As one of the posters above mentioned, python's lambda is actually borrrowed from the Functional programming world. I believe it originally gets its name from Lambda Calculus, but mathematicians will have to correct me on that. (I first saw it in Scheme, the most beautiful programming language I've ever programmed in, if not the most practical.)
If you've never done functional programming, it a different animal from imperitive programming, and if you do know python, it borrows a number of things from FP, not just lambdas. Look at python's map, apply, and reduce functions, along with list comprehensions (taken from Haskell, which I really need to learn). Although, it should be noted that python's recursion really isn't optimized for FP, but you can still do quite a few things that a functional programmer would be at home with.
Re:question on python's implementation
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 4, Informative
range generates the entire sequence beforehand. xrange, OTOH, will generate them one by one.
HTH
ah, in this case, k is 0. You declared i, j, and k as integers. Division is defined on integer. In integer division, 1/2 = 0. Now, if you want a compiler that easily switches between integer and floats, thats one thing, but you probably shouldn't refer to them as "int" in that case.
You laugh, but Plato (free thinking Plato) wanted to censor these very Greek poems. Every age has ideas and/or media that could be "dangerous," I guess.
Huh? I did read the article. And the CNN article it linked to. Did you read that? Here's a quote from it:
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
He didn't say these video games, he said video games period. That means according to this Judge, no video game is protected by the 1st admendment. Many people (myself included) agree that the law itself isn't bad, but the statement that games aren't speech is horrible.
well they are allowed to tell you where, just not show you:
[Bob, with magizine open, reading] Bob: hey check out this great Time article. Frank: ok. let me see. . [Bob closes the magizine, hands to Frank] Frank: Hey, why'd you close it? Bob: I wouldn't want you to be confused. Its on page 37.
They probably think of it as a piracy issue. What does battlenet gain them? they don't charge for it, but they do get to check serial numbers. I imagine that they figure bnetd will be used to play pirated copies of their games over the net. Not that I condone their actions, but I think battle.net was their best defence to force people to actually purchase a legal copy of the game.
OS/400 - single level store, Machine Interface, its native file system. . . its the least UNIX like OS I've seen.
I'm looking for legal advice. . .
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 1
anyone know what to do if you get sued by someone after giving them bogus legal advice while claiming to be an expert? If you do, could you please post below? Thanx.
Are you saying that ISPs would create tiered services where their users would opt in for access to restricted sites. This would mean that someone like CNN would go from 1 million readers to something like 20 thousand.
This is where content sites are headed. Look at salon. These sites need to make money somehow, and if bannerad won't cut it, its either the ISPs or the users. Like salon, places probably won't get rid of all their free content, but offer special access.
First, many site visitors won't go looking for a proxy until the site is no longer reachable. Some sites may redirect the requests to a list of paid ISPs and proxies, but that could be a hassle to maintain.
it would be a hassle. but a paying hassle is better than going out of business
Second, if the only site you want out of the ones offered by the proxy is Slashdot, would you pay $5 for access to it?
I know the cable analogy isn't perfect, but I pay $30 a month when I only want SciFi and Comedy Central.
Third, users won't be able to go to slashdot.org via a proxy by typing slasdot.org into their browser instead they'd have to go to something like foobar.com/?slashdot.org and then foobar.org will have to rewrite all the internal site URLs.
There are many ways around this, cookies come to mind. If the content site (slashdot) really wanted to work with the ISPs providing proxies (and presumable paying them real money), you could type foobar.com/?slashdot.org and then slashdot could set a cookie and redirect you directly to slashdot.org. There are undoubtably better ways to do it.
I'm not saying its a good thing, I'm as much against the coropratization of the internet as the next guy, but in the post dot-com era, the content sites left really need a viable business model.
I'm not so sure. . . for better or worse, I think there's a good chance it will happen.
Point 1:
It would be easy enough for an ISP to opt-in on a case by case basis so users could pay $20/month for access but $25/month for "premium" access.
Point 2:
Heh. thats my favoriate. When was the last time something was implemented in the the business world simple because it was a better system?
Point 3:
Thats the thing about the internet, they wouldn't have to get to every ISP, just a few. Those could then sell full access or proxy access. "Your ISP isn't signed up for Slashdot? Pay $5 to foobar.com and get Slashdot and 50 other great sites!"
FFXXI?
I think I remember that one. . . was that the one where the mysterious hero with a strange but endearing flaw falls in love with the beautiful dark-hair woman? Then he has to save the planet from powerful foo bent on world destruction, with only the help of his rag-tag band of loyal but querky friends?
The question 'what is art?' is a favoriate of aesheticians, and there are many theories. I can give my recolection of a couple of them:
Old School
Plato thought of art as representation, and as such he didn't have much respect for it. a picture of an apple is further away from the Form of an Apple than an actual apple is. In the light of Plato (or neo-Platonists) CG art probably fairs relatively well, since you probably are trying to represent something (be it concrete or abstract).
