When asked if he had a message for other companies developing their own orbital launch systems, a spokesman for the Falcon launch team responded, simply "Yes!"
"Come on!", he said, when asked to continue- followed by, "Show me your moves!"
Clearly the folks at SpaceX are feeling pretty confident about their achievement - but they welcome the challenge posed by their competition.
Maybe now we will be able to determine what can be found McDonald's hamburger patty.
You laugh, but what I'd like to do with such a thing ain't so far off the mark from that...
Basically, my wife has Celiac disease - if she eats food that has wheat flour or bread crumbs in it (even in very small quantities) it makes her sick. Long-term consequences from repeated poisonings include a higher risk of intestinal cancer...
So the problem is, eating out, it's often hard to know what's safe to eat. If I could get some kind of scanner that could detect gluten in food... that would be awesome.
Of course, from the way this thing works it sounds like the gluten would have to be somewhere near the surface of the food... So I guess it's way too early to get excited...
Why post a message to notify us the message was tagged, when we can just read the tag?
Unless of course GP was just claiming the credit.
Because it takes more than one person applying a particular tag to get it to appear on the list. By posting "I applied this tag" you can get other people to apply the same tag.
Windows 7 is one of those things that's a lot of fun once it grows on you a bit - in the mean time I expect a lot of people will be put off by all that singing. There's not a problem in the world that isn't handled in Windows 7 by singing at it...
>>>Users who are found to be occupying large amounts of bandwidth will be placed at a lower priority for network access
So much for net neutrality.
What this basically means is the power users (perhaps work-at-home folks) will be punished, while those who rarely use the net (mom) will get preference. Isn't that the exact opposite of how business works? Usually it's the frequent customers who get "preferred" treatment, because those customers bring in more money.
Net Neutrality is a separate issue - dealing with whether carriers are allowed to give preferential treatment to particular sites (basically, the carriers trying to take a slice of the profit of successful sites.)
The way the summary describes it, I think this sounds quite reasonable. People who aren't using a ton of bandwidth get low latency. People who are using a ton of bandwidth still get service, but they get a lower priority than all the light users.
All that really means is that people sucking down a lot of bandwidth are no longer going to have a big impact on those who aren't.
You have to BUY the privilige of playing as ProtoMan, sliding and Mega Buster with real money. The game only costs $10, but I've heard that playing as ProtoMan will cost you $4, and sliding will cost you $2.
No, just Hell no. I will not pay for something I can do for free since Mega Man 3
You can't slide in the game while playing as Rock because the new game is a throwback to the classic format - no sliding, no charge-shot, just jumping and blasting the living shit out of enemies with lots of regular shots. To me this is a good thing - going back to the basics, the real strength of the series.
You can probably think of Blues as "easy mode" - if you want a big shield to hide behind, and a charge shot feature and the ability to move more quickly, play Blues.
Yeah, but if you read the reviews, the drive doesn't support dual-layer BluRay discs, which means it won't play some newer releases - and it'll only get worse as more things use dual-layer. Basically, it's obsolete before you've even bought it.
You say you had your computer for over a week? Throw that junk away man, it's an antique...
Four years is ridiculous. A TV set should last ten, fifteen years (depending on manufacturer). I won't buy an HD capable set (and thus no HD capable media) before my current 4:3 CRT dies and if that happens before 2015 I'm going to be pissed.
You sure?
'Cause HDTV is pretty nice, as it turns out... Spending $500 or more on a TV doesn't generally appeal to me (and I wouldn't have done it if it weren't a wedding gift) - but having used the thing... It really is a much better picture.
I've had some of my friends who bought huge plasma's come and tell me about why I shouldn't buy Blu-Ray tech, and just use DVD. It's pretty funny that they don't know or can't articulate it well, but they feel the frustration and hate the restraint.
Well, you can always counter with "But playing a regular DVD on your HDTV is like driving a sports car... in first gear!"...Seen way too much of that stupid promo video... Every fucking time I go to Target it's there blabbering at me with its retarded car analogies, the tired old Simpsons clip, etc...
It's not really an issue of intelligence, it's an issue of ideology.
I think DRM is stupid, pointless, and generally only going to lose you customers, but I don't passionately hate it, because, to be honest life's too short.
