Don't make the diversity out to be more than it is. You point out the two major breeds of programming languages which currently exist: declarative and imperative. That's fine. When it comes down to it, the "wide range" isn't any wider than these two underlying concepts. Once you understand how imperative languages fundamentally work you can translate that into any one, and the same goes for declarative languages.
So yeah, imperative programming skills translate across any largely imperative language, and declarative programming skills translate across any largely declarative language. I'd say that a really good programmer should be proficient in either, and some languages allow a degree of both (even C++, if you don't mind somewhat terrifying template trickery). Beyond that, this is his whole point. Once you understand those fundamentals, any other kind of variety just drops away.
Shadowbane allowed (allows?) you to do just that; it has a thief class which is capable of stealing items right out of another player's inventory. It resulted in several... amusing situations, although I only played it briefly a while ago when it first came out. I had one group with three thieves, among some other players, and all three of us kept rampantly stealing from all the other players (of course, the thieves all knew this because we could peek into each other's inventories), and trying to see who could place the blame most effectively on the other thieves, or occasionally convincing them that, no, you didn't ACTUALLY win that item at all. It was pretty hilarious.
The problem is that functional languages are naturally FAR more suited to concurrent programming than procedural ones. To the point that I'm not really sure techniques for one are even applicable to the other. So my guess is that'll only be helpful if he happens to be using another functional language, which does not appear to be the case.
Only if what you're debugging is one of the boost libraries that makes heavy use of templates or preprocessor directives, which as far as I'm aware the thread library is not (very minor use of templates, which shouldn't case a problem). It's not like boost suddenly magically makes your debugger freak out; it's the way compilers handle templates/preprocessor stuff, and not every boost library uses all that.
By giving people money (tax breaks). If they're giving me money they CLEARLY have to be fiscally responsible enough to have that money to give... right? Wait, what's that about debt?
So, are taking our definition of "smart" from the same people who've decided she "won" the debates now? I've watched every bit of her speaking that I have been able to so far, and this woman is a very far cry from what I would define as "smart." Canny? Sure. Charming (according to some, although I sure don't see it)? Sure. Smart? Most assuredly not.
Couric and the Gibson interviews were hostile cut, splice, and smear pieces.
Did you even watch the interviews? The way I remember, her responses were complete and uninterrupted. Not what I would call "cut and splice" at any rate. The problem was she just didn't have a fucking clue what she was talking about.
No, I think it's fair to say Bush didn't win the debates, because as I recall the general consensus directly afterwards was that he didn't. Actually, that's how I recall the reaction being for the last TWO elections' debates. That seems to have little relevance with respect to winning the election however.
You're not kidding, the way they just went ahead and redefined the standards to say she won based on the virtue of "having done better than expected... better than Biden did better than expected." I mean... what the fuck... Who says women should have to succeed on their own merits? That would be sexist. Actually, there's the old math nerd saw, "For certain values of 'won'," which they seem to have taken very seriously and looked very hard for those values of "won" which could be utilized.
Overall, remarkably pathetic, and really an insult to the tens of thousands of women out there who would be vastly more qualified for the position.
A misconception I've seen repeatedly in this thread--that the house plays poker. Poker, unlike most other games you'll find in casinos, is played against other people, and the house only takes a cut of the total at the end. This makes it by nature VERY different from other games. The problem here is that other PLAYERS were cheating.
There's a reply to you that's modded up, but the explanation is simpler. In any given hand, all players put X in, and essentially one player takes X * Y - Z out (Y is the number of players, Z is the house's cut), while everybody else takes nothing out (not taking folding into consideration obviously). If you can guarantee you're the person who takes X * Y out more than anybody else (by being good), then you make money. High level poker is only very partially about knowing the odds. It's much more (almost entirely) a psychological game about reading people, forcing hands, bluffing, and all that, and it's something that, believe it or not, takes skill, and that skill can pay off.
You do realize that poker is one of the games where it's actually possible to win regularly (as in, statistically more than the people you're playing against) by being good, right?
Keep in mind this is poker being played here. Are there casinos where poker is played against the house? Because if it's just the visitors playing each other as is usual for the game, the house's only real concern is precisely that the games stay as perfectly "on the level" as possible.
Well, using those dates then he would still have taken every presidential election during the great depression (two, being the election previous to FDR taking power was 1928).
