Its syntax is nothing like Java's. Its structures are nothing like Java's. Both being high-level languages, of course it is almost inevitable that they deal with some of the same data structures, like strings and arrays. But program structure is markedly different.
When it was first becoming popular outside Japan, various comparisons showed Ruby to average about 20% as many lines of code to get the same job done as Java programs that did the same things.
Granted, those demonstrations might have been somewhat slanted and not completely "fair". Nevertheless, to say that there are very significant differences is an understatement.
"Wasn't C once considered a relatively "high" language when it first emerged and is now more of a "middle" language?"
No, C has never been considered a "high level" language in the Computer Science world, when compared to its predecessors such as BASIC and PASCAL. (Say what you want about BASIC, but it *is* a high level language, and vastly more so today than when it first appeared.)
People who insist that C a "high-level" language (you did not do that) make me cringe. At best, C is a "mid-level" language, lying somewhere between a high-level language and Assembly.
"String.instance_methods.select {|m| m =~/sub/}} is the perlish alternative."
Actually your "Perlish" form is the preferred way to do it in Ruby.
On the other hand, that's one of the nice things about Ruby. There are different ways to get things done. There are a few people who might consider that a flaw, but that does not seem to be the general consensus.
"Overall, this article seems to be devoid of content..."
It is also devoid of meaning.
Not to discount Nutter's contribution to the Ruby world, but he hasn't been a significant contributor to the language itself. Rather, he's been working on porting Ruby to the Java VM (Jruby). Not the same things at all. Not even close, really.
Something like this is what I was thinking as well. As long as you have a way to stand your tablet, the ergonomics are probably better than a laptop or netbook anyway.
Let's face it: despite claims here to the contrary, the ergonomics of most laptops leaves much to be desired. Even though my main machine is a laptop with a full-sized keyboard, I use a bluetooth keyboard so that I can put the screen at the proper distance.
"There's no need to try to debunk that paper you linked. "
By the way, one last comment: it is considered rather bad form on Slashdot to mod somebody then log out and comment as AC. In fact, it's against the rules.
"In a way, though, this underscores my original point, that we're fooled by behavioural changes into assuming that animals have changed drastically due to domestication."
Yes, I agree. No argument here. I would illustrate with an example from my own pet, but that would be giving away too much personal information for Slashdot. Some of the people here are, to be blunt, not very nice.
"Karma ain't workin, or the glibertardians would hemorrhage out of the sole orifice they are speaking from - their arse...."
So... you stepped in here for the sole purpose of insulting me again, when all I did was make a silly joke to someone else and wasn't talking to you at all.
That makes you the biggest asshole I've encountered so far in all of my years on Slashdot. Wait... except for one other person, who did exactly the same thing. Once.
Do you know the definition of "troll"? Maybe you should look it up. And try to guess why people think it's a bad thing.
"There's no need to try to debunk that paper you linked. The thermite claim is way out on the fringe, and it's posted in a journal owned by a group with a less than stellar reputation. Jones, one of the authors, is bollocks-deep in the 911 truth movement, and that's where the paper appears to be garnering the most attention. Jones being on the fringe, publishing in a somewhat second-rate journal, does not invalidate the claims made in the paper. It does however tell me exactly how much credence I should be giving this paper."
You are just as bad as all the others. Wrong. You DO need to refute the paper.
Shooting the messenger DOESN'T WORK. This isn't "300", and kicking the messenger into a pit isn't going to make it go away. That's not how science works.
Also, Jones did not become involved until later, when the authors found out that nobody else would touch their story.
It's just the same old bullshit argument. People don't want to hear the bad news, so they try to ignore it, and won't publish it. Then, when an outlet is found anyway, they say: "Look! It's can't be true because it was published in that second-rate rag."
Your logic is just as bad as the guy who doesn't think he needs to worry about a dog, just because he encountered it in a back alley. Must be a second-rate dog then too, yes? Surely it can't bite very hard.
