I hear that Facebook has a sensitivity team that responded to that guy who wrote a blog post when the "Year In Review" displayed a lot of pictures of his daughter that died from cancer during the year. (Apparently, Facebook was terribly insensitive in doing that or something...*)
So, it's not terribly surprising that Facebook would address something like this. Especially since the internet hasn't really had the chance to process what it means to have so much digital information on someone online yet. For instance: I received a friend suggestion on Facebook for someone who died last year. We weren't close, but I was sad she passed.
What does that mean if you don't have someone assigned as a legacy, then? Can you report the page as someone who's passed? Do you need to provide proof? What if that system gets abused and locks up people's pages because trolls think it's funny that you have to prove you're still alive in order to access your page?
*No, I'm not mocking the guy for having lost his daughter; guaranteed someone will interpret this statement that way. I personally think it's weird that said blog post became a "thing" on the internet as someone with a downgraded version of the same situation (put our dog to sleep in December; her pics came up a lot in my YIR...which, I know is hardly the same as losing a child to cancer, but if I were to scale it down, I wouldn't have called Facebook "vaguely insensitive" for that. Still miss my dog, though), as if somehow Facebook has the AI to discern exactly enough context from posts to make a perfect and not emotionally damaging YIR for everyone.
They could actually do that if they gave us something other than "Like" to show support. - like condolences, sympathies, or some such that shows support for the person but doesn't comment upon the situation itself (or even implies that the situation is negative).
Wouldn't one way to stop it be to fake being a virtual machine?
I'm sure that would start a cat & mouse game as they make their VM detection algorithm more sophisticated, but I'm thinking the faking code would be easier to write than the detection code.
Truck speed limit is 70. Some cars/trucks still go 65. No major problems I'm aware of, and in these more sparsely populated states, I think a valid change.
Don't know about the cars, but most corporate owned semi-trucks are governed to between 65 to 68 depending on company (and I'm sure a couple have the governor set higher, but that's the usual range).
It will be interesting to see if this causes any software comparability issues with legacy applications.
Of course there will be - in any large pool of people of any calling there's going to be morons - the sort of morons that sniff the OS version string for things like "Windows 9" and then assume it's Windows 95 or 98 and refuse to work; instead of using the proper channels to query for the OS version number.
As a PHP programmer I can testify that morons can indeed program. I'm one of them.
Ultimately, if someone wants a promise to be paid in return for their work, there are a number of options available to them, starting with charging for it just like every other industry in the world that produces value.
Or they'll switch to angular.js and similar technologies to deliver the content. No js, no content. If adblock interferes, crash the page, log the ip and block the user.
Adblock will of course try to stop this. And the cat & mouse game will have begun.
Sharing music doesn't degrade the performance of the artist's servers, and how often you share it doesn't cost them anything directly (indirectly there's a perceived loss of profits, but since when did freeloaders pay for anything so it's a red herring). Besides, the real money for artists is in concerts, not records.
Stripping a site of its ads denies the site owner of the revenue of those ads while still costing him the bandwidth to send you the content. So there is a direct cost. Insignificant in terms of a single freeloader, but if everyone on the net used adblock, the net would collapse because there'd be no revenue to pay for the servers.
So yes, if you use adblock you're a freeloader, and worse, a thief.
In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win. This has been true since democracy started - "politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"
We see this in our current political system as well - wingnuts running the show in both parties because reasonable people won't speak up.
Time and again I've seen this on forums I've been on that have been unmoderated, such as the OkCupid forums. After awhile, only the rudest and the crudest remain there along with those willing to tolerate them.
Consider that if California was an independent nation it would rank as the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, then think on that comment some more. It's not too surprising.
Indeed Sony has it up to 185 tb now. Impressive by anyone's count - and why would anyone want to archive on blue ray disks with those baby's around. With archiving, random access to the data is mostly moot.
You suspect wrong. Australia has powerful laws to control what banks can charge for written to protect its citizens. The US has powerful laws to grant authority to banks to charge for anything written to exploit its citizens.
...there will be no automated car. The legal system is so screwed up right now no company, even one 100 times Google's size, could hope to absorb the lawsuit costs.
I was experimenting with these things at the University of Kentucky back in 97 or so, and the professor at that time said a few feet. That accuracy has improved since then doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me to find a unit from '97 or so that was accurate to the inch, but I could believe it. I am not an expert in the technology though - just giving the general reason why ground stations are important.
GPS is normally only accurate to within a few yards, and when the system was opened up to civilian use in the late 90's the military put in a discrepancy to the civilian signals so that they'd be off by a few dozen yards.
Then someone hit upon the idea of checking GPS against a known good reading.
