All general purpose programming languages* can do _precisely_ the same things.
For a rather broad and mathematically abstract definition of "precisely".
The Church-Turing thesis applies to computers and computation in the abstract. Actual computer languages on actual hardware may theoretically be able to do the same things in an abstract sense, but not necessarily do precisely the same things with the actual physical hardware they run on.
Not necessarily due to the language itself, but the nature of how they are compiled, interpreted, and/or otherwise used in practice.
Top 10 recommendations for MindPrison: Dora the explorer, Go-Diego-Go, Lazytown, The Backyardigans
Are you sure your kids didn't do a Bob the Builder marathon when you weren't looking?:p
The recommendation engine has its flaws, but your example is a bit unbelievable. The stuff it recommends me are pretty hit and miss too... but I can usually see where its coming from.
In some cases, its based on cast... suppose hypothetically you watch a lot of low brow redneck comedy including Larry the Cable guy stuff and it comes back suggesting Disney's Cars and the Tooth Fairy 2.
I thought everyone would be randomizing the keyboard for the "password" field by now.
You thought everyone would want to be reduced to the level of "hunt and peck" they were at the very first the time they saw a keyboard EVERY single time they needed to enter a password?
And what does it get you as a defense vs "google glass attack"? Well, not only do they have to see you enter the password from some oblique angle but for one instant during entry or before they need to see your 'one time virtual keyboard' or at least enough of it make the password search space small enough... ie they have to walk by you while your entering your password and glance over.
Random virtual keyboard defeated by a one second glance.
Thousands of hours of your time wasted playing hunt and peck on a new virtual keyboard every time you want to send an email.
But they are a pain to use, since most of us do password entry with some muscle memory, and on a smart phone nobody which one opens and unlocks 100 times a day nobody is going to want to have to exert that much effort.
since it has cutting-edge stat functions that's plenty of functionality that R has that other languages DON'T have.
MATLAB, Python and other languages have stuff in the same class as R. R is particularly well suited for stats functionality... but its is not UNIQUELY suited for it.
Around here, you also have to declare and insure for a 'purpose', not just a liability amount. After all, $1 million dollar liability on a sunny summer weekends only car is less than the same risk as a Taxi.
Around here, there is, in order of increasing cost:
Pleasure (pleasure use only, a couple days per month commuting are ok)
Commuting (driving to and from work, not "for work" itself - different sub classes depending on how far you commute)
Business (drive for work, meeting customers etc)
Delivery -- For the delivery class there are sub classes depending on what type of vehicle, and what is being delivered. Pizza drivers need this I know from personal experience. And I bet anything that 'delivering people' or 'taxi' insurance is in here to, that uber drivers would be required to have it, and that many do not.
Generally, when somebody is paying for what it sounds like they could get for free, or even get paid for, there is good reason to suspect that the job description is either underplaying the exact level of difficulty and/or boredom involved, or that somebody has already learned the hard way that what they can get for free isn't exactly what they want.
Bingo.
You won't watch what you want. You probably won't have enough time to finish watching anything... 99% tagging accuracy for comedy, sci-fi, action, etc, etc, can be assessed within the first half.
And I can't think of much that would need to see the whole movie to tag correctly, except for "twist ending".
For TV series you'll probably just watch a few parts of a few random episodes, and then move on.
Your notion that you'd do it watching multiple streams is quite likely too -- and sped up... probably even skipping... watch 5 minutes, skip 5... watch 5...
Because as you say, your job is to tag movies, not critique them. You'll only spend as much time with a movie as you need to tag it accurately, and that is far less than the 90-150 minutes it would take to watch it from start to finish.
As an aside, another "dream job" that is truly abysmal in practice is "video game tester".
Question, what does R do that other lingos cannot?
Nothing. I'm sure other languages can do everything R can do.
Does it just have statistical functions built in and ready to go?
It does have that, along with an active community and growing popularity in scientific circles, so there is lots cutting edge interesting work being done with R -- and a lot of its free and open source. Plus it has multi-core support in several libraries places, and even gpu support in some.
Serious problems like avionics, medical software, space-probes, life-support. Critical applications. Where errors and bugs are absolutely unacceptable.
Yes, places where correctness is more important than speed. I would want these written in higher level languages than C as much as possible.
