Implicit in the idea of "telecommuting" is the idea of "at a distance," a.k.a. "tele" -- the same root as "telecommunications" and "telephone." If you need to get in touch with your employees quickly, is there a reason you can't just make a phone call? Obviously, if your business is of a kind where employees need to be able to do things hands-on, then probably it's not a good candidate for telecommuting and TFS doesn't really apply to you. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see what the problem is.
I guess my crackpottery is the paelo diet, can you explain why you think it is on par with young earth creationism or anti-vaccine groups?
There's no evidence that the "paleo diet" is actually what our ancestors ate, nor that grain, legumes, and (in people who produce adequate amounts of lactase) dairy products are in any way bad for you. The one study that purports to show benefits from the diet is tiny and riddled with methodological problems. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that lean meat and fresh vegetables are better for you than processed crap (which goes a long way toward explaining the observed benefit from any diet; pay attention to what you eat, and you'll probably eat better) but the idea that humans -- who are, by all the evidence, about as omnivorous as any creature that ever walked the Earth -- should restrict themselves to a small subset of available foods is entirely without support.
That being said, it's not "on par" with the ones you mentioned because it's not a public health threat like anti-vax, nor an assault on the foundations of science like creationism. So I'll moderate my initial statement a little: not all the items on OP's list are equally nuts. Honestly, though, that's kind of like saying, "I may be bipolar, but at least I'm not schizophrenic!" -- it's all still pretty wackadoodle by sane people's standards.
Your attempt at passing off a package deal has been detected by automatic scanners.
"One of these things is not like the other . . . one of these things does not belong . . . "
Crackpots always think their own variety of crackpottery is special. "Those other guys are nuts, but we know the truth!" Sorry, everything on GPP's list belongs there, and if there's one of them you think is Different, that says more about you than it does about the items presented.
46% means that majority of cell users have smartphones.
The appropriately named ganjadude said:
since when is 46% the majority?? has there been some new math findings i am unaware of?
AC (probably another AC) said:
46% of Americans have one. 41% of Americans have a non-smart phone. Therefore a majority of cell phone users have a smartphone as grandparent post says.
You said:
That would be a plurality not majority. A majority by its very definition is a subset of more than half of the group. 46% is not more than half.
You are invited to read the above exchange of posts carefully, and think about what the phrase "a majority of cell phone owners" (as opposed to "a majority of Americans") actually means. Hint: 0.46 / (0.46 + 0.41) > 0.5.
And, IMO, a contract is a fancy form of documentation. If you can't implement any functionality in it, it doesn't do anything that a careful check of the program against the design specs can't also accomplish. I'm not saying interfaces are useless, but I wish people would stop saying "we don't need multiple inheritance, we've got interfaces!" when they don't do anywhere near the same thing.
Maybe some of those alternate theories that have been labeled âoecrackpotâ need to be looked at more seriously in light of the flood of data confounding, perplexing and fooling current mainstream scientists.
Maybe the crackpots should present some real evidence instead of acting so much like, well, crackpots. Specifically, maybe they should submit their work for publication and stop posting their "results" on web sites full of eye-bleeding color schemes, pretty Hubble pictures (which are, BTW, published by those evil "mainstream" scientists) that have nothing do to with the issues at hand, accusations of censorship and suppression by The Scientific Establishment, and "refutations" of existing theories that all pretty much boil down to "nuh-uh!"
It's pretty conventional, when discussing astronomical observations, to use the present tense for "when we see it." Since it can't possibly have any effect on us before the light from the event gets here (assuming relativity is correct, yadda yadda) this makes sense. Also, having to say "2.4 billion years ago 2.4 billion light-years away" would just get annoyingly redundant after a while.
There's pedantry which serves the useful purpose of correcting other people's mistakes, and then there's pedantry of the "look how clever I am" variety; posts like yours, which seem to get posted to every single story on any kind of astronomical event that takes place outside the solar system, are examples of the latter.
Re:That's all we need ...
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Java interfaces are essentially a fancy form of documentation. Traits sound like they provide actual functionality.
As for static typing... oh, never mind. If you prefer static typing, by all means, use a language that has it. Also bear in mind that static typing != strong typing; a lot of people who complain about the lack of the first really seem to be talking about the second.
Re:advantages of multiple inheritance
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Like every other tool, multiple inheritance can be used or abused. It may be one of those tools which is actually more prone to abuse than to proper use, but that doesn't mean it can't be done right.
