What do you do with so many films? Do you actually buy a few TB in storage each month just to store them? Are there even enough hours in the day to watch so much film?
Apparently a phone without a border is deemed the pinnacle of human achievement by phone manufacturers. Still, I think it's not good enough. I'm holding out for a phone where the screen actually extends beyond the physical phone. Not this sissy "right up until the edge but no further", no silly "wrap around and continue on the back", no, I want a phone where the screen is larger than the physical device itself!
What's that? Pointless? Impossible? Well, that didn't stop you for this model, did it?
If they are using a C++ compiler, they are likely using it to code in C (or FORTRAN).
So how much are they saving by rolling their own vtables instead of the ones the compiler will generate for them? How much smaller are their executables because they used #defines everywhere instead of templates? Does the fact that they use functions instead of overloaded operators really give them an edge, in terms of size or performance? Does ending every function call in "if (err) goto endx" really save space and time over having a single try-catch block somewhere?
Serene, peaceful, in tune with nature, never takes more than he gives... And wipes out numerous complete (and unique) species.
Considering that Europeans still have to suffer demands for reparation for such things as slavery, colonisation, and the crusades, one cannot help but wonder if a demand for compensation for the irreparable damage to the ecosystem made by the aboriginals is also possible.
You missed "it's faster than C!! Well, it will be faster than C in the future! Well, it will be faster than C once we have JIT. Well, it will be faster than C once JIT actually optimizes things as promised... Any day now..."
"The year is 2017, and Oracle launches the last of America's deep database probes. After his systems are unexpectedly frozen by garbage collection, Solaris 12 and its pilot Captain Larry 'Buck' Ellison are blown out of their trajectory into an orbit which freezes his life support systems, and returns Larry Ellison to Earth five-hundred years later."
That old story again. You know what the + operator does? It adds two things together. How it does that is really none of your business.
You probably think that you know what happens when you write x + y. Well, you don't. It all depends on the type: if x and y are integer, an integer addition instruction is used. If they are floating point a floating point addition instruction is used. And if one is integer and the other floating point there is first a conversion, and then a floating point addition. If one is a pointer and the other an integer, there is a multiplication, an integer addition, and perhaps pointer normalisation (only on obscure architectures). So that simple '+' already means a lot of different things. Given you already have to deal with all that, I really don't see the problem for allowing addition for user-defined types as well, like BCD, or bignum, or complex, or matrix, or whatever.
If "software, according to some lame heuristic, shows a typical sign of being bad", more likely. "Hey look, this guy is using sprintf! Some people use it wrong, so surely it means he must also be using it wrong, thus his software is bad! Fix it, or else!"
There's nothing to discuss since any algorithm can be written in any turing complete language.
There's plenty to discuss, since the ease with which you can express yourself matters greatly in any practical sense. However, the progress we have actually made in this area is not nearly as impressive as one might hope - new languages mostly bring us the same thing, but with slightly different syntax. Real breakthroughs are very, very rare. Remember the 4GL initiative from Japan in the nineties? Still waiting for that killer language... The closest I've seen is the Wolfram language. Maybe that's the way forward: a massive support library and huge, online databases.
As for Turing machines... On a machine with finite memory, all states the machine can be in can be enumerated, and each state always leads deterministically to a single next state. Since the total number of states is finite (very large, but finite), this means that at some point it must either return to a previous state, or halt. If it returns to a previous state, it will then continue to loop forever (since each state deterministically leads to a single next state). Thus, if you have the capacity to track state changes for long enough, you will be able to determine if a program will halt or not.
And yet, there's Turing's proof. Why the discrepancy? Well, simple: a Turing machine has an infinite tape, and can therefore produce not a finite, but an infinite number of states. Any computer we have in the real world does not have infinite memory, and is therefore not a Turing machine. To be considered Turing-complete, a language must be able to simulate a Turing machine - and that's actually impossible, since it can never meet the "infinite tape" requirement. You might claim that "any algorithm can be expressed in any Turing complete language", but since we don't have any, that's really a moot point, and we would perhaps be wiser to focus on other aspects of the language rather than a theoretically impossible, and perhaps even undesirable feature.
I haven't run av software in ten years and never had a problem.
How do you know? How can you be sure that your computer isn't part of half a dozen botnets, given that you do absolutely nothing to detect such a condition?
It's not just that. Downloading huge updates while connected to a big internet pipe is one thing, but I travel a lot and I can tell you that hotel internet speeds in many countries are just not good enough for massive downloads. How the f*** are you supposed to use Windows 10 while on the road? How often do these high priority updates come out, and what is their average size?
Interestingly, if you do that long enough, Windows Update breaks completely. On none of my machines I can now run WU, no matter how long I leave it on (days!) the "scanning for updates" process never completes. I've tried a whole bunch of helpful suggestions from the internet on how to fix this, but so far nothing...