Or back-end OS software, or server software where you care about speed of execution.
Agreed.
And this is the bit you're getting wrong.
I disagree.
Turing-completeness has deeper ramifications than the ability simulate a Turing machine
That is literally the definition of turing completeness.
It has to do with computability. The question of CAN we describe an algorithm to do X. [..]
Yes, yes, I know what computability is. And so do you.
Although I'd clarify that computability theory has to do with the ability to compute X, not "do" X. If I write an algorithm for tying my shoes, that cannot be computed by a turing machine. The calculations for the required movements of the strings can be computed but actually moving them, actually "doing" it, is not.
Computability theory is a mathematical branch, pure and abstract.
Computer languages that are all turing complete may not be able to DO the same things.
You start to address this when you write:
You're confusing an implementation of a language with the language itself.
However the language specification itself talks a great deal about how it MUST be implemented, and it is not entirely accurate to separate the language from an implementation of that language completely.
but the exact same thing can be done for a Lisp compiler.
The difference being that it MUST be done for the C compiler because that is part of the language. With lisp it would be an unofficial extension of lisp that is not lisp, AND implementation dependent.
Really, lisp itself is probably not the best example of what I'm trying to get at. Magic the Gathering is also turing complete. The fact that you can use the rules of Magic the Gathering, with its events, triggers, and using its card copy mechanics and token mechanics to store state and simulate a turing machine is pretty awesome mathematically. And anything you can compute in C or Lisp you can compute in Magic The Gathering.
But you can't use MtG to set a specific pattern of bits in a specific location of memory on a computer.
Magic the Gathering just talks about cards, and phases, and tokens... and sure you could implement it on a computer, in such a way that manipulating the cards and tokens is represented by a specific pattern of bits in specific places -- but that would be entirely implementation dependent.
With C you can rely on being able to to manipulate bits of memory just-so, because the language spec says you have to be able to do it just-so or its not C.
C is not merely a language, with syntax and flow control -- its specification ties it to the hardware, and this gives it ways to control the hardware in ways other languages do not. This is not merely a happy coincidence of the implementation -- this is required by the language spec.
If you did that, then some stupid pedestrian would walk too close to the road, not see the signal change, get hit by a car and sue. Then the blinder would be removed again.
Until some other pedestrian gets hit by a car that ran the light because they were watching the crosswalk countdown.
Seriously "Oh they'll never do it because someone will figure out a way to get hurt" only gets you so far. People are already getting hurt the way it is, and someone will sue because its "dangerous" the way it is, and then they'll start trying things.
Your right, some twit will get all up in arms over it, some twit always does... whether or not he's successful in getting it removed is an open question though.
Yes and no. Grid power is a lot more complicated than just being on or off. And when you turn your hair dryer on at 3am, its not like someone somewhere opens a hydro electric dam just a bit more, or turns a knob on the nuclear power plant up.
The grid does have *some* reactive capabilities, and some storage capabilities, but its not as fine a granularity as you seem to presume. Power generation can, and does go up and down throughout the day, but a nuclear plant doesn't have a "knob" that you just turn to generate more or less juice. And the electricity cost of a nuclear plant is more in operations and maintenance than in fuel -- and economic efficiency is not necessarily achieved by minimizing fuel use over a day.
Similarly, and more obviously, a wind turbine spins with the wind whether the electricity is needed or not. Likewise hydro electric dams can be 'managed' and turbines can be brought online or offline but those aren't exactly fine gradations, and sure excess water can be diverted around the turbines... but that's literally wasting its energy potential.
Solar of course generates when the sun is shinning... not relevant for our 3 am hair dryer scenario -- but again illustrates that point that grid capacity is highly variable and not simply a function of $fuel$ goes in electricity comes out.
In many cases, in many scenarios turning on your hair dryer off peak uses electricity that was going to be produced whether you used it or not.
I understand that, but that doesn't change anything. Our ascii art is pretty imprecise and isn't much good for anything that's not 90 degrees. But imagine if the light and blinder was set at 88 or 89 degrees (Just tilted ever so slightly away from the road.) and shifted laterally just a touch closer to the road.
--> 2 feet and tilted ever so slightly/x/ with a blinder; ie not as much tilt as "/" but its all i have to work with:).
