No need to invent clever algorithms if you know and understand the basic design patterns. These patterns (mostly) transcend languages and help to create understandable and efficient code.
Rarely have a problem with closing files. Much more often have a problem with opening them.
Opt-in GC is nice, but can cause confusion in large systems because it is easy to confuse objects and forget which is GC'd and which must be manually de-allocated. I also like that GC can run when the CPU is not in use. It's like automatically multi-threading your deallocation for speed optimization (at the expense of memory of course).
Agreed on WCF and COM. I think all MS developers are familiar with the term "Dll hell".
Quicksort in C#:
array.sort();
There... done.:)
And yes, I could code quicksort from scratch, but what is the bloody point? I'm not trying to show off and very few people get to see my code anyway.
I argue that picking the "right" language was once a very important thing. These days it is getting to be less so. It is far more important to pick the "right" design pattern.
I recomend the following book for any coder. Know it and live it.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Patterns-Elements-Reusable-Object-Oriented/dp/0201633612
I've never had a problem with C# garbage collection. I close my files when I'm done with them rather than in the descructor for example. I have had many problems with C++ memory allocation and COM reference counts however. I've spent hundreds of hours over the years trying to find out why a given object still has a reference count and is not destructing. I've also spent countless hours tracking weak references and null pointers. Not fun... and never again now that I use C# for most (but not all) of my coding.
In my experience (more than most of you less than others), most slow operations are a result of poor algorithm design. I don't care what language you use, a Theta N^N operation on any decent size dataset is going to be slow. C/C++ really only optimizes the way that calls are made and memory allocation and de-allocation. One of the beauties of modern languages and technologies like C# and.Net is that many, perhaps most common operations such as searching or sorting an array, collection or dictionary are already coded in a very efficient way. The developer can spend more time focusing on functionality rather than optimization.
Additionally, some of what many consider "extravagant useless features" like garbage collection can enhance performance (at the cost of memory) by waiting for free CPU cycles to do unimportant work. And now with multi-core systems, parallel execution is a must for any high performance application. I've done some multi-threading in C and even assembly, but I don't recommend it...
Besides, in a business environment, there is little cost to slow application performance in relation to slow development time. I can write the same application in C# in 1/10th the time it would take to code up in C++ (and never finish in C).
As soon as you said "kenetic energy" it all clicked. The temperature is in effect unlimited by the very nature of E=mc^2. The temperature being a measure of E must be infinite for the particle speed to reach c. Balanced by the fact that the relative mass would also be infinite at c. Nice... Thank you - unless I've got it wrong, then please correct. But it seems pretty simple now.
Since it sounds like you might have an answer, I've had this question for a long time.
If a particles heat can be represented by it's entrophic motion, and since motion is limited by the speed of light, is there an absolute maximum temperature for a particle? Can a particle use uncertanty to violate this limit?
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I've never had a better oportunity to ask this question and expect an intelligent answer.
oh yeah.. way worse than Cunningham, Stevens, Delay or a whole slew of other Republicans... (I do realize that Cunningham and Stevens were congressmen)
Perhaps you can answer a question for me. If I understand the concept correctly (and stop me where I go wrong), the event horizon can be defined as the point where any light that were to be ejected (I know, I know not possible) from the singularity perpendicular to the tangent (straight "up") would stop and return. With some simple evaluation, this means that the frequency of any light at the event horizon would be infinite to the "inside?" observer. A similar effect is observed on the "outside" going in whereas the light at the event horizon falling straight in has an infinite frequency to the outside observer. Given the relativistic time stretching effects that this implies, as I understand it, anybody falling in would experience "the end of the universe" as time around him speeds up infinitely. My question is, assuming that I am not simply mistaken about the relativistic effects of the event horizon, is; what happens to that item falling into the black hole when the black hole evaporates? What doest that item experience? Does the universe speed around it up until the black hole evaporates whereby it is released back into the universe? Does the item evaporate with the black hole? Is the item converted into radiation before it gets to the horizon and thus released over time before the black hole evaporates?
Your method of dividing everything up into two categories, "created" and "nature" is interesting. May I take it another step and suggest that you try to categorize the "creator" (god) this way. If god is "nature", then why can't the rest of what we see and know (other than what we ourselves have created) be "nature" as well? If god is "created" then who or what created it? And what can be attributed to the creation of the creators creator? Is that natural or created? It would then seem a bit like the old world belief that the world is sitting on the back of a giant turtle. What is under the turtle? Another turtle of course. How many turtles are there? Trick question... it's turtles all the way down. (paraphrased from a Carl Sagan novel).
