I think you're missing the point; no psychologically sound person would do that, but we're talking about an alien here.
I responded to this line of criticism in another post, but for convenience I'll repeat it here: christopher is a human creation. If his actions cannot be correctly understood from a human perspective, then his human creators did not understand him, and in the absence of superhuman intelligence must have made him internally inconsistent, ie, irrational.
you'd pull a "I can't go on without you" moment?
Um... did we see the same movie? Ol' Chris bugged out with the mother ship and may or may not be back... we don't know. (Sequel anyone?)
I may just have seen more of it. Do you perhaps recall the part where our intrepid heroes are headed back to the dropship? Right in the middle of that. Ends in a great piece of advice for the audience- "go now, before I change my mind!"
"Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpture like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own. "
Christopher is a human creation. He's a character, produced to elicit a desired reaction by the makers of the movie. To pretend that his motives are deliberately incomprehensible to humans is to assert that the scriptwriters themselves had no desire to make him act in an internally consistent way, ie, that they could not develop him as a rational character. So either he is acting irrationally human or irrationally nonhuman- take your pick.
I didn't know that, and thank you for the additional information. It doesn't change my belief that the point was specifically about apartheid rather than the more general sense of eww-icky-poor/brown-people, but it's an interesting tidbit.
And no, I don't presume that it's about apartheid just because its in south africa- but when you place it in the context of interspecies relations- one very small step from there to race relations, don't you agree?- I think the point basically makes itself, and it's only reasonable to assume the film's creators intended it to.
So, let me get this straight: somebody who just royally screwed up something that you've been working on for twenty years hits you in the head, jacks your car with your kid in it, and crashes it, all while leaving you to die, and five minutes later you'd pull a "I can't go on without you" moment? I call BS- regardless of the intervening events, no psychologically sound person would do that.
And saying "you don't know, you weren't there" is just weak, by the way. It justifies every movie that's ever been made- and more to the point, every action anybody has ever taken- as being potentially reasonable, and I think you know that.
I also hope you know that christopher was not the protagonist.
I just went and saw the movie, and, just to get my biases out of the way, I hated it. I thought it was simplistic, that they clubbed you over the head with the apartheid metaphor, and that the oft-praised special effects were no better than many other films we've seen, except that the blurrycam makes their flaws less noticeable.
All of that's beside the point, though- the real dealbreaker was the incessant deus ex moments and sudden changes of heart among the main characters. It felt like the scriptwriters were less interested in developing the characters, or even plotting the trajectory of already well-understood characters, than in doing the least amount of work possible to scoot them between a number of predetermined plot points. You remember when mr.fuckfuckfuck clubbed christopher and left him to die with the paramilitary guys, coincidentally invalidating the entire I-want-to-go-up-so-you-can-fix-me plot? You remember how five minutes later christopher does his "I'll never leave you" moment? Right. Good movies don't do that, because real people don't do that. And District 9 did it about every 10 minutes. Add to that what you call the "unanswered questions" and what I call the "plot holes", and all you're left with is another poorly done, film-school-metaphorical disposable sci-fi flick.
That's not to say the movie doesn't have its good points. I thought the pacing was well done in the textbook sense, and certainly the initial documentary style scenes were well crafted to hook the audience- I was honestly looking forward to seeing how those conflicting opinions would converge into the story at hand, at least until said story 'developed'. But its merits are small, its flaws are many, and at the end of the day, if this is the greatest sci-fi movie of the year it's my opinion that sci-fi is in a lot of trouble. Your mileage may vary.
I'd add no starch to the list of good guys out there- never published with them, but know several people who have, and at least two of them plan on doing so again.
I'd also add Amazon to the list, since in the end the only publisher you can be certain won't screw you over is yourself.
similar situation here- used it as the basis for a networking simulation lab where I could put the whole (simulated) network into a known state and demonstrate various attacks and defenses from there.
It's wrong because the human cost on your "deterrence" is unconscionably high for the specific individual. It turns the law into a lottery, and its enforcement into a crapshoot. It opens the door for favoritism, encourages classism and racism, and disproportionately ruins the lives of those least able or likely to game the system. It is, in short, legal terrorism, used only to ensure that a small, weak group maintains coercive power against a population through fear and the threat of personal harm.
