Don't be silly. Python is not a replacement for Java. Python is is popular in academia because it is an easy to pick up. You can hack out a script to do what you need to quickly. It's friendlier than bash, and as long as you don't rely on C modules it is portable as well.
For what CS departments do, Python is a better language. There, you are exploring the theoretical undeprinnings. You need to be able to test out theories and concepts. You don't need production level rigor for those activities, and honestly any language would suffice.
You're naive if you think Java is going anywhere. New projects are created with whatever tools best suited to it. If you hold to some narrow dogma that "X sucks so we're going with Y" then you're going to find yourself grasping for explanations when you fail to meet your deadlines. People have been writing enterprise level applications in Java for quite some time. It has a considerable set of libraries, several languages built on it's JVM, a huge amount of discussions and documentation, etc. . You don't like Java, then use Scala or Groovy or Jython even.
Why this is marked interesting is beyond me. Anyone with real world experience knows you use the appropriate tools for the job. All languages have pros and cons. Before you start declaring X technology can be replaced by Y, you really need to understand the tech first.
That's because in Afghanistan we weren't involved in total war. We weren't nuking them, or using biological weapons, or covering the country side with cluster bombs, mines, etc. innocent civilians be damned. A fully engaged US in a total war scenario means your country doesn't exist anymore. Hiding in caves is little protection when the rest of country has been turned into a toxic irradiated waste land.
If a revolution ever occurred again on our home soil, it would need significant popular backing to be successful. Otheriwse it would just be years or decades of pointless bloodshed.
Here's a hypothesis: What if the lock system in the car was designed by someone making some really bad assumptions?
1. Car model X uses copper wiring to transmit information to the different systems in the car. 2. Various command codes are used by the car's CPU to manage these systems. 3. The lock control system is one of these systems.
So now we come to the bad assumptions:
1. Only the CPU can send out commands. 2. There is no need to encrypt these commands, as only the CPU can send commands and the CPU won't do that without proper authentication.
Vulnerability: A transmitter at a close enough range and with enough power can emit the command codes to unlock the doors, relying on the possibility that the signals will get picked up on the correct bus. Since the lock system doesn't check whether or not correct authentication has taken place, the locks pop open.
A handheld device that did this could be made for less than $100.
In a 2004 study on this very subject, it was determined that the mean latency period for thyroid cancer to appear after radiation exposure was over 30 years. Some appear sooner, of course, but many appeared much later than that. What is the point of this report? At best, the proclamation of not causing any noticeable immediate harm is premature. But saying that the exposure is "unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future" borders on irresponsible, and seems driven by an agenda...
There's no agenda and it isn't irresponsible in the slightest. Going by their age demographics and the probabilities of death by causes other than cancer (car accidents, home accidents, other diseases, etc.) , a large number of these people won't be around to be accounted for one way or the other. Those that do make it to the 30 year threshold would still need to pass the sniff test (do their families have a history of cancer, did they work with carcinogenic materials, did they need surgical work that required numerous X-Rays, did they travel by jet a lot, did they live at a high altitude). Once all other environmental and biological factors have been ruled out then they have to see if there was any statistical increase over normal cancer rates.
They say that it is unlikely to be possible to attribute any future health effects because it's the truth. There are far too many variables to account for that can affect the results 30 years down the road. The error bars on any such study would be quite large, and would require a significant signal before any conclusions had much confidence.
They aren't saying that there won't be any effects. They're saying that if there are, they won't be statistically discernible.
Unfortunately 8.5 inches of concrete is not going to withstand 300 MPH winds. Why? Because those 300MPH winds are also carrying things like trees, cars, trucks, chunks of asphalt, girders, cows, and other debris which will grind those 8.5 concrete walls into rubble. Look at the aftermath photos from any EF4 or EF5 tornado and see what's left standing. Even buildings made to withstand tornadoes are total losses.
If they really wanted to make their data center "tornado proof" then they should have built it underground like a regular storm shelter. Then they'd also get the added benefit of lowered AC costs.
BTW, no children drowned in the Moore school. That was misreported. Also, for a tornado that size there's really no such thing as a "safe room" above ground.
We live in a capitalist society. If no one is willing to pay for these important problems to be solved, then no one is going to solve them. And even if someone is willing to pay, they will most likely completely screw over the person/people responsible for coming up with the solution anyway. Capitalism is not about solving the world's problems, it's about making money by any means necessary.
