I suspect that they've only bought the rights to the name, and that they did it because they thought it would be a good title for a spy film set in the final days of the Soviet Union, and that they figure that with the current craziness emanating from Russia the public will be interested in it.
If so, do not expect it to be filmed in Russia, but in one of the other former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. Probably not Ukraine, though.
I don't care for consistency in UI between my smart phone and my desktop. On my smartphone, I am stuck with a tiny screen, with not input method other than my fingers and a couple of buttons.
Are you? Higher end Android devices can be hooked up to a USB keyboard and an HDMI equipped screen. If Windows 10 switches into desktop mode when docked with a screen, keyboard and mouse (or the phone screen becomes a glorified touchpad) then it will be the computing device I've been waiting for for over a decade. (But it probably won't, because that would cut into their sales figures.)
Indeed -- the complexity needs to go somewhere. The problem with all languages is that the complexity is in the learning and in the expressing, because they're all stuck in a paradigm rut built around a nonsensical definition of "human readable code". We need a computer to view our code. A plaintext editor is a computer program. A non-plaintext editor would make it more readable. Suddenly syntax highlighting would be part of the syntax, not something added on after the fact. The syntactic whitespace vs explicit block delimiters argument would be moot, as the editor would automatically manage on-screen spacing based on its understanding of the flow-control structure of the code. Formulas could be embedded within code in a single line of mathematical notation, which is much more readable than ten lines of x=...; y=...; z=... ad nauseam. I've spent half a day at a time on coding up expressions and transforms that are trivially obvious, just from having to step through everything. Would the formula converter be optimal speed-wise? No, but you could optimise later, and the debugger could use the mathematical notation for automatic unit testing of your optimised implementation. In the meantime, you get a functionally complete prototype of your software quicker.
The other thing a non-plaintext language could do is do away with the consecutive nature of procedure definitions etc (already abstracted away in many modern event-driven systems because of their sheer irrelevance. Why am I still scrolling back and forth between segments of my code? Why can't I click on a function call and see it inlined, like a virtual macro expansion?
Anyway, articles like this do make me upset with Yelp. But a lot of places do seem to have yelp sticker on their window, so perhaps it's just part of the cost of doing business these days. I applaud this italian joint for lashing out against it in an entertaining way, and I'll start searching for some of the lowest reviewed places too, since I mostly use Yelp to find the exceptional places anyways.
I suppose it had to be an Italian restaurant that recognised a shake-down when they saw one. A lot of people put their lives on the line to challenge mafia extortion, so a website with no guns is hardly a threat.
And Yelp paying someone to remove all these reviews until the keyboard-warrior hipsters move onto some new easy cause is the free market adjustment to ensure the big guy continues winning.
True, but it really lays Yelp's tactics bare for all to see -- the 1-star reviews have to be removed because the system publishes them instantly, while the 5-star reviews are all held pending approval. Time for a lawsuit, methinks.
Get FacedBook does not have return receipt functionality, unlike almost all email clients. barring a reply such as "you suck skunks," you can't prove service.
and most indy devs won't throw out a grand for a machine with no guaranteed payback.
Good. With 1.3 million apps in the Apple App Store, there's enough already. Cutting out people who by their choice of PC show themselves to be less aware of good design is no bad thing.
That, mate, is what we call "bigotry". There are many factors influencing choice of development machine. For the dev with a family, that includes paying for the kids' clothes.
Great film. Well written, and very cleverly avoided the trap many monster-stalker sequels fall into whereby they attempt to be monster-stalker again when the monster's already been seen. The switch to "monster horde" was well judged and well executed.
You can imagine 10 different sects popping up with different versions of the dietary rules. The ones that happened to align with health and reduced death would have an evolutionary advantage, and ultimately become dominant.
That's possible, but it involves a very weird assumption: that human intelligence only evolved about 2000 years ago, and before that we were utterly moronic.
Dangerous foods become painfully obvious painfully quickly. Nowadays we may have a sophisticated understanding of why they are dangerous, but "Montezuma is unhappy you ate the day old prawn" is still a theory based on the observation of the guy doubling over and vomiting his guts up.
