Yes, the 1960's are a liberal hoax! They didn't happen. We went from 50's to 70's. Real 'muricans don't like even numbers because such feels like "equality", a commie concept. But some smelly hippies tried to fake it and pretend the 70's were the 60's and mis-dated their psychedelic drug-soaked records and concert posters.
Are you suggesting they change their habitual techniques in the super-bowl? I'm sure there is a reason they selected the seasonal pattern they did. Sure, it has down-sides, and this particular game probably exposed them. But football is a game of probability.
And they had 3 tries. Mixing it up so 1 out of 3 are non-Lynch plays makes sense to keep Pats guessing.
Back in my xBase/dBASE days, I sometimes used an alternative to recursion whereby one takes inventory of each branch, and the links and/or contents are put into one big table. A flag is then set for nodes already processed.
It has the advantage that one can gather the basic info first before involved processing. E.i. "inventory". One can also stop processing and restart.
Pseudo-code:
rows = query(select from nodes where processed=False) // Order clause can be added to tune priority if rows.count() == 0 {return}//done for row = each(rows) {
if row.type = BRANCH {
processBranch(row)
} else {// LEAF
processLeaf(row)
} }
A branch is set to "processed" (=True) when all its immediate children are added to the processing list. Sub-branches are taken care of on subsequent loops.
Tablin' was lots of fun because xBase made it easy. The good ol' days.
In the real world it's best to write for a "lowish" common denominator because future staffing is unknown, but best to know HOW to figure out "clever" code if you encounter it. Thus, the best habits for writing code tend to conflict with learning to read any code you may encounter.
The solution is to point out early that writing code is similar to writing documentation: clarity to other readers matters above parsimony etc. Put that on the test.
Statistically, it was a decent call. Lynch is not that great near the line.One could also argue it was clever psychology by sending a message to Pats that the next play may also be difficult to anticipate, keeping them over-hedging. Bleep can happen on any play.
It's written for clarity to non-coders, not coders. I also write a lot of user documentation, and have learned that parsimony is not always the best approach.
I think it's important to take a wide survey before taking a deep survey of specific targets (unless you find a smoking gun). For example, if they find geysers on Ceres then it may become an "interesting candidate for life" just like Europa.
Even though I'm in a well-populated area, we have only two viable providers, and they both suck badly. I welcome competition from Apple so that they can't slack as much.
One feature I'd really like to see is single channel subscriptions. I don't want to have to pay $25 more for the next level JUST to get one stinkin' channel. Bundling drives me crazy.
If I can cherry-pick channels I want at about $7 or less per channel, then I'll be knocking at Tim Cook's door to get it.
Or even pay-per-show over bundling. I don't watch much TV. Apple has the negotiating power to thumb the bundlers.
Then they sell you the upgrade which can detect images ruined by the last versions' over-used visual memes. It's similar to how executives want the latest Powerpoint to not look all the other Powerpoints. Gatesian brilliance.
If viewer is male
give high ratings to pictures with dogs playing poker or pool else
give high ratings to pictures with flowers, sunsets, and rainbows end
Better to learn Hindi in case Congress is bribed to increase the H1B limit to gajillion. Then you can fake being an H1B, or work in India as a B1H because all their coders would be in the US, creating local demand.
A creationist could argue that (apparent) gene transfer means evolution provides no consistent predictions. If things change suddenly or traits hop between category branches, then evolutionists can simply claim "gene transfer". If they change gradually, then they claim traditional natural selection.
Of course there is more to the net evidence, but the prediction-ability argument is weakened by gene hopping since it can be invoked to "explain away" a wide range of different observations.
A natural world that provides a wide variety of characteristic transfer options becomes less distinguishable from engineered changes. No camera was there to actually catch the gene hops or mutations in the act. We can only verify that they moved or changed after the fact. Nature is surprisingly flexible.
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Theory
...it's turtles, all the way down.
Yes, the 1960's are a liberal hoax! They didn't happen. We went from 50's to 70's. Real 'muricans don't like even numbers because such feels like "equality", a commie concept. But some smelly hippies tried to fake it and pretend the 70's were the 60's and mis-dated their psychedelic drug-soaked records and concert posters.
That's how many days it will take Windows Cloud to start up.
