Pretty unstable, that is. The thing has almost no ground clearance, and seemed to really be wobbly on takeoff. I'd be pretty nervous for takeoffs and landings.
I find it hard to believe that our sciences are driving the math fields, as mature and well-developed as the math community is.
Reminds me of the anecdote about Prof. Rota when he was asked by a reporter why MIT didn't really have an applied math department. He responded, "We do! It's all of those other departments!"
So if some author wrote an article discussing finer interpretations of the Bible, citing sections as quotes in the original Latin, Hebrew, or ancient Greek, and you couldn't understand them, that would be willful ignorance on your part?
Seriously, I still fail to understand why the Qwerty keyboard still is the norm, even in virtual keyboard in mobile devices.
Because of path dependence. Even if everybody agreed that Dvorak was so much better than Qwerty, and they don't, the transition cost of migrating to Dvorak by replacing all the hardware and software and retraining everybody is deemed not worth it. That's why it's often better to be first to market than to be technically superior -- if you can get a high enough early adoption rate your competitors will have a real uphill battle.
For personal use I like Tower, but that's OS X only and costs $. SourceTree, in addition to being free, works on both Windows and OS X so that's what I recommend for my students.
The real irony was that Lotus killed off the Windows port of Improv because it was overtaking 1-2-3, which they regarded as their flagship product at the time. Improv was a dream to use and stood head and shoulders above Excel and other 1-2-3 knockoffs of the time. Every once in a while I dust off and fire up my old NeXT cube just to blow friends away with the fact that spreadsheets don't have to suck, and we've known how to do it right for over 20 years now. The closest modern equivalent is Quantrix, but that costs a small fortune so it's never going to see widespread adoption - besides which, it got really uglified when they ported it to Java.
If the reputation scores weren't normalized by how long people have been active on the site, it invalidates the study's performance measure. It takes both good answers and time to accumulate high reputations.
I have uploaded the meagre, puny code that I've written in a small number of projects without bothering with a license. I expect people to steal it and be quiet about it, because I am the noise floor of github.
Thus guaranteeing that nobody with a lick of sense in the corporate world will touch your stuff. If you didn't specify a license option of some sort, then (at least in the US) you hold copyright and anybody who uses your stuff without your explicit written permission is wide open to a law suit. A lot of folks think copyright is something you have to apply for, but registering a copyright is not necessary - that's merely a convenience to help support your claim if it ever gets contested.
Re:Review Ruby for the perl enthusiast please
on
Ruby 2.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Java still otherwise wants to follow the everything is an object model.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
The primitives do stick out like a sore thumb, you are right.
Who'da thunk this was such a hard concept? Look, if there are primitives in a language, then pretty much by definition not everything is an object.
Re:Review Ruby for the perl enthusiast please
on
Ruby 2.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
And every primitive has a class version...
Which emphasizes the point - they are different things, or the duplication wouldn't be necessary.
...to which the primitives are automatically boxed when they need to be treated like objects.
Auto-boxing/unboxing is an unbelievably ugly kludge which exists specifically because Java distinguishes between primitives and objects. After enough programmers kvetched about the ugliness and extra code that was needed, Sun threw auto-boxing in somewhere around Java 1.4 or 1.5.
Languages with a true "everything is an object" model don't need such an awful hack. They also don't require umpteen implementations of containers or sorting (one for Objects and one apiece for each of the primitive types), with all the library bloat that entails. They don't need the programmer to be mentally tracking which elements are primitives and which are objects, and making sure to use the right constructs for each.
Re:Review Ruby for the perl enthusiast please
on
Ruby 2.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Java also sports the "everything is an object" mentality.
Say what?!?!?! Java explicitly distinguishes between primitives and objects! You can't send messages to primitives or literals in Java, only to objects and classes. Contrast with Ruby, where "5.times {p rand}" is a perfectly legitimate way to print five random numbers because the literal "5" is an Integer object which can respond to any message Integers implement.
A language in decline is dying. The data shows Ruby to be in a long decline, spanning several years. You're insane.
