Think in terms of Venn diagrams: start with "people who want to blow up an airplane". Now add "people who can build an airplane-destroying device into an iPhone". Now draw the circle for "people who can make the device still appear to function while also containing the airplane-destroying device". Now add "operatives smart and poised enough to carry out the attack but willing to kill themselves in the process". The intersection keeps getting smaller and smaller.
You don't need to make everything impossible - you just need to make it very unlikely. For reasons that we don't need to agree upon or nail down in this discussion, aircraft are very attractive targets. Successful (and even unsuccessful) attacks are major news events. There is nothing "insane" about recognizing and reacting to this reality.
I didn't link to that one, but if you are persistent you can make it work with 3. Their next release is 3.0, so they will then support Python 3. For now you'd have to run the development version. If you are dependent on something that OpenCV can do that sk-learn can't then yeah, stick with 2.7 for now.
I think it's because the site as a whole is so far gone that leaving a single, decrepit 50 year old building standing just seems like a minor detail. To put things in perspective, there are 200 sq miles they have to clear of contaminate ground water (or at least contain the groundwater). They found refined plutonium that had been just tossed into a ditch. In comparison, clearing that single room is going to be something left for the "B" team.
It isn't, but many of the modules are written in C or other thread-capable languages. For instance, if you are using sk-learn to analyze a dataset with a machine-learning algorithm, your Python code will run on a single processor but the calls to sk-learn to do your heavy lifting will distribute across cores.
R is definitely still ahead for data modeling, but Python has some advantages too. With a bigger set of modules (libraries) to choose from and high popularity in the financial sector, there are big improvements all the time. For the purposes of this discussion, the most important Python modules are: IPython: powerful interactive shell numpy and scipy: numerical, matrix, and scientific functions (matlab-ish) pandas: R-like data structures and data analysis tools (analysis mostly limited to regression) statsmodels: statistical analysis, complements pandas sk-learn: machine learning
So can Python do everything that R can? No. Or, at least, not as easily. But it is improving in that direction quite quickly, and if Python's data analysis capability meets your needs, then you can likely do everything in one language instead of calling R routines from another.
I've been witness to numerous "negative miracles", where the divine hand of our Lord decides to inflict his wrath upon some unworthy subject. It often does result in a "God Damnit!", so your hypothesis seems reasonable.
Yes, and they do exactly that for Mac so they really have no excuse except pure arrogance. "Alienate your customers" can only direct a company in a monopoly position.
Yes, I envy those people - but the reality is that I have a family with young kids and cannot just go and forget it all like that. I have to make due with "be back by dinner".
"Practical need" is a pretty low bar for dismissing something awesome. I'd have a hard time justifying most of my possessions based on "practical need".
Every day, I see scads of men with earrings, necklaces, cuff links, ties, money clips, fancy shoes, fancy suits, etc. You can try to argue that men don't care about bling, but that is ridiculous. Watches as jewelry is no different than buying a nice shirt instead of something from Target, or even choosing the $20 Target shirt instead of the $15 one on the next rack. For those "mans man" people you seem to have in mind, go check out their pickup truck or gun.
In an office environment, sure, a wristwatch is superfluous. Doing anything even remotely active, you don't necessarily have your cell phone in a handy spot: jogging, biking, swimming, sailing, fishing, etc. You also can snag a quick look at your watch without getting caught - much harder to do with a smartphone, and much less socially awkward. Smart phones sometimes die - I don't always get a full day out of my battery, but a watch will run essentially forever. Smart phones aren't very durable, even with protective cases - so if you are doing something where the smart phone might get wet or subject to impact, it isn't really an option. Smart phones also aren't very pretty. You can deck them out with fancy cases, but at the end of the day a shiny piece of functional jewelry is still nicer aesthetically. People would probably wear something on their wrist even without the time-telling feature - that is sort of a bonus.
Like I said, I can't speculate on what happens to the microscopic bits, just that the bottles don't remain bottles after a relatively short time in the sun. Back in the old days, we'd find just the black bases of the old 2-liter bottles that were made of two kinds of plastic. You'd almost never find the clear parts. I think this strongly implies that the clear part (PET plastic) does not hold up well in the sun and salt water, or there was some other condition that happened to wash the black bits up in my back yard but not the clear bits.
Well, I actually agree with some of the moving around that they did - for instance, centralizing and arranging the name manager in Excel is a big improvement. But they could have done that in the menus as well.