For a specific example, I used to work on a database application stack which had a bunch of classes for database entities (People and Companies, say) each inheriting from a DBEntity class; and other classes, inheriting from the database-facing classes, to format those entities for display (DisplayPeople, DisplayCompanies, etc.) The display classes each had to inherit from the database-facing classes, and each had its own particular display needs, but there were also, unsurprsingly, a lot of display functions in common. It would have been very useful to be able to define a DisplayEntity class from which each of the display classes could have inherited, using the common methods when applicable and defining their own methods when needed.
There's not a single analysis you could want to do on a sample which couldn't be more cheaply done by sending the lab to mars.
"Sending the lab to Mars" is an impossible proposition at this point. Sure, there are all kinds of very impressive analytical instruments we can miniaturize and pack into a probe, but it just doesn't compare to a full-size lab where scientists can examine the samples in person.
Because.. you don't get a different answer every time?
Pretty much, yeah. Specifically, if you got a wrong vote count the first time, you will get the same (still wrong) vote count the next time.
Suppose you go to an ATM to check your account balance, and it says you have a thousand bucks less in your account than your financial records say you should, so you go to the bank and ask them to check your account for any unauthorized transactions. Now suppose the teller just pulls up your account on screen, glances at the account balance, and says, "Looks like the ATM's right." Would you consider that a satisfactory resolution to the problem?
Making it easier for idiots to vote is a _bad_ thing.
Indeed. That's why I support HB 12345, the Smart Voting Act of 2012, which states in its entirety, "The Slashdot user 'msauve' shall never again be allowed to cast any vote in any election within or held under the authority of the United States of America." Should solve a lot of problems.
It's racist because every single time we've made it more difficult to vote, it's been used to discriminate against minority voters. "We should restrict voting in such-and-such a way" <-- prima facie evidence that the person you're talking to wants to suppress the minority vote. You can dress it up any way you want, but history is against you.
If you're too fucking lazy to vote in person, fuck you, no one gives a rats fuck what you think anyways.
If you're too fucking stupid to realize that there are a million and one legitimate reasons why voting in person may be difficult to impossible for a lot of people who have every bit as much of a right to vote as anyone else, fuck you, you're not fucking worthy to vote.
If you use the same logic, not observing God interacting with the world does not imply that God does not exist.
So many of the same arguments apply to both proving the existence/nonexistence of God and proving the existence/nonexistence of extraterrestrials.
The difference is that "God," as generally defined by believers, is a being who specifically does interact with His creation. There is not (and probably will never be) any evidence either way on the hypothesis of a "watchmaker" who set the universe in motion and then left it alone, but that's not the God people pray to, either. If you believe in the power of prayer, or in the Bible as a moral rulebook, or any of the million and one other things which believers are constantly pushing, you have to believe in a God who should have left evidence of His active involvement all over the place, and yet has mysteriously failed to do so. There are people who believe in active involvement in human affairs by aliens too, of course, but they're a fringe minority rather than being in the mainstream of those who speculate on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
Of course everybody here will be aware that there is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic, but how to get this through to the arts graduates at the Beeb?
Somehow I must have missed that vital piece of information in the course of getting my math degrees. I'd say "the arts graduates at the Beeb" have a better grasp on the situation than you do.
Frontiersmen and Minutemen (well, minutemen get selected out of unrecognized militias.)
Um, that was my point. I was using "militia" as shorthand for your "frontiersmen and minutemen." Who, routinely, constantly, got their asses handed to them by the British regulars.
Oh, and no, we were getting our asses kicked until we had the EQUIPMENT from the French plus more men. We never built any real sort of professional standing army, most men had their training right in the heat of battle in their home towns.
Washington would disagree with you. Seriously, read what he had to say sometime about the militias as opposed to his Continental Army sometime; it's not pretty. He built and trained an army of real soldiers, and the Revolution was won by those soldiers, not by a bunch of whoopin' and hollerin' irregulars running around in the woods.
You need to go back to school. We fought with frontiermen and minutemen against soldiers.
You should have gone to a better school. We fought with militias against professional soldiers, and got our asses kicked. It wasn't until we started building a real army of our own that the Revolution had even a prayer of succeeding.
