Open Perl IDE for Windows works for me. I'm a vi'ian on *nix though.
True that one can write obfuscated code in Perl, but it is because you can pack a LOT of functionality into a single expression. Maybe it's just me, but I was sold on this point - you don't need to be elaborate when all you want is to do an operation that can be expressed in one sentence of English. Also, the confusion is a result of There is More Than One Way to Do It philosophy - each programmer has his own ways of "obfuscating" the code, which is probably difficult to work with if you've to read someone else's code. But it shouldn't be a problem reading your own code.
It is advantageous to the individual because he/she increases the proportion of their specific genes in the population. This is the goal of an organism, thats why most males animals fight savagely for the right to mate with many females.
An interesting observation that I missed, given that I agree with the
Selfish Gene idea of Richard Dawkins. Thanks for pointing out.
But the question reamins. If it were truly advantageous, why doesn't Evolution favor twins? It is advantageous only if those are "good" genes. Nature would prefer to have a few bad apples than an entire basket of bad ones, given you can't determine what DNA goes into the offspring. Also, if you buy the theory of Selfish Gene, it applies only at individual genes (or small sets of genes) and not whole genome, simply because a complete genome is bound to be destroyed after a few generations. So, me thinks Evolution doesn't exactly favor identical DNAs.
You missed the point of the parent post. (s)He did not imply that just because it happens in Nature it is right, BUT what happens in Nature is right (from a scientific point of view) in a sense that it is advantageous to have a population of different DNA, rather than clones. Suppose this sexual reproduction and recombination of DNA didn't exist, entire species might be wiped out by a single virus, because it effects every single organism of the species in the same way.
My guess is that as quantum computers become available, we will get software that needs that level of computing power.
I won't bet on it. Quantum computing is a fundamentally different idea. For most of the user experience, you don't need to solve N-P complete problems. There is a difference between doing something 20 times faster, and 2^20 times faster. A vast majority of algorithms that exist currently on the desktop are solvable in polynomial time - quantum computing for these is probably an overkill.
Like the parents' post said, travelling salesman problem was hard many decades ago, and is _still_ hard, irrespective of our computing speed increasing by many times. However, one major impact of Quantum computing that I can think of is, we need to invent new algorithms for encryption, and new paradigm for security. The current ones are based on the notion that they are computationally hard to crack.
And I also assume it is much harder to manufacture a quantum computer than a classical one. The idea of quantum computing is about 2 decades old (?), and we aren't even close to making one.
How can you compare Google with Netscape? Netscape was just a forerunner, not a technically superior product among many others (there weren't any then). If IE didn't kill Netscape, someone else would have. One doesn't need much persuasion to convert from Netscape to IE, but from Google to something else isn't easy.
Infact, whatever isn't whitespace are comments. My first reaction was hoping to find the string "Hello World!" in the sample program. But no, looks like even strings are encoded in white spaces. Neat.
The article talks about one specific case (stromatolites) where it is normally difficult to figure out if the rock formation is biotic or abiotic. This program is used only in cases where the images look alike. But you're right that one cannot generalize this idea to all kinds of images.
This war, including the postwar reconstruction, is probably going to cost us around 200 billion dollars,
A subtle point though. It costs only if you actually spend it. Even the CNN says the cost of war is much higher than what is intended for reconstruction. I ask you again, what makes you think US actually spends that much taxpayer money for altruism? Honestly, who'll point a finger at us about reconstruction? The UN? Other countries?
Why is it bad? Or do you always expect all the chip manufacturers to sell you overclockable chips? If the technology permits to overclock, go ahead and do it. Why complain if they want to prevent something that the chip wasn't supposed to perform?
Don't know about political correctness, but for the rest of the world the correct term is India, and for you Americans it is East India. You got any idea about the origin of the term "Native _Indians_"?
Every Hindu religious ceremony is in Sanskrit, and every priest and read/write and speak it. Given that there are 800 millions plus Hindus, that's a lot of Sanskrit out there.
