Though there is the issue of conflict of interests, and I think there's some sort of exemption on testifying against your close family, under any other circumstances, since it's patently obvious she has some information, if she refuses to share it it's probably obstruction of justice.
That's because they should be capitalized: Spanish and English register fine. (I don't really give a damn, almost always spell language names non-capitalized, but since you brought it up, might as well clarify it for you).
Would you expect adobe to offer support on the gazillions of pdf implementations out there? As horrendously strange it sounds to me to actually say this, if they made the silverlight spec in a sensible way, such that the Mono people managed to implement it without any stupid hacks (I'm not stating that's the case, as I honestly don't know), then it's good enough. In fact, I'd say it's better than making an "officially supported plug-in" without giving us the specs. If moonlight is (and remains) a solid implementation of silverlight, I'll take that as prima fascia evidence that MS, for once, played nicely with others.
Yeah. But that's wikipedia in a nutshell, isn't it. ^_^
Wikipedia might have accuracy issues, but this particular case is clearly "the bleeding edge in research has just given us the necessity to update this article".
Before you can get creative and derive actual pleasure from programming, you first need to be able to do more day-to-day stuff. "Hello world" is great to teach someone what the basic structure of things is like, but that sort of direction gets completely uninteresting within a couple of hours if you're not already academically inclined towards the subject at hand.
My suggestion is to teach him to Get Things Done. Like you said, people take computers to mean "point and click" today, so you first have to get rid of the mentality that what is superficially easy is, in fact, the easiest way to do things.
So start with the shell, show him how freaking powerful shell scripts are. Start with the basics, like "mv *.mp3/to/some/place" rather than having to sort the files by type, select the mp3 files by hand, drag somewhere else. That shows him some basic pattern matching. Want to find out which of a dozen files contains a specific phrase? Show him the following snipet: for $file in *; do echo === $file ===; grep file "phrase goes here";done; (check for errors, haven't used this stuff in a while and don't have a proper shell handy). Hooray for loops!
Once you have that sort of thing going, give him a "real" programming language. I'd say a scripting language is best. That'll steer him towards good algorithms over stupid "one less instruction" optimizations. Later on, if/when he starts showing some interest in the behind-the-scenes stuff, give him C.
At the point in time when you start showing him a "real" language, give him real problems. Does he like Monopoly? Everybody loves park avenue, or whatever the street immediately before "go" is called, because it's so freaking huge and expensive and stuff. But is it really *that* good? Show him how to use a random generator to simulate like ten thousand games with 500 rounds each, and aggregate which squares are the likeliest to land on. (IIRC, the best set is the orange, best odds*price value). Next step up, add some more complicated logics to the process. I heard that tennis essentially works as a high-precision instrument, where small differences in average odds to win a single point translates into very high odds of winning a match. So you can adapt your monopoly simulator for a tennis sim and check if that's true. That'll also teach him the value of code reuse, in particular the importance of writing easy to manage code.
At this point, just plop some documentation on top of him and let him hack away! Show interest, let him know your opinion on how it's looking, share your expertise if he asks for it.
(Depending on how visually-oriented he is, one thing that might also work is having him learn POV-Ray. Depending on how much *you* are into that sort of thing as well, and provided you haven't played with POV yourself, learning it together would probably be great fun)
DirectX, Java, Flash,.Net (though I reckon that's baseline in Vista), just to name a few -- there's plenty of dependencies in Windows as well, it's just that where libs are concerned, most windows programs either statically link those dependencies or package them with the program either way. In the F/OSS world you'd find, say, games using a system-wide libHavok for physics and libSmacker for FMVs, rather that each and every one of your games having those libs packaged.
Truth of the matter is that with a decent packaging and indexing system, the deb way to do things results in a much slimmer and saner way of doing things. Sure, perhaps a program that's nominally 20 megs will result in 200 megs' worth of downloads. But I'd rather have that than every program I download be 150 megs.
If/Else constructs exist to make it clear that you're alternating between two scenarios. The two code snippets you gave us both had the switching happening, except that the original version has that switching made patently clear by an explicit "else", whereas your proposed "improved" version makes it so that a cursory read through the code will miss the break and make the reader assume that normal flow will reach the second part of the code unconditionally.
I have to deal with the same. Standard ABAP coding style involves each function parameter being in a separate line, with functions often having 10-15 input and output parameters total, and our standard issue 15", 1024x768 laptop displays having very little screen real estate.
