2) I write code and don't feel like learning an alternative to Visual Studio
So Apple is to blame because you are using a proprietary IDE that only works on one OS and don't feel like switching?
Put down the mac-crack pipe for a minute, he's not blaming anyone, only explaining his personal reasons for not buying something. Why does that offend you so much?
Matched feature for feature, Macs are sometimes cheaper than PCs.
Show me - everytime I look, they seem to be way higher than comparable systems. Perhaps for some high end systems or something. Don't discount the $400-800 market. I was just in that market for two systems, if Apple had anything competitive in that range, I would have bought one. Ended up with 1 Dell system and 1 I built myself. I see a lot of response to the effect that the sub $600 market is not worthy - look around, that's where PC prices (and even some laptops) largely are now. I used to spend $1500-2500 on computers, but it's complete unjustifiable with hardware prices today, imo. If apple doesn't learn to compete in that price range, they're going to be made totally irrelevant (again) in the PC market.
Here's something fun; go right now to the apple store and look at that mac pro system - yeah, the one that costs $2500. How much ram does it come with? 1 paltry Gig. Upgrade it to 4G - that will cost you $700!!! Add the next 4GB for $1000!!!! I just bought 4G (2x2G) of 600MHz DDR2 ram for $80. You can get it at Fry's for the same price. Holy shit, how do they justify that?
* You shall have no other gods before me * * You shall not make for yourself an idol * * You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God * * Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy * * Honor your Father and Mother * * You shall not murder * You shall not commit adultery * * You shall not steal * You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor * You shall not covet your neighbor's house * * You shall not covet your neighbor's wife *
There, fixed it for you. Don't steal, murder, or lie (maybe that one needs a star, too) - wow, that sounds easy! You try it first in your cardboard-civilization first, tell us how it works out.
Well, according to the late Mr. Asimov, the typewriter isn't broke, so why don't you go trade in your computer for one? The problem with IIABDFI is that to someone, and usually to almost everyone, everything you can think of is broke in some way. Fortunately people ignore IIABDFI and progress happens despite the people comfortable with where their cheese is.
You seem to be mistaking "An editor is an engineering tool" with "An editor is only an engineering tool" or "all editors are engineering tools". The editors we talk about here on this site are typically engineering tools and not tools for writing your "I love pretty ponies" diary. For software engineers, an editor is often the tool they use for more hour a day than any other. HTH. PS, this is a stupid discussion, almost everyone that I know that creates software for a profession uses an editor tailored to use in the creation of software, i.e. one that trades easy-to-learn for power, efficiency, and extendability.
An editor is an engineering tool. You use it for the creation and manipulation of code, data, and documents. The intuitive, non-engineering equivalent that is used merely to create those things, and not to edit them, is a typewriter.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
- A Einstein
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
- A Einstein
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
- A Einstein
But it doesn't really matter, many great scientists were and are religious, many are not. Newton was one of histories biggest geniuses, but he was by today's standards almost fanatically religious. And he had no access to the mountains of biological and geological evidence for the theory of evolution.
There is a certain fallacy that has become fashionable in the last decade. I don't know if this fallacy has a name, but the basic ideas is that "if there are two sides to an issue, each side has equal merit". Of course, not all ideas have equal merit, and the fact that you can find some nut to argue that the earth is flat does not justify "equal time" or equal consideration for the idea in education, the media, science books, or a honest debate on slashdot.
The ideas you question, the constancy of radioactive decay (really the question of the constancy of certain fundamental constants), etc, are questioned and tested by scientists. Further, the details of radioactive decay measurement, by which I mean the initial conditions and environmental conditions of a sample, are definitely not just assumed without question. There are known conditions which invalidate or skew the results. Scientists find these conditions and document them, not religionists, by the way. Science is a human endeavor, and mistakes are made. And if mistakes are made, we learn by it and dating gets more accurate. As it gets more accurate, the story of the history of life gets more interesting and also further from the literal stories presented in various religious texts.
Now, the science of dating is quite interesting. There are many methods available, and the brains and sweat that have gone into developing the science is really a testament to the intellect of our species. These many methods are used as cross checks, validation, verification, and extending the range for which we can reliably date objects. There is uncertainty in the science to be sure, but if you consider the entire field, all the methods, the extensive measurements, the excellent validation in many areas, and the mathematical and physical models developed by other great minds (e.g. physics) which serve to bolster our confidence in the methods, the only honest reaction is awe and amazement.