It's not a silly analogy at all. All you're saying (assuming it's true, which I'd argue it largely isn't, because you're simplifying too much out of the equation), is that the conservatives started out closer to the "middle."
It is the same in kind, but different in degree. I have never in my life seen so hotly contested an election cycle as we have this year. I've absolutely never seen primaries even remotely as overblown as this year's; you would have thought the primaries were the actual election from all the attention. Aside from that, more of the same, although each year the media turn into an even more absurd caricature of themselves. The media do what the media always do, and focus on the most sensationalist (and often most meaningless) headlines they can get their grubby little hands on.
Way to oversimplify. The current problem has nothing to do with "looser mortgage standards." If that were the case, well, maybe the banks would be out a couple of million from bad investments. No biggie, write it off.
No, the problem is a result of massive deregulation of huge swaths of the financial sector. When the government can't look over their shoulders anymore, banks tend to do really, really, really stupid shit. It got to the point where they were passing billions (trillions?) of loans around like a bong at a frat party, and when things got tight they realized they had a lot of money on paper, but not enough liquid assets to break a wet tissue.
Sorry to break it to you, but our current financial crisis has absolutely nothing to do with a few bums who couldn't pay on their mortgages, and everything to do with the financial sector playing fast and loose with billions of dollars by passing it all around so many times nobody knows how to get at the actual money anymore.
This shit didn't start with Clinton, although I don't think he did anything to help it. All this could be easily traced back to Reagan and his handling of the S&L crisis if you really want to start flinging blame around.
Wow. Now I understand why my European colleagues make-fun of American schools. ----- The war started in 1939, and FDR used that war to get himself re-elected
The US sure as shit didn't enter the war in 1939. He pretty clearly states that we weren't attacked until the end of 1941, which is completely true. Okay, argue that he used the war to get himself elected in 1940. That still doesn't account for the other three times he was elected.
ONE reelection in 1936. One does not a "continuum" make.
Wow. If you're going to complain about people's education, you might want to do some basic fact checking. You know... like the fact that FDR was elected to office FOUR TIMES. He was president from 1933-1945, dying just after his election to his fourth term of office. If you, you know, can count, you'd see that means over three terms. How about being the only president ever to have served that many terms? I don't know what parallel universe you're drawing your information from.
From the official White House biography:
He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms.
I think the point was that we haven't "won" anywhere. We can say we've won until we're blue in the face, but I seem to remember hearing something about lipstick and pigs.
I fail to see how he was supposed to "apply" himself. He clearly had already completely mastered the material if he was able to get the A's he obviously needed to pass with a B average only taking the exams.
News flash here maybe, but sitting in a seat listening to things you already know hardly constitutes "applying" yourself.
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one. The principal is the primary representative of the school, and the things she is claiming are DIRECTLY related to his ability to function properly in his capacity as princpal. If they were taken seriously and out of context, they could negatively reflect on both the principal and the school, so I'm not buying for one second that the school shouldn't be involved in this. The school has a very clear stake in the matter.
I'll admit, having come through private schools myself, which absolutely DO reserve the right to punish students for their behavior outside of school (and rightly so, in my opinion), this is such a non-issue for me. Maybe I'm old fashioned in this respect, but I feel schools are responsible in large part for a child's upbringing; consider how much time children spend there, even compared to with their parents. I suppose public schools are treated differently.
And yes, I am. Believe it or not, people can believe in free speech in ways that aren't exactly in line with what you seem to expect them to be.
I'm assuming the things that were on her MySpace page had no factual basis, but...
Free speech is fine and all, but I'm not really sure that's my first concern here. This is just slanderous drivel, and not only that but slanderous drivel that's being published for the entire world to see. I'm not sure if the dumb little twit realized that the things she was publishing about her principal could actually get him in a lot of trouble. Honestly, I think she deserved a suspension and then some.
To me, this isn't about free speech. It's about raising children and punishing them for behaving inappropriately, which is very much in the domain of her school. Maybe that comes from my having gone to a private Catholic school which tend to take more leeway in these matters. People need to be taught to realize that the internet isn't like gossiping to your airhead friend; it's something the entire world can see. Honestly, I think the judge did the right thing, and I'm a serious proponent of free speech.