But the real key is the blinder that extends from the light. (Thats the extra "/" on the 2nd line)
-./x/ -../ - - [p] - - - - - [15 feet] [car]
Pedestrians would still be able to see it perfectly fine at the intersection, but 300 feet down the road, not a chance. Even pedestrians won't be able to see it on the side walk that far out.
No, actually, that's not true. You see, anything any Turing complete language can do, can be done by any other Turing complete language... eventually. The actions are 100% translatable
Sorry no. What you wrote isn't wrong in any way, but it isn't really a refutation of my argument either.
Turing completeness just means both languages can simulate a turing machine (subject to normal physical constraints such as having finite memory instead of ininifite tape etc). So in terms of expressing algorithms etc if a turing machine can implement it, then any language that is turing complete can implement it.
Not ALL problems however exist in that abstract problem domain.
High level languages lack the expressive capability to exert precise direct control over the hardware.
You can't write a device driver for a peripheral card in Lisp, because you need memory and port mapped IO, and Lisp lacks the ability to address the hardware directly. (Although I have seen some neat tricks using files mapped to memory, and then using lisp to read and write to the file to control the hardware -- but that layer doing the crucial file-to-memory mapping wasn't written in lisp. Nor were the actual file reading and writing functions. Those are things just can't be done in higher level languages, despite them being turing complete.)
Not conceptually. I mean, sure, you can do things faster in assembly, using less opcodes, just as you can do things faster in C, using less lines of code. But if you want result X, C can get you result X.
Assembler gives you register level control that you don't have in C. If the exact "result X" I want is X in register A, Y in register B, Z in register C, etc... then I may not be able to do that, even in C.
And here's the crux of the argument. That C is harder, less concise, and not as "safe" as other languages.
Agreed.
Now, I love C. I'd even say that it's the best language to tackling serious problems.
I'm not even sure I'd go that far. I'd argue most problems are better solved in something else.
But for web-dev?
Right. C is probably NOT the tool for web-dev.
For "expressiveness"?
And we've come full circle -- I originally meant "expressive power" differently. Using your semantics for expressiveness you'd be right, but that's not was I was talking about.
the problem is drivers looking at the signal for the crosswalk parallel to them.
Even parallel to them, they aren't viewing it at quite the same angle as pedestrians. They are usually offset at least 10 or 15 feet laterally. And it should be entirely possible to set it up so that it simply can't be seen unless the car literally moves onto the sidewalk.
|x|
|
[p] [car]
The pedestrian "p" can see the light "x", the car simply can't.
Bandwidth isn't like water or electricity. You either use it in the moment or don't. You can't save it for later.
Who, normally saves either water or electricity? Sure water is tanked and heated locally, but if i turn the taps on, and the tank drains, it starts filling up again immediately. So my little water cache is little more than a buffer.
Not using bandwidth at 3am doesn't help the traffic jam at peak time (6pm).
And not using your hair drier at 3am doesn't help with the grid load at peak time either.
That's two examples now you've given to show how bandwidth isn't like water or electricity that in fact show how it is exactly like water or electricity.
There's no good reason to meter traffic during non-peak times.
Again, like electricity they could handle it with tiered rates -- peak rates, and off peak rates.
but metering during non-peak times is just greed.
Sure the off peak rate could potentially drop down to zero, if that wouldn't lead to abuse. I mean, isn't that how cellular airtime works in a lot of places...you pay for 200 daytime minutes ("peak"), and get "unlimited evenings and weekends"... ("off peak").
That you think C aids in expressiveness over Perl, Python, Ruby, awk, Go, Swift, Rust, D, C#, Scala, Clojure, or even C++ shows you're talking out the wrong orifice
I expect we're using the word "expressive" differently.
C is a lot of things, but it is not terribly expressive or high level.
Definitely not high level.
C lacks concise and easy to use language syntax to express ideas, but almost any idea that can be imagined can be expressed (implemented) in C. That is what I meant by expressive.
Higher level languages provide all sorts of direct language support for ideas that are not directly present in lower level languages, but all high level lanagauges ultimately compile down to machine code, which can be represented by assembler. Therefore, nothing that can be expressed in any language can't be expressed in assembler. Therefore assembler is maximally expressive. Anything else is just a subset of what you can do with assembler.
