Or one could keep *A* GIL and largely ignore it. Here's the model I would use.
Separate python into per thread instances yet keep a larger overall memory space to be shared between threads. But, one must explicitly state that they want to go to the global space. That way, when one uses a single threaded application, everything is as it should be, nothing in its way to slow it down. So, those locks won't even get invoked. However, when one is programming a multi-threaded application, then one has the *choice* to either keep them separate or to make them aware of each other and start using the GIL.
With that, I believe that one can largely have his cake and eat it too.
Wait to take a quote out of context. Perhaps you should get a higher education before you start spouting off about the need or not to memorise things. Seriously, even in higher mathematics, where it is all about the technique and application thereof, one must memorise *tonnes* of stuff. It MUST be this way otherwise one will spend there lives looking things up instead of actually being productive.
What level are you talking about. As in, the first half of grade school is and should be primarily dedicated to memorization. One does need base knowledge to start from *before* they get into interpretation, etc.
Regarding your, "books." Then they are the wrong books. Seriously, if wikipedia can out match a purchased text, that a problem with the book, not because wikipedia is so great.
BUT, that assuming that you know what you're talking about. Seriously, you're still learning that stuff. So, by what knowledge/skill/etc can you really determine what is truth and what is conjecture. Plain fact, you just can't.
Actually, it does happen all the time. It happens when people meet at conferences. This will happen to this sort of "team" as well. After all, everyone that actually contributed something knew each other. So, hardly spontaneous. That makes this thing spectacularly unremarkable.
The only difference here is that everyone was excited enough, because it was a "new" way of doing things, to remain relatively focused for a shorter period of time. Are you sure that this mentality is going to continue in the longer term. Because, I really don't. It's human nature. Once people get used to it, it'll fall into the same time frame that the current research goes at.
In other words, they applied how they talk to each other during black-board meetings to an email/forum/etc postings in the public. So, the medium may have changed for these "off the cuff" conversations, but nothing was actually new.
I've *never* seen any decent Computer Science degree program allow someone to graduate with just three languages. Hell, I graduated from a College in Computer Programming and I learned a dozen or more (depending on your definition of programming language). Hell, I learned several on my own, some in industry. So, if you don't have the motivation to learn on your own and only do what is required by your program/job/etc, then you should just stop now and find a different discipline. Playing catch up only when you realise just what you've done wrong is the exact wrong approach. This isn't about learning to get a job and then stopping. It's about constantly learning regardless if your employer is funding it or not. Because, they *will* expect you to stay current. If you don't you'll/really/ be screwed when you have to find that next job.
As for what to learn, you can't really look at the current job openings and infer what the industry wants. That's just what it wants/now/ and even then, just who is posting job advertisements to where you are looking. It will look different by the time you learn what the industry wanted back then. It really is a moving target. Just don't try.
What you really want to do is show them that you are knowledgeable relative to your experience, a willingness to learn, capability and interest to do (at least) some independent learning, ability to work in a team or solo environment, etc, etc, etc. Since you are just a graduate, when hiring for an/entry level/ position, they're hardly going to expect you to know everything, or everything in depth. That's what training is for and the reason why it's called an *entry level position*.
I'd suggest starting an open-source project in something that interests you or contributing to one that is already established. Bugger language. Do it in a language that makes sense for the project. Languages are tools after all. One doesn't fit everything. A common mistake.
Now stop asking/. what you should learn and start doing it.
That's a gigantic assumption. Just because we use stats to compute these things and they seem random, doesn't mean they actually are. We just might not have the proper tools to describe it yet, nor the proper instrumentation to point in the direction we need to go to accomplish that.
I dare you to try to explain Quantum Mechanics to a layman. Try to explain Calculus. Try to explain... You'll fail.
In fact, I tried to explain basic grade 7/8 algebra to my Dad once. It didn't go very well. He just doesn't "get it." And when someone is like that, there's just no way to get through to them. Because, they just aren't capable of doing it.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing. For instance, there's no way I could write a best selling novel. But, I would bet that the author that can write a best selling novel can't do higher Mathematics.
