The WRX uses a Porsche flat-six? Never mind my previous post, then! I love horizontally opposed engines (especially air-cooled; I ride BMW motorcycles, and I loved my '85 911 Targa dearly).
...and then you thought that they probably have to replace more or less complete machines frequently enough to put at least a few hundred together at a time....and then you thought that they probably have long-term purchase agreements or contracts, so they don't have to buy all X thousand machines at a time but still get the "buy X thousand, get Y gree" deal.
Yeah...having a Subaru engine makes it less of a Camaro.
Having owned a '96 Trans Am, which is the exact same car as a Camaro Z28 except for body and interior, I can't see a reason to put a WRX engine into one, unless it's required for the amphibious thing (which I don't doubt - is the WRX engine air-cooled, for instance?) The factory engine in a Z28 gives you 310 horsepower.
for(;;) is more idiomatic C than for(1;1;1), but generally while is considered better form for conditional loops like this (the condition being 'true' in this case). Also the semicolon after the code block your loop works over is not necessary.
So, I say to you: main(){while(1)puts("ari_j is a better programmer than all y'all\n");}
Speaking of stack overflow with recursive calls, a little bit of compiler optimization can go a long way, here. Most Lisp compilers are smart enough to change the recursive call in (defun f (who) (format t "~A is a better programmer than all y'all") (f who)) to a jmp instead of a call instruction. This is called 'tail recursion elimination', and works on the basis that the tail-recursive call's return value will be returned by the current invocation too, so why not just modify the parameters on the stack and leave the return address intact, and do a jmp into the new function? This works with calling other functions, too. The following code, despite having no meaning, compiles to have no call instructions (presuming that '+', '1-', and '<' are inlined):
(defun f (a) (if (< a 1) 0 (g (1- a)))) (defun g (a) (if (< a 3) 0 (f (+ 5 a)))) --- In pseudo-assembly, a smart compiler will give: f: ld a,(ARG0) cmp a,1 jb L0 ld a,0 ret L0: dec a ld (ARG0),a jmp g
g: ld a,(ARG0) cmp a,3 jb L1 ld a,0 ret L1: add a,5 ld (ARG0),a jmp f --
Answering the question "Why did you post this?" is left as an exercise to the reader.
The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.
This is a very dangerous attitude to have. It's this kind of thinking by the masses that can allow growth and exploitation of governmental powers.
It's also flat-out wrong, in the same way that it'd be wrong to say "any innocent person will be acquitted in court, so the only people who have anything to fear from a guilty-until-proven-innocent legal system are those who are guilty".
Moreover, it's only one more step to add long-term archival and tracking to this kind of system. You may retort, "But why would they do that? They just ignore you if you're not on a watch list." To answer that question preemptively, they would do that so that, should you later be added to a watch list, they can also pull up records of where you've been and when you were there.
Don't think that, just because it's not being exploited now, it never will be. A similar thing happened in the early 1930's, when a court decided that short-barreled guns were an exception to the second amendment. Politicians were quick to pass the Gun Control Act in 1934, which severely restricts the sale and ownership of short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as machine guns and certain other weapons. Now, they keep a list (at the Federal level) of everyone who owns any of these things.
To answer to questions a lot of people are sure to ask:
1. Yes, short-barreled shotguns, of the 'trench gun' variety, were the first banned weapons; not machine guns.
2. The second amendment exists to ensure that the government fears the people ('fear' in the same sense as I am a God-fearing Christian - I respect his wishes), and therefore, machine guns are among the guns that it was intended to protect my ownership of, because a government with machine guns versus a citizen without will not be fearful of that citizen.
3. What I've just said in no way means that we should be able to own nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction - they are useless in fighting tyranny (they can only be used indiscriminately against an area target, which isn't helpful in a rebellion).
The public education in this country exists for the primary purpose of preparing people to be educated voters. It is not meant to prepare them for a vocation (vo. ag. and home ec. classes, et al.), nor for college (although that's a necessary evil, since colleges base admissions decisions on secondary school performance). Just to prepare them to vote intelligently.
Trying to keep kids in school or get them through school for any other purpose is a misapplication of the public school system. Private schools exist to fill those requirements.
