In a capitalist system there are no barriers between markets, there's no such thing as a "market segment". Segments are created artificially to line companies' pockets.
Oh just shut up. Capitalism is a very simple concept. People "raise capital" and then "use their capital to take on risks to their advantage". There is no talk of "barriers between markets" or any other such nonsense. If you save up money, and take a mathematically sound bet with it, you are a capitalist. Indeed, the most successful capitalists are the ones who have found natural or unnatural monopolies, and invested in them heavily.
There is nothing "artificial" about an agent acting rationally to maximize its profits.
Capitalism is about the financing of business. Go back to school.
The whole point of climatology is to find the geological (as in, the "large scale, long term") roots of our climate's behavior. It only takes some chemistry to figure out that if a lot of CO2 is pumped up into the atmosphere, temperatures are going to rise. But there could be moderating or accelerating effects, such as the plant life that covers a significant fraction of the surface.
Climatology is approached in a variety of ways. Paleoclimatology seeks to reconstruct past climates by examining records such as ice cores and tree rings (dendroclimatology). Paleotempestology uses these same records to help determine hurricane frequency over millennia. The study of contemporary climates incorporates meteorological data accumulated over many years, such as records of rainfall, temperature and atmospheric composition. Knowledge of the atmosphere and its dynamics is also embodied in models, either statistical or mathematical, which help by integrating different observations and testing how they fit together. Modeling is used for understanding past, present and potential future climates. Historical climatology is the study of climate as related to human history and thus focuses only on the last few thousand years. Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. Climate is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as differential equations. These equations are coupled and nonlinear, so that approximate solutions are obtained by using numerical methods to create global climate models. Climate is sometimes modeled as a stochastic process but this is generally accepted as an approximation to processes that are otherwise too complicated to analyze.
If you have root access (in a normal kernel/userspace combo), you can make calls to that chip. That makes it illegal to use. Now, the FCC isn't going to come down on your typical iPhone hacker. But if they start messing around with the radio, the FCC will have a reason to. And the hacker will face big fines.
This is entirely false. If it were true, then there is no way GSM providers would ever allow an unlocked device on their network. After all, there's no way they could ever be certain about such a device. And the only thing preventing a GSM baseband is patents.
You present a false dichotomy. As it happens, the FCC requires that any radio device licensed for consumer use not be programmable in general. "Unlocked devices" don't give you root access (or whatever their equivalent is). They just let you switch networks.
You can be quite sure that you will face serious fines if you use an unlicensed radio device.
The fact that corporations require a charter to get certain tax status is irrelevant to this discussion. Americans have the constitutional right to assemble and organize. You don't need a charter to start a business. You don't need a charter in order to collect capital from your friends.
If you want to make something more formal, and still organized, you can form a "trust company", which names its stakeholders as beneficiaries. No need to incorporate. No special tax status (it's a "pass through" organization). But the beneficiaries' assets are protected.
i wonder if this is actually the case. Do people who drive more cause more traffic on their way to work? Seems that granny's Sunday drive causes just as much traffic as a cab driver... 1 car.
Errr, and how long is granny on the road? How long is the cab driver on the road? How many cars are they each going to affect?
Don't the operators pay for the bandwidth whether it's not used at all or if it's pegged?
Well, if there really is a trust whose purpose is to provide for the disposal of a product, it wouldn't matter if the manufacturer went bankrupt. The trust would pay for disposal.
Fountain pens are among the easiest writing instruments to use. If your hands hurt, you're doing it wrong. The nib should glide on the page, similar in feel to a "gel" pen.
This is exactly how stateful programming works in Haskell. You create a monadic type of states S (that is, they each take one argument). For any given type A, you implicitly create the pair (S, A). (Really, it's the "pair" S A) Side effects are literally handled by "moving" the scope of computation left and right, with return and bind respectively.
But conceptually sometimes I like to think of it as secretly passing "world" around from function to function because conceptually it makes it simpler to understand.
