working 60 hour weeks writing code and everything else that comes up on a software project, you think that when i left that job I had personal code projects at home I'd been writing on?
Yeah. Would you chose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time ? I wouldn't.
Once I get a (well paid) job in management, maybe then I'll start coding in my spare time. If I have any.
Oh, yeah, and make sure the result ends up in the same initial string variable (or string buffer object, if you're working in a language with immutable strings) without using any extra storage space beyond a single character.
... that no single extra character is necessary.
My solution still needs three pointers/indexes, though.
Yeah, noone has ever used a contact lens fluid container with a liquid explosive and a casio watch to set off a bomb on an airplane. Nor did they assemble it in the airplane lavatory. That is just crazy talk. It is clearly impossible.
Note that this plot did not involve the mixing of "harmless" substances to form an explosive - the had frickin' nitroglycerin in that lens fluid container.
It's also hard to be a leading superpower when our leadership is so incompetent,
Why, the Soviets managed to hold on to their superpower status for a couple of decades.
I guess I must be hallucinating then with all the buses and diesels I see belching black, foul-smelling smoke...
No, you're just living in a country that isn't past the stone-age of diesel technology yet. Don't worry, they'll catch up with the civilized world eventually, even if it takes a while.
That makes no sense. The problem with hydrogen as an energy carrier is that you have to first put the energy into it to separate it from H2O. By creating energy from CO2 and H2O suffers from the same problem.
Which I wasn't going to contest. My point was that handling anything that has carbon in it is much, much easier than hydrogen, which has some fairly nasty properties like diffusing through almost anything.
A practical energy carrier should be at least as convenient as natural gas. Bonus points are awarded for being liquid.
Pretty harmless and pretty efficient way of transporting hydrogen through a large system.
Sugar, like most other forms of easily accessible energy, is dangerous stuff. It only seems harmless since complex mechanisms have evolved to deal with it. Sugar is hydrophilic and will kill microbes that come in contact with it by dehydrating them. It will also destroy cells that contain too much of by osmosis. Your body needs to keep the level of sugar in the bloodstream within very tight limits, or bad things will happen.
Hydrogen will be the energy source that should suffice for a couple of centuries once we figure out how to extract energy from artificial fusion. (Note that this might include "Never", but I hope that's not the case).
Before that, hydrogen is a cumbersome, impractical, lossy way to transport energy. We might as well look into synthesizing hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O instead of just splitting water into H2 and O2. Any hydrocarbon is less troublesome to handle than hydrogen. If we make the chains long enough, we might even end up with stuff that's pretty much identical to oil-based gasoline.
But they only work well under certain conditions, and fail when you want to get out of the nested loops while you're right in the middle of them.
Granted, that's about the only place where I would even consider using a goto. Since your functions should fit on the screen, it's quite clear where the goto jumps to and under which condition.
After my education, I have no idea how someone would begin writing one.
A good point to start would be collecting and reading all kinds of datasheets, especially if you're doing something that hardware oriented. You'll need to know how the CPU and peripherals you want to emulate work on a hardware level.
That goes for many software projects. Once you've read and digested all the information you need, only then you can even think about writing any code. Ideally, you should start with diagrams and pseudocode so you don't get lost while writing the actual code.
The settling of Scandinavia might have begun 10,000 years ago, but it was not static, since several waves of people kept moving in from the east, displacing and/or mixing with whomever lived there already.
You sound like my vegan friends who spout witty remarks like "Cow's milk is for baby cows." (to which I reply "Soy milk is for baby soys.")
I didn't intend to. I'm referring to the fact that long-time dependence on milk (or seeking to drink milk when able to digest other food) will place an unnecessary burden on the females of the species, since making milk is quite resource- and energy-intensive for the female. And females of most species usually have more evolutionarily important things to do than to supply milk to any individual that could eat real food - like having offspring and providing them with with milk while they need it.
The article seems to be saying that this mechanism arose directly in response to domesticating animals, not before.
I was not referring to the loss of lactose intolerance in humans, but to the feature of mammals that usually makes them lactose-tolerant while nursing and lactose-intolerant later in life. Mammals would have not been as successful if they didn't have this mechanism.
LD occurred in 38.5% of children in the 3-5 yearage group,
The article you quoted does not mention babies. If anything, it mentions toddlers. By the age 3, kids should have started to eat solids (and be able to walk, and talk). In fact, it's not unusual for them to stop nursing before they're two years old.
The fairest skinned Europeans in Scandinavia have traditionally eaten plenty of fish, including whale muktuk that contains plenty of vitamin C.
Define "traditionally". Scandinavia (as well as most of northern Europe) was settled by people moving in from the east not too long ago (in an evolutionary scale - 2-4 millenia). Also, the complexion thing has to do with vitamin D (produced in the skin if sunlight is present), not C (which has nothing to do with sunlight).
Unfortified milk does not contain much vitamin D.
