Actually two different designs.
C.E.M. Strauss, "Synthetic Array Heterodyne Detection: A single Element Detector Acts As An Array", Optics Letters, Vol 19, No. 20, 1609(1994)
and
B.J. Cooke, A.E. Galbraith, B.E. Laubscher, C.E.M. Strauss, N.L. Olivias, Grubler, A.W. laser field Imaging through fourier Transform Hetrodyne, proc of SPIE, 3707, 390-408, (1999)
the problem with pixelated detectors is reading out the darn pixels fast enough. Normally this is done by some sort of bucket brigade across the ccd or some sort of serial memory access across a cmos array. very slow.
In My approach I solved this problem by multiplexing all of the pixel signals onto the same single wire. Each pixel when activated creates an osciliory signal at a unique frequency. All of these are combined on a single wire out put (amplified by a single fast amplifier) and then the AC signal is digitized by a single fast digitizer and streamed to a hard disk. The frame rate is determined by the frequency separation between the pixels, so if the oscillation frequency is a megahertz then a frame can be resolved every microsecond. This process is continuos and can go on for as long as you have disk space.
the other cool feature is that the chip you do this on is a single pixel chip! not a pixelated array. the pixels come from painting the chip with a rainbow of light. for a 1-D example, imagine red light on the left edge and blue light on the right. when a reference signal comes in it beats with the light. the beat frequency that gets ouput is determined by where (left to right) the incoming beam hit.
of course the good news and the bad news is that this is intended for active remote sensing where one is illumunating a target with a single frequency laser. It does not work with ambient light (note the second articele referenced above will work with polychormatic light) . The good news is that the detection method is hetrodyne detection which has shot noise limited detection sensitivity even on a crappy photo detector. thus the system is capable of detecting a single photon of light.
Ah! so her stand distinguishes her amongst other libertatian candidates! there's the debate. But who's the audience if there's only one candidate with an issue?
This would be a libertarian issue. But oddly its not likely to be an issue for any other party. How do you debate such a thing when it only matters to one party? How does this help her succeed?
PHYSICS: this is nonsense
on
Solar Surgery
·
· Score: 1
This is all sort of silly, the sun is a 10 watt light bulb!... Why not just couple a light bulb in to the fiber. some Math:
200mm dish
sun = 1KW/M^2
so power available is:
0.01*3.14*1000 = 31 watts
but you will only couple about 30% of this energy into the fiber in a useful spectral range so that gives a 10 watt lightbulb.
you can run a ten watt light bulb off a battery and you could even charge the battery off a solar panel or a car.
as for precision. once the light is in the fiber, it makes little difference whether its froma laser or a light bulb. in fact the broadband light bulb will be easier to focus reliably than the monochromatic laser (due to the absence of speckle).
what you lose by going to a buld is the pulsed light source that you can get from a laser. Pulse light is better for some applications like retina welding.
64 kb/sec is a lot when its full time. and when millions of people are consuming that full time its going to find choke points. not neccessarily on the backbone.
how long did it take you to type your reply in. compared to dwonloading the web page. you really use 64KB.sec on average.
Isn't this going to choke the internet bandwidth. either at the back bone level or the plain old router level. I mean I would be steamin' mad if some idiot sharing a router with me was streaming a video phone while I'm trying to mount a remote hard disk. While the internet backbone may have excess bandwidth local switches dont.
Furthermore isn't Voip ultimately more expensive if you actually had to pay for it? I mean the reason internet service is so cheap right now is that I dont gobble bandwith 100% of the time. If everyone fully utilized their dsl connections theoretical I think we would all be paying more and getting crappier service.
No no no... that 99 million and many more like it was what raised linux up from the primordial soup in the first place. the real question is where is the next 99 million coming from? Microsoft has it, but will the linux community?
The future may mean that BSD, and companies like apple, will be the way unix can pay for itself. The good news is that having grown the unix install base, the cost per copy of the commerical unix will drop (regard how SUN used to charge an intolerable price for solaris but thats because they only had a few users to pay for all their dev costs). Maybe this will allow unix to be price cometitive with MS windows.
