Comment Tsk tsk tsk (Score 5, Insightful) 103
How USA of them
How USA of them
That reminds me of this spoof: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?Ayn...
The total angular momentum of all solar system objects remain the same, correct? So if we ignore those flung out of the solar system for now (assuming it's not a signif. factor), if Jupiter increases its angular momentum (moves "outward"), then a good many objects will lose angular momentum to counter. Where did it go? Do many "long orbit" objects that once had a semi-circular orbits now have highly elliptical orbits (as many comets do)?
But readable code is often preferred over clever code by team members.
... a patchwork of open-source freebies.
So, what's it like to work for FaceBook?
I suppose all those "// damn U bill gates!" comments gave me away
The real Justin B crashes cars, and the Justin B app crashes phones.
This seems backwards; I'm missing something. Remember, I'm asking about Jupiter moving back out, not in toward the sun (which the article suggests is from friction with dust etc.). Other objects would have to lose orbital momentum for Jupiter to gain. Jup moving out would push the space junk inward, not outward.
What about Steam on Linux, Microsoft charging a yearly subscription for Windows 10*, and nobody wanting to pay to continue using the computer they already bought?
*Windows 10 upgrades within the first year of release come with a free lifelong subscription until Windows 10 is discontinued. Corporate subscription is per-user on unlimited devices, rather than per-device.
I don't believe the expansion of the universe makes any notable difference on the scale of a solar system.
The idea that Jupiter moved inwards then back out would have the back out movement come from flinging smaller planetoids out of their orbit and exchanging angular momentum.
But Jupiter is massively massive, to misuse English. It's hard to believe all those small asteroids and junk would have enough bulk and momentum to make a difference on it.
Was there a lot more junk flinging around back then? I don't get it.
To get it to pass, rename it JobCreator++
Let me clarify. It may be "software engineering science" to study reasons existing code bases need changes (written in varied languages and paradigms), but as given, it is not OOP-specific science. The
I do not believe there are ANY field studies in Meyer's book that show OOP "being better". You are welcome to prove me wrong.
Maybe what he really wants is logic programming, along Prolog's line.
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.