Re:Brasilians do not have last names?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
I would think Germany would be happy to just escape the US team. They were badly outplayed except in goalkeeping ("Chewbaca" Kahn is out of this world and a great sportsman; nearly pulled Donovan's arm off helping him up and is easily one of the ugliest goalkeepers in the world, though) -- not that Friedel did a bad job, he's also quite spectacular in goal.
In the Final: I don't know if Kahn keeps that rebound bottled up if he doesn't tear a ligament in his hand getting kicked by a Brazillian player. Or if Ronaldo didn't foul to recover the ball outside the penalty box (although the Germans should've just booted it clear; no reason for a guy on a team whose strength isn't in ball handling to try going through all of Brazil alone)... I'm not sure that first goal mattered, though. Brazil had found its rhythm and I think it could've been a lot worse than 2-0.
All well, Kahn's one of my favorite players (I hope he's back for 2006), and it's not just because the fun I can have with his name. Chewbaca Kahn not only aptly describes the fuzzy, yelling goalkeeper, but it reminds me of Shaka Kahn which makes me laugh. Of course, I should stop fooling around with his name before I draw the wrath of Kahn...
Of course, given the number of international players in the major leagues (you'd be hard pressed to find a baseball team without at least a starting player from Central America/the Caribbean), it's more and more becoming a world series.
The pause is an artifact of the pacing of the original ("one nation, indivisible"). It should be noted that in all the schools I have gone to, those that used the pledge (and most, in fact, didn't), never included, "under God." This being 20 years after the phrasing was added and, for a short time, in a private Christian school.
Did anyone else grow up in or around San Francisco using only the older pledge?
Cg looked awfully familiar to me (and not just because we had this article, before). You might want to compare it to the OpenGL 2.0 Shader Language defined here (PDF) and implemented here.
All of this leaves me a little bit confused. I'm not sure why we need two (or, perhaps, more) C-based shader languages, at least one of which (Cg) is hardware-specific, but API neutral.
If your package will not function without a GPL'd package, your package must be GPL.
That's a fine argument if you can conceive of a case in which some program absolutely cannot function without a GPL'd package. Unless I'm mistaken, you recently argued that duplication of effort to implement a proprietary solution for which a GPL package already exists is a viable form of risk-reduction.
As for your sophmoric stab at my so-called 'keen insight' [...]
Well, now, I take exception to that! I was at least semi-serious. I've dealt with at least a few people that were seemingly incapable of grasping what the GPL does and doesn't require. Besides, sarcastic hyperbole is hardly sophmoric.
But I can also see why someone would consider it a hazard.
I don't dispute that you and a lot of other people can "see why" the GPL is a risk. However, I've yet to see someone that can explain why, and that's precisely the problem I was attempting to point out with my supposedly sophmoric comment about your keen insight: there are people, in this whitepaper and in these comments, that are doing nothing but rephrasing their opinion of the GPL as factual analysis.
Except that it's "MOST uniquely restrictive." It's already been established (in other comments) that this Think Tank consists of so many high-minded, conceptual thinkers that there was no room for a grammarian. Even still, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant "most... restrictive," and not the completely daft, "most uniquely."
The most important restriction (as noted here, there, elsewhere, and everywhere) is that if you use some GPL code, the whole package has to be GPL. If your app requires a GPL package, then your package has to be GPL. [...yawn...] So I'm sure you can see why the license would be unattractive to some people.
First, I've never heard of anyone absolutely needing to use GPL code in their package. You can choose to do so or not. Of greater import, however, is that despite your keen insight that some people just won't understand/like the viral nature of the GPL, this whitepaper isn't purporting to be opinion, but a factual analysis of the risk inherent in the GPL. Additionally, you fail to point out that even if the resulting package is GPL, that doesn't oblige you to distribute it, and thus, you don't have to release the source code.
If we're talking about national security, it's going to be written from a paranoid mindset, and rightfully so.