Some of the weirder laws are clearly born out of coincidence, the same as any other superstition. But that doesn't mean that the ban on pork isn't down to seeing what pig-borne diseases can do to humans.
A key takeaway:No wonder Android has more Apps(sic) than iOS after starting from behind.
Because your dev machine for this new language can't be more then 6 years old? Yeah, sure.
No, because your dev machine for this new language has to run a particular operating system, and most indy devs won't throw out a grand for a machine with no guaranteed payback.
Nope. Homework is unsupervised work, and the reason for it in traditional education is that teacher time is a limited resource. When your "teacher" is an algorithm, you have no excuse not to have all work supervised. Except laziness... on the part of the course writer.
We want courses designed for casual learning and that means flexible hours, fewer homework assignments.
That's why a online class will never educate anyone.
You're assuming he's being lazy, rather than analysing his point. The main promise of internet learning was supposed to be accessibility in terms of where you want and when you want. The timetable in MOOCs is often just too rigid, and if you've got something big on at work, you might just need to be able to tune out for two weeks.
They get "achievements" for lots of things like taking classes, doing tests to make sure they understand the material, etc. The education-as-a-game incentive system is a fun way to encourage continuing education.
Nah. If you need to gamify then the material and methods are not intrinsically stimulating. You learn by stimulation. Little badges may encourage you to continue using the platform, but they rarely encourage learning. None of the MOOCs I've seen use any of the potential of computing to personalise the learning process - for example, Udacity shows you the same "feedback" video after a "quiz" regardless of the answer you choose.
What are you even talking about? Why are you dissing ANY free program for people to educate themselves? If even ONE person did it, it is not a failure. The fact that thousand of self-motivated, self-paced individuals take advantage of world-class education systems, all for free-- it's by definition a success.
If its goal is to educate one person, and it educates one person, it has not failed. If its goal is to provide universal university level education, it has failed.
The history of education consists of many long traditions of direct interaction between teacher and student (and to a lesser extent between students). MOOCs undermine that, so really it would be more surprising if in any permutation they did work for any more than the small minority of autodidacts.
I'm not sure, but I think the potential is there. The problem with MOOCs is that no-one ever lived up to one of the big promises: improvement. As a teacher, if I deliver the same lesson repeatedly, I will try to improve it each time based on student difficulties in the previous session. I try to identify what gap in knowledge caused the student to fail, and take pre-emptive steps to fill that gap for future students. In some places, I've had 3 students in a class, in some places almost 30. Some university lecturers might have 100 or more. And after each cohort, the lesson improves. But MOOCs often take in a cohort of thousands, deliver an identical course to all of them, and then what...? Many courses only run once. No lessons learned. Ones that repeat may not change, and even if they do, there's not enough contact to determine whether the change is for the better... until after the course.
The revolution requires a change of mindset. Small cohorts and continual improvement. Run the course twice a month and you'll get more feedback and revision within 1 month than a university lecturer might get in 24 years of teaching the same course. This isn't cheap, which is why the free MOOC model is nonsense. Instead, free courses have to be nothing more than "Beta tests" of a future commercial course. 1 year of free with massive dev investment with the aim of selling the course for credit for five-ten years. Ideally it would be sold across institutions rather than just used in a single place.
Light guns only work on progressive-scan screens (CRTs and the like). They track the position by timing when the scan line moves in front of the point of focus to determine where it's pointing. This is why firing the gun led to the whole screen flashing - it needed the increased brightness to detect the scan beam.
Quoting what is presumably a Star Trek reference at someone who thinks Star Trek is cheap pulp fiction doesn't discourage the idea that Star Trek fans are cult-like....
Of course intelligence exists. Differences in intelligence are detectable, even if only in a fuzzy, uncertain way. The point is that in the context in question -- the search for genetic indicators -- there is no detectable correlation. If there's no detectable correlation, the effect, if it exists is too small to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
Or how about this interpretation of Tetris as an early Technicolour Hercules/Jason and the Argonauts/Odysseus style epic?
I suspect that they've only bought the rights to the name, and that they did it because they thought it would be a good title for a spy film set in the final days of the Soviet Union, and that they figure that with the current craziness emanating from Russia the public will be interested in it.
If so, do not expect it to be filmed in Russia, but in one of the other former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. Probably not Ukraine, though.
