Completely agree, no one will hire you if you do not know OO. because after you are gone no one will be able to use your code and while you are there you will not be able to use others code.
And it should be taught early, because schools often have coop programs that send freshmen to programming jobs, and knowing OO makes everything else about programming easier.
If you are going into a programming course in univ you probably already know at least the basics of programming. And OO is not a complicated extra of programming, it is a simple ideology that makes programming so much easier when you know it.
Ya I am not really sure I believe this article either, sure OO is not great for parallel but it seems a lot better then any alternative to OO I have ever heard of. And I can say for sure that at the university of Waterloo (the leading school for software engineering in Canada, by far) OO is still the leading thing they teach freshmen programmers/software engineers.
So basically Red Hat is telling us because they cannot legally change to be a fully closed source project they will just try to go against the spirit of FOSS as much as possible without breaking the letter of it?
Well hopefully, but I have heard some pretty astounding claims when it comes to our current energy usage (something like 30 million times faster then the earth replenishes it) so it very well might be completely infeasible to live at all like we are accustomed to currently. But then I am hardly an expert.
And again I am no expert, but I am not sure that space is a perspective place to look for new resources. It seems that due to laws of the universe no matter what we do technology wise it might always be extremely expensive to transport mass between planets.
"The planet can not support even 1/10th the current population at hunter gatherer or subsistence farming levels, unless you are okay with killing off 9/10th of humans alive today, we don't have the option of going back, however nice it might have been. Skyscrapers aren't necessarily better than mud huts, but freezing to death and having 9 out of ten of your kids die before the age of ten due to disease couldn't have been a walk in the park."
Well many people say that the planet cannot support us much longer at our current super consumerism, and I would say small farms run by people have the capacity to be far more productive the any large scale farming. And for mud huts, well it is nice that you used them as an example, because I have heard that mud as a building material is actually far superior in many ways to materials such as concrete, one of these ways is keeping the heat in the winter and getting rid of it is the summer.
"So why should you be allowed to impose your will on them as a group? You shouldn't. And they should not be able to impose their will on you..." I never said that you should, just that either should impose their will.
"YOU need to go. Not them. It's simple mathematics" I agree with you in this very simplistic situation, the problem arises then it is not simply you or them but when for example you live on a resource they want to exploit and the question is, is it better for a large group to be slightly more comfortable and for one man to die?
"Because someone will invariably take that as an excuse to harm others." People will always be harmed by others more powerful then them, but the problem with groups is that they are always more powerful then the individual.
"Why do we band together, instead of living alone, like cheetahs? Well, it is what worked for us...." I agree it has, it has created a small groups of very powerful nations were for the most part individuals are not able to choose which one they get to belong to or not belong to. So yes the nations has benefited but has the individuals in them? And I am not saying that people cannot interact and work together (nor could anything ever prevent that); But instead that everyone should foremost think of themselves as individuals and not as a cog in a group. No one should ever do something simply because they have been told that it is for the best of the group, nor should they wave responsibility for their actions because it was for the best of the group. “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” – Albert Einstein
"Singularly, what do we really have the freedom to do? Hunt and gather, or subsistence farm. Everything we do nowadays requires cooperation." See previous paragraph for answer. But on a completely off topic rant, what is so bad about farming or gathering/hunting food and what is so good about skyscrapers and journying to mars? Why do skyscrapers make living any more enjoyable and hunting and gathering make it so unenjoyable?
"Being part of any group involves sublimating some of your desires to the group. Who doesn't want to punch some fucker in the face sometimes?" This has nothing to do with being in a group, because if you are out of you all the more reason you have to not punch someone in face (because you do not have a group to back you up). I am very very confident that if you went back through history and tallied up all the punching, bulying, and killing, the groups (like hilter's germany) would be far far ahead of the individual hanibal lecters.
"Is your leg a crutch? Would you be stronger if you didn't have it? Is your car a crutch? Why aren't you walking to work every day? How is it that things that make us stronger are somehow crutches that we should get rid of, lest we be weak?" But I do think thoes are proper examples, I do not think that groups make individuals stronger but instead make them weaker while the group as a whole gets stronger.
"The problem you have with groups is real, but it is not a problem with groups, it is a problem with individuals. Or both. The Masai (I think, maybe another African cultural group) have a saying: It takes free individuals to create a strong tribe, and it takes a strong tribe to create free individuals. That sums up my political philosophy rather well." And mine too, strangly enough. As long as the individual is not engulfed by the tribe and remains a individual formost then of course people can work together.
"Groups are the only way weaker individuals can protect themselves from stronger." But then who will protect the individual form the group, which is not the stronger then any individual. At least singularly everyone has a chance, but when you group up then no one can stand agiast you. No matter what you do their will always be people or groups that are more powerful either because of skill or shear numbers.