Neo-Wittgensteinian
To these guys art is an open concept. Art is about breaking rules and truly creating. The problem they have, it that that can easily lead to the problem that "everything is art." So to fend against that, they have the amorphous concept of "family resemblance." Basically, if you have certain characteristic that the "art community" deems in commom with previously accepted works of art, poof! its art. CG Art probably doesn't do to well here, because as it was pointed out, CG art is tied to the decidedly non-fine art Computer design.
Those are the only two I remember, though there are many more. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about being accepted by the artistic community -- you're not going to be. But that doesn't mean that you can't find artists out there with simmilar skills/interests, and you can certianly keep creating, which is really the most important thing.
"If he actually had carpal tunnel, he wouldn't type 'ow!' he'd just say it"
"Well, thats whats on the post."
"Perhaps he was dictating."
"Oh, shut up."
"I have run two studios over two decades, and I have to say this is a first for me," says Joe Roth, whose Revolution Studios produced "The Animal" for Columbia. "It's hard to believe. It's terrible."
you're telling me.
Oh, he meant the scandel.
Is that a freudian ambiguous reference?
----------
The site says the "hi" in Hi-muse stands for High Fidelity. . . maybe I'm dumb, but how can mp3s be considered hi-fi?
----------
An RMS-ske response Re:a dissenting view?
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 1
(note: obviously I don't speak for RMS.)
Software engineers will still write software, just as musicians will still right music even if they lost all their money because of napster.
The software engineers might won't be making billions like Bill, and musicians won't be making millions like Britteny, but in both cases many people consider that a Good Thing.
Secondly, as long as there is a demand for software, people will be paid to fill that demand. As its been said many times before, Free does not mean free. For software companys, of course, Free is a Bad Thing. They make most of their money selling copies of the same thing, which they don't have control over if its Free. Contractors, OTOH don't (or shouldn't) care about the license, because in most cases they don't own the code, they're selling a service.
So, there would be fewer software engineers, but (theortically) they would be more productive because they would have access to everyone else's idea/implementations.
The way I see it, the GPL is bad for IP based business models, and programmers hoping to get rich, but good for people who love to understand how things work, and socialist idealist who want to create but don't want their creations making $ for the machine.
----------
Re:Mundie's real argument, and why it doesn't matt
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
After MS
computers are (almost) a standard household
item, have virtually a single user interface
and are almost always compatible with each
other. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc falicy?
I think we'd have standard desktops / UIs / application platforms even if MS didn't bless us with them. Perhaps they'd be open (Gnome, GNU, Gwhathaveyou) or perhaps not (OS/2, Java, Proprietarywhathaveyou). ----------
Slashdot Mirror
This is for going to college -- don't you mean ". . . when you dump Milwaukee's Best on the keyboard."
As one of the posters above mentioned, python's lambda is actually borrrowed from the Functional programming world. I believe it originally gets its name from Lambda Calculus, but mathematicians will have to correct me on that. (I first saw it in Scheme, the most beautiful programming language I've ever programmed in, if not the most practical.)
If you've never done functional programming, it a different animal from imperitive programming, and if you do know python, it borrows a number of things from FP, not just lambdas. Look at python's map, apply, and reduce functions, along with list comprehensions (taken from Haskell, which I really need to learn). Although, it should be noted that python's recursion really isn't optimized for FP, but you can still do quite a few things that a functional programmer would be at home with.
range generates the entire sequence beforehand. xrange, OTOH, will generate them one by one.
HTH
ah, in this case, k is 0. You declared i, j, and k as integers. Division is defined on integer. In integer division, 1/2 = 0. Now, if you want a compiler that easily switches between integer and floats, thats one thing, but you probably shouldn't refer to them as "int" in that case.
After reading the headline, I scrolled down, glanced at the fortune line which was:
Robot, n.: University administrator.
Now, that I'd like to see. . . "Chancellor, you missed a patch over by the garden!"
You laugh, but Plato (free thinking Plato) wanted to censor these very Greek poems. Every age has ideas and/or media that could be "dangerous," I guess.
He didn't say these video games, he said video games period. That means according to this Judge, no video game is protected by the 1st admendment. Many people (myself included) agree that the law itself isn't bad, but the statement that games aren't speech is horrible.
well they are allowed to tell you where, just not show you:
[Bob, with magizine open, reading]
Bob: hey check out this great Time article.
Frank: ok. let me see. .
[Bob closes the magizine, hands to Frank]
Frank: Hey, why'd you close it?
Bob: I wouldn't want you to be confused. Its on page 37.
Well, if we're going by revenue:
Microsoft: $25,296M
Sun: $18,250M
IBM: $85,866M
So, with a little math (25296/18250) its actually 1.4 times smaller, while MS is 3.4 times smaller than IBM.
They probably think of it as a piracy issue. What does battlenet gain them? they don't charge for it, but they do get to check serial numbers. I imagine that they figure bnetd will be used to play pirated copies of their games over the net. Not that I condone their actions, but I think battle.net was their best defence to force people to actually purchase a legal copy of the game.
"You know, Fox turned into a Hard core sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice."
- Marge
Does this mean I can do XP on an XP box running XP?
