Yeah, but think: The Swiss get a referendum on the price of books. We don't even get one on major issues like going to war, trillion dollar gifts to bankers instead of jailing them or even stuff like the TSA.
I could be wrong but isn't the definition of one second based on some atomic phenomenon? (All the sloshing water and wind makes the revolution of the planet a non-starter...)
How can a new method be more accurate than the method we use to define time?
I just watched the "tau" video and... I actually agree with it. Making it the ratio of diameter/circumference instead of radius/circumference was a dumb move.
While we're at it can we swap the + and - on our electronic circuits?
....won't happen for at least a few generations after the AI is developed, since people are much to attached to driving cars.
Are you kidding? If this happens it will be adopted unbelievably fast.
Given the choice of either driving or surfing the web the amount of 'drivers' will be about the same as the number of people who still get up from the sofa to switch TV channels because they don't like remote controls.
(Assuming this is used on highways - I think it will be a loooong time before cars are allowed to drive around freely where pedestrians are present)
Yep. This analogy is evil. Clocks always go forwards.
Plus, who decided that 20 to midnight is zero threat? This is guaranteed to make it sound like time is running out. Why not start at 0:00 (in which case we'd be at around 11am - much less scary)?
All in all,this is designed to scare people, nothing less.
...it might possibly be violating the second law of thermo. Turning heat into light at high efficiency should not be sustainable. energy in the form of light has more less entropy than energy in the form of heat.
By that reasoning we shouldn't be able to turn any collection of atoms into useful objects using energy. Looking around me... I'm not sure it's the case.
If you're using exceptions at a 'global' level you're probably doing it wrong. Not as wrong as a BASIC programmer who uses "ON ERROR RESUME", but really there's not much you can do at that level.
Exceptions should be much more localized, eg. for my 'file' example:
try {
magic_ptr p = readTheFile(); } catch (std::bad_alloc&) {
debug() "Not enough memory to read the file"; } catch (...) {
debug() "The file failed to load"; }
With C++ you can define a smart pointer type, use STL containers and strings and everything pretty much manages itself. With C you simply can't do that.
Yes you can. It won't be as efficient or pretty, but a lot of the grunt work can be hidden with macros.
If you're going to go down that road I have to ask why you're programming In C instead of assembly language - assembly language can do *everything*, right?
When you have a nice clear answer, edit it to replace 'C' and 'assembly language' with 'C++' and 'C' and you'll have my argument for why I use C++ instead of C.
My main problem with C++ is it's huge, and because it's full of 'gotchas' can take a while to learn to program in a way that avoids all the problems.
I agree.
And then once you've figured it out, you need to work on someone else's code, who has a completely different way to avoid all the problems, which you then have to spend more time learning. And that is assuming you are working with other people who are competent. If they aren't, then you have a whole other mess of issues.
PS: C and C++ are completely different languages, writing "C/C++" only shows your ignorance.
You were making some interesting points then you dropped the ball with this comment. I've been programming C and C++ longer than many of the slashdot crowd have been alive. C++ is a superset of C. I admit I never understood the "C/C++" moniker since I interpret "C++" as C with OO extensions but evidently people like to treat them as two separate entities.
It may be a superset from a syntactic point of view but the mindset is totally different. For proof just look at how many C programmers still seem to have an irrational hatred of all things C++ (eg. Linus Torvalds).
Slashdot Mirror
Buying junk food is legal. Driving without insurance isn't.
That's just what we need, uninsured drivers driving around in trucks laden with gasoline in home-welded containers.
What could possibly go wrong...?
Yeah, but think: The Swiss get a referendum on the price of books. We don't even get one on major issues like going to war, trillion dollar gifts to bankers instead of jailing them or even stuff like the TSA.
I could be wrong but isn't the definition of one second based on some atomic phenomenon? (All the sloshing water and wind makes the revolution of the planet a non-starter...)
How can a new method be more accurate than the method we use to define time?
I just watched the "tau" video and ... I actually agree with it. Making it the ratio of diameter/circumference instead of radius/circumference was a dumb move.
While we're at it can we swap the + and - on our electronic circuits?
the idea of GOD is not scientifically ridiculous.