"Like it or not, the US is stuck with everyone else in the world and what they want."
No, they are not. That was proven in Iraq.
"It's not like the US doesn't use it's privileged position in the UN to try and bully the rest of the world when it feels like it."
True, and I don't approve. Don't mistake an out-of-control government's actions for the wishes of the people.
One thing history makes very clear: a good government is not a controlling government. Freedom is more efficient.
Regardless of how things are in YOUR country, this has been studied in the United States for decades, and we have a definitive answer: "gun control" does NOT deter crime. It does the opposite.
Maybe it does where you live. But not here. Which is exactly why, as I say, local regions must be allowed to make their own rules. Nothing else works worth a damn. We KNOW this.
You can be as "21st Century" as you like, but if you propose rules that are unworkable where I live, and endanger the lives of thousands of people, I will oppose you. And I shall not apologize for that.
Prior to 9/11 -- and also since -- NO modern concrete-and-steel skyscraper has EVER collapsed due to fire. Ever. You can look this up yourself. Some of them have burned VERY hot indeed, for days on end. And yes, without fire and water systems. Yet they did not collapse.
Ever.
I think maybe YOU need to pull your head out a little bit.
"Yes, he contracted septicaemic plague, the blood-borne form of Yersinia pestis."
You are confusing different forms of the disease with different forms of an organism. There are 3 known basic types of Plague, all caused by the same organism.
There are 3 essential forms of Black Plague (all of them caused by the same organism), and each of them varies in the rapidity of onset.
The most virulent is the pneumonic form. It can kill within days. But it is also relatively rare, even as cases of plague go. Usually it takes somewhat longer.
I think you over-estimate the effects of "domestication" on dogs... although I do admit that many of them have had the piss bred out of them. Pocket dogs are an abomination.
But for most of human history, dogs were working animals, too. The only difference is that they are (usually) too big to be allowed to gather their own food. That would be dangerous (and inconvenient, considering that they are pack hunters). That is the difference: practicality, not biology.
Dogs do go feral. In an area not very far from here there has been a pack of feral dogs, descended from escaped domestic dogs, roaming the mountains for at least 30 years. They have been spotted every few years (it is a very remote place and rough country) but their fate is uncertain now that the wolves have returned. And Dingos are of course another example of formerly-domesticated dogs returning to the wild.
Another interesting example is the domestic ferret. Evidence indicates that they have been domesticated for approximately as long as dogs and cats. And again, for most of human history they were working animals: they were (and still are) used to hunt small game. Not only that, but prior to WWII, right here in the United States, ferrets were also popular farm animals, used for keeping rats, mice, etc. out of the granaries just like cats.
But unlike both dogs and cats, and except in New Zealand (which presented very specific and unusual conditions), ferrets don't go feral. They just don't. It doesn't happen.
"Frankly, a man in his 50s is less likely to produce new offspring so the accident is unlikely to be of tangible benefit to the gene pool."
No, you are conflating biology and sociology. Human males are generally fertile even in advanced age. It is females who become infertile with age.
Some years ago, a reporter for National Geographic, who had been visiting sites around the world known for their clusters of people of very advanced age (100+), made a point of describing how a great many of the older men "put the moves on her", as the saying goes, and also noted how many of them had rather young children.
To continue my point: there have been many many, well-recognized problems with the old-school "peer-review" process, and if you are personally relying on it today, you are a fool.
A paper was published. Refute it if you can. Otherwise, I have no time for you.
"Unless you are personally qualified to review the paper, you can only go on the reputation of the reviewers.
Your claim isn't "i've reviewed this paper and here is why it's true", you claim is "this paper has been reviewed by trustworthy and reliable people, that's why it's true"."
Actually, I made neither claim. You are assuming a position I have made no claim to.
We have established rules re: peer review. I did not make them. Nor do I rely on them. I did not "claim" the paper was true, my only claim was that it has not been refuted. Which is true.