It makes the studio execs feel better, it doesn't really inconvenience me, so why should I care, why should anyone care?
My main deal is just that I don't want hardware I've bought and own to act on someone else'e behalf. It's mine, it should do what I tell it to.
Thanks to my Ninja skills, I've been waiting silently, un-discovered in this article for two days now.
I thought one of these posts looked like a hedge.
And here I was concerned that there wouldn't be a hedge joke. I studied and trained for three whole weeks to become a ninja, and so it really bugs me when people are all ninja-obsessed and don't even know about the Ninja Hedge...
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
If we lived in a world without lawyers, we'd need to invent them. Or rather, we would invent them, and those who didn't get back on the bandwagon using lawyers would be at the mercy of those who did.
Consider: we have judges and juries to determine judgment in legal cases: but like anybody else these folks are human and prone to influence and mistakes. Plus not every case is clear-cut according to the laws. Add to that the fact that it's difficult to codify things unambiguously (this is why we have "legalese" - it's similar to the reason why computers have programming languages and mathematicians have their own set of notations) and in the case where there is an ambiguity, you need someone who understands that ambiguity and can work with it. And finally you need people who can write progressively less-ambiguous laws...
So if we got rid of the legal profession, then the "big evil corporations" would still have lawyers (even if they were rebranded as "corporate representatives" or something, they'd make sure there were spokespeople for the company who could make good, compelling arguments with respect to the law...) - All that would really change is that individuals would now be completely (rather than mostly) at the mercy of those who have studied law, or those who can afford to retain such individuals...
I don't know too much about the practical efficiency of these
Time to write the passer for a medium sized language (Java sized) with yacc or Antler: 2 weeks.
Time to write it in Parsec (based on parser combinators): one afternoon.
By "practical efficiency" I meant runtime efficiency... Wasn't trying to raise doubt, I just couldn't personally vouch for the efficiency of combinatorial parsers (especially unoptimized ones), you know?
I will have to give Parsec a spin one of these days... Combinatorial parsers have intrigued me since I learned about 'em, but I haven't used them much for anything.
With one-liners like that, you should become a consultant.
But apart from that, the expression doesn't express what it should. "better != good"... If that were false, then there would be no point in having different words for "better" and "good", because they'd be equal.
It's like when people use comparison operators where they don't belong: "Naruto > Inu Yasha" - that's totally meaningless because the things being compared don't exist on some scale where there is a clear-cut relationship like that. It's some facet of those two things that's really being compared... Does the expression mean the show is better? That it's longer? That the character is more powerful? That his golf score is higher? Worst kind of linguistic laziness IMO, and a terrible misuse of formal notation.
"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged" - I guess the message there is supposed to be "having been mugged and now being familiar with the true nature of the world around them, they learned that the ideals they formerly embraced were foolishly misguided" but I always read it more as "having been mugged they allowed fear to take over their lives, replacing their sense of justice with a more Machiavellian approach to the world."
Yup, lazy, functionnal, imperative, object : for each problem there is a better solution. However maybe there would be at then end a language where:
1) syntax could be made a little less strange so that people knowing C (like python by example and then adding its own concepts) could make simple things, simply 2) different paradigms should be coexisting peacefully - fast, simple inner loops in C, structured, object in ($dynamic language), algorithms needing such kind of concurrency or metaprogramming, possible also.
3) a pony
Can't help you with #3. I've been thinking about solutions to #2 (Integration between languages is still a real weak point... I hope this will change over time - part of that will be increased cooperation between the tools themselves. Seems like Microsoft has taken a decent stab at this with.NET...)
I don't really agree with #1. I don't believe any language yet (especially not C++) has "the perfect syntax", so when it comes to defining new languages I don't believe emulation (of syntax) is necessarily the right approach. The damage done to the language as a result (syntax not matched to concepts, possible syntax innovation stifled) outweighs the benefits of familiarity. Anyway syntax has to serve the design of the language, not the other way around. Designing a language you choose priorities - what should be convenient, what should be conceptually emphasized, and try to optimize the syntax for that - and the rest winds up an inevitable compromise.
