Novash

When I studied C in College, I could tell you all functions on the ANSI library. More often than not, it meant that I knew if a library had something already done so we wouldn't need to do it again. Even simply things like using freopen to redirect standard output to a file, or using sscanf to parse an user input where outside of the class curriculum that I only got to know because I studied the language somewhat in depth. Now that I work with C#, nearly everytime I need a class that is somewhat uncommon, I am forced to do a research, and it usually DO exist in the framework (exception in mind, double indexed lists) somewhere. But I do not know it. Even the expert C# guys do not know it. We need to research. Because the framework is too big, it is not possible to know it. And because it is not possible to know it, every time I am coding, I feel like blind because of the possibility that of what I am doing is actually already there and I don't know it because I didn't think of the right words to research it for.

Wait, wait. You mean that it can be different from it?

Please do. I have half a mind to send this to my wife...

What is cold-email?

Not dissing the article itself, but this is the second article on psychology in the last hour. Is psychology within the interestes of HN now?

Simply put, the restriction is that you cannot profit from it. I use all the 'Express' stack to develop at home. All free. Including the XNA lib.

REPL in eMacs? Looks like Lisp to me.

A suggestion to whoever took the screenshot: ALT + PRINT SCREEN removes the taskbar.

I know. It is called Christmas

No, really. Someone's got a lot of free time on his hands. C'mon! Yesterday's XKCD?

I have a friend who died of cancer on August 10. Late to him, I meant.

That's why I play Dual-N Back as well. It is an exercise meant to train direct recall, very short-time and short-time memory.

Agreed

The brain does have a fixed daily capacity, but it is far higher than what we use in average. My prick with phone numbers is not that remembering them on itself is wasteful, but simply that people seem to change phone numbers so often (due to lost, broken, change of company, etc) that I stopped bothering to remember them. Also, I play Sudoku and Dual N-Back in a daily basis to keep my mind sharp.

I was joking, but thanks for asking anyway.

You're going too little backwards in time. Spaceflight was proposed in the begining of the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#A_Method_of_R...

And yes, it was very criticized at the time but as you said, mainly by the media, as it seems. I doubt, however, that they did it without any backing.

And I was wrong about satellites, it seems. I was pretty sure that the idea of using them as communications relay was also dissed, but I couldn't find any references about it.

I can, however, give you one solid example of something that was completely discredited by the scientists, which is flight. It was widely believe at the time that no object heavier than the air could fly.

I'd like to see how they apply this 'basic science' rule for the Peace Prize.

Unfortunately, they arrived one month too late.

And very rarely they result in cure. Sometimes, they give you some years till recurrence kicks in. Mostly, they make your last years very miserable.

Now I can see your point. Thanks for the reply. However, this treatment is not only about localized toxin. It has a two-fold approach of both blocking the blood path the tumor is feeding of and using a localized chemo treatment. Wouldn't this approach be more effective than the actual ways? I have another question. Since you claim that localized toxin causes the recurrence to be much more difficult to treat because the 1% that survives is resistant to chemo, wouldn't an unlocalized toxin be much worse because not only it would also not kill these 1% that was resistance, but also it would kill less of those 99% susceptible and would also kill some healthy cells, making the body weaker and the recurrence to occur sooner?

I believe that there is a serious incentive on prevention and efficiency. However, there is a much louder voice for curing and expansion. I can offer you two reasons why.

1) Lack of better knowledge in the past: For a long time people thought smoking was fashionable. Today we know it causes lung cancer, but it is now too late to tell all those people that have been smoking their entire life. This can be said about nearly everything in every other field. I would not say that we have better knowledge about many things now. Science is still not sure if eggs are good or bad for you, neither why many people develop lactose intollerance after their childhood. Because of that, prevention is pretty much a luck guess by now. We look at those who have survived and try to figure out why. Then we tell people to do that and see if it works, but there are so many factors that 'I' feel that prevention is in many cases just a gambling game.

2) Lack of knowledge of economy of scale. When the industrial revolution started, steam was on its heydays, and all that, the idea of recycling and efficiency didn't exist AT ALL. People really thought that Earth could take everything that was thrown at it and its resources would last forever. Only now, with a population of many billions that we are seeing that Earth is panting, trying to catch up with our wasteful ways. The idea of 'reduce, reuse, recycle' to save resources is very new and there is a lot of social and economical mommentum it needs to overcome before it becomes mainstream.

Plus radio, navigation, flight, supersonic flight, space flight, sattelites, computers that break the 1 GHz clock barrier (remember that one?). I daresay everything that was invented since the Greeks owned the world.

True.

You sound like the doctors on the article that says that "it wouldn't work anyway". I understand that you have a far greater background than I have and I respect that, but you must keep your mind open. Most of the great anchievements of mankind 'wouldn't work anyway' in the minds of the specialists of the age. And they were wrong. With all due respect, you, giving you background on the matter, can find any technical reason why it wouldn't work? Can any of your colleagues? I am not asking about a real test, just a theorical reason based on everything you know about the field.

Me too. Seems to be increasing. :-P

I disagree. I believe the user threshold to be higher because it does require a good connection. And good connections are not common.

You may probably have a good (or even a decent) connection to the net, but I have a painful 3G connection that lately have been dishing out a performance worse than my old US Robotics 33.6 Modem.

Playing browser based games nearly mandate that you have both a good and stable connection. Stable being a often forgotten keyword. Connection spikes can kill you easier than the challenges you face, even very small spikes can bother you severely.

However, desktop based game tend to be very network-cheap. Civilization can be easily played on a 56k dialup connection, without much hassle. But the latest batch of MMOs are very network demanding, which is the main reason I won't even bother to try them for a good while, even the desktop ones. Devs seem to be only cattering to the very small percent of the gamers that happen to have good connections.

I don't know why you were downvotted. You do have a point. If we hide the name of the user on the header, they will probably simply post their name on the post itself.

You can't vote down until you hit a certain karma threshold.

I never heard of Qt. What's good about it?

I studied Java at College. I knew C, Pascal and some C++. I remember VERY CLEARLY hating it. But it was long ago, and I had long forgotten why, so I recently (like 2 weeks ago) decided to give Java another try. And I remember now why.

When you have fscanf, or cin, doing a new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader()) just to read a key from console seems pretty stupid. I know Java has System.In.Read, but why doesn't it have System.In.Readln? (forgive me if it does, but the course I took specifically said it doesn't)

Also, why the redundante names for enum constants? What was the guy thinking when he designed swing? A method that returns you a MessageBox object instead of simply a MessageBox class? I'm sorry about the rant, but Java style feel ackward after coding for a couple years in C#.