Yes. As far as we currently know, human beings are complicated. (Look at it this way: you think the x86 is a crufty POS? It's a piker; we're a product of millions of years of backwards compatibility....) Doctors have to know a lot of stuff to fix us.... we're inherently complicated. However, I respectfully question how much of the complexity of C++ is actually needed. Now we look back at all the perverse "access methods" of OS/360 and its descendants and shake our heads in astonishment/disgust/etc., and I'm hoping that before long we can do the same with C++.
I can't say I agree with Pike about Go, though; I rather like the comparison of Brand X with Go, where Brand X turns out to be Algol 68. http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ for those interested.
What free market? In the US, one typically has an RBOC/cable duopoly thanks to the government which granted them exclusivity as "natural monopolies" on phone and cable service. They still sell both, and have an interest in not making their ISP services too good, lest people dump phone and cable TV.
"...little or no educational benefit is found. Worse, computers seem to have further separated children in low-income households, whose test scores often decline after the machine arrives, from their more privileged counterparts..."
So, they don't do any good, but they ALSO increase the dreaded "digital divide". Doesn't the latter imply the negation of the former?
One still pays a hefty premium for a given level of performance in a laptop versus a desktop; and size constraints of a laptop make cooling far more of a problem.
And to what extent is one's laptop really portable if its lack of decent-sized keyboard and adequate screen real estate blown off with "that's what docking stations are for"? That would be as if radios in cars had lousy antennas and poor speakers, but you could connect to outside antennas and speakers only available at home and at your destination.
Ah, but you forget Grosch's Law, third version: "No matter how fast the hardware gets, the software boys [urinate] it away."
People will come to expect 3D UIs for their chatting, emailing, and web browsing, just as today they would refuse to use a terminal-based chat program and refuse to use lynx as their web browser.
"Spectator sports are a complete waste of time" isn't the same as "sports are a complete waste of time". People who already believe the stereotype may take Grisnakh's post as supporting it, but I would claim it doesn't. From "A Portrait of J. Random Hacker":
"Many (perhaps even most) hackers don't follow or do sports at all and are determinedly anti-physical. Among those who do, interest in spectator sports is low to non-existent; sports are something one does, not something one watches on TV.
"Further, hackers avoid most team sports like the plague (volleyball is a notable exception, perhaps because it's non-contact and relatively friendly). Hacker sports are almost always primarily self-competitive ones involving concentration, stamina, and micromotor skills: martial arts, bicycling, auto racing, kite flying, hiking, rock climbing, aviation, target-shooting, sailing, caving, juggling, skiing, skating (ice and roller)....."
Only in the sense that corporations aren't elected.... and in any case, there's considerable argument over what services government should provide.
For any proposition put up for a popular vote, up to half the population will not like the results. For things voted on by representatives, even more can be displeased, vide Obamacare: some wish the government would get its hands out of medical care, others think that the government should have just taken it over in one fell swoop.
When it comes to market transactions, though, individuals make the choices. As someone once said, in a free market, transactions only occur if both parties think they benefit from it. You can't tell the government to blow it out its posterior and take your business elsewhere; you can say that to McDonalds, or GM, or fill in the blank.
Is there a difference between that and people being paid lots of money to minimize the amount of money the government seizes from you, or makers of security system?
"Anyone could be smart, anyone could be hard-working. The worst-case of the society I am describing is one without that possibility. It is utterly unmeritocratic: no matter how hard you work, you would be unable to succeed because you were genetically inferior."
Isn't that how it is now, save that the genes are distributed randomly?
Look at it this way: if Obamacare doesn't destroy the incentives for advances in medical technology, eventually whatever treatment it is will get cheaper. Meanwhile, all those EEEVIL rich people beta tested it for you, so by the time it's affordable, the bugs are all ironed out.
"...when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive." --TFA
TFA gives examples such as the head of the Office team expressing his dislike of tablet computers by refusing to integrate Office with the tablet UI, or the fellow who would support ClearType, but only if the personnel who developed it were put under his management.
I find this insight highly ironic. Hey, they were only emulating MS's behavior with respect to its competition, right?
Slashdot Mirror
...I wonder how Quinn Martin got away with it?
Heck,. JSB even took up the very first additive synthesizer, i.e. the pipe organ.
But we learned to avoid go2 back in the days when structured programming was new...
Yes. As far as we currently know, human beings are complicated. (Look at it this way: you think the x86 is a crufty POS? It's a piker; we're a product of millions of years of backwards compatibility....) Doctors have to know a lot of stuff to fix us.... we're inherently complicated. However, I respectfully question how much of the complexity of C++ is actually needed. Now we look back at all the perverse "access methods" of OS/360 and its descendants and shake our heads in astonishment/disgust/etc., and I'm hoping that before long we can do the same with C++.
