|
Quote: probabilistically checkable proof (PCP)
Riiight. So we can say what we always have been saying: "Probably works." What are they inhaling? 
|
|
|
|
|
Controversial facial recognition company Clearview AI has been ordered to delete all data belonging to UK residents by the country’s privacy watchdog John Travolta approves
Or is that Nicholas Cage?
|
|
|
|
|
At Computex 2022, Panos Panay re-iterated on this idea once more stating that quality of the OS was still the highest priority for the Windows 11 development team. Microsoft: Redefining quality since 1975
Or:
Quality is job onc
or:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Pick one, or provide your own.
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the K in Kwalitee
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft has always been about creating quality software at an affordable price. For anyone to question this is just silly talk. 
|
|
|
|
|
"We promise you the highest quality icons our new DRM can bring you, no matter how many old systems we have to abandon. You will like it, and we will know! (Unless you have an old system. Did I mention we like putting nag screens on old systems? Real high quality nag screens!)"
|
|
|
|
|
"This large-scale adoption is for good reasons and the Redmond giant has explained that the adoption rate has been mainly driven by the quality of the OS itself."
How's that coolaid Panos? You force people to abandon perfectly good h/w for security *then* you claim quality? You guys have lone ago become jokes. Go back and work on your icons (like the other poster suggested).
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine a future where racks of computer servers hum quietly in darkness below the surface of the Moon. It's all fun-and-games until someone's got to go restart the server
I guess cooling won't be an issue?
|
|
|
|
|
A new method that could automatically detect and kill cyberattacks on our laptops, computers and smart devices in under a second has been created by researchers at Cardiff University. Can we get it to work on the attackers?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Can we get it to work on the attackers?
I think it is more important to ask if the attackers can get it to work for them... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
We consider the question from both sides because, as it turns out, there are no easy answers. Voulez-vous coder avec moi ce soir ?
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would help if we knew what was the point of the question?!
|
|
|
|
|
"A drug is a substance, that when injected into a rat, will produce a report."
This is a linguistical analogue.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand your point 
Maybe you didn't understand mine either.
To put it another way, let's say you tell me authoritatively that programming language are indeed languages, or not.
Well.. so what? Why should I care?
|
|
|
|
|
My point was that this article was written solely to increase the writer's publication count.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, cheeky! 
|
|
|
|
|
- They only exist in written form. So what, nothing in the definition of language requires a language be spoken.
- Not evolving naturally isn't a good criteria. Humans change their languages, many times to their detriment. Programming languages don't change that fast and usually keep backwards compatibility. This is possibly the strongest argument against programming languages being languages but even it falls short when considering that "dead" languages such as Latin no longer change over time.
- The don't evolve naturally. Of course they don't - we create the machines and the languages are created to communicate with our machines.
- They aren't used for communications between humans. Anyone who has a cat or dog knows that language isn't just for communications between humans. The example of translation is also contrived as it's far easier to translate programs between languages than it is to translate human languages. There are so many more nuances and traps for the unwary when translating human languages that it catches even professional translators on occasion.
Bottom line - this author has zero clue about what he's writing about.
modified 23-May-22 10:02am.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: Humans change their languages, many times to their detriment. Programming languages don't change that fast and usually keep backwards compatibility.
That doesn't mean that the changes are to their detriment too 
obermd wrote: Bottom line - this author has zero clue about what he's writing about.
surprise, surprise...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd argue that programming languages are used to communicate between humans. A well-written program should be readable by other humans.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Software vulnerabilities are prevalent across all systems that are built using source codes, causing a variety of problems including deadlock, hacking or even system failures. It just flags all the lines of code Bob wrote
|
|
|
|
|
Debugging software that is running 150 million miles away is something most of us will never have to do 150 million miles is the correct distance to be from a Lisp program
|
|
|
|
|
LISP - Lost Inter-Stellar Probe?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't that be NATHA?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: one of Garret’s coders had called a lower-level Lisp function — which had inadvertently created “an end-run around the safety guarantees” of their carefully-customized language.
This is the fundamental flaw of inheritance in OO programming.
|
|
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with inheritance or OO at all. The code is in LISP, a functional language. From the sound of it, it called a lower-level function, implemented as native code, that didn't provide the safety guarantees.
More like calling a C API from a managed language.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