Opposed to this (at least to some) we have a book. Well, really just a very short chapter in that book.
Now, given all this, we have some armchair philosopher such as yourself who comes along and proposes that since there is some doubt in the science of dating, then clearly the idea that the book is right and the science deserves equal consideration.
What is it, exactly, that you are arguing for? That the definition of torture is so slippery that the US should not be prohibited from performing any cruel acts whatsoever? That the existence of more severe torture by one group justifies the weaker torture by another? I know some people here just like to argue for the sake of hearing their assholes vibrate, so maybe you're only looking for some kind of 6-beers-or-more argument. Sorry, I've only had two, and yes, forced listening to Britney Spears is classified as torture by the UN.
You sig: wow, why does Linus have to be such an asshole all the time? Did his mommy not love him enough when he was a child? Seriously, read this thread. Total fucking jerk. Why do people hole what he says in such high regard? Ever opinion he holds isn't golden. The man does have an asshole, and he seems to speak out of it with equal frequency as with his mouth.
No, I'm sure Walter is too busy in the comp.lang.c++* newsgroups pimping D to spend time slumming here. Really, how many people that read this site are serious professional C++ (or even C) developers who might be part of the D potential market? 5%? 3%? comp.lang.c++ is full of fish in a barrel for Mr. Bright.
Yes, I read what you wrote the first time. I'm a prick. And ignorant. Yeah, good for you. What about that little bit of bragging bullshit you posted? Ready to respond to the other half of my post yet - or are you too busy "teaching me a thing or two" and "running cicles" around me in you mind?
Are you stupid? I posted my experience with weight problems in another message which you responded to. I like how you think you're the only one here with valid experience with weight problems. Everyone else is too young or naive or you just ignore what they say when you respond.
How about that wager where you were going to run circles around me? Ready to back up that BS yet?
Slashdot Mirror
C99 isn't exactly new, where have you been?
What kinds of misunderstanding did you have in mind? I'm curious about how you come to that conclusion.
Put down the mac-crack pipe for a minute, he's not blaming anyone, only explaining his personal reasons for not buying something. Why does that offend you so much?
Show me - everytime I look, they seem to be way higher than comparable systems. Perhaps for some high end systems or something. Don't discount the $400-800 market. I was just in that market for two systems, if Apple had anything competitive in that range, I would have bought one. Ended up with 1 Dell system and 1 I built myself. I see a lot of response to the effect that the sub $600 market is not worthy - look around, that's where PC prices (and even some laptops) largely are now. I used to spend $1500-2500 on computers, but it's complete unjustifiable with hardware prices today, imo. If apple doesn't learn to compete in that price range, they're going to be made totally irrelevant (again) in the PC market.
Here's something fun; go right now to the apple store and look at that mac pro system - yeah, the one that costs $2500. How much ram does it come with? 1 paltry Gig. Upgrade it to 4G - that will cost you $700!!! Add the next 4GB for $1000!!!! I just bought 4G (2x2G) of 600MHz DDR2 ram for $80. You can get it at Fry's for the same price. Holy shit, how do they justify that?
* You shall have no other gods before me *
* You shall not make for yourself an idol *
* You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God *
* Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy *
* Honor your Father and Mother *
* You shall not murder
* You shall not commit adultery *
* You shall not steal
* You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
* You shall not covet your neighbor's house *
* You shall not covet your neighbor's wife *
There, fixed it for you. Don't steal, murder, or lie (maybe that one needs a star, too) - wow, that sounds easy! You try it first in your cardboard-civilization first, tell us how it works out.
Or D: it is the drug of choice of minorities that are inconvenient.
Well, according to the late Mr. Asimov, the typewriter isn't broke, so why don't you go trade in your computer for one? The problem with IIABDFI is that to someone, and usually to almost everyone, everything you can think of is broke in some way. Fortunately people ignore IIABDFI and progress happens despite the people comfortable with where their cheese is.
Welcome to the internet. Will you be staying long?
