For anything but small IRC channels, IRC tends to lend itself to much larger, never-ending conversations than I find in selective individual conversation. No matter what mechanism one uses, though, one needs to have the discipline necessary to finish tasks, which can often means treating any given network as a "I'll respond whenever" queue.
Gasoline and methanol (insert your favorite hydrocarbon fuel) reformers would create carbon waste byproducts, but they would conceivably reduce the amount of other pollutants actively released by removing the combustion engine. So for items that nuclear reactors are not practical for, they're still desirable. The benefit of using hydrogen fuel cells is that you don't need to rely on fossil fuel reformers, but can easily branch out to other "renewable" sources.
Oil is practically irrelevant from the power-generation standpoint; it's the mobile fuel of choice not the land-power fuel of choice. Coal and natural gas are the immediate anachronisms in the face of rapid nuclear adoption. Of course eventually cheap nuclear electrolysis could produce hydrogen for mobile transport.
The problem is that the Cold War and the envirokooks have given politicians the impression that nuclear power is political suicide. Real environmentalists have been largely cast aside by the more radical (and probably more interesting to the media) and often less-educated emotional-types that liken nuclear power to THE GREATEST TOXIN IN THE UNIVERSE. So even if the oil industry (which wouldn't be immediately supplanted by an increase in nuclear power reliance, rather coal companies would be) didn't have such a stranglehold over the political process, it doesn't necessarily mean that the (largely ignorant) U.S. public would accept a pro-nuke political platform.
Eventually, though, they'll have no choice. The shame is that they might wait until the last minute instead of spreading out the costs, and continue to implicitly support the death and disease that result from a heavy-reliance on coal.
Yes, the Cold War really poisoned the well. We'll eventually have no choice but to embrace nuclear power, regardless of the irrational stigma surrounding it.
The cost of disposing of waste in this manner would be prohibitive. Burying it is perfectly safe and probably cheaper by a few orders of magnitude.
Lifting the Carter administration's reprocessing ban would mitigate the risk considerably as well.
Ah, those are all undergrad topics of study in mathematics. All engineering, CS, and Physics undergrads will study those. Yes, a good HP calculator is quite valuable for calculus, aspects of linear algebra, and statistics.
What grad-level mathematics do you study that a HP49g+ is a useful tool? I'm afraid that I don't understand Swedish, and I don't think that all of that school's website is available in English, so if you don't mind answering I would certainly appreciate it.
Your "analysis" was uninteresting; I merely wanted elaboration on what you meant by "dynamic conversion" since in any general sense dynamic conversion is unencumbered. Someone else reaffirmed what I expected you had meant. There is nothing preventing subtypes from having Perl-like behavior over various operators if the behavior was desired, but the behavior is stupid and who would want it other than someone that largely programs in Perl is beyond me.
Your "point" in your "analysis" didn't interest me, whereas your pseudo-technical characterization did. Your social theory is uninteresting, and if I must burst your bubble, then let me be the first to point out that your five-year prediction about the future clarity comparisons of Python and language X are too late and that they are quite present now, and have been for several years. There are plenty of bad Python programmers, too. But you predicting the present and the obvious doesn't change that what you were implying was that Perl isn't really messy and doesn't encourage bad programming, and that it's just the ubiquitous bad programmer that adopted Perl that gave it its write-only reputation. Whatever! I know you're a Perl programmer, and I don't care, and your social theories as to why everyone except Perl programmers consider Perl a messy language don't interest me.
That is all one collection type with multiple construction syntax. You have a resizeable heterogeneous array literal, and two resizeable heterogeneous array comprehensions.
Python has a rather small number of collections within the base install. Namely resizeable heterogeneous arrays (referred to as lists), associative arrays (dictionaries), heterogeneous immutable tuples, homogeneous resizeable arrays of a few builtin types via the array module, heterogeneous unordered sets via the sets module (and soon as a builtin in 2.4), and I think that is probably about it. There are no linked lists, doubly linked lists, directed acyclic graphs, general directed and undirected graphs, balanced binary trees, skip lists, splay trees, B-trees, bitvectors, or a dozen of other useful datastructures.