Personally I think Haskell syntax is great. I love the foundation in format math notation, and I think the syntax fits the language. The support for extensible infix is great, and I like how this scales down to the colon operator, which is like the fundamental infix operator version of "cons"... Haskell notions of constructors (particularly them being things that can be applied or pattern-matched and stripped from data) and pattern-matching function arguments in general are a bit alien to C++ anyway, even if you wanted to try to fit Haskell into a C++-ish syntax.
Actually, when you're able to do it naturally in your language, it becomes a very useful thing to do. For example, when you want fresh variables in a compiler
How is that better than doing (or basically the same in Java/C/perl/ruby/etc.):
I hate to say "you're missing the point" because I feel that's unreasonably dismissive - though I kind of feel you are...
IMO the point isn't necessarily that one method is "better" than another - it's that this idea represents an important and useful way of approaching programming problems. If you understand the style you can appropriate it - it becomes a useful concept for expressing problems and their solutions.
So for instance - while you may not use recursion in C for general problem solving (due to the lack of tail-recursion optimizations which turn the thing into a loop) - understanding the recursive expression of a problem is useful for structuring your solutions, understanding what assertions must be made with respect to the state of the data at what points in the code, etc. - even if you structure your solution as a loop rather than a recursion.
And it should be noted that you can implement infinite sequences in C++, etc. - generally the way to do this is with iterators, and the use case would be for feeding those iterators to algorithms that expect iterators... What Haskell brings to the table is that it encourages you to think of problems and solutions in those terms - learn the method and what you can do with it, how it affects the expression of your code - if you find it a useful idea it's easy enough to implement in most object-oriented languages...
Slashdot Mirror
When asked if he had a message for other companies developing their own orbital launch systems, a spokesman for the Falcon launch team responded, simply "Yes!"
"Come on!", he said, when asked to continue- followed by, "Show me your moves!"
Clearly the folks at SpaceX are feeling pretty confident about their achievement - but they welcome the challenge posed by their competition.
Its kinda like how bomb squads blow suspicious devices up to check if they are explosives.
2007-1-31: Never Forget...
Maybe now we will be able to determine what can be found McDonald's hamburger patty.
You laugh, but what I'd like to do with such a thing ain't so far off the mark from that...
Basically, my wife has Celiac disease - if she eats food that has wheat flour or bread crumbs in it (even in very small quantities) it makes her sick. Long-term consequences from repeated poisonings include a higher risk of intestinal cancer...
So the problem is, eating out, it's often hard to know what's safe to eat. If I could get some kind of scanner that could detect gluten in food... that would be awesome.
Of course, from the way this thing works it sounds like the gluten would have to be somewhere near the surface of the food... So I guess it's way too early to get excited...
Thanks. That cleared that up. He really does sound like a loose cannon, rather than a professional.
JACK THOMPSON IS A GOOD COP!
Why post a message to notify us the message was tagged, when we can just read the tag?
Unless of course GP was just claiming the credit.
Because it takes more than one person applying a particular tag to get it to appear on the list. By posting "I applied this tag" you can get other people to apply the same tag.
"What is this? What are they doing? They can't do this to me!!! Don't they know who I am? I'm Cyrus Redblock, Cyrus Redblock!!!"
You do not know when the toilet paper is coming!
You do not know when the Johns are coming!
Windows 7 is one of those things that's a lot of fun once it grows on you a bit - in the mean time I expect a lot of people will be put off by all that singing. There's not a problem in the world that isn't handled in Windows 7 by singing at it...
>>>Users who are found to be occupying large amounts of bandwidth will be placed at a lower priority for network access
So much for net neutrality.
What this basically means is the power users (perhaps work-at-home folks) will be punished, while those who rarely use the net (mom) will get preference. Isn't that the exact opposite of how business works? Usually it's the frequent customers who get "preferred" treatment, because those customers bring in more money.
Net Neutrality is a separate issue - dealing with whether carriers are allowed to give preferential treatment to particular sites (basically, the carriers trying to take a slice of the profit of successful sites.)
The way the summary describes it, I think this sounds quite reasonable. People who aren't using a ton of bandwidth get low latency. People who are using a ton of bandwidth still get service, but they get a lower priority than all the light users.
All that really means is that people sucking down a lot of bandwidth are no longer going to have a big impact on those who aren't.