You seem to be mistaking "An editor is an engineering tool" with "An editor is only an engineering tool" or "all editors are engineering tools". The editors we talk about here on this site are typically engineering tools and not tools for writing your "I love pretty ponies" diary. For software engineers, an editor is often the tool they use for more hour a day than any other. HTH. PS, this is a stupid discussion, almost everyone that I know that creates software for a profession uses an editor tailored to use in the creation of software, i.e. one that trades easy-to-learn for power, efficiency, and extendability.
An editor is an engineering tool. You use it for the creation and manipulation of code, data, and documents. The intuitive, non-engineering equivalent that is used merely to create those things, and not to edit them, is a typewriter.
But it doesn't really matter, many great scientists were and are religious, many are not. Newton was one of histories biggest geniuses, but he was by today's standards almost fanatically religious. And he had no access to the mountains of biological and geological evidence for the theory of evolution.
I love it when someone chastises another for stupidity and ends up showing their own stupidity! How did you miss the word "surface" in the GP post?
The ideas you question, the constancy of radioactive decay (really the question of the constancy of certain fundamental constants), etc, are questioned and tested by scientists. Further, the details of radioactive decay measurement, by which I mean the initial conditions and environmental conditions of a sample, are definitely not just assumed without question. There are known conditions which invalidate or skew the results. Scientists find these conditions and document them, not religionists, by the way. Science is a human endeavor, and mistakes are made. And if mistakes are made, we learn by it and dating gets more accurate. As it gets more accurate, the story of the history of life gets more interesting and also further from the literal stories presented in various religious texts.
Now, the science of dating is quite interesting. There are many methods available, and the brains and sweat that have gone into developing the science is really a testament to the intellect of our species. These many methods are used as cross checks, validation, verification, and extending the range for which we can reliably date objects. There is uncertainty in the science to be sure, but if you consider the entire field, all the methods, the extensive measurements, the excellent validation in many areas, and the mathematical and physical models developed by other great minds (e.g. physics) which serve to bolster our confidence in the methods, the only honest reaction is awe and amazement.
Opposed to this (at least to some) we have a book. Well, really just a very short chapter in that book.
Now, given all this, we have some armchair philosopher such as yourself who comes along and proposes that since there is some doubt in the science of dating, then clearly the idea that the book is right and the science deserves equal consideration.
One can only assume that you are a moron.
He's clearly doing satire. It may or may not be funny, but if you think his act is "playing dumb" and not satire, they you are the stupid one.
More like linux-2.6.314159265359
Or even linux anymore.
What is it, exactly, that you are arguing for? That the definition of torture is so slippery that the US should not be prohibited from performing any cruel acts whatsoever? That the existence of more severe torture by one group justifies the weaker torture by another? I know some people here just like to argue for the sake of hearing their assholes vibrate, so maybe you're only looking for some kind of 6-beers-or-more argument. Sorry, I've only had two, and yes, forced listening to Britney Spears is classified as torture by the UN.
"inhuman" - where did that part go?
From this we can deduce that you like semicolons and braces? non optional parens?
You sig: wow, why does Linus have to be such an asshole all the time? Did his mommy not love him enough when he was a child? Seriously, read this thread. Total fucking jerk. Why do people hole what he says in such high regard? Ever opinion he holds isn't golden. The man does have an asshole, and he seems to speak out of it with equal frequency as with his mouth.
"I recall Einstein was vaguely religious".
There, fixed it for you. Extremely vaguely, in fact.
I think my job here is finished. See you next time Mr dfghjk.
No, I'm sure Walter is too busy in the comp.lang.c++* newsgroups pimping D to spend time slumming here. Really, how many people that read this site are serious professional C++ (or even C) developers who might be part of the D potential market? 5%? 3%? comp.lang.c++ is full of fish in a barrel for Mr. Bright.
I know the entire language, for a pretty useful value of "all" (let's say 95%+).
Yes, I read what you wrote the first time. I'm a prick. And ignorant. Yeah, good for you. What about that little bit of bragging bullshit you posted? Ready to respond to the other half of my post yet - or are you too busy "teaching me a thing or two" and "running cicles" around me in you mind?
How about that wager where you were going to run circles around me? Ready to back up that BS yet?