You, too, are refusing to refusing to refute the paper itself, and instead are attempting to shoot the messenger. Let's get something straight: it doesn't matter if it was published in the fucking Sesame Street Times. If you can't refute the contents, you have no argument.
Hahahahaha! Nobody has ever tried to burn down a modern office building with gasoline or kerosene? (If you need an f*ing clue, look up jet fuel types A and B.)
"The UN is just a glorified room for people to talk at each other, and a giant archive to file treaties multiple parties have agreed to."
I cannot agree with this. The UN, as a body, definitely has policies and agendas. They are even written out.
On the other hand, some of those policies and agendas are set informally by its high officers, and may not reflect the opinions of the members.
It has no deeper capability than it's member states...
AFAIAC, that is its only "saving grace".
What do you mean when you say the UN, at $415 million, is "practically free"? When we are paying it to be an enemy of the United States? (Some of their stated policies are against guaranteed Constitutional rights of American citizens.) I mean really? Sorry, dude, but I don't need free enemies. I need even less to pay for them.
I realize that sounds like a rather radical statement, but records speak for themselves. There is a statue in front of the UN building of a revolver with its barrel tied in a knot. They have a stated agenda of restricting private ownership of firearms worldwide. Yet they have never articulated a rational reason for doing so. And as I have already mentioned, Venezuela has already met the demand and the record clearly shows that it did so under pressure from the UN.
It has more influence than you pretend, and it uses that influence for purposes of control. We agree on many things, but the UN has to go.
Slashdot Mirror
"apparently its a java remix"
Not even close.
Its syntax is nothing like Java's. Its structures are nothing like Java's. Both being high-level languages, of course it is almost inevitable that they deal with some of the same data structures, like strings and arrays. But program structure is markedly different.
When it was first becoming popular outside Japan, various comparisons showed Ruby to average about 20% as many lines of code to get the same job done as Java programs that did the same things.
Granted, those demonstrations might have been somewhat slanted and not completely "fair". Nevertheless, to say that there are very significant differences is an understatement.
"Wasn't C once considered a relatively "high" language when it first emerged and is now more of a "middle" language?"
No, C has never been considered a "high level" language in the Computer Science world, when compared to its predecessors such as BASIC and PASCAL. (Say what you want about BASIC, but it *is* a high level language, and vastly more so today than when it first appeared.)
People who insist that C a "high-level" language (you did not do that) make me cringe. At best, C is a "mid-level" language, lying somewhere between a high-level language and Assembly.
"String.instance_methods.select {|m| m =~ /sub/}} is the perlish alternative."
Actually your "Perlish" form is the preferred way to do it in Ruby.
On the other hand, that's one of the nice things about Ruby. There are different ways to get things done. There are a few people who might consider that a flaw, but that does not seem to be the general consensus.
"Overall, this article seems to be devoid of content..."
It is also devoid of meaning.
Not to discount Nutter's contribution to the Ruby world, but he hasn't been a significant contributor to the language itself. Rather, he's been working on porting Ruby to the Java VM (Jruby). Not the same things at all. Not even close, really.
Something like this is what I was thinking as well. As long as you have a way to stand your tablet, the ergonomics are probably better than a laptop or netbook anyway.
Let's face it: despite claims here to the contrary, the ergonomics of most laptops leaves much to be desired. Even though my main machine is a laptop with a full-sized keyboard, I use a bluetooth keyboard so that I can put the screen at the proper distance.
"There's no need to try to debunk that paper you linked. "
By the way, one last comment: it is considered rather bad form on Slashdot to mod somebody then log out and comment as AC. In fact, it's against the rules.
Try not to get caught again.
"In a way, though, this underscores my original point, that we're fooled by behavioural changes into assuming that animals have changed drastically due to domestication."
Yes, I agree. No argument here. I would illustrate with an example from my own pet, but that would be giving away too much personal information for Slashdot. Some of the people here are, to be blunt, not very nice.
"It does however tell me exactly how much credence I should be giving this paper."