Okay, fine, I'll (temporarily) accept that paranoia is a good thing, here. But this is just one paranoid view. Another paranoid view is that with the number of foreigners employed in the tech sector, terrorists could already have been introducing backdoors into closed source products for years, now. Another paranoid view is that computers are inherently dangerous, electricity is the spawn of Satan, and we should all call each other Jebidiah, raise barns, churn butter, and sell cocaine. There's lots of paranoid views. Just because you think paranoia is acceptable in this instance doesn't do anything to validate the views expressed in the whitepaper. A lot of people, these days, have eschewed critical thinking for mindless support for whatever's been pushed to "stop the terrorists." It's both wrong and dangerous, even in paranoid times.
Of course, paranoia isn't the right framing for anyone, anyway. Rational risk analysis is, and always has been, better. There's
a massive divide between planning for the Worst Case Scenario and outright paranoia. We'd be wiser to not ignore it.
You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the
actual Christians actually thought about it:
I take it that your definition of an "actual Christian" (and what such people "actually" think) is far more convenient than you would lead us to believe. Were Saints Augistine and Jerome Christians? What of some of those who wrote penitentials? Pope Innocent III? None of these people were actual Christians? Or are you arguing that they didn't really think abortion was okay, despite their statements and actions?
Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting."
Well, that strawman took quite a thrashing. Do babies get in the way of your rutting? If it were really a matter of mere irresponsibility, as you claim, then it'd be far easier to just run away, leave the mother to fend for herself. Starting with the implication that abortion is iressponsible makes it awfully easy to argue that it's wrong.
It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD
epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential."
Another strawman dies a brutal death. Associating unsafe, promiscuous sex with the common sex life is a nice tactic for finding a moral high ground, but it doesn't win you actual points. You know, Christians get AIDS, too. (And churches have lightning rods.) Go figure.
If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.
And last I checked, it wasn't the church's most stalwart and conservative members place to dictate morality when the vast majority of Americans support some form of abortion or another based upon sound, if controversial (to you), reasoning.
You're clearly confused. The performance of ld.so has little to do with C++ and nothing to do with deep levels of inheritance.
There IS an issue with virtual functions (vtables) and relocations, which is probably what you're trying to reference, but this isn't really an issue with C++ and the problem can be addressed by lazy binding of vtables.
It's also completely moot when we're talking about a low-level C++ application: the chances of him needing to do heavy dynamic linking or having a vast framework of objects with significant numbers of virtual functions is so slim that it doesn't even bear mentioning in this discussion.
The only speed hit relevant to c++ would be using virtual methods,...
Ideally, perhaps, but not in reality. There's definite, significant overhead in using much of C++'s standard library. Time a loop using IOstreams (std::cout) against one using std::printf(). In GCC 3.0, at least, you should find the C++ significantly slower. (In fact, slower than a similar test in Java.)
C++ is a good language with a lot of critics, but just because the criticisms have all been heard before doesn't mean they lack merit. One can say most of the performance problems aren't inherent in the language, and that'd be true, but what difference does it make if all of the implementations are so bad?
No one will probably ever read this, but I should
point out, anyway, that this is false. The Dead
Sea scrolls do not have the Old Testament
text in them, word for word. The text in the Dead
Sea scrolls is not the same as the text in
the Old Testament. Although we are not able to
read much of the Dead Sea scrolls because they
have weathered long years, what we can see is
that when there is overlap between the Bible and
the Dead Sea scrolls, the gist of the story
remains the same. However, the Dead Sea scrolls
contain significantly more Biblical text than the
Bible. It's also incorrect to assert that the
Dead Sea scrolls are all written in Hebrew. Many
are written in Aramaic and some, even, in Greek.
We also, again, run into the fact that while
there is overlap between the content, the
spelling and precise phrasing has changed.
This gets me back around to the major factual
error in your comment: this new word...
probably means "circle line". There
are a great many problems with this. First,
there's the simple fact that being able to
perform fairly arbitrary mathematical operations
on a given word to find a value does not mean
that the value and the word are intentionally
related. It certainly doesn't mean that they are
probably so. One can perform such neat
maths tricks with anything and get equally
astounding (read: meaningless) results.