I've found that Ubuntu (and its parent Debian, for that matter) were a matter of "open synaptic, find the piece of software you want, double click" as well. Difference being that the.deb packaging system, together with a proper package manager (like apt-get or its synaptic front-end) will auto-resolve dependencies in a completely clean manner, with no user interaction other than answering to "to make program X work, you also need Y and Z. Proceed?". Sure, some programs require a more arcane install. Some windows programs do as well. The only thing I ever installed under Ubuntu that needed any extra steps was the nVidia drivers, I think.
My napkin math was simply meant to illustrate how "higher resolutions" hardly have an impact on video ram, so I decided to assume a worst-case scenario. Thanks for the explanation, though (that pretty much confirmed my suspicions on how it'd work).
A framebuffer for a 2560x1600, 32 bits per pixel display (the highest resolution you're likely to find on a monitor that's even remotely reasonable for home use) would take up around 15 MiB. make it triple buffering with 64 bpp (for what, exactly, I don't know. But it's a worst case scenario), and you're still only at 90 megs. Sure, 90 megs is a big chunk of a 512 MiB card, but I seriously doubt that it's going to have much impact on a 1 GiB card. It *is*, however, going to hurt -- a lot -- insofar as raw processing power is concerned. To fully use a 2 GiB card, you're either using massively large textures, or some never-before-seen technology, like fully loading map meshes into VRAM and using your card's geometry transform capabilities to do funky stuff with them. In those terms, I guess I'll buy one of these when Will Wright teams up with John Carmack.:)
It's a bit of a tangent, but man, I just realized I could use the whole public broadcast thing to squelch those guys who insist on driving around blasting their over-sized car stereos and annoying everybody around them!
So? My cat and my two dogs are quite happy together. The cat loves to torment the cocker spaniel,who growls ineffectually back at him, but the labrador and the cat just love to play and mock fight and stuff together.
I wonder if they raised the price due to the hype now that 3 has been announced? I noticed that D2 is in the top 10 of requested guides on GameFAQs now.
As far as I remember, it has never left to begin with. That's called a successful title, damn it!
Well, there is nothing in TFA that implies that *Bethesda* called morphine a stimulant. I can very well see its painkilling effects being described in game terms in such a way that a reviewer might later explain as a stimulant, though . Or maybe the pcworld guys are just klutzes, I reckon that's a pretty credible theory too.
Without going into a semantics discussion about how you manipulated to quote into something a fair bit different, you're even then only almost right.
You're only almost right, and not completely so, because you're missing a couple of fundamental issues. For one, something being scientific doesn't entail it being accurate, or even true. Galileo's heliocentric model was scientific in nature, as it was susceptible to experimentation, but was ultimately inaccurate when compared to the (unscientific) orbs model of the time, only to be superseded by Kepler's as the leading heliocentric model. Darwinism was inaccurate in some aspects, but was susceptible to refutation through observation, in proper scientific fashion. Those observations led to refinements, rather than refusal by the scientific community as a whole, indicating that it was a pretty good starting point.
Hell, in this sense, even ID can be seen as scientific, insofar as you make a clear statement that God created life as it is, and that living creatures are unchanging (roughly speaking, I'm sure you can phrase it in a much better way). This statement is perfectly reasonable as science, insofar as I can experiment, and determine that today's creatures are different from creatures from 1 million years ago, or that today's creatures are changing, and both observations would refute it in a perfectly scientific manner. The problems begin when ID "scholars" start "rectifying" and dodging and trying to evade contradictory observations.
Secondly, not actually having made observations doesn't mean a (presumably scientific) theory doesn't set the framework for those observations to be made. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both set forth results that were unverifiable with what was the state of the art at the time they were originally conceived. Even today, more than a century past the Annus Mirabilis, we keep coming up with novel observations regarding relativity. Yet the 4 articles Einstein published at the time were considered extraordinary (and most definitely scientific).
Slashdot Mirror
If his career involved spamming for porno sites, would he consindered a King Pr0n? Can we grill him?
Though there is the issue of conflict of interests, and I think there's some sort of exemption on testifying against your close family, under any other circumstances, since it's patently obvious she has some information, if she refuses to share it it's probably obstruction of justice.
That's because they should be capitalized: Spanish and English register fine. (I don't really give a damn, almost always spell language names non-capitalized, but since you brought it up, might as well clarify it for you).
