Seems like he's doing pretty well from your point of view since it sounds like you're agreeing with him. He said "money works best when it has a fixed value." It works pretty well when it has a nearly fixed value, i.e. not very volatile. Now from your "rebuttal:"
"If bitcoins became more widespread, and the market more liquid, it is quite possible the volatility would be reduced."
So if bitcoins become more widespread and the market becomes more liquid (i.e. bitcoin works better as money) the volatility would be reduced. Or is the other way around? The more stable bitcoin becomes the more people, including shopkeepers, will trade it, and the better it will work as money.
Most major currencies vary by tenths of a percent over days and weeks, and a few percent (predictably in one direction) over a year. You'll have trouble finding someone who will accept a currency that is as volatile as bitcoin has been (value changes of 10% in days and over 100% in the last few months). If they do accept it, it will be only at a heavily discounted rate.
Read carefully what he said. Money works best when it has a fixed value. Major currencies are fairly fixed. A day of food costs very nearly the same today as it does tomorrow. Next year it might cost a few percent more, but even that value changes only slowly - it's fairly predictable over time, and it's largely determined purposefully by fiscal policy, trading off some detriments for some benefits. FOREX trading is a game of tenths of a percent (compared to, say, stock trading where swigs can be into the tens of percent)
More minor currencies fluctuate more. Some currencies fluctuate a lot. You'll have trouble finding anyone who will accept them. In the worst cases they're effectively not money at all.
Money clearly works better as it's value becomes closer to being fixed.
Gold is far from stable too. Physical effort to mine it, as well as the supply, changes over time. More importantly, it's a commodity that's particularly subject to speculation. It's value varies considerably.
I think the only language your example applies to is C++ (which nobody uses for data analysis). To average an array in the others is some variation of "average(myArray)".
"Was the Deutschmark not money during the hyperinflation of the 1920s?"
Not really. Unstable currencies aren't really money. You can tell, because if you offer to pay someone in one, they'll turn you down. Head off to a market in a somewhat stable third world country and offer to pay for something in the local currency. They'll probably accept it. The local currency is money, but not very good money. Offer to pay in US dollars or Euros and they'll likely gleefully accept it (settle on the price FIRST).
Go to Zimbabwe and offer to pay in Zimbabwean dollars and you'll get laughed at. The Zimbabwean dollar isn't money. I'm told it's not even very good toilet paper, unless you're stuck for the real thing.
"Imagine putting Linux on there and writing some software for it!" is what passes for vision these days? Actually, yes, it is. From business types running companies into the ground.
Yeah, in ten or fifteen years augmented reality is going to be everywhere. Hopefully built into contacts so you don't have to wear clunky glasses. People have been talking about that for ages.
Google Glass is going to be another Google project: bought by a bunch of geeks who worship it, a flop in the big picture, and cancelled in six months to a year.
If Google is still around and interested in ten years maybe they'll get another shot at doing it right.
The 25 inch screen at 8 feet is the screen. It's 640x360, and someone calculated the field of view is 10 degrees or so, in the corner of your eye. It's NOT full field of view. You can't do augmented reality with it. It's good for showing text notifications and maybe a little bit of low res video or pictures. Google's concept video even showed that. Where do people keep getting the idea it's full FOV?
The camera itself can apparently do 720p. It IS HD. So you can record your creepy videos of people in 720p but you'll want to wait to put them on your widescreen TV at home before, um, using them.
Now take that rectangle you're making with your fingers and move it up and right until it's at the edge of your field of vision when you're looking straight ahead. There's no way you're doing AR with that.
1. Facial recognition - maybe. I would be surprised if that worked well enough for general in-the-wild use. 2. Overlay - nope, sorry, the screen is just a little thing outside your main field of view 3. Guided tour - yeah, I guess you could do a low res guided tour. Or use your smart phone for a high resolution one you can share 4. Education - nope, can't do overlays 5. Hangout/Skype - or you could use your smart phone and they COULD see you! 6. Record videos - yup, probably what it gets used for most. Of course you can be a creep with $300 spy glasses instead of $1500 Google glasses 7. Play music and video - I guess. Or you could use your smart phone / MP3 player. The bone conduction audio isn't going to be as good as ear phones and you're not going to want to watch low res video for long with your eyes cranked up and over. 8. Play games - kind of like geocaching. No monsters because it can't do overlays, remember? Again, you can just use your smartphone or handheld GPS.