On second thought, perhaps breaking the operators for subtypes of str and unicode would be easier for implementing that idiom. I had overlooked the necessity of a float subtype before, and two is better than three. Then there's probably some desire to have floats behave like integers and so forth. Who would really want to spread Perl's scalar ambiguity? Bad stuff.
Ah, I should have perused your comment history before being presumptuous; how lazy of me. I erroneously considered you a troll. I apologize.
I think that there's nothing preventing subtypes from overloading operators and perpetuating that error-prone idiom. Expressing it as generally as "ultra-dynamic typing without dynamic conversion" was sort of disingenuous on his part, since it's really that he doesn't like that Python's int and long types don't have Perl's broken behavior for their numeric operators.
His real complaint then would be that he cannot modify the slots of built-in types, it seems.
Microemacs and Star Sapphire Emacs ran on DOS in the 1980s and you could perform parenthesis matching. I don't know why that seems surprising too you; syntax-aware editors are not new. I assume from the assiduity for your position that editors capable of matching parenthesis are somehow modern, and from your arrogant and obnoxiously ignorant commentary, that it seems surprising to you because you're an ignoramous with an over-inflated sense of historical insight.
Your prima facie retarded banter does only slightly less than Erik Naggum's vitriol to assure that lisp will remain a family of fringe languages, and long before your vaporware lisp dialect can even be as minute a footnote as your brief and unimpressive programming career, your inane Java-programmer trolling and Raymond-class attempts at equivocated self-promotion will eventually burn themselves out as no one can any longer take anything you say seriously. Do Python the favor of sparing it your brand of deluded advocacy.
Maybe you can take up programming, since you do seem to be so interested in it.
Slashdot Mirror
For anything but small IRC channels, IRC tends to lend itself to much larger, never-ending conversations than I find in selective individual conversation. No matter what mechanism one uses, though, one needs to have the discipline necessary to finish tasks, which can often means treating any given network as a "I'll respond whenever" queue.
Gasoline and methanol (insert your favorite hydrocarbon fuel) reformers would create carbon waste byproducts, but they would conceivably reduce the amount of other pollutants actively released by removing the combustion engine. So for items that nuclear reactors are not practical for, they're still desirable. The benefit of using hydrogen fuel cells is that you don't need to rely on fossil fuel reformers, but can easily branch out to other "renewable" sources. Oil is practically irrelevant from the power-generation standpoint; it's the mobile fuel of choice not the land-power fuel of choice. Coal and natural gas are the immediate anachronisms in the face of rapid nuclear adoption. Of course eventually cheap nuclear electrolysis could produce hydrogen for mobile transport.
What diesel engine isn't "friendly to organic sources?" All fossil fuel is organic.
The problem is that the Cold War and the envirokooks have given politicians the impression that nuclear power is political suicide. Real environmentalists have been largely cast aside by the more radical (and probably more interesting to the media) and often less-educated emotional-types that liken nuclear power to THE GREATEST TOXIN IN THE UNIVERSE. So even if the oil industry (which wouldn't be immediately supplanted by an increase in nuclear power reliance, rather coal companies would be) didn't have such a stranglehold over the political process, it doesn't necessarily mean that the (largely ignorant) U.S. public would accept a pro-nuke political platform.
Eventually, though, they'll have no choice. The shame is that they might wait until the last minute instead of spreading out the costs, and continue to implicitly support the death and disease that result from a heavy-reliance on coal.
Yes, the Cold War really poisoned the well. We'll eventually have no choice but to embrace nuclear power, regardless of the irrational stigma surrounding it.
The cost of disposing of waste in this manner would be prohibitive. Burying it is perfectly safe and probably cheaper by a few orders of magnitude. Lifting the Carter administration's reprocessing ban would mitigate the risk considerably as well.
Don't feed the troll.
You don't even have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
strike again.
This is all bunk; it should be scored at zero.
The parent compares platform-specific binary sizes to broader claims of memory consumption. This is nonsensical.
What steps do you believe are necessary for the production of DRAM?