Maybe when that changes and the world collectively starts working together on long term sustainability of the human race then these brilliant problem solvers will get their time. But until then, they are going to work for the highest bidder.
You could make a lot of money that way. Or psychologically scar the teachers for life by embedding QR codes into the contacts.
Computer: Scanning.... Computer: Processing.... Identified "Enlarge Your Penis http://bigwiener.com/" approved. Accessing school video feed....
Teacher: What the...why did the class TV come on? And why is it showing a browser window? *TV displays goatse* Teacher: *vomits* *TV displays tubgirl* Teacher: *gak!* *cardiac arrest*
First, differential equations isn't advanced math. Neither is Calc 2, 3, or 4. That's applied math.
How important is it? You're asking the wrong question, and at the same time painting a less than stellar picture of yourself. Asking that question makes you sound more like a whiney kid who doesn't want to eat their peas than someone who is motivated to learn new things and improve.
Learn as much as you can while you are in the coddled world of academia. You will be surprised at how often information you considered useless at the time will be useful. Every course you take is another set of information and skills that may come in handy down the road. For example, being able to understand differential equations will be quite useful if you're working on software dealing with simulations (whether financial or scientific). Even if you aren't implementing the core logic yourself, having a basic understanding may help you develop a user-friendly GUI for setting parameters, or even just writing some documentation. At the very least, you'll have confidence that if the need ever should arise you'll be able to quickly dig up the information you need.
I say we create a language that uses emoticons to indicate the nature of objects,methods, etc. For example::D ||:O methodName(.|. ||| arg1) ( Exception
Means: public parallel void methodName(final int arg1) throws Exception
It seems that way because on a typical platform the C virtual machine is a very thin layer on top of the operating system and CPU...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The process of virtualization allows an entity to function regardless of what the underlying real environment is. The compiled C language is not virtualized in any respect. The generated executables are comprised of native opcodes, which in some cases even contain opcodes specific to the CPU it was compiled for, not to mention OS specific libraries and such.
If the compiled C code was truly virtualized, then I would be able to take an executable compiled on some random Linux box and run it on some random Windows box (which, of course, you can't). In fact, you'd be lucky if you could bring over the original code and get it to compile on Windows.
Real VM backed languages do not have these limitations. They're compiled to an intermediary bytecode which is machine agnostic. The VM (which is a native application) then runs the bytecode and handles any machine specific interactions. Any platform that has the VM will be capable of running the bytecode, regardless of hardware or software.
By your definition, anything that isn't writing out binary by hand could be considered "virtualization", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The C language and other such languages provide a higher level abstraction to make programming easier, but they are not providing virtualization.
I am not an engineer. So, you engineers out there--are we nearing the theoretical limit on these things? I mean, 19 nm is pretty darn small. It seems to me that at some point Moore's law has to fail simply because you can't make a connection less than one atom thick. And making a connection one atom thick would be stupid, I would think, for reliability reasons. So--is Moore's law, as extended to NAND flash memory failing due to the fact that it has nearly reached its lowest theoretical size?
Quantum effects will prevent making electrical components too much smaller than they currently are. However, there's really nothing stopping companies from producing larger dies or adding more vertical layers to a die.
...In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
Those conditions happen all the time. Schools, planes, buses, trains, etc.
It's true that we aren't ferrets. We'll maybe politicians are.
I don't think anyone is discounting the possibilities. They are discounting the shady individual making even shadier claims with no real evidence to support such claims.
If he continues to act like a snake oil salesman then he will be treated like a snake oil salesman. When he begins to act more like a true scientist instead of the next Bedini fraudster I think more people will take him seriously.
When I was at school, my parents hired a contractor to build an extension to the house....
Stop. Just stop.
Programming is not the same thing as building house. It's a popular, but ludicrous analogy. Even a small program can have billions of different possible execution paths. In fact, if your code has 30 if statements you're already over a billion execution paths (2^30). Why do you think it's so damn hard to make bug proof code? You can have unit tests, integration tests, a dedicated test team and still miss bugs. Even years after the product is finished bugs can still be found by ingenious users who use your software in a way never thought or intended. Look at how long some software products have been around. Look at the Linux kernel for example. There's a team of crack programmers hammering on that thing year after year and yet they still find bugs in OLD CODE.
