Interesting--can somebody explain this? I have written Groovy before, and I'd like to know what the difference between Groovy and Kotlin is if Groovy syntax can be copied to Kotlin almost verbatim. Is there still a significant difference behind the scenes? Thanks!
Wow, you're right. I'm from Phoenix and nobody uses those names at all. They probably represent housing development names that were used to market the houses way back when, but which quickly fell into disuse. And those development names are always goofy and arbitrary, adding nice-sounding things like "creek" and "vista," when in reality before they built it was all just flat dirt like the rest of the valley.
The only names we do use represent very large districts. I'm from South Phoenix, which is traditionally Mexican and sits on the north side of South Mountain. On the south side of South Mountain is Ahwatukee. These are all parts of Phoenix, but most other area names are simply suburbs.
I'm fairly annoyed that Nextdoor has given my neighborhood a random name based on one of the minor roads on the other side of the highway. It's a traditionally black neighborhood with a distinctive official name, and clearly Nextdoor didn't do any research before renaming it.
All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization.
Such an overblown claim is so easy to unravel, because all it takes is one example. Aristotle was largely preserved by the Arabs, but Plato did not need to be re-introduced in the West, because earlier Christian theologians generally liked Plato a lot. Aristotle was never actually destroyed in the West, but he simply was not liked, so his manuscripts were not copied enough and eventually disappeared (papyrus and paper rot, you know). Both Plato and Aristotle were pagans (though not of the same sort as traditional Greek paganism), and neither had their texts burned for this.
In fact, Christians generally only intentionally destroyed heretical works. A pagan work cannot be heretical. A heretical work is by someone who claims to be Christian but teaches falsely. I'm sure some ancient Christians somewhere destroyed pagan works, but I cannot think of a single instance where the documentary evidence explicitly states that Christians are destroying pagan texts. You can find passages where they talk about the need to destroy heretical texts, and you can find plenty of passages where they proclaim their fondness for Greek and Roman writings, but I cannot recall any passages about destroying Greek and Roman writings for their paganism. Please, find me one.
Note however that there is a deeper problem to your claim. You identify Christianity with the West. If Western European Christianity lost Greek texts, then you conclude that Christians destroyed them. But Christianity also existed in the East, even within Arab lands, and those Christians did not necessarily lose Aristotle. After all, the fall of Constantinople to the Turks did not occur until 1453!
There was even a time, when owning a bible was forbidden...
Proof? It's easy to repeat these claims, but actual history is far more complex. I don't know of any law ever actually being against owning a Bible. Moreover, Catharism was not persecuted for its use of the Bible, but rather for its attitude against the Bible; like Marcion and the Manichees before, they saw the Godof the Old Testament as evil. Thus the movement had very little to do with the Bible, and was fueled more by other ascetic, philosophical, and mystical influences.
Owning a Bible was not illegal, but it was nearly impossible for the poor and uneducated masses prior to the printing press. Nobles may own Bibles. In many cases, however, even the book read at Mass was not a whole Bible, but merely a lectionary, which contained the readings of the days but not the entire content of the Bible. This allowed for better mass production.
It's very easy to ascribe sinister motives to everything, but the people of the middle ages were pretty much the same as us, and economic explanations are often enough to understand the situation. Reading the Bible was not prohibited, but it was assumed that the Bible had to be read according to Church tradition, and so people also read it alongside commentaries and under guidance. Nobles may be privileged to own books--and not just the Bible, but other books as well--but the average peasant simply did not have the money. The price of books was high because of a lack of supply to meet demand. Books were hand-copied word by word.
Theres so much ancient knowledge and history that we will never know about because the only copies were destroyed in.... the destruction of the Aztec civilization by the conquistadors...