"All individuals are better off in groups. We are social creatures, we are not individualists." I do not disagree that Humans crave social interaction, but that does not mean that they need to from huge communities that control they every action. People are perfectly capable of fulfilling their social needs without being controlled by society.
"You don't seem to understand freedom. Do you understand my sig? Why is it that only good men love freedom, while the rest love mere license? "I get to do whatever I want" is not freedom." I would say that freedom is an idea that has more then one meaning, and that you are not the arbiter of what someone else chooses to identify with freedom. But no you sig does have me rather stumped.
"... So what you are saying is that one individual is more important than one individual, which is nonsense..." Not at all, I do not mean to imply that individual has the right to impose his will on other individuals or groups if he is able but that no one does (no matter how many people agree). Not even if 1 million people take one side of an argument and a single individual takes the other that does not mean that the 1 million are necessarily right or justified in imposing their will on the one. If we always thought this way they we would still think that the world was flat (but then this last argument might be getting off topic).
""One is better than many, but not a specific one but all ones." is simply nonsense..." By this I meant that the individual is better when he is not relying on the crutch that is a group, and again not that he has some right to hurt other people.
"And if you believe that an individual has some sort of ill defined, "natural" or "god given" right to be free from getting hit in the face..." Well we agree on that then.
The problem I have with groups is they naturally expand and do not work well with individuals and their is always the will and the betterment of the many over the few.
I did not say some individuals are better then groups of lesser individuals, I said all individuals are better without groups.
I do not promote feudalism, but individual freedom. Where, yes, one is better then many, but not a specific one but all ones. And also do not really like punishment for punishments sake and think far too many people have confused justice with revenge.
When I hear "collective will of the people" I think mob justice, which never seems to end well in my opinion. Personally I think that an individual is far better at determining a fair sentence singularly then in a group, as groups tend to have a negative psychological effect on the individuals in them.
"If you desire more justice than you see in the world, you must act to help create it. And that does not mean taking the law into your own hands, as that is not real justice"
And the government is the only way of getting this real justice? I would disagree, and even go so far as to say that the government is likely more worried about keeping social order then justice, but then what even is real justice?
Well this has been an interesting off topic discussion.
I have never heard of the Monodragon Corporation, it sounds very nice and interesting, but seems more socialist then anarchist (not that socialism is not also a very interesting form of government).
I have not heard any of your debates before now, will try to keep an eye out in the future.
I was trying to use anarchy as a way of saying the will of the government or the many is not necessarily more important then the will of the individual ("will" is not a great word to use here, but you should understand what I mean). Which, at least in my opinion, is the underpinning idea of Anarchy.
The one thing I do not get is that their is no reason to delete anything that is not obviously completely useless. Storage space for these mostly text pages would be completely negligible, I think the whole thing is around 8 Gigs (maybe without images? not that it would make it more then 10 times difference at absolute most (in my opinion)).
And if the problem is man power to look after these pages, then they could lock old pages and not allow changes by anyone.
Ok those are the only reasons you !have! to restart a machine. I am not arguing that. I am just saying rebooting is not a big deal, their is no reason to go to lots of trouble to avoid it (other then bragging rights I guess).
I would say the same can be said of reinstalling the OS. Many people (in both the windows and linux camps) go to extreme length to not do this, from being very careful to not get viruses to not installing programs on their machine to spending lots of time trying to get rid of viruses. Personally I just always know I can spend a handful of minutes and get back a working computer with a OS reinstall.
Both the restart and reinstall are quick fix-all things you can do to a computer, I would even go so far as to say a computer user really only needs to know how to do these two things for them to handle all normal problems they will encounter. And unless you have a good idea of what is wrong in the first place, these fixes will normally be the quickest most likely to succeed things you can try.
So rebooting is not good because it might not fix the underlying problem, well of course but that is the same with windows.
But it seems to me a good timesaver to at least reboot the first time you see a issue, and if it come back then you know it is a recurring issue and that it might be worth spending hours fixing it.
And I really do not understand how you can even get a system to stay online for at long as unix veterans do, I have never used a system (windows or linux) that did not get more and more unstable over time (even routers). any device I wanted to stay up all the time I would have automatically reboot occasionaly.
Oh come on mods, show a little professionalism for once.
Stargate gets Insightful and Babylon 5 gets Flamebait??? I don't care what show you like, their is nothing in this comment that deserves a modding down.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe Scala
Well they cannot model the course after the 1% who don't know anything.
Completely agree, no one will hire you if you do not know OO. because after you are gone no one will be able to use your code and while you are there you will not be able to use others code.
And it should be taught early, because schools often have coop programs that send freshmen to programming jobs, and knowing OO makes everything else about programming easier.
If you are going into a programming course in univ you probably already know at least the basics of programming.
And OO is not a complicated extra of programming, it is a simple ideology that makes programming so much easier when you know it.
