It's not that computer scientists "knew better how to count", it's that they recognized that counting isn't the answer to this problem.
That doesn't really tally with what you said. Arrays were originally "pointer+offset". Fine. That was a technical solution in low-level languages. But in high-level languages that are specifically aimed at better matching humans' natural tendencies, counting is the correct answer to this problem.
Unless the doctor's activity is actually part of God's plan for that individual. Even in secular circles, medicine is often considered a "vocation" (from Latin, meaning "calling"). Just for the record, I'm agnostic, but I've been treated by many doctors or various creeds and lacks-of-creed, and the quality of care I have received has never borne any relationships to the doctors' individual beliefs.
In any identity group there will exist a small cadre of genuine nutters. We can all either ignore them, depriving them of the airspace for their paranoid ranting, and continue talking to the calm, rational people from their identity group... or we can respond to them with more ranting and raving about extreme minority viewpoints. I prefer the former, because it reduces the overall occurrence of nutterism. Nutterism is a contagious disease, but our society has developed sophisticated methods of disease control
The majority of gamers may be female ---- but the majority of gamers who post to Slashdot are male --- and much more easily stereotyped as arrested adolescents than adults.
Gaaawd. I don't believe this! Everybody hates me! I hate everybody! Especially my parents! Gaaaawd!
I don't disagree in principle, but the reality is that the schools would never, ever require the computation step and the skills would atrophy.
That seems like a logical argument. However, give that the computation step is being carried out by an automatic device, the skills have already atrophied.
When I was at school, we were very rarely required to give a fully calculated answer in the final few years, instead being asked to reduce. When I went to one of Scotland's top universities, we were told our high-school calculators would be useless to us, because I would never, ever be asked to provide an exact answer. Ever. Never ever. Everything was to be reduced to the simplest form of xs, sins, nth roots etc. The final calculation was irrelevant. Why? Because (and this is the important bit) we could only conceivably do it on a calculator, and there is no educational reason for constantly testing our ability to press the cosh button or whatever.
But this begs the question why anyone needs a graphics calculator in the first place. Even the maths students at my uni were told they really shouldn't bother....
Well, imagine you're driving on a really hot day. The road is really hot. So your tyres start to melt and you lose traction. It's a bit like that, because the liquid loses traction on the solid surface.
It will even help with things like ALS (or any other medical condition) as people will look for solutions instead of wishing at the sky.
One slight flaw in that argument: the millions of religious doctors and researchers all over the world who are constantly looking for practical solutions to diseases such as ALS.
1 self-taught coder may be able to build a better app than 1 computer science graduate, but a team of 5 self-taught coders is going to be a nightmare. The problem with the self-taught coder is that their code is very idiomatic. Not knowing the theory results in a lot of hacks and workarounds that are not easily understood by anyone else.
I'm not tricked by it - Facebook shows the domain name underneath it, and if it's not Youtube, it's immediately obvious to me. just hate it because it's scummy.
No-one should be allowed to comment on anything if they have read The Selfish Gene. Dawkins is a dangerous hack and a terrible writer. His pop-science books never educate the state-of-the-art, but instead indocrtrinate his view to the exclusion of all others.
I just hope they use image recognition to eliminate my latest pet hate: the click-bait pages that use a screen grab of a youtube video, play button and all, as their thumbnail, trying to convince you it's just a shared video rather than a link.
The most clueless people I've ever met working with IT, are those that work with the company's security. They have an exact set of rules to follow, and nothing else.
...which is why it's important to have an outside body accrediting degrees, to discourage meaningless diploma mills.
I have seen many such sites, but they're all hugely out of date, and often review exactly the same software as each other. All they end up achieving is a slightly differently skewed marketplace.
Apple's being truthful here; The typical buyer of any random low-success indie app is also likely to have bought many apps from the top ten lists... and it's an absolute for the composite of typical buyers. If Apple wanted to foster an "App Store Middle Class" they'd have to take a patently dishonest approach and rig the system to stop promoting apps that are already highly successful.
It wouldn't be dishonest. Right now, a lot of the recommendations are things you've probably already heard of anyway. A policy of "discovery" recommendations would be no bad thing.
you mean like the magazines we all read in the 80s and 90s to tell us what was worth buying? Just what I was going to say. The problem is... who's going to pay for it? Computer mags were full of ads, but who's going to pay to advertise when either A) your site tells people their software is rubbish or B) your site tells people that they should buy the software anyway.
For decades, computer games manufacturers have put out limited demos to encourage people to buy the full thing. Some even experimented with DRM to give time-limited access to the full thing. The App Store and iOS give 99.9% security (most iOS users don't jailbreak) so why haven't Apple given the developers a toolkit for time-limited demos? Why are free and paid-for versions listed as separate apps? As an iPad user, I want a proper try-before-you-buy that lets me see exactly what I'm going to get, and if I had that, I'd certainly spend more money. (I could even say the same about Steam, actually...)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that computer scientists "knew better how to count", it's that they recognized that counting isn't the answer to this problem.
That doesn't really tally with what you said. Arrays were originally "pointer+offset". Fine. That was a technical solution in low-level languages. But in high-level languages that are specifically aimed at better matching humans' natural tendencies, counting is the correct answer to this problem.