I was an officer in our ACM chapter, and I taught seminars most semesters. I wrote a thesis on Distributed Computing to graduate through the Honors Program at my school. And I hold a patent for DNA visualization software I wrote for a startup while in college. I had a decade of serious programming experience (albeit unpaid) in well over a dozen languages by the time I finished college.
I didn't work during school because I was taking well over the maximum load of courses, and because I had a scholarship situation that was actually profitable after all expenses were paid.
And I didn't bother with internships because I only had two summers during school - the first summer, I had one lined up at LLNL but the project was canceled at the last minute and I was left up the creek; the second summer, I did computer forensics work on a freelance basis and made $125/hour.
I'm working my 'pay the bills' admin job at $36k right now, having started at $33k. If things go according to plan, I'll soon be in a C++ job at a rate of $45/hour, or nearly thrice the pay.
I've worked for the past 8 months as the tech for a bank, having graduated nearly a year ago with a degree in Computer Science and every damn honor my college was allowed to bestow on me. I have written many many thousands of lines of code for 'fun', although I haven't kept track so it could just as well be millions. I started at $33k and got a raise to $36k after 6 months. With the hours I end up working, though, that averages out to about $12/hour.
But the sun is shining through - I am currently tendering more than one offer in the $45/hour range, and the contract is short enough that I can still get more education starting in the fall if the sun isn't still shining.
Moral of the story: Take what you can get. You need a paycheck so you can get situated and out of the college lifestyle. Eventually, a real opportunity will knock.
You, sir, are wrong. Either phrase would be grammatically correct, because the actual clause is 'a basic working knowledge that exhibits itself so thoroughly in the functional illiteracy that most Slashdot comments betray'. Breaking it down, we have 'a basic working knowledge', which is specified as being <i>one</i> 'that exhibits itself so throughly...'.
To say that all Slashdot users share a common working knowledge of English is to not only exaggerate the uniformity of language across Slashdot comments, but also, and more significantly, to downplay that there is any range of cultures at play here.
Indians can do that, too, and thereby take away your differentiation; but there's no way that they'll ever have the head start on English proficiency that you, as an American, should have.
The number one way I can think of to differentiate yourself from overseas IT workers is to become fluent in English - and I do mean fluency, not just a basic working knowledge that exhibits itself so thoroughly in the functional illiteracy that most Slashdot comments betray.
I agree on the 'reality' bit. Here's how I would've done Survivor, for example:
16 people are dropped off in your choice of Siberia, the Sahara, the Amazon, Iraq, or the Outback. With the clothes on their backs, and nothing else. I don't know if they should be dropped off together or miles apart, but that can be decided based on audience screenings.
Their goal: To outlive the other 15. The last person alive, should he make it back to a designated checkpoint somewhere on the globe (say, the network office in NYC), gets the grand prize: he gets to live.
Now, for the on-topic part: Family Guy did the best parody on reality shows, with "Fast Animals, Slow Children".
I just checked, and it was released sometime in mid-2001. I found a review dated in June of that year. But I know I watched it in the town I went to college in, so it was probably shown in more theaters by mid-Fall, which turned into Winter, which turned into Spring, which skipped Summer and Autumn and went straight back to Winter (that's the winter I got snowed in at least once a month from October through (and including) June:P). The DVD, which I rented not long ago, has the much-hyped seconds of additional footage that were shown in the theater.
I can't amortize the cost of setting up a home theater that even comes close to competing with the cinema over any amount of time and still have it cost less than $8 per movie. Home theater is a luxury item, not an economical decision, unless you watch a metric assload of movies every night of your life. I have better expensive hobbies to occupy my time.
Slashdot Mirror
The WRX uses a Porsche flat-six? Never mind my previous post, then! I love horizontally opposed engines (especially air-cooled; I ride BMW motorcycles, and I loved my '85 911 Targa dearly).
...and then you thought that they probably have to replace more or less complete machines frequently enough to put at least a few hundred together at a time. ...and then you thought that they probably have long-term purchase agreements or contracts, so they don't have to buy all X thousand machines at a time but still get the "buy X thousand, get Y gree" deal.