I can't say I agree with Pike about Go, though; I rather like the comparison of Brand X with Go, where Brand X turns out to be Algol 68. http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ for those interested.
"Tro malmola", ne "tre malmola". Vi ne estas Francoparolanto, u ne?
And NFL, while we're at it.
What free market? In the US, one typically has an RBOC/cable duopoly thanks to the government which granted them exclusivity as "natural monopolies" on phone and cable service. They still sell both, and have an interest in not making their ISP services too good, lest people dump phone and cable TV.
"Why do Rock Bands make more money then Rap Acts?"
Because rock bands typically don't shoot one another?
"...little or no educational benefit is found. Worse, computers seem to have further separated children in low-income households, whose test scores often decline after the machine arrives, from their more privileged counterparts..."
So, they don't do any good, but they ALSO increase the dreaded "digital divide". Doesn't the latter imply the negation of the former?
Of course, it will never be finished...
One still pays a hefty premium for a given level of performance in a laptop versus a desktop; and size constraints of a laptop make cooling far more of a problem.
And to what extent is one's laptop really portable if its lack of decent-sized keyboard and adequate screen real estate blown off with "that's what docking stations are for"? That would be as if radios in cars had lousy antennas and poor speakers, but you could connect to outside antennas and speakers only available at home and at your destination.
Ah, but you forget Grosch's Law, third version: "No matter how fast the hardware gets, the software boys [urinate] it away."
People will come to expect 3D UIs for their chatting, emailing, and web browsing, just as today they would refuse to use a terminal-based chat program and refuse to use lynx as their web browser.
"Spectator sports are a complete waste of time" isn't the same as "sports are a complete waste of time". People who already believe the stereotype may take Grisnakh's post as supporting it, but I would claim it doesn't. From "A Portrait of J. Random Hacker":
"Many (perhaps even most) hackers don't follow or do sports at all and are determinedly anti-physical. Among those who do, interest in spectator sports is low to non-existent; sports are something one does, not something one watches on TV.
"Further, hackers avoid most team sports like the plague (volleyball is a notable exception, perhaps because it's non-contact and relatively friendly). Hacker sports are almost always primarily self-competitive ones involving concentration, stamina, and micromotor skills: martial arts, bicycling, auto racing, kite flying, hiking, rock climbing, aviation, target-shooting, sailing, caving, juggling, skiing, skating (ice and roller)....."
Anyone thinking that you get a fast app from Flash should go play FarmVille.
Only in the sense that corporations aren't elected.... and in any case, there's considerable argument over what services government should provide.
For any proposition put up for a popular vote, up to half the population will not like the results. For things voted on by representatives, even more can be displeased, vide Obamacare: some wish the government would get its hands out of medical care, others think that the government should have just taken it over in one fell swoop.
When it comes to market transactions, though, individuals make the choices. As someone once said, in a free market, transactions only occur if both parties think they benefit from it. You can't tell the government to blow it out its posterior and take your business elsewhere; you can say that to McDonalds, or GM, or fill in the blank.
Is there a difference between that and people being paid lots of money to minimize the amount of money the government seizes from you, or makers of security system?
What on earth does US cable TV have to do with a free market?
"Anyone could be smart, anyone could be hard-working. The worst-case of the society I am describing is one without that possibility. It is utterly unmeritocratic: no matter how hard you work, you would be unable to succeed because you were genetically inferior."
Isn't that how it is now, save that the genes are distributed randomly?
Look at it this way: if Obamacare doesn't destroy the incentives for advances in medical technology, eventually whatever treatment it is will get cheaper. Meanwhile, all those EEEVIL rich people beta tested it for you, so by the time it's affordable, the bugs are all ironed out.
The cable companies and RBOCs are long overdue for competition. I'll switch in a heartbeat.
The only way you'll get rid of that, or at least minimize it, is to restrict the power of government so that it isn't necessary to buy that influence.
"...when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive." --TFA
TFA gives examples such as the head of the Office team expressing his dislike of tablet computers by refusing to integrate Office with the tablet UI, or the fellow who would support ClearType, but only if the personnel who developed it were put under his management.
I find this insight highly ironic. Hey, they were only emulating MS's behavior with respect to its competition, right?
Are you sure? I would bet the dog contains a modicum of carbon-14 and potassium-40. (Of course, so do we all.)
To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, "There was a boy named Julian Heathcote Hobbins, and he almost deserved it."
Anyone remember Terry Riley's In C? This reminds me of it; now if they just had several sources going through the fragments at different rates...