Are you suggesting they change their habitual techniques in the super-bowl? I'm sure there is a reason they selected the seasonal pattern they did. Sure, it has down-sides, and this particular game probably exposed them. But football is a game of probability.
And they had 3 tries. Mixing it up so 1 out of 3 are non-Lynch plays makes sense to keep Pats guessing.
Back in my xBase/dBASE days, I sometimes used an alternative to recursion whereby one takes inventory of each branch, and the links and/or contents are put into one big table. A flag is then set for nodes already processed.
It has the advantage that one can gather the basic info first before involved processing. E.i. "inventory". One can also stop processing and restart.
Pseudo-code:
A branch is set to "processed" (=True) when all its immediate children are added to the processing list. Sub-branches are taken care of on subsequent loops.
Tablin' was lots of fun because xBase made it easy. The good ol' days.
No wonder conservatives are upset about Common Core
In the real world it's best to write for a "lowish" common denominator because future staffing is unknown, but best to know HOW to figure out "clever" code if you encounter it. Thus, the best habits for writing code tend to conflict with learning to read any code you may encounter.
The solution is to point out early that writing code is similar to writing documentation: clarity to other readers matters above parsimony etc. Put that on the test.
A start-up called "usa.com"? It must be for lobbyists: the country is for sale.
Statistically, it was a decent call. Lynch is not that great near the line.One could also argue it was clever psychology by sending a message to Pats that the next play may also be difficult to anticipate, keeping them over-hedging. Bleep can happen on any play.
..."make it blue, no, make it green, no, make it plaid on Tuesdays and polka-dot on Thursdays..."
Good for jobs, just not good for efficiency.
It's written for clarity to non-coders, not coders. I also write a lot of user documentation, and have learned that parsimony is not always the best approach.
Downside is that its handling resembles Jar Jar at the wheel
I think it's important to take a wide survey before taking a deep survey of specific targets (unless you find a smoking gun). For example, if they find geysers on Ceres then it may become an "interesting candidate for life" just like Europa.
"Look, our toddler's in The Matrix!" [swish swish swish]
Even though I'm in a well-populated area, we have only two viable providers, and they both suck badly. I welcome competition from Apple so that they can't slack as much.
One feature I'd really like to see is single channel subscriptions. I don't want to have to pay $25 more for the next level JUST to get one stinkin' channel. Bundling drives me crazy.
If I can cherry-pick channels I want at about $7 or less per channel, then I'll be knocking at Tim Cook's door to get it.
Or even pay-per-show over bundling. I don't watch much TV. Apple has the negotiating power to thumb the bundlers.
F forced bundling.
A reworked version of last sentence:
"It's similar to how executives want the latest Powerpoint version in order to not look like all the other Powerpoint presentations floating around."
Python :-)
Then they sell you the upgrade which can detect images ruined by the last versions' over-used visual memes. It's similar to how executives want the latest Powerpoint to not look all the other Powerpoints. Gatesian brilliance.
To match human responses? Simple:
Better to learn Hindi in case Congress is bribed to increase the H1B limit to gajillion. Then you can fake being an H1B, or work in India as a B1H because all their coders would be in the US, creating local demand.
I have indirectly. For example:
"If management approves plan A, then we proceed with plan X. Else, if they reject A, then we try plan B. If plan B fails, we do it in-house.
"Plan B is to keep trying different vendors for up to a year until we find one which satisfies our requirements."
Thus, I have conditionals, subroutines ("try plan B"), and loops ("until they satisfy...or a year is up").
I'm inventing Klingon COBOL so one can get credit for both without changing the rules.
A creationist could argue that (apparent) gene transfer means evolution provides no consistent predictions. If things change suddenly or traits hop between category branches, then evolutionists can simply claim "gene transfer". If they change gradually, then they claim traditional natural selection.
Of course there is more to the net evidence, but the prediction-ability argument is weakened by gene hopping since it can be invoked to "explain away" a wide range of different observations.
A natural world that provides a wide variety of characteristic transfer options becomes less distinguishable from engineered changes. No camera was there to actually catch the gene hops or mutations in the act. We can only verify that they moved or changed after the fact. Nature is surprisingly flexible.
touche: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...