Yeah...having a Subaru engine makes it less of a Camaro. Having owned a '96 Trans Am, which is the exact same car as a Camaro Z28 except for body and interior, I can't see a reason to put a WRX engine into one, unless it's required for the amphibious thing (which I don't doubt - is the WRX engine air-cooled, for instance?) The factory engine in a Z28 gives you 310 horsepower.
Arrr! Ya, sure, we'll give a bucket of fresh lutefisk to whoever's sister slashdotted their initials into our moose!
for(;;) is more idiomatic C than for(1;1;1), but generally while is considered better form for conditional loops like this (the condition being 'true' in this case). Also the semicolon after the code block your loop works over is not necessary.
So, I say to you:
main(){while(1)puts("ari_j is a better programmer than all y'all\n");}
Speaking of stack overflow with recursive calls, a little bit of compiler optimization can go a long way, here. Most Lisp compilers are smart enough to change the recursive call in (defun f (who) (format t "~A is a better programmer than all y'all") (f who)) to a jmp instead of a call instruction. This is called 'tail recursion elimination', and works on the basis that the tail-recursive call's return value will be returned by the current invocation too, so why not just modify the parameters on the stack and leave the return address intact, and do a jmp into the new function? This works with calling other functions, too. The following code, despite having no meaning, compiles to have no call instructions (presuming that '+', '1-', and '<' are inlined):
(defun f (a) (if (< a 1) 0 (g (1- a))))
(defun g (a) (if (< a 3) 0 (f (+ 5 a))))
---
In pseudo-assembly, a smart compiler will give:
f:
ld a,(ARG0)
cmp a,1
jb L0
ld a,0
ret
L0:
dec a
ld (ARG0),a
jmp g
g:
ld a,(ARG0)
cmp a,3
jb L1
ld a,0
ret
L1:
add a,5
ld (ARG0),a
jmp f
--
Answering the question "Why did you post this?" is left as an exercise to the reader.
I don't understand the story - does this mean I'm not cut out for janitorial work?
Please show me which part of the second amendment mentions anything about hunting or about self defense.
Are you saying that public school teaches job-related skills?
Hey! You broke rule #1!
The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.
This is a very dangerous attitude to have. It's this kind of thinking by the masses that can allow growth and exploitation of governmental powers.
It's also flat-out wrong, in the same way that it'd be wrong to say "any innocent person will be acquitted in court, so the only people who have anything to fear from a guilty-until-proven-innocent legal system are those who are guilty".
Moreover, it's only one more step to add long-term archival and tracking to this kind of system. You may retort, "But why would they do that? They just ignore you if you're not on a watch list." To answer that question preemptively, they would do that so that, should you later be added to a watch list, they can also pull up records of where you've been and when you were there.
Don't think that, just because it's not being exploited now, it never will be. A similar thing happened in the early 1930's, when a court decided that short-barreled guns were an exception to the second amendment. Politicians were quick to pass the Gun Control Act in 1934, which severely restricts the sale and ownership of short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as machine guns and certain other weapons. Now, they keep a list (at the Federal level) of everyone who owns any of these things.
To answer to questions a lot of people are sure to ask:
1. Yes, short-barreled shotguns, of the 'trench gun' variety, were the first banned weapons; not machine guns.
2. The second amendment exists to ensure that the government fears the people ('fear' in the same sense as I am a God-fearing Christian - I respect his wishes), and therefore, machine guns are among the guns that it was intended to protect my ownership of, because a government with machine guns versus a citizen without will not be fearful of that citizen.
3. What I've just said in no way means that we should be able to own nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction - they are useless in fighting tyranny (they can only be used indiscriminately against an area target, which isn't helpful in a rebellion).
The 'I' in RAID stands for 'inexpensive', which is definitely what you wanted to say, anyhow. :)
The public education in this country exists for the primary purpose of preparing people to be educated voters. It is not meant to prepare them for a vocation (vo. ag. and home ec. classes, et al.), nor for college (although that's a necessary evil, since colleges base admissions decisions on secondary school performance). Just to prepare them to vote intelligently.
Trying to keep kids in school or get them through school for any other purpose is a misapplication of the public school system. Private schools exist to fill those requirements.