This goes way beyond the "allure" of big missions. Sure, the short term return per dollar spent on the purely scientific missions are high, but we completely miss out on the long term returns. Almost every single rocket scientist, physicist, engineer, and even computer programmer working in the U.S. today was motivated and influenced in some way by the Apollo missions. What does todays generation have to awe at? Where is the "you could do this" factor of sending a robot to one of the several dozen outer solar system moons come in? This is something that is very expensive to create, but the returns are measured in the trillions of dollars and in the millions of new scientific and engineering professionals.
Quite right. "It's" is not correct. "Its'" may be more correct. "His" seems completely incorrect since it implies that god (if it exists) has a pecker or at least a Y chromosome. If god is infinite as described, then it must not have bounds, or shape. Anything with shape is not infinite by definition. A Y chromosome implies lineage. Who is gods mother or father? Would that chromosome be made from atoms created by god or by its parents? Thus the best I can describe the imaginary infinite being is with the word "it". I do not intend to be insulting, just to give better words to my thoughts.
Soothh,
Did god create and design itself? What is god made of? What existed before god if anything? If god is the meaning or reason for our existence, then what is the meaning and reason for gods existence?
The people that know the most of anybody on the planet about forecasting the effects of DST sit about 20-50ft from me. We develop software that is designed to predict electrical and gas usage based on factors such as weather, time of day (including DST), holidays, etc. I wish they had asked us our opinions or at least used our software to forecast the effects of their new policy before enacting it. You see, DST was designed before A/C was in widespread use. DST saved electricity by shifting working hours into more daylight. However, with the advent of huge A/C and heat-pumps deployed in every office, factory and store in America, DST now shifts the workday into hotter hours. As a result the DST effect has slowly dwindled (with a little work I could tell you just how much it has dwindled), and will soon reverse. The new DST times are more than likely to accelerate the problem.
Real GeneralFaults think that environmental tech is in it's infancy and that good national policy and strong public support will help drive the development of these technologies to the point that they surpass all other non-environmental friendly technologies in every way.
Interesting. I had an old Nissan 240Z (1971) that although I regularly exceeded 100mph, lasted through 283,000 miles even with irregular oil changes (I was a poor college kid) before I sold it. It's all about the quality of manufacturing and the love of the owner.
Hows the old saying go? "With the bomb squad, you can usually stop running after the first couple of blocks. If it involves the physics department, keep going."
or perhaps
"We're pleased to announce we are still here to report the results."
The parent poster has demonstrated the greatest problem with calling the current phenomenon Global Warming. These people think, "oh well, the earth will get a couple of degrees warmer, what's the big deal? I can start building a beach dream home in Greenland. Great". I prefer to use Global Climate Change or Massive Global Climate Change to describe the chaotic effects of adding billions of therms of energy to a balanced system, then adding billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that increase the energy retention from the sun by billions upon billions of therms. Such a description would indeed describe global warming as the overall energy of the atmosphere and oceans are increased. It also describes the mostly unpredictable chaotic extremes in all directions that would occur.
Then what is your point? Maybe I misunderstand you. Do you know of a difference in approach to addressing the problems of impending global climate change depending on for instance whether or not the recorded high levels of atmospheric CO2 are a result of human activity or of geological activity? As I see it now, human activity is the only input that we humans have any control over. Wouldn't it make sense to alter human activities to curtail the undesirable effects of global climate change? If the earth or sun is creating these undesirable effects, then releasing millions upon millions of tons of CO2 and billions upon billions of therms of energy into the atmosphere would do nothing but exacerbate the problem... no? If that is the case (and it is), then spending money and resources to change our own behavior is the very least that we can do to survive. Sure, after that we can start experimenting more on altering the other inputs to create weather control systems. But that is far more complicated and costly than what we can handle right now (scientists, prove me wrong). Even if the technology were available today, it would take decades perhaps centuries to test and understand all of the larger unintended consequences of overriding the natural balances of the Earth. Perhaps, as I said, we should simply spend our resources reducing and perhaps reversing the effect we have had on this balance. All of that said, remember your position today. The first industries that will fail to global climate change are energy and agriculture. So, when we are cold and hungry, we'll be looking at you. You better be right, or you better stock up on food and gas for the mob. By the way, it reached freezing every night this week in San Diego! 50-75 percent of all California citrus crops were killed this week. Check out the price or oranges this spring at your local grocery store. My gas and electric bill doubled last moth due to record lows previously set in 2002 and set before in the 1890's. Records for cold weather were broken in almost every town this week.