Ya I am not really sure I believe this article either, sure OO is not great for parallel but it seems a lot better then any alternative to OO I have ever heard of.
And I can say for sure that at the university of Waterloo (the leading school for software engineering in Canada, by far) OO is still the leading thing they teach freshmen programmers/software engineers.
So basically Red Hat is telling us because they cannot legally change to be a fully closed source project they will just try to go against the spirit of FOSS as much as possible without breaking the letter of it?
But they are right, the internet's content probably should not be available to people under 18 without some sort of monitoring.
If only he was backing a bill aimed at protecting [citizens] against tracking and data collection by their [government].
But I doubt that will ever happen.
Their have been studies and in general people simply prefer the hiss of lossy mp3 compression.
Well hopefully, but I have heard some pretty astounding claims when it comes to our current energy usage (something like 30 million times faster then the earth replenishes it) so it very well might be completely infeasible to live at all like we are accustomed to currently. But then I am hardly an expert.
And again I am no expert, but I am not sure that space is a perspective place to look for new resources. It seems that due to laws of the universe no matter what we do technology wise it might always be extremely expensive to transport mass between planets.
"The planet can not support even 1/10th the current population at hunter gatherer or subsistence farming levels, unless you are okay with killing off 9/10th of humans alive today, we don't have the option of going back, however nice it might have been. Skyscrapers aren't necessarily better than mud huts, but freezing to death and having 9 out of ten of your kids die before the age of ten due to disease couldn't have been a walk in the park."
Well many people say that the planet cannot support us much longer at our current super consumerism, and I would say small farms run by people have the capacity to be far more productive the any large scale farming. And for mud huts, well it is nice that you used them as an example, because I have heard that mud as a building material is actually far superior in many ways to materials such as concrete, one of these ways is keeping the heat in the winter and getting rid of it is the summer.
"So why should you be allowed to impose your will on them as a group? You shouldn't. And they should not be able to impose their will on you ..."
I never said that you should, just that either should impose their will.
"YOU need to go. Not them. It's simple mathematics"
I agree with you in this very simplistic situation, the problem arises then it is not simply you or them but when for example you live on a resource they want to exploit and the question is, is it better for a large group to be slightly more comfortable and for one man to die?
"Because someone will invariably take that as an excuse to harm others."
People will always be harmed by others more powerful then them, but the problem with groups is that they are always more powerful then the individual.
"Why do we band together, instead of living alone, like cheetahs? Well, it is what worked for us. ..."
I agree it has, it has created a small groups of very powerful nations were for the most part individuals are not able to choose which one they get to belong to or not belong to. So yes the nations has benefited but has the individuals in them? And I am not saying that people cannot interact and work together (nor could anything ever prevent that); But instead that everyone should foremost think of themselves as individuals and not as a cog in a group. No one should ever do something simply because they have been told that it is for the best of the group, nor should they wave responsibility for their actions because it was for the best of the group.
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” – Albert Einstein
"Singularly, what do we really have the freedom to do? Hunt and gather, or subsistence farm. Everything we do nowadays requires cooperation."
See previous paragraph for answer. But on a completely off topic rant, what is so bad about farming or gathering/hunting food and what is so good about skyscrapers and journying to mars? Why do skyscrapers make living any more enjoyable and hunting and gathering make it so unenjoyable?
"Being part of any group involves sublimating some of your desires to the group. Who doesn't want to punch some fucker in the face sometimes?"
This has nothing to do with being in a group, because if you are out of you all the more reason you have to not punch someone in face (because you do not have a group to back you up). I am very very confident that if you went back through history and tallied up all the punching, bulying, and killing, the groups (like hilter's germany) would be far far ahead of the individual hanibal lecters.
"Is your leg a crutch? Would you be stronger if you didn't have it? Is your car a crutch? Why aren't you walking to work every day? How is it that things that make us stronger are somehow crutches that we should get rid of, lest we be weak?"
But I do think thoes are proper examples, I do not think that groups make individuals stronger but instead make them weaker while the group as a whole gets stronger.
"The problem you have with groups is real, but it is not a problem with groups, it is a problem with individuals. Or both. The Masai (I think, maybe another African cultural group) have a saying: It takes free individuals to create a strong tribe, and it takes a strong tribe to create free individuals. That sums up my political philosophy rather well."
And mine too, strangly enough. As long as the individual is not engulfed by the tribe and remains a individual formost then of course people can work together.
"Groups are the only way weaker individuals can protect themselves from stronger."
But then who will protect the individual form the group, which is not the stronger then any individual. At least singularly everyone has a chance, but when you group up then no one can stand agiast you. No matter what you do their will always be people or groups that are more powerful either because of skill or shear numbers.
"All individuals are better off in groups. We are social creatures, we are not individualists."
