I see also that about half those links, or more, are to your "dumb scientist" site, where you like to indulge in your one-sided arguments against cherry-picked, out-of-context comments by others.
I mentioned that to you years ago, but I see you're still doing it.
You can be sure that I am putting the full picture together, no cherry-picking on my part.
I did take exception to what YOU were calling "net" in the context of that argument. But I certainly do know what net is.
I repeat that my "NO!!!" comment was about your entire fallacious line of reasoning, in which you failed at basic math. That comment was about your incorrect USE of "net", NOT about what the definition of "net" is. To even think that's what I was saying, given the whole context of the argument, is pretty stupid.
Thanks for that. You just saved me a lot of work. Although I am pretty darned sure that wasn't your intent.
I'm not worried about what you say here. I also have records, and I remember the conversations.
Other people, who actually know some physics (or have the proper textbooks) can follow the conversations if they like, and see that indeed, your "solution" to the problem that I let YOU define was just plain wrong.
I haven't bothered to go through what you've posted here yet, but if it's anything like what you did before, I expect it's grossly incomplete and cherry-picked.
The only thing I am going to say further, despite what other BS you try to pull here, is that I was saying "NO!" to your line of argument. I was not disagreeing about what "net" is.
It's a classic case of "out of context". Which I am sure you well knew. Which makes you a demonstrably dishonest person.
You're not going to argue because you're incapable of admitting you're wrong about the simplest points, and yet you continue to lecture everyone about a nigh-infinite set of topics. Frankly, I'd be worried if you thought I was normal.
You aren't going to pull me in to a stupid argument by trolling me, either. Nice try, but no dice.
Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".
There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. As I told you before, sooner or later I will get around to publishing it all. But you aren't going to hurry me up by pulling this kind of crap.
As you have repeatedly shown to be your standard practice, you have taken yet another of my comments out of context, and are attempting to make it seem I was stating something that in fact I was not.
That's called LYING. And harassment.
I'm tempted to think you're crazy, but my honest opinion is that you're just a pathological ass.
A judge's jurisdiction is a judge's jurisdiction. Attempting to change that would change our entire legal system. Just no.
Sorry, but our legal system is based on Common Law, not just whatever a bunch of Congressional idiots decides it is.
Further, the change would allow searches when "the location is unknown". Sorry, but that's a blatant constitutional violation.
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Amendment IV
Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations.
You don't seem to be getting the idea that following my every word for years on end is WEIRD. It's abnormal behavior. Go obsess over someone else. I'm not going to argue with you over things that were said or written months or years ago.
The NOAA can worry about climate change with the EPA too.
Phil doesn't seem to think it's worth mentioning that in recent years, NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%.
That's almost 6 times as much increase for climate as for space. Phil still isn't happy? I don't know what the flat dollar figures are, but clearly climate has been getting attention.
I am with GP on the main point here: let NASA concentrate on space. And let NOAA and others work on climate. EPA, however, is a vastly self-serving and corrupt organization, and I wouldn't put it in charge of scrubbing toilets.
"Another" example? Jane, you are aware that "Anonymous Coward" isn't actually a user name... right? The AC you're accusing of not being able to comprehend your "pain English" (what a juicy Freudian slip) isn't the same AC you told to "go away".
Really? And how would you know that?
I have reason to suspect otherwise. I generally have reasons for saying the things I say. I grant that I could be wrong, but I do have contradictory evidence.
FFS, Jane Q Public, would it really have troubled you that much to have read the article you've chosen to criticise, at least to save yourself from looking like a complete and utter tit?
Prescriptive style guides like Strunk & Whiteâ(TM)s âoeElements of Styleâ are the direct descendants of 18th-century grammarians who first defined what it was to speak âoeproper English.â In fact, these grammarians really just meant the dialect that grew up in and around London; their manuals were intended to teach propriety to an emerging merchant class.
I was making a point. The person being a "tit" here is the author of the article. It doesn't matter WHY Strunk & White was published. What matters is that it is an example of the kind of "rule book" that people do in fact pay attention to. Oliver Kamm doesn't have to pay attention to such rules if he prefers not to; likely that will make him a worse author. He can like that or not, but there is truth to it.
Students aren't actually marked "wrong" on their tests, despite the convention to speak about it this way. Their answers are marked "acceptable" and "unacceptable".
You sure as hell don't live in the same world I do.
In an undergraduate course in computer science on an assignment devoted to algorithmic efficiency, I had a program that ran two orders of magnitude faster than the class median marked 6/10 because I didn't write my program in the mandated coding style with the mandated level of inane comments (requirements which I rejected then, and have continued to reject ever since). The professor liked Pascal and hated C. My coding style was closer to K&R and P. J. Plauger than Wirth.