It's a serious question. Sure, if they decide to bring their software to other PS4, XBox, and Steam, they'll have to pay Sony, Microsoft, and Valve a cut. But their target market increases massively, and they can drop the whole hardware development side of things, which must also be costing them an absolute fortune. And surely a party as large as Nintendo can have a better deal than a small developer can get from the big boys...
"The UNIX way" was to have multiple, not quite compatible, complete operating systems from multiple vendors such as HPUX, Solaris, IRIX, etc. Porting your software between those was a considerable effort, and in fact a whole standardisation body (posix) has sprung up around efforts to make those systems at least nominally compatible. And in later years, the Linux way was quite similar, with LSB attempting to keep distributions at least nominally compatible with each other, but the effort of porting an application from one distribution to another still going by the name of "porting".
I have no idea in which dimension your UNIX way happened, but it wasn't this one.
Obama got a Nobel peace prize just for being elected president. He very clearly didn't have to earn that, and in hindsight, he never should have received it.
Right. So what exactly is this mode doing: slowing down everything that came from Steam, perhaps, giving advantage only to software that has paid up? This sounds dangerously close to the Microsoft that was "competing" with WordPerfect, back in the day.
When I pass through border control they cannot even get my fingerprints when I'm touching the glass. And now a blurry mobile phone would be able to do better from several meters away?
I guess the next warning will be to always wear gloves, otherwise you will be leaving a trail of fingerprints everywhere you go...
Or is this another mandatory feature? Because I totally hate it when my screen locks every five seconds. I can decide on my own whether an environment is safe for leaving my screen unlocked or not.
Normally I wouldn't worry about something like this, but this is Microsoft we are talking about. They think they know my situation so much better than I do, they need to make this choice for me.
If you actually read his books, you would know quite a few feature clever ways those laws can be broken or worked around. I'd start by defining what constitutes a "human being". Oh, and add that pesky zeroeth law, which basically says "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few".
Slashdot Mirror
What do you do with so many films? Do you actually buy a few TB in storage each month just to store them? Are there even enough hours in the day to watch so much film?
Apparently a phone without a border is deemed the pinnacle of human achievement by phone manufacturers. Still, I think it's not good enough. I'm holding out for a phone where the screen actually extends beyond the physical phone. Not this sissy "right up until the edge but no further", no silly "wrap around and continue on the back", no, I want a phone where the screen is larger than the physical device itself!
What's that? Pointless? Impossible? Well, that didn't stop you for this model, did it?
...make Everest great again?
It would be easy enough to add a few meters to the top. And make Nepal pay for that, of course.
If they are using a C++ compiler, they are likely using it to code in C (or FORTRAN).
So how much are they saving by rolling their own vtables instead of the ones the compiler will generate for them? How much smaller are their executables because they used #defines everywhere instead of templates? Does the fact that they use functions instead of overloaded operators really give them an edge, in terms of size or performance? Does ending every function call in "if (err) goto endx" really save space and time over having a single try-catch block somewhere?
Serene, peaceful, in tune with nature, never takes more than he gives... And wipes out numerous complete (and unique) species.
Considering that Europeans still have to suffer demands for reparation for such things as slavery, colonisation, and the crusades, one cannot help but wonder if a demand for compensation for the irreparable damage to the ecosystem made by the aboriginals is also possible.
You missed "it's faster than C!! Well, it will be faster than C in the future! Well, it will be faster than C once we have JIT. Well, it will be faster than C once JIT actually optimizes things as promised... Any day now..."
"The year is 2017, and Oracle launches the last of America's deep database probes. After his systems are unexpectedly frozen by garbage collection, Solaris 12 and its pilot Captain Larry 'Buck' Ellison are blown out of their trajectory into an orbit which freezes his life support systems, and returns Larry Ellison to Earth five-hundred years later."
That old story again. You know what the + operator does? It adds two things together. How it does that is really none of your business.
You probably think that you know what happens when you write x + y. Well, you don't. It all depends on the type: if x and y are integer, an integer addition instruction is used. If they are floating point a floating point addition instruction is used. And if one is integer and the other floating point there is first a conversion, and then a floating point addition. If one is a pointer and the other an integer, there is a multiplication, an integer addition, and perhaps pointer normalisation (only on obscure architectures). So that simple '+' already means a lot of different things. Given you already have to deal with all that, I really don't see the problem for allowing addition for user-defined types as well, like BCD, or bignum, or complex, or matrix, or whatever.
If "software, according to some lame heuristic, shows a typical sign of being bad", more likely. "Hey look, this guy is using sprintf! Some people use it wrong, so surely it means he must also be using it wrong, thus his software is bad! Fix it, or else!"