This is the canonical interpretation. That, or its dual -- that a monad's bind function injects a value into the "right side" context, and that return "returns" a value from the right-side context to a context where you can modify the monadic value constructor (say, mapping it to another one). Both of these are equivalent.
Heh, to be honest I'm mostly in the same boat as you - how can Haskell do side-effect stuff whilst still being purely functional. And what on earth is a Monad!?
Monads are tricky to explain, kind of. I am going the abstract mathematical route, based on topology. Like most people, there are probably some things you will do only while you are in your home. And there are some things that you will only do outside of your home. Now, as a matter of fact, you wake up in your home. So if you want to do things outside of your home, you need to do something very specific: you need to leave your home. And if you have left your home, but want to do something in your home, you need to do something very specific: you need to enter your home.
More generally, a monad takes a set of objects, and constructs a direct sum of types. The "monadic" or "container" types, on the left, and the inner type on the right. So for example, if we define:
> data RightType = Red | Blue | Green > data LeftType right_type = One right_type | Two right_type
the type LeftType RightType has values One Red, One Blue, One Green, Two Red, Two Blue, Two Green. That is, it is isomorphic (equivalent) to the type (Left, Right) where
> type Right = RightType > data Left = One | Two
Now, in parallel with the in the home/outside of the home example, if you want to do computations on the Right values of a LeftType RightType value, you need to "go to the right", using bind (>>=). Now, as it happens, the Haskell Monad typeclass implementation of bind makes it so any computation "on the right" returns a Monad instance. That is to say, you're automatically sent home after going to work. Still, if you want to do it by hand, you can use return. Indeed, every monad has an equivalent to these two functions, and it is rather the most important part. Because of these two functions, every monad is also a state machine (so stateful programming is straight forward).
Plain old function application and definition is "monadic", since variables are bound in one context from another context (via pattern matching), and the "return value" is "returned" to the calling context. With these two insights, we can see why monads are sufficient to keep Haskell computations pure: they always occur on the right side of the IO value constructor. Impure computations occur "in" the IO data constructor (really, in the compiler and runtime). The bind function injects values taken from the environment into functions for use in pure computations.
There is some pretty deep mathematics that connects this notion of a Monad to things like "queries" and "actions". In particular, every monad also has a "join" function defined (and can be defined in terms of return and bind). Every monad has an "eval" function that can be defined in terms of return and bind. The point of bringing these up is to mention that a monad implicitly defines semantics to evaluate the "syntax" (or shape) of a value. This also relates to pattern matching as I explained above. (The pattern matching algorithm acts to strip away unnecessary data constructors and bind variables) More generally, Monads represent unfoldings and refoldings of data.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound patronizing with those quotes. I meant to quote both "problem space" and "infinite". As you know, what this means varies by context, and we haven't picked a specific one. But still, induction and co-recursion are equivalent. In fact, since induction and co-induction are duals, they're basically equivalent too (as theories/languages anyway). Some of these are naturally used to model infinite structures, on demand.
As a mathematician, I would have to disagree... computer program architecture is clearly in the domain of computer science, and properties of program architectures can be modeled algebraically. Indeed, this is why modern academic researchers work with data types that are initial algebras.
Moreover, every computer program and function is a monad (or, equivalently, comonad). People make a living from ignoring that trivial fact and re-inventing ways to make monadic structure apparent, via OO programming.
I take 2-3 times as long to complete my code as that sloppy programmer but I almost never have a bug filed against my code, and when I do it is quick and easy to fix, so in the end I get more done in the same period of time.
Pick up the pace, man. I take a third as long as the sloppy coders in my team, and in three years at my last place, I had one bug filed against my code (and really, it was an unclear spec I took at face value). This stuff is trivially easy.
Slashdot Mirror
In a capitalist system there are no barriers between markets, there's no such thing as a "market segment". Segments are created artificially to line companies' pockets.