Actually, around 1430, prior to the invasion of the conquistadors, the Mexica (Aztec) king Itzcóatl solidified his cultural rule over the people by having the existing historical texts burned (León-Portilla, Aztec Thought and Culture, 155). Because of this, Mexica history can be rather vague--even aside from the obvious difficulties of translating pictures into language without the original context. The conquistadors destroyed texts too, but what we do know about the Mexica (or more broadly, the Nahua, the peoples who spoke Nahuatl) is largely thanks to certain friars who sought to record as much as they could. Still, the Aztec civilization was not all that old, and much of the history of Mexico is hidden behind it.
Under long-term medical use at therapeutic doses, addition is unlikely to occur with Adderall
So it only makes you smarter with subtraction? How about trigonometry?
Seriously though, I wonder what "addiction" is supposed to mean when it is said that addiction is unlikely to occur with Adderall. I can buy that meth might be more chemically addictive than Adderall, but Adderall is definitely habit-forming. The problem with the word "addiction" is that in common parlance it can cover many different situations of habit with completely different causes. Perhaps Adderall does not make someone dependent the way that nicotine does, but it is easy to be in a situation where making the decision to take Adderall or not to take the med is not a purely rational, level-headed choice.
We feel that at as long as we work as close to death as possible without actually dying, that is just good enough.
Yep, that pretty well describes my American lifestyle. I'm pretty amazed how much I can physically, intellectually, and emotionally drain myself without ever managing to die.
... I tend to get rather sceptical about these "Emperor's new clothes"-type of arguments that if you don't understand it you are just stupid. My personal interpretation was a lot more pragmatic: they had no clue how to really end the film so they strung together some ambiguous BS and used the old "it's your interpretation that matters, not mine" cop-out to escape having to explain it....
I'm inclined to agree. Kubrick had an idea of what it meant, but in the end his real point was the impact it would have on the audience, rather than a deeper meaning. In fact, the real significance of the movie is not that it was "groundbreaking," but rather that it is emblematic of twentieth-century modernism, which glorified technological advancement and the human spirit and believed in deeper meaning while also promoting purely subjective interpretations. So it's important that even though Kubrick intended for the audience to interpret it themselves, he also believed that it was deeply meaningful and signified something transcendent. Hence twentieth-century modernism tends to think that the human subject is able to transcend him or herself and directly encounter meaning that transcends context and history.
In contrast, contemporary postmodern thinking still tends to encourage subjective interpretations, but it also tends to disavow any deeper meaning. It is more the act of interpretation that generates meaning.
Exactly. When I was developing Dark Deeds on StarCraft 2, I had plenty of people telling me how to do things that I already knew. Many were children who were imagining changes that were sometimes just not practical. I admit that sometimes I did not receive criticism or suggestions well, but I learned that I needed to do my best to be courteous because people had good intentions, and the children in particular were just exercising their creativity.
The dev probably is correct to some extent that she was not being taken seriously, but she should not assume that it's simply because she's a woman. In the end, it's rude of her to respond so crassly to a fan, and it does not built up her fanbase. Instead of treating him like scum, she should have found a way to turn what he said around, showing not only that she has already done what he said, but that she is well beyond him in knowledge. In other words, if she is uncomfortable being addressed as a student, then she needs to use her voice to make herself into a teacher. Instead, she chose to be combative.
This is an astoundingly stupid argument. I agree with Oswald that it's preposterous to accuse the natives and exonerate white people. But we get into a ditch if our argument is based upon weighing out who is really more savage. When it comes down to it, white Europeans have no right to argue moral superiority if they utilize brutal violence at all. It doesn't matter if technically the Aztecs were statistically more violent, because the Europeans were in no way free of violence. The principal difference of so-called civilization is that violence becomes officially authorized by declarations of war. But in every war we rape, torture, and butcher people, even if some of us do not cut out hearts. Some persons commit graver sins than others, but it's no use claiming that any particular race or tribe is inherently worse because none of us occupy a high ground from which we can fairly survey the terrain. We are all guilty, and we need to come to terms with that. If we delude ourselves into thinking that the guilt of any natives does justifies what the Europeans did to them (a situation from which we continue to profit on a daily basis), then our own guilt is enough to deserve destruction all the same.