In an expanding market a given item can have a declining market share and still be experiencing growth. Apple sells more iPhones than ever even though its share of the smartphone market has declined. The same logic can apply to programming languages as well as commodities.
Thanks for the response. Your experience pretty much mirrors mine, except I went for Ruby instead of Python.
Re:Web Server development
on
Perl Turns 25
·
· Score: 5, Funny
A friend was editing a perl program when his cat walked across the keyboard. It took him a while to figure out which parts were written by the cat. That's when I decided to avoid perl.
Re:Web Server development
on
Perl Turns 25
·
· Score: 3, Funny
It always struck me as one of the poster children of "write-only" languages, right up there with APL.
For the birthday problem, this means 3*sqrt(365) or about 57 people in the room means 99 times out of 100 there's at least one duplicate birthday.
That was already answered further up.
So another poster clicked their submit button a minute or two before I did. Your comment seems rather gratuitous given that we were both trying to clarify things for you.
Also, you have to realize that there's actually 366 possible birthdays on leap years; people with a birthday of Feb 29th are a lot rarer than the others, but still exist.
Actually, the mathematically correct answer is a convex combination of the results for N=365 and N=366 with weightings 3/4 and 1/4, respectively. If you're going to pick a single number as representative of the answer, guess which one is closer? Besides which, all of this is premised on an assumption that birthdays are uniformly distributed throughout the year. That's close enough to get insight, but not actually true - there is a slight seasonality component in human birthrates.
You go from 366 possibilities to ~26k if you're looking for the year as well. You'd need 484 people to have a 99% chance of somebody being born on the same day and year as somebody else in the crowd.
You definitely lose the uniformity assumption by adding year - a larger proportion of the population are in their first couple of decades than in their 70's and 80's. As I mentioned earlier, non-uniformity actually increases the likelihood of duplicates so 484 should be an upper bound on the 99th percentile.
If you have a pool of N possible outcomes, and outcomes are pretty uniformly distributed across the pool, the probability of a duplicate existing is around 0.99 by the time you sample 3*sqrt(N). For the birthday problem, this means 3*sqrt(365) or about 57 people in the room means 99 times out of 100 there's at least one duplicate birthday. For a hash table with a million storage locations, you can be pretty sure you'll see key duplication by the time you have added a mere 3000 elements to the table. That's why collision resolution schemes are necessary even in relatively sparse hash tables.
If outcomes aren't uniformly distributed, they bunch more in certain locations and the probability of getting duplicates goes up.
Correlation doesn't PROVE causation.......but it bloody well DOES suggest it, at least in the course of our daily lives.
The reason this phrase is so catchy is that it's counter-intuitive, and easily proven to be true. People love to use it as a "gotcha" phrase, PRECISELY because in regular life correlation does in fact usually imply causation.
No, you have it exactly backwards. Causation usually implies correlation(*). But there are lots of correlations that are not in any way causally related, such as a) the decline in piracy and increase in global temperatures in the past two centuries; b) the rabbit population in Australia and the performance of the London stock exchange for the past century; or c) the monthly per capita consumption rate of ice cream and the monthly per capita rate of drowning deaths for seaside locations north of 40 degrees latitude. The first two are because both sets of observations have changed in consistent fashions over time. The third is because people seek/avoid both swimming and ice cream based on seasonal variations of temperature, i.e., there's what's called a "lurking covariate". In none of these cases does one of the sets of observations cause the other. You won't change global warming by encouraging piracy, swing the stock market by raising rabbits in Oz, or change drowning statistics by banning ice cream.
(*) Causation is not always associated with correlation, because correlation measures tendency towards a linear fit. If there's a non-linear relationship, you can have perfect causality and zero correlation. Example - Let X be uniformly distributed between -1 and 1, and let Y = X^2. If I tell you a particular X value you can predict Y perfectly, but if you work the math of correlation you'll find Corr(X,Y) = 0.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should you control for that? Where do non-white people and non-male people think science knowledge comes from?
Because of the potential for Simpson's Paradox.