Ah, those are all undergrad topics of study in mathematics. All engineering, CS, and Physics undergrads will study those. Yes, a good HP calculator is quite valuable for calculus, aspects of linear algebra, and statistics.
Do you frequently not bother to try to make sense?
What grad-level mathematics do you study that a HP49g+ is a useful tool? I'm afraid that I don't understand Swedish, and I don't think that all of that school's website is available in English, so if you don't mind answering I would certainly appreciate it.
Perl scalars are disgusting.
Your "analysis" was uninteresting; I merely wanted elaboration on what you meant by "dynamic conversion" since in any general sense dynamic conversion is unencumbered. Someone else reaffirmed what I expected you had meant. There is nothing preventing subtypes from having Perl-like behavior over various operators if the behavior was desired, but the behavior is stupid and who would want it other than someone that largely programs in Perl is beyond me.
Your "point" in your "analysis" didn't interest me, whereas your pseudo-technical characterization did. Your social theory is uninteresting, and if I must burst your bubble, then let me be the first to point out that your five-year prediction about the future clarity comparisons of Python and language X are too late and that they are quite present now, and have been for several years. There are plenty of bad Python programmers, too. But you predicting the present and the obvious doesn't change that what you were implying was that Perl isn't really messy and doesn't encourage bad programming, and that it's just the ubiquitous bad programmer that adopted Perl that gave it its write-only reputation. Whatever! I know you're a Perl programmer, and I don't care, and your social theories as to why everyone except Perl programmers consider Perl a messy language don't interest me.
That is all one collection type with multiple construction syntax. You have a resizeable heterogeneous array literal, and two resizeable heterogeneous array comprehensions.
Python has a rather small number of collections within the base install. Namely resizeable heterogeneous arrays (referred to as lists), associative arrays (dictionaries), heterogeneous immutable tuples, homogeneous resizeable arrays of a few builtin types via the array module, heterogeneous unordered sets via the sets module (and soon as a builtin in 2.4), and I think that is probably about it. There are no linked lists, doubly linked lists, directed acyclic graphs, general directed and undirected graphs, balanced binary trees, skip lists, splay trees, B-trees, bitvectors, or a dozen of other useful datastructures.
On second thought, perhaps breaking the operators for subtypes of str and unicode would be easier for implementing that idiom. I had overlooked the necessity of a float subtype before, and two is better than three. Then there's probably some desire to have floats behave like integers and so forth. Who would really want to spread Perl's scalar ambiguity? Bad stuff.
Ah, I should have perused your comment history before being presumptuous; how lazy of me. I erroneously considered you a troll. I apologize.
I think that there's nothing preventing subtypes from overloading operators and perpetuating that error-prone idiom. Expressing it as generally as "ultra-dynamic typing without dynamic conversion" was sort of disingenuous on his part, since it's really that he doesn't like that Python's int and long types don't have Perl's broken behavior for their numeric operators.
His real complaint then would be that he cannot modify the slots of built-in types, it seems.
That's the spirit.
Do you have an intermediary layer for picking random accounts for posting, or do you select them from a list?
If you don't want people to point out that you're talking out of your rectum, perhaps you should cease doing it.
Microemacs and Star Sapphire Emacs ran on DOS in the 1980s and you could perform parenthesis matching. I don't know why that seems surprising too you; syntax-aware editors are not new. I assume from the assiduity for your position that editors capable of matching parenthesis are somehow modern, and from your arrogant and obnoxiously ignorant commentary, that it seems surprising to you because you're an ignoramous with an over-inflated sense of historical insight.
You should get that checked out.
Your prima facie retarded banter does only slightly less than Erik Naggum's vitriol to assure that lisp will remain a family of fringe languages, and long before your vaporware lisp dialect can even be as minute a footnote as your brief and unimpressive programming career, your inane Java-programmer trolling and Raymond-class attempts at equivocated self-promotion will eventually burn themselves out as no one can any longer take anything you say seriously. Do Python the favor of sparing it your brand of deluded advocacy.
Maybe you can take up programming, since you do seem to be so interested in it.
What specifically do you mean by "dynamic conversion?"
Lisp editors have had parenthesis matching for decades.