This distinction exists for other variable types. I.e., *is* variable "i" declared as an "int" an integer 5 or does it hold an integer 5? You get around around it by saying that "i" *is* an integer while "5" is a constant integer. The same would apply to address variables (as opposed to address constants or "actual" addresses).
I sometimes wonder if it's the bad naming that causes so much confusion with pointers. They are just memory addresses. What if they were called "addresses" instead of "pointers?" Sure you may think "what's in the name?" BUT! Programming, as a mental task, is a constant repurposing of concepts (especially when people are too lazy to give variables full names). Ie, "i is one thing, l is another, etc." So having another misdirection every time you use an address variable adds another mental task. It's 2nd nature after a while, but even seasoned programmers slip up on it when they are tired.
The name probably seemed natural because of how people described data structures when C was written (boxes and arrows). But in today's world most of boxes and arrows are object diagrams (so arrows are not pointers). Not that I am saying that object diagrams get confused with tree data structures, but I am saying that the utility of calling an address variable a "pointer" is long gone. I am curious if any one had much success trying to force themselves to use the word "address" and "pointer" when referring to these variables in teaching.
It will cost in the 1st year than the entire projected cost of the project, will run into "unexpected" technological difficulties and the failure will be blamed on "unknown unknowns."
Case-in-point: the drawings I created in preschool are extremely rare,
Nope. Note a case in point. I said a scarce commodity. Not a scarce thing. If the drawings you made were commoditized (while remaining verifyably scarce), then they could serve as a token for enumerating exchange. Such tokens have tremendous value even in the situations when there are no coercive powers forcing their use. There was money long before there was government. Such tokens simply make enumeration of exchanges (for the purposes of keeping track) possible. Converting value that each individual puts on some possession into a uniform enumerable tokenized value enables solving the problem which arises fairly quickly in any attempt to have have a bartering economy.
One of the requirement for liquidity is that no player can control a sizable part of the market. Since someone can still come in and buy up half the available asks without much of an investment, this is still not a liquid market.
Their value is in being a verifyably scarce commodity. Since human interactions often require units for enumerating exchanges, verifyably scarce commodities have a value.
Your argument suffers from not listing the cons. You only list the pros. Inflationary policy also causes easy credit. And easy credit causes irresponsible borrowing. It also decreases productivity by enabling carry trade. I am not saying that these cons outweigh the pros, but I think it would be very short sighted to claim that the pros necessarily outweigh the cons. Most of the time it is a matter of how much weight each particular trend ends up having.
Ah, but what if they mint in Alaska? Data houses are not usually hosted in Alaska because network costs are significantly higher than computational costs for datahousing. But that's not true for BT. So what if someone starts minting in Alaska (where natural cold air can used pretty much year-round as a coolant)?
Hmm... Took me another reading, but yes, you and the original AC were right. Although I continue to insist that I hold NYT to a higher grammar standard than myself. I don't make a habit of correcting grammar or spelling, but NYT is a standard-setting institution (or at least they claim to be). Anyone representing them ought to know better.
Just realized another point though. "Smart phone apps" is such a narrowly defined market place that having a monopoly in that particular market place may not be significant. The entire market place is so new and so specialized that it is vulnerable to competitive pressures.
Sorry, I actually meant to say 50% of the market place rather than 100%. As in, "since Apple doesn't have 50% of the market." But even that can probably be disputed because as someone below points out, they have 70% of the app market.
For one, because they don't have a monopoly on "smart" phones. Having a legally recognized monopoly is not illegal. But it does restrict actions which a monopolist can take in the market place. Since Apple doesn't have 100% of the market, they clearly don't have a monopoly. So the range of actions they can take is wider than a range of actions a monopolist would.
This is the generation that came of age in the 90's. Most of them made more money than their parents on their first job out of college. They were what all the millenials think they ought to be. And having created the Internet, made or lost even more money in the housing boom, they are now going Galt by playing video games.
Many forms of intellectual inquiry better yield themselves methods of discovery other than the Socratic method. This is simply the case because of the cheapness of presentation medium in the modern age. Few would argue that Sesame Street, for example, inhibits intellectual development of children. Well, with the cost of interactive medium coming to the low levels it has come to, many forms of inquiry (which were previously only available through the rigorous structure of the Socratic method) are now available to be purveyed through more individualized means. Those adroit at exploiting such venues of discovery are not anti-intellectual, but they often are geeks. They may appear to be anti-intellectual since they sidestep the orthodox methods of inquiry (which are traditionally associated with intellectual endeavor). But those who give too much credit to such appearances are guilty of elevating form over function.
Not necessarily. Life-long intellectual development requires a certain amount of leisure time. And pursuing economically destructive paths early in life will significantly diminish the overall amount of leisure (and by extension of intellectual development) over the course of the lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
This distinction exists for other variable types. I.e., *is* variable "i" declared as an "int" an integer 5 or does it hold an integer 5? You get around around it by saying that "i" *is* an integer while "5" is a constant integer. The same would apply to address variables (as opposed to address constants or "actual" addresses).
