Actually, Sulfuric Acid and Potassium Hydroxide mixed together wouldn't give you just water. It would give you water and a salt (in this case, Potassium Sulfate).
Well, CoD4 is something I could identify with (and enjoyed a whole lot) seeing as I did a tour in Iraq (I know the game doesn't take place in Iraq, but a lot of the environments looked eerily like place I drove through while in Iraq), and I've fired a lot of the same weapons. My personal weapon was an M-249 SAW and I had a Beretta M-9 as my sidearm.
I'll definitely try out the new CoD (I like WWII games), but I hope they make more titles that deal with "modern" warfare.
Actually, I understand evolution really well. I never claimed that we are more evolved than "honeybees".
I should have clarified my latter statement. What I meant is that the only thing Spore gets right (and even then in a broad definition of the term) is the idea of progress for intelligent species (and in that case, only our idea of intelligent species which would only be humans) from cell to pack to tribe to city to space-faring civilization.
My reference to honeybees was to make the point that Spore doesn't get the idea of "evolution" right because again, evolution doesn't necessarily even mean going from cell all the way to a space-faring civilization. It's just change driven by natural selection, which may or may not lead to an "advanced" stage. So what I mean is that Honeybees have evolved to fit a particular niche very well and they didn't evolve to form a civilization of space-faring honeybees. That doesn't mean they are less "advanced". It's just that through natural selection they evolved to fill a particular niche really well.
Well, I think the main point is that "Evolution" in spore is not driven by Natural Selection at all, but rather by the whims of the user, or at least changes are made in way that the user perceives will help them be successful in the game.
If anything, Spore gets right (in a very broad definition of the term) the different possible eras of evolution. Cell to pack to tribe to city to space-faring civiliation. And that only parallels advanced intelligent civilizations.
Some species have evolved so well to fit a niche (like Honeybees) that they haven't evolved that much.
If anything, I would say that Spore is part of an experience that makes "Intelligent Design" come alive in a game setting! After all, it's the user who's "designing" the creature!;)
Maybe it's also because instead of buying it from the store a lot of people bought it online?
In fact take a look at this, where G1's were sold out when T-Mobile let people order it online.
I ordered one from T-Mobile, and a lot of my friends have as well. Granted, we're developers, but now that my other non-developer/non-geek friends and family have seen my phone, they want to get one as well.
And honestly, I don't even know where this guy came up with the "steep learning curve" and the "basic and advanced features". People I gave the phone to play with didn't seem to have a hard time figuring out how to get around. It's not like you need to be a rocket scientist to figure stuff out. Yeah, it's geared to the developer community but that's only reflected in the openness of the OS and the SDK, and not the phone or the interface itself. It's not like you don't need to drop into the commandline to work this phone.
I also think that instead of relying on hype and drooling at the mouth fanboys, Google is just relying on people buying the phone, using it, and talking to their friends and family about it.
I'm just glad that those two stupid retards Berman and Bragga have NOTHING to do with this one. As far as I am concerned, those two have done nothing but RUIN Star Trek. Assholes.
Us Army guys had one of those in Iraq too - we called it the "Whore"-Drive. I destroyed my laptop drive there, but it was mainly intentional. I was trying to connect it to the crappy wireless we had, and I got so frustrated that I punch my laptop. Repeatedly. The HD didn't like that.
A scientist doing an experiment still relies on the scientific method to collect his own data to see if they support his hypothes[ie]s. I really don't see anyone publishing a paper and saying "Dudes! I used Google to find my data points!" How the hell is Google going to stop people from doing experiments and finding their own data?
This article is complete crap. I don't think this person even understands whats the "Scientific Method" means.
I'd say a strong case is made for Javascript's "LISPness" even without tail-recursion and macros. I get what you are trying to say, in that LISP != Javascript and that Javascript is not LISP (because it's a language in its own right). But I'd go so far as to say that Javascript has more in common with LISP-like languages than imperative ones. This is why Javascript is used wrongly quite often. In fact, when I realized Javascript was so much like LISP, everything fell into place. I've written LISP code before and once I started thinking "functionally", Javascript suddenly became more powerful.
"Functions are first class" and "Functions can be higher order" in that document are not simply there for effect. The fact that Javascript has closures is very important because you can have lambdas/anonymous functions just like lisp. For example, consider the Y-combinator in Javascript:
function Y(le) function Y(le) {
return function (f) {
return f(f);
}(function (f) {
return le(function (x) {
return f(f)(x);
});
}); }
As far as your last point regarding how Javascript is being widely taught and used, all it states is a major problem with the way the language is understood. Just because a language is taught a certain way doesn't mean that the language IS that way. If you delve deeper into Javascript you'll see that it's more like lisp and less like C or Java.
You can write recursive code in Javascript now, but it's very slow. Iterative solutions are faster.