(It's probably not your fault; the "rugged individualist frontiersman sniping from behind the trees at the stupid Redcoats marching down the middle of the road" idea is deeply embedded in our national mythos, and a lot of otherwise decent history teachers pass it onto their students. But it is a myth, and one which is easily disproved with a modicum of research.)
People who say things like that generally seem to assume two things: first, that full and accurate information will be available; and second, that they'll be able to interpret the information and make an informed decision -- after all, they're smart and knowledgeable and can think for themselves, not like all those other sheeple! They could, of course, educate themselves about the history of patent medicine (and food production) and why the FDA and similar organizations in other countries were created in the first place, but it's easier to grumble about "government gatekeepers" and decry regulation as a matter of principle.
Unlike, say, Iran, NK doesn't actually need nukes to level its sworn enemy. It would probably be faster and more convenient to just level Seoul with conventional artillery. Is there any doubt that their nuclear program is just a bartering commodity for aid?
Seoul, yes. Large SK and US troop concentrations farther south, not so much. It's always difficult to understand the thinking of a government as notably insane as NK's, but I think there is a definite miltary aspect to their nuclear program as well as the obvious "bargaining chip" aspect. If NK ever does develop an arsenal of nukes that can be carried by SRBM -- and by "arsenal" I mean ten or twenty warheads -- they could, to put it mildly, seriously impede the ability of UN forces to operate on the peninsula.
This of course assumes that the US answer to the destruction of Kunsan AB, for example, wouldn't just be to make Pyongyang and all the major NK bases go up in a flash. And I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that.
None of the papers in that search show that antibiotics in animal feed contributes to resistance in humans.
Your use of the phrase "resistance in humans" indicates to me that you don't really understand what this debate is about. It's not about resistance in humans, it's about resistance in bacterial strains which can infect humans. And again, many of the papers in the search indicate that the use of antibiotics in animal feed contributes to exactly that. Sorry you failed reading comprehension in elementary school, but please, stop spouting off about things you don't understand.
i dont understand why people who believe in the free market keep looking to China as some kind of model on a hill.... There are no labor unions, there are no workers rights laws, there are no environmental laws.
The second sentence completely answers the implied question in your first sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
Implicit in the idea of "telecommuting" is the idea of "at a distance," a.k.a. "tele" -- the same root as "telecommunications" and "telephone." If you need to get in touch with your employees quickly, is there a reason you can't just make a phone call? Obviously, if your business is of a kind where employees need to be able to do things hands-on, then probably it's not a good candidate for telecommuting and TFS doesn't really apply to you. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see what the problem is.
I guess my crackpottery is the paelo diet, can you explain why you think it is on par with young earth creationism or anti-vaccine groups?
There's no evidence that the "paleo diet" is actually what our ancestors ate, nor that grain, legumes, and (in people who produce adequate amounts of lactase) dairy products are in any way bad for you. The one study that purports to show benefits from the diet is tiny and riddled with methodological problems. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that lean meat and fresh vegetables are better for you than processed crap (which goes a long way toward explaining the observed benefit from any diet; pay attention to what you eat, and you'll probably eat better) but the idea that humans -- who are, by all the evidence, about as omnivorous as any creature that ever walked the Earth -- should restrict themselves to a small subset of available foods is entirely without support.
That being said, it's not "on par" with the ones you mentioned because it's not a public health threat like anti-vax, nor an assault on the foundations of science like creationism. So I'll moderate my initial statement a little: not all the items on OP's list are equally nuts. Honestly, though, that's kind of like saying, "I may be bipolar, but at least I'm not schizophrenic!" -- it's all still pretty wackadoodle by sane people's standards.
Your attempt at passing off a package deal has been detected by automatic scanners.
"One of these things is not like the other . . . one of these things does not belong . . . "
Crackpots always think their own variety of crackpottery is special. "Those other guys are nuts, but we know the truth!" Sorry, everything on GPP's list belongs there, and if there's one of them you think is Different, that says more about you than it does about the items presented.
Okay, let's recap. AC said:
46% means that majority of cell users have smartphones.
The appropriately named ganjadude said:
since when is 46% the majority?? has there been some new math findings i am unaware of?
AC (probably another AC) said:
46% of Americans have one. 41% of Americans have a non-smart phone. Therefore a majority of cell phone users have a smartphone as grandparent post says.
You said:
That would be a plurality not majority. A majority by its very definition is a subset of more than half of the group. 46% is not more than half.
