Why C? Being hardware-close is not such a great thing. Do like I did: take a course in "Foundations of CS" and learn about levels of machine abstraction, right down to the microcode... Makes you appreciate the abstraction that a good language's compiler handles for you. But after that, why concentrate on something closer to the middle of the stack? We got computers for that...
I actually feel the set of "accepted" modern languages don't go far enough. Try making use of multiple cores in a Java app. It can be done, of course, but thread support is very raw. I'd like the compiler (and VM) to handle a chosen threading model, inter-thread communication/locking, prioritization, etc.
And now back to a little pointer arithmetic in my memory management module...
Supply official press links refuting the one I posted, or otherwise everyone will know that you are not just a jerk, but also a liar like your boyfriend, the violent two-time convict...
"In June of 2008, Childs allegedly confronted an investigator looking into the matter, taking her photograph with his cell phone and harassing her when she showed up at his work area."
From TFPR: "Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?"
In appropriate words: don't lie about you violent past, don't harass the person employed to do your background check, don't give false passwords to keep your boss' boss off your trail, don't admit to your co-worker that you're going to screw over your employer if they fire you, and most of all don't come afterward with the lame excuse of being the only IT God on the planet such that only you could ever possess the keys to the kingdom.
Exactly my experience having taught many intro-to-CS courses. Once I learned this myself, I started telling students on the first day of classes that they were unlikely to be clever enough to hide their cheating--that to do so without getting caught would require a mastery above the level being tested--i.e. it would be easier to learn and solve than to successfully cheat.
That being said I freely encouraged students to seek out each other's help in understanding the solution, but to code on their own.
Indeed many factors are at play, though I can't claim getting 20x difference -- very hard to measure w/o a very controlled test scenario and very detailed analysis.
Another factor may be that my backup method being rsync, there is relatively little writing--the streaming numbers you cite--mostly running through the directory trees to compare file states. This is of course doing a lot of seeking, and while seeking on the drive shouldn't have an effect as it is required in both cases, a seek is a request coming from the host. Could there be an increased latency in doing all the command translation (filesystem to USB to AT), due to one of many factors? If so, this would be an argument for eSATA, or potentially USB 3.0, if the latter provided effective improvements in this area...
Also, as far as cramped space, then USB 3.0 would be favored--replacing the 2.0 slots with the backwards compatible versions, given that chipsets size or additional wiring is more than a negligible space concern.
I do praise Apple for using milled aluminum, in the same way I praise Apple for having brought mp3-harddrives to the masses. Many people think Apple invented these technologies, but that was not the case in either...
I used to do backup to a USB 2.0 drive that took up to an hour (rsync). Now I use an eSATA drive and usually just sit and wait the 2-3 minutes until completion.
USB 3.0 devices and hardware are appearing, so I don't see why Apple couldn't have included this. I can't blame Intel for this--Apple had 802.11n support YEARS before the standard was officially approved...
Nah, this is more like "Whirlpool doesn't allow competition" because it prevent unapproved detergents from being used whereas people are expecting that they should have this choice, as they do with other brands' dishwashers.
My apologies to Whirlpool/Electrolux for this hypothetical discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at pictures of Einstein, I don't think he knew what "tweezers" meant...
I accidentally gathered the credit cards numbers of all my neighbors.... Oops.
Why C? Being hardware-close is not such a great thing. Do like I did: take a course in "Foundations of CS" and learn about levels of machine abstraction, right down to the microcode... Makes you appreciate the abstraction that a good language's compiler handles for you. But after that, why concentrate on something closer to the middle of the stack? We got computers for that...
I actually feel the set of "accepted" modern languages don't go far enough. Try making use of multiple cores in a Java app. It can be done, of course, but thread support is very raw. I'd like the compiler (and VM) to handle a chosen threading model, inter-thread communication/locking, prioritization, etc.
And now back to a little pointer arithmetic in my memory management module...
Just wait for "sweeps"!
Preview: plane goes down in English channel!
The DMCA safe harbor provision was intended for exactly this case.
So you admit you can't comeup with anything to refute the press article I cited... Liar.
Supply official press links refuting the one I posted, or otherwise everyone will know that you are not just a jerk, but also a liar like your boyfriend, the violent two-time convict...
Ditto Flash... All three hearken from the same era... All three continue to evolve...
Uh, ok, but I've been seeing web apps make use of Javascript since it's introduction in 1995...
Bullshit? Do your research: SF Examiner Article:
From TFPR: "Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?"
Really, Steve? Javascript... modern ?!
In appropriate words: don't lie about you violent past, don't harass the person employed to do your background check, don't give false passwords to keep your boss' boss off your trail, don't admit to your co-worker that you're going to screw over your employer if they fire you, and most of all don't come afterward with the lame excuse of being the only IT God on the planet such that only you could ever possess the keys to the kingdom.
Exactly my experience having taught many intro-to-CS courses. Once I learned this myself, I started telling students on the first day of classes that they were unlikely to be clever enough to hide their cheating--that to do so without getting caught would require a mastery above the level being tested--i.e. it would be easier to learn and solve than to successfully cheat.
That being said I freely encouraged students to seek out each other's help in understanding the solution, but to code on their own.
Indeed many factors are at play, though I can't claim getting 20x difference -- very hard to measure w/o a very controlled test scenario and very detailed analysis.
Another factor may be that my backup method being rsync, there is relatively little writing--the streaming numbers you cite--mostly running through the directory trees to compare file states. This is of course doing a lot of seeking, and while seeking on the drive shouldn't have an effect as it is required in both cases, a seek is a request coming from the host. Could there be an increased latency in doing all the command translation (filesystem to USB to AT), due to one of many factors? If so, this would be an argument for eSATA, or potentially USB 3.0, if the latter provided effective improvements in this area...
Also, as far as cramped space, then USB 3.0 would be favored--replacing the 2.0 slots with the backwards compatible versions, given that chipsets size or additional wiring is more than a negligible space concern.
I do praise Apple for using milled aluminum, in the same way I praise Apple for having brought mp3-harddrives to the masses. Many people think Apple invented these technologies, but that was not the case in either...
I used to do backup to a USB 2.0 drive that took up to an hour (rsync). Now I use an eSATA drive and usually just sit and wait the 2-3 minutes until completion.
USB 3.0 devices and hardware are appearing, so I don't see why Apple couldn't have included this. I can't blame Intel for this--Apple had 802.11n support YEARS before the standard was officially approved...
Natural process don't care about, or actively do anything. Life has no goals or metrics (success/failure), it just happens.
Life, the disease of planets...
Owls have very little bamboo content.
Nah, this is more like "Whirlpool doesn't allow competition" because it prevent unapproved detergents from being used whereas people are expecting that they should have this choice, as they do with other brands' dishwashers.
My apologies to Whirlpool/Electrolux for this hypothetical discussion.
Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.
Dirty thief!
This is more like deja deja vu all over and over again...
I just threw the thing into a can of paint, but I still lost because it took too much time to forcibly submerge the thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
"Embrace & extend"!
You know, Big Mouth Billy?
Do you go around telling kids there's no Santa Claus?