Just want to make sure you support the greater of evils at all times?
Definitely--I supported Google back when they were supposedly the little good guy, and now they're just the same as all of the other evil giants. AMD made me mad because of the crummy update process for my old laptop's onboard graphics, and I've always had better experiences with Intel. Of course, it's all just subjective, and someone else will say that they had better experiences with AMD.
haha, yeah, exactly. The best way to respond to a direct attack is typically to deflect it in some way. If Intel gets angry, then it only validates AMD's attack. But if they laugh it off, it belittles AMD.
True, and yet Bayer is the company that rose to success at least in part through its children's heroin cough syrup. Apparently that didn't hurt the brand?
I know from a personal experience that it is extremely difficult to get sufficient care for someone who is severely mentally disturbed, especially if he or she is intelligent enough to fake sanity once in a while. In many cases a shooter's family was concerned about the person prior to the incident, and even attempted to seek help, but it isn't easy to just have someone committed (example: Jared Lee Loughner). So before we give people money to buy guns, how about we find a way to provide psychiatric care for such people who really need it?
Whoa, let's be fair now... Keep in mind that the violent guy needs the money more than you. He needs a least $500 more to buy a good gun for his shooting spree.
Well, since I don't make it a habit of saying things that will get me arrested by the FBI even in my home, I'm not terribly afraid.
Anyway, I have to admit that my Google Home device is rather disappointing. It's a third-party speaker and Google withholds the latest updates from it just because. There's simply too many obvious things that it cannot do. I would rather have Alexa, but I got this because it was very cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting--can somebody explain this? I have written Groovy before, and I'd like to know what the difference between Groovy and Kotlin is if Groovy syntax can be copied to Kotlin almost verbatim. Is there still a significant difference behind the scenes? Thanks!
Wow, you're right. I'm from Phoenix and nobody uses those names at all. They probably represent housing development names that were used to market the houses way back when, but which quickly fell into disuse. And those development names are always goofy and arbitrary, adding nice-sounding things like "creek" and "vista," when in reality before they built it was all just flat dirt like the rest of the valley.
The only names we do use represent very large districts. I'm from South Phoenix, which is traditionally Mexican and sits on the north side of South Mountain. On the south side of South Mountain is Ahwatukee. These are all parts of Phoenix, but most other area names are simply suburbs.
I'm fairly annoyed that Nextdoor has given my neighborhood a random name based on one of the minor roads on the other side of the highway. It's a traditionally black neighborhood with a distinctive official name, and clearly Nextdoor didn't do any research before renaming it.
All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization.
Such an overblown claim is so easy to unravel, because all it takes is one example. Aristotle was largely preserved by the Arabs, but Plato did not need to be re-introduced in the West, because earlier Christian theologians generally liked Plato a lot. Aristotle was never actually destroyed in the West, but he simply was not liked, so his manuscripts were not copied enough and eventually disappeared (papyrus and paper rot, you know). Both Plato and Aristotle were pagans (though not of the same sort as traditional Greek paganism), and neither had their texts burned for this.
In fact, Christians generally only intentionally destroyed heretical works. A pagan work cannot be heretical. A heretical work is by someone who claims to be Christian but teaches falsely. I'm sure some ancient Christians somewhere destroyed pagan works, but I cannot think of a single instance where the documentary evidence explicitly states that Christians are destroying pagan texts. You can find passages where they talk about the need to destroy heretical texts, and you can find plenty of passages where they proclaim their fondness for Greek and Roman writings, but I cannot recall any passages about destroying Greek and Roman writings for their paganism. Please, find me one.
Note however that there is a deeper problem to your claim. You identify Christianity with the West. If Western European Christianity lost Greek texts, then you conclude that Christians destroyed them. But Christianity also existed in the East, even within Arab lands, and those Christians did not necessarily lose Aristotle. After all, the fall of Constantinople to the Turks did not occur until 1453!