I do not disagree that Humans crave social interaction, but that does not mean that they need to from huge communities that control they every action. People are perfectly capable of fulfilling their social needs without being controlled by society.
"You don't seem to understand freedom. Do you understand my sig? Why is it that only good men love freedom, while the rest love mere license? "I get to do whatever I want" is not freedom."
I would say that freedom is an idea that has more then one meaning, and that you are not the arbiter of what someone else chooses to identify with freedom. But no you sig does have me rather stumped.
"... So what you are saying is that one individual is more important than one individual, which is nonsense ..."
Not at all, I do not mean to imply that individual has the right to impose his will on other individuals or groups if he is able but that no one does (no matter how many people agree). Not even if 1 million people take one side of an argument and a single individual takes the other that does not mean that the 1 million are necessarily right or justified in imposing their will on the one. If we always thought this way they we would still think that the world was flat (but then this last argument might be getting off topic).
""One is better than many, but not a specific one but all ones." is simply nonsense ..."
By this I meant that the individual is better when he is not relying on the crutch that is a group, and again not that he has some right to hurt other people.
"And if you believe that an individual has some sort of ill defined, "natural" or "god given" right to be free from getting hit in the face ..."
Well we agree on that then.
The problem I have with groups is they naturally expand and do not work well with individuals and their is always the will and the betterment of the many over the few.
I did not say some individuals are better then groups of lesser individuals, I said all individuals are better without groups.
I do not promote feudalism, but individual freedom. Where, yes, one is better then many, but not a specific one but all ones.
And also do not really like punishment for punishments sake and think far too many people have confused justice with revenge.
When I hear "collective will of the people" I think mob justice, which never seems to end well in my opinion.
Personally I think that an individual is far better at determining a fair sentence singularly then in a group, as groups tend to have a negative psychological effect on the individuals in them.
"If you desire more justice than you see in the world, you must act to help create it. And that does not mean taking the law into your own hands, as that is not real justice"
And the government is the only way of getting this real justice?
I would disagree, and even go so far as to say that the government is likely more worried about keeping social order then justice, but then what even is real justice?
Well this has been an interesting off topic discussion.
I have never heard of the Monodragon Corporation, it sounds very nice and interesting, but seems more socialist then anarchist (not that socialism is not also a very interesting form of government).
I have not heard any of your debates before now, will try to keep an eye out in the future.
I was trying to use anarchy as a way of saying the will of the government or the many is not necessarily more important then the will of the individual ("will" is not a great word to use here, but you should understand what I mean). Which, at least in my opinion, is the underpinning idea of Anarchy.
Maybe this use was not technically correct.
The one thing I do not get is that their is no reason to delete anything that is not obviously completely useless. Storage space for these mostly text pages would be completely negligible, I think the whole thing is around 8 Gigs (maybe without images? not that it would make it more then 10 times difference at absolute most (in my opinion)).
And if the problem is man power to look after these pages, then they could lock old pages and not allow changes by anyone.
Great comment, was thinking of writing very much the same thing until I found yours.
"... which is a thing no sane citizen would wish for"
Well more succinctly it would be called Anarchy, and at least some sane people do advocate it.
Ok those are the only reasons you !have! to restart a machine.
I am not arguing that. I am just saying rebooting is not a big deal, their is no reason to go to lots of trouble to avoid it (other then bragging rights I guess).
I would say the same can be said of reinstalling the OS. Many people (in both the windows and linux camps) go to extreme length to not do this, from being very careful to not get viruses to not installing programs on their machine to spending lots of time trying to get rid of viruses.
Personally I just always know I can spend a handful of minutes and get back a working computer with a OS reinstall.
Both the restart and reinstall are quick fix-all things you can do to a computer, I would even go so far as to say a computer user really only needs to know how to do these two things for them to handle all normal problems they will encounter.
And unless you have a good idea of what is wrong in the first place, these fixes will normally be the quickest most likely to succeed things you can try.
So rebooting is not good because it might not fix the underlying problem, well of course but that is the same with windows.
But it seems to me a good timesaver to at least reboot the first time you see a issue, and if it come back then you know it is a recurring issue and that it might be worth spending hours fixing it.
And I really do not understand how you can even get a system to stay online for at long as unix veterans do, I have never used a system (windows or linux) that did not get more and more unstable over time (even routers). any device I wanted to stay up all the time I would have automatically reboot occasionaly.
Never been in control of a unix server but my linux desktop needs rebooting all the time to fix issues it gets.
Oh come on mods, show a little professionalism for once.
Stargate gets Insightful and Babylon 5 gets Flamebait??? I don't care what show you like, their is nothing in this comment that deserves a modding down.
And Babylon 5 is the best show of all time.
I kind-of think that is SeaMonkey (http://www.seamonkey-project.org/) you are talking about.