By the way: there is a word for people who try to ignore things they don't want to hear or read. That word is, literally, "ignorance".
Think about it.
"Karma ain't workin, or the glibertardians would hemorrhage out of the sole orifice they are speaking from - their arse...."
So... you stepped in here for the sole purpose of insulting me again, when all I did was make a silly joke to someone else and wasn't talking to you at all.
That makes you the biggest asshole I've encountered so far in all of my years on Slashdot. Wait... except for one other person, who did exactly the same thing. Once.
Do you know the definition of "troll"? Maybe you should look it up. And try to guess why people think it's a bad thing.
"There's no need to try to debunk that paper you linked. The thermite claim is way out on the fringe, and it's posted in a journal owned by a group with a less than stellar reputation. Jones, one of the authors, is bollocks-deep in the 911 truth movement, and that's where the paper appears to be garnering the most attention. Jones being on the fringe, publishing in a somewhat second-rate journal, does not invalidate the claims made in the paper. It does however tell me exactly how much credence I should be giving this paper."
You are just as bad as all the others. Wrong. You DO need to refute the paper.
Shooting the messenger DOESN'T WORK. This isn't "300", and kicking the messenger into a pit isn't going to make it go away. That's not how science works.
Also, Jones did not become involved until later, when the authors found out that nobody else would touch their story.
It's just the same old bullshit argument. People don't want to hear the bad news, so they try to ignore it, and won't publish it. Then, when an outlet is found anyway, they say: "Look! It's can't be true because it was published in that second-rate rag."
Your logic is just as bad as the guy who doesn't think he needs to worry about a dog, just because he encountered it in a back alley. Must be a second-rate dog then too, yes? Surely it can't bite very hard.
Haha.
"Like it or not, the US is stuck with everyone else in the world and what they want."
No, they are not. That was proven in Iraq.
"It's not like the US doesn't use it's privileged position in the UN to try and bully the rest of the world when it feels like it."
True, and I don't approve. Don't mistake an out-of-control government's actions for the wishes of the people.
One thing history makes very clear: a good government is not a controlling government. Freedom is more efficient.
Regardless of how things are in YOUR country, this has been studied in the United States for decades, and we have a definitive answer: "gun control" does NOT deter crime. It does the opposite.
Maybe it does where you live. But not here. Which is exactly why, as I say, local regions must be allowed to make their own rules. Nothing else works worth a damn. We KNOW this.
You can be as "21st Century" as you like, but if you propose rules that are unworkable where I live, and endanger the lives of thousands of people, I will oppose you. And I shall not apologize for that.
Prior to 9/11 -- and also since -- NO modern concrete-and-steel skyscraper has EVER collapsed due to fire. Ever. You can look this up yourself. Some of them have burned VERY hot indeed, for days on end. And yes, without fire and water systems. Yet they did not collapse.
Ever.
I think maybe YOU need to pull your head out a little bit.
"Yes, he contracted septicaemic plague, the blood-borne form of Yersinia pestis."
You are confusing different forms of the disease with different forms of an organism. There are 3 known basic types of Plague, all caused by the same organism.
"Only because they are apparently not that tasty."
Except to black-footed ferrets. Prairie dogs are their primary diet.
There are 3 essential forms of Black Plague (all of them caused by the same organism), and each of them varies in the rapidity of onset.
The most virulent is the pneumonic form. It can kill within days. But it is also relatively rare, even as cases of plague go. Usually it takes somewhat longer.
"'Girls Gone Feral' doesn't have the same ring to it, but sounds interesting for the same reasons."
I like it. I think I'll keep it.
I think you over-estimate the effects of "domestication" on dogs... although I do admit that many of them have had the piss bred out of them. Pocket dogs are an abomination.
But for most of human history, dogs were working animals, too. The only difference is that they are (usually) too big to be allowed to gather their own food. That would be dangerous (and inconvenient, considering that they are pack hunters). That is the difference: practicality, not biology.