Well, maybe we look strange to them, too. Ever think of that?
That's probably why he said they're "little people who look strange to us."
After that analysis, he'll more like have a PhD in Rick Rollero.
And it was true, I read it on slashdot!
There's your problem: you didn't assess truth based on Netcraft confirmation.
Would you expect adobe to offer support on the gazillions of pdf implementations out there? As horrendously strange it sounds to me to actually say this, if they made the silverlight spec in a sensible way, such that the Mono people managed to implement it without any stupid hacks (I'm not stating that's the case, as I honestly don't know), then it's good enough. In fact, I'd say it's better than making an "officially supported plug-in" without giving us the specs. If moonlight is (and remains) a solid implementation of silverlight, I'll take that as prima fascia evidence that MS, for once, played nicely with others.
Yeah. But that's wikipedia in a nutshell, isn't it. ^_^
Wikipedia might have accuracy issues, but this particular case is clearly "the bleeding edge in research has just given us the necessity to update this article".
Before you can get creative and derive actual pleasure from programming, you first need to be able to do more day-to-day stuff. "Hello world" is great to teach someone what the basic structure of things is like, but that sort of direction gets completely uninteresting within a couple of hours if you're not already academically inclined towards the subject at hand.
My suggestion is to teach him to Get Things Done. Like you said, people take computers to mean "point and click" today, so you first have to get rid of the mentality that what is superficially easy is, in fact, the easiest way to do things.
So start with the shell, show him how freaking powerful shell scripts are. Start with the basics, like "mv *.mp3 /to/some/place" rather than having to sort the files by type, select the mp3 files by hand, drag somewhere else. That shows him some basic pattern matching. Want to find out which of a dozen files contains a specific phrase? Show him the following snipet:
for $file in *; do echo === $file ===; grep file "phrase goes here";done; (check for errors, haven't used this stuff in a while and don't have a proper shell handy). Hooray for loops!
Once you have that sort of thing going, give him a "real" programming language. I'd say a scripting language is best. That'll steer him towards good algorithms over stupid "one less instruction" optimizations. Later on, if/when he starts showing some interest in the behind-the-scenes stuff, give him C.
At the point in time when you start showing him a "real" language, give him real problems. Does he like Monopoly? Everybody loves park avenue, or whatever the street immediately before "go" is called, because it's so freaking huge and expensive and stuff. But is it really *that* good? Show him how to use a random generator to simulate like ten thousand games with 500 rounds each, and aggregate which squares are the likeliest to land on. (IIRC, the best set is the orange, best odds*price value). Next step up, add some more complicated logics to the process. I heard that tennis essentially works as a high-precision instrument, where small differences in average odds to win a single point translates into very high odds of winning a match. So you can adapt your monopoly simulator for a tennis sim and check if that's true. That'll also teach him the value of code reuse, in particular the importance of writing easy to manage code.
At this point, just plop some documentation on top of him and let him hack away! Show interest, let him know your opinion on how it's looking, share your expertise if he asks for it.
(Depending on how visually-oriented he is, one thing that might also work is having him learn POV-Ray. Depending on how much *you* are into that sort of thing as well, and provided you haven't played with POV yourself, learning it together would probably be great fun)
We're programmers here, we start at the zero-th decade, you noob.
don't you mean 'pwnied'?
but the only way he'll win is if the supporting actor category during the fall and winter is surprisingly dead.
What even more surprisingly dead? (Sorry for the tasteless joke, I just had to)
DirectX, Java, Flash, .Net (though I reckon that's baseline in Vista), just to name a few -- there's plenty of dependencies in Windows as well, it's just that where libs are concerned, most windows programs either statically link those dependencies or package them with the program either way. In the F/OSS world you'd find, say, games using a system-wide libHavok for physics and libSmacker for FMVs, rather that each and every one of your games having those libs packaged.
Truth of the matter is that with a decent packaging and indexing system, the deb way to do things results in a much slimmer and saner way of doing things. Sure, perhaps a program that's nominally 20 megs will result in 200 megs' worth of downloads. But I'd rather have that than every program I download be 150 megs.
If/Else constructs exist to make it clear that you're alternating between two scenarios. The two code snippets you gave us both had the switching happening, except that the original version has that switching made patently clear by an explicit "else", whereas your proposed "improved" version makes it so that a cursory read through the code will miss the break and make the reader assume that normal flow will reach the second part of the code unconditionally.