No, but it contains lactose, which can take over the function of vitamin D in calcium resorption.
However, Inuits live even further north than Mongolians and Europeans, but do not have lactose tolerance.
Which fits perfectly, since their usual diet contains many items that are very good sources of vitamin D, such as fish. Since they also don't depend on sunlight for vitamin D, they were able to keep a much darker complexion than most other people living that far north.
On the other hand, Inuits and Mongolians have evolved enzymes to make their own vitamin C, and do not require vegetables for nutrition.
Vitamin C can also come from animal sources. It's just that you won't find a lot of it in muscle.
Does lactose tolerance reflect a lack of civilized sources of food?
No, it can reflect a number of things.
As recently as a thousand years ago, Northern Europeans were still a bunch of cannibals running around with stone axes, and drank milk from animals.
Make that 1500 years and maybe, just maybe, you might be right.
In East Asia, Mongolians are lactose-tolerant, but they were less civilized than other countries in the region which acquired agriculture thousands of years ago.
Ah, an interesting point. What do Mongolians and Northern Europeans have in common ? They live farther up north than most other people. What does this have to do with lactose tolerance ? That's a fairly interesting detail. Lactose can function the same way that vitamin D does as far as helping with calcium resorption goes. Vitamin D is usually produced in the skin, if there's enough sunlight. Not resorbing enough calcium is usually a bad thing. So if there is less sunlight, the part of the population that is lactose tolerant gets the benefit of better calcium resorption, in addition to being able to use another food source.
I guess you're talking about the one species where the males keep lots of childlike mannerisms even after reaching physical maturity, like tantrums, the obsession with toys and sources of milk, and crawling, toddling and babbling (after consuming too much alcohol). Touché.
The leading cause of death for infants less than 100 years ago in developed nations (and STILL the leading killer today in underdeveloped countries) was diarrhea. How do you get diarrhea? Hmm, lactose intolerance causes - guess? Diarrhea. Baby can't drink breast milk, so you give it something else - something more likely to be contaminated with diarrhea causing viruses. Net result? More diarrhea.
Erm. You're confusing general lactose intolerance with adult lactose intolerance.
General lactose intolerance is a bad thing. Any mammal that doesn't tolerate lactose while still nursing is in very deep doodoo. It's a mutation that'll basically kick you out of the gene pool immediately.
Adult lactose intolerance is, for most mammals, a normal thing (which is why you shouldn't give milk to cats/hedgehogs/etc). Adult mammals aren't supposed to seek out sources of milk, for obvious reasons, which is why the production of lactase usually stops once the mammal is old enough to eat real food. Of course, this mechanism evolved loooong before humans got the idea of domesticating goats/sheep/cattle and use the milk of a completely different species to supplement their diet. This made a mechanism that would have been faulty (adult mammal that tolerates lactose) suddenly become a genetic advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask questions about it. They usually show very quickly if you understand the code. Then there are four possibilities:
1. The code isn't yours and you don't understand it. Bad. You're out.
2. The code is yours and you don't understand it. Also bad. Also out.
3. The code is yours and you understand it. Good.
4. The code isn't yours, and you understand it. Outstanding.
Yeah. Would you chose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time ? I wouldn't.
Once I get a (well paid) job in management, maybe then I'll start coding in my spare time. If I have any.
My solution still needs three pointers/indexes, though.
Aww. Don't force the poor C programmers to do bit-twiddling that should be done in assembly for any kind of efficiency.
The OP was referring to reversing the _words_ in a string, not the _characters_ in a string. Quite a different beast.
Note that this plot did not involve the mixing of "harmless" substances to form an explosive - the had frickin' nitroglycerin in that lens fluid container.
It's also hard to be a leading superpower when our leadership is so incompetent, Why, the Soviets managed to hold on to their superpower status for a couple of decades.
Simple: "This does get the person who wrote it fired if it ever turns up in a real project."
World of Warcraft
City of Heroes
Star Wars Galaxies
Earth and Beyond (defunct) - Spaceship combat
Auto Assault
etc.
No, you're just living in a country that isn't past the stone-age of diesel technology yet. Don't worry, they'll catch up with the civilized world eventually, even if it takes a while.
If it were, it wouldn't have enough gravity to keep itself together.
Earth is mostly iron, oxygen and silicon.
Particulate filters already exist and work extremely well. "Dirty diesel" is a thing of the past.
Which I wasn't going to contest. My point was that handling anything that has carbon in it is much, much easier than hydrogen, which has some fairly nasty properties like diffusing through almost anything.
A practical energy carrier should be at least as convenient as natural gas. Bonus points are awarded for being liquid.
Sugar, like most other forms of easily accessible energy, is dangerous stuff. It only seems harmless since complex mechanisms have evolved to deal with it. Sugar is hydrophilic and will kill microbes that come in contact with it by dehydrating them. It will also destroy cells that contain too much of by osmosis. Your body needs to keep the level of sugar in the bloodstream within very tight limits, or bad things will happen.