Using your line of reasoning, software developers would never get paid and would have to give lifetime support for their product for free. That doesn't make any sense.
You're going to have one hell of a time trying to prove your cancer 30 years down the road was caused by some insignificant radiation exposure and not some other biological/ecological factor. Carcinogens. Carcinogens everywhere.
I'll wait for 3-D printable Colon Blow before I buy one. Although I suspect any 3D printable food would be marketable as a respectable clone of Colon Blow.
The only new thing in there was "holds its charge for a long time", which I thought was the only real barrier to supercapacitors replacing batteries...
No, that's just one of the barriers. Another PITA barrier is voltage. Capacitiors lose voltage rapidly with discharge, unlike batteries whose voltage drops slowly. For example, a battery drained half-way will still deliver a high enough voltage to keep a phone running. A super-capacitor won't, even though there is still plenty of "charge" left.
Perhaps the words mean something different to you. The abstracts that expressed no position were papers on other aspects of climate science, therefore were not counted. Global warming is only one aspect of climate science, and not every paper on climate science deals with global warming.
Of the remaining 33.6% of papers that did express a position on global warming, 32.6% agreed with the theory,.7% disagreed with the theory, and.3% were uncertain. That's where the 97% number comes from.
...Total human emissions of CO2 only account for about 3% of the world's CO2 emissions...
He was referring to human emissions, not the natural carbon cycle emissions. The natural carbon cycle is balanced. Human emissions are not, hence the ever rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
WHAT warming trend ?? The world temp has stabilized and DROPPED. And it appears we MAY be going into a Maunder-type Solar Minima. ..
[citation needed]
According to the data you're incorrect. That is, if you're actually doing a real climatological analysis. If you're using the Anthony Watts method of analysis, well you can show just about anything you want to.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be silly. Python is not a replacement for Java. Python is is popular in academia because it is an easy to pick up. You can hack out a script to do what you need to quickly. It's friendlier than bash, and as long as you don't rely on C modules it is portable as well.
For what CS departments do, Python is a better language. There, you are exploring the theoretical undeprinnings. You need to be able to test out theories and concepts. You don't need production level rigor for those activities, and honestly any language would suffice.
You're naive if you think Java is going anywhere. New projects are created with whatever tools best suited to it. If you hold to some narrow dogma that "X sucks so we're going with Y" then you're going to find yourself grasping for explanations when you fail to meet your deadlines. People have been writing enterprise level applications in Java for quite some time. It has a considerable set of libraries, several languages built on it's JVM, a huge amount of discussions and documentation, etc. . You don't like Java, then use Scala or Groovy or Jython even.
Why this is marked interesting is beyond me. Anyone with real world experience knows you use the appropriate tools for the job. All languages have pros and cons. Before you start declaring X technology can be replaced by Y, you really need to understand the tech first.
That's because in Afghanistan we weren't involved in total war. We weren't nuking them, or using biological weapons, or covering the country side with cluster bombs, mines, etc. innocent civilians be damned. A fully engaged US in a total war scenario means your country doesn't exist anymore. Hiding in caves is little protection when the rest of country has been turned into a toxic irradiated waste land.
If a revolution ever occurred again on our home soil, it would need significant popular backing to be successful. Otheriwse it would just be years or decades of pointless bloodshed.
Here's a hypothesis: What if the lock system in the car was designed by someone making some really bad assumptions?
1. Car model X uses copper wiring to transmit information to the different systems in the car.
2. Various command codes are used by the car's CPU to manage these systems.
3. The lock control system is one of these systems.
So now we come to the bad assumptions:
1. Only the CPU can send out commands.
2. There is no need to encrypt these commands, as only the CPU can send commands and the CPU won't do that without proper authentication.
Vulnerability: A transmitter at a close enough range and with enough power can emit the command codes to unlock the doors, relying on the possibility that the signals will get picked up on the correct bus. Since the lock system doesn't check whether or not correct authentication has taken place, the locks pop open.
A handheld device that did this could be made for less than $100.
In a 2004 study on this very subject, it was determined that the mean latency period for thyroid cancer to appear after radiation exposure was over 30 years. Some appear sooner, of course, but many appeared much later than that. What is the point of this report? At best, the proclamation of not causing any noticeable immediate harm is premature. But saying that the exposure is "unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future" borders on irresponsible, and seems driven by an agenda...