It takes different types of people to make the world go round. Think that everyone is capable of doing/understanding/etc anything is a fallacy.
That may be true in many disciplines, such as, the humanities. But, that isn't true in Maths nor the hard sciences. They're too detailed. You just can't get away with bullshitting.
Please stop lumping all of academia together. There are gigantic differences between the various feilds of study.
No, the universe seems Mathematical because it can be described with Mathematics disturbingly accurately. And as time moves on, more and more different types of Maths are found to describe more and more in the universe. But, not only that, those Maths make predictions that actually come true. It's that last part that is really important. Because, it limits, to an extreme degree, fudging the numbers.
Just because something can be used as a language doesn't mean that a language is all it is.
Mathematics is a beautiful structure that is far more art than science. It is really its own thing. Just because most can't see that doesn't mean that isn't so. After all, my wife sees beauty in architecture that I just don't see nor care about.
But, I guess it's just what the majority see regardless of those that actually know something about the subject, right?
Except that no-one will. Which is a major problem. As in, how do you gain a reputation without the use of your name? How will HR departments be able to check it. It's intractable. The HR department hasn't the time or expertise to determine who much was contributed by an individual and anyone on a hiring committee in the Maths department certainly won't have the time either. So, how do you choose who to get in for an interview?
And you thought lying on CV's was bad now. Just wait.
That wouldn't work. The indentation needed would go too deep. It's the same problem with "threads" on wordpress, except much more so. A different post management technique is needed.
No not really. A handful, though not necessarily common, isn't unheard of for Math Collaborations. Maybe instead of assuming things, you should actually look things up.
Also, massive is a fairly well defined term. So, saying that even a couple hundred is massive isn't being honest. That might be a lot, but certainly not massive.
I should also point out that if this sort of thing becomes common, then those couple hundred aren't going to be a lot. Seriously, this is about Maths. Choosing definitions that slide due to relatives is _not_ even remotely acceptable.
And yes, I made gun/black-powder among other things when I was young too. But, expecting that to be endorsed by the educational institution is somewhat stupid.
""" but instead the number [of contributors] settled down to a handful, all of whom I knew personally. """
When did a couple people mean massively, again?
So, essentially, it was largely a couple guys who know each other, who decided to discuss the problem in public view, instead of solely through email. [sarcasm]Wow. Ground breaking stuff.[/sarcasm]
We need that like we need a fucking hole in the head. What we really need is people to stop being so fucking selfish and realise there own limitations. Then they're more likely to work together, or at least with others that have complimentary skills.
Btw, we already have young "adults" who think they are the most important people in the world and will do what they need to do to get what they want. That's the problem and it's getting worse.
Actually, there is no counter-balance. It's a downward spiral. And it's one that I've been watching for over a decade. That's also about dumbing things down in several ways such as, marking easier, testing easier, caving to mark mercenaries more and more, dumbing down the curricula, etc, etc, etc.
In fact, I know of a Prof in Eastern Canada that has kept about 20 years of marks for a first year physics class. You know, 300 year old physics has a tendency not to change. So, testing for it won't either. The results of graphing the average marks is a continuous decrease well into statistical significance. He also got the same data from surrounding Universities and the same results were found. I'll have to check whether he has published his results yet.
In other words, this decrease is measurable and significant. For those Universities that have yet to dumb things down significantly, there is a measurable decrease in grades. But, for the majority of Universities, there has been a measurable decrease in standards. It's quite stunning in a very bad way.
So, your "theory" about the students will go to a good school and get there ass kicked into something with a work ethic and smart, verses other students that will effectively get a free ride with job opportunities to match, isn't correct. Why? Because, all the Universities are doing it.
Hell, even the Perimeter Institute has done this horrible thing and now offers 10 month program to get a masters degree in theoretical physics. The fucking Perimeter Institute!!!
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're a manager then, yes.
... fucking over Quebec citizens for many many *many* a year.
Or one could keep *A* GIL and largely ignore it. Here's the model I would use.
Separate python into per thread instances yet keep a larger overall memory space to be shared between threads. But, one must explicitly state that they want to go to the global space. That way, when one uses a single threaded application, everything is as it should be, nothing in its way to slow it down. So, those locks won't even get invoked. However, when one is programming a multi-threaded application, then one has the *choice* to either keep them separate or to make them aware of each other and start using the GIL.
