Maybe the gp does. I don't however. Every investment has risk. The question is whether the reward is worth the risk. If you invest in stocks which pay no dividends, you invest in garbage. You buy paper which gives you no rights other than to sell it to others. Why not buy the rock and scissors, too? At least if you buy paper which has been paying dividend, you buy the historically-reasonable assumption that you'll get paid. Nothing is guaranteed, but then your employer being able to pay your salary is not guaranteed, either. Even the senior bond holders are not guaranteed to get paid anymore thanks to the deals like GM bailout (which screwed the senior bond holders in violation of the legally tight contract).
Life is not a sequence of absolutely guaranteed or predictable events. It's a sequence of events who probability may be estimated. Anyone believing in anything with absolute certainty does not realize that the brain itself is a device for estimating probabilities.
Preferred shares don't have legally mandated anything. No instruments do, actually. They might have contractual obligation to do so. Preferred means that they must pay the contractual dividend before the company pays any dividend to common stock holders. For example, junk bonds (ie, bonds with no agreed-upon collateral ) still have senior status to preferred stocks. REITs have to pay at least 90% of their earnings as dividends to maintain their REIT status. So they only have any sort of obligation to pay dividends as long as they have positive earnings.
This is only partly true. It just softens the peak a lot.
Nah. At the current levels of energy consumption, natural gas from fraking alone satisfies all energy needs for the next 150 years. The technology for converting large fleets to liquid gas is already available. Personal autos will get there as an afterthought.
If anyone had been robbed many times, don't they have a reasonable expectation of being robbed again at a future time? If police don't protect them, don't they have a reasonable expectation that the same people who just robbed them would rob them again? Isn't it also reasonable to expect that any future robbery would endanger his life? Would your answer be different if someone was taking a daily morning walk and was always punched in the nose during that walk? Would they have a right to expect that they would get punched in the future and take proactive measures to stop it?
Yes, there are many ways for them to communicate. Sounds like all of those are illegal now. Laws don't stop or compel any behavior. They only allow for punishment when someone is caught not complying.
Cornell University closes a certain bridge during the finals. Does that mean that the amount of pressure that the students feel to perform in that university is a problem? In high-pressure situations, some human beings snap. Most human beings, however, perform better. Reducing the damage that few might incur while increasing the performance of most is hardly a bad strategy.
That programs with goto's are not more readable than the ones without them. Programming and writing literature are both exercises in attention span management.
That's only part of the "prepare to jump to hyperspeed" before jumping to hyperspeed. Without the new use of the 'auto' keyword, every for loop requires either multiple lines loop header or a typedef right before the loop. The auto keyword reduces it to 1 short line. The copy semantics actually reduce the code necessary to return containers. Oh, and the new tuples make all the gymnastics surrounding returning of lists of heterogeneous values from functions a syntactic no-brainer. But I don't think any compiler implements the initializer lists yet. That would be another step in reducing the code foot print.
There is no compiler which implements all the new syntax just yet -- not even all the syntactic sugar. So I'd be curious to know how you've been playing with C++11.
There is a sweat spot for benchmarking though. Roughly 50 mil primes will guarantee that you won't need to go over 4 byte integers. Also don't bother skipping even numbers or numbers divisible by a few of the other lower primes. It will bias the result towards the language with inlining techniques (unless you actually duplicate the code in the languages which don't have inlining). And skipping all the even or all the 3,5 multiples will make you test less numbers, but won't make you spend less time testing. Most of the time is not spend on the numbers which are rejected quickly. Most time is spent on the numbers with least divisors (like primes themselves).
It's not stupid. Most estimates show that the average code size of a C++11 coded program is half the size of a C++ program. And they are much more readable. It is patently silly to commit resources to long-term projects which can be written in half the time if they are started 2-3 years down the line.
I'll mention that very few C++ programmers know what they are.
That's the problem with those programmers, not the language. C++ is powerful and fast by design;
Not really. Most Java programmers know about the weak references in Java. And in Java they are less necessary than they are in C++ (because the C++ gc model steaming from smart pointers is based on reference counts). If a necessary tool goes underused in a certain context, then it is the problem with how the context is presented to its audience -- not with the audience.
But C++ is a very powerful tool when used right.
Any tool is only as powerful as it is useful. It is not reasonable to judge tools only by the peak performance achieved by its most committed users.