I was an officer in our ACM chapter, and I taught seminars most semesters. I wrote a thesis on Distributed Computing to graduate through the Honors Program at my school. And I hold a patent for DNA visualization software I wrote for a startup while in college. I had a decade of serious programming experience (albeit unpaid) in well over a dozen languages by the time I finished college.
I didn't work during school because I was taking well over the maximum load of courses, and because I had a scholarship situation that was actually profitable after all expenses were paid.
And I didn't bother with internships because I only had two summers during school - the first summer, I had one lined up at LLNL but the project was canceled at the last minute and I was left up the creek; the second summer, I did computer forensics work on a freelance basis and made $125/hour.
I'm working my 'pay the bills' admin job at $36k right now, having started at $33k. If things go according to plan, I'll soon be in a C++ job at a rate of $45/hour, or nearly thrice the pay.
You have to be patient and tenacious.
I've worked for the past 8 months as the tech for a bank, having graduated nearly a year ago with a degree in Computer Science and every damn honor my college was allowed to bestow on me. I have written many many thousands of lines of code for 'fun', although I haven't kept track so it could just as well be millions. I started at $33k and got a raise to $36k after 6 months. With the hours I end up working, though, that averages out to about $12/hour.
But the sun is shining through - I am currently tendering more than one offer in the $45/hour range, and the contract is short enough that I can still get more education starting in the fall if the sun isn't still shining.
Moral of the story: Take what you can get. You need a paycheck so you can get situated and out of the college lifestyle. Eventually, a real opportunity will knock.
You, sir, are wrong. Either phrase would be grammatically correct, because the actual clause is 'a basic working knowledge that exhibits itself so thoroughly in the functional illiteracy that most Slashdot comments betray'. Breaking it down, we have 'a basic working knowledge', which is specified as being <i>one</i> 'that exhibits itself so throughly...'.
To say that all Slashdot users share a common working knowledge of English is to not only exaggerate the uniformity of language across Slashdot comments, but also, and more significantly, to downplay that there is any range of cultures at play here.
Indians can do that, too, and thereby take away your differentiation; but there's no way that they'll ever have the head start on English proficiency that you, as an American, should have.
The number one way I can think of to differentiate yourself from overseas IT workers is to become fluent in English - and I do mean fluency, not just a basic working knowledge that exhibits itself so thoroughly in the functional illiteracy that most Slashdot comments betray.
</smart-ass>
I agree on the 'reality' bit. Here's how I would've done Survivor, for example:
16 people are dropped off in your choice of Siberia, the Sahara, the Amazon, Iraq, or the Outback. With the clothes on their backs, and nothing else. I don't know if they should be dropped off together or miles apart, but that can be decided based on audience screenings.
Their goal: To outlive the other 15. The last person alive, should he make it back to a designated checkpoint somewhere on the globe (say, the network office in NYC), gets the grand prize: he gets to live.
Now, for the on-topic part: Family Guy did the best parody on reality shows, with "Fast Animals, Slow Children".
news.google.com will find thousands of news stories about a given event. Typically, only a few hundred are Slashdot articles. :D
Lawyers right bad laws
:)
Too bad this is just a braino. I think you meant 'write', but 'right' was good for a laugh. Thanks.
i bet they could more if they were left handed
;-D
Could what more? Are you a wannabe southpaw or are you a real one whose lefthandedness interferes with his ability to write proper English?
"You are technically correct - the best kind of correct."
I just checked, and it was released sometime in mid-2001. I found a review dated in June of that year. But I know I watched it in the town I went to college in, so it was probably shown in more theaters by mid-Fall, which turned into Winter, which turned into Spring, which skipped Summer and Autumn and went straight back to Winter (that's the winter I got snowed in at least once a month from October through (and including) June :P). The DVD, which I rented not long ago, has the much-hyped seconds of additional footage that were shown in the theater.
I can't amortize the cost of setting up a home theater that even comes close to competing with the cinema over any amount of time and still have it cost less than $8 per movie. Home theater is a luxury item, not an economical decision, unless you watch a metric assload of movies every night of your life. I have better expensive hobbies to occupy my time.
You do, of course, realize that Grail was re-released in theaters just a couple of years ago, right? Maybe you should have gone then.