With that, I believe that one can largely have his cake and eat it too.
Wait to take a quote out of context. Perhaps you should get a higher education before you start spouting off about the need or not to memorise things. Seriously, even in higher mathematics, where it is all about the technique and application thereof, one must memorise *tonnes* of stuff. It MUST be this way otherwise one will spend there lives looking things up instead of actually being productive.
What level are you talking about. As in, the first half of grade school is and should be primarily dedicated to memorization. One does need base knowledge to start from *before* they get into interpretation, etc.
Regarding your, "books." Then they are the wrong books. Seriously, if wikipedia can out match a purchased text, that a problem with the book, not because wikipedia is so great.
BUT, that assuming that you know what you're talking about. Seriously, you're still learning that stuff. So, by what knowledge/skill/etc can you really determine what is truth and what is conjecture. Plain fact, you just can't.
Wouldn't this just create another avenue of attack? Me thinks so.
Actually, it does happen all the time. It happens when people meet at conferences. This will happen to this sort of "team" as well. After all, everyone that actually contributed something knew each other. So, hardly spontaneous. That makes this thing spectacularly unremarkable.
The only difference here is that everyone was excited enough, because it was a "new" way of doing things, to remain relatively focused for a shorter period of time. Are you sure that this mentality is going to continue in the longer term. Because, I really don't. It's human nature. Once people get used to it, it'll fall into the same time frame that the current research goes at.
In other words, they applied how they talk to each other during black-board meetings to an email/forum/etc postings in the public. So, the medium may have changed for these "off the cuff" conversations, but nothing was actually new.
Um, this part is wrong:
"""
But unlike FOSS, it adds other requirements that assert control over these independently coded programs, such as distribution and fees.
"""
The GPL DOES put requirements on distribution. Maybe the poster should start actually reading these licenses instead of assuming what they say.
I've *never* seen any decent Computer Science degree program allow someone to graduate with just three languages. Hell, I graduated from a College in Computer Programming and I learned a dozen or more (depending on your definition of programming language). Hell, I learned several on my own, some in industry. So, if you don't have the motivation to learn on your own and only do what is required by your program/job/etc, then you should just stop now and find a different discipline. Playing catch up only when you realise just what you've done wrong is the exact wrong approach. This isn't about learning to get a job and then stopping. It's about constantly learning regardless if your employer is funding it or not. Because, they *will* expect you to stay current. If you don't you'll /really/ be screwed when you have to find that next job.
As for what to learn, you can't really look at the current job openings and infer what the industry wants. That's just what it wants /now/ and even then, just who is posting job advertisements to where you are looking. It will look different by the time you learn what the industry wanted back then. It really is a moving target. Just don't try.
What you really want to do is show them that you are knowledgeable relative to your experience, a willingness to learn, capability and interest to do (at least) some independent learning, ability to work in a team or solo environment, etc, etc, etc. Since you are just a graduate, when hiring for an /entry level/ position, they're hardly going to expect you to know everything, or everything in depth. That's what training is for and the reason why it's called an *entry level position*.
I'd suggest starting an open-source project in something that interests you or contributing to one that is already established. Bugger language. Do it in a language that makes sense for the project. Languages are tools after all. One doesn't fit everything. A common mistake.
Now stop asking /. what you should learn and start doing it.
THANK YOU!!!
That's a gigantic assumption. Just because we use stats to compute these things and they seem random, doesn't mean they actually are. We just might not have the proper tools to describe it yet, nor the proper instrumentation to point in the direction we need to go to accomplish that.
I dare you to try to explain Quantum Mechanics to a layman. Try to explain Calculus. Try to explain... You'll fail.
In fact, I tried to explain basic grade 7/8 algebra to my Dad once. It didn't go very well. He just doesn't "get it." And when someone is like that, there's just no way to get through to them. Because, they just aren't capable of doing it.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing. For instance, there's no way I could write a best selling novel. But, I would bet that the author that can write a best selling novel can't do higher Mathematics.