However there is PLENTY you can do in assembler, that you can't do in any other language, and C, is the lowest level language above assembler, and while there are some things that can be done in assembler that can't be done in C, there's not a lot that can be done in a higher level language than C that can't be done in C.
Not easily. Not concisely. And not safely... because if you implement a reference counting garbage collector in C to do your memory management (and you can) there is nothing in C stopping you from directly manipulating the GC state to achieve all kinds of stuff you can't do in the higher level language...and should probably never do!! -- but this isn't about *should* -- its about *can*.
It seems the "modern" way is to cripple expression and power
99.999% of code doesn't need or benefit from that expressiveness or power.
The remaining 0.001% can be written in C by geniuses or assembler if C is getting too much in the way, and it can maintained and debugged by those same geniuses.:p
Try looking at the code in a profiler one day,
That's just fucking stupid to cripple your best (coders) because your worst can't keep up!
Military analogy. You don't necessarily want to put your rookies in the same unit as your elite special forces, but the rookies, in whatever role you put them in, will be supporting their actions in some way.
You can't deploy your special forces without considering the more limited capabilities of the rookies supporting their operations. And that can amount to "holding them back" sometimes, so the rest of your forces can "keep up".
How many charities raise money for curing cancer or raising money for alzheimer's etc... are not any cures and treatments arising from the research they fund going to be commercialized at least in some way? Someone is going to make the pills and for profit. Someone is going to bill the insurance companies when they prescribe them, etc, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
All general purpose programming languages* can do _precisely_ the same things.
For a rather broad and mathematically abstract definition of "precisely".
The Church-Turing thesis applies to computers and computation in the abstract. Actual computer languages on actual hardware may theoretically be able to do the same things in an abstract sense, but not necessarily do precisely the same things with the actual physical hardware they run on.
Not necessarily due to the language itself, but the nature of how they are compiled, interpreted, and/or otherwise used in practice.
Top 10 recommendations for MindPrison: Dora the explorer, Go-Diego-Go, Lazytown, The Backyardigans
Are you sure your kids didn't do a Bob the Builder marathon when you weren't looking? :p
The recommendation engine has its flaws, but your example is a bit unbelievable. The stuff it recommends me are pretty hit and miss too... but I can usually see where its coming from.
In some cases, its based on cast ... suppose hypothetically you watch a lot of low brow redneck comedy including Larry the Cable guy stuff and it comes back suggesting Disney's Cars and the Tooth Fairy 2.
I thought everyone would be randomizing the keyboard for the "password" field by now.
You thought everyone would want to be reduced to the level of "hunt and peck" they were at the very first the time they saw a keyboard EVERY single time they needed to enter a password?
And what does it get you as a defense vs "google glass attack"? Well, not only do they have to see you enter the password from some oblique angle but for one instant during entry or before they need to see your 'one time virtual keyboard' or at least enough of it make the password search space small enough... ie they have to walk by you while your entering your password and glance over.
Random virtual keyboard defeated by a one second glance.
Thousands of hours of your time wasted playing hunt and peck on a new virtual keyboard every time you want to send an email.
Some do.
But they are a pain to use, since most of us do password entry with some muscle memory, and on a smart phone nobody which one opens and unlocks 100 times a day nobody is going to want to have to exert that much effort.
Uber drivers carry the same insurance
I'm not questioning if they *should*; I question whether they DO.
Just play a video of the push effect in reverse!
since it has cutting-edge stat functions that's plenty of functionality that R has that other languages DON'T have.
MATLAB, Python and other languages have stuff in the same class as R. R is particularly well suited for stats functionality... but its is not UNIQUELY suited for it.
Around here, you also have to declare and insure for a 'purpose', not just a liability amount. After all, $1 million dollar liability on a sunny summer weekends only car is less than the same risk as a Taxi.
Around here, there is, in order of increasing cost:
Pleasure (pleasure use only, a couple days per month commuting are ok)
Commuting (driving to and from work, not "for work" itself - different sub classes depending on how far you commute)
Business (drive for work, meeting customers etc)
Delivery -- For the delivery class there are sub classes depending on what type of vehicle, and what is being delivered. Pizza drivers need this I know from personal experience. And I bet anything that 'delivering people' or 'taxi' insurance is in here to, that uber drivers would be required to have it, and that many do not.