GPS base stations do this. They know where they are, exactly. They listen to the GPS satellites report of where the satellites think they are, then broadcast the margin of error out to nearby GPS receivers. As a result, the accuracy of the readings can be gotten exact down to a few feet.
So successful was this that the military eventually discarded the idea of putting in an intentional margin of error for civilian signals.
Obama should grow a pair. Instruct the FCC commissioners to reclassify, or be dismissed. If they call as if he's bluffing, fire all of them and replace them with commissioners that will do the reclassification. These snots serve at the pleasure of the President and, in turn, the people. It's high time someone blew up their perceived fiefdoms.
To my mind religion is fundamentally about power and money and influence.
Then you know nothing beyond what your prejudice limits you to.
Religion is like a virus of the mind to which we have built insufficient vaccines for. I'd modify that to say only small minds need a god at all.
Small minds aren't limited to theists. Gnostic atheists display small minded bigotry all the time, as you have just have.
Personally, I'm agnostic, but unusual in that I am an agnostic theist. The Gnostic question (Can God's existence be proven?) and the Theist question (Does God exist?) are too often conflated by laypeople. To anyone who has done even a cursory study of theology, the conflation is as absurd as confusing RAM for diskspace because both are measured in bytes.
Most people who label themselves agnostic simply don't understand the question or are trying to avoid it. An agnostic (under the correct definition of the term) believes an objective proof of God doesn't exist. This is a separate question from whether God exists. I do believe God exists, but the proofs of his existence are subjective and not verifiable by science. A leap of faith is required. God cannot be objectively proven because he doesn't want to be objectively proven.
Most theists are gnostic theists, and most strident atheists are gnostic atheists -- they believe they can prove their belief in 0. We are all computer scientists here - surely if any group understands null and 0 are not strictly equal it would be us yes? The charge of the government is to proceed upon the religion question as null. Usually, but not always, that will turn out in the atheist's favor - just as after all in most computer programs the course of action for the program for 0 or null is the same. But there are times when they are not - calls to destroy churches or make the propagation of beliefs illegal are just as onerous as any other call to set up a single state religion and just as illegal in the United States under the first amendment.
There is nothing incompatible with Intelligent design and evolution. If there is a God that created the universe then, that God also created evolution and therefor science is simply discovering Gods work.
I've never heard intelligent design described that way before. Intelligent design is the idea that biological organisms required an intelligent entity to create them, that it is unlikely that complex organisms could exist without a designer, which is an idea fundamentally contradicted by evolution. It sounds like you are describing deism, not intelligent design.
That's essentially the approach the modern Catholic church takes. Broadly speaking: Religion (overall) attempts to subjectively answer 'why?' Science attempts to objectively answer 'how?'. Objective and subjective reasoning methods are largely incompatible to begin with, and anyone used to thinking objectively at all times should find subjective reasoning infuriating and off-putting at best - but it's at the heart of the logic within theology.
Personally, I see evolution as part of the creation, a mechanism no more consequential to the question of God's existence than the rainfall. Besides, if we are truly made in God's image, it should only be natural that we should attempt to understand how we were made on all levels of that question.
The problem I think is small minds need a small God. Every time science pushes the boundaries of what we know about the size and complexity of the universe, ignorant rats scuttle about to stick their heads in the sand and deny the truth of what is observable in the universe, so that they may preserve their small God. If God did indeed make the universe, then the universe itself is the ultimate testament to truth (whatever that is) - not a book - for the universe alone was authored by the hand of God. To deny it is to call God a liar.
To find an example where PHP beats Java significantly in code compactness will be very very difficult.
Let's start with Hello World shall we? Here's the whole PHP program.
<?='Hello World'?>
18 CHARACTERS. PHP was a template engine long before anyone grafted 1,001 other crazy uses to it. In the job it was designed for - fulfilling HTML requests from webservers - few things can touch it for simplicity or development speed.
In fairness to Java, it scales better to large applications than PHP. PHP does little to discourage its largely newbie programmer base from making bad to outright catastrophic design choices. Java has its uses and it's place. It isn't a panacea though, not by a long shot.
So drop the Java fanboi act - it makes you look foolish. There are tasks which it is not the best tool for the job, or even close to the best tool.
When you make a statement like: "travelling salesman in 4 lines of code", it generally means the entire problem in 4 lines of code, not a function call to some built in function and a couple of array initializers.
Where does the line get drawn? Hell, an echo statement must look up the character code for each letter in the string and send that along to the graphics driver for further processing before even one letter is shown on the screen to the user.