So are you suggesting a new set of accords with more teeth and higher goals? If so, I whole heartedly agree. If not, your assumption that because it cannot be done perfectly and completely, it should not be done at all. It's somewhat like saying that if we cannot save everyone on earth from the effects of cancer; don't bother trying to treating this one patient. Brilliant. I am glad that scientists (and doctors) don't see it this way. By the way, how far did those nations that you mention miss their goals by? Did any of them make progress toward reducing emissions (the real goal of the accords)?
All of this "did we do it" type mentality makes me think of someone sleeping in a burning house. They wake up, smell smoke, and decide that they did not start a fire and go back to sleep... and die. Does it matter one way or another whether or not we are the cause for massive global climate change? If the earth is going to change in such a way that will cause mass loss of property and life, perhaps we should start trying to fix or prepare for it. Bush may not have saved us by signing the Kyoto Accords, and he may not have condemned us by not signing them, but as the rivers of suffering masses traveling across parched barren land driven from their now underwater homes, dropping dead along the way like flies, as those of us remaining have no energy or food, as the economy as you know it winks out, and the remaining nations war over the last scraps of natural resources, Bush will not be remembered nicely. Many of us greatly dislike him already.
I wish that secrets were not necessary. The truth is, if I did not keep my credit card number, my social security number, the key code for my front door or even my phone number secret, at least from most people, I would quickly learn regret it. That truth expands to inventions or "creations of the mind" that I have not yet been able to produce; it's just that I'd be losing future value (profit from the invention) instead of current value (my bank account, identity, possessions).
Slashdot Mirror
No need to invent clever algorithms if you know and understand the basic design patterns. These patterns (mostly) transcend languages and help to create understandable and efficient code.
Rarely have a problem with closing files. Much more often have a problem with opening them. Opt-in GC is nice, but can cause confusion in large systems because it is easy to confuse objects and forget which is GC'd and which must be manually de-allocated. I also like that GC can run when the CPU is not in use. It's like automatically multi-threading your deallocation for speed optimization (at the expense of memory of course). Agreed on WCF and COM. I think all MS developers are familiar with the term "Dll hell".
Quicksort in C#: array.sort(); There... done. :)
And yes, I could code quicksort from scratch, but what is the bloody point? I'm not trying to show off and very few people get to see my code anyway.
I argue that picking the "right" language was once a very important thing. These days it is getting to be less so. It is far more important to pick the "right" design pattern.
I recomend the following book for any coder. Know it and live it.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Patterns-Elements-Reusable-Object-Oriented/dp/0201633612
I've never had a problem with C# garbage collection. I close my files when I'm done with them rather than in the descructor for example. I have had many problems with C++ memory allocation and COM reference counts however. I've spent hundreds of hours over the years trying to find out why a given object still has a reference count and is not destructing. I've also spent countless hours tracking weak references and null pointers. Not fun... and never again now that I use C# for most (but not all) of my coding.
Besides, using "using" works nicely for scoping classes.
In my experience (more than most of you less than others), most slow operations are a result of poor algorithm design. I don't care what language you use, a Theta N^N operation on any decent size dataset is going to be slow. C/C++ really only optimizes the way that calls are made and memory allocation and de-allocation. One of the beauties of modern languages and technologies like C# and .Net is that many, perhaps most common operations such as searching or sorting an array, collection or dictionary are already coded in a very efficient way. The developer can spend more time focusing on functionality rather than optimization.
Additionally, some of what many consider "extravagant useless features" like garbage collection can enhance performance (at the cost of memory) by waiting for free CPU cycles to do unimportant work. And now with multi-core systems, parallel execution is a must for any high performance application. I've done some multi-threading in C and even assembly, but I don't recommend it...
Besides, in a business environment, there is little cost to slow application performance in relation to slow development time. I can write the same application in C# in 1/10th the time it would take to code up in C++ (and never finish in C).