I don't care for consistency in UI between my smart phone and my desktop. On my smartphone, I am stuck with a tiny screen, with not input method other than my fingers and a couple of buttons.
Are you? Higher end Android devices can be hooked up to a USB keyboard and an HDMI equipped screen. If Windows 10 switches into desktop mode when docked with a screen, keyboard and mouse (or the phone screen becomes a glorified touchpad) then it will be the computing device I've been waiting for for over a decade. (But it probably won't, because that would cut into their sales figures.)
Indeed -- the complexity needs to go somewhere. The problem with all languages is that the complexity is in the learning and in the expressing, because they're all stuck in a paradigm rut built around a nonsensical definition of "human readable code". We need a computer to view our code. A plaintext editor is a computer program. A non-plaintext editor would make it more readable. Suddenly syntax highlighting would be part of the syntax, not something added on after the fact. The syntactic whitespace vs explicit block delimiters argument would be moot, as the editor would automatically manage on-screen spacing based on its understanding of the flow-control structure of the code. Formulas could be embedded within code in a single line of mathematical notation, which is much more readable than ten lines of x=...; y=...; z=... ad nauseam. I've spent half a day at a time on coding up expressions and transforms that are trivially obvious, just from having to step through everything. Would the formula converter be optimal speed-wise? No, but you could optimise later, and the debugger could use the mathematical notation for automatic unit testing of your optimised implementation. In the meantime, you get a functionally complete prototype of your software quicker.
The other thing a non-plaintext language could do is do away with the consecutive nature of procedure definitions etc (already abstracted away in many modern event-driven systems because of their sheer irrelevance. Why am I still scrolling back and forth between segments of my code? Why can't I click on a function call and see it inlined, like a virtual macro expansion?
Anyway, articles like this do make me upset with Yelp. But a lot of places do seem to have yelp sticker on their window, so perhaps it's just part of the cost of doing business these days. I applaud this italian joint for lashing out against it in an entertaining way, and I'll start searching for some of the lowest reviewed places too, since I mostly use Yelp to find the exceptional places anyways.
I suppose it had to be an Italian restaurant that recognised a shake-down when they saw one. A lot of people put their lives on the line to challenge mafia extortion, so a website with no guns is hardly a threat.
And Yelp paying someone to remove all these reviews until the keyboard-warrior hipsters move onto some new easy cause is the free market adjustment to ensure the big guy continues winning.
True, but it really lays Yelp's tactics bare for all to see -- the 1-star reviews have to be removed because the system publishes them instantly, while the 5-star reviews are all held pending approval. Time for a lawsuit, methinks.
Get FacedBook does not have return receipt functionality, unlike almost all email clients. barring a reply such as "you suck skunks," you can't prove service.
Seen 10:47.
and most indy devs won't throw out a grand for a machine with no guaranteed payback.
Good. With 1.3 million apps in the Apple App Store, there's enough already. Cutting out people who by their choice of PC show themselves to be less aware of good design is no bad thing.
That, mate, is what we call "bigotry". There are many factors influencing choice of development machine. For the dev with a family, that includes paying for the kids' clothes.
I don't buy that logic. Some people who go to conferences will be posers who are still playing at being devs, but will never release a product.
Horde nuts (like a squirrel) then throw a few spears at deer and geese. I don't see the problem.
There's no measurable genetic differences. There's only one race: the human race, and that's all that ever was and ever will be.
Nope, there's no race... because it's not a competition.
Aliens.
Great film. Well written, and very cleverly avoided the trap many monster-stalker sequels fall into whereby they attempt to be monster-stalker again when the monster's already been seen. The switch to "monster horde" was well judged and well executed.
You can imagine 10 different sects popping up with different versions of the dietary rules. The ones that happened to align with health and reduced death would have an evolutionary advantage, and ultimately become dominant.
That's possible, but it involves a very weird assumption: that human intelligence only evolved about 2000 years ago, and before that we were utterly moronic.
Dangerous foods become painfully obvious painfully quickly. Nowadays we may have a sophisticated understanding of why they are dangerous, but "Montezuma is unhappy you ate the day old prawn" is still a theory based on the observation of the guy doubling over and vomiting his guts up.