Is it possible the current quality in linux has come about because of Tech investment bubble? That is all those investment dollars that never led to a profit did go to pay salaries of programmers who helped advance Linux and Gnu and all the other parts of the distributions.
We may not want to admit this but maybe this is what allowed LINUX to catch up to Microsoft in userfreindlyness and establish a minimal set of applications. For example, would star office or any of the other office suites have reached their final form or have even tech support available had not their hosting companies like Sun profited from the surge of investment cash?
Sure you might point to some app that was a good bussiness decision for a company to have produced in hindsight, but how many other compaines tried and died in the mean time. I argue that it was the tech bubble the allowed experimentation and risk taking to creat these apps
Since the tech bubble has popped maybe so will the explosion in linux software and linux quality. If so then it might be reasonable to ask if the linux and possibly gnu (anti-) bussiness models, indeed the whole free-software movement will no longer be good models.
open source may survive but it will look more like a BSD model rather than a GPL.
Is it possible the current quality in linux has come about because of Tech investment bubble? That is all those investment dollars that never led to a profit did go to pay salaries of programmers who helped advance Linux and Gnu and all the other parts of the distributions.
We may not want to admit this but maybe this is what allowed LINUX to catch up to Microsoft in userfreindlyness and establish a minimal set of applications. For example, would star office or any of the other office suites have reached their final form or have even tech support available had not their hosting companies like Sun profited from the surge of investment cash?
Sure you might point to some app that was a good bussiness decision for a company to have produced in hindsight, but how many other compaines tried and died in the mean time. I argue that it was the tech bubble the allowed experimentation and risk taking to creat these apps
Since the tech bubble has popped maybe so will the explosion in linux software and linux quality. If so then it might be reasonable to ask if the linux and possibly gnu (anti-) bussiness models, indeed the whole free-software movement will no longer be good models.
open source may survive but it will look more like a BSD model rather than a GPL.
Yes you are 100% correct. Ultrasonification can be very dangerous to living matter. One could argue that the energies involved might be small since the erar is sensitive. But the counter argument is that this device is 100% based on the fact that the ultrasonic energy is creating a non-linear response inside your head that is causing you to hear the audio-frequeny beat frequency. Almost by definition a non-linear response by an otherwise hisgly linear system requires a strong stimulous. Thus the ultra sonics energy is really affecting your body in an abnormal way.
presumably it does not have enough energy to cook the proteins in your body or directly burst cells. But maybe for example it could make cells temporarily more porous, disrupting their ionic balances, allow free radical intrusion which long term could promote eventual cell death, cancer or infection. These would be very very rare events spread out over very long time, be hard to detect and prove cause and effect.
Since its a "tight" beam, close range and long range will have about the same intensity since the signal is not dispersing with distance (or is dispersing slowly). So being close is probably not a great danger than being a medium distance.
On the otherhand if the dominant loss mechnism is absorption in the air rather than dispersion then to reach ultra-long ranges a high intensity beam could be used and that would of course be dangerous close in.
Genomes-to-Life program is aimed at understanding and then harness self-assembling machines found in living organisms. funding this year is 18Million and expected to double or tripple over the next few years. Privates sector, universities, Government labs, and YOU, are invited to submit proposals.
see
http://DOEGenomesToLife.org/primer.html
you probably think i'm kidding. but really that's all ther is to it. one day i'm studying proteins and the next day the boss says you are on the high level comittee to define the future of nanotechnology for our division. What do I know about nano tech. Well if I define it correctly, a lot. So its a marketing umbrella. Work in all the components will go one regardeless. But by giving it a name we create a focus from which real driver applications may emerge.
I work on nano technology, and at a secret government lab no less. So maybe I can say something intelligent. First, its pretty scary how misinformed the commentary here.
what is nanotech? actually there is no such thing. its a marketing buzzword I put in my proposals to get them funded. One of the main funding sources for NANOtech is going to be the department of energy and the National Institutes fo health.
nobody got upset when we all were talking about "microtechology" for the last 20 years. And that was an amorphous term too.