You are invited to read the above exchange of posts carefully, and think about what the phrase "a majority of cell phone owners" (as opposed to "a majority of Americans") actually means. Hint: 0.46 / (0.46 + 0.41) > 0.5.
Oh, that's brilliant!
Why the fuck were your data objects doing display logic?
They weren't, and we didn't want them to have to do so. That's the point.
They are also a contract
And, IMO, a contract is a fancy form of documentation. If you can't implement any functionality in it, it doesn't do anything that a careful check of the program against the design specs can't also accomplish. I'm not saying interfaces are useless, but I wish people would stop saying "we don't need multiple inheritance, we've got interfaces!" when they don't do anywhere near the same thing.
Maybe some of those alternate theories that have been labeled âoecrackpotâ need to be looked at more seriously in light of the flood of data confounding, perplexing and fooling current mainstream scientists.
Maybe the crackpots should present some real evidence instead of acting so much like, well, crackpots. Specifically, maybe they should submit their work for publication and stop posting their "results" on web sites full of eye-bleeding color schemes, pretty Hubble pictures (which are, BTW, published by those evil "mainstream" scientists) that have nothing do to with the issues at hand, accusations of censorship and suppression by The Scientific Establishment, and "refutations" of existing theories that all pretty much boil down to "nuh-uh!"
It's pretty conventional, when discussing astronomical observations, to use the present tense for "when we see it." Since it can't possibly have any effect on us before the light from the event gets here (assuming relativity is correct, yadda yadda) this makes sense. Also, having to say "2.4 billion years ago 2.4 billion light-years away" would just get annoyingly redundant after a while.
There's pedantry which serves the useful purpose of correcting other people's mistakes, and then there's pedantry of the "look how clever I am" variety; posts like yours, which seem to get posted to every single story on any kind of astronomical event that takes place outside the solar system, are examples of the latter.
Java interfaces are essentially a fancy form of documentation. Traits sound like they provide actual functionality.
As for static typing ... oh, never mind. If you prefer static typing, by all means, use a language that has it. Also bear in mind that static typing != strong typing; a lot of people who complain about the lack of the first really seem to be talking about the second.
Like every other tool, multiple inheritance can be used or abused. It may be one of those tools which is actually more prone to abuse than to proper use, but that doesn't mean it can't be done right.
For a specific example, I used to work on a database application stack which had a bunch of classes for database entities (People and Companies, say) each inheriting from a DBEntity class; and other classes, inheriting from the database-facing classes, to format those entities for display (DisplayPeople, DisplayCompanies, etc.) The display classes each had to inherit from the database-facing classes, and each had its own particular display needs, but there were also, unsurprsingly, a lot of display functions in common. It would have been very useful to be able to define a DisplayEntity class from which each of the display classes could have inherited, using the common methods when applicable and defining their own methods when needed.
There's not a single analysis you could want to do on a sample which couldn't be more cheaply done by sending the lab to mars.
"Sending the lab to Mars" is an impossible proposition at this point. Sure, there are all kinds of very impressive analytical instruments we can miniaturize and pack into a probe, but it just doesn't compare to a full-size lab where scientists can examine the samples in person.
Because.. you don't get a different answer every time?
Pretty much, yeah. Specifically, if you got a wrong vote count the first time, you will get the same (still wrong) vote count the next time.
Suppose you go to an ATM to check your account balance, and it says you have a thousand bucks less in your account than your financial records say you should, so you go to the bank and ask them to check your account for any unauthorized transactions. Now suppose the teller just pulls up your account on screen, glances at the account balance, and says, "Looks like the ATM's right." Would you consider that a satisfactory resolution to the problem?
Push a button, and the recount is done.
That's the point; it's not really a "recount" by any meaningful definition of the word.
Making it easier for idiots to vote is a _bad_ thing.
Indeed. That's why I support HB 12345, the Smart Voting Act of 2012, which states in its entirety, "The Slashdot user 'msauve' shall never again be allowed to cast any vote in any election within or held under the authority of the United States of America." Should solve a lot of problems.
But I guess all that is racist somehow.
It's racist because every single time we've made it more difficult to vote, it's been used to discriminate against minority voters. "We should restrict voting in such-and-such a way" <-- prima facie evidence that the person you're talking to wants to suppress the minority vote. You can dress it up any way you want, but history is against you.
If you're too fucking lazy to vote in person, fuck you, no one gives a rats fuck what you think anyways.
