Well, neither cookies nor JavaScript are strictly necessary. REST demonstrates that URLs suffice. JavaScript certainly makes it more pleasant, and cookies can be used to address some usability problems (though they are currently abused).
Re:ILMerge, the Mono linker does it too, and better. It can remove unused code for instance.
Re: CLR on the iPhone, IIRC, it generates a native executable with all the needed code linked in, including GC, and any necessary runtime support (excluding JIT which is outlawed on the iPhone).
Distinctions are only meaningful if they clarify or help avoid confusion. In what way is "habitable moon" confusing at all? Certainly your first wording is more precise, but "habitable moon" loses nothing truly meaningful in translation.
Not only was he the largest asshole to ever come out of Quebec. He thought all of Canada his personal playground, reguarlly believed he was unstoppable, and in general an asshole to the Canadian public.
In other words, he was the only honest politician we've seen in quite some time. He gets respect for that alone.
Excellent analogy. Reflected waves on mismatched transmission line is a beautiful analogy for the jostling that can happen as people try to squeeze past each other through a door.
Cut 2% of their income for 30% of their operating costs and increased customer satisfaction? It may not balance out exactly like that, but I'm sure it made sense as a business decision.
If you disagree with this, then please show me where in the formal definition of a Turing machine interrupts can be made to happen. I don't see it.
This is a myth. The lambda calculus and Turing machines are equivalent. Functional Reactive Programming is how the lambda calculus would handle interactive input. A corresponding mechanism can therefore be derived for Turing machines.
Turing machines don't have interrupts, amongst other things, which is why they are deterministic and mathematically tractable.
Just a correction: our computers aren't Turing machines because they have finite memory, not because they have interrupts. Analyzing arbitrary machine code is tractable on a real Turing machine with infinite memory, it's just that any such analysis may not run within the bounds of current computer memories, and even if it could, its runtime or resource consumption may not make the analysis actually useful.
They wouldn't have a choice in revoking them based on court rulings. That's when it should be subject to suits. Where the USPTO takes initiative and revokes a patent based on an internal review, they should not be liable. Positive reinforcement as you suggest would help too.
the more it seems that very little DNA can truly be considered junk.
Exactly my original point. The DNA are or were likely latent adaptations that provide little advantage in a stable environment that do not trigger said sequences.
The additional conservation in resources required to copy these smaller genomes is likely important in ensuring a selective advantage, such that an otherwise equally well-adapted species with a larger genome is at an inherent disadvantage since it would require more food. I think you're right that this factor would dominate transcription errors.
The genome is shrinking because there is a selective advantage to a smaller genome when the environment is stable. Fewer errors can occur when copying for example. In unstable environments, having a larger genome with more adaptive mutations is a selective advantage. Shorter genomes marks species that are highly specialized to their environment.
It'd be nice to have an explanation of exactly HOW the design is optimized to exploit dark energy, ie. how the geometry and/or features of the ship would contribute to harnessing and/or channeling dark energy. Without an explanation, it just looks like yet another science fiction space ship.
Critics, who are unaware that most college students don't become liberal arts majors, argue that paying kids corrupts the notion of learning for education's sake alone.
Considering most kids don't actually care to learn just for education's sake, I'd say that's just fine.
Sorry, got confused; I think of them more as "objects", since they don't follow the same conventions as classes in typical OO languages (structural typing rather than class typing).
Objects aren't really used very much in OCaml anyway. Check out Ocsigen's functional approach to describing the HTML DOM.
What I was actually trying to implement was a DOM-like tree data structure, where the overall document object contains factory methods for creating nodes and manipulating the tree. However, for the factory to be able to refer to a node I need to define the node class before the factory class... but nodes also have to be able to refer to the factory, and to do that I have to define the factory before the node!
Your discussion of classes is confusing, as OCaml doesn't have them. I'm also not clear what the use of "factories" is supposed to accomplish. I think a lot of people try to use the same patterns they're used to from other languages, when they're really not necessary in functional languages.
The Ocsigen project implemented a completely statically typed HTML DOM, so you can use their approach if that's what you're after.
Problems with defining recursive modules in ML-style languages are well known. Some ML implementations allow them, but none are as mature as OCaml.
However, I'm not sure I agree that a language forcing you to structure your program in a certain way is a bad thing. If anything, the improved consistency helps the maintainability of a project. It also helps you keep a uniform mental model of the abstractions working in a program, and helps you compose distinct pieces with very little glue. It just takes some getting used to.
By saying they "don't fit your brain", you are implying that a programmer's brain is somehow naturally wired for programming. This is simply not true. We learn math, logic, and programming, and you could just as easily learn functional programming, and then your brain would be wired for it too. And you'd be better off IMO, because you would unlearn a lot of bad habits people pick up from imperative languages.
Slashdot Mirror
REST also doesn't allow sessions.
Myth. Just place your unguessable token in the URL instead of in a cookie.
Well, neither cookies nor JavaScript are strictly necessary. REST demonstrates that URLs suffice. JavaScript certainly makes it more pleasant, and cookies can be used to address some usability problems (though they are currently abused).
Every language has a runtime, except assembly, it's just that some runtimes are statically linked with the final executable. This is the case here.