This was an early example of "good practice" vs "lazy programmers". The war rages on to this day.
Surely your "stink test" can be carried out with the orders of magnitude presented in the reduced solution?
(Remember, this is a flawed analogy, as requested by the poster before.)
Unless the doctor's activity is actually part of God's plan for that individual. Even in secular circles, medicine is often considered a "vocation" (from Latin, meaning "calling"). Just for the record, I'm agnostic, but I've been treated by many doctors or various creeds and lacks-of-creed, and the quality of care I have received has never borne any relationships to the doctors' individual beliefs.
In any identity group there will exist a small cadre of genuine nutters. We can all either ignore them, depriving them of the airspace for their paranoid ranting, and continue talking to the calm, rational people from their identity group... or we can respond to them with more ranting and raving about extreme minority viewpoints. I prefer the former, because it reduces the overall occurrence of nutterism. Nutterism is a contagious disease, but our society has developed sophisticated methods of disease control
The majority of gamers may be female ---- but the majority of gamers who post to Slashdot are male --- and much more easily stereotyped as arrested adolescents than adults.
Gaaawd. I don't believe this! Everybody hates me! I hate everybody! Especially my parents! Gaaaawd!
I don't disagree in principle, but the reality is that the schools would never, ever require the computation step and the skills would atrophy.
That seems like a logical argument. However, give that the computation step is being carried out by an automatic device, the skills have already atrophied.
When I was at school, we were very rarely required to give a fully calculated answer in the final few years, instead being asked to reduce. When I went to one of Scotland's top universities, we were told our high-school calculators would be useless to us, because I would never, ever be asked to provide an exact answer. Ever. Never ever. Everything was to be reduced to the simplest form of xs, sins, nth roots etc. The final calculation was irrelevant. Why? Because (and this is the important bit) we could only conceivably do it on a calculator, and there is no educational reason for constantly testing our ability to press the cosh button or whatever.
But this begs the question why anyone needs a graphics calculator in the first place. Even the maths students at my uni were told they really shouldn't bother....
Well, imagine you're driving on a really hot day. The road is really hot. So your tyres start to melt and you lose traction. It's a bit like that, because the liquid loses traction on the solid surface.
It will even help with things like ALS (or any other medical condition) as people will look for solutions instead of wishing at the sky.
One slight flaw in that argument: the millions of religious doctors and researchers all over the world who are constantly looking for practical solutions to diseases such as ALS.
Then you're not really a nerd.
1 self-taught coder may be able to build a better app than 1 computer science graduate, but a team of 5 self-taught coders is going to be a nightmare. The problem with the self-taught coder is that their code is very idiomatic. Not knowing the theory results in a lot of hacks and workarounds that are not easily understood by anyone else.
I'm not tricked by it - Facebook shows the domain name underneath it, and if it's not Youtube, it's immediately obvious to me. just hate it because it's scummy.
No-one should be allowed to comment on anything if they have read The Selfish Gene. Dawkins is a dangerous hack and a terrible writer. His pop-science books never educate the state-of-the-art, but instead indocrtrinate his view to the exclusion of all others.
I just hope they use image recognition to eliminate my latest pet hate: the click-bait pages that use a screen grab of a youtube video, play button and all, as their thumbnail, trying to convince you it's just a shared video rather than a link.
The most clueless people I've ever met working with IT, are those that work with the company's security. They have an exact set of rules to follow, and nothing else.
...which is why it's important to have an outside body accrediting degrees, to discourage meaningless diploma mills.
I believe you're referring to this story. The wprding of Amazon's email strongly suggests the whole 20% thing is just bait-and-switch.
No, they say they pay them, but then they "renegotiate" the fee down to zero.
I have seen many such sites, but they're all hugely out of date, and often review exactly the same software as each other. All they end up achieving is a slightly differently skewed marketplace.
Apple's being truthful here; The typical buyer of any random low-success indie app is also likely to have bought many apps from the top ten lists... and it's an absolute for the composite of typical buyers. If Apple wanted to foster an "App Store Middle Class" they'd have to take a patently dishonest approach and rig the system to stop promoting apps that are already highly successful.
It wouldn't be dishonest. Right now, a lot of the recommendations are things you've probably already heard of anyway. A policy of "discovery" recommendations would be no bad thing.
And given that Amazon allegedly don't pay developers for their free app of the day, it does very little to sort the balance of power in app land....
you mean like the magazines we all read in the 80s and 90s to tell us what was worth buying? Just what I was going to say. The problem is... who's going to pay for it? Computer mags were full of ads, but who's going to pay to advertise when either A) your site tells people their software is rubbish or B) your site tells people that they should buy the software anyway.
For decades, computer games manufacturers have put out limited demos to encourage people to buy the full thing. Some even experimented with DRM to give time-limited access to the full thing. The App Store and iOS give 99.9% security (most iOS users don't jailbreak) so why haven't Apple given the developers a toolkit for time-limited demos? Why are free and paid-for versions listed as separate apps? As an iPad user, I want a proper try-before-you-buy that lets me see exactly what I'm going to get, and if I had that, I'd certainly spend more money. (I could even say the same about Steam, actually...)
The app store model doesn't reward the best - there's a lot of luck involved in getting into the charts, and being in the charts is self-sustaining.