If you're too fucking stupid to realize that there are a million and one legitimate reasons why voting in person may be difficult to impossible for a lot of people who have every bit as much of a right to vote as anyone else, fuck you, you're not fucking worthy to vote.
If you use the same logic, not observing God interacting with the world does not imply that God does not exist.
So many of the same arguments apply to both proving the existence/nonexistence of God and proving the existence/nonexistence of extraterrestrials.
The difference is that "God," as generally defined by believers, is a being who specifically does interact with His creation. There is not (and probably will never be) any evidence either way on the hypothesis of a "watchmaker" who set the universe in motion and then left it alone, but that's not the God people pray to, either. If you believe in the power of prayer, or in the Bible as a moral rulebook, or any of the million and one other things which believers are constantly pushing, you have to believe in a God who should have left evidence of His active involvement all over the place, and yet has mysteriously failed to do so. There are people who believe in active involvement in human affairs by aliens too, of course, but they're a fringe minority rather than being in the mainstream of those who speculate on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
Of course everybody here will be aware that there is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic, but how to get this through to the arts graduates at the Beeb?
Somehow I must have missed that vital piece of information in the course of getting my math degrees. I'd say "the arts graduates at the Beeb" have a better grasp on the situation than you do.
Militias are composed of.....?
Frontiersmen and Minutemen (well, minutemen get selected out of unrecognized militias.)
Um, that was my point. I was using "militia" as shorthand for your "frontiersmen and minutemen." Who, routinely, constantly, got their asses handed to them by the British regulars.
Oh, and no, we were getting our asses kicked until we had the EQUIPMENT from the French plus more men. We never built any real sort of professional standing army, most men had their training right in the heat of battle in their home towns.
Washington would disagree with you. Seriously, read what he had to say sometime about the militias as opposed to his Continental Army sometime; it's not pretty. He built and trained an army of real soldiers, and the Revolution was won by those soldiers, not by a bunch of whoopin' and hollerin' irregulars running around in the woods.
You need to go back to school. We fought with frontiermen and minutemen against soldiers.
You should have gone to a better school. We fought with militias against professional soldiers, and got our asses kicked. It wasn't until we started building a real army of our own that the Revolution had even a prayer of succeeding.
(It's probably not your fault; the "rugged individualist frontiersman sniping from behind the trees at the stupid Redcoats marching down the middle of the road" idea is deeply embedded in our national mythos, and a lot of otherwise decent history teachers pass it onto their students. But it is a myth, and one which is easily disproved with a modicum of research.)
People who say things like that generally seem to assume two things: first, that full and accurate information will be available; and second, that they'll be able to interpret the information and make an informed decision -- after all, they're smart and knowledgeable and can think for themselves, not like all those other sheeple! They could, of course, educate themselves about the history of patent medicine (and food production) and why the FDA and similar organizations in other countries were created in the first place, but it's easier to grumble about "government gatekeepers" and decry regulation as a matter of principle.
Unlike, say, Iran, NK doesn't actually need nukes to level its sworn enemy. It would probably be faster and more convenient to just level Seoul with conventional artillery. Is there any doubt that their nuclear program is just a bartering commodity for aid?
Seoul, yes. Large SK and US troop concentrations farther south, not so much. It's always difficult to understand the thinking of a government as notably insane as NK's, but I think there is a definite miltary aspect to their nuclear program as well as the obvious "bargaining chip" aspect. If NK ever does develop an arsenal of nukes that can be carried by SRBM -- and by "arsenal" I mean ten or twenty warheads -- they could, to put it mildly, seriously impede the ability of UN forces to operate on the peninsula.
This of course assumes that the US answer to the destruction of Kunsan AB, for example, wouldn't just be to make Pyongyang and all the major NK bases go up in a flash. And I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that.
None of the papers in that search show that antibiotics in animal feed contributes to resistance in humans.
Your use of the phrase "resistance in humans" indicates to me that you don't really understand what this debate is about. It's not about resistance in humans, it's about resistance in bacterial strains which can infect humans. And again, many of the papers in the search indicate that the use of antibiotics in animal feed contributes to exactly that. Sorry you failed reading comprehension in elementary school, but please, stop spouting off about things you don't understand.
i dont understand why people who believe in the free market keep looking to China as some kind of model on a hill. ... There are no labor unions, there are no workers rights laws, there are no environmental laws.
The second sentence completely answers the implied question in your first sentence.