There was even a time, when owning a bible was forbidden...
Proof? It's easy to repeat these claims, but actual history is far more complex. I don't know of any law ever actually being against owning a Bible. Moreover, Catharism was not persecuted for its use of the Bible, but rather for its attitude against the Bible; like Marcion and the Manichees before, they saw the Godof the Old Testament as evil. Thus the movement had very little to do with the Bible, and was fueled more by other ascetic, philosophical, and mystical influences.
Owning a Bible was not illegal, but it was nearly impossible for the poor and uneducated masses prior to the printing press. Nobles may own Bibles. In many cases, however, even the book read at Mass was not a whole Bible, but merely a lectionary, which contained the readings of the days but not the entire content of the Bible. This allowed for better mass production.
It's very easy to ascribe sinister motives to everything, but the people of the middle ages were pretty much the same as us, and economic explanations are often enough to understand the situation. Reading the Bible was not prohibited, but it was assumed that the Bible had to be read according to Church tradition, and so people also read it alongside commentaries and under guidance. Nobles may be privileged to own books--and not just the Bible, but other books as well--but the average peasant simply did not have the money. The price of books was high because of a lack of supply to meet demand. Books were hand-copied word by word.
Theres so much ancient knowledge and history that we will never know about because the only copies were destroyed in .... the destruction of the Aztec civilization by the conquistadors ...
Actually, around 1430, prior to the invasion of the conquistadors, the Mexica (Aztec) king Itzcóatl solidified his cultural rule over the people by having the existing historical texts burned (León-Portilla, Aztec Thought and Culture, 155). Because of this, Mexica history can be rather vague--even aside from the obvious difficulties of translating pictures into language without the original context. The conquistadors destroyed texts too, but what we do know about the Mexica (or more broadly, the Nahua, the peoples who spoke Nahuatl) is largely thanks to certain friars who sought to record as much as they could. Still, the Aztec civilization was not all that old, and much of the history of Mexico is hidden behind it.
Yep. A Google search revealed the historical reason that I had presumed from the beginning: it's because of the 12 tribes of Israel: https://www.insidescience.org/news/mathematics-jury-size
More directly, it was connected to Jesus' twelve apostles, but the reason there were 12 apostles was because it was symbolic of the 12 tribes.
Under long-term medical use at therapeutic doses, addition is unlikely to occur with Adderall
So it only makes you smarter with subtraction? How about trigonometry?
Seriously though, I wonder what "addiction" is supposed to mean when it is said that addiction is unlikely to occur with Adderall. I can buy that meth might be more chemically addictive than Adderall, but Adderall is definitely habit-forming. The problem with the word "addiction" is that in common parlance it can cover many different situations of habit with completely different causes. Perhaps Adderall does not make someone dependent the way that nicotine does, but it is easy to be in a situation where making the decision to take Adderall or not to take the med is not a purely rational, level-headed choice.
A Fifth Undocumented Cisco Backdoor...
Cisco has been allowing undocumented immigrants into the country?! Oh my!
We feel that at as long as we work as close to death as possible without actually dying, that is just good enough.
Yep, that pretty well describes my American lifestyle. I'm pretty amazed how much I can physically, intellectually, and emotionally drain myself without ever managing to die.
I'm inclined to agree. Kubrick had an idea of what it meant, but in the end his real point was the impact it would have on the audience, rather than a deeper meaning. In fact, the real significance of the movie is not that it was "groundbreaking," but rather that it is emblematic of twentieth-century modernism, which glorified technological advancement and the human spirit and believed in deeper meaning while also promoting purely subjective interpretations. So it's important that even though Kubrick intended for the audience to interpret it themselves, he also believed that it was deeply meaningful and signified something transcendent. Hence twentieth-century modernism tends to think that the human subject is able to transcend him or herself and directly encounter meaning that transcends context and history.