The reason for that is that perf boost (relative to Java/C#) is more like 20% for common tasks;
And I posted a fairly simple benchmark which shows otherwise.
there is a marked responsiveness improvement due to lack of GC.
Only for a certain class of problems. Btw, I would say that mark-and-sweep is a type of gc -- not that it is gc. Reference count is also a gc method. But that's a semantic argument. And I am more than willing to admit that it is a matter of opinion.
You can write good UI software in managed languages
All application languages are managed.... by the operating system.
Otherwise you end up with a clumsy pig like Swing.
Swing is only clumsy because it attempts cross-platform functionality (which necessitates that it supports only the least common denominator of features). It's not clumsy for any kind of inherent performance design issues in the Java language.
Except, of course, in case of circular references. Oh, and before you mention weak references (to be totally honest, I am not even sure if there is a standard weak reference in C++), I'll mention that very few C++ programmers know what they are. The syntax of C++ is so crowded that the language is only used for low level stuff where the extra 5% performance boost is a big deal. I am not sure if CUDA programming can only be done in C++, but I think that if one absolutely needs CUDA, then he is already doing some low-level stuff.
For anything but the highest performance computing, Java gives the same performance. In fact, for service code, Java gives better performance. I've benchmarked a prime sieve with the same algorithm in Java, and C++ (with and without the -g flag). It's a good test of integer arithmetic+basic language performance because the compiler cannot optimize away loops. Java is only 5% slower than stripped C++. Java is significantly faster than C++ with the -g flag. But Java actually retains all the symbol and frame information. So, in case of a crash, you often have even more to go on than you would in C++ with -g.
No more for (some_container_type > >::reverse_iterator aargh = instance.begin(); aargh != instance.end(); ++aargh) for me!
What's worse is one of the intermediate containing types changes. You then have to go and hunt through the rest of the code to see where it changed. Yeah, until containers knew their contained type (and could declare an iterator over their contained type), they really should have been called pseudo-containers. The problems, however, is that the language has been so slow to get fully implemented, that it's driving people away from the adaption. I think half of the C++ projects out there are delayed in starting up just because there is no full C++11 compiler to use.
If you look at a personal check, you'll see the words "pay to the order of". A check is an order to your bank to pay to whoever the check is made out to (out of your funds). It can be made out to "bearer", ie., the person bearing (carrying) the check. As soon as the check changes hands, its owner changes and so does the person who has to be paid when the check is presented. A more common way to write such a check is to make it to "cash". In fact, legally a check made out to "bearer" or "cash" should not require a presenter's endorsement. Because whoever is bearing the check is the one to whom the bank was ordered to pay the money (most bank won't honor such an order without an endorsement though). What does that have to do with the bonds? Well, the "bearer" has the same connotation in this context. A bond is a promise to pay at a future date (an IOU). A registered bond is a promise to pay to its rightful owner. A "bearer" bond is a promise to pay to whoever physically holds the bond.
Generally, no. Bonds are issued in fairly large denominations. But in this case, it would raise eyebrows because of the date. $1billion dollar bond would not be issued in 1934. No financial institution would have lent money in such one large chunk against 1 financial paper. Today bonds are issued in at least 100 million issues, but as someone pointed out, today they are registered, so it doesn't matter what the original issue is.
Sure the work is less intellectually stimulating, but it is also less stressful. More likely than not you have the skill for it. You are less likely to have to pull long hours (QA has much more definable deliverables than development). Because you are older, you can brush off the egos of the younger developers who think of you as glorified IT personal. It's more utilitarian and less creative, but it sounds like you are sick of being on the hook for the deliverables. So the stage of your career when you thought of development as creative work has long passed.
Umm, no I am afraid in this situation there is an actual true dichotomy. They are either his kids or they aren't. And being his doesn't preclude them from also being hers.
Well, to maintain a private school more expensive, they'd have to show that it produces better education. So they would do what expensive private universities do with poor kids: let them in based on talent and only let the very rich kids with a slightly lesser talent in. Basically, it doesn't produce segregation. Money in this case only acts as a tie breaker in the acceptance decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. I think you see where I'm going with this.
