"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force." is the relevant flaw in this section- you're using your influence, not force.
The idea "force applied indirectly is still force" (not to mention the rest of what I quoted) can bear a lot of interesting fruit through debate; all of it deserves more than simple semantic dismissal.
Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that.
[to Carmen] Jean Rasczak: You.
Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
Jean Rasczak: Correct. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence doesn't solve anything, is wishful thinking at its worst; people who forget that always die.
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student] Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
My first reaction was, might-makes-right is obviously wrong... but I found these ideas very interesting and surprisingly difficult to refute. The movie didn't go on to deepen the discussion beyond showing the ugliness (or not, depending on who you are) of the consequences of such a mentality; yet to this day these quotes still make me think - and that alone is enough to make me consider Starship Troopers a good movie.
That critics didn't hear these two very provocative assertions and see them as big-ass red flags to social commentary... until now?... I don't know what to say about that.
Or at least, he shouldn't be writing tech articles. To say that extra rendering power is only for higher resolution and framerate totally misses the point.
Despite continuing gains in performance, current graphics cards remain woefully underpowered for truly photo-realistic rendering.
Careful about letting opinionation stifle your growth as a programmer. I would Rx you Project Euler. Take particular time to compare the solutions posted by others that are very short (excluding R/K/J) to the ones that are longer. Use a critical eye for not only execution speed, but readability.
Well, water and dissolved minerals. Those minerals might not know that they aren't supposed to stick to the hydrophobic coating. Scale is a big problem with traditional heat exchangers.
No dissolved materials, it's condensing from steam.
If you go to Kongregate (online gaming anyone?) you'll see a runaway process in both the positive and negative moderation directions. Comments under -2 are hidden, and yet users actually click these to unhide and read them, and take the trouble to downrate further. I once saw a comment with -62 and it wasn't even spam or offensive. And it got down that far without the help of being placed at the top like the highest-rated comments.
than the next guy, it's not because he's solving all these hard problems. It's just the opposite. Newbies and the untalented struggle because they make everything harder than it needs to be. And even - and especially - those walking around with a master's or better in CS do this. So many create such disasters of design and architecture, shining dreams of pristine theories blown into the hell of over-complex ugliness, revealed almost immediately for what they are by their first practical application. Those stuck in the world of OO with no knowledge of functional design, slaves to the GoF, and most particularly Java developers - they are the worst offenders. Call the highest-paid and most arrogant of them 'rock stars' if you will, but they are not nearly the best or most productive programmers.
is that they're still not abstracting away from the file system, which IMO remains a major impediment to the advancement of both IDE and source control.
Eventually airlines will make the case for multitasking pilots, since they're idle a lot of the time. There will also be desire to seamlessly shift control of planes in trouble to those with the most emergency maneuver experience.
There will literally be a pilot "cloud" (pun intended), and then all we'd have to do is wait for a hiccup to send all the aircraft falling out of the sky at once.
Some corporations just want more H1-Bs because they're cheaper.
Same reason we have this lovely immigration reform bill, instead of just enforcing existing law to crack down on businesses that cause illegal immigration in the first place.
Every single "humanities" class I had to take at MIT was totally worthless.
I remember one of them, Clapping for Credit everyone called it... "for your final, you have to memorize and perform this Bach piece even though you've never played the piano before".
I was thinking, it might be nice to have an object to wave, perhaps in a wand shape, to increase the accuracy of gesture recognition. And maybe you could speak a command while you're doing it - special Latin or nonsense words, so it doesn't get confused with normal English conversation.
Anytime the process boils down to "if it's not a new feature or an emergency bug fix, you are not allowed to spend any time on it. And if you do spend any time on something like fixing spaghetti code so that implementing new features and emergency fixes don't take an act of God, we will refuse to promote it to production, as our policy is to not promote changes to anything that 'already works.'"
This is the kind of attitude that naturally emerges from an environment without unit tests.
And the biggest kiss of death comes from this - the old, "we can't change the database design because we don't know what will break". The growing strain between changing requirements and the DB implementation eventually breaks the project utterly.
Slashdot Mirror
"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force." is the relevant flaw in this section- you're using your influence, not force.
The idea "force applied indirectly is still force" (not to mention the rest of what I quoted) can bear a lot of interesting fruit through debate; all of it deserves more than simple semantic dismissal.
Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that.
[to Carmen] Jean Rasczak: You.
Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
Jean Rasczak: Correct. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence doesn't solve anything, is wishful thinking at its worst; people who forget that always die.