As soon as you said "kenetic energy" it all clicked. The temperature is in effect unlimited by the very nature of E=mc^2. The temperature being a measure of E must be infinite for the particle speed to reach c. Balanced by the fact that the relative mass would also be infinite at c. Nice... Thank you - unless I've got it wrong, then please correct. But it seems pretty simple now.
Since it sounds like you might have an answer, I've had this question for a long time. If a particles heat can be represented by it's entrophic motion, and since motion is limited by the speed of light, is there an absolute maximum temperature for a particle? Can a particle use uncertanty to violate this limit? Sorry for the off-topic post, but I've never had a better oportunity to ask this question and expect an intelligent answer.
oh yeah.. way worse than Cunningham, Stevens, Delay or a whole slew of other Republicans... (I do realize that Cunningham and Stevens were congressmen)
Perhaps you can answer a question for me. If I understand the concept correctly (and stop me where I go wrong), the event horizon can be defined as the point where any light that were to be ejected (I know, I know not possible) from the singularity perpendicular to the tangent (straight "up") would stop and return. With some simple evaluation, this means that the frequency of any light at the event horizon would be infinite to the "inside?" observer. A similar effect is observed on the "outside" going in whereas the light at the event horizon falling straight in has an infinite frequency to the outside observer. Given the relativistic time stretching effects that this implies, as I understand it, anybody falling in would experience "the end of the universe" as time around him speeds up infinitely. My question is, assuming that I am not simply mistaken about the relativistic effects of the event horizon, is; what happens to that item falling into the black hole when the black hole evaporates? What doest that item experience? Does the universe speed around it up until the black hole evaporates whereby it is released back into the universe? Does the item evaporate with the black hole? Is the item converted into radiation before it gets to the horizon and thus released over time before the black hole evaporates?
Your method of dividing everything up into two categories, "created" and "nature" is interesting. May I take it another step and suggest that you try to categorize the "creator" (god) this way. If god is "nature", then why can't the rest of what we see and know (other than what we ourselves have created) be "nature" as well? If god is "created" then who or what created it? And what can be attributed to the creation of the creators creator? Is that natural or created? It would then seem a bit like the old world belief that the world is sitting on the back of a giant turtle. What is under the turtle? Another turtle of course. How many turtles are there? Trick question... it's turtles all the way down. (paraphrased from a Carl Sagan novel).
This goes way beyond the "allure" of big missions. Sure, the short term return per dollar spent on the purely scientific missions are high, but we completely miss out on the long term returns. Almost every single rocket scientist, physicist, engineer, and even computer programmer working in the U.S. today was motivated and influenced in some way by the Apollo missions. What does todays generation have to awe at? Where is the "you could do this" factor of sending a robot to one of the several dozen outer solar system moons come in? This is something that is very expensive to create, but the returns are measured in the trillions of dollars and in the millions of new scientific and engineering professionals.
Quite right. "It's" is not correct. "Its'" may be more correct. "His" seems completely incorrect since it implies that god (if it exists) has a pecker or at least a Y chromosome. If god is infinite as described, then it must not have bounds, or shape. Anything with shape is not infinite by definition. A Y chromosome implies lineage. Who is gods mother or father? Would that chromosome be made from atoms created by god or by its parents? Thus the best I can describe the imaginary infinite being is with the word "it". I do not intend to be insulting, just to give better words to my thoughts. Soothh, Did god create and design itself? What is god made of? What existed before god if anything? If god is the meaning or reason for our existence, then what is the meaning and reason for gods existence?
I think one of the best examples given by that site is this:
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
Seems god may not keep his (it's?) word after all.
The people that know the most of anybody on the planet about forecasting the effects of DST sit about 20-50ft from me. We develop software that is designed to predict electrical and gas usage based on factors such as weather, time of day (including DST), holidays, etc. I wish they had asked us our opinions or at least used our software to forecast the effects of their new policy before enacting it. You see, DST was designed before A/C was in widespread use. DST saved electricity by shifting working hours into more daylight. However, with the advent of huge A/C and heat-pumps deployed in every office, factory and store in America, DST now shifts the workday into hotter hours. As a result the DST effect has slowly dwindled (with a little work I could tell you just how much it has dwindled), and will soon reverse. The new DST times are more than likely to accelerate the problem.
I lived at 7000ft, in 360 days of sun, so no rot whatsoever. But I have seen some pretty rotted out 240s.
