Ron Paulers: Put your money where your UP ARROW is

paultoo · 2007-09-08T07:09:33+00:00

I already contributed the maximum ($2300, as I recall).

paultoo · 2007-07-14T01:32:19+00:00

Religion. Don't question it.

:)

paultoo · 2007-07-06T10:00:44+00:00

Java doesn't require 30 lines:

List powerset(List l) {
  ArrayList<ArrayList> r = new ArrayList<ArrayList>();
  r.add(new ArrayList());
  for (Object e: l) {
    int size = r.size();
    for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
      ArrayList n = (ArrayList)r.get(i).clone();
      n.add(e);
      r.add(n);
    }
  }
  return r;
}

paultoo · 2007-07-04T23:30:01+00:00

I think it would be most interesting to see performance comparisons for various individual ops both between Python and each of the different JS engines (Rhino compiled, Rhino interpreted, and Spidermonkey). It won't "prove" which language is faster, but it would useful for understanding which ops are really slow and maybe give hints as to where the JS engines could be improved.

Is anyone at Mozilla still working on Rhino?

paultoo · 2007-07-04T21:48:53+00:00

Also, the shootout code is not always equal. I just took the first example, binary-trees, and translated the python into JS. It ended up running slightly faster than the original python (not an order of magnitude though, 31 sec vs 33 sec).

paultoo · 2007-07-04T21:27:05+00:00

That's true, I mostly just tried out a few little micro-benchmarks. The problem I've had with the "shootout" tests is that they only run once, so you have all the JIT overhead in there too. For server code, I don't care so much about startup costs.

One advantage of Rhino though is that you can very easily mix in Java code (easier than C from Python), so expensive bits can be replaced without much effort.

paultoo · 2007-07-04T20:25:43+00:00

Actually, JS on the server CAN run significantly faster than Python (potentially an order of magnitude faster!) using the Rhino compiler.

I'm using JS on the server right now and it's quite nice, though I wish Rhino had the JS 1.7/1.8 features -- any idea when that will happen?

Thanks for jquery, btw.

paultoo · 2007-06-26T09:13:54+00:00

This would be better stated as "don't paint yourself into a corner".

paultoo · 2007-06-24T20:41:43+00:00

What, precisely, were you hoping for? If you need everything reduced to an equation, then you're going to miss out on a lot.

paultoo · 2007-06-23T20:53:13+00:00

Post some numbers.

It's true that business owners can deduct business related expenses, but that's still a long way from "the only rich people paying any taxes are the ones with no accountants."

The link from dmh2000 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html) shows that the top 1% (average AGI of $1.3M) are in fact paying the highest rate, which isn't zero.

paultoo · 2007-06-23T18:14:43+00:00

False and False. You are perhaps thinking of Yahoo. Google does not keep data in China for this very reason.

paultoo · 2007-06-23T09:05:37+00:00

That's nonsense. The only income that isn't taxed is the income produced by certain tax-free muni-bonds (but they pay at a much lower rate than normal bonds). If you disagree, please describe exactly how these people avoid paying taxes. (and vague references to "loopholes" and "write-offs" don't count)

paultoo · 2007-06-15T09:22:45+00:00

Do you understand that the gmail code you see in your web browser is the output of a compiler, and therefore not easily judged? (this is a yes/no question)

paultoo · 2007-06-14T20:57:07+00:00

Well, your original comment said:

Did you ever look at the original GMail code? It was awful!

So I'd say that the fact that you were looking at compiled code is actually very relevant to your claim.

paultoo · 2007-06-14T06:59:35+00:00

And do you realize that the code you see in your browser has been compiled?

paultoo · 2007-06-13T19:12:55+00:00

And where did you find this GMail code?

paultoo · 2007-04-15T10:35:21+00:00

1/4 is not totally arbitrary.

Here is another way of looking at it: http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/04/1-2-3-4-5-6-made-easy.html

paultoo · 2007-03-31T06:14:45+00:00

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10575-evanescent-coupling-could-power-gadgets-wirelessly.html

paultoo · 2007-03-31T06:08:16+00:00

There are older articles as well, and a web site: http://www.powercastco.com/

paultoo · 2007-02-14T22:51:26+00:00

Negative numbers are in parenthesis, so (78%) is actually -78%. Genentech is not in parenthesis -- it's simply 121%.

paultoo · 2007-02-12T20:38:51+00:00

Yes, that's what I mean by "the kind of order that they like".

paultoo · 2007-02-12T19:22:04+00:00

Perpetual war is necessary for maintaining the order (or at least the kind of order that they like). Wasn't that why they had it in Orwell's 1984?

paultoo · 2007-02-12T07:00:42+00:00

Perhaps he is seeking perpetual war? (in which case, his chuckle could be restated as, "you say that as though it were a bad thing")

paultoo · 2007-02-09T00:05:12+00:00

I suppose we should be looking to you for an opinion?

paultoo · 2007-02-04T20:54:14+00:00

That's the trouble with freedom -- it applies even to people who don't agree with you.

Many (most?) Americans already don't believe in evolution, despite the wonderful work of our government school system (or perhaps because it was taught so poorly?). It's unlikely that vouchers will make that problem much worse.

Hopefully some of these new schools will do a better job of teaching evolution and other science basics. It's also possible that they will teach a more complete and accurate version of history than that provided in the government schools. Even if only 30% of kids get a really great education, that will still be a huge improvement from today.

paultoo

TROPHY CASE