Oh just shut up. Capitalism is a very simple concept. People "raise capital" and then "use their capital to take on risks to their advantage". There is no talk of "barriers between markets" or any other such nonsense. If you save up money, and take a mathematically sound bet with it, you are a capitalist. Indeed, the most successful capitalists are the ones who have found natural or unnatural monopolies, and invested in them heavily.
There is nothing "artificial" about an agent acting rationally to maximize its profits.
Capitalism is about the financing of business. Go back to school.
A screen reader version of a web page costs as much to maintain as a printer-friendly version.
In Soviet Russia, cyber war limits talks?
Climatologists are geologists.
The whole point of climatology is to find the geological (as in, the "large scale, long term") roots of our climate's behavior. It only takes some chemistry to figure out that if a lot of CO2 is pumped up into the atmosphere, temperatures are going to rise. But there could be moderating or accelerating effects, such as the plant life that covers a significant fraction of the surface.
Climatologists are solving differential equations, with geological-scale processes as the basis for their calculations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra)
If you have root access (in a normal kernel/userspace combo), you can make calls to that chip. That makes it illegal to use. Now, the FCC isn't going to come down on your typical iPhone hacker. But if they start messing around with the radio, the FCC will have a reason to. And the hacker will face big fines.
This is entirely false. If it were true, then there is no way GSM providers would ever allow an unlocked device on their network. After all, there's no way they could ever be certain about such a device. And the only thing preventing a GSM baseband is patents.
You present a false dichotomy. As it happens, the FCC requires that any radio device licensed for consumer use not be programmable in general. "Unlocked devices" don't give you root access (or whatever their equivalent is). They just let you switch networks.
You can be quite sure that you will face serious fines if you use an unlicensed radio device.
Apache doesn't use the GPL... Apache uses the Apache license, which is much closer to the MIT license than anything else.
When did the subject change to the Watchmen?
The fact that corporations require a charter to get certain tax status is irrelevant to this discussion. Americans have the constitutional right to assemble and organize. You don't need a charter to start a business. You don't need a charter in order to collect capital from your friends.
If you want to make something more formal, and still organized, you can form a "trust company", which names its stakeholders as beneficiaries. No need to incorporate. No special tax status (it's a "pass through" organization). But the beneficiaries' assets are protected.
I don't need you to correct my network configuration. As it happens, you are wrong. ACKs for 400KB/s kill my upstream bandwidth.
i wonder if this is actually the case. Do people who drive more cause more traffic on their way to work? Seems that granny's Sunday drive causes just as much traffic as a cab driver... 1 car.
Errr, and how long is granny on the road? How long is the cab driver on the road? How many cars are they each going to affect?
Don't the operators pay for the bandwidth whether it's not used at all or if it's pegged?
In short, no.
What happens when the company files bankruptcy?
Well, if there really is a trust whose purpose is to provide for the disposal of a product, it wouldn't matter if the manufacturer went bankrupt. The trust would pay for disposal.
And yarr, I'll be damned if being a pirate isn't better than all the other choices. I'll be damned anyway.
It won't. "Nerds" are pathologically cheap.
Fountain pens are among the easiest writing instruments to use. If your hands hurt, you're doing it wrong. The nib should glide on the page, similar in feel to a "gel" pen.
This is exactly how stateful programming works in Haskell. You create a monadic type of states S (that is, they each take one argument). For any given type A, you implicitly create the pair (S, A). (Really, it's the "pair" S A) Side effects are literally handled by "moving" the scope of computation left and right, with return and bind respectively.
But conceptually sometimes I like to think of it as secretly passing "world" around from function to function because conceptually it makes it simpler to understand.
This is the canonical interpretation. That, or its dual -- that a monad's bind function injects a value into the "right side" context, and that return "returns" a value from the right-side context to a context where you can modify the monadic value constructor (say, mapping it to another one). Both of these are equivalent.