Generally, when somebody is paying for what it sounds like they could get for free, or even get paid for, there is good reason to suspect that the job description is either underplaying the exact level of difficulty and/or boredom involved, or that somebody has already learned the hard way that what they can get for free isn't exactly what they want.
Bingo.
You won't watch what you want. You probably won't have enough time to finish watching anything... 99% tagging accuracy for comedy, sci-fi, action, etc, etc, can be assessed within the first half.
And I can't think of much that would need to see the whole movie to tag correctly, except for "twist ending".
For TV series you'll probably just watch a few parts of a few random episodes, and then move on.
Your notion that you'd do it watching multiple streams is quite likely too -- and sped up... probably even skipping... watch 5 minutes, skip 5... watch 5 ...
Because as you say, your job is to tag movies, not critique them. You'll only spend as much time with a movie as you need to tag it accurately, and that is far less than the 90-150 minutes it would take to watch it from start to finish.
As an aside, another "dream job" that is truly abysmal in practice is "video game tester".
Question, what does R do that other lingos cannot?
Nothing. I'm sure other languages can do everything R can do.
Does it just have statistical functions built in and ready to go?
It does have that, along with an active community and growing popularity in scientific circles, so there is lots cutting edge interesting work being done with R -- and a lot of its free and open source. Plus it has multi-core support in several libraries places, and even gpu support in some.
How much of the house would be left before they gave up searching if there was nothing to be found?
It was wireless right? I'm stashing it my neighbors house. I never liked them much anyway :p
Serious problems like avionics, medical software, space-probes, life-support. Critical applications. Where errors and bugs are absolutely unacceptable.
Yes, places where correctness is more important than speed. I would want these written in higher level languages than C as much as possible.
Or back-end OS software, or server software where you care about speed of execution.
Agreed.
And this is the bit you're getting wrong.
I disagree.
Turing-completeness has deeper ramifications than the ability simulate a Turing machine
That is literally the definition of turing completeness.
It has to do with computability. The question of CAN we describe an algorithm to do X. [..]
Yes, yes, I know what computability is. And so do you.
Although I'd clarify that computability theory has to do with the ability to compute X, not "do" X. If I write an algorithm for tying my shoes, that cannot be computed by a turing machine. The calculations for the required movements of the strings can be computed but actually moving them, actually "doing" it, is not.
Computability theory is a mathematical branch, pure and abstract.
Computer languages that are all turing complete may not be able to DO the same things.
You start to address this when you write:
You're confusing an implementation of a language with the language itself.
However the language specification itself talks a great deal about how it MUST be implemented, and it is not entirely accurate to separate the language from an implementation of that language completely.
but the exact same thing can be done for a Lisp compiler.
The difference being that it MUST be done for the C compiler because that is part of the language. With lisp it would be an unofficial extension of lisp that is not lisp, AND implementation dependent.
Really, lisp itself is probably not the best example of what I'm trying to get at. Magic the Gathering is also turing complete. The fact that you can use the rules of Magic the Gathering, with its events, triggers, and using its card copy mechanics and token mechanics to store state and simulate a turing machine is pretty awesome mathematically. And anything you can compute in C or Lisp you can compute in Magic The Gathering.
But you can't use MtG to set a specific pattern of bits in a specific location of memory on a computer.
Magic the Gathering just talks about cards, and phases, and tokens... and sure you could implement it on a computer, in such a way that manipulating the cards and tokens is represented by a specific pattern of bits in specific places -- but that would be entirely implementation dependent.
With C you can rely on being able to to manipulate bits of memory just-so, because the language spec says you have to be able to do it just-so or its not C.
C is not merely a language, with syntax and flow control -- its specification ties it to the hardware, and this gives it ways to control the hardware in ways other languages do not. This is not merely a happy coincidence of the implementation -- this is required by the language spec.
If you did that, then some stupid pedestrian would walk too close to the road, not see the signal change, get hit by a car and sue. Then the blinder would be removed again.
Until some other pedestrian gets hit by a car that ran the light because they were watching the crosswalk countdown.
Seriously "Oh they'll never do it because someone will figure out a way to get hurt" only gets you so far. People are already getting hurt the way it is, and someone will sue because its "dangerous" the way it is, and then they'll start trying things.