There's no agenda and it isn't irresponsible in the slightest. Going by their age demographics and the probabilities of death by causes other than cancer (car accidents, home accidents, other diseases, etc.) , a large number of these people won't be around to be accounted for one way or the other. Those that do make it to the 30 year threshold would still need to pass the sniff test (do their families have a history of cancer, did they work with carcinogenic materials, did they need surgical work that required numerous X-Rays, did they travel by jet a lot, did they live at a high altitude). Once all other environmental and biological factors have been ruled out then they have to see if there was any statistical increase over normal cancer rates.
They say that it is unlikely to be possible to attribute any future health effects because it's the truth. There are far too many variables to account for that can affect the results 30 years down the road. The error bars on any such study would be quite large, and would require a significant signal before any conclusions had much confidence.
They aren't saying that there won't be any effects. They're saying that if there are, they won't be statistically discernible.
A CG movie made from an MMO set in a Lord of the Rings knock-off universe. It has hit written all over it.
Maybe if you do a few hits before seeing it. Or is you S key broken on your keyboard?
Unfortunately 8.5 inches of concrete is not going to withstand 300 MPH winds. Why? Because those 300MPH winds are also carrying things like trees, cars, trucks, chunks of asphalt, girders, cows, and other debris which will grind those 8.5 concrete walls into rubble. Look at the aftermath photos from any EF4 or EF5 tornado and see what's left standing. Even buildings made to withstand tornadoes are total losses.
If they really wanted to make their data center "tornado proof" then they should have built it underground like a regular storm shelter. Then they'd also get the added benefit of lowered AC costs.
BTW, no children drowned in the Moore school. That was misreported. Also, for a tornado that size there's really no such thing as a "safe room" above ground.
I'm not sure what Nnaemeka is expecting either.
We live in a capitalist society. If no one is willing to pay for these important problems to be solved, then no one is going to solve them. And even if someone is willing to pay, they will most likely completely screw over the person/people responsible for coming up with the solution anyway. Capitalism is not about solving the world's problems, it's about making money by any means necessary.
Maybe when that changes and the world collectively starts working together on long term sustainability of the human race then these brilliant problem solvers will get their time. But until then, they are going to work for the highest bidder.
Oh, it's quadrotriticale!
You could make a lot of money that way. Or psychologically scar the teachers for life by embedding QR codes into the contacts.
Computer: Scanning....
Computer: Processing....
Identified "Enlarge Your Penis http://bigwiener.com/" approved. Accessing school video feed....
Teacher: What the...why did the class TV come on? And why is it showing a browser window?
*TV displays goatse*
Teacher: *vomits*
*TV displays tubgirl*
Teacher: *gak!* *cardiac arrest*
First, differential equations isn't advanced math. Neither is Calc 2, 3, or 4. That's applied math.
How important is it? You're asking the wrong question, and at the same time painting a less than stellar picture of yourself. Asking that question makes you sound more like a whiney kid who doesn't want to eat their peas than someone who is motivated to learn new things and improve.
Learn as much as you can while you are in the coddled world of academia. You will be surprised at how often information you considered useless at the time will be useful. Every course you take is another set of information and skills that may come in handy down the road. For example, being able to understand differential equations will be quite useful if you're working on software dealing with simulations (whether financial or scientific). Even if you aren't implementing the core logic yourself, having a basic understanding may help you develop a user-friendly GUI for setting parameters, or even just writing some documentation. At the very least, you'll have confidence that if the need ever should arise you'll be able to quickly dig up the information you need.
Stop insulting cockroaches. They have feelings too.
It is pitch black. You will most likely be eaten by a grue.
I say we create a language that uses emoticons to indicate the nature of objects,methods, etc. For example: :D || :O methodName( .|. ||| arg1) ( Exception
Means: public parallel void methodName(final int arg1) throws Exception
Cthulu can only be summoned using the BrainFuck programming language. And don't call me Shirley.
It seems that way because on a typical platform the C virtual machine is a very thin layer on top of the operating system and CPU...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The process of virtualization allows an entity to function regardless of what the underlying real environment is. The compiled C language is not virtualized in any respect. The generated executables are comprised of native opcodes, which in some cases even contain opcodes specific to the CPU it was compiled for, not to mention OS specific libraries and such.