There's nothing to discuss since any algorithm can be written in any turing complete language.
There's plenty to discuss, since the ease with which you can express yourself matters greatly in any practical sense. However, the progress we have actually made in this area is not nearly as impressive as one might hope - new languages mostly bring us the same thing, but with slightly different syntax. Real breakthroughs are very, very rare. Remember the 4GL initiative from Japan in the nineties? Still waiting for that killer language... The closest I've seen is the Wolfram language. Maybe that's the way forward: a massive support library and huge, online databases.
As for Turing machines... On a machine with finite memory, all states the machine can be in can be enumerated, and each state always leads deterministically to a single next state. Since the total number of states is finite (very large, but finite), this means that at some point it must either return to a previous state, or halt. If it returns to a previous state, it will then continue to loop forever (since each state deterministically leads to a single next state). Thus, if you have the capacity to track state changes for long enough, you will be able to determine if a program will halt or not.
And yet, there's Turing's proof. Why the discrepancy? Well, simple: a Turing machine has an infinite tape, and can therefore produce not a finite, but an infinite number of states. Any computer we have in the real world does not have infinite memory, and is therefore not a Turing machine. To be considered Turing-complete, a language must be able to simulate a Turing machine - and that's actually impossible, since it can never meet the "infinite tape" requirement. You might claim that "any algorithm can be expressed in any Turing complete language", but since we don't have any, that's really a moot point, and we would perhaps be wiser to focus on other aspects of the language rather than a theoretically impossible, and perhaps even undesirable feature.
Your move, AC ;-)
What's there to discuss, then? What new thing does Nim bring to the table?
Show me some code that shows how Nim can do things better. It's more convincing than a list of bullet points anyway.
I haven't run av software in ten years and never had a problem.
How do you know? How can you be sure that your computer isn't part of half a dozen botnets, given that you do absolutely nothing to detect such a condition?
It's not just that. Downloading huge updates while connected to a big internet pipe is one thing, but I travel a lot and I can tell you that hotel internet speeds in many countries are just not good enough for massive downloads. How the f*** are you supposed to use Windows 10 while on the road? How often do these high priority updates come out, and what is their average size?
Interestingly, if you do that long enough, Windows Update breaks completely. On none of my machines I can now run WU, no matter how long I leave it on (days!) the "scanning for updates" process never completes. I've tried a whole bunch of helpful suggestions from the internet on how to fix this, but so far nothing...
It's a serious question. Sure, if they decide to bring their software to other PS4, XBox, and Steam, they'll have to pay Sony, Microsoft, and Valve a cut. But their target market increases massively, and they can drop the whole hardware development side of things, which must also be costing them an absolute fortune. And surely a party as large as Nintendo can have a better deal than a small developer can get from the big boys...
"The UNIX way" was to have multiple, not quite compatible, complete operating systems from multiple vendors such as HPUX, Solaris, IRIX, etc. Porting your software between those was a considerable effort, and in fact a whole standardisation body (posix) has sprung up around efforts to make those systems at least nominally compatible. And in later years, the Linux way was quite similar, with LSB attempting to keep distributions at least nominally compatible with each other, but the effort of porting an application from one distribution to another still going by the name of "porting".
I have no idea in which dimension your UNIX way happened, but it wasn't this one.
Are you saying every newly-elected president should get a Nobel peace prize, then? Do you feel Trump should be getting one right now?
Obama got a Nobel peace prize just for being elected president. He very clearly didn't have to earn that, and in hindsight, he never should have received it.
Right. So what exactly is this mode doing: slowing down everything that came from Steam, perhaps, giving advantage only to software that has paid up? This sounds dangerously close to the Microsoft that was "competing" with WordPerfect, back in the day.
That's known as Amdahl's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I was told by a border guard that I shouldn't worry, that it is quite normal for prints to be faded "in old people". I'm 46...
When I pass through border control they cannot even get my fingerprints when I'm touching the glass. And now a blurry mobile phone would be able to do better from several meters away?
I guess the next warning will be to always wear gloves, otherwise you will be leaving a trail of fingerprints everywhere you go...
Or is this another mandatory feature? Because I totally hate it when my screen locks every five seconds. I can decide on my own whether an environment is safe for leaving my screen unlocked or not.
Normally I wouldn't worry about something like this, but this is Microsoft we are talking about. They think they know my situation so much better than I do, they need to make this choice for me.
Sigh... Please stop.
Stop what? Stop dreaming? Stop striving for a better world? Stop hoping we will find something that will truly advance us as a species?
Could we make one out of this material?
If you actually read his books, you would know quite a few feature clever ways those laws can be broken or worked around. I'd start by defining what constitutes a "human being". Oh, and add that pesky zeroeth law, which basically says "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few".