I like my thugs on the other side of bars too, but if it's all the same to you, I'd like to be the one holding the keys.
I just switched, and my number was available instantly, although they wanted about 900 forms of identification before they would go through with it.
In retrospect, telling my friends and family my new number was probably a better choice than handing everybody else my SSN, but hey, them's the breaks.
The big thing here is that a lot of businesses conflate *emulation* and *isolation*. Virtualization is for when you want to emulate the behavior of one system on another. Containers are for when you want to isolate a process or a set of processes from screwing with everybody else's stuff. Don't use one when what you need is the other, and everybody walks away happier.
As a vim user, I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised at how much I could get done in gedit when I actually sat down and used it. It comes out of the box looking like a notepad replacement, but if you look a little closer it has support for modal editing, snippets, all kinds of things, they're just implemented as plugins. I'll probably stick with vim, but theres nowhere near as big a gap between the two as I would have said had I not been forced to actually use it for a while.
Re:99% of the answers are going to be Eclipse
on
What Free IDE Do You Use?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I like it, just wish I could get CUSP (Lisp plugin) working in Ubuntu. If anyone says Emacs or Vi they are insane and have never done 10k lines of code in a modern environment.
Let me start this out by saying that I use Eclipse daily, and that I consider that a modern environment.
Let me qualify that statement by saying that if our ultimate ancestors had known that the eventual development of Eclipse was the price of progress, they would have stayed in the trees.
I may be insane but 10k is nothing compared to some of the projects I've worked on using vim, and while I can't claim to be 100% satisfied, at least I don't feel like it's actively fighting me.
Anything that CAN execute arbitrary ASM as native code CAN be optimal. Doesn't guarantee that it will be.
That's exactly how I characterized your argument, and it's every bit as wrong now as it was then, for two reasons: 1) using another language to load ASM will inherently produce non-optimal machine code, it's only a question of 'by how much', and 2) it doesn't actually say anything about *that language* except how quickly it can load ASM. The point of my previous post was that your logic led to a factually untenable position.
The point here is, asking how fast a language is is pretty much the definition of premature optimization- certain classes of languages are generally going to perform certain tasks faster than others, and inside those classes there are ways to jockey for position, but anything else is just a a nicer-sounding way of saying 'I don't know how to optimize language X'.
The OP's essential assertion was that C was going to be the fastest language at any given trivial task.
As with all things optimization-related though, the answer is more complex than that. The odds are very, very good that I can pick a platform and a problem that combine to make C perform very badly compared to language x.
1) The question is about functional programming languages versus imperative programming languages- not high-level versus low-level.
2) Can we agree on a platform? If I get to name it, its going to be the Xerox 1109, and you're toast.
3) The computer language shootout has some numbers that don't look so good for C. Maybe you'd care to re-implement the thread-ring test? Cause right now it's taking C 164+ seconds to do it, and 9 on haskell. Same thing on the k-nucleotide test.
Not really- bamboo, the actual software that opendht ran, works fine- the question is having the resources to actually build and maintain the network. You have some serious connections- if you want to get something started, let me know.
That doesn't mean that I, a curriculum specialist, am smarter than a rocket scientist, only that we have different skill sets. A rocket scientist is most likely much smarter than me....at making rockets.
One of my political science teachers once told me that "in the time it would take you to get an education in computer science, you could get a degree in political science!". The emphasis was on the word 'degree', and, having tutored political science, computer science, and education students, I feel that much the same can be said about the field of education. That doesn't mean that *you* are less intelligent than a given rocket scientist- but it does strongly indicate that as a group education professionals deserve the scant respect they are accorded by those who have worked their way through more rigorous disciplines.
Slashdot Mirror
no psychologically sound person would do that.
I think you're missing the point; no psychologically sound person would do that, but we're talking about an alien here.
I responded to this line of criticism in another post, but for convenience I'll repeat it here: christopher is a human creation. If his actions cannot be correctly understood from a human perspective, then his human creators did not understand him, and in the absence of superhuman intelligence must have made him internally inconsistent, ie, irrational.
you'd pull a "I can't go on without you" moment?
