Perhaps the kids' teachers taught them the other things and not sparse arrays. It's pretty hard to program something when you have no experience and the only clue you have to program is the title of the data structure.
I live in california where we always have some group of hairy drugged out morons protesting something. And the construction companies out here just expect it.
They plan for it... they say"well, we need this much cement, this many men, so many machine... and oh yeah, bolt cutters and an overtime budget to bring people in at midnight to do the job when all the hippies are sleeping.
The college campuses for example can't knock down trees on the premises during the school year. So they wait until the summer break then knock the trees back. The hippies come back and possibly see a stump. No discussion. No protest of consequence.
In Canada they had a bridge that needed to be widened. And some trees to the right of the bridge needed to be taken down. Of course the fucking trees were swarming with dreadlocked buffoons. So the city said "you win, we won't take the trees down, everyone go home"... hippies cleared out... and at midnight that very night the city just cut all the trees down that were in the way of the bridge.
And this is what the social discussion is at this point.
The stupid mountain in question is covered with fucking telescopes. Go up there and look at it. There are loads. Saying "oh not one more or it will anger our impotent god!'... please.
Your argument is flawed. First you use the word "hippies" in a derogatory way to evoke emotion. This is demonstrated by your entire post. So, from the start I can see your argument is on weak ground -- if the argument was solid you would not need to resort to such tactics.
In the case of the Canadian government lying to get the protesters away... yeah, great example. At least the so called (in your words) "hippies" have seemed to have some ethics and morals! The Canadian government in your example: they were the ones who acted like fuckwits and "buffoons".
Same thing with the college campuses. They dismiss people's concerns and values and just do what the fuck they want.
Who are you to dictate people's beliefs and their values? You're as bad as the idiots in the two examples you gave. Grow up and learn some respect. Falling back onto lies, loaded words ('"hippies" that all have dreadlocks, are stupid and buffoons') and other such juvenile and transparent actions to that just demonstrate your ignorance, lack of empathy and unstable stance makes me think that you are the one who needs some guidance. Your glee at governments and organisations to say one thing and then do another is... actually, I won't say what I was going to. It's sad and pathetic.
Could you perhaps find a synonym for effete? I'm asking this with the utmost sincerity because looking at your post history I think that your use of the word has become, well, effete.
I guess I was looking at it more from the point of view of "how/why things are done" rather than the end effect (e.g. how linked lists -- yes, a very basic concept -- actually work rather than just knowing what it does; this, perhaps, provides insight into what algorithms are appropriate to use. Another example that came immediately to mind when reading the article was memory management: most students, for some reason, struggle with pointers; if they knew how things worked at a lower level [without even this shallow abstraction] perhaps they'd realise that they're not mysterious and it's simple indirection... maybe then handling memory would be easier... I'm not going to go on with examples of object oriented and other paradigms -- that can obviously be implemented in plain C -- because I hope that my point that understanding what happens underneath the abstraction is, maybe, valuable can be expressed by these simple examples given.)
We once taught our children how to kill a tiger with a spear.. now that we have bows and firearms, is it still relevant?
I think it is still relevant. Perhaps using a spear is the best way (I really don't know because I haven't ever had to kill one). Let's see, we have a) a spear; and b) a firearm. They both kill the poor cat (that's the abstraction... the cat will die). But understanding how the firearm kills and how the spear kills might help choose the correct or most appropriate weapon given the circumstances.
A spear kills by piercing into the cat in an area that will lead to death (this needs further knowledge but I will assume that for a clean and quick kill that a firearm will require that same knowledge). A spear can be used two ways: a) you can throw it at the cat and hope for the best; or b) you can aim it at the cat as it attacks and let its momentum carry it onto the spear, driving the shaft deep into where you want it (can't do that with a gun). With the spear I guess you have to jump out of the way -- especially in the second case -- but the spear, hopefully, remains embedded in the cat further hampering its mobility (and who knows, maybe its aggression will refocus onto the spear instead of on the hunter).
A firearm will kill by penetration into flesh as well. Depending on the firearm and characteristics of the projectile it might rely on transferred energy as well. The momentum of the kitty probably plays little part in the end result though -- except that its mobility is not restricted by something inside itself rather than a spear that's banging against the ground and the trees around it, hampering further attack). The kitty cat will probably respond in anger towards what it perceives as the source of the pain -- the shooter -- rather than the spear that is embedded in it and flapping around while the kitty is in its death throes.