My point was partly there is no PvP playerbase in WAR, since the entire game is PvP. Really, having a game that is built around PvP at its core affects a lot more than just the mechanics. I'm going to guess that what you object to the most is the ganker type--people who seem to PvP just in order to make other people miserable. Those people are probably going to steer clear, because that kind of behavior is actually disallowed by game mechanic (you get turned into a 1 health chicken if you try to kill people in a lower level bracket than yourself). Again, a lot changes when a game is built around PvP from the outset.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't make the diversity out to be more than it is. You point out the two major breeds of programming languages which currently exist: declarative and imperative. That's fine. When it comes down to it, the "wide range" isn't any wider than these two underlying concepts. Once you understand how imperative languages fundamentally work you can translate that into any one, and the same goes for declarative languages.
So yeah, imperative programming skills translate across any largely imperative language, and declarative programming skills translate across any largely declarative language. I'd say that a really good programmer should be proficient in either, and some languages allow a degree of both (even C++, if you don't mind somewhat terrifying template trickery). Beyond that, this is his whole point. Once you understand those fundamentals, any other kind of variety just drops away.
Shadowbane allowed (allows?) you to do just that; it has a thief class which is capable of stealing items right out of another player's inventory. It resulted in several... amusing situations, although I only played it briefly a while ago when it first came out. I had one group with three thieves, among some other players, and all three of us kept rampantly stealing from all the other players (of course, the thieves all knew this because we could peek into each other's inventories), and trying to see who could place the blame most effectively on the other thieves, or occasionally convincing them that, no, you didn't ACTUALLY win that item at all. It was pretty hilarious.
The problem is that functional languages are naturally FAR more suited to concurrent programming than procedural ones. To the point that I'm not really sure techniques for one are even applicable to the other. So my guess is that'll only be helpful if he happens to be using another functional language, which does not appear to be the case.
Only if what you're debugging is one of the boost libraries that makes heavy use of templates or preprocessor directives, which as far as I'm aware the thread library is not (very minor use of templates, which shouldn't case a problem). It's not like boost suddenly magically makes your debugger freak out; it's the way compilers handle templates/preprocessor stuff, and not every boost library uses all that.
By giving people money (tax breaks). If they're giving me money they CLEARLY have to be fiscally responsible enough to have that money to give... right? Wait, what's that about debt?
So, are taking our definition of "smart" from the same people who've decided she "won" the debates now? I've watched every bit of her speaking that I have been able to so far, and this woman is a very far cry from what I would define as "smart." Canny? Sure. Charming (according to some, although I sure don't see it)? Sure. Smart? Most assuredly not.
Did you even watch the interviews? The way I remember, her responses were complete and uninterrupted. Not what I would call "cut and splice" at any rate. The problem was she just didn't have a fucking clue what she was talking about.
No, I think it's fair to say Bush didn't win the debates, because as I recall the general consensus directly afterwards was that he didn't. Actually, that's how I recall the reaction being for the last TWO elections' debates. That seems to have little relevance with respect to winning the election however.
Overall, remarkably pathetic, and really an insult to the tens of thousands of women out there who would be vastly more qualified for the position.
A misconception I've seen repeatedly in this thread--that the house plays poker. Poker, unlike most other games you'll find in casinos, is played against other people, and the house only takes a cut of the total at the end. This makes it by nature VERY different from other games. The problem here is that other PLAYERS were cheating.
There's a reply to you that's modded up, but the explanation is simpler. In any given hand, all players put X in, and essentially one player takes X * Y - Z out (Y is the number of players, Z is the house's cut), while everybody else takes nothing out (not taking folding into consideration obviously). If you can guarantee you're the person who takes X * Y out more than anybody else (by being good), then you make money. High level poker is only very partially about knowing the odds. It's much more (almost entirely) a psychological game about reading people, forcing hands, bluffing, and all that, and it's something that, believe it or not, takes skill, and that skill can pay off.
You do realize that poker is one of the games where it's actually possible to win regularly (as in, statistically more than the people you're playing against) by being good, right?
Keep in mind this is poker being played here. Are there casinos where poker is played against the house? Because if it's just the visitors playing each other as is usual for the game, the house's only real concern is precisely that the games stay as perfectly "on the level" as possible.
You would rather have the immoral police?
Well, using those dates then he would still have taken every presidential election during the great depression (two, being the election previous to FDR taking power was 1928).
It's not a silly analogy at all. All you're saying (assuming it's true, which I'd argue it largely isn't, because you're simplifying too much out of the equation), is that the conservatives started out closer to the "middle."