You have to BUY the privilige of playing as ProtoMan, sliding and Mega Buster with real money. The game only costs $10, but I've heard that playing as ProtoMan will cost you $4, and sliding will cost you $2.
No, just Hell no. I will not pay for something I can do for free since Mega Man 3
You can't slide in the game while playing as Rock because the new game is a throwback to the classic format - no sliding, no charge-shot, just jumping and blasting the living shit out of enemies with lots of regular shots. To me this is a good thing - going back to the basics, the real strength of the series.
You can probably think of Blues as "easy mode" - if you want a big shield to hide behind, and a charge shot feature and the ability to move more quickly, play Blues.
Yeah, but if you read the reviews, the drive doesn't support dual-layer BluRay discs, which means it won't play some newer releases - and it'll only get worse as more things use dual-layer. Basically, it's obsolete before you've even bought it.
You say you had your computer for over a week? Throw that junk away man, it's an antique...
Four years is ridiculous. A TV set should last ten, fifteen years (depending on manufacturer). I won't buy an HD capable set (and thus no HD capable media) before my current 4:3 CRT dies and if that happens before 2015 I'm going to be pissed.
You sure?
'Cause HDTV is pretty nice, as it turns out... Spending $500 or more on a TV doesn't generally appeal to me (and I wouldn't have done it if it weren't a wedding gift) - but having used the thing... It really is a much better picture.
I've had some of my friends who bought huge plasma's come and tell me about why I shouldn't buy Blu-Ray tech, and just use DVD. It's pretty funny that they don't know or can't articulate it well, but they feel the frustration and hate the restraint.
Well, you can always counter with "But playing a regular DVD on your HDTV is like driving a sports car... in first gear!" ...Seen way too much of that stupid promo video... Every fucking time I go to Target it's there blabbering at me with its retarded car analogies, the tired old Simpsons clip, etc...
It's not really an issue of intelligence, it's an issue of ideology.
I think DRM is stupid, pointless, and generally only going to lose you customers, but I don't passionately hate it, because, to be honest life's too short.
It makes the studio execs feel better, it doesn't really inconvenience me, so why should I care, why should anyone care?
My main deal is just that I don't want hardware I've bought and own to act on someone else'e behalf. It's mine, it should do what I tell it to.
I thought one of these posts looked like a hedge.
And here I was concerned that there wouldn't be a hedge joke. I studied and trained for three whole weeks to become a ninja, and so it really bugs me when people are all ninja-obsessed and don't even know about the Ninja Hedge...
Do you really think that if Al Gore had won in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq right now?
"He did."
(Well, really "winning" would have meant, you know, being able to claim the presidency... So maybe not.)
true enough, but I would prefer a world without lawyers to one with 'good' lawyers and 'bad' lawyers.
I realize we need laws but the very large majority of the lawyers is simply parasitic to society.
It should be possible to get by with far far less of them then there currently are.
If we lived in a world without lawyers, we'd need to invent them. Or rather, we would invent them, and those who didn't get back on the bandwagon using lawyers would be at the mercy of those who did.
Consider: we have judges and juries to determine judgment in legal cases: but like anybody else these folks are human and prone to influence and mistakes. Plus not every case is clear-cut according to the laws. Add to that the fact that it's difficult to codify things unambiguously (this is why we have "legalese" - it's similar to the reason why computers have programming languages and mathematicians have their own set of notations) and in the case where there is an ambiguity, you need someone who understands that ambiguity and can work with it. And finally you need people who can write progressively less-ambiguous laws...
So if we got rid of the legal profession, then the "big evil corporations" would still have lawyers (even if they were rebranded as "corporate representatives" or something, they'd make sure there were spokespeople for the company who could make good, compelling arguments with respect to the law...) - All that would really change is that individuals would now be completely (rather than mostly) at the mercy of those who have studied law, or those who can afford to retain such individuals...
They did mention F# in the article - hadn't heard of it before... I'll have to check it out.
I don't know too much about the practical efficiency of these
Time to write the passer for a medium sized language (Java sized) with yacc or Antler: 2 weeks.
Time to write it in Parsec (based on parser combinators): one afternoon.