Maybe the gp does. I don't however. Every investment has risk. The question is whether the reward is worth the risk. If you invest in stocks which pay no dividends, you invest in garbage. You buy paper which gives you no rights other than to sell it to others. Why not buy the rock and scissors, too? At least if you buy paper which has been paying dividend, you buy the historically-reasonable assumption that you'll get paid. Nothing is guaranteed, but then your employer being able to pay your salary is not guaranteed, either. Even the senior bond holders are not guaranteed to get paid anymore thanks to the deals like GM bailout (which screwed the senior bond holders in violation of the legally tight contract).
Life is not a sequence of absolutely guaranteed or predictable events. It's a sequence of events who probability may be estimated. Anyone believing in anything with absolute certainty does not realize that the brain itself is a device for estimating probabilities.
Preferred shares don't have legally mandated anything. No instruments do, actually. They might have contractual obligation to do so. Preferred means that they must pay the contractual dividend before the company pays any dividend to common stock holders. For example, junk bonds (ie, bonds with no agreed-upon collateral ) still have senior status to preferred stocks. REITs have to pay at least 90% of their earnings as dividends to maintain their REIT status. So they only have any sort of obligation to pay dividends as long as they have positive earnings.
This is only partly true. It just softens the peak a lot.
Nah. At the current levels of energy consumption, natural gas from fraking alone satisfies all energy needs for the next 150 years. The technology for converting large fleets to liquid gas is already available. Personal autos will get there as an afterthought.
If anyone had been robbed many times, don't they have a reasonable expectation of being robbed again at a future time? If police don't protect them, don't they have a reasonable expectation that the same people who just robbed them would rob them again? Isn't it also reasonable to expect that any future robbery would endanger his life? Would your answer be different if someone was taking a daily morning walk and was always punched in the nose during that walk? Would they have a right to expect that they would get punched in the future and take proactive measures to stop it?
Yes, there are many ways for them to communicate. Sounds like all of those are illegal now. Laws don't stop or compel any behavior. They only allow for punishment when someone is caught not complying.
Which is why you buy stocks which pay dividends. So that the money keeps coming.
Simple advice, then. Buy a stock which does pay a dividend. Can't hate yourself too much when someone's giving you cash on regular basis.
Cornell University closes a certain bridge during the finals. Does that mean that the amount of pressure that the students feel to perform in that university is a problem? In high-pressure situations, some human beings snap. Most human beings, however, perform better. Reducing the damage that few might incur while increasing the performance of most is hardly a bad strategy.
inertia-laden cultural institutions
Why do you insist on using a euphemism (which barely euphemises, btw) instead of just saying "religion?"
That programs with goto's are not more readable than the ones without them. Programming and writing literature are both exercises in attention span management.
That's only part of the "prepare to jump to hyperspeed" before jumping to hyperspeed. Without the new use of the 'auto' keyword, every for loop requires either multiple lines loop header or a typedef right before the loop. The auto keyword reduces it to 1 short line. The copy semantics actually reduce the code necessary to return containers. Oh, and the new tuples make all the gymnastics surrounding returning of lists of heterogeneous values from functions a syntactic no-brainer. But I don't think any compiler implements the initializer lists yet. That would be another step in reducing the code foot print.
TR1 was removed from C++11.
There is no compiler which implements all the new syntax just yet -- not even all the syntactic sugar. So I'd be curious to know how you've been playing with C++11.
There is a sweat spot for benchmarking though. Roughly 50 mil primes will guarantee that you won't need to go over 4 byte integers. Also don't bother skipping even numbers or numbers divisible by a few of the other lower primes. It will bias the result towards the language with inlining techniques (unless you actually duplicate the code in the languages which don't have inlining). And skipping all the even or all the 3,5 multiples will make you test less numbers, but won't make you spend less time testing. Most of the time is not spend on the numbers which are rejected quickly. Most time is spent on the numbers with least divisors (like primes themselves).
It's not stupid. Most estimates show that the average code size of a C++11 coded program is half the size of a C++ program. And they are much more readable. It is patently silly to commit resources to long-term projects which can be written in half the time if they are started 2-3 years down the line.
I'll mention that very few C++ programmers know what they are.
That's the problem with those programmers, not the language. C++ is powerful and fast by design;
Not really. Most Java programmers know about the weak references in Java. And in Java they are less necessary than they are in C++ (because the C++ gc model steaming from smart pointers is based on reference counts). If a necessary tool goes underused in a certain context, then it is the problem with how the context is presented to its audience -- not with the audience.
