I'm no fan of Java-based curricula, for the same reason I'd be no fan of Fortran-based curricula. Computing isn't about one language. Each language and system shows you one hyperplane of a vast multidimensional space. The best programmers know lots of languages, and choose wisely among them — or even create new ones when appropriate.
In the production world, there are times where some C++ or Java code is appropriate
(Just last night, at a meetup, I was talking with two bright young physicists who reported that their universities don't do a good enough job of teaching Fortran, which is the language they actually need to do their job. Scientific computing still relies heavily on Fortran, Matlab, and other languages well removed from what's trendy in the CS department — no matter if that CS department is in the Java, Haskell, or Python camp. But if you want to learn to write good Fortran, you basically need a mentor in the physics department with time to teach you.)
And there are times when the right thing to do is to create a new language, whether a domain-specific language or a new approach on general-purpose computing. There's a good reason Rob Pike came up with Sawzall, a logs-analysis DSL that compiles to arbitrarily parallel mapreduces; and then Go, a C-like systems language with a rocket engine of concurrency built in.
(And there's a good reason a lot of people adopting Go have been coming not from the C++/Java camps that the Go developers expected, but from Python and Ruby: because Go gives you the raw speed of a concurrent and native-compiled language, plus libraries designed by actual engineers, without a lot of the verbose bullshit of C++ or Java. Would I recommend Go as a first language? I'm not so sure about that
What would an optimal computing curriculum look like? I have no freakin' clue. It would have to cover particular basics — variable binding, iteration, recursion, sequencing, data structures, libraries and APIs, concurrency — no matter what the language. But it can't leave its students thinking that one language is Intuitive and the other ones are Just Gratuitously Weird
So if I go "Totenberg,Totenberg,Totenberg" it will summon her into existence form inside of radio space:)
As long as the trailer and voiceover bits are done by Nina Totenberg
I don't really understand why nearly 5 years after the palm pre, this isn't a built in feature at this point. The market is running more and more toward unopenable, and unserviceable phones anyway. The inductor back panel for my pre was exactly the same size as the factory one.
That being said, webOS let you do things current phones cant to...
So HL2, came out in back in 2004 had this quote in it, from the character of Dr Breen : Are all the accomplishments of humanity fated to be nothing more than a layer of broken plastic shards thinly strewn across a fossil bed, sandwiched between the Burgess shale and an eon's worth of mud?
While certainly this is not a surprise consequence to anyone in a scientific field(s) involved. I find it somewhat ironic that the sentiment (no pun), showed up in a video game.
It seems that the logic here might not be applied consistently.
If we are shortening password change time for poor passwords, under the argument they are easy to crack; then likewise hard passwords that would take a "forever" to crack should have no expiry. The rules have decided to be altered, except for the ones that are established orthodoxy, those must blindly be followed without adjudication for all time.
Perhaps the real pavolvian behavior here is the bell that rings every 90 days.
The "password hacking attempt" at the bottom of the page had me concerned for a moment, but after seeing that it was just iterating common words found on my FB page with random l33tsp34k, I stopped worrying. I liked how they labeled one of my best friends (best man at my wedding) and my god daughter as stalking targets. I wasn't that impressed with the site.
Second, I really wonder how they defined a cell phone as being involved in an accident. Did they just record any accident where a phone was someplace visible to the driver? Did they record any accident where a call was in progress? Did they try to determine if the call itself contributed to the accident? Did fault come into it? If you're parked talking on the phone and somebody rear-ends you, does that count as a phone-involved accident?
These stats might be really telling us that lots of cars have cell phones in them.
Ah, someone who thinks along the lines I do. The one I get here in the islands on US AM radio speaks of 1 in every X fatal accidents involves a pedestrian. (I think X=4)
So I say, right, so when a pedestrian jumps in front of a car causing teh driver to swerve and plunge into a deep roadside canal and die, are they counting that as a fatal accident involving a pedestrian? What about one where two cars collide head on and a pedestrian is "involved" as the only witness?
all the best,
Will the plot summary for the end of the show be published ever again?
It was up briefly years ago but seems to have fallen into the memory hole.
But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives.
You never use a search engine while writing? They're awfully handy for fact-checking, looking up sources, and so on.
But I suppose those sorts of activities are not required these days