Also, depending on the firearm maybe it's not as nice as a spear for preserving the integrity of the cat's coat... perhaps a single entry wound and a mass of internal damage is better than blowing kitty's face off completely (again, depends on the actual weapon used but this still demonstrates the point that knowing the abstraction is worthwhile).
Sigh. Poor cat.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you either. Not entirely. What I disagree with is that not knowing details is not important (and I get the feeling that you don't believe that either, so I'm not really responding to you but the wider audience).
The stuff in that article isn't really about C++; it's about knowing how to program when the abstractions of higher level languages are not available. In other words, if you can program masterfully in C and are mediocre in ASM then C++ really shouldn't be a big hurdle. But, I don't think people these days learn the fundamentals first.
Ugh... substitute "trials" with "memory"... grrr.. i.e. more trials with less memory will more closely resemble the original observation; more trials with more memory will more closely resemble the noise in the observation.
a) observing the scene; b) recreating the scene/trajectory as they see it; and c) watching again and repeating
?
1) In the case of unlimited trials what will happen is that fewer clusters will be formed because the robots will follow the "average" trajectory of noise 2) In the case of limited trials more clusters will form (and they will be closer to the original trajectory because the amount of noise contributing to the trajectory is less) and the trajectories they follow will more closely resemble the original "course"
Maybe I'm missing something important. I'll read the paper again.
No, they showed that what their algorithm produced is what they designed the algorithm to do.
There is no fitness function or anything.
It's just... I'm not sure how to explain it. You can't form a hypothesis, develop and algorithm to mimic that hypothesis and then draw any conclusions because the algorithm does what it was designed to do. That just begs the question, as I initially said, and shows nothing.
How does it gel with the summary? I.e. how much memory do ants have -- none, 12 steps (maybe alcoholic ones do?), or unlimited? Do ants follow pheremones (unlike the robots in the summary, article and paper)?
Further, "diversity" is not the same as species abundance (and number of clusters doesn't play a part at all, and to a lesser extent neither does the size of the clusters unless there is some kind of boundary). I don't have the data but I wonder if the people running this -- what is it anyway? it's not an experiment, surely -- computer program realise that.
The difference was clear and significant; with limited memory an average of 2.8 clusters of average size 8.3, with unlimited memory 3.9 clusters of size 6.9.
Why is this clustering interesting? Well it’s because the number and size of clusters in the meme pool are good indicators of its diversity. Think of each cluster of related memes as a ‘tradition’. A healthy culture needs a balance between stability and diversity. Neither too much stability, i.e. a very small number (in the limit 1) of traditions, or too much diversity, i.e. clusters so small that there are no persistent traditions at all. Perhaps the ideal balance is a smallish number of somewhat persistent traditions.
No shit that the unlimited memory will result in fewer clusters -- they have, well, unlimited memory so they have much more (unlimited actually) scope for creating new clusters.
This study of some hypothesis (hypothesis) is literally begging the question by answering the question with... err the question itself.
I guess this is why I dislike most models. This "study" demonstrates nothing. Absolutely nothing except that the model behaves according to the model. Maybe a new phrase is needed: "begging the model".
Unfortunately many software developers these days are completely lost without an IDE
This is quite different to saying, for example, "Here is a developer who can continue to function without an IDE". I agree with the parent... many developers these days cannot function without an IDE; without one they have no clue where to start.
“Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.”
Confucius
Although the quote above is somewhat idealistic (unless you can work for yourself or happen to have a pretty non-typical workplace there are "political" considerations as well), in essence it's spot on. At the end of the journey we all end up as a pile of bones or ash. I'd rather spend that journey being poor and doing something I love than rich and doing something I hate (you will feel like a slave and not enjoy all that life offers). Each to their own, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I just had a look as well. The proposed solution is a linked list of linked lists isn't it? Perhaps this is the bit the kids are stumbling over.
Perhaps the kids' teachers taught them the other things and not sparse arrays. It's pretty hard to program something when you have no experience and the only clue you have to program is the title of the data structure.
I live in california where we always have some group of hairy drugged out morons protesting something. And the construction companies out here just expect it.
They plan for it... they say"well, we need this much cement, this many men, so many machine... and oh yeah, bolt cutters and an overtime budget to bring people in at midnight to do the job when all the hippies are sleeping.