If you must get technical, however, I can
simply point out that the original word form (kuf
vav) has not been translated as "line"
but as "line around", which is what it
means (kuf = to surround; vav = hook). To assert that they had another word (kuf vav hey) that means "line around, no really, this time!" is as absurd as I'm making it sound.
In short, one's time would be better spent acknowledging that the Bible, like any other text written by men, has errors, but this does not invalidate the whole of it. If you're religious, you can excuse the error as being either an intentional approximation in the original or an error introduced with time. What cannot happen is for those of us who are secular to use such a trivial error as a means of invalidating the entire Bible. That's not a valid argument form and is a clear demonstration of belief affecting rationality -- the same thing we often shun religion for (calling its practioners zealots).
That site is perhaps the worst bit of religious claptrap I've read in a long time. Not only is it completely inane and arbitrary (on the order of those ridiculous Bible/Torah codes), but it ignores
historical fact in purporting that modern editions of the Bible have not been altered by years upon years of scribeswork.
Here's a thunderstorm for this kook's parade: spelling systems have significantly altered over time, so as the books have been scribed, they have often underwent correction (or, to use a lighter term, translation) for modern usage/dialect. All this without even getting into the likely errors of an age short on the infrastructure to ensure common spellings.
Then we have the footnote that not only have spellings often changed, but some of the text has suffered greater edits.
What is worth more than mathematical ad-hockery is to note that the Bible is simply incorrect, here, for whatever reason (whether it's because the passage was only intended as a casual, imprecise description, was transcribed wrong, etc. doesn't matter). One is also free to point out that most arguments that use this fact to jump to some sweeping, grand conclusion are quite invalid.
Don't be silly -- MST3K was the worst promoted show (that didn't suck). SFC moved it to--what?--6am PST and never ran a commercial for it. Since then they've cancelled it, moved it to 9am PST/EST and extended the contract (for extant episodes) a few times.
Futurama received some promotion, although those on the east coast were overrun. The Tick received no promotion. Family Guy received almost no promotion.
Considering you began a post with, "Idiot," and continue to assert that a thread re a disputed statement (about Black Hawk Down) which appears in the text of the parent article,
you might want to tone down your derogatory, sneering messages a tad.
You're probably not the best person to be rallying against Ad Hominem attacks in this thread, after all.
[...] you'd have noticed that the point of it was not the offtopic bit [...]
So what? Are people no longer able to take issue with disagreeable statements simply because they were not the overall point of the message? If we hold this as the standard for logic, the moon is fuchsia. And good luck disputing that claim in this thread, bud.
I thought he was a programmer, but based upon the pictures, I'd venture a guess he's some combination of (a) a model for 5-cent romance novels; (b) the next spokesperson for "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter;" (c) Fabio post-run-in with a well-trained goose.
The blurb looked promising for a second. I thought it might be some sort of thinktank where actual solutions to actual problems were proposed to guide music into more fertile soil in the future...
[...] unions, lawyers and others
But, then again, maybe not.
Any field which has a future dictated by lawyers, other than the legal field itself (and, maybe, politics), is in trouble. If the industry was interested in giving artists a fair shake, they'd leave their sharks and sheisters at home and deal with the artists as creative partners, not product to be bought, sold, manipulated, robbed, pruned, and dismissed. And that's such a fantasy I can scarcely believe I thought of it.
The artists can't budge (what are they going to give up? They don't have rights to their music, their name, sometimes not even their own style of music. Most of them don't get paid. Many don't get much despite their success) and the studios beat strawmen to death (like Tower-fucking-Records is somehow to blame), never address serious issues, and have their cadre of bloodsuckers sitting at the table the whole time, just to say, "The future of music is the present of music." Nothing's going to change. I'd say it was a game of control, but, well, games have some competition, some odds for the other guys to win out. That's a fat chance, here.
