"The hardest part of solving a problem is understanding it" - ?
The reason its hard to estimate development time is because programming involves design, design is a creative task.
Nobody can predict how long it takes to be creative, its a universal unknown. Creative workers (such as graphic artists) often estimate the design phase by giving themselves a hard limit and then just choosing the best idea they could come up with.
Most programmers dont even acknowledge their work is a creative expression, so they are bad at estimating what a reasonable "hard limit" might be. But even so, im not sure the same method of 'choosing the best idea within a given time limit' is suitable to programming. Some things just have to meet certain objective benchmarks or there is no point continuing.
Best idea i can come up with is to allocate your self "design time" first, which wont be long enough. Then you should be able to get a reasonable estimate of implementation time.
Anyway as pointed out, it is simply a PR campaign and an awareness thing. Anyone who believes they are actually doing something significant should be looked at with an arched eyebrow.
When a notable portion of the worlds people unite for the same cause, telling the various leaders that YES, WE DO CARE, they are doing something significant.
The difference between rich and poor, is that to poor people money is a means of survival, to rich people its a reward to make them feel important. (IMO)
Perhaps given your experience you can understand that ?
When rich people want to take back, or give less to society i feel its because they want their contributions to be recognised and not taken for granted. The best way to respond to that is to do everything possible to make sure that money IS spent wisely. If government basically just gave high income earners a refund because government isnt using it properly it would indicate the government is totally incompetent.
I dont think its unfair to take more from people who use money as an ego trip.
in any country where the wealthy carry the majority of the tax burden ( = the bulk of tax income comes from flat or progressive taxes) it's hard to justify them receiving fewer direct benefits than the poor
Benefits are given to those who need it most.
The government would be very inefficient if they gave out benefits to people who dont really need it.
Greater incentives for the poor to work harder.
Have you considered people might be poor because they dont have the opportunity to work "harder" (or work at all), that their wages are so low already they struggle to survive even with full time work.
Election at any cost, screw Australia. Reality and what's even good or necessary for this country to 'move forward' are irrelevant to this woman who's twice got into the role via a backdoor.
Whats good for this country is implkementing the Goonski recommendations, something this PM is committed to.
Twice go in through the back door... its called politics mate, she was pushed to the top by her peers, and she deserves to be there, best PM since Hawk.
You forgot to mention that Norht Korea can be currently seen invanding the USA. (in the movie Red dawn)
But seriously, you automatically assume the worst of country your leader has previously told you is bad, dont cite and evidence or even speculation. And you think North Korea isnt free, look at yourself.
It is with nonsensical replies such as yours that I end up wondering if eugenics was such a bad concept.
But im sure you are otherwise a wonderful caring person....
Lots to discuss, but to point out your consistent failing in all your responses is that you seem determined to understand things within the context of your own knowledge. But i suspect your mind is big enough to understand its own limits (like every human mind). That is what i was alluding to when i stated that "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". For a mind to grow it has to consider things it is not presently capable of understanding.
Yes one word can describe many different things, and many different words can also be required to describe one thing. Language is not supposed to be a science, and the human brain is not a scientific instrument. The right meaning is usually interpreted from context, its supposed to be fuzzy.
When Heraclitus said (paraphrased) "You can never step into the same river twice" he was using two meanings of the word river (as a flowing body of water, and as a path) to make a statement is moronic on the surface and yet on another level is profound. Some statement are profound not because of its meaning, but because of thought process it promotes in the reader. You could persuade yourself of almost anything, but the path you choose is your choice, a choice you can learn from.
You look for complex answers and ignore the simple ones, something exists subjectively if they think it exists. And for all sciences advancements from objective truths, what a person thinks subjectively will always be of immediate importance. You cannot measure love, security or happiness of a Human objectively, with good is your m-theory or spacetime static waves theory of existence then.
One of the greatest failings in the field of physics is the failure to understand that time is just a concept, stuff exists and that stuff changes. The fact that stuff changes doesnt make time (a measure of relative change) real.
"Science is not done by straw poll, so the views of most (uneducated, I might add) people is unimportant. What matters is that physicists and mathematicians..."