I had a very similar thing happen to me as well. However, it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Yes, there are rules. For instance, it's acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single lower-case letters. Right, Jane?
Flag as Inappropriate
No. Single quotes are used for that.
Do you honestly think I (and Slashdot management) don't know who you are?
There is in a sense, but it is informal, not institutionalized.
Elements of Style, by Strunk & White, is one of those informal "rule" books, in the same sense that Emily Post wrote a book that was (informally but very widely) considered to be the "bible" of American etiquette.
However I can see the confusion as the word for "American" in the american language is "English". That is the language that most of the world learns as english, not "british" english.
It has long been accepted that American English and British English are 2 decidedly different variants of the same language. But they ARE different enough that there is "proper" American English, and "proper" British English, and they are NOT the same things.
There are a number of elements of British English that would get an American student marked wrong on an English exam, and vice versa.
Should be: Why They're Ain't Any Such Thing as "Proper English."
Author has apparently never heard of Strunk & White.
It's a bit of a conflict of interest for a writer to say there are "no rules", when in fact there are. And English doesn't actually change anywhere near as fast as many of these folks claim. Fads come and go, while the underlying rules persist, generation after generation.
If that were not true, you would not be able to make sense of Shakespeare today. But you can, except for the occasional stray word. You still get the meaning.
programming is almost 0 art unless you're working in C or some other language that deals with direct memory access.
This is only true if your talking about relatively simple tasks. When you have a large, complex software project, often using several different components and languages, yes it's as much art as science. It isn't all just quicksort vs insertion sort and data structures and the like. You learn tricks, and you use them. And sometimes they're language-specific.
If you don't understand that, then you probably haven't been doing any of that kind of software project.
In general, business plans don't succeed on clever code.
Correct. It's the clever things you DO with the code. Just ask Google.
Slashdot Mirror
I see also that about half those links, or more, are to your "dumb scientist" site, where you like to indulge in your one-sided arguments against cherry-picked, out-of-context comments by others.
I mentioned that to you years ago, but I see you're still doing it.
You can be sure that I am putting the full picture together, no cherry-picking on my part.
I did take exception to what YOU were calling "net" in the context of that argument. But I certainly do know what net is.
I repeat that my "NO!!!" comment was about your entire fallacious line of reasoning, in which you failed at basic math. That comment was about your incorrect USE of "net", NOT about what the definition of "net" is. To even think that's what I was saying, given the whole context of the argument, is pretty stupid.
Thanks for that. You just saved me a lot of work. Although I am pretty darned sure that wasn't your intent.
I'm not worried about what you say here. I also have records, and I remember the conversations.
Other people, who actually know some physics (or have the proper textbooks) can follow the conversations if they like, and see that indeed, your "solution" to the problem that I let YOU define was just plain wrong.
I haven't bothered to go through what you've posted here yet, but if it's anything like what you did before, I expect it's grossly incomplete and cherry-picked.
The only thing I am going to say further, despite what other BS you try to pull here, is that I was saying "NO!" to your line of argument. I was not disagreeing about what "net" is.
It's a classic case of "out of context". Which I am sure you well knew. Which makes you a demonstrably dishonest person.
The only method that could possibly result in meaningful change to the current system will result in you being arrested as a terrorist.
How pessimistic can you get? I don't buy that as a realistic assessment. Except maybe while Obama is in office.
You're not going to argue because you're incapable of admitting you're wrong about the simplest points, and yet you continue to lecture everyone about a nigh-infinite set of topics. Frankly, I'd be worried if you thought I was normal.
You aren't going to pull me in to a stupid argument by trolling me, either. Nice try, but no dice.
Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".
There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. As I told you before, sooner or later I will get around to publishing it all. But you aren't going to hurry me up by pulling this kind of crap.
As you have repeatedly shown to be your standard practice, you have taken yet another of my comments out of context, and are attempting to make it seem I was stating something that in fact I was not.
That's called LYING. And harassment.
I'm tempted to think you're crazy, but my honest opinion is that you're just a pathological ass.
I believe you are confusing theory and practice.
No, he's confusing ideal with corrupted ideal.
It's not too late to put the ideal back.
Sorry, but our legal system is based on Common Law, not just whatever a bunch of Congressional idiots decides it is.
Further, the change would allow searches when "the location is unknown". Sorry, but that's a blatant constitutional violation.
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Amendment IV
Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations.
You don't seem to be getting the idea that following my every word for years on end is WEIRD. It's abnormal behavior. Go obsess over someone else. I'm not going to argue with you over things that were said or written months or years ago.
For not being a Science Agency, they sure do employ a lot of Scientists to justify their regulations.