Wrong. Not many "know" Sanskrit. Yes, religious ceremonies are in Sanskrit but not many understand it. And majority of those who understand don't write in Sanskrit. But Sanskrit still prevails as an optional language to study at school - and is never seen in common speech. However, many Indian languages originated from Sanskrit, and borrow vocabulary from it.
Dad comes home and beats the living shit outta the kid. If Mommy tries to stop, he just gives the finger and beats anyway. Remember that Dad is always right.
From Slashdot: ...when 40% of developers are focusing on Linux...
From the article: Almost 40 percent of developers say they get their Linux by downloading it over the Internet.
Where does it say they're _focusing_ on Linux? I like to develop something on linux, but I use XP for most of the time. And yes, I do develop on windows too. But I still fall in their 40%. So how many "developers" use _exclusively_ Linux?
Open file formats mean that a geek living in the basement, or Mom and Pop Software Solutions can write programs that simply use the fully documented, existing file formats. Effectively it means that a software product wouldn't be paying for the actual _design_ of the product, but only the implementation of it. Atleast part of the product market price should pay for the design/research/infrastructure invested in it, isn't it?
Any product cannot be so easily duplicated becuase the infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, and/or isn't worth the effort. In some cases, you can make sure you've an exclusive right in making the product, with patents. Since we know infrastructure in software development costs next to nothing (since most of them own a computer anyway) and we need file format to be open AND without patents, how does a company that wants to make money on software products survive in an Ideal World?
Hmm.. No, the point is simply to show that quoting from Bible doesn't make it right or automatically justified. We have something called Law that is different from Religion, and for a good reason they are separated. (Ofcourse, our legal system isn't perfect, but that's a flaw in implementation)
Mathematicians use all sorts of symbols for a good reason - and that is not because they want to confuse everyone else. Imagine complicated equations being expressed in English. The purpose of a computer language is also very similar - to reduce your intent to a well known set of symbols.
Slashdot Mirror
True that one can write obfuscated code in Perl, but it is because you can pack a LOT of functionality into a single expression. Maybe it's just me, but I was sold on this point - you don't need to be elaborate when all you want is to do an operation that can be expressed in one sentence of English. Also, the confusion is a result of There is More Than One Way to Do It philosophy - each programmer has his own ways of "obfuscating" the code, which is probably difficult to work with if you've to read someone else's code. But it shouldn't be a problem reading your own code.
An interesting observation that I missed, given that I agree with the Selfish Gene idea of Richard Dawkins. Thanks for pointing out. But the question reamins. If it were truly advantageous, why doesn't Evolution favor twins? It is advantageous only if those are "good" genes. Nature would prefer to have a few bad apples than an entire basket of bad ones, given you can't determine what DNA goes into the offspring. Also, if you buy the theory of Selfish Gene, it applies only at individual genes (or small sets of genes) and not whole genome, simply because a complete genome is bound to be destroyed after a few generations. So, me thinks Evolution doesn't exactly favor identical DNAs.
You missed the point of the parent post. (s)He did not imply that just because it happens in Nature it is right, BUT what happens in Nature is right (from a scientific point of view) in a sense that it is advantageous to have a population of different DNA, rather than clones. Suppose this sexual reproduction and recombination of DNA didn't exist, entire species might be wiped out by a single virus, because it effects every single organism of the species in the same way.
I won't bet on it. Quantum computing is a fundamentally different idea. For most of the user experience, you don't need to solve N-P complete problems. There is a difference between doing something 20 times faster, and 2^20 times faster. A vast majority of algorithms that exist currently on the desktop are solvable in polynomial time - quantum computing for these is probably an overkill.
Like the parents' post said, travelling salesman problem was hard many decades ago, and is _still_ hard, irrespective of our computing speed increasing by many times. However, one major impact of Quantum computing that I can think of is, we need to invent new algorithms for encryption, and new paradigm for security. The current ones are based on the notion that they are computationally hard to crack.