The Christian God as described in The Bible is 100% ridiculous. Try reading it sometime.
Hell even Einstein believed in it.
No he didn't. He used the word "God" a lot but he really meant "Nature".
The quote should really be: 'Nature does not play dice'.
The whole "Intelligent Design" thing is just Christianity in disguise. Please don't pretend it's anything else.
Also for being enough of a dumbass to try and convert people in a place which mostly hires scientists. Not the brightest bulb on the tree, methinks.
It sounds like he was finally fired for not being able to take a hint after being demoted for the above activities.
Definitely not the sort of person you want to spending tax dollars on at NASA.
....won't happen for at least a few generations after the AI is developed, since people are much to attached to driving cars.
Are you kidding? If this happens it will be adopted unbelievably fast.
Given the choice of either driving or surfing the web the amount of 'drivers' will be about the same as the number of people who still get up from the sofa to switch TV channels because they don't like remote controls.
(Assuming this is used on highways - I think it will be a loooong time before cars are allowed to drive around freely where pedestrians are present)
Should have used LED grow lamps - less heat!
Yep. This analogy is evil. Clocks always go forwards.
Plus, who decided that 20 to midnight is zero threat? This is guaranteed to make it sound like time is running out. Why not start at 0:00 (in which case we'd be at around 11am - much less scary)?
All in all ,this is designed to scare people, nothing less.
Need login to read an article? Really??
It's basically the averagest of all possible governments.
No it isn't, because people vote based on hair and personality rather than policies. The result is a government which is far worse than 'average'.
Can somebody explain to me what they mean by "not smart enough"?
It's very simple. People are more likely to vote for the candidate with the best hair than the candidate with the best policies.
It's easy to prove mathematically: Count the number of bald presidents and compare it with the statistical likelihood of a man being bald...
...it might possibly be violating the second law of thermo. Turning heat into light at high efficiency should not be sustainable. energy in the form of light has more less entropy than energy in the form of heat.
By that reasoning we shouldn't be able to turn any collection of atoms into useful objects using energy. Looking around me ... I'm not sure it's the case.
So... take out the "U.S." and we're good to go.
Which leads to the next question: What do those same employers do if you say "I'm not on Facebook"?
If you're using exceptions at a 'global' level you're probably doing it wrong. Not as wrong as a BASIC programmer who uses "ON ERROR RESUME", but really there's not much you can do at that level.
Exceptions should be much more localized, eg. for my 'file' example:
try {
magic_ptr p = readTheFile();
}
catch (std::bad_alloc&) {
debug() "Not enough memory to read the file";
}
catch (...) {
debug() "The file failed to load";
}
Yes, I realize that.
How does longjmp() free up all the little bits of memory you allocated in your file reader?
With C++ you can define a smart pointer type, use STL containers and strings and everything pretty much manages itself. With C you simply can't do that.
Yes you can. It won't be as efficient or pretty, but a lot of the grunt work can be hidden with macros.
If you're going to go down that road I have to ask why you're programming In C instead of assembly language - assembly language can do *everything*, right?
When you have a nice clear answer, edit it to replace 'C' and 'assembly language' with 'C++' and 'C' and you'll have my argument for why I use C++ instead of C.
LOL!
Yeah, I really meant RAII...
My main problem with C++ is it's huge, and because it's full of 'gotchas' can take a while to learn to program in a way that avoids all the problems.
I agree.
And then once you've figured it out, you need to work on someone else's code, who has a completely different way to avoid all the problems, which you then have to spend more time learning. And that is assuming you are working with other people who are competent. If they aren't, then you have a whole other mess of issues.
That's true of any programming language.
You were making some interesting points then you dropped the ball with this comment. I've been programming C and C++ longer than many of the slashdot crowd have been alive. C++ is a superset of C. I admit I never understood the "C/C++" moniker since I interpret "C++" as C with OO extensions but evidently people like to treat them as two separate entities.
It may be a superset from a syntactic point of view but the mindset is totally different. For proof just look at how many C programmers still seem to have an irrational hatred of all things C++ (eg. Linus Torvalds).