... and then refuse to tell us who they are or what the science is.
The NOAA can worry about climate change with the EPA too.
Phil doesn't seem to think it's worth mentioning that in recent years, NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%.
That's almost 6 times as much increase for climate as for space. Phil still isn't happy? I don't know what the flat dollar figures are, but clearly climate has been getting attention.
I am with GP on the main point here: let NASA concentrate on space. And let NOAA and others work on climate. EPA, however, is a vastly self-serving and corrupt organization, and I wouldn't put it in charge of scrubbing toilets.
Which is, of course, the only reasonable way for you to know, if you didn't work at Slashdot... if you were one of them (or both).
Either way, it's still a failure.
"Another" example? Jane, you are aware that "Anonymous Coward" isn't actually a user name... right? The AC you're accusing of not being able to comprehend your "pain English" (what a juicy Freudian slip) isn't the same AC you told to "go away".
Really? And how would you know that?
I have reason to suspect otherwise. I generally have reasons for saying the things I say. I grant that I could be wrong, but I do have contradictory evidence.
FFS, Jane Q Public, would it really have troubled you that much to have read the article you've chosen to criticise, at least to save yourself from looking like a complete and utter tit?
Prescriptive style guides like Strunk & Whiteâ(TM)s âoeElements of Styleâ are the direct descendants of 18th-century grammarians who first defined what it was to speak âoeproper English.â In fact, these grammarians really just meant the dialect that grew up in and around London; their manuals were intended to teach propriety to an emerging merchant class.
I was making a point. The person being a "tit" here is the author of the article. It doesn't matter WHY Strunk & White was published. What matters is that it is an example of the kind of "rule book" that people do in fact pay attention to. Oliver Kamm doesn't have to pay attention to such rules if he prefers not to; likely that will make him a worse author. He can like that or not, but there is truth to it.
Threats are not appropriate.
You seem to have a strange idea of what constitutes a "threat". I didn't make any threats here.
Just another example of your failure to comprehend pain English.
...good thing, too.
It was only an example. My point was that rules do exist, and people do pay attention to them.
Students aren't actually marked "wrong" on their tests, despite the convention to speak about it this way. Their answers are marked "acceptable" and "unacceptable".
You sure as hell don't live in the same world I do.
In an undergraduate course in computer science on an assignment devoted to algorithmic efficiency, I had a program that ran two orders of magnitude faster than the class median marked 6/10 because I didn't write my program in the mandated coding style with the mandated level of inane comments (requirements which I rejected then, and have continued to reject ever since). The professor liked Pascal and hated C. My coding style was closer to K&R and P. J. Plauger than Wirth.
I had a very similar thing happen to me as well. However, it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Yes, there are rules. For instance, it's acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single lower-case letters. Right, Jane? Flag as Inappropriate
No. Single quotes are used for that.
Do you honestly think I (and Slashdot management) don't know who you are?
Go away. Stay away.
There is in a sense, but it is informal, not institutionalized.
Elements of Style, by Strunk & White, is one of those informal "rule" books, in the same sense that Emily Post wrote a book that was (informally but very widely) considered to be the "bible" of American etiquette.
However I can see the confusion as the word for "American" in the american language is "English". That is the language that most of the world learns as english, not "british" english.
It has long been accepted that American English and British English are 2 decidedly different variants of the same language. But they ARE different enough that there is "proper" American English, and "proper" British English, and they are NOT the same things.
There are a number of elements of British English that would get an American student marked wrong on an English exam, and vice versa.
Should be: Why They're Ain't Any Such Thing as "Proper English."
Author has apparently never heard of Strunk & White.
It's a bit of a conflict of interest for a writer to say there are "no rules", when in fact there are. And English doesn't actually change anywhere near as fast as many of these folks claim. Fads come and go, while the underlying rules persist, generation after generation.
If that were not true, you would not be able to make sense of Shakespeare today. But you can, except for the occasional stray word. You still get the meaning.
Those "tricks" are the worst kinds of crap you see in modern software.
You're assuming an awful lot here, about what kind of "tricks" I meant.
Readable code is a very high priority.
programming is almost 0 art unless you're working in C or some other language that deals with direct memory access.
This is only true if your talking about relatively simple tasks. When you have a large, complex software project, often using several different components and languages, yes it's as much art as science. It isn't all just quicksort vs insertion sort and data structures and the like. You learn tricks, and you use them. And sometimes they're language-specific.
If you don't understand that, then you probably haven't been doing any of that kind of software project.
In general, business plans don't succeed on clever code.
Correct. It's the clever things you DO with the code. Just ask Google.
Well, that makes sense.
Who said I took those pictures?
It looks like you're seriously stalking somebody. I'm not sure why you think it's me.