(Yeah, I know. Completely offtopic.)
Before that, hydrogen is a cumbersome, impractical, lossy way to transport energy. We might as well look into synthesizing hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O instead of just splitting water into H2 and O2. Any hydrocarbon is less troublesome to handle than hydrogen. If we make the chains long enough, we might even end up with stuff that's pretty much identical to oil-based gasoline.
But they only work well under certain conditions, and fail when you want to get out of the nested loops while you're right in the middle of them.
Granted, that's about the only place where I would even consider using a goto. Since your functions should fit on the screen, it's quite clear where the goto jumps to and under which condition.
A good point to start would be collecting and reading all kinds of datasheets, especially if you're doing something that hardware oriented. You'll need to know how the CPU and peripherals you want to emulate work on a hardware level.
That goes for many software projects. Once you've read and digested all the information you need, only then you can even think about writing any code. Ideally, you should start with diagrams and pseudocode so you don't get lost while writing the actual code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
The settling of Scandinavia might have begun 10,000 years ago, but it was not static, since several waves of people kept moving in from the east, displacing and/or mixing with whomever lived there already.
I didn't intend to. I'm referring to the fact that long-time dependence on milk (or seeking to drink milk when able to digest other food) will place an unnecessary burden on the females of the species, since making milk is quite resource- and energy-intensive for the female. And females of most species usually have more evolutionarily important things to do than to supply milk to any individual that could eat real food - like having offspring and providing them with with milk while they need it.
The article seems to be saying that this mechanism arose directly in response to domesticating animals, not before.
I was not referring to the loss of lactose intolerance in humans, but to the feature of mammals that usually makes them lactose-tolerant while nursing and lactose-intolerant later in life. Mammals would have not been as successful if they didn't have this mechanism.
The article you quoted does not mention babies. If anything, it mentions toddlers. By the age 3, kids should have started to eat solids (and be able to walk, and talk). In fact, it's not unusual for them to stop nursing before they're two years old.
The fairest skinned Europeans in Scandinavia have traditionally eaten plenty of fish, including whale muktuk that contains plenty of vitamin C. Define "traditionally". Scandinavia (as well as most of northern Europe) was settled by people moving in from the east not too long ago (in an evolutionary scale - 2-4 millenia). Also, the complexion thing has to do with vitamin D (produced in the skin if sunlight is present), not C (which has nothing to do with sunlight). Unfortified milk does not contain much vitamin D. No, but it contains lactose, which can take over the function of vitamin D in calcium resorption.
Which fits perfectly, since their usual diet contains many items that are very good sources of vitamin D, such as fish. Since they also don't depend on sunlight for vitamin D, they were able to keep a much darker complexion than most other people living that far north.
On the other hand, Inuits and Mongolians have evolved enzymes to make their own vitamin C, and do not require vegetables for nutrition.
Vitamin C can also come from animal sources. It's just that you won't find a lot of it in muscle.
No, it can reflect a number of things.
As recently as a thousand years ago, Northern Europeans were still a bunch of cannibals running around with stone axes, and drank milk from animals.
Make that 1500 years and maybe, just maybe, you might be right.
In East Asia, Mongolians are lactose-tolerant, but they were less civilized than other countries in the region which acquired agriculture thousands of years ago.
Ah, an interesting point. What do Mongolians and Northern Europeans have in common ? They live farther up north than most other people. What does this have to do with lactose tolerance ? That's a fairly interesting detail. Lactose can function the same way that vitamin D does as far as helping with calcium resorption goes. Vitamin D is usually produced in the skin, if there's enough sunlight. Not resorbing enough calcium is usually a bad thing. So if there is less sunlight, the part of the population that is lactose tolerant gets the benefit of better calcium resorption, in addition to being able to use another food source.
I guess you're talking about the one species where the males keep lots of childlike mannerisms even after reaching physical maturity, like tantrums, the obsession with toys and sources of milk, and crawling, toddling and babbling (after consuming too much alcohol). Touché.
Erm. You're confusing general lactose intolerance with adult lactose intolerance.
General lactose intolerance is a bad thing. Any mammal that doesn't tolerate lactose while still nursing is in very deep doodoo. It's a mutation that'll basically kick you out of the gene pool immediately.
Adult lactose intolerance is, for most mammals, a normal thing (which is why you shouldn't give milk to cats/hedgehogs/etc). Adult mammals aren't supposed to seek out sources of milk, for obvious reasons, which is why the production of lactase usually stops once the mammal is old enough to eat real food. Of course, this mechanism evolved loooong before humans got the idea of domesticating goats/sheep/cattle and use the milk of a completely different species to supplement their diet. This made a mechanism that would have been faulty (adult mammal that tolerates lactose) suddenly become a genetic advantage.