Um... did we see the same movie? Ol' Chris bugged out with the mother ship and may or may not be back... we don't know. (Sequel anyone?)
I may just have seen more of it. Do you perhaps recall the part where our intrepid heroes are headed back to the dropship? Right in the middle of that. Ends in a great piece of advice for the audience- "go now, before I change my mind!"
"Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpture like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own. "
Christopher is a human creation. He's a character, produced to elicit a desired reaction by the makers of the movie. To pretend that his motives are deliberately incomprehensible to humans is to assert that the scriptwriters themselves had no desire to make him act in an internally consistent way, ie, that they could not develop him as a rational character. So either he is acting irrationally human or irrationally nonhuman- take your pick.
I didn't know that, and thank you for the additional information. It doesn't change my belief that the point was specifically about apartheid rather than the more general sense of eww-icky-poor/brown-people, but it's an interesting tidbit.
And no, I don't presume that it's about apartheid just because its in south africa- but when you place it in the context of interspecies relations- one very small step from there to race relations, don't you agree?- I think the point basically makes itself, and it's only reasonable to assume the film's creators intended it to.
So, let me get this straight: somebody who just royally screwed up something that you've been working on for twenty years hits you in the head, jacks your car with your kid in it, and crashes it, all while leaving you to die, and five minutes later you'd pull a "I can't go on without you" moment? I call BS- regardless of the intervening events, no psychologically sound person would do that.
And saying "you don't know, you weren't there" is just weak, by the way. It justifies every movie that's ever been made- and more to the point, every action anybody has ever taken- as being potentially reasonable, and I think you know that.
I also hope you know that christopher was not the protagonist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I just went and saw the movie, and, just to get my biases out of the way, I hated it. I thought it was simplistic, that they clubbed you over the head with the apartheid metaphor, and that the oft-praised special effects were no better than many other films we've seen, except that the blurrycam makes their flaws less noticeable.
All of that's beside the point, though- the real dealbreaker was the incessant deus ex moments and sudden changes of heart among the main characters. It felt like the scriptwriters were less interested in developing the characters, or even plotting the trajectory of already well-understood characters, than in doing the least amount of work possible to scoot them between a number of predetermined plot points. You remember when mr.fuckfuckfuck clubbed christopher and left him to die with the paramilitary guys, coincidentally invalidating the entire I-want-to-go-up-so-you-can-fix-me plot? You remember how five minutes later christopher does his "I'll never leave you" moment? Right. Good movies don't do that, because real people don't do that. And District 9 did it about every 10 minutes. Add to that what you call the "unanswered questions" and what I call the "plot holes", and all you're left with is another poorly done, film-school-metaphorical disposable sci-fi flick.
That's not to say the movie doesn't have its good points. I thought the pacing was well done in the textbook sense, and certainly the initial documentary style scenes were well crafted to hook the audience- I was honestly looking forward to seeing how those conflicting opinions would converge into the story at hand, at least until said story 'developed'. But its merits are small, its flaws are many, and at the end of the day, if this is the greatest sci-fi movie of the year it's my opinion that sci-fi is in a lot of trouble. Your mileage may vary.
I'd add no starch to the list of good guys out there- never published with them, but know several people who have, and at least two of them plan on doing so again. I'd also add Amazon to the list, since in the end the only publisher you can be certain won't screw you over is yourself.
definitely, definitely beer.
similar situation here- used it as the basis for a networking simulation lab where I could put the whole (simulated) network into a known state and demonstrate various attacks and defenses from there.
It's wrong because the human cost on your "deterrence" is unconscionably high for the specific individual. It turns the law into a lottery, and its enforcement into a crapshoot. It opens the door for favoritism, encourages classism and racism, and disproportionately ruins the lives of those least able or likely to game the system. It is, in short, legal terrorism, used only to ensure that a small, weak group maintains coercive power against a population through fear and the threat of personal harm.
I like my thugs on the other side of bars too, but if it's all the same to you, I'd like to be the one holding the keys.
I just switched, and my number was available instantly, although they wanted about 900 forms of identification before they would go through with it.
In retrospect, telling my friends and family my new number was probably a better choice than handing everybody else my SSN, but hey, them's the breaks.