Essentially all of your examples except the trivial ones that are probably better done on a smart phone are augmented reality ones, and Google glass doesn't do augmented reality. Is there some cool stuff that you can do with AR? Sure. People have been talking about that for decades. Is there some cool stuff you can do with Google Glass? I haven't seen a killer app yet, your list most definitely included.
Standard video hardware is a crappy FPU for most things. The only time it works really well is if you've got an embarrassingly parallel problem with a high computational demand. You don't want to be offloading it to the GPU every time you need to add a couple of numbers.
You might get away with it in the hybrid CPUs that have the GPU and CPU integrated in one package, but you'd still be better off with a separate single purpose FPU.
Not bad, except that anything good Apple does is quickly attributed to someone else. Like the guy above who proclaimed loudly that OpenCL was AMD's answer to CUDA.
I'm not sure what you mean. 90% of the bridges I see are pillars supporting spans - they use material strength (reinforced concrete) instead of engineering (arches and such).
The older bridges (and there are several steel bridges here) are all arches and triangles and suspension. The older concrete bridges make extensive use of arches.
If you've got bugs that have effects everywhere in your 1 million LOC 3D game no debugger is going to help you.
One of the biggest advantages of live code editing (otherwise known as an interpreter) is that you don't have to rerun the whole thing after every little change. So if the boss at the end of level 143 glitches you get execution to that point, see what happens, try a fix, see if it works, etc., without having to quit the game, restart, and get back to the boss.
Yes, that's one way. It can be useful. Another way is just to put a code.interact() in as a breakpoint and then paste or type lines in as you go. That way if you find a bug you can fix it and continue without restarting the program. Which is what I assume the article is talking about, except with a nice GUI plastered on top.
Even if you, for some reason, want to use C, I remember Apple demonstrating live debugging years ago at a WWDC. It was pretty cool to watch then fiddle with the code of a running C program and see the changes as they made them. But I've never heard any more about it so I assume it doesn't really get used much. I don't generally debug Python programs that way either, although it's handy sometimes if a particular program takes a long time to start up.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like he's doing pretty well from your point of view since it sounds like you're agreeing with him. He said "money works best when it has a fixed value." It works pretty well when it has a nearly fixed value, i.e. not very volatile. Now from your "rebuttal:"
"If bitcoins became more widespread, and the market more liquid, it is quite possible the volatility would be reduced."
So if bitcoins become more widespread and the market becomes more liquid (i.e. bitcoin works better as money) the volatility would be reduced. Or is the other way around? The more stable bitcoin becomes the more people, including shopkeepers, will trade it, and the better it will work as money.
Most major currencies vary by tenths of a percent over days and weeks, and a few percent (predictably in one direction) over a year. You'll have trouble finding someone who will accept a currency that is as volatile as bitcoin has been (value changes of 10% in days and over 100% in the last few months). If they do accept it, it will be only at a heavily discounted rate.
Read carefully what he said. Money works best when it has a fixed value. Major currencies are fairly fixed. A day of food costs very nearly the same today as it does tomorrow. Next year it might cost a few percent more, but even that value changes only slowly - it's fairly predictable over time, and it's largely determined purposefully by fiscal policy, trading off some detriments for some benefits. FOREX trading is a game of tenths of a percent (compared to, say, stock trading where swigs can be into the tens of percent)
More minor currencies fluctuate more. Some currencies fluctuate a lot. You'll have trouble finding anyone who will accept them. In the worst cases they're effectively not money at all.
Money clearly works better as it's value becomes closer to being fixed.
Large stable currencies don't change very much.
Gold is far from stable too. Physical effort to mine it, as well as the supply, changes over time. More importantly, it's a commodity that's particularly subject to speculation. It's value varies considerably.
I think the only language your example applies to is C++ (which nobody uses for data analysis). To average an array in the others is some variation of "average(myArray)".
"Was the Deutschmark not money during the hyperinflation of the 1920s?"
Not really. Unstable currencies aren't really money. You can tell, because if you offer to pay someone in one, they'll turn you down. Head off to a market in a somewhat stable third world country and offer to pay for something in the local currency. They'll probably accept it. The local currency is money, but not very good money. Offer to pay in US dollars or Euros and they'll likely gleefully accept it (settle on the price FIRST).
Go to Zimbabwe and offer to pay in Zimbabwean dollars and you'll get laughed at. The Zimbabwean dollar isn't money. I'm told it's not even very good toilet paper, unless you're stuck for the real thing.
"Imagine putting Linux on there and writing some software for it!" is what passes for vision these days? Actually, yes, it is. From business types running companies into the ground.
Yeah, in ten or fifteen years augmented reality is going to be everywhere. Hopefully built into contacts so you don't have to wear clunky glasses. People have been talking about that for ages.