Your right, some twit will get all up in arms over it, some twit always does... whether or not he's successful in getting it removed is an open question though.
Except using your hair dryer does cost fuel.
Yes and no. Grid power is a lot more complicated than just being on or off. And when you turn your hair dryer on at 3am, its not like someone somewhere opens a hydro electric dam just a bit more, or turns a knob on the nuclear power plant up.
The grid does have *some* reactive capabilities, and some storage capabilities, but its not as fine a granularity as you seem to presume. Power generation can, and does go up and down throughout the day, but a nuclear plant doesn't have a "knob" that you just turn to generate more or less juice. And the electricity cost of a nuclear plant is more in operations and maintenance than in fuel -- and economic efficiency is not necessarily achieved by minimizing fuel use over a day.
Similarly, and more obviously, a wind turbine spins with the wind whether the electricity is needed or not. Likewise hydro electric dams can be 'managed' and turbines can be brought online or offline but those aren't exactly fine gradations, and sure excess water can be diverted around the turbines... but that's literally wasting its energy potential.
Solar of course generates when the sun is shinning ... not relevant for our 3 am hair dryer scenario -- but again illustrates that point that grid capacity is highly variable and not simply a function of $fuel$ goes in electricity comes out.
In many cases, in many scenarios turning on your hair dryer off peak uses electricity that was going to be produced whether you used it or not.
I understand that, but that doesn't change anything. Our ascii art is pretty imprecise and isn't much good for anything that's not 90 degrees. But imagine if the light and blinder was set at 88 or 89 degrees (Just tilted ever so slightly away from the road.) and shifted laterally just a touch closer to the road.
--> 2 feet and tilted ever so slightly /x/ with a blinder; ie not as much tilt as "/" but its all i have to work with :).
But the real key is the blinder that extends from the light. (Thats the extra "/" on the 2nd line)
-./x/
-../
-
-
[p]
-
-
-
-
-
[15 feet] [car]
Pedestrians would still be able to see it perfectly fine at the intersection, but 300 feet down the road, not a chance. Even pedestrians won't be able to see it on the side walk that far out.
Whoahohold on there buddy, let me fix that for you
It doesn't need "fixing". If you want to expand on the other use of expressive power, by all means, have at it though.
When people talk about "expressiveness" they usually refer to how easy it is to express such thoughts, not if it's possible.
As you said "usually refer to how easy it is to express"... USUALLY
Both are valid. Like I said, I was using the another usage for expressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
No, actually, that's not true. You see, anything any Turing complete language can do, can be done by any other Turing complete language... eventually. The actions are 100% translatable
Sorry no. What you wrote isn't wrong in any way, but it isn't really a refutation of my argument either.
Turing completeness just means both languages can simulate a turing machine (subject to normal physical constraints such as having finite memory instead of ininifite tape etc). So in terms of expressing algorithms etc if a turing machine can implement it, then any language that is turing complete can implement it.
Not ALL problems however exist in that abstract problem domain.
High level languages lack the expressive capability to exert precise direct control over the hardware.
You can't write a device driver for a peripheral card in Lisp, because you need memory and port mapped IO, and Lisp lacks the ability to address the hardware directly. (Although I have seen some neat tricks using files mapped to memory, and then using lisp to read and write to the file to control the hardware -- but that layer doing the crucial file-to-memory mapping wasn't written in lisp. Nor were the actual file reading and writing functions. Those are things just can't be done in higher level languages, despite them being turing complete.)
Not conceptually. I mean, sure, you can do things faster in assembly, using less opcodes, just as you can do things faster in C, using less lines of code. But if you want result X, C can get you result X.
Assembler gives you register level control that you don't have in C. If the exact "result X" I want is X in register A, Y in register B, Z in register C, etc... then I may not be able to do that, even in C.
And here's the crux of the argument. That C is harder, less concise, and not as "safe" as other languages.
Agreed.
Now, I love C. I'd even say that it's the best language to tackling serious problems.
I'm not even sure I'd go that far. I'd argue most problems are better solved in something else.
But for web-dev?
Right. C is probably NOT the tool for web-dev.
For "expressiveness"?
And we've come full circle -- I originally meant "expressive power" differently. Using your semantics for expressiveness you'd be right, but that's not was I was talking about.
the problem is drivers looking at the signal for the crosswalk parallel to them.