Well, The Simpsons had better (read: some) exposure to its target audience (WRT timeslot. Tickheads followed it, but, obviously, the network wasn't in it for a few thousand hardcore fans). The transition from Saturday morning to Thursday night isn't exactly ideal, especially when spaced by a handful of years. I won't count the brief stint on Comedy Central, since being on cable in the wee hours of a Monday (what was it? 1am?) can't be considered exposure.
Gack. You're breaking data hiding and encapsulation in your example while lamenting its death in MFC? How about we replace label->Font->Style = CFont.STYLE_BOLD; with a function call that can check for constraints, since C++ doesn't allow for checking class invariants. For instance, label->SetFontStyle(CFont::STYLE_BOLD); would be better in C++ OO.
They weren't going to die. See Coming Attraction's AOTC page for the original story with the never-confirmed death report, the (presumed) correction, and a link to an MP3 with the 'NSync guy saying they're cut.
This isn't necessarily definitive, either. E! Online is reporting that it's still George's call. This might, in fact, just be a ploy to get everyone to shut-up about it. Then Lucas could still sneak the cameos in without the majority of SW fanatics knowing until well afterwards, if ever at all.
I don't care either way, personally; people are making too big a deal about nothing. If the original Star Wars can have Billy Dee Williams in a major role, Episode II can have some meaningless pop stars amidst a hundred other extras in non-speaking, uncredited roles.
Why does he need to try it out to tell what it looks like? He was only commenting on its appearance and the functional aspects of its appearance. You can telleven from these few, small picturesthat its a little computer and, thus, more easily concealed (which might make it easier to steal) and moved (which might make it easier to knock around and damage).
He wasn't purporting to do in-depth analysis. He stuck to the surface. Things he could see and logically infer from its appearance. A cop-out like yours doesn't dismiss anything he said.
Slashdot Mirror
In the Final: I don't know if Kahn keeps that rebound bottled up if he doesn't tear a ligament in his hand getting kicked by a Brazillian player. Or if Ronaldo didn't foul to recover the ball outside the penalty box (although the Germans should've just booted it clear; no reason for a guy on a team whose strength isn't in ball handling to try going through all of Brazil alone)... I'm not sure that first goal mattered, though. Brazil had found its rhythm and I think it could've been a lot worse than 2-0.
All well, Kahn's one of my favorite players (I hope he's back for 2006), and it's not just because the fun I can have with his name. Chewbaca Kahn not only aptly describes the fuzzy, yelling goalkeeper, but it reminds me of Shaka Kahn which makes me laugh. Of course, I should stop fooling around with his name before I draw the wrath of Kahn...
Of course, given the number of international players in the major leagues (you'd be hard pressed to find a baseball team without at least a starting player from Central America/the Caribbean), it's more and more becoming a world series.
Did anyone else grow up in or around San Francisco using only the older pledge?
All of this leaves me a little bit confused. I'm not sure why we need two (or, perhaps, more) C-based shader languages, at least one of which (Cg) is hardware-specific, but API neutral.
That's a fine argument if you can conceive of a case in which some program absolutely cannot function without a GPL'd package. Unless I'm mistaken, you recently argued that duplication of effort to implement a proprietary solution for which a GPL package already exists is a viable form of risk-reduction.
Well, now, I take exception to that! I was at least semi-serious. I've dealt with at least a few people that were seemingly incapable of grasping what the GPL does and doesn't require. Besides, sarcastic hyperbole is hardly sophmoric.
I don't dispute that you and a lot of other people can "see why" the GPL is a risk. However, I've yet to see someone that can explain why, and that's precisely the problem I was attempting to point out with my supposedly sophmoric comment about your keen insight: there are people, in this whitepaper and in these comments, that are doing nothing but rephrasing their opinion of the GPL as factual analysis.
Except that it's "MOST uniquely restrictive." It's already been established (in other comments) that this Think Tank consists of so many high-minded, conceptual thinkers that there was no room for a grammarian. Even still, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant "most ... restrictive," and not the completely daft, "most uniquely."