Some of the weirder laws are clearly born out of coincidence, the same as any other superstition. But that doesn't mean that the ban on pork isn't down to seeing what pig-borne diseases can do to humans.
Well here's a question for you then... do most indy devs go to indy dev conferences? I've never been to one....
"You need a Mac that can run OS X Mavericks"
A key takeaway:No wonder Android has more Apps(sic) than iOS after starting from behind.
Because your dev machine for this new language can't be more then 6 years old? Yeah, sure.
No, because your dev machine for this new language has to run a particular operating system, and most indy devs won't throw out a grand for a machine with no guaranteed payback.
Nope. Homework is unsupervised work, and the reason for it in traditional education is that teacher time is a limited resource. When your "teacher" is an algorithm, you have no excuse not to have all work supervised. Except laziness... on the part of the course writer.
Does it have a major effect in the material nature of our existence? No? Then it's not revolutionary.
We want courses designed for casual learning and that means flexible hours, fewer homework assignments.
That's why a online class will never educate anyone.
You're assuming he's being lazy, rather than analysing his point. The main promise of internet learning was supposed to be accessibility in terms of where you want and when you want. The timetable in MOOCs is often just too rigid, and if you've got something big on at work, you might just need to be able to tune out for two weeks.
They get "achievements" for lots of things like taking classes, doing tests to make sure they understand the material, etc. The education-as-a-game incentive system is a fun way to encourage continuing education.
Nah. If you need to gamify then the material and methods are not intrinsically stimulating. You learn by stimulation. Little badges may encourage you to continue using the platform, but they rarely encourage learning. None of the MOOCs I've seen use any of the potential of computing to personalise the learning process - for example, Udacity shows you the same "feedback" video after a "quiz" regardless of the answer you choose.
What are you even talking about? Why are you dissing ANY free program for people to educate themselves? If even ONE person did it, it is not a failure. The fact that thousand of self-motivated, self-paced individuals take advantage of world-class education systems, all for free-- it's by definition a success.
If its goal is to educate one person, and it educates one person, it has not failed. If its goal is to provide universal university level education, it has failed.
The history of education consists of many long traditions of direct interaction between teacher and student (and to a lesser extent between students). MOOCs undermine that, so really it would be more surprising if in any permutation they did work for any more than the small minority of autodidacts.
I'm not sure, but I think the potential is there. The problem with MOOCs is that no-one ever lived up to one of the big promises: improvement. As a teacher, if I deliver the same lesson repeatedly, I will try to improve it each time based on student difficulties in the previous session. I try to identify what gap in knowledge caused the student to fail, and take pre-emptive steps to fill that gap for future students. In some places, I've had 3 students in a class, in some places almost 30. Some university lecturers might have 100 or more. And after each cohort, the lesson improves. But MOOCs often take in a cohort of thousands, deliver an identical course to all of them, and then what...? Many courses only run once. No lessons learned. Ones that repeat may not change, and even if they do, there's not enough contact to determine whether the change is for the better... until after the course.
The revolution requires a change of mindset. Small cohorts and continual improvement. Run the course twice a month and you'll get more feedback and revision within 1 month than a university lecturer might get in 24 years of teaching the same course. This isn't cheap, which is why the free MOOC model is nonsense. Instead, free courses have to be nothing more than "Beta tests" of a future commercial course. 1 year of free with massive dev investment with the aim of selling the course for credit for five-ten years. Ideally it would be sold across institutions rather than just used in a single place.
*Whoosh*
Light guns only work on progressive-scan screens (CRTs and the like). They track the position by timing when the scan line moves in front of the point of focus to determine where it's pointing. This is why firing the gun led to the whole screen flashing - it needed the increased brightness to detect the scan beam.
Quoting what is presumably a Star Trek reference at someone who thinks Star Trek is cheap pulp fiction doesn't discourage the idea that Star Trek fans are cult-like....
Of course intelligence exists. Differences in intelligence are detectable, even if only in a fuzzy, uncertain way. The point is that in the context in question -- the search for genetic indicators -- there is no detectable correlation. If there's no detectable correlation, the effect, if it exists is too small to worry about.
That's fine, on an individual scale, but at the level of society it's not visible.