Which means... it's pretty much like every imperative language on the planet?
Recursive solutions in other languages are slower than iterative solutions but not by as much as a factor when compared to recursive vs. iterative solutions in Javascript.
The Javascript interpreter in browsers does not really optimize recursive code. Compare this to other interpreted languages (this paper talks about LISP, and Javascript incidentally, is a LISP-1 language), or compilers. This is why most tips for Javascript optimization talk about removing recursion because of bad performance of recursive code in Javascript.
So if you're able to optimize for recursion in Javascript 2, it wouldn't impact performance as much as it does now.
This site has an example of Javascript 2, and a translator from Javascript 2 to the current version. I really like the type-safety features and the MUCH better way to do OO.
In response to the parent, in the article they talk about how Microsoft is fixated on 3.1 and not 4. Hence, there is "Project Screaming Monkey" which aims to create a scripting engine for IE that can run Javascript 2 and not depend on Microsoft to support Javascript 2. Then, IE can support Javascript 2 (through the Flash Player - full details in the article). I wonder if it is possible to do something similar for Firefox. Perhaps via a plugin? But I suspect performance would suffer greatly. Or maybe 4->3.1 translator like at ecmascript4.com that would do an "on-the-fly" translation.
Javascript has the potential to be really useful. Well, it already is. I was at JavaONE earlier this year and I went to a few Javascript sessions. One of the most eye-opening sessions was the one where the presenter described Javascript as a LISP-1 language that just happens to look like C.
As far as improvement, I think it needs a proper object oriented model (the current one is far too confusing), and also should be friendlier to implementations that require recursion. You can write recursive code in Javascript now, but it's very slow. Iterative solutions are faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Sulfuric Acid and Potassium Hydroxide mixed together wouldn't give you just water. It would give you water and a salt (in this case, Potassium Sulfate).
Well, CoD4 is something I could identify with (and enjoyed a whole lot) seeing as I did a tour in Iraq (I know the game doesn't take place in Iraq, but a lot of the environments looked eerily like place I drove through while in Iraq), and I've fired a lot of the same weapons. My personal weapon was an M-249 SAW and I had a Beretta M-9 as my sidearm.
I'll definitely try out the new CoD (I like WWII games), but I hope they make more titles that deal with "modern" warfare.
I swear, at first I read the name of that fissure in the photograph as "Baghdad Sucks" instead of "Baghdad Sulcus".
Actually, I understand evolution really well. I never claimed that we are more evolved than "honeybees".
I should have clarified my latter statement. What I meant is that the only thing Spore gets right (and even then in a broad definition of the term) is the idea of progress for intelligent species (and in that case, only our idea of intelligent species which would only be humans) from cell to pack to tribe to city to space-faring civilization.
My reference to honeybees was to make the point that Spore doesn't get the idea of "evolution" right because again, evolution doesn't necessarily even mean going from cell all the way to a space-faring civilization. It's just change driven by natural selection, which may or may not lead to an "advanced" stage. So what I mean is that Honeybees have evolved to fit a particular niche very well and they didn't evolve to form a civilization of space-faring honeybees. That doesn't mean they are less "advanced". It's just that through natural selection they evolved to fill a particular niche really well.
Well, I think the main point is that "Evolution" in spore is not driven by Natural Selection at all, but rather by the whims of the user, or at least changes are made in way that the user perceives will help them be successful in the game.
If anything, Spore gets right (in a very broad definition of the term) the different possible eras of evolution. Cell to pack to tribe to city to space-faring civiliation. And that only parallels advanced intelligent civilizations.
Some species have evolved so well to fit a niche (like Honeybees) that they haven't evolved that much.
If anything, I would say that Spore is part of an experience that makes "Intelligent Design" come alive in a game setting! After all, it's the user who's "designing" the creature! ;)
I wonder how that would be for marketingspeak!
Maybe it's also because instead of buying it from the store a lot of people bought it online?
In fact take a look at this, where G1's were sold out when T-Mobile let people order it online.
I ordered one from T-Mobile, and a lot of my friends have as well. Granted, we're developers, but now that my other non-developer/non-geek friends and family have seen my phone, they want to get one as well.
And honestly, I don't even know where this guy came up with the "steep learning curve" and the "basic and advanced features". People I gave the phone to play with didn't seem to have a hard time figuring out how to get around. It's not like you need to be a rocket scientist to figure stuff out. Yeah, it's geared to the developer community but that's only reflected in the openness of the OS and the SDK, and not the phone or the interface itself. It's not like you don't need to drop into the commandline to work this phone.
I also think that instead of relying on hype and drooling at the mouth fanboys, Google is just relying on people buying the phone, using it, and talking to their friends and family about it.