I think it is a hard problem - I think you underestimate the effort that goes into such a system. But mostly I will point out that you picked a German luxury brand:)
Cadillac has done this for ages, too. And someone else pointed out certain Hondas.
I'm all for the ribbon in principle, but they went too far. Having a context-sensitive control panel is fine... NeXT did this like crazy and Apple adopted it as well (e.g. the "inspector") - heck, the Mac version of Office had a decent implementation... and it was even a sidebar! That said, there is something to be said for having things in a static location so that you can rely on muscle memory. The ribbon moves all over the place depending on how large your screen is, how much customization you use, and what context you are in. Further, the Mac version proves that you can keep your old interface around along with the new so that you don't alienate your long-time users. 15 years of experience is a lot to toss out! The ribbon may be better for new users, but there are a lot of from-the-beginning Office users who did not appreciate their GUI antics.
Anyway, they could have ribboned their little hearts out if they'd just left some parts of it static, gave us a clearly-delineated region for user customization beyond the little scrap they threw us, and corralled the context-sensitive bits. My final complaint is that if I have a machine with a mouse, don't waste all of my screen real estate with gigantic buttons meant for a finger.
I can't speak to fresh water, but I grew up on the water in a marine environment. Nothing lasts very long, even plastic. I obviously can't say what happens to the little bits and I don't know what effect they have on the environment - but if you want to talk about the lifetime of the plastic bottles, I don't think it is very long. Even the heavily treated, thick, expensive decking material breaks down.
Problem is that I still use the Mac version as well, and that still has menus - so it is hard for me to unlearn. There is also something a lot less efficient about scanning icons with a hover vs reading through menu items. And I don't even want to get into the wisdom of introducing a big fat top toolbar just as wide monitors become the standard:)
That basically describes me as well. Despite using Office 2010 for several years, I still find myself hunting around whenever I try to use an infrequently-used function. Outlook is particularly nasty.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not insanity - it's all about reducing risk.
Think in terms of Venn diagrams: start with "people who want to blow up an airplane". Now add "people who can build an airplane-destroying device into an iPhone". Now draw the circle for "people who can make the device still appear to function while also containing the airplane-destroying device". Now add "operatives smart and poised enough to carry out the attack but willing to kill themselves in the process". The intersection keeps getting smaller and smaller.
You don't need to make everything impossible - you just need to make it very unlikely. For reasons that we don't need to agree upon or nail down in this discussion, aircraft are very attractive targets. Successful (and even unsuccessful) attacks are major news events. There is nothing "insane" about recognizing and reacting to this reality.
I didn't link to that one, but if you are persistent you can make it work with 3. Their next release is 3.0, so they will then support Python 3. For now you'd have to run the development version. If you are dependent on something that OpenCV can do that sk-learn can't then yeah, stick with 2.7 for now.
Things have progressed recently. I've finally made the jump to 3. All of those libraries that I linked work with 3.
I think it's because the site as a whole is so far gone that leaving a single, decrepit 50 year old building standing just seems like a minor detail. To put things in perspective, there are 200 sq miles they have to clear of contaminate ground water (or at least contain the groundwater). They found refined plutonium that had been just tossed into a ditch. In comparison, clearing that single room is going to be something left for the "B" team.
Currently he appears to be abducting and killing teenagers.
It isn't, but many of the modules are written in C or other thread-capable languages. For instance, if you are using sk-learn to analyze a dataset with a machine-learning algorithm, your Python code will run on a single processor but the calls to sk-learn to do your heavy lifting will distribute across cores.
R is definitely still ahead for data modeling, but Python has some advantages too. With a bigger set of modules (libraries) to choose from and high popularity in the financial sector, there are big improvements all the time. For the purposes of this discussion, the most important Python modules are:
IPython: powerful interactive shell
numpy and scipy: numerical, matrix, and scientific functions (matlab-ish)
pandas: R-like data structures and data analysis tools (analysis mostly limited to regression)
statsmodels: statistical analysis, complements pandas
sk-learn: machine learning
So can Python do everything that R can? No. Or, at least, not as easily. But it is improving in that direction quite quickly, and if Python's data analysis capability meets your needs, then you can likely do everything in one language instead of calling R routines from another.
Python and R are sort-of converging via Pandas. I'm partial to Python, but Pandas really starts to blur the lines conceptually.
That whole site is part of a gigantic, long-term cleanup - partially motivated by the desire not to let radioactive waste reach the Columbia River.