The big thing here is that a lot of businesses conflate *emulation* and *isolation*. Virtualization is for when you want to emulate the behavior of one system on another. Containers are for when you want to isolate a process or a set of processes from screwing with everybody else's stuff. Don't use one when what you need is the other, and everybody walks away happier.
Well apparently it's still the in thing to troll Java.
You know, after ten years of "JAVA RUUUULZ!!!!1!!!1!" it's really just nice to see that there's some anti-java insanity left in the world.
Kind of refreshing.
As a vim user, I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised at how much I could get done in gedit when I actually sat down and used it. It comes out of the box looking like a notepad replacement, but if you look a little closer it has support for modal editing, snippets, all kinds of things, they're just implemented as plugins. I'll probably stick with vim, but theres nowhere near as big a gap between the two as I would have said had I not been forced to actually use it for a while.
I like it, just wish I could get CUSP (Lisp plugin) working in Ubuntu. If anyone says Emacs or Vi they are insane and have never done 10k lines of code in a modern environment.
Let me start this out by saying that I use Eclipse daily, and that I consider that a modern environment.
Let me qualify that statement by saying that if our ultimate ancestors had known that the eventual development of Eclipse was the price of progress, they would have stayed in the trees.
I may be insane but 10k is nothing compared to some of the projects I've worked on using vim, and while I can't claim to be 100% satisfied, at least I don't feel like it's actively fighting me.
Anything that CAN execute arbitrary ASM as native code CAN be optimal. Doesn't guarantee that it will be.
That's exactly how I characterized your argument, and it's every bit as wrong now as it was then, for two reasons: 1) using another language to load ASM will inherently produce non-optimal machine code, it's only a question of 'by how much', and 2) it doesn't actually say anything about *that language* except how quickly it can load ASM. The point of my previous post was that your logic led to a factually untenable position.
The point here is, asking how fast a language is is pretty much the definition of premature optimization- certain classes of languages are generally going to perform certain tasks faster than others, and inside those classes there are ways to jockey for position, but anything else is just a a nicer-sounding way of saying 'I don't know how to optimize language X'.
Wait, so anything that is capable of producing the optimum set of machine code is optimal?
By that logic, anything that can be used to execute arbitrary asm is optimal.
Python can be used to execute arbitrary asm.
So Python and C are both optimal, provided that the programmer using them is optimal.
Therefore, Python is as fast as C.
I love Python, but that's BS, and everybody knows it.
The OP's essential assertion was that C was going to be the fastest language at any given trivial task.
As with all things optimization-related though, the answer is more complex than that. The odds are very, very good that I can pick a platform and a problem that combine to make C perform very badly compared to language x.
For what it's worth, Lisp wasn't the language that most Xerox developers were programming for when using a 1109, it was Mesa.
Did not know that, I only ever used Interlisp on it- thanks for the info
Same question as above- the computer language shootout, k-nucleotide and thread-ring tests. It's worth learning Haskell anyway ;)
Most OS kernels export an ABI that can be used from any language. Linux is no exception.
1) The question is about functional programming languages versus imperative programming languages- not high-level versus low-level.
2) Can we agree on a platform? If I get to name it, its going to be the Xerox 1109, and you're toast.
3) The computer language shootout has some numbers that don't look so good for C. Maybe you'd care to re-implement the thread-ring test? Cause right now it's taking C 164+ seconds to do it, and 9 on haskell. Same thing on the k-nucleotide test.
Not really- bamboo, the actual software that opendht ran, works fine- the question is having the resources to actually build and maintain the network. You have some serious connections- if you want to get something started, let me know.
That doesn't mean that I, a curriculum specialist, am smarter than a rocket scientist, only that we have different skill sets. A rocket scientist is most likely much smarter than me....at making rockets.
One of my political science teachers once told me that "in the time it would take you to get an education in computer science, you could get a degree in political science!". The emphasis was on the word 'degree', and, having tutored political science, computer science, and education students, I feel that much the same can be said about the field of education. That doesn't mean that *you* are less intelligent than a given rocket scientist- but it does strongly indicate that as a group education professionals deserve the scant respect they are accorded by those who have worked their way through more rigorous disciplines.
"better living through chemistry" is a slang phrase where I live for the use of meth.