Pretty unstable, that is. The thing has almost no ground clearance, and seemed to really be wobbly on takeoff. I'd be pretty nervous for takeoffs and landings.
I find it hard to believe that our sciences are driving the math fields, as mature and well-developed as the math community is.
Reminds me of the anecdote about Prof. Rota when he was asked by a reporter why MIT didn't really have an applied math department. He responded, "We do! It's all of those other departments!"
Failure to negotiate a license and failure to negotiate for a license are two different things.
So if some author wrote an article discussing finer interpretations of the Bible, citing sections as quotes in the original Latin, Hebrew, or ancient Greek, and you couldn't understand them, that would be willful ignorance on your part?
Seriously, I still fail to understand why the Qwerty keyboard still is the norm, even in virtual keyboard in mobile devices.
Because of path dependence. Even if everybody agreed that Dvorak was so much better than Qwerty, and they don't, the transition cost of migrating to Dvorak by replacing all the hardware and software and retraining everybody is deemed not worth it. That's why it's often better to be first to market than to be technically superior -- if you can get a high enough early adoption rate your competitors will have a real uphill battle.
For personal use I like Tower, but that's OS X only and costs $. SourceTree, in addition to being free, works on both Windows and OS X so that's what I recommend for my students.
The real irony was that Lotus killed off the Windows port of Improv because it was overtaking 1-2-3, which they regarded as their flagship product at the time. Improv was a dream to use and stood head and shoulders above Excel and other 1-2-3 knockoffs of the time. Every once in a while I dust off and fire up my old NeXT cube just to blow friends away with the fact that spreadsheets don't have to suck, and we've known how to do it right for over 20 years now. The closest modern equivalent is Quantrix, but that costs a small fortune so it's never going to see widespread adoption - besides which, it got really uglified when they ported it to Java.
If the reputation scores weren't normalized by how long people have been active on the site, it invalidates the study's performance measure. It takes both good answers and time to accumulate high reputations.
I have uploaded the meagre, puny code that I've written in a small number of projects without bothering with a license. I expect people to steal it and be quiet about it, because I am the noise floor of github.
Thus guaranteeing that nobody with a lick of sense in the corporate world will touch your stuff. If you didn't specify a license option of some sort, then (at least in the US) you hold copyright and anybody who uses your stuff without your explicit written permission is wide open to a law suit. A lot of folks think copyright is something you have to apply for, but registering a copyright is not necessary - that's merely a convenience to help support your claim if it ever gets contested.
Java still otherwise wants to follow the everything is an object model.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
The primitives do stick out like a sore thumb, you are right.
Who'da thunk this was such a hard concept? Look, if there are primitives in a language, then pretty much by definition not everything is an object.
And every primitive has a class version...
Which emphasizes the point - they are different things, or the duplication wouldn't be necessary.
...to which the primitives are automatically boxed when they need to be treated like objects.
Auto-boxing/unboxing is an unbelievably ugly kludge which exists specifically because Java distinguishes between primitives and objects. After enough programmers kvetched about the ugliness and extra code that was needed, Sun threw auto-boxing in somewhere around Java 1.4 or 1.5.
Languages with a true "everything is an object" model don't need such an awful hack. They also don't require umpteen implementations of containers or sorting (one for Objects and one apiece for each of the primitive types), with all the library bloat that entails. They don't need the programmer to be mentally tracking which elements are primitives and which are objects, and making sure to use the right constructs for each.
Java also sports the "everything is an object" mentality.
Say what?!?!?! Java explicitly distinguishes between primitives and objects! You can't send messages to primitives or literals in Java, only to objects and classes. Contrast with Ruby, where "5.times {p rand}" is a perfectly legitimate way to print five random numbers because the literal "5" is an Integer object which can respond to any message Integers implement.
Did you read the actual article?
You're actually suggesting slashdotters should read the article before commenting? What is wrong with you people!
A language in decline is dying. The data shows Ruby to be in a long decline, spanning several years. You're insane.
In an expanding market a given item can have a declining market share and still be experiencing growth. Apple sells more iPhones than ever even though its share of the smartphone market has declined. The same logic can apply to programming languages as well as commodities.