It is the same in kind, but different in degree. I have never in my life seen so hotly contested an election cycle as we have this year. I've absolutely never seen primaries even remotely as overblown as this year's; you would have thought the primaries were the actual election from all the attention. Aside from that, more of the same, although each year the media turn into an even more absurd caricature of themselves. The media do what the media always do, and focus on the most sensationalist (and often most meaningless) headlines they can get their grubby little hands on.
Way to oversimplify. The current problem has nothing to do with "looser mortgage standards." If that were the case, well, maybe the banks would be out a couple of million from bad investments. No biggie, write it off.
No, the problem is a result of massive deregulation of huge swaths of the financial sector. When the government can't look over their shoulders anymore, banks tend to do really, really, really stupid shit. It got to the point where they were passing billions (trillions?) of loans around like a bong at a frat party, and when things got tight they realized they had a lot of money on paper, but not enough liquid assets to break a wet tissue.
Sorry to break it to you, but our current financial crisis has absolutely nothing to do with a few bums who couldn't pay on their mortgages, and everything to do with the financial sector playing fast and loose with billions of dollars by passing it all around so many times nobody knows how to get at the actual money anymore.
This shit didn't start with Clinton, although I don't think he did anything to help it. All this could be easily traced back to Reagan and his handling of the S&L crisis if you really want to start flinging blame around.
The US sure as shit didn't enter the war in 1939. He pretty clearly states that we weren't attacked until the end of 1941, which is completely true. Okay, argue that he used the war to get himself elected in 1940. That still doesn't account for the other three times he was elected.
Wow. If you're going to complain about people's education, you might want to do some basic fact checking. You know... like the fact that FDR was elected to office FOUR TIMES. He was president from 1933-1945, dying just after his election to his fourth term of office. If you, you know, can count, you'd see that means over three terms. How about being the only president ever to have served that many terms? I don't know what parallel universe you're drawing your information from.
From the official White House biography:
I think the point was that we haven't "won" anywhere. We can say we've won until we're blue in the face, but I seem to remember hearing something about lipstick and pigs.
Not everybody is going to school for an MBA. Some of us go to, you know, actually learn valuable things.
I fail to see how he was supposed to "apply" himself. He clearly had already completely mastered the material if he was able to get the A's he obviously needed to pass with a B average only taking the exams.
News flash here maybe, but sitting in a seat listening to things you already know hardly constitutes "applying" yourself.
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one. The principal is the primary representative of the school, and the things she is claiming are DIRECTLY related to his ability to function properly in his capacity as princpal. If they were taken seriously and out of context, they could negatively reflect on both the principal and the school, so I'm not buying for one second that the school shouldn't be involved in this. The school has a very clear stake in the matter.
I'll admit, having come through private schools myself, which absolutely DO reserve the right to punish students for their behavior outside of school (and rightly so, in my opinion), this is such a non-issue for me. Maybe I'm old fashioned in this respect, but I feel schools are responsible in large part for a child's upbringing; consider how much time children spend there, even compared to with their parents. I suppose public schools are treated differently.
And yes, I am. Believe it or not, people can believe in free speech in ways that aren't exactly in line with what you seem to expect them to be.
I'm assuming the things that were on her MySpace page had no factual basis, but...
Free speech is fine and all, but I'm not really sure that's my first concern here. This is just slanderous drivel, and not only that but slanderous drivel that's being published for the entire world to see. I'm not sure if the dumb little twit realized that the things she was publishing about her principal could actually get him in a lot of trouble. Honestly, I think she deserved a suspension and then some.
To me, this isn't about free speech. It's about raising children and punishing them for behaving inappropriately, which is very much in the domain of her school. Maybe that comes from my having gone to a private Catholic school which tend to take more leeway in these matters. People need to be taught to realize that the internet isn't like gossiping to your airhead friend; it's something the entire world can see. Honestly, I think the judge did the right thing, and I'm a serious proponent of free speech.
He's very easy to startled. Unfortunately, nobody who has been around for such an occurrence has ever lived to tell about it.
My point was partly there is no PvP playerbase in WAR, since the entire game is PvP. Really, having a game that is built around PvP at its core affects a lot more than just the mechanics. I'm going to guess that what you object to the most is the ganker type--people who seem to PvP just in order to make other people miserable. Those people are probably going to steer clear, because that kind of behavior is actually disallowed by game mechanic (you get turned into a 1 health chicken if you try to kill people in a lower level bracket than yourself). Again, a lot changes when a game is built around PvP from the outset.