Don't worry too much about it. I was playing (and attempting to write) Wumpus on a Bendix G15 back in 1963, and Star War on a PDP-15 clone in 1972...;-{)
I remember reading of a (possibly apocryphal) Gallup poll which indicated that about 20% of the American public thought they were in the top 1% of wealth/income.
The author of the LinuxToday article obviously can't read a financial statement very well. The reconciling amounts he goes on at length about are mostly corporate-wide expenses which can't be allocated easily by company segment. The biggest piece of them is stock compensation expenses which are not really expenses at all, but accounting fictions based on the imputed value of options granted and exercised.
You obviously weren't there the time an IC fell out of the backplane while I was debuggin a program a few decades ago. That one really had me and the CE scratching our heads.
Don't insert the bugs in the first place; you won't then be forced to spend vast amounts of time taking them out.
Corollary 1: Use a garbage-collected, type=safe language (there go a huge mass of bugs), whenever possible.
Corollary 2: Code defensively - if your routine complains the first time it's called with garbage input, you won't have to look at the output of 20 or 30 runs before somebody notices that something's fishy.
Corollary 3: Write modular code, with clean and minimal interfaces, i.e. K.I.S.S.
There's just no way to teach a compiler to recognize bad code design, and there's no way to tell a programming language, "do as I mean you to do, not as I say you to do." Yes, things like garbage collection and bounds-checking help prevent some bugs, but the really nasty ones--the ones that take ages to fix--are the result of good ol'-fashioned bad design and programming.
Are you sure? I think there's a product lurking in the bushes here...
Quantum mechanics really can't be well described without lots and lots of math- the point where further simplification makes the explanation wrong happens when the 'simplified' explanation is still very complicated and hard to understand.
Having just read QED, by Feynman, I'd have to disagree. It's a lucid presentation of quantum electrodynamics, and sum-of=histories, without any significant use of math. Obviously, he doesn't come up with any mathematical results, but he does convey the phenomena observed, and their strangeness.
and coroutines are mostly useful for iterator generators,
I once actually wrote an assembly language coroutine setup: it served mainly to connect the write word subroutine of one already working program to the read word subroutine of another one.
I think what you're describing is a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is something entirely different.
Actually, as I read the article (which may be incorrectly), what they believe they've achieved is a solid Bose-Einstein condensate, which has many properties in common with the gaseous B-E-c's which have been achieved previously.
Hey tough guy, something like "How did Bill Gates acquire DOS" is testing knowledge, not intelligence. There is a difference. But you don't seem to recognize that.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry too much about it. I was playing (and attempting to write) Wumpus on a Bendix G15 back in 1963, and Star War on a PDP-15 clone in 1972... ;-{)
The referenced article really doesn't seem to say anthing meaningfully true. Even AC posts can be insightful.
pardon my ignorance.
I remember reading of a (possibly apocryphal) Gallup poll which indicated that about 20% of the American public thought they were in the top 1% of wealth/income.
Europe will be freezing pretty soon as the Gulf Stream begins to fail.
The author of the LinuxToday article obviously can't read a financial statement very well. The reconciling amounts he goes on at length about are mostly corporate-wide expenses which can't be allocated easily by company segment. The biggest piece of them is stock compensation expenses which are not really expenses at all, but accounting fictions based on the imputed value of options granted and exercised.
You obviously weren't there the time an IC fell out of the backplane while I was debuggin a program a few decades ago. That one really had me and the CE scratching our heads.
Corollary 1: Use a garbage-collected, type=safe language (there go a huge mass of bugs), whenever possible.
Corollary 2: Code defensively - if your routine complains the first time it's called with garbage input, you won't have to look at the output of 20 or 30 runs before somebody notices that something's fishy.
Corollary 3: Write modular code, with clean and minimal interfaces, i.e. K.I.S.S.
There's just no way to teach a compiler to recognize bad code design, and there's no way to tell a programming language, "do as I mean you to do, not as I say you to do." Yes, things like garbage collection and bounds-checking help prevent some bugs, but the really nasty ones--the ones that take ages to fix--are the result of good ol'-fashioned bad design and programming. Are you sure? I think there's a product lurking in the bushes here...
Having just read QED, by Feynman, I'd have to disagree. It's a lucid presentation of quantum electrodynamics, and sum-of=histories, without any significant use of math. Obviously, he doesn't come up with any mathematical results, but he does convey the phenomena observed, and their strangeness.
Sorry - just had to do it.
which seems to be used for the new political movement for restriction of copyright, and the broadening of the intellectual commons.
I once actually wrote an assembly language coroutine setup: it served mainly to connect the write word subroutine of one already working program to the read word subroutine of another one.
And of course, a moderate amount stems from Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad system.
Ave, imperatores novis Romanis!
Actually, as I read the article (which may be incorrectly), what they believe they've achieved is a solid Bose-Einstein condensate, which has many properties in common with the gaseous B-E-c's which have been achieved previously.
This is actually a quite common scam: send a large company an invoice for a small amount, and it's quite possibly going to be pais.
Who won? You be the judge... woops, the Supremes already decided that one.
and your blind people, and your dyslexics, and your Puerto Ricans who have just come to the mainland, and your victims of _really_ fucked up schools.
By being fucking citizens, asshole.
As I recall, this was not a news team, but the state weights & measures guys...
Got a link for that negative correlation? Rich people live longer, and collect a lot more Social Security, as well as a lot more corporate welfare.
How? Got an intelligence meter?
Archaic for heiress: i.e female who inherits.
funny & true - a lethal combination.