Google Glass is going to be another Google project: bought by a bunch of geeks who worship it, a flop in the big picture, and cancelled in six months to a year.
If Google is still around and interested in ten years maybe they'll get another shot at doing it right.
No, it's not.
The 25 inch screen at 8 feet is the screen. It's 640x360, and someone calculated the field of view is 10 degrees or so, in the corner of your eye. It's NOT full field of view. You can't do augmented reality with it. It's good for showing text notifications and maybe a little bit of low res video or pictures. Google's concept video even showed that. Where do people keep getting the idea it's full FOV?
The camera itself can apparently do 720p. It IS HD. So you can record your creepy videos of people in 720p but you'll want to wait to put them on your widescreen TV at home before, um, using them.
Now take that rectangle you're making with your fingers and move it up and right until it's at the edge of your field of vision when you're looking straight ahead. There's no way you're doing AR with that.
Yes, it's not an out and out lie, it's just really misleading. Bad Google.
Probably. I highly doubt Google put a very expensive IR filter in their camera. Just the usual cheap one.
1. Facial recognition - maybe. I would be surprised if that worked well enough for general in-the-wild use.
2. Overlay - nope, sorry, the screen is just a little thing outside your main field of view
3. Guided tour - yeah, I guess you could do a low res guided tour. Or use your smart phone for a high resolution one you can share
4. Education - nope, can't do overlays
5. Hangout/Skype - or you could use your smart phone and they COULD see you!
6. Record videos - yup, probably what it gets used for most. Of course you can be a creep with $300 spy glasses instead of $1500 Google glasses
7. Play music and video - I guess. Or you could use your smart phone / MP3 player. The bone conduction audio isn't going to be as good as ear phones and you're not going to want to watch low res video for long with your eyes cranked up and over.
8. Play games - kind of like geocaching. No monsters because it can't do overlays, remember? Again, you can just use your smartphone or handheld GPS.
Essentially all of your examples except the trivial ones that are probably better done on a smart phone are augmented reality ones, and Google glass doesn't do augmented reality. Is there some cool stuff that you can do with AR? Sure. People have been talking about that for decades. Is there some cool stuff you can do with Google Glass? I haven't seen a killer app yet, your list most definitely included.
Standard video hardware is a crappy FPU for most things. The only time it works really well is if you've got an embarrassingly parallel problem with a high computational demand. You don't want to be offloading it to the GPU every time you need to add a couple of numbers.
You might get away with it in the hybrid CPUs that have the GPU and CPU integrated in one package, but you'd still be better off with a separate single purpose FPU.
Not bad, except that anything good Apple does is quickly attributed to someone else. Like the guy above who proclaimed loudly that OpenCL was AMD's answer to CUDA.
Yeah, interesting Google doesn't want to say too much about the actual screen, and what they did say isn't true.
You don't need a lab. You can take half of someone's liver, put it in someone else, and both will grow and function.
You have an incredible misunderstanding of public property. Publicly owned doesn't mean anybody can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.
My kingdom for UID 100,000.
I'm not sure what you mean. 90% of the bridges I see are pillars supporting spans - they use material strength (reinforced concrete) instead of engineering (arches and such).
The older bridges (and there are several steel bridges here) are all arches and triangles and suspension. The older concrete bridges make extensive use of arches.
I saw a demo of live debugging in Xcode years ago at WWDC when Apple was showing off bits of Clang. Not sure if it's still there or it got taken out.
Others have done this trick with C++ code, I don't know why MS couldn't.
If you've got bugs that have effects everywhere in your 1 million LOC 3D game no debugger is going to help you.
One of the biggest advantages of live code editing (otherwise known as an interpreter) is that you don't have to rerun the whole thing after every little change. So if the boss at the end of level 143 glitches you get execution to that point, see what happens, try a fix, see if it works, etc., without having to quit the game, restart, and get back to the boss.
Yes, that's one way. It can be useful. Another way is just to put a code.interact() in as a breakpoint and then paste or type lines in as you go. That way if you find a bug you can fix it and continue without restarting the program. Which is what I assume the article is talking about, except with a nice GUI plastered on top.
Hm. 90% of the bridges I see are just that.
Even if you, for some reason, want to use C, I remember Apple demonstrating live debugging years ago at a WWDC. It was pretty cool to watch then fiddle with the code of a running C program and see the changes as they made them. But I've never heard any more about it so I assume it doesn't really get used much. I don't generally debug Python programs that way either, although it's handy sometimes if a particular program takes a long time to start up.