And why anyone would think the governement would want to supress this is beyond me. With NIH and SBIR funding for this at record levels the answer is quite the reverse. The problem is that many of the nano-tech fronteirs are not ready for commercialization. thus Much of the funding is going to be governmental till certain breakthroughs happen. Certainly where it is looking viable, such as carbon nano-tube applications industry is jumping all over it.
as for nanobot viruses. go buy yourself a slurpee and rent another startrek video gomer. good old biological viruses will do just fine for now and the forseable future. No one with any sense takes nanoviruses seriously. In fact its by studying cells and genomes and, most importantly, protein complexes that we will learn how to make self assembling molecular machines. and were no where along that path. Want to read up on this. see the DOE web page on the Genomes-to-life program. that's what that is all about.
what science is on the verge of is using self assembling compounds to make hyper sesnistive transducers. like noses and such. Someday we will be able to clear landmines by sniffing them out. and even that is not practical yet.
Slashdot Mirror
and that's what is valuable about perl, its capability for a lack of formality.
Oh you silly boy: visualize hyphenation
my work I find it is 50% a-get-the-job-done-parsing -language and 25% sequencer-of-programs-and-deamons and 25% major-object-oriented-programming-effort (often a cgi).
Thus I worry that perl has Python-envy. I've tried to use python several times but always go back to perl. The reason is my daily need for a parser dominates my choice of language and maintains my fluency, since I dont want to have to be fluent in both, perl becomes my language of choice for advanced tasks too, even though python might be better for strcutrued programming.
So my question is, is perl 6 making make perl a structued language like python? Would it be a good idea if perl did not develop any further for fear of becoming too complicated and thus disorganized. (witness the evolution of java from clean slate to giant mess with intricate redundant libraries half of which are deprecated).
Better read the previos post "I designed and built one". It answers your question. In fact the synthetic array method does allow you to dynamically vary the number of pixels.
Yep I built a electonic video camera that had megarhertz frame rates 8 years ago. I patented it too. Actually two different designs.
C.E.M. Strauss, "Synthetic Array Heterodyne Detection: A single Element Detector Acts As An Array", Optics Letters, Vol 19, No. 20, 1609(1994)
and
B.J. Cooke, A.E. Galbraith, B.E. Laubscher, C.E.M. Strauss, N.L. Olivias, Grubler, A.W. laser field Imaging through fourier Transform Hetrodyne, proc of SPIE, 3707, 390-408, (1999)
the problem with pixelated detectors is reading out the darn pixels fast enough. Normally this is done by some sort of bucket brigade across the ccd or some sort of serial memory access across a cmos array. very slow. And parallel access to an entire ray is absurdly complicated and expensive
In my approach I solved this problem by multiplexing all of the pixel signals onto the same single wire. Each pixel when activated creates an osciliory signal at a unique frequency. All of these are combined on a single wire out put (amplified by a single fast amplifier) and then the AC signal is digitized by a single fast digitizer and streamed to a hard disk. The frame rate is determined by the frequency separation between the pixels, so if the oscillation frequency is a megahertz then a frame can be resolved every microsecond. This process is continuos and can go on for as long as you have disk space.
the other cool feature is that the chip you do this on is a single pixel chip! not a pixelated array. the pixels come from painting the chip with a rainbow of light. for a 1-D example, imagine red light on the left edge and blue light on the right. when a reference signal comes in it beats with the light. the beat frequency that gets ouput is determined by where (left to right) the incoming beam hit.
of course the good news and the bad news is that this is intended for active remote sensing where one is illumunating a target with a single frequency laser. It does not work with ambient light (note the second articele referenced above will work with polychormatic light) . The good news is that the detection method is hetrodyne detection which has shot noise limited detection sensitivity even on a crappy photo detector. thus the system is capable of detecting a single photon of light.
Another cool feature is that one can do doppler detection with this too since any frequency shift in the target's reflected shifts the pixel frequency. This could be used for example the image bllod flowing in veins, find moving objects in noisy scenes (e.g. submarines, air planes) or any number of flow imaging concepts. The heterodyne detection means its sensitive enough to do at very long distances (say space), or to use it for imaging through very dense media (for example, imaging through the side of a vein or through breast or brain tissue.