I sometimes wonder if it's the bad naming that causes so much confusion with pointers. They are just memory addresses. What if they were called "addresses" instead of "pointers?" Sure you may think "what's in the name?" BUT! Programming, as a mental task, is a constant repurposing of concepts (especially when people are too lazy to give variables full names). Ie, "i is one thing, l is another, etc." So having another misdirection every time you use an address variable adds another mental task. It's 2nd nature after a while, but even seasoned programmers slip up on it when they are tired.
The name probably seemed natural because of how people described data structures when C was written (boxes and arrows). But in today's world most of boxes and arrows are object diagrams (so arrows are not pointers). Not that I am saying that object diagrams get confused with tree data structures, but I am saying that the utility of calling an address variable a "pointer" is long gone. I am curious if any one had much success trying to force themselves to use the word "address" and "pointer" when referring to these variables in teaching.
It will cost in the 1st year than the entire projected cost of the project, will run into "unexpected" technological difficulties and the failure will be blamed on "unknown unknowns."
Actually it makes me kind of sad.
There, there...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2230966&cid=36412652
Case-in-point: the drawings I created in preschool are extremely rare,
Nope. Note a case in point. I said a scarce commodity. Not a scarce thing. If the drawings you made were commoditized (while remaining verifyably scarce), then they could serve as a token for enumerating exchange. Such tokens have tremendous value even in the situations when there are no coercive powers forcing their use. There was money long before there was government. Such tokens simply make enumeration of exchanges (for the purposes of keeping track) possible. Converting value that each individual puts on some possession into a uniform enumerable tokenized value enables solving the problem which arises fairly quickly in any attempt to have have a bartering economy.
One of the requirement for liquidity is that no player can control a sizable part of the market. Since someone can still come in and buy up half the available asks without much of an investment, this is still not a liquid market.
Their value is in being a verifyably scarce commodity. Since human interactions often require units for enumerating exchanges, verifyably scarce commodities have a value.
Your argument suffers from not listing the cons. You only list the pros. Inflationary policy also causes easy credit. And easy credit causes irresponsible borrowing. It also decreases productivity by enabling carry trade. I am not saying that these cons outweigh the pros, but I think it would be very short sighted to claim that the pros necessarily outweigh the cons. Most of the time it is a matter of how much weight each particular trend ends up having.
And what is the treasury backed by?
Ah, but what if they mint in Alaska? Data houses are not usually hosted in Alaska because network costs are significantly higher than computational costs for datahousing. But that's not true for BT. So what if someone starts minting in Alaska (where natural cold air can used pretty much year-round as a coolant)?
I'll go ahead and believe my lying eyes rather than your well-theorized arguments.
Hmm... Took me another reading, but yes, you and the original AC were right. Although I continue to insist that I hold NYT to a higher grammar standard than myself. I don't make a habit of correcting grammar or spelling, but NYT is a standard-setting institution (or at least they claim to be). Anyone representing them ought to know better.
You are talking to a survivor of the Soviet Union here, douche bag.
People who are honest about the left.
The subject of the sentence was the word "sentence." I stand by the conjugation.
I don't hold myself to as high a standard on grammar as the standard to which I hold The New York Times.
Just realized another point though. "Smart phone apps" is such a narrowly defined market place that having a monopoly in that particular market place may not be significant. The entire market place is so new and so specialized that it is vulnerable to competitive pressures.
Sorry, I actually meant to say 50% of the market place rather than 100%. As in, "since Apple doesn't have 50% of the market." But even that can probably be disputed because as someone below points out, they have 70% of the app market.
On the plus side, you'd find out that there are still operational black Volgas.
How exactly does a sentence which starts with "here at The New York Times" ends up having two grammatical mistakes in it?
For one, because they don't have a monopoly on "smart" phones. Having a legally recognized monopoly is not illegal. But it does restrict actions which a monopolist can take in the market place. Since Apple doesn't have 100% of the market, they clearly don't have a monopoly. So the range of actions they can take is wider than a range of actions a monopolist would.
This is the generation that came of age in the 90's. Most of them made more money than their parents on their first job out of college. They were what all the millenials think they ought to be. And having created the Internet, made or lost even more money in the housing boom, they are now going Galt by playing video games.
Many forms of intellectual inquiry better yield themselves methods of discovery other than the Socratic method. This is simply the case because of the cheapness of presentation medium in the modern age. Few would argue that Sesame Street, for example, inhibits intellectual development of children. Well, with the cost of interactive medium coming to the low levels it has come to, many forms of inquiry (which were previously only available through the rigorous structure of the Socratic method) are now available to be purveyed through more individualized means. Those adroit at exploiting such venues of discovery are not anti-intellectual, but they often are geeks. They may appear to be anti-intellectual since they sidestep the orthodox methods of inquiry (which are traditionally associated with intellectual endeavor). But those who give too much credit to such appearances are guilty of elevating form over function.
Not necessarily. Life-long intellectual development requires a certain amount of leisure time. And pursuing economically destructive paths early in life will significantly diminish the overall amount of leisure (and by extension of intellectual development) over the course of the lifetime.
You forgot to mention banker. While the statical evidence presented by gp is not strong, as an example of a larger trend it is nothing to laugh at.