First, I've never heard of anyone absolutely needing to use GPL code in their package. You can choose to do so or not. Of greater import, however, is that despite your keen insight that some people just won't understand/like the viral nature of the GPL, this whitepaper isn't purporting to be opinion, but a factual analysis of the risk inherent in the GPL. Additionally, you fail to point out that even if the resulting package is GPL, that doesn't oblige you to distribute it, and thus, you don't have to release the source code.
Okay, fine, I'll (temporarily) accept that paranoia is a good thing, here. But this is just one paranoid view. Another paranoid view is that with the number of foreigners employed in the tech sector, terrorists could already have been introducing backdoors into closed source products for years, now. Another paranoid view is that computers are inherently dangerous, electricity is the spawn of Satan, and we should all call each other Jebidiah, raise barns, churn butter, and sell cocaine. There's lots of paranoid views. Just because you think paranoia is acceptable in this instance doesn't do anything to validate the views expressed in the whitepaper. A lot of people, these days, have eschewed critical thinking for mindless support for whatever's been pushed to "stop the terrorists." It's both wrong and dangerous, even in paranoid times.
Of course, paranoia isn't the right framing for anyone, anyway. Rational risk analysis is, and always has been, better. There's a massive divide between planning for the Worst Case Scenario and outright paranoia. We'd be wiser to not ignore it.
I take it that your definition of an "actual Christian" (and what such people "actually" think) is far more convenient than you would lead us to believe. Were Saints Augistine and Jerome Christians? What of some of those who wrote penitentials? Pope Innocent III? None of these people were actual Christians? Or are you arguing that they didn't really think abortion was okay, despite their statements and actions?
Well, that strawman took quite a thrashing. Do babies get in the way of your rutting? If it were really a matter of mere irresponsibility, as you claim, then it'd be far easier to just run away, leave the mother to fend for herself. Starting with the implication that abortion is iressponsible makes it awfully easy to argue that it's wrong.
Another strawman dies a brutal death. Associating unsafe, promiscuous sex with the common sex life is a nice tactic for finding a moral high ground, but it doesn't win you actual points. You know, Christians get AIDS, too. (And churches have lightning rods.) Go figure.
And last I checked, it wasn't the church's most stalwart and conservative members place to dictate morality when the vast majority of Americans support some form of abortion or another based upon sound, if controversial (to you), reasoning.
You're clearly confused. The performance of ld.so has little to do with C++ and nothing to do with deep levels of inheritance. There IS an issue with virtual functions (vtables) and relocations, which is probably what you're trying to reference, but this isn't really an issue with C++ and the problem can be addressed by lazy binding of vtables. It's also completely moot when we're talking about a low-level C++ application: the chances of him needing to do heavy dynamic linking or having a vast framework of objects with significant numbers of virtual functions is so slim that it doesn't even bear mentioning in this discussion.
Ideally, perhaps, but not in reality. There's definite, significant overhead in using much of C++'s standard library. Time a loop using IOstreams (std::cout) against one using std::printf(). In GCC 3.0, at least, you should find the C++ significantly slower. (In fact, slower than a similar test in Java.) C++ is a good language with a lot of critics, but just because the criticisms have all been heard before doesn't mean they lack merit. One can say most of the performance problems aren't inherent in the language, and that'd be true, but what difference does it make if all of the implementations are so bad?
In Smalltalk, there's no such string as "God", but 'God' exists.
This gets me back around to the major factual error in your comment: this new word ...
probably means "circle line". There
are a great many problems with this. First,
there's the simple fact that being able to
perform fairly arbitrary mathematical operations
on a given word to find a value does not mean
that the value and the word are intentionally
related. It certainly doesn't mean that they are
probably so. One can perform such neat
maths tricks with anything and get equally
astounding (read: meaningless) results.
If you must get technical, however, I can simply point out that the original word form (kuf vav) has not been translated as "line" but as "line around", which is what it means (kuf = to surround; vav = hook). To assert that they had another word (kuf vav hey) that means "line around, no really, this time!" is as absurd as I'm making it sound.