Real GeneralFaults think that environmental tech is in it's infancy and that good national policy and strong public support will help drive the development of these technologies to the point that they surpass all other non-environmental friendly technologies in every way.
Interesting. I had an old Nissan 240Z (1971) that although I regularly exceeded 100mph, lasted through 283,000 miles even with irregular oil changes (I was a poor college kid) before I sold it. It's all about the quality of manufacturing and the love of the owner.
Hows the old saying go?
"With the bomb squad, you can usually stop running after the first couple of blocks. If it involves the physics department, keep going."
or perhaps
"We're pleased to announce we are still here to report the results."
The parent poster has demonstrated the greatest problem with calling the current phenomenon Global Warming. These people think, "oh well, the earth will get a couple of degrees warmer, what's the big deal? I can start building a beach dream home in Greenland. Great". I prefer to use Global Climate Change or Massive Global Climate Change to describe the chaotic effects of adding billions of therms of energy to a balanced system, then adding billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that increase the energy retention from the sun by billions upon billions of therms. Such a description would indeed describe global warming as the overall energy of the atmosphere and oceans are increased. It also describes the mostly unpredictable chaotic extremes in all directions that would occur.
Then what is your point? Maybe I misunderstand you. Do you know of a difference in approach to addressing the problems of impending global climate change depending on for instance whether or not the recorded high levels of atmospheric CO2 are a result of human activity or of geological activity? As I see it now, human activity is the only input that we humans have any control over. Wouldn't it make sense to alter human activities to curtail the undesirable effects of global climate change? If the earth or sun is creating these undesirable effects, then releasing millions upon millions of tons of CO2 and billions upon billions of therms of energy into the atmosphere would do nothing but exacerbate the problem... no? If that is the case (and it is), then spending money and resources to change our own behavior is the very least that we can do to survive. Sure, after that we can start experimenting more on altering the other inputs to create weather control systems. But that is far more complicated and costly than what we can handle right now (scientists, prove me wrong). Even if the technology were available today, it would take decades perhaps centuries to test and understand all of the larger unintended consequences of overriding the natural balances of the Earth. Perhaps, as I said, we should simply spend our resources reducing and perhaps reversing the effect we have had on this balance.
All of that said, remember your position today. The first industries that will fail to global climate change are energy and agriculture. So, when we are cold and hungry, we'll be looking at you. You better be right, or you better stock up on food and gas for the mob. By the way, it reached freezing every night this week in San Diego! 50-75 percent of all California citrus crops were killed this week. Check out the price or oranges this spring at your local grocery store. My gas and electric bill doubled last moth due to record lows previously set in 2002 and set before in the 1890's. Records for cold weather were broken in almost every town this week.
So are you suggesting a new set of accords with more teeth and higher goals? If so, I whole heartedly agree. If not, your assumption that because it cannot be done perfectly and completely, it should not be done at all. It's somewhat like saying that if we cannot save everyone on earth from the effects of cancer; don't bother trying to treating this one patient. Brilliant. I am glad that scientists (and doctors) don't see it this way. By the way, how far did those nations that you mention miss their goals by? Did any of them make progress toward reducing emissions (the real goal of the accords)?
All of this "did we do it" type mentality makes me think of someone sleeping in a burning house. They wake up, smell smoke, and decide that they did not start a fire and go back to sleep... and die. Does it matter one way or another whether or not we are the cause for massive global climate change? If the earth is going to change in such a way that will cause mass loss of property and life, perhaps we should start trying to fix or prepare for it. Bush may not have saved us by signing the Kyoto Accords, and he may not have condemned us by not signing them, but as the rivers of suffering masses traveling across parched barren land driven from their now underwater homes, dropping dead along the way like flies, as those of us remaining have no energy or food, as the economy as you know it winks out, and the remaining nations war over the last scraps of natural resources, Bush will not be remembered nicely. Many of us greatly dislike him already.
I wish that secrets were not necessary. The truth is, if I did not keep my credit card number, my social security number, the key code for my front door or even my phone number secret, at least from most people, I would quickly learn regret it. That truth expands to inventions or "creations of the mind" that I have not yet been able to produce; it's just that I'd be losing future value (profit from the invention) instead of current value (my bank account, identity, possessions).
And what makes you so sure that future "cell phone" level technology will not contain a few q-bits in them?