Of course if you want to split hairs about "simultaneous", you'll go to relativity instead. Note that with large supercomputers, the order of certain operations on different processors may even physically be undefined. If two multiplications are simultaneous may depend on your inertial system.
If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a "protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor; and when was the last time you used one?"
What is a "red Ford car steering wheel quick left turn" and what was the last time you used one?
Or rather, men and women just use somewhat different codes. There need not to be anything blurry on either side.
To make a simplified example: Say women use "smiling and twinkling" as code for sexual intent, while men think it's "smiling and listening". Then an understanding happens if the woman either smiles, twinkles and listens (in which case the message "sexual intent" has been successfully passed), or if the woman doesn't smile or neither smiles nor twinkles (in which case the message "no sexual intent" has been successfully passed), but if the woman smiles and either twinkles of listens, but not both, there's a misunderstanding. Note that there's absolutely nothing blurry about either code, it's just a mismatch.
And a warning: The signs are completely made up, so if you take smiling and twinkling of a woman as sexual intent, and it turns out to be wrong, don't complain to me!:-)
That of course depends on what qualifies as a move. If turning the middle layers is allowed, then the middle sides can certainly chance places (e.g. a turn left of the cube can then be done with three moves: turn upper layer left, turn horizontal middle layer left, turn lower layer left). I don't know how exactly the moves are defined for this proof (I didn't RTFA), but there are certainly many possibilities. Note that allowing only moving the outer slides, while universal for the 3x3x3 cube, won't generalize to higher cubes (you'll not get all possible configurations on the 4x4x4 cube this way).
It wasn't CP/M, the Commodore 64, the Apple II or the Mac that brought the PC into every home and office. It was the IBM PC clone running MSDOS and Windows.
The key word here is "IBM PC clone" - at that time IBM was the company, so the PC could sell just from having the name IBM on it, and the clones, while not really being IBM, got the bonus indirectly by being "IBM compatible", while at the same time bringing down the price to own an "IBM" PC. It wasn't Microsoft who brought computing to every home. It was IBM and the companies building IBM PC clones.
Visitor? If you have first-class closures, it's the most natural thing in the world to pass a function to a traversal function. You don't need a name for it or a specialized set of trigger terms so that maintainers can see easily divine your intentions. You don't name your closure "visit", you name it after what it does.
I don't think you understand the visitor pattern. It is *not* just a function passed to a traversal function (there are better ways to do that in C++). Yes, visitors do indicate a missing feature, but that feature is not closures. It's multimethods.
So your point is that you use shitty programs, maintain shitty code, and work with shitty programmers? How does that translate to being a problem with the language? He answered to a post which claimed that Python forces you to write non-shitty code. The fact that he regularly gets shitty Python code contradicts that claim.
Of course we all know that real programmers can write FORTRAN in every language.:-)
Functional languages are just like procedural languages (Like C, Java etc)
Definitely not. In functional languages, functions are first-class citizens. You can use functions to operate on functions in order to build other functions. For example, a typical functional language thing is a function which takes two functions and returns the composition of both functions, i.e. the function f o g: x |-> f(g(x)). Yes, you can emulate that with function objects in C++, but that's equally clumsy as emulating OOP in C.
Fox News is just one of many TV networks in the US [...] You may consider it propaganda, but nobody is forcing you to watch it
Really? That's good news. I'm now going to switch my TV to another channel... done. OK, up to now there don't seem to be any reactions by government agenc@$%/&[NO CARRIER]
It's the psychological, panic-inducing effects the terrorists are really for. Yes, they kill people, but what they are really after is the fear of the surviving people.
Of course the words don't have any meaning by themselves either. They are just combinations of little drawings, or of sounds if you speak them aloud. They don't have any more connection to the meaning than the numbers have.
Well, 42 is the product of the 2^0th, the 2^1th and the 2^2th prime... But maybe it has nothing to do with math, but with the sound of it: "for tea, too." After all, tea plays an important role in the story...
Apparently not. In a BBC article celebrating 30 years of Hitchhikers, they report that Adams apparently refuted that suggestion:
I don't write jokes in base 13. Well, maybe the true meaning of that sentence wasn't that he didn't use base 13, but that he didn't mean it as joke...
don't you mean five minutes before the 10 millionth anniversery Well, actually I meant 42 minutes before the 10 millionth anniversary. However, as usual they'll be 37 minutes too late, because it took too much time to sign the relevant forms in triplicate, send them in, send them back, query them, lose them, find them, subject them to public inquiry, lose them again, and finally bury them in soft peat and recycle them as firelighters.