In short, one's time would be better spent acknowledging that the Bible, like any other text written by men, has errors, but this does not invalidate the whole of it. If you're religious, you can excuse the error as being either an intentional approximation in the original or an error introduced with time. What cannot happen is for those of us who are secular to use such a trivial error as a means of invalidating the entire Bible. That's not a valid argument form and is a clear demonstration of belief affecting rationality -- the same thing we often shun religion for (calling its practioners zealots).
What is worth more than mathematical ad-hockery is to note that the Bible is simply incorrect, here, for whatever reason (whether it's because the passage was only intended as a casual, imprecise description, was transcribed wrong, etc. doesn't matter). One is also free to point out that most arguments that use this fact to jump to some sweeping, grand conclusion are quite invalid.
Don't be silly -- MST3K was the worst promoted show (that didn't suck). SFC moved it to--what?--6am PST and never ran a commercial for it. Since then they've cancelled it, moved it to 9am PST/EST and extended the contract (for extant episodes) a few times. Futurama received some promotion, although those on the east coast were overrun. The Tick received no promotion. Family Guy received almost no promotion.
So what? Are people no longer able to take issue with disagreeable statements simply because they were not the overall point of the message? If we hold this as the standard for logic, the moon is fuchsia. And good luck disputing that claim in this thread, bud.
I thought he was a programmer, but based upon the pictures, I'd venture a guess he's some combination of (a) a model for 5-cent romance novels; (b) the next spokesperson for "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter;" (c) Fabio post-run-in with a well-trained goose.
That's why God invented saline.
I would argue that oil and other big industry have screwed up politics more than lawyers could ever hope.
But, then again, maybe not.
Any field which has a future dictated by lawyers, other than the legal field itself (and, maybe, politics), is in trouble. If the industry was interested in giving artists a fair shake, they'd leave their sharks and sheisters at home and deal with the artists as creative partners, not product to be bought, sold, manipulated, robbed, pruned, and dismissed. And that's such a fantasy I can scarcely believe I thought of it.
The artists can't budge (what are they going to give up? They don't have rights to their music, their name, sometimes not even their own style of music. Most of them don't get paid. Many don't get much despite their success) and the studios beat strawmen to death (like Tower-fucking-Records is somehow to blame), never address serious issues, and have their cadre of bloodsuckers sitting at the table the whole time, just to say, "The future of music is the present of music." Nothing's going to change. I'd say it was a game of control, but, well, games have some competition, some odds for the other guys to win out. That's a fat chance, here.
Well, The Simpsons had better (read: some) exposure to its target audience (WRT timeslot. Tickheads followed it, but, obviously, the network wasn't in it for a few thousand hardcore fans). The transition from Saturday morning to Thursday night isn't exactly ideal, especially when spaced by a handful of years. I won't count the brief stint on Comedy Central, since being on cable in the wee hours of a Monday (what was it? 1am?) can't be considered exposure.
What? You don't watch Enterprise?
It's Bob Einstein, actually.
Gack. You're breaking data hiding and encapsulation in your example while lamenting its death in MFC? How about we replace label->Font->Style = CFont.STYLE_BOLD; with a function call that can check for constraints, since C++ doesn't allow for checking class invariants. For instance, label->SetFontStyle(CFont::STYLE_BOLD); would be better in C++ OO.
This isn't necessarily definitive, either. E! Online is reporting that it's still George's call. This might, in fact, just be a ploy to get everyone to shut-up about it. Then Lucas could still sneak the cameos in without the majority of SW fanatics knowing until well afterwards, if ever at all.
I don't care either way, personally; people are making too big a deal about nothing. If the original Star Wars can have Billy Dee Williams in a major role, Episode II can have some meaningless pop stars amidst a hundred other extras in non-speaking, uncredited roles.
He wasn't purporting to do in-depth analysis. He stuck to the surface. Things he could see and logically infer from its appearance. A cop-out like yours doesn't dismiss anything he said.
The others don't need cameos -- 'NSync can play them.