By "practical efficiency" I meant runtime efficiency... Wasn't trying to raise doubt, I just couldn't personally vouch for the efficiency of combinatorial parsers (especially unoptimized ones), you know?
I will have to give Parsec a spin one of these days... Combinatorial parsers have intrigued me since I learned about 'em, but I haven't used them much for anything.
In Asia it's common for people to practice more than one religion.
...And as a result they never take the time to get any one quite right.
better != good
With one-liners like that, you should become a consultant.
But apart from that, the expression doesn't express what it should. "better != good"... If that were false, then there would be no point in having different words for "better" and "good", because they'd be equal.
It's like when people use comparison operators where they don't belong: "Naruto > Inu Yasha" - that's totally meaningless because the things being compared don't exist on some scale where there is a clear-cut relationship like that. It's some facet of those two things that's really being compared... Does the expression mean the show is better? That it's longer? That the character is more powerful? That his golf score is higher? Worst kind of linguistic laziness IMO, and a terrible misuse of formal notation.
"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged" - I guess the message there is supposed to be "having been mugged and now being familiar with the true nature of the world around them, they learned that the ideals they formerly embraced were foolishly misguided" but I always read it more as "having been mugged they allowed fear to take over their lives, replacing their sense of justice with a more Machiavellian approach to the world."
Yup, lazy, functionnal, imperative, object : for each problem there is a better solution. However maybe there would be at then end a language where :
1) syntax could be made a little less strange so that people knowing C (like python by example and then adding its own concepts) could make simple things, simply
2) different paradigms should be coexisting peacefully - fast, simple inner loops in C, structured, object in ($dynamic language), algorithms needing such kind of concurrency or metaprogramming, possible also.
3) a pony
Can't help you with #3. I've been thinking about solutions to #2 (Integration between languages is still a real weak point... I hope this will change over time - part of that will be increased cooperation between the tools themselves. Seems like Microsoft has taken a decent stab at this with .NET...)
I don't really agree with #1. I don't believe any language yet (especially not C++) has "the perfect syntax", so when it comes to defining new languages I don't believe emulation (of syntax) is necessarily the right approach. The damage done to the language as a result (syntax not matched to concepts, possible syntax innovation stifled) outweighs the benefits of familiarity. Anyway syntax has to serve the design of the language, not the other way around. Designing a language you choose priorities - what should be convenient, what should be conceptually emphasized, and try to optimize the syntax for that - and the rest winds up an inevitable compromise.
Personally I think Haskell syntax is great. I love the foundation in format math notation, and I think the syntax fits the language. The support for extensible infix is great, and I like how this scales down to the colon operator, which is like the fundamental infix operator version of "cons"... Haskell notions of constructors (particularly them being things that can be applied or pattern-matched and stripped from data) and pattern-matching function arguments in general are a bit alien to C++ anyway, even if you wanted to try to fit Haskell into a C++-ish syntax.
What this all means is that Javascript is the most widely deployed functional language in existence! And that's a fact you can take to the bank.
I did that, but the teller just kind of looked at me funny and asked if I'd like to deposit money to my account...
Turns out I didn't even have an account there. Go figure.
How is that better than doing (or basically the same in Java/C/perl/ruby/etc.):
I hate to say "you're missing the point" because I feel that's unreasonably dismissive - though I kind of feel you are...
IMO the point isn't necessarily that one method is "better" than another - it's that this idea represents an important and useful way of approaching programming problems. If you understand the style you can appropriate it - it becomes a useful concept for expressing problems and their solutions.
So for instance - while you may not use recursion in C for general problem solving (due to the lack of tail-recursion optimizations which turn the thing into a loop) - understanding the recursive expression of a problem is useful for structuring your solutions, understanding what assertions must be made with respect to the state of the data at what points in the code, etc. - even if you structure your solution as a loop rather than a recursion.
And it should be noted that you can implement infinite sequences in C++, etc. - generally the way to do this is with iterators, and the use case would be for feeding those iterators to algorithms that expect iterators... What Haskell brings to the table is that it encourages you to think of problems and solutions in those terms - learn the method and what you can do with it, how it affects the expression of your code - if you find it a useful idea it's easy enough to implement in most object-oriented languages...