The college campuses for example can't knock down trees on the premises during the school year. So they wait until the summer break then knock the trees back. The hippies come back and possibly see a stump. No discussion. No protest of consequence.
In Canada they had a bridge that needed to be widened. And some trees to the right of the bridge needed to be taken down. Of course the fucking trees were swarming with dreadlocked buffoons. So the city said "you win, we won't take the trees down, everyone go home"... hippies cleared out... and at midnight that very night the city just cut all the trees down that were in the way of the bridge.
And this is what the social discussion is at this point.
The stupid mountain in question is covered with fucking telescopes. Go up there and look at it. There are loads. Saying "oh not one more or it will anger our impotent god!'... please.
Your argument is flawed. First you use the word "hippies" in a derogatory way to evoke emotion. This is demonstrated by your entire post. So, from the start I can see your argument is on weak ground -- if the argument was solid you would not need to resort to such tactics.
In the case of the Canadian government lying to get the protesters away... yeah, great example. At least the so called (in your words) "hippies" have seemed to have some ethics and morals! The Canadian government in your example: they were the ones who acted like fuckwits and "buffoons".
Same thing with the college campuses. They dismiss people's concerns and values and just do what the fuck they want.
Who are you to dictate people's beliefs and their values? You're as bad as the idiots in the two examples you gave. Grow up and learn some respect. Falling back onto lies, loaded words ('"hippies" that all have dreadlocks, are stupid and buffoons') and other such juvenile and transparent actions to that just demonstrate your ignorance, lack of empathy and unstable stance makes me think that you are the one who needs some guidance. Your glee at governments and organisations to say one thing and then do another is... actually, I won't say what I was going to. It's sad and pathetic.
I agree. The outcome from lottery machines is way too predictable and that's why I'm a billionaire having never worked a day in my life.
The something, probably a gas cloud [...] How does this cause something to wake up?
I dunno about you, but if someone farted in my face while I was sleeping I'd probably wake up as well.
Could you perhaps find a synonym for effete? I'm asking this with the utmost sincerity because looking at your post history I think that your use of the word has become, well, effete.
TL;DR... TH;DR Too Hard, Didn't React
I guess I was looking at it more from the point of view of "how/why things are done" rather than the end effect (e.g. how linked lists -- yes, a very basic concept -- actually work rather than just knowing what it does; this, perhaps, provides insight into what algorithms are appropriate to use. Another example that came immediately to mind when reading the article was memory management: most students, for some reason, struggle with pointers; if they knew how things worked at a lower level [without even this shallow abstraction] perhaps they'd realise that they're not mysterious and it's simple indirection... maybe then handling memory would be easier... I'm not going to go on with examples of object oriented and other paradigms -- that can obviously be implemented in plain C -- because I hope that my point that understanding what happens underneath the abstraction is, maybe, valuable can be expressed by these simple examples given.)
We once taught our children how to kill a tiger with a spear.. now that we have bows and firearms, is it still relevant?
I think it is still relevant. Perhaps using a spear is the best way (I really don't know because I haven't ever had to kill one). Let's see, we have a) a spear; and b) a firearm. They both kill the poor cat (that's the abstraction... the cat will die). But understanding how the firearm kills and how the spear kills might help choose the correct or most appropriate weapon given the circumstances.
A spear kills by piercing into the cat in an area that will lead to death (this needs further knowledge but I will assume that for a clean and quick kill that a firearm will require that same knowledge). A spear can be used two ways: a) you can throw it at the cat and hope for the best; or b) you can aim it at the cat as it attacks and let its momentum carry it onto the spear, driving the shaft deep into where you want it (can't do that with a gun). With the spear I guess you have to jump out of the way -- especially in the second case -- but the spear, hopefully, remains embedded in the cat further hampering its mobility (and who knows, maybe its aggression will refocus onto the spear instead of on the hunter).
A firearm will kill by penetration into flesh as well. Depending on the firearm and characteristics of the projectile it might rely on transferred energy as well. The momentum of the kitty probably plays little part in the end result though -- except that its mobility is not restricted by something inside itself rather than a spear that's banging against the ground and the trees around it, hampering further attack). The kitty cat will probably respond in anger towards what it perceives as the source of the pain -- the shooter -- rather than the spear that is embedded in it and flapping around while the kitty is in its death throes.