I have to deal with the same. Standard ABAP coding style involves each function parameter being in a separate line, with functions often having 10-15 input and output parameters total, and our standard issue 15", 1024x768 laptop displays having very little screen real estate.
"Ridiculous" is not an argument. It's verbal diarrhea
Verbal diarrhea is perhaps a bit too graphical and verbose for me. I've always loved the word verborrhea to describe that same phenomenon. :)
I've found that Ubuntu (and its parent Debian, for that matter) were a matter of "open synaptic, find the piece of software you want, double click" as well. Difference being that the .deb packaging system, together with a proper package manager (like apt-get or its synaptic front-end) will auto-resolve dependencies in a completely clean manner, with no user interaction other than answering to "to make program X work, you also need Y and Z. Proceed?". Sure, some programs require a more arcane install. Some windows programs do as well. The only thing I ever installed under Ubuntu that needed any extra steps was the nVidia drivers, I think.
I hesitated on the no optical drive thing for a moment, then considered MacBook Air owners.
My napkin math was simply meant to illustrate how "higher resolutions" hardly have an impact on video ram, so I decided to assume a worst-case scenario. Thanks for the explanation, though (that pretty much confirmed my suspicions on how it'd work).
A framebuffer for a 2560x1600, 32 bits per pixel display (the highest resolution you're likely to find on a monitor that's even remotely reasonable for home use) would take up around 15 MiB. make it triple buffering with 64 bpp (for what, exactly, I don't know. But it's a worst case scenario), and you're still only at 90 megs. Sure, 90 megs is a big chunk of a 512 MiB card, but I seriously doubt that it's going to have much impact on a 1 GiB card. It *is*, however, going to hurt -- a lot -- insofar as raw processing power is concerned. To fully use a 2 GiB card, you're either using massively large textures, or some never-before-seen technology, like fully loading map meshes into VRAM and using your card's geometry transform capabilities to do funky stuff with them. In those terms, I guess I'll buy one of these when Will Wright teams up with John Carmack. :)
It's a bit of a tangent, but man, I just realized I could use the whole public broadcast thing to squelch those guys who insist on driving around blasting their over-sized car stereos and annoying everybody around them!
So? My cat and my two dogs are quite happy together. The cat loves to torment the cocker spaniel,who growls ineffectually back at him, but the labrador and the cat just love to play and mock fight and stuff together.
I wonder if they raised the price due to the hype now that 3 has been announced? I noticed that D2 is in the top 10 of requested guides on GameFAQs now.
As far as I remember, it has never left to begin with. That's called a successful title, damn it!
Well, there is nothing in TFA that implies that *Bethesda* called morphine a stimulant. I can very well see its painkilling effects being described in game terms in such a way that a reviewer might later explain as a stimulant, though . Or maybe the pcworld guys are just klutzes, I reckon that's a pretty credible theory too.
Without going into a semantics discussion about how you manipulated to quote into something a fair bit different, you're even then only almost right.
You're only almost right, and not completely so, because you're missing a couple of fundamental issues. For one, something being scientific doesn't entail it being accurate, or even true. Galileo's heliocentric model was scientific in nature, as it was susceptible to experimentation, but was ultimately inaccurate when compared to the (unscientific) orbs model of the time, only to be superseded by Kepler's as the leading heliocentric model. Darwinism was inaccurate in some aspects, but was susceptible to refutation through observation, in proper scientific fashion. Those observations led to refinements, rather than refusal by the scientific community as a whole, indicating that it was a pretty good starting point.
Hell, in this sense, even ID can be seen as scientific, insofar as you make a clear statement that God created life as it is, and that living creatures are unchanging (roughly speaking, I'm sure you can phrase it in a much better way). This statement is perfectly reasonable as science, insofar as I can experiment, and determine that today's creatures are different from creatures from 1 million years ago, or that today's creatures are changing, and both observations would refute it in a perfectly scientific manner. The problems begin when ID "scholars" start "rectifying" and dodging and trying to evade contradictory observations.
Secondly, not actually having made observations doesn't mean a (presumably scientific) theory doesn't set the framework for those observations to be made. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both set forth results that were unverifiable with what was the state of the art at the time they were originally conceived. Even today, more than a century past the Annus Mirabilis, we keep coming up with novel observations regarding relativity. Yet the 4 articles Einstein published at the time were considered extraordinary (and most definitely scientific).