A description of how it works in stilted patent language can be read on line here
A description of how it works in stilted patent language can be read on line here
Another cool feature is that one can do doppler detection with this too since any frequency shift in the target's reflected shifts the pixel frequency. This could be used for example the image bllod flowing in veins, find moving objects in noisy scenes (e.g. submarines, air planes) or any number of flow imaging concepts. The heterodyne detection means its sensitive enough to do at very long distances (say space), or to use it for imaging through very dense media (for example, imaging through the side of a vein or through breast or brain tissue.
C.E.M. Strauss, "Synthetic Array Heterodyne Detection: A single Element Detector Acts As An Array", Optics Letters, Vol 19, No. 20, 1609(1994)
and
B.J. Cooke, A.E. Galbraith, B.E. Laubscher, C.E.M. Strauss, N.L. Olivias, Grubler, A.W. laser field Imaging through fourier Transform Hetrodyne, proc of SPIE, 3707, 390-408, (1999)
the problem with pixelated detectors is reading out the darn pixels fast enough. Normally this is done by some sort of bucket brigade across the ccd or some sort of serial memory access across a cmos array. very slow.
In My approach I solved this problem by multiplexing all of the pixel signals onto the same single wire. Each pixel when activated creates an osciliory signal at a unique frequency. All of these are combined on a single wire out put (amplified by a single fast amplifier) and then the AC signal is digitized by a single fast digitizer and streamed to a hard disk. The frame rate is determined by the frequency separation between the pixels, so if the oscillation frequency is a megahertz then a frame can be resolved every microsecond. This process is continuos and can go on for as long as you have disk space.
the other cool feature is that the chip you do this on is a single pixel chip! not a pixelated array. the pixels come from painting the chip with a rainbow of light. for a 1-D example, imagine red light on the left edge and blue light on the right. when a reference signal comes in it beats with the light. the beat frequency that gets ouput is determined by where (left to right) the incoming beam hit.
of course the good news and the bad news is that this is intended for active remote sensing where one is illumunating a target with a single frequency laser. It does not work with ambient light (note the second articele referenced above will work with polychormatic light) . The good news is that the detection method is hetrodyne detection which has shot noise limited detection sensitivity even on a crappy photo detector. thus the system is capable of detecting a single photon of light.
Ah! so her stand distinguishes her amongst other libertatian candidates! there's the debate. But who's the audience if there's only one candidate with an issue?
This would be a libertarian issue. But oddly its not likely to be an issue for any other party. How do you debate such a thing when it only matters to one party? How does this help her succeed?
200mm dish
sun = 1KW/M^2
so power available is:
0.01*3.14*1000 = 31 watts
but you will only couple about 30% of this energy into the fiber in a useful spectral range so that gives a 10 watt lightbulb.
you can run a ten watt light bulb off a battery and you could even charge the battery off a solar panel or a car.
as for precision. once the light is in the fiber, it makes little difference whether its froma laser or a light bulb. in fact the broadband light bulb will be easier to focus reliably than the monochromatic laser (due to the absence of speckle).
what you lose by going to a buld is the pulsed light source that you can get from a laser. Pulse light is better for some applications like retina welding.
how long did it take you to type your reply in. compared to dwonloading the web page. you really use 64KB.sec on average.
Furthermore isn't Voip ultimately more expensive if you actually had to pay for it? I mean the reason internet service is so cheap right now is that I dont gobble bandwith 100% of the time. If everyone fully utilized their dsl connections theoretical I think we would all be paying more and getting crappier service.
Is it possible the current quality in linux has come about because of Tech investment bubble? That is all those investment dollars that never led to a profit did go to pay salaries of programmers who helped advance Linux and Gnu and all the other parts of the distributions.
We may not want to admit this but maybe this is what allowed LINUX to catch up to Microsoft in userfreindlyness and establish a minimal set of applications. For example, would star office or any of the other office suites have reached their final form or have even tech support available had not their hosting companies like Sun profited from the surge of investment cash?