But C++ is a very powerful tool when used right.
Any tool is only as powerful as it is useful. It is not reasonable to judge tools only by the peak performance achieved by its most committed users.
The reason for that is that perf boost (relative to Java/C#) is more like 20% for common tasks;
And I posted a fairly simple benchmark which shows otherwise.
there is a marked responsiveness improvement due to lack of GC.
Only for a certain class of problems. Btw, I would say that mark-and-sweep is a type of gc -- not that it is gc. Reference count is also a gc method. But that's a semantic argument. And I am more than willing to admit that it is a matter of opinion.
You can write good UI software in managed languages
All application languages are managed.... by the operating system.
Otherwise you end up with a clumsy pig like Swing.
Swing is only clumsy because it attempts cross-platform functionality (which necessitates that it supports only the least common denominator of features). It's not clumsy for any kind of inherent performance design issues in the Java language.
Except, of course, in case of circular references. Oh, and before you mention weak references (to be totally honest, I am not even sure if there is a standard weak reference in C++), I'll mention that very few C++ programmers know what they are. The syntax of C++ is so crowded that the language is only used for low level stuff where the extra 5% performance boost is a big deal. I am not sure if CUDA programming can only be done in C++, but I think that if one absolutely needs CUDA, then he is already doing some low-level stuff.
For anything but the highest performance computing, Java gives the same performance. In fact, for service code, Java gives better performance. I've benchmarked a prime sieve with the same algorithm in Java, and C++ (with and without the -g flag). It's a good test of integer arithmetic+basic language performance because the compiler cannot optimize away loops. Java is only 5% slower than stripped C++. Java is significantly faster than C++ with the -g flag. But Java actually retains all the symbol and frame information. So, in case of a crash, you often have even more to go on than you would in C++ with -g.
No more for (some_container_type > >::reverse_iterator aargh = instance.begin(); aargh != instance.end(); ++aargh) for me!
What's worse is one of the intermediate containing types changes. You then have to go and hunt through the rest of the code to see where it changed. Yeah, until containers knew their contained type (and could declare an iterator over their contained type), they really should have been called pseudo-containers. The problems, however, is that the language has been so slow to get fully implemented, that it's driving people away from the adaption. I think half of the C++ projects out there are delayed in starting up just because there is no full C++11 compiler to use.
If you look at a personal check, you'll see the words "pay to the order of". A check is an order to your bank to pay to whoever the check is made out to (out of your funds). It can be made out to "bearer", ie., the person bearing (carrying) the check. As soon as the check changes hands, its owner changes and so does the person who has to be paid when the check is presented. A more common way to write such a check is to make it to "cash". In fact, legally a check made out to "bearer" or "cash" should not require a presenter's endorsement. Because whoever is bearing the check is the one to whom the bank was ordered to pay the money (most bank won't honor such an order without an endorsement though). What does that have to do with the bonds? Well, the "bearer" has the same connotation in this context. A bond is a promise to pay at a future date (an IOU). A registered bond is a promise to pay to its rightful owner. A "bearer" bond is a promise to pay to whoever physically holds the bond.
Generally, no. Bonds are issued in fairly large denominations. But in this case, it would raise eyebrows because of the date. $1billion dollar bond would not be issued in 1934. No financial institution would have lent money in such one large chunk against 1 financial paper. Today bonds are issued in at least 100 million issues, but as someone pointed out, today they are registered, so it doesn't matter what the original issue is.
Sure the work is less intellectually stimulating, but it is also less stressful. More likely than not you have the skill for it. You are less likely to have to pull long hours (QA has much more definable deliverables than development). Because you are older, you can brush off the egos of the younger developers who think of you as glorified IT personal. It's more utilitarian and less creative, but it sounds like you are sick of being on the hook for the deliverables. So the stage of your career when you thought of development as creative work has long passed.
Umm, no I am afraid in this situation there is an actual true dichotomy. They are either his kids or they aren't. And being his doesn't preclude them from also being hers.
Well, to maintain a private school more expensive, they'd have to show that it produces better education. So they would do what expensive private universities do with poor kids: let them in based on talent and only let the very rich kids with a slightly lesser talent in. Basically, it doesn't produce segregation. Money in this case only acts as a tie breaker in the acceptance decisions.
Damn right! But don't forget to pay the taxes which pay for the schools.