And I also assume it is much harder to manufacture a quantum computer than a classical one. The idea of quantum computing is about 2 decades old (?), and we aren't even close to making one.
How can you compare Google with Netscape? Netscape was just a forerunner, not a technically superior product among many others (there weren't any then). If IE didn't kill Netscape, someone else would have. One doesn't need much persuasion to convert from Netscape to IE, but from Google to something else isn't easy.
You're modded up.
I hope there won't be a sixth and a seventh, because we'd call both call them "soup".
Okay, I believed it.
Infact, whatever isn't whitespace are comments. My first reaction was hoping to find the string "Hello World!" in the sample program. But no, looks like even strings are encoded in white spaces. Neat.
The article talks about one specific case (stromatolites) where it is normally difficult to figure out if the rock formation is biotic or abiotic. This program is used only in cases where the images look alike. But you're right that one cannot generalize this idea to all kinds of images.
Nope. Two bytes in ASCII.
A subtle point though. It costs only if you actually spend it. Even the CNN says the cost of war is much higher than what is intended for reconstruction. I ask you again, what makes you think US actually spends that much taxpayer money for altruism? Honestly, who'll point a finger at us about reconstruction? The UN? Other countries?
As opposed to the unregistered trademarks of Apple, Sun, Intel, AOL, AMD ... as topic icons?
Why is it bad? Or do you always expect all the chip manufacturers to sell you overclockable chips? If the technology permits to overclock, go ahead and do it. Why complain if they want to prevent something that the chip wasn't supposed to perform?
Don't know about political correctness, but for the rest of the world the correct term is India, and for you Americans it is East India. You got any idea about the origin of the term "Native _Indians_"?
Wrong. Not many "know" Sanskrit. Yes, religious ceremonies are in Sanskrit but not many understand it. And majority of those who understand don't write in Sanskrit. But Sanskrit still prevails as an optional language to study at school - and is never seen in common speech. However, many Indian languages originated from Sanskrit, and borrow vocabulary from it.
Dad comes home and beats the living shit outta the kid. If Mommy tries to stop, he just gives the finger and beats anyway. Remember that Dad is always right.
Are you confusing H-1 with B-1 perhaps? If it is meant to be temporary, why grant it for a long period in the first place?
From the article:
Almost 40 percent of developers say they get their Linux by downloading it over the Internet.
Where does it say they're _focusing_ on Linux? I like to develop something on linux, but I use XP for most of the time. And yes, I do develop on windows too. But I still fall in their 40%. So how many "developers" use _exclusively_ Linux?
Two Words: Deep Junior.
Open file formats mean that a geek living in the basement, or Mom and Pop Software Solutions can write programs that simply use the fully documented, existing file formats. Effectively it means that a software product wouldn't be paying for the actual _design_ of the product, but only the implementation of it. Atleast part of the product market price should pay for the design/research/infrastructure invested in it, isn't it?
Any product cannot be so easily duplicated becuase the infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, and/or isn't worth the effort. In some cases, you can make sure you've an exclusive right in making the product, with patents. Since we know infrastructure in software development costs next to nothing (since most of them own a computer anyway) and we need file format to be open AND without patents, how does a company that wants to make money on software products survive in an Ideal World?
"This Joe hasn't been to a porn site for 3 months! Wonder if he has a fucking dick at all!!!"
Hmm.. No, the point is simply to show that quoting from Bible doesn't make it right or automatically justified. We have something called Law that is different from Religion, and for a good reason they are separated. (Ofcourse, our legal system isn't perfect, but that's a flaw in implementation)
More like, do you want trolls with that?
Mathematicians use all sorts of symbols for a good reason - and that is not because they want to confuse everyone else. Imagine complicated equations being expressed in English. The purpose of a computer language is also very similar - to reduce your intent to a well known set of symbols.