I'm just glad that those two stupid retards Berman and Bragga have NOTHING to do with this one. As far as I am concerned, those two have done nothing but RUIN Star Trek. Assholes.
Bytes? I thought they used "Quads" as a measurement of storage...
That's because Chrome is built on top of vi.
In vi :% makes you select the entire range of text, so this obviously means that you are trying to select TEH ENTIRE INTARWEB!!!111
So Chrome runs out of memory and crashes.
Like OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom), this one will be called Operation Moon Freedom (rated G for everyone), or OMFG.
No, the lunar eclipse happens when God plays frisbee and the frisbee flies across the disc moon that floats above our discworld!
I've created a "Boycott Hasbro's Scrabble Facebook App" group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=28435882177
Us Army guys had one of those in Iraq too - we called it the "Whore"-Drive. I destroyed my laptop drive there, but it was mainly intentional. I was trying to connect it to the crappy wireless we had, and I got so frustrated that I punch my laptop. Repeatedly. The HD didn't like that.
21. Microsoft Bob! /ducks
22. Clippy7
I, for one, welcome our new synthesized DNA-base based overlords.
A scientist doing an experiment still relies on the scientific method to collect his own data to see if they support his hypothes[ie]s. I really don't see anyone publishing a paper and saying "Dudes! I used Google to find my data points!" How the hell is Google going to stop people from doing experiments and finding their own data?
This article is complete crap. I don't think this person even understands whats the "Scientific Method" means.
I'd say a strong case is made for Javascript's "LISPness" even without tail-recursion and macros. I get what you are trying to say, in that LISP != Javascript and that Javascript is not LISP (because it's a language in its own right). But I'd go so far as to say that Javascript has more in common with LISP-like languages than imperative ones. This is why Javascript is used wrongly quite often. In fact, when I realized Javascript was so much like LISP, everything fell into place. I've written LISP code before and once I started thinking "functionally", Javascript suddenly became more powerful.
"Functions are first class" and "Functions can be higher order" in that document are not simply there for effect. The fact that Javascript has closures is very important because you can have lambdas/anonymous functions just like lisp. For example, consider the Y-combinator in Javascript:
function Y(le) function Y(le) {
return function (f) {
return f(f);
}(function (f) {
return le(function (x) {
return f(f)(x);
});
});
}
vs. the same in Lisp:
(define Y
(lambda (le)
((lambda (f) (f f))
(lambda (f)
(le (lambda (x) ((f f) x)))))))
You couldn't do it that easily if Javascript wasn't so lisp-like :)
It's not a claim:
JavaScript Programming Language: The language everyone loves to hate
Javascript and LISP
Douglas Crockford's page on Javascript
As far as your last point regarding how Javascript is being widely taught and used, all it states is a major problem with the way the language is understood. Just because a language is taught a certain way doesn't mean that the language IS that way. If you delve deeper into Javascript you'll see that it's more like lisp and less like C or Java.
Which means... it's pretty much like every imperative language on the planet?
Recursive solutions in other languages are slower than iterative solutions but not by as much as a factor when compared to recursive vs. iterative solutions in Javascript.The Javascript interpreter in browsers does not really optimize recursive code. Compare this to other interpreted languages (this paper talks about LISP, and Javascript incidentally, is a LISP-1 language), or compilers. This is why most tips for Javascript optimization talk about removing recursion because of bad performance of recursive code in Javascript.
So if you're able to optimize for recursion in Javascript 2, it wouldn't impact performance as much as it does now.
This site has an example of Javascript 2, and a translator from Javascript 2 to the current version. I really like the type-safety features and the MUCH better way to do OO.
In response to the parent, in the article they talk about how Microsoft is fixated on 3.1 and not 4. Hence, there is "Project Screaming Monkey" which aims to create a scripting engine for IE that can run Javascript 2 and not depend on Microsoft to support Javascript 2. Then, IE can support Javascript 2 (through the Flash Player - full details in the article). I wonder if it is possible to do something similar for Firefox. Perhaps via a plugin? But I suspect performance would suffer greatly. Or maybe 4->3.1 translator like at ecmascript4.com that would do an "on-the-fly" translation.
Javascript has the potential to be really useful. Well, it already is. I was at JavaONE earlier this year and I went to a few Javascript sessions. One of the most eye-opening sessions was the one where the presenter described Javascript as a LISP-1 language that just happens to look like C.
As far as improvement, I think it needs a proper object oriented model (the current one is far too confusing), and also should be friendlier to implementations that require recursion. You can write recursive code in Javascript now, but it's very slow. Iterative solutions are faster.
The Cake is a LIE!
Light is a wave and a particle and therefore, a "wavicle".
A car made of fabric would be lighter, obviously... so I'd imagine it would have way better gas-mileage too.
a supper bug
Why can't it be a "breakfast" or "lunch" bug? I imagine those would be pretty bad too!