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student] Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
My first reaction was, might-makes-right is obviously wrong... but I found these ideas very interesting and surprisingly difficult to refute. The movie didn't go on to deepen the discussion beyond showing the ugliness (or not, depending on who you are) of the consequences of such a mentality; yet to this day these quotes still make me think - and that alone is enough to make me consider Starship Troopers a good movie.
That critics didn't hear these two very provocative assertions and see them as big-ass red flags to social commentary... until now?... I don't know what to say about that.
Or at least, he shouldn't be writing tech articles. To say that extra rendering power is only for higher resolution and framerate totally misses the point.
Despite continuing gains in performance, current graphics cards remain woefully underpowered for truly photo-realistic rendering.
Isn't it a well-established mathematical fact that you're supposed to take the second lowest bidder?
Careful about letting opinionation stifle your growth as a programmer. I would Rx you Project Euler. Take particular time to compare the solutions posted by others that are very short (excluding R/K/J) to the ones that are longer. Use a critical eye for not only execution speed, but readability.
They could just disable the app, right? Why bother with legal threats?
Everything else: stop pontificating. It's a free platform, they can do what they like with it.
Well, water and dissolved minerals. Those minerals might not know that they aren't supposed to stick to the hydrophobic coating. Scale is a big problem with traditional heat exchangers.
No dissolved materials, it's condensing from steam.
If you go to Kongregate (online gaming anyone?) you'll see a runaway process in both the positive and negative moderation directions. Comments under -2 are hidden, and yet users actually click these to unhide and read them, and take the trouble to downrate further. I once saw a comment with -62 and it wasn't even spam or offensive. And it got down that far without the help of being placed at the top like the highest-rated comments.
than the next guy, it's not because he's solving all these hard problems. It's just the opposite. Newbies and the untalented struggle because they make everything harder than it needs to be. And even - and especially - those walking around with a master's or better in CS do this. So many create such disasters of design and architecture, shining dreams of pristine theories blown into the hell of over-complex ugliness, revealed almost immediately for what they are by their first practical application. Those stuck in the world of OO with no knowledge of functional design, slaves to the GoF, and most particularly Java developers - they are the worst offenders. Call the highest-paid and most arrogant of them 'rock stars' if you will, but they are not nearly the best or most productive programmers.
Ye gods, think of the real-life StarCraft games you could play with little scale-model robots and buildings using this.
rainbow worlds or Groombridge?
Y'all missed out on a great game, and I'm getting old.
I'm overwhelmed with regret that they did not, indeed, take a picture every week like I expected, or even every year.
Two pictures. And they made a VIDEO. For two pictures.
Seriously?
The expression is a well-oiled machine.
A well-oiled team? Well, that's just kinky.
is that they're still not abstracting away from the file system, which IMO remains a major impediment to the advancement of both IDE and source control.
Law cannot be changed, nor policy arbitrarily created just by adding a software bug. If this isn't fought it will set a bad precedent.
fix its management practices.
Eventually airlines will make the case for multitasking pilots, since they're idle a lot of the time. There will also be desire to seamlessly shift control of planes in trouble to those with the most emergency maneuver experience.
There will literally be a pilot "cloud" (pun intended), and then all we'd have to do is wait for a hiccup to send all the aircraft falling out of the sky at once.
Some corporations just want more H1-Bs because they're cheaper.
Same reason we have this lovely immigration reform bill, instead of just enforcing existing law to crack down on businesses that cause illegal immigration in the first place.
... is like saying "because larger containers hold more water".
Every single "humanities" class I had to take at MIT was totally worthless.
I remember one of them, Clapping for Credit everyone called it... "for your final, you have to memorize and perform this Bach piece even though you've never played the piano before".
Yeah that was a super good use of my time.
I see. John Horgan wants "the humanities" to teach "skepticism" for...
wait for it...
evolution.
I was thinking, it might be nice to have an object to wave, perhaps in a wand shape, to increase the accuracy of gesture recognition. And maybe you could speak a command while you're doing it - special Latin or nonsense words, so it doesn't get confused with normal English conversation.
Wait, where have I seen that before...
'Big picture' is the insight that one may gain over years. To some, it never comes.
Frakkin' toasters!
Anytime the process boils down to "if it's not a new feature or an emergency bug fix, you are not allowed to spend any time on it. And if you do spend any time on something like fixing spaghetti code so that implementing new features and emergency fixes don't take an act of God, we will refuse to promote it to production, as our policy is to not promote changes to anything that 'already works.'"
This is the kind of attitude that naturally emerges from an environment without unit tests.
And the biggest kiss of death comes from this - the old, "we can't change the database design because we don't know what will break". The growing strain between changing requirements and the DB implementation eventually breaks the project utterly.