If the compiled C code was truly virtualized, then I would be able to take an executable compiled on some random Linux box and run it on some random Windows box (which, of course, you can't). In fact, you'd be lucky if you could bring over the original code and get it to compile on Windows.
Real VM backed languages do not have these limitations. They're compiled to an intermediary bytecode which is machine agnostic. The VM (which is a native application) then runs the bytecode and handles any machine specific interactions. Any platform that has the VM will be capable of running the bytecode, regardless of hardware or software.
By your definition, anything that isn't writing out binary by hand could be considered "virtualization", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The C language and other such languages provide a higher level abstraction to make programming easier, but they are not providing virtualization.
I am not an engineer. So, you engineers out there--are we nearing the theoretical limit on these things? I mean, 19 nm is pretty darn small. It seems to me that at some point Moore's law has to fail simply because you can't make a connection less than one atom thick. And making a connection one atom thick would be stupid, I would think, for reliability reasons. So--is Moore's law, as extended to NAND flash memory failing due to the fact that it has nearly reached its lowest theoretical size?
Quantum effects will prevent making electrical components too much smaller than they currently are. However, there's really nothing stopping companies from producing larger dies or adding more vertical layers to a die.
...In the experiment, ferrets are together for hours with forced airflow under temperature and humidity conditions that favor viral transmission, she says. “I don’t think this is what happens in real life.”
Those conditions happen all the time. Schools, planes, buses, trains, etc.
It's true that we aren't ferrets. We'll maybe politicians are.
I don't think anyone is discounting the possibilities. They are discounting the shady individual making even shadier claims with no real evidence to support such claims.
If he continues to act like a snake oil salesman then he will be treated like a snake oil salesman. When he begins to act more like a true scientist instead of the next Bedini fraudster I think more people will take him seriously.
When I was at school, my parents hired a contractor to build an extension to the house....
Stop. Just stop.
Programming is not the same thing as building house. It's a popular, but ludicrous analogy. Even a small program can have billions of different possible execution paths. In fact, if your code has 30 if statements you're already over a billion execution paths (2^30). Why do you think it's so damn hard to make bug proof code? You can have unit tests, integration tests, a dedicated test team and still miss bugs. Even years after the product is finished bugs can still be found by ingenious users who use your software in a way never thought or intended. Look at how long some software products have been around. Look at the Linux kernel for example. There's a team of crack programmers hammering on that thing year after year and yet they still find bugs in OLD CODE.
Using your line of reasoning, software developers would never get paid and would have to give lifetime support for their product for free. That doesn't make any sense.
You're going to have one hell of a time trying to prove your cancer 30 years down the road was caused by some insignificant radiation exposure and not some other biological/ecological factor. Carcinogens. Carcinogens everywhere.
I'll wait for 3-D printable Colon Blow before I buy one. Although I suspect any 3D printable food would be marketable as a respectable clone of Colon Blow.
The only new thing in there was "holds its charge for a long time", which I thought was the only real barrier to supercapacitors replacing batteries...
No, that's just one of the barriers. Another PITA barrier is voltage. Capacitiors lose voltage rapidly with discharge, unlike batteries whose voltage drops slowly. For example, a battery drained half-way will still deliver a high enough voltage to keep a phone running. A super-capacitor won't, even though there is still plenty of "charge" left.
Perhaps the words mean something different to you. The abstracts that expressed no position were papers on other aspects of climate science, therefore were not counted. Global warming is only one aspect of climate science, and not every paper on climate science deals with global warming.
Of the remaining 33.6% of papers that did express a position on global warming, 32.6% agreed with the theory, .7% disagreed with the theory, and .3% were uncertain. That's where the 97% number comes from.
...Total human emissions of CO2 only account for about 3% of the world's CO2 emissions...
He was referring to human emissions, not the natural carbon cycle emissions. The natural carbon cycle is balanced. Human emissions are not, hence the ever rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
WHAT warming trend ?? The world temp has stabilized and DROPPED. And it appears we MAY be going into a Maunder-type Solar Minima. . .
[citation needed]
According to the data you're incorrect. That is, if you're actually doing a real climatological analysis. If you're using the Anthony Watts method of analysis, well you can show just about anything you want to.