Re:ILMerge, the Mono linker does it too, and better. It can remove unused code for instance.
Re: CLR on the iPhone, IIRC, it generates a native executable with all the needed code linked in, including GC, and any necessary runtime support (excluding JIT which is outlawed on the iPhone).
Distinctions are only meaningful if they clarify or help avoid confusion. In what way is "habitable moon" confusing at all? Certainly your first wording is more precise, but "habitable moon" loses nothing truly meaningful in translation.
Not only was he the largest asshole to ever come out of Quebec. He thought all of Canada his personal playground, reguarlly believed he was unstoppable, and in general an asshole to the Canadian public.
In other words, he was the only honest politician we've seen in quite some time. He gets respect for that alone.
Translation: "Now we have to actually spend money to satisfy our customers." Cry me a river.
Excellent analogy. Reflected waves on mismatched transmission line is a beautiful analogy for the jostling that can happen as people try to squeeze past each other through a door.
Cut 2% of their income for 30% of their operating costs and increased customer satisfaction? It may not balance out exactly like that, but I'm sure it made sense as a business decision.
If you disagree with this, then please show me where in the formal definition of a Turing machine interrupts can be made to happen. I don't see it.
This is a myth. The lambda calculus and Turing machines are equivalent. Functional Reactive Programming is how the lambda calculus would handle interactive input. A corresponding mechanism can therefore be derived for Turing machines.
Turing machines don't have interrupts, amongst other things, which is why they are deterministic and mathematically tractable.
Just a correction: our computers aren't Turing machines because they have finite memory, not because they have interrupts. Analyzing arbitrary machine code is tractable on a real Turing machine with infinite memory, it's just that any such analysis may not run within the bounds of current computer memories, and even if it could, its runtime or resource consumption may not make the analysis actually useful.
They wouldn't have a choice in revoking them based on court rulings. That's when it should be subject to suits. Where the USPTO takes initiative and revokes a patent based on an internal review, they should not be liable. Positive reinforcement as you suggest would help too.
the more it seems that very little DNA can truly be considered junk.
Exactly my original point. The DNA are or were likely latent adaptations that provide little advantage in a stable environment that do not trigger said sequences.
The additional conservation in resources required to copy these smaller genomes is likely important in ensuring a selective advantage, such that an otherwise equally well-adapted species with a larger genome is at an inherent disadvantage since it would require more food. I think you're right that this factor would dominate transcription errors.
No video in the spec. Flash is not in the spec.
Better to have poorer quality than no video at all.
The genome is shrinking because there is a selective advantage to a smaller genome when the environment is stable. Fewer errors can occur when copying for example. In unstable environments, having a larger genome with more adaptive mutations is a selective advantage. Shorter genomes marks species that are highly specialized to their environment.
Old age is a feature, not a bug. With less turn-over it would be difficult to life as a whole to adapt to changing environment.
Not necessarily. Older organisms and younger organisms must still compete for the same resources and prove their fitness to survive.
While that's a great resource describing the PHYSICS, it tells me nothing about the ENGINEERING behind the design of this craft.
It'd be nice to have an explanation of exactly HOW the design is optimized to exploit dark energy, ie. how the geometry and/or features of the ship would contribute to harnessing and/or channeling dark energy. Without an explanation, it just looks like yet another science fiction space ship.
Recursive: an expression in which the term being defined is used in its own definition. Thus, Bing = Bing is not Google, is recursive.
Critics, who are unaware that most college students don't become liberal arts majors, argue that paying kids corrupts the notion of learning for education's sake alone.
Considering most kids don't actually care to learn just for education's sake, I'd say that's just fine.
Sorry, got confused; I think of them more as "objects", since they don't follow the same conventions as classes in typical OO languages (structural typing rather than class typing).
Objects aren't really used very much in OCaml anyway. Check out Ocsigen's functional approach to describing the HTML DOM.
What I was actually trying to implement was a DOM-like tree data structure, where the overall document object contains factory methods for creating nodes and manipulating the tree. However, for the factory to be able to refer to a node I need to define the node class before the factory class... but nodes also have to be able to refer to the factory, and to do that I have to define the factory before the node!
Your discussion of classes is confusing, as OCaml doesn't have them. I'm also not clear what the use of "factories" is supposed to accomplish. I think a lot of people try to use the same patterns they're used to from other languages, when they're really not necessary in functional languages.
The Ocsigen project implemented a completely statically typed HTML DOM, so you can use their approach if that's what you're after.
Problems with defining recursive modules in ML-style languages are well known. Some ML implementations allow them, but none are as mature as OCaml.
However, I'm not sure I agree that a language forcing you to structure your program in a certain way is a bad thing. If anything, the improved consistency helps the maintainability of a project. It also helps you keep a uniform mental model of the abstractions working in a program, and helps you compose distinct pieces with very little glue. It just takes some getting used to.
By saying they "don't fit your brain", you are implying that a programmer's brain is somehow naturally wired for programming. This is simply not true. We learn math, logic, and programming, and you could just as easily learn functional programming, and then your brain would be wired for it too. And you'd be better off IMO, because you would unlearn a lot of bad habits people pick up from imperative languages.