Thanks for the response. Your experience pretty much mirrors mine, except I went for Ruby instead of Python.
A friend was editing a perl program when his cat walked across the keyboard. It took him a while to figure out which parts were written by the cat. That's when I decided to avoid perl.
It always struck me as one of the poster children of "write-only" languages, right up there with APL.
What can perl do that newer languages such as python and ruby can't do, and do more readably/maintainably?
I understand about path dependence and sunk costs, which is why we still have COBOL, I'm asking about language features that are unique to perl.
For the birthday problem, this means 3*sqrt(365) or about 57 people in the room means 99 times out of 100 there's at least one duplicate birthday.
That was already answered further up.
So another poster clicked their submit button a minute or two before I did. Your comment seems rather gratuitous given that we were both trying to clarify things for you.
Also, you have to realize that there's actually 366 possible birthdays on leap years; people with a birthday of Feb 29th are a lot rarer than the others, but still exist.
Actually, the mathematically correct answer is a convex combination of the results for N=365 and N=366 with weightings 3/4 and 1/4, respectively. If you're going to pick a single number as representative of the answer, guess which one is closer? Besides which, all of this is premised on an assumption that birthdays are uniformly distributed throughout the year. That's close enough to get insight, but not actually true - there is a slight seasonality component in human birthrates.
You go from 366 possibilities to ~26k if you're looking for the year as well. You'd need 484 people to have a 99% chance of somebody being born on the same day and year as somebody else in the crowd.
You definitely lose the uniformity assumption by adding year - a larger proportion of the population are in their first couple of decades than in their 70's and 80's. As I mentioned earlier, non-uniformity actually increases the likelihood of duplicates so 484 should be an upper bound on the 99th percentile.
If you have a pool of N possible outcomes, and outcomes are pretty uniformly distributed across the pool, the probability of a duplicate existing is around 0.99 by the time you sample 3*sqrt(N). For the birthday problem, this means 3*sqrt(365) or about 57 people in the room means 99 times out of 100 there's at least one duplicate birthday. For a hash table with a million storage locations, you can be pretty sure you'll see key duplication by the time you have added a mere 3000 elements to the table. That's why collision resolution schemes are necessary even in relatively sparse hash tables.
If outcomes aren't uniformly distributed, they bunch more in certain locations and the probability of getting duplicates goes up.
Never mind, I had just hit "submit" when I figured it out. Just pull a "Weird Science" and wear them on your head.
The problem with +7 Knickers of Seduction is what happens when you remove them?
True, but when people throw out the word "correlation" that's almost always what they're talking about.
Correlation doesn't PROVE causation.... ...but it bloody well DOES suggest it, at least in the course of our daily lives.
The reason this phrase is so catchy is that it's counter-intuitive, and easily proven to be true. People love to use it as a "gotcha" phrase, PRECISELY because in regular life correlation does in fact usually imply causation.
No, you have it exactly backwards. Causation usually implies correlation(*). But there are lots of correlations that are not in any way causally related, such as a) the decline in piracy and increase in global temperatures in the past two centuries; b) the rabbit population in Australia and the performance of the London stock exchange for the past century; or c) the monthly per capita consumption rate of ice cream and the monthly per capita rate of drowning deaths for seaside locations north of 40 degrees latitude. The first two are because both sets of observations have changed in consistent fashions over time. The third is because people seek/avoid both swimming and ice cream based on seasonal variations of temperature, i.e., there's what's called a "lurking covariate". In none of these cases does one of the sets of observations cause the other. You won't change global warming by encouraging piracy, swing the stock market by raising rabbits in Oz, or change drowning statistics by banning ice cream.
(*) Causation is not always associated with correlation, because correlation measures tendency towards a linear fit. If there's a non-linear relationship, you can have perfect causality and zero correlation. Example - Let X be uniformly distributed between -1 and 1, and let Y = X^2. If I tell you a particular X value you can predict Y perfectly, but if you work the math of correlation you'll find Corr(X,Y) = 0.