Dogs do go feral. In an area not very far from here there has been a pack of feral dogs, descended from escaped domestic dogs, roaming the mountains for at least 30 years. They have been spotted every few years (it is a very remote place and rough country) but their fate is uncertain now that the wolves have returned. And Dingos are of course another example of formerly-domesticated dogs returning to the wild.
Another interesting example is the domestic ferret. Evidence indicates that they have been domesticated for approximately as long as dogs and cats. And again, for most of human history they were working animals: they were (and still are) used to hunt small game. Not only that, but prior to WWII, right here in the United States, ferrets were also popular farm animals, used for keeping rats, mice, etc. out of the granaries just like cats.
But unlike both dogs and cats, and except in New Zealand (which presented very specific and unusual conditions), ferrets don't go feral. They just don't. It doesn't happen.
"Who the hell tries to pry open the mouth of a stray cat?"
He was probably a do-gooder who was trying to save the cute little mousie.
Karma is a bitch.
"Growing Evidence of Football Causing Brain Damage"
Yes, watching too much football can definitely do damage. Trust me.
"Frankly, a man in his 50s is less likely to produce new offspring so the accident is unlikely to be of tangible benefit to the gene pool."
No, you are conflating biology and sociology. Human males are generally fertile even in advanced age. It is females who become infertile with age.
Some years ago, a reporter for National Geographic, who had been visiting sites around the world known for their clusters of people of very advanced age (100+), made a point of describing how a great many of the older men "put the moves on her", as the saying goes, and also noted how many of them had rather young children.
To continue my point: there have been many many, well-recognized problems with the old-school "peer-review" process, and if you are personally relying on it today, you are a fool.
A paper was published. Refute it if you can. Otherwise, I have no time for you.
"Unless you are personally qualified to review the paper, you can only go on the reputation of the reviewers.
Your claim isn't "i've reviewed this paper and here is why it's true", you claim is "this paper has been reviewed by trustworthy and reliable people, that's why it's true"."
Actually, I made neither claim. You are assuming a position I have made no claim to.
We have established rules re: peer review. I did not make them. Nor do I rely on them. I did not "claim" the paper was true, my only claim was that it has not been refuted. Which is true.
You, too, are refusing to refusing to refute the paper itself, and instead are attempting to shoot the messenger. Let's get something straight: it doesn't matter if it was published in the fucking Sesame Street Times. If you can't refute the contents, you have no argument.
Dipshit.
Wow! This has to be the work of the worst Slashdot modder ever!
I've been modded down for my opinions and my arguments before, but NEVER before for simply supplying a link to research paper.
What's next? Censorship?
"This was the only fire of its type ever."
Hahahahaha! Nobody has ever tried to burn down a modern office building with gasoline or kerosene? (If you need an f*ing clue, look up jet fuel types A and B.)
Hahahaha!
"The UN is just a glorified room for people to talk at each other, and a giant archive to file treaties multiple parties have agreed to."
I cannot agree with this. The UN, as a body, definitely has policies and agendas. They are even written out.
On the other hand, some of those policies and agendas are set informally by its high officers, and may not reflect the opinions of the members.
It has no deeper capability than it's member states...
AFAIAC, that is its only "saving grace".
What do you mean when you say the UN, at $415 million, is "practically free"? When we are paying it to be an enemy of the United States? (Some of their stated policies are against guaranteed Constitutional rights of American citizens.) I mean really? Sorry, dude, but I don't need free enemies. I need even less to pay for them.
I realize that sounds like a rather radical statement, but records speak for themselves. There is a statue in front of the UN building of a revolver with its barrel tied in a knot. They have a stated agenda of restricting private ownership of firearms worldwide. Yet they have never articulated a rational reason for doing so. And as I have already mentioned, Venezuela has already met the demand and the record clearly shows that it did so under pressure from the UN.
It has more influence than you pretend, and it uses that influence for purposes of control. We agree on many things, but the UN has to go.