OS/400 - single level store, Machine Interface, its native file system. . . its the least UNIX like OS I've seen.
anyone know what to do if you get sued by someone after giving them bogus legal advice while claiming to be an expert? If you do, could you please post below? Thanx.
----------
This is where content sites are headed. Look at salon. These sites need to make money somehow, and if bannerad won't cut it, its either the ISPs or the users. Like salon, places probably won't get rid of all their free content, but offer special access.
First, many site visitors won't go looking for a proxy until the site is no longer reachable. Some sites may redirect the requests to a list of paid ISPs and proxies, but that could be a hassle to maintain.
it would be a hassle. but a paying hassle is better than going out of business
Second, if the only site you want out of the ones offered by the proxy is Slashdot, would you pay $5 for access to it?
I know the cable analogy isn't perfect, but I pay $30 a month when I only want SciFi and Comedy Central.
Third, users won't be able to go to slashdot.org via a proxy by typing slasdot.org into their browser instead they'd have to go to something like foobar.com/?slashdot.org and then foobar.org will have to rewrite all the internal site URLs.
There are many ways around this, cookies come to mind. If the content site (slashdot) really wanted to work with the ISPs providing proxies (and presumable paying them real money), you could type foobar.com/?slashdot.org and then slashdot could set a cookie and redirect you directly to slashdot.org. There are undoubtably better ways to do it.
I'm not saying its a good thing, I'm as much against the coropratization of the internet as the next guy, but in the post dot-com era, the content sites left really need a viable business model.
----------
Point 1:
It would be easy enough for an ISP to opt-in on a case by case basis so users could pay $20/month for access but $25/month for "premium" access.
Point 2:
Heh. thats my favoriate. When was the last time something was implemented in the the business world simple because it was a better system?
Point 3:
Thats the thing about the internet, they wouldn't have to get to every ISP, just a few. Those could then sell full access or proxy access. "Your ISP isn't signed up for Slashdot? Pay $5 to foobar.com and get Slashdot and 50 other great sites!"
----------
I think I remember that one. . . was that the one where the mysterious hero with a strange but endearing flaw falls in love with the beautiful dark-hair woman? Then he has to save the planet from powerful foo bent on world destruction, with only the help of his rag-tag band of loyal but querky friends?
no, wait, I think that was FFXVI, nevermind.
----------
Old School
Plato thought of art as representation, and as such he didn't have much respect for it. a picture of an apple is further away from the Form of an Apple than an actual apple is. In the light of Plato (or neo-Platonists) CG art probably fairs relatively well, since you probably are trying to represent something (be it concrete or abstract).
Neo-Wittgensteinian
To these guys art is an open concept. Art is about breaking rules and truly creating. The problem they have, it that that can easily lead to the problem that "everything is art." So to fend against that, they have the amorphous concept of "family resemblance." Basically, if you have certain characteristic that the "art community" deems in commom with previously accepted works of art, poof! its art. CG Art probably doesn't do to well here, because as it was pointed out, CG art is tied to the decidedly non-fine art Computer design.
Those are the only two I remember, though there are many more. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about being accepted by the artistic community -- you're not going to be. But that doesn't mean that you can't find artists out there with simmilar skills/interests, and you can certianly keep creating, which is really the most important thing.
----------
"If he actually had carpal tunnel, he wouldn't type 'ow!' he'd just say it"
"Well, thats whats on the post."
"Perhaps he was dictating."
"Oh, shut up."
----------
you're telling me.
Oh, he meant the scandel.
Is that a freudian ambiguous reference?
----------
Could you give the math to support that claim? unless I forgot everything I learned (2^64)/(2^32) = (2^32), which isn't 4.
----------
The site says the "hi" in Hi-muse stands for High Fidelity. . . maybe I'm dumb, but how can mp3s be considered hi-fi?
----------
(note: obviously I don't speak for RMS.)
Software engineers will still write software, just as musicians will still right music even if they lost all their money because of napster. The software engineers might won't be making billions like Bill, and musicians won't be making millions like Britteny, but in both cases many people consider that a Good Thing.
Secondly, as long as there is a demand for software, people will be paid to fill that demand. As its been said many times before, Free does not mean free. For software companys, of course, Free is a Bad Thing. They make most of their money selling copies of the same thing, which they don't have control over if its Free. Contractors, OTOH don't (or shouldn't) care about the license, because in most cases they don't own the code, they're selling a service.
So, there would be fewer software engineers, but (theortically) they would be more productive because they would have access to everyone else's idea/implementations.
The way I see it, the GPL is bad for IP based business models, and programmers hoping to get rich, but good for people who love to understand how things work, and socialist idealist who want to create but don't want their creations making $ for the machine.
----------
After MS computers are (almost) a standard household item, have virtually a single user interface and are almost always compatible with each other.
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc falicy?
I think we'd have standard desktops / UIs / application platforms even if MS didn't bless us with them. Perhaps they'd be open (Gnome, GNU, Gwhathaveyou) or perhaps not (OS/2, Java, Proprietarywhathaveyou).
----------
I always wanted to frag Click and Clack.
----------