It takes different types of people to make the world go round. Think that everyone is capable of doing/understanding/etc anything is a fallacy.
That may be true in many disciplines, such as, the humanities. But, that isn't true in Maths nor the hard sciences. They're too detailed. You just can't get away with bullshitting.
Please stop lumping all of academia together. There are gigantic differences between the various feilds of study.
No, the universe seems Mathematical because it can be described with Mathematics disturbingly accurately. And as time moves on, more and more different types of Maths are found to describe more and more in the universe. But, not only that, those Maths make predictions that actually come true. It's that last part that is really important. Because, it limits, to an extreme degree, fudging the numbers.
Just because something can be used as a language doesn't mean that a language is all it is.
Mathematics is a beautiful structure that is far more art than science. It is really its own thing. Just because most can't see that doesn't mean that isn't so. After all, my wife sees beauty in architecture that I just don't see nor care about.
But, I guess it's just what the majority see regardless of those that actually know something about the subject, right?
You have a very interesting definition of the word, "confirmed." Well, at least you can admit to being on the lunatic fringe.
This is somewhat remarkable.
LOL. This happens all the time. LOL.
Except that no-one will. Which is a major problem. As in, how do you gain a reputation without the use of your name? How will HR departments be able to check it. It's intractable. The HR department hasn't the time or expertise to determine who much was contributed by an individual and anyone on a hiring committee in the Maths department certainly won't have the time either. So, how do you choose who to get in for an interview?
And you thought lying on CV's was bad now. Just wait.
That wouldn't work. The indentation needed would go too deep. It's the same problem with "threads" on wordpress, except much more so. A different post management technique is needed.
No not really. A handful, though not necessarily common, isn't unheard of for Math Collaborations. Maybe instead of assuming things, you should actually look things up.
Also, massive is a fairly well defined term. So, saying that even a couple hundred is massive isn't being honest. That might be a lot, but certainly not massive.
I should also point out that if this sort of thing becomes common, then those couple hundred aren't going to be a lot. Seriously, this is about Maths. Choosing definitions that slide due to relatives is _not_ even remotely acceptable.
And lets not worry about liability at all.
And yes, I made gun/black-powder among other things when I was young too. But, expecting that to be endorsed by the educational institution is somewhat stupid.
From the blog post linked in the summery:
"""
but instead the number [of contributors] settled down to a handful, all of whom I knew personally.
"""
When did a couple people mean massively, again?
So, essentially, it was largely a couple guys who know each other, who decided to discuss the problem in public view, instead of solely through email. [sarcasm]Wow. Ground breaking stuff.[/sarcasm]
I'd hate to say I told you so...
We need that like we need a fucking hole in the head. What we really need is people to stop being so fucking selfish and realise there own limitations. Then they're more likely to work together, or at least with others that have complimentary skills.
Btw, we already have young "adults" who think they are the most important people in the world and will do what they need to do to get what they want. That's the problem and it's getting worse.
Actually, there is no counter-balance. It's a downward spiral. And it's one that I've been watching for over a decade. That's also about dumbing things down in several ways such as, marking easier, testing easier, caving to mark mercenaries more and more, dumbing down the curricula, etc, etc, etc.
In fact, I know of a Prof in Eastern Canada that has kept about 20 years of marks for a first year physics class. You know, 300 year old physics has a tendency not to change. So, testing for it won't either. The results of graphing the average marks is a continuous decrease well into statistical significance. He also got the same data from surrounding Universities and the same results were found. I'll have to check whether he has published his results yet.
In other words, this decrease is measurable and significant. For those Universities that have yet to dumb things down significantly, there is a measurable decrease in grades. But, for the majority of Universities, there has been a measurable decrease in standards. It's quite stunning in a very bad way.
So, your "theory" about the students will go to a good school and get there ass kicked into something with a work ethic and smart, verses other students that will effectively get a free ride with job opportunities to match, isn't correct. Why? Because, all the Universities are doing it.
Hell, even the Perimeter Institute has done this horrible thing and now offers 10 month program to get a masters degree in theoretical physics. The fucking Perimeter Institute!!!
I weep for the future.