Well, maybe a string of letters can't represent the poetry of Shakespeare either. Which we cannot check, because all we have from Shakespeare is those letters. So if there's anything in Shakespeare's poetry which cannot be represented in those letters, then it's lost forever.
Of course that probably would mean that the only one who truly ever understood Shakespeare's poetry was Shakespeare himself. But then, this is not an unreasonable assumption anyway.
No, it works best when the temperature difference between the CPU and the surrounding ist highest. Which usually is the case due to the CPU getting hotter.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course if you want to split hairs about "simultaneous", you'll go to relativity instead. Note that with large supercomputers, the order of certain operations on different processors may even physically be undefined. If two multiplications are simultaneous may depend on your inertial system.
:-)
OK, enough hair-splitting for now.
What is a "red Ford car steering wheel quick left turn" and what was the last time you used one?
I didn't know women are into object-oriented programming. :-)
Well, it's spelled "Asperger's syndrome" but you can also just say "typical Slashdotter"
Or rather, men and women just use somewhat different codes. There need not to be anything blurry on either side.
:-)
To make a simplified example: Say women use "smiling and twinkling" as code for sexual intent, while men think it's "smiling and listening". Then an understanding happens if the woman either smiles, twinkles and listens (in which case the message "sexual intent" has been successfully passed), or if the woman doesn't smile or neither smiles nor twinkles (in which case the message "no sexual intent" has been successfully passed), but if the woman smiles and either twinkles of listens, but not both, there's a misunderstanding. Note that there's absolutely nothing blurry about either code, it's just a mismatch.
And a warning: The signs are completely made up, so if you take smiling and twinkling of a woman as sexual intent, and it turns out to be wrong, don't complain to me!
That's probably the reason why they didn't turn up in their own top 100 list. :-)
That of course depends on what qualifies as a move. If turning the middle layers is allowed, then the middle sides can certainly chance places (e.g. a turn left of the cube can then be done with three moves: turn upper layer left, turn horizontal middle layer left, turn lower layer left).
I don't know how exactly the moves are defined for this proof (I didn't RTFA), but there are certainly many possibilities. Note that allowing only moving the outer slides, while universal for the 3x3x3 cube, won't generalize to higher cubes (you'll not get all possible configurations on the 4x4x4 cube this way).
They surely had invented DRM back then, too.
The key word here is "IBM PC clone" - at that time IBM was the company, so the PC could sell just from having the name IBM on it, and the clones, while not really being IBM, got the bonus indirectly by being "IBM compatible", while at the same time bringing down the price to own an "IBM" PC. It wasn't Microsoft who brought computing to every home. It was IBM and the companies building IBM PC clones.
I don't think you understand the visitor pattern. It is *not* just a function passed to a traversal function (there are better ways to do that in C++). Yes, visitors do indicate a missing feature, but that feature is not closures. It's multimethods.
Of course we all know that real programmers can write FORTRAN in every language.
However in the movie they always mispronounced "FORTH", so it sounded like "Force".
Definitely not. In functional languages, functions are first-class citizens. You can use functions to operate on functions in order to build other functions. For example, a typical functional language thing is a function which takes two functions and returns the composition of both functions, i.e. the function f o g: x |-> f(g(x)). Yes, you can emulate that with function objects in C++, but that's equally clumsy as emulating OOP in C.
Really? That's good news. I'm now going to switch my TV to another channel
It's the psychological, panic-inducing effects the terrorists are really for. Yes, they kill people, but what they are really after is the fear of the surviving people.
Of course the words don't have any meaning by themselves either. They are just combinations of little drawings, or of sounds if you speak them aloud. They don't have any more connection to the meaning than the numbers have.
Well, 42 is the product of the 2^0th, the 2^1th and the 2^2th prime ... ...
But maybe it has nothing to do with math, but with the sound of it: "for tea, too." After all, tea plays an important role in the story
Well, maybe a string of letters can't represent the poetry of Shakespeare either. Which we cannot check, because all we have from Shakespeare is those letters. So if there's anything in Shakespeare's poetry which cannot be represented in those letters, then it's lost forever.
Of course that probably would mean that the only one who truly ever understood Shakespeare's poetry was Shakespeare himself. But then, this is not an unreasonable assumption anyway.
No, that's scheduled for the 42th anniversary.
But the books later reveal the reason. It's Agrajag, who has been killed by Arthur many times.
No, it works best when the temperature difference between the CPU and the surrounding ist highest. Which usually is the case due to the CPU getting hotter.