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Regarding your simplistic definition of existence, ask yourself, does a person exist after they die ?
Look, this is very simple. We don't even know if THIS universe is a computer simulation. (See arXiv for constraints.) If this universe is a simulation, it is by definition a cyberspace. If cyberspace does not exist, then no law governing anything within this universe is possible.
Since laws governing this universe are possible, one of the statements in that chain must be false. The one most likely to be false is that cyberspace does not exist.
I think most people would say the most likely statment to be false is "this universe is a simulation"
C has an advantage in corner cases due to the flexibility of its lower level.
So if there is a need to use two separate abstraction layers, then a 'hand rolled' version might be able to find savings that a compiler wouldn't look for as its treating them separately for external reasons.
But like i said initially, the benefits only get less meaningful with time.
Programmer/team preference is way more important than any real technical difference between C and C++
I say C++ is slower than C because; as more abstraction is placed between the programmer and the hardware, it gets more difficult for the compiler to achieve the same quality of code.
C++ is Object Oriented, to do OO requires more abstraction, OO is used to make problems easier for Humans to understand, not to make it easier for hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
"The hardest part of solving a problem is understanding it" - ?
The reason its hard to estimate development time is because programming involves design, design is a creative task.
Nobody can predict how long it takes to be creative, its a universal unknown. Creative workers (such as graphic artists) often estimate the design phase by giving themselves a hard limit and then just choosing the best idea they could come up with.
Most programmers dont even acknowledge their work is a creative expression, so they are bad at estimating what a reasonable "hard limit" might be. But even so, im not sure the same method of 'choosing the best idea within a given time limit' is suitable to programming. Some things just have to meet certain objective benchmarks or there is no point continuing.
Best idea i can come up with is to allocate your self "design time" first, which wont be long enough. Then you should be able to get a reasonable estimate of implementation time.
Well, I could care less about this those who couldnt care more, and couldnt care less about those who care more.
SO THERE !
they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.
If people with guns are not allowed to use their comon sense then the world if f*cked. (talking about TSA incase your stupid)
If your customers respect you and the work you do then they will go out of their way to help you.
Treat your customers like your friends.
Anyway as pointed out, it is simply a PR campaign and an awareness thing. Anyone who believes they are actually doing something significant should be looked at with an arched eyebrow.
When a notable portion of the worlds people unite for the same cause, telling the various leaders that YES, WE DO CARE, they are doing something significant.
The difference between rich and poor, is that to poor people money is a means of survival, to rich people its a reward to make them feel important. (IMO)
Perhaps given your experience you can understand that ?
When rich people want to take back, or give less to society i feel its because they want their contributions to be recognised and not taken for granted. The best way to respond to that is to do everything possible to make sure that money IS spent wisely. If government basically just gave high income earners a refund because government isnt using it properly it would indicate the government is totally incompetent.
I dont think its unfair to take more from people who use money as an ego trip.
in any country where the wealthy carry the majority of the tax burden ( = the bulk of tax income comes from flat or progressive taxes) it's hard to justify them receiving fewer direct benefits than the poor
Benefits are given to those who need it most.
The government would be very inefficient if they gave out benefits to people who dont really need it.
Greater incentives for the poor to work harder.
Have you considered people might be poor because they dont have the opportunity to work "harder" (or work at all), that their wages are so low already they struggle to survive even with full time work.
Smells like indentured servants.
Election at any cost, screw Australia. Reality and what's even good or necessary for this country to 'move forward' are irrelevant to this woman who's twice got into the role via a backdoor.
Whats good for this country is implkementing the Goonski recommendations, something this PM is committed to.
Twice go in through the back door... its called politics mate, she was pushed to the top by her peers, and she deserves to be there, best PM since Hawk.
This is just a ploy by a desperate PM ...
Oh lovely, its blame Julia time again, do you have a spare pitchfork and ditch the witch badge ?
the public doesn't actually get the real facts...
Many in academic circles have stated that there is a clear media bias against the government. I guess its Julias fault people watch MSM too ?
If Y=f(x) then X arent all freeloaders by definition.
It is correct to be offended by, story is the big troll IMO.