I've been witness to numerous "negative miracles", where the divine hand of our Lord decides to inflict his wrath upon some unworthy subject. It often does result in a "God Damnit!", so your hypothesis seems reasonable.
Yes, and they do exactly that for Mac so they really have no excuse except pure arrogance. "Alienate your customers" can only direct a company in a monopoly position.
Yes, I envy those people - but the reality is that I have a family with young kids and cannot just go and forget it all like that. I have to make due with "be back by dinner".
"Practical need" is a pretty low bar for dismissing something awesome. I'd have a hard time justifying most of my possessions based on "practical need".
Women maybe. Not most men in this country.
Every day, I see scads of men with earrings, necklaces, cuff links, ties, money clips, fancy shoes, fancy suits, etc. You can try to argue that men don't care about bling, but that is ridiculous. Watches as jewelry is no different than buying a nice shirt instead of something from Target, or even choosing the $20 Target shirt instead of the $15 one on the next rack. For those "mans man" people you seem to have in mind, go check out their pickup truck or gun.
Yeah, it's much easier to put down your rod and make your way over to the cockpit to check the time.
In an office environment, sure, a wristwatch is superfluous. Doing anything even remotely active, you don't necessarily have your cell phone in a handy spot: jogging, biking, swimming, sailing, fishing, etc. You also can snag a quick look at your watch without getting caught - much harder to do with a smartphone, and much less socially awkward. Smart phones sometimes die - I don't always get a full day out of my battery, but a watch will run essentially forever. Smart phones aren't very durable, even with protective cases - so if you are doing something where the smart phone might get wet or subject to impact, it isn't really an option. Smart phones also aren't very pretty. You can deck them out with fancy cases, but at the end of the day a shiny piece of functional jewelry is still nicer aesthetically. People would probably wear something on their wrist even without the time-telling feature - that is sort of a bonus.
To tell the time?
Like I said, I can't speculate on what happens to the microscopic bits, just that the bottles don't remain bottles after a relatively short time in the sun. Back in the old days, we'd find just the black bases of the old 2-liter bottles that were made of two kinds of plastic. You'd almost never find the clear parts. I think this strongly implies that the clear part (PET plastic) does not hold up well in the sun and salt water, or there was some other condition that happened to wash the black bits up in my back yard but not the clear bits.
Well, I actually agree with some of the moving around that they did - for instance, centralizing and arranging the name manager in Excel is a big improvement. But they could have done that in the menus as well.
Yeah, and I mean 9 is only barely non-prime... divisible by only a single other number? C'mon... don't sweat the small stuff.
I think it is a hard problem - I think you underestimate the effort that goes into such a system. But mostly I will point out that you picked a German luxury brand :)
Cadillac has done this for ages, too. And someone else pointed out certain Hondas.
I'm all for the ribbon in principle, but they went too far. Having a context-sensitive control panel is fine... NeXT did this like crazy and Apple adopted it as well (e.g. the "inspector") - heck, the Mac version of Office had a decent implementation... and it was even a sidebar! That said, there is something to be said for having things in a static location so that you can rely on muscle memory. The ribbon moves all over the place depending on how large your screen is, how much customization you use, and what context you are in. Further, the Mac version proves that you can keep your old interface around along with the new so that you don't alienate your long-time users. 15 years of experience is a lot to toss out! The ribbon may be better for new users, but there are a lot of from-the-beginning Office users who did not appreciate their GUI antics.
Anyway, they could have ribboned their little hearts out if they'd just left some parts of it static, gave us a clearly-delineated region for user customization beyond the little scrap they threw us, and corralled the context-sensitive bits. My final complaint is that if I have a machine with a mouse, don't waste all of my screen real estate with gigantic buttons meant for a finger.
I can't speak to fresh water, but I grew up on the water in a marine environment. Nothing lasts very long, even plastic. I obviously can't say what happens to the little bits and I don't know what effect they have on the environment - but if you want to talk about the lifetime of the plastic bottles, I don't think it is very long. Even the heavily treated, thick, expensive decking material breaks down.
Problem is that I still use the Mac version as well, and that still has menus - so it is hard for me to unlearn. There is also something a lot less efficient about scanning icons with a hover vs reading through menu items. And I don't even want to get into the wisdom of introducing a big fat top toolbar just as wide monitors become the standard :)
That basically describes me as well. Despite using Office 2010 for several years, I still find myself hunting around whenever I try to use an infrequently-used function. Outlook is particularly nasty.