Also, depending on the firearm maybe it's not as nice as a spear for preserving the integrity of the cat's coat... perhaps a single entry wound and a mass of internal damage is better than blowing kitty's face off completely (again, depends on the actual weapon used but this still demonstrates the point that knowing the abstraction is worthwhile).
Sigh. Poor cat.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you either. Not entirely. What I disagree with is that not knowing details is not important (and I get the feeling that you don't believe that either, so I'm not really responding to you but the wider audience).
The stuff in that article isn't really about C++; it's about knowing how to program when the abstractions of higher level languages are not available. In other words, if you can program masterfully in C and are mediocre in ASM then C++ really shouldn't be a big hurdle. But, I don't think people these days learn the fundamentals first.
Ugh... substitute "trials" with "memory"... grrr.. i.e. more trials with less memory will more closely resemble the original observation; more trials with more memory will more closely resemble the noise in the observation.
You're correct, but aren't the robots:
a) observing the scene;
b) recreating the scene/trajectory as they see it; and
c) watching again and repeating
?
1) In the case of unlimited trials what will happen is that fewer clusters will be formed because the robots will follow the "average" trajectory of noise
2) In the case of limited trials more clusters will form (and they will be closer to the original trajectory because the amount of noise contributing to the trajectory is less) and the trajectories they follow will more closely resemble the original "course"
Maybe I'm missing something important. I'll read the paper again.
No, they showed that what their algorithm produced is what they designed the algorithm to do.
There is no fitness function or anything.
It's just... I'm not sure how to explain it. You can't form a hypothesis, develop and algorithm to mimic that hypothesis and then draw any conclusions because the algorithm does what it was designed to do. That just begs the question, as I initially said, and shows nothing.
How does it gel with the summary? I.e. how much memory do ants have -- none, 12 steps (maybe alcoholic ones do?), or unlimited? Do ants follow pheremones (unlike the robots in the summary, article and paper)?
Ok, I just read the how draft paper and I need to apologise: it's worse than I thought :/
Further, "diversity" is not the same as species abundance (and number of clusters doesn't play a part at all, and to a lesser extent neither does the size of the clusters unless there is some kind of boundary). I don't have the data but I wonder if the people running this -- what is it anyway? it's not an experiment, surely -- computer program realise that.
The difference was clear and significant; with limited memory an average of 2.8 clusters of average size 8.3, with unlimited memory 3.9 clusters of size 6.9.
Why is this clustering interesting? Well it’s because the number and size of clusters in the meme pool are good indicators of its diversity. Think of each cluster of related memes as a ‘tradition’. A healthy culture needs a balance between stability and diversity. Neither too much stability, i.e. a very small number (in the limit 1) of traditions, or too much diversity, i.e. clusters so small that there are no persistent traditions at all. Perhaps the ideal balance is a smallish number of somewhat persistent traditions.
No shit that the unlimited memory will result in fewer clusters -- they have, well, unlimited memory so they have much more (unlimited actually) scope for creating new clusters.
This study of some hypothesis (hypothesis) is literally begging the question by answering the question with... err the question itself.
I guess this is why I dislike most models. This "study" demonstrates nothing. Absolutely nothing except that the model behaves according to the model. Maybe a new phrase is needed: "begging the model".
Did anyone else notice that the lead researcher was Gordon Shumway?
I have insider news. Of the 7,000 responses 6,945 were from this individual.
They're the developers who get things done.
You misunderstood the parent. They said:
Unfortunately many software developers these days are completely lost without an IDE
This is quite different to saying, for example, "Here is a developer who can continue to function without an IDE". I agree with the parent... many developers these days cannot function without an IDE; without one they have no clue where to start.
Honestly, this has to be the stupidest /. article ever. And that's saying something. I don't know whether to keep laughing or cry.
Subject line says it all; I expected more than that article provided. Please.
Pity I didn't click the Post Anonymously checkbox.
Posting AC because I moderated the parent up.
“Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.”
Confucius
Although the quote above is somewhat idealistic (unless you can work for yourself or happen to have a pretty non-typical workplace there are "political" considerations as well), in essence it's spot on. At the end of the journey we all end up as a pile of bones or ash. I'd rather spend that journey being poor and doing something I love than rich and doing something I hate (you will feel like a slave and not enjoy all that life offers). Each to their own, though.
Do you believe the BBT has been debunked by cosmologists properly accredited by degree-granting institutions?
At this point in time, no.
There is no direct quote... it's an allusion. That's why it's funny and clever.