In contrast, contemporary postmodern thinking still tends to encourage subjective interpretations, but it also tends to disavow any deeper meaning. It is more the act of interpretation that generates meaning.
Exactly. When I was developing Dark Deeds on StarCraft 2, I had plenty of people telling me how to do things that I already knew. Many were children who were imagining changes that were sometimes just not practical. I admit that sometimes I did not receive criticism or suggestions well, but I learned that I needed to do my best to be courteous because people had good intentions, and the children in particular were just exercising their creativity.
The dev probably is correct to some extent that she was not being taken seriously, but she should not assume that it's simply because she's a woman. In the end, it's rude of her to respond so crassly to a fan, and it does not built up her fanbase. Instead of treating him like scum, she should have found a way to turn what he said around, showing not only that she has already done what he said, but that she is well beyond him in knowledge. In other words, if she is uncomfortable being addressed as a student, then she needs to use her voice to make herself into a teacher. Instead, she chose to be combative.
This is an astoundingly stupid argument. I agree with Oswald that it's preposterous to accuse the natives and exonerate white people. But we get into a ditch if our argument is based upon weighing out who is really more savage. When it comes down to it, white Europeans have no right to argue moral superiority if they utilize brutal violence at all. It doesn't matter if technically the Aztecs were statistically more violent, because the Europeans were in no way free of violence. The principal difference of so-called civilization is that violence becomes officially authorized by declarations of war. But in every war we rape, torture, and butcher people, even if some of us do not cut out hearts. Some persons commit graver sins than others, but it's no use claiming that any particular race or tribe is inherently worse because none of us occupy a high ground from which we can fairly survey the terrain. We are all guilty, and we need to come to terms with that. If we delude ourselves into thinking that the guilt of any natives does justifies what the Europeans did to them (a situation from which we continue to profit on a daily basis), then our own guilt is enough to deserve destruction all the same.
Good idea. Next month's Slashdot headline: "Drivers in latest fatal self-driving car crash were having sex at the time..."
Just want to make sure you support the greater of evils at all times?
Definitely--I supported Google back when they were supposedly the little good guy, and now they're just the same as all of the other evil giants. AMD made me mad because of the crummy update process for my old laptop's onboard graphics, and I've always had better experiences with Intel. Of course, it's all just subjective, and someone else will say that they had better experiences with AMD.
Yep, 'twas my first thought.
haha, yeah, exactly. The best way to respond to a direct attack is typically to deflect it in some way. If Intel gets angry, then it only validates AMD's attack. But if they laugh it off, it belittles AMD.
I don't care about the specs, I still wouldn't swap an Intel for an AMD.
True, and yet Bayer is the company that rose to success at least in part through its children's heroin cough syrup. Apparently that didn't hurt the brand?
What if Gmail had been designed by Microsoft?
I know from a personal experience that it is extremely difficult to get sufficient care for someone who is severely mentally disturbed, especially if he or she is intelligent enough to fake sanity once in a while. In many cases a shooter's family was concerned about the person prior to the incident, and even attempted to seek help, but it isn't easy to just have someone committed (example: Jared Lee Loughner). So before we give people money to buy guns, how about we find a way to provide psychiatric care for such people who really need it?
Whoa, let's be fair now... Keep in mind that the violent guy needs the money more than you. He needs a least $500 more to buy a good gun for his shooting spree.
Here's another interesting article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...
You got it! Karachi is home to more than 20 megapersons and is only able to meet about 5 decidemands of water per day.
Well, since I don't make it a habit of saying things that will get me arrested by the FBI even in my home, I'm not terribly afraid.
Anyway, I have to admit that my Google Home device is rather disappointing. It's a third-party speaker and Google withholds the latest updates from it just because. There's simply too many obvious things that it cannot do. I would rather have Alexa, but I got this because it was very cheap.