Even parallel to them, they aren't viewing it at quite the same angle as pedestrians. They are usually offset at least 10 or 15 feet laterally. And it should be entirely possible to set it up so that it simply can't be seen unless the car literally moves onto the sidewalk.
|x|
|
[p] [car]
The pedestrian "p" can see the light "x", the car simply can't.
Turing complete != expressive
Like I said, we were using the word expressive differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
It shows two uses, I meant the former, and you meant the latter.
Your not wrong. Neither was I.
Bingo, use "blinders". Its not hard to make something visible from a very narrow band at all.
I suppose if vehicles are stopping *in* the cross walk, or creeping into it after stopping, to see the display you'd still have a problem though.
Bandwidth isn't like water or electricity. You either use it in the moment or don't. You can't save it for later.
Who, normally saves either water or electricity? Sure water is tanked and heated locally, but if i turn the taps on, and the tank drains, it starts filling up again immediately. So my little water cache is little more than a buffer.
Not using bandwidth at 3am doesn't help the traffic jam at peak time (6pm).
And not using your hair drier at 3am doesn't help with the grid load at peak time either.
That's two examples now you've given to show how bandwidth isn't like water or electricity that in fact show how it is exactly like water or electricity.
There's no good reason to meter traffic during non-peak times.
Again, like electricity they could handle it with tiered rates -- peak rates, and off peak rates.
but metering during non-peak times is just greed.
Sure the off peak rate could potentially drop down to zero, if that wouldn't lead to abuse. I mean, isn't that how cellular airtime works in a lot of places...you pay for 200 daytime minutes ("peak"), and get "unlimited evenings and weekends" ... ("off peak").
Even then its still a headache.
Just because someone else fixed the library, doesn't mean my servers and embedded devices have the update yet.
That you think C aids in expressiveness over Perl, Python, Ruby, awk, Go, Swift, Rust, D, C#, Scala, Clojure, or even C++ shows you're talking out the wrong orifice
I expect we're using the word "expressive" differently.
C is a lot of things, but it is not terribly expressive or high level.
Definitely not high level.
C lacks concise and easy to use language syntax to express ideas, but almost any idea that can be imagined can be expressed (implemented) in C. That is what I meant by expressive.
Higher level languages provide all sorts of direct language support for ideas that are not directly present in lower level languages, but all high level lanagauges ultimately compile down to machine code, which can be represented by assembler. Therefore, nothing that can be expressed in any language can't be expressed in assembler. Therefore assembler is maximally expressive. Anything else is just a subset of what you can do with assembler.
However there is PLENTY you can do in assembler, that you can't do in any other language, and C, is the lowest level language above assembler, and while there are some things that can be done in assembler that can't be done in C, there's not a lot that can be done in a higher level language than C that can't be done in C.
Not easily. Not concisely. And not safely... because if you implement a reference counting garbage collector in C to do your memory management (and you can) there is nothing in C stopping you from directly manipulating the GC state to achieve all kinds of stuff you can't do in the higher level language ...and should probably never do!! -- but this isn't about *should* -- its about *can*.
He trusts the internet will deliver the packets. He doesn't trust that someone else won't try and read them along the way.
It seems the "modern" way is to cripple expression and power
99.999% of code doesn't need or benefit from that expressiveness or power.
The remaining 0.001% can be written in C by geniuses or assembler if C is getting too much in the way, and it can maintained and debugged by those same geniuses. :p
Try looking at the code in a profiler one day,
That's just fucking stupid to cripple your best (coders) because your worst can't keep up!
Military analogy. You don't necessarily want to put your rookies in the same unit as your elite special forces, but the rookies, in whatever role you put them in, will be supporting their actions in some way.
You can't deploy your special forces without considering the more limited capabilities of the rookies supporting their operations. And that can amount to "holding them back" sometimes, so the rest of your forces can "keep up".
While this might seem to suck,
It more than sucks. It is wrong.
How many charities raise money for curing cancer or raising money for alzheimer's etc... are not any cures and treatments arising from the research they fund going to be commercialized at least in some way? Someone is going to make the pills and for profit. Someone is going to bill the insurance companies when they prescribe them, etc, etc.
This -seems- to set a bad precedent.