You forgot to mention that Norht Korea can be currently seen invanding the USA. (in the movie Red dawn)
But seriously, you automatically assume the worst of country your leader has previously told you is bad, dont cite and evidence or even speculation. And you think North Korea isnt free, look at yourself.
Perhaps its fairer to say that the US declared war against itself.
I believe the snapdragon boards have binary only components.
Are they trying to reinvent android ?
How To Safeguard Loose Nukes
Tie them down good with rope, and remember, if you cant tie knots, tie lots.
Or maybe put them in boxes, they shouldnt roll away then.
Add to that arrogant behavior that would end up with them being punched in face
You need to talk to someone about your anger managment problems.
It is with nonsensical replies such as yours that I end up wondering if eugenics was such a bad concept.
But im sure you are otherwise a wonderful caring person....
Lots to discuss, but to point out your consistent failing in all your responses is that you seem determined to understand things within the context of your own knowledge. But i suspect your mind is big enough to understand its own limits (like every human mind). That is what i was alluding to when i stated that "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". For a mind to grow it has to consider things it is not presently capable of understanding.
Yes one word can describe many different things, and many different words can also be required to describe one thing. Language is not supposed to be a science, and the human brain is not a scientific instrument. The right meaning is usually interpreted from context, its supposed to be fuzzy.
When Heraclitus said (paraphrased) "You can never step into the same river twice" he was using two meanings of the word river (as a flowing body of water, and as a path) to make a statement is moronic on the surface and yet on another level is profound. Some statement are profound not because of its meaning, but because of thought process it promotes in the reader. You could persuade yourself of almost anything, but the path you choose is your choice, a choice you can learn from.
You look for complex answers and ignore the simple ones, something exists subjectively if they think it exists. And for all sciences advancements from objective truths, what a person thinks subjectively will always be of immediate importance. You cannot measure love, security or happiness of a Human objectively, with good is your m-theory or spacetime static waves theory of existence then.
One of the greatest failings in the field of physics is the failure to understand that time is just a concept, stuff exists and that stuff changes. The fact that stuff changes doesnt make time (a measure of relative change) real.
"Science is not done by straw poll, so the views of most (uneducated, I might add) people is unimportant. What matters is that physicists and mathematicians ..."
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Regarding your simplistic definition of existence, ask yourself, does a person exist after they die ?
Troll (-1) = Insightful (+1) * CounterIntuitive (0).
Clearly moderation is broken.
Look, this is very simple. We don't even know if THIS universe is a computer simulation. (See arXiv for constraints.) If this universe is a simulation, it is by definition a cyberspace. If cyberspace does not exist, then no law governing anything within this universe is possible.
Since laws governing this universe are possible, one of the statements in that chain must be false. The one most likely to be false is that cyberspace does not exist.
I think most people would say the most likely statment to be false is "this universe is a simulation"
Also, define exist please.
analogizing Michael Lind' as a real place leads to an inability to think logically about laws, rules, ....
Nobody thinks cyberspace is a real space, its unreal space, nothing there is real, its all just patterns, a place where geography doesnt matter.
Stupid people ask stupid questions.
"I really hope you don't mind some faceless organization dealing with your bouts of dementia and incontinence."
People spend much of their life planning and working so they can have a happy and graceful death, they dont try to have a happy life.
4) Addict subconsciously believes any argument that might help satisfy the addiction.
Dont be so superficial, its not about the structures, its about the people.
Im sure we could all make a big mess in a cathedral if it was useful.
C has an advantage in corner cases due to the flexibility of its lower level.
So if there is a need to use two separate abstraction layers, then a 'hand rolled' version might be able to find savings that a compiler wouldn't look for as its treating them separately for external reasons.
But like i said initially, the benefits only get less meaningful with time.
Programmer/team preference is way more important than any real technical difference between C and C++
I say C++ is slower than C because; as more abstraction is placed between the programmer and the hardware, it gets more difficult for the compiler to achieve the same quality of code.
C++ is Object Oriented, to do OO requires more abstraction, OO is used to make problems easier for Humans to understand, not to make it easier for hardware.