Sure you might point to some app that was a good bussiness decision for a company to have produced in hindsight, but how many other compaines tried and died in the mean time. I argue that it was the tech bubble the allowed experimentation and risk taking to creat these apps
Since the tech bubble has popped maybe so will the explosion in linux software and linux quality. If so then it might be reasonable to ask if the linux and possibly gnu (anti-) bussiness models, indeed the whole free-software movement will no longer be good models.
open source may survive but it will look more like a BSD model rather than a GPL.
We may not want to admit this but maybe this is what allowed LINUX to catch up to Microsoft in userfreindlyness and establish a minimal set of applications. For example, would star office or any of the other office suites have reached their final form or have even tech support available had not their hosting companies like Sun profited from the surge of investment cash?
Sure you might point to some app that was a good bussiness decision for a company to have produced in hindsight, but how many other compaines tried and died in the mean time. I argue that it was the tech bubble the allowed experimentation and risk taking to creat these apps
Since the tech bubble has popped maybe so will the explosion in linux software and linux quality. If so then it might be reasonable to ask if the linux and possibly gnu (anti-) bussiness models, indeed the whole free-software movement will no longer be good models.
open source may survive but it will look more like a BSD model rather than a GPL.
Yes you are 100% correct. Ultrasonification can be very dangerous to living matter. One could argue that the energies involved might be small since the erar is sensitive. But the counter argument is that this device is 100% based on the fact that the ultrasonic energy is creating a non-linear response inside your head that is causing you to hear the audio-frequeny beat frequency. Almost by definition a non-linear response by an otherwise hisgly linear system requires a strong stimulous. Thus the ultra sonics energy is really affecting your body in an abnormal way. presumably it does not have enough energy to cook the proteins in your body or directly burst cells. But maybe for example it could make cells temporarily more porous, disrupting their ionic balances, allow free radical intrusion which long term could promote eventual cell death, cancer or infection. These would be very very rare events spread out over very long time, be hard to detect and prove cause and effect.
Since its a "tight" beam, close range and long range will have about the same intensity since the signal is not dispersing with distance (or is dispersing slowly). So being close is probably not a great danger than being a medium distance. On the otherhand if the dominant loss mechnism is absorption in the air rather than dispersion then to reach ultra-long ranges a high intensity beam could be used and that would of course be dangerous close in.
Genomes-to-Life program is aimed at understanding and then harness self-assembling machines found in living organisms. funding this year is 18Million and expected to double or tripple over the next few years. Privates sector, universities, Government labs, and YOU, are invited to submit proposals. see
http://DOEGenomesToLife.org/primer.html
you probably think i'm kidding. but really that's all ther is to it. one day i'm studying proteins and the next day the boss says you are on the high level comittee to define the future of nanotechnology for our division. What do I know about nano tech. Well if I define it correctly, a lot. So its a marketing umbrella. Work in all the components will go one regardeless. But by giving it a name we create a focus from which real driver applications may emerge.
Not tough. Its easy when it isn't defined. you can be a nano-technologist too!
I work on nano technology, and at a secret government lab no less. So maybe I can say something intelligent. First, its pretty scary how misinformed the commentary here. what is nanotech? actually there is no such thing. its a marketing buzzword I put in my proposals to get them funded. One of the main funding sources for NANOtech is going to be the department of energy and the National Institutes fo health. nobody got upset when we all were talking about "microtechology" for the last 20 years. And that was an amorphous term too. And why anyone would think the governement would want to supress this is beyond me. With NIH and SBIR funding for this at record levels the answer is quite the reverse. The problem is that many of the nano-tech fronteirs are not ready for commercialization. thus Much of the funding is going to be governmental till certain breakthroughs happen. Certainly where it is looking viable, such as carbon nano-tube applications industry is jumping all over it. as for nanobot viruses. go buy yourself a slurpee and rent another startrek video gomer. good old biological viruses will do just fine for now and the forseable future. No one with any sense takes nanoviruses seriously. In fact its by studying cells and genomes and, most importantly, protein complexes that we will learn how to make self assembling molecular machines. and were no where along that path. Want to read up on this. see the DOE web page on the Genomes-to-life program. that's what that is all about. what science is on the verge of is using self assembling compounds to make hyper sesnistive transducers. like noses and such. Someday we will be able to clear landmines by sniffing them out. and even that is not practical yet.