Heh, to be honest I'm mostly in the same boat as you - how can Haskell do side-effect stuff whilst still being purely functional. And what on earth is a Monad!?
Monads are tricky to explain, kind of. I am going the abstract mathematical route, based on topology. Like most people, there are probably some things you will do only while you are in your home. And there are some things that you will only do outside of your home. Now, as a matter of fact, you wake up in your home. So if you want to do things outside of your home, you need to do something very specific: you need to leave your home. And if you have left your home, but want to do something in your home, you need to do something very specific: you need to enter your home.
More generally, a monad takes a set of objects, and constructs a direct sum of types. The "monadic" or "container" types, on the left, and the inner type on the right. So for example, if we define:
> data RightType = Red | Blue | Green
> data LeftType right_type = One right_type | Two right_type
the type LeftType RightType has values One Red, One Blue, One Green, Two Red, Two Blue, Two Green. That is, it is isomorphic (equivalent) to the type (Left, Right) where
> type Right = RightType
> data Left = One | Two
Now, in parallel with the in the home/outside of the home example, if you want to do computations on the Right values of a LeftType RightType value, you need to "go to the right", using bind (>>=). Now, as it happens, the Haskell Monad typeclass implementation of bind makes it so any computation "on the right" returns a Monad instance. That is to say, you're automatically sent home after going to work. Still, if you want to do it by hand, you can use return. Indeed, every monad has an equivalent to these two functions, and it is rather the most important part. Because of these two functions, every monad is also a state machine (so stateful programming is straight forward).
Plain old function application and definition is "monadic", since variables are bound in one context from another context (via pattern matching), and the "return value" is "returned" to the calling context. With these two insights, we can see why monads are sufficient to keep Haskell computations pure: they always occur on the right side of the IO value constructor. Impure computations occur "in" the IO data constructor (really, in the compiler and runtime). The bind function injects values taken from the environment into functions for use in pure computations.
There is some pretty deep mathematics that connects this notion of a Monad to things like "queries" and "actions". In particular, every monad also has a "join" function defined (and can be defined in terms of return and bind). Every monad has an "eval" function that can be defined in terms of return and bind. The point of bringing these up is to mention that a monad implicitly defines semantics to evaluate the "syntax" (or shape) of a value. This also relates to pattern matching as I explained above. (The pattern matching algorithm acts to strip away unnecessary data constructors and bind variables) More generally, Monads represent unfoldings and refoldings of data.
Who's this Drake Sagan guy? He sounds important.
Did you notice that approximately 40% of workdays are immediately before or after a weekend?
Maybe I'll get to read a whoosh soon.
He didn't say that at all. You put words in his mouth.
You fail at debating.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound patronizing with those quotes. I meant to quote both "problem space" and "infinite". As you know, what this means varies by context, and we haven't picked a specific one. But still, induction and co-recursion are equivalent. In fact, since induction and co-induction are duals, they're basically equivalent too (as theories/languages anyway). Some of these are naturally used to model infinite structures, on demand.
I use algebraic data types every day. It doesn't matter if the "problem space" is infinite. Induction and co-recursion are equivalent.
Yes, which is why any sane project manager will put that shit off so his developers can develop that super neato unreasonable thingie he wants done.
As a mathematician, I would have to disagree... computer program architecture is clearly in the domain of computer science, and properties of program architectures can be modeled algebraically. Indeed, this is why modern academic researchers work with data types that are initial algebras.
Moreover, every computer program and function is a monad (or, equivalently, comonad). People make a living from ignoring that trivial fact and re-inventing ways to make monadic structure apparent, via OO programming.
I take 2-3 times as long to complete my code as that sloppy programmer but I almost never have a bug filed against my code, and when I do it is quick and easy to fix, so in the end I get more done in the same period of time.
Pick up the pace, man. I take a third as long as the sloppy coders in my team, and in three years at my last place, I had one bug filed against my code (and really, it was an unclear spec I took at face value). This stuff is trivially easy.