The article demonstrated the language itself being able to present a solution to the traveling salesman in 2 lines of code. I personally find arguments about how many underlying function calls the language had to go to while it turned it's instructions into something the computer can understand to be useless asinine pendantry. It doesn't matter to the end user working in this language what goes on any more than it really matters to a video game programmer what exactly goes on in the GPU when a graphics call is made, or to a windows programmer exactly what the GUI must do to place the letters on the screen.
My first impression of this language and library is its a powerful new tool at a level of abstraction even further removed than current high level scripting languages like Javascript. In the field of data gathering and presentation - to which it seems to be aimed - it probably will find a lot of jobs to do. That doesn't mean other languages won't still have their place.
For example: people use PHP often because it can do in a couple lines what might take several pages of code to do in Java - and there are tasks that PHP needs several pages of code to do that Python can deal with in a few lines as well. That's the nature of programming languages. This is another tool to put in the tool case, and that's a good thing. I will admit that the article tries to write this up as a universal panacea, but I have my severe doubts on that. There's likely going to be certain tasks to which this language will prove to be poorly suited and need very long scripts to do that current languages can do fairly quickly.
Hi. I'm a 15 year old script kiddie. I just love those thousands of hideous functions because deep inside a significant fraction of them lies an exploit so obvious that three of my friends figured a half dozen of them out in a two hour Redbull and Cheetos hacking session (which consisted mostly of Googling pictures of naked 16 year olds and occasionally looking for PHP vulnerabilities).
That hardly debunks my point. Rather, it reinforces it - people choose languages on the basis of work getting done quickly - all other concerns go out the window pretty quickly.
As much as I would like to be impressed, what I see is quite underwhelming: a functional application language with some interface to "facts" and "databases" with a pattern matching engine might make some analysis easier but... the principles of the language are mostly what you come to expect if you have seen lisp once or any modern functional language,e.g. haskell.
I can see it as being useful, but as another commenter pointed out, "FindShortestTour" is a library function (which might be handy), but definitely not an example of how concise the language might be; the same could be said about "EdgeDetect" or the like. The power of the language can be measured in how easily it can be extended or non trivial algorithms can be implemented... not in how many functions are offered (even if this could be more convenient none-the-less).
Hello. My name is PHP. I'm the most ugly hideous language known to man, but man do I have thousands of functions to get work done. And that's why I rule the server side processing world:D
Function libraries and ability to get stuff done quickly counts for a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
... you're a fool that will quickly find no one can be your supporter.
... but my kneejerk reaction is to find the remaining SCO layers, some strong hemp rope and a stout oak tree.
Seriously though, nothing cries out for Tort reform like this nonsense.
I hear that Facebook has a sensitivity team that responded to that guy who wrote a blog post when the "Year In Review" displayed a lot of pictures of his daughter that died from cancer during the year. (Apparently, Facebook was terribly insensitive in doing that or something...*)
So, it's not terribly surprising that Facebook would address something like this. Especially since the internet hasn't really had the chance to process what it means to have so much digital information on someone online yet. For instance: I received a friend suggestion on Facebook for someone who died last year. We weren't close, but I was sad she passed.
What does that mean if you don't have someone assigned as a legacy, then? Can you report the page as someone who's passed? Do you need to provide proof? What if that system gets abused and locks up people's pages because trolls think it's funny that you have to prove you're still alive in order to access your page?
*No, I'm not mocking the guy for having lost his daughter; guaranteed someone will interpret this statement that way. I personally think it's weird that said blog post became a "thing" on the internet as someone with a downgraded version of the same situation (put our dog to sleep in December; her pics came up a lot in my YIR...which, I know is hardly the same as losing a child to cancer, but if I were to scale it down, I wouldn't have called Facebook "vaguely insensitive" for that. Still miss my dog, though), as if somehow Facebook has the AI to discern exactly enough context from posts to make a perfect and not emotionally damaging YIR for everyone.
They could actually do that if they gave us something other than "Like" to show support. - like condolences, sympathies, or some such that shows support for the person but doesn't comment upon the situation itself (or even implies that the situation is negative).
Wouldn't one way to stop it be to fake being a virtual machine? I'm sure that would start a cat & mouse game as they make their VM detection algorithm more sophisticated, but I'm thinking the faking code would be easier to write than the detection code.
Truck speed limit is 70. Some cars/trucks still go 65. No major problems I'm aware of, and in these more sparsely populated states, I think a valid change.
Don't know about the cars, but most corporate owned semi-trucks are governed to between 65 to 68 depending on company (and I'm sure a couple have the governor set higher, but that's the usual range).
It will be interesting to see if this causes any software comparability issues with legacy applications.
Of course there will be - in any large pool of people of any calling there's going to be morons - the sort of morons that sniff the OS version string for things like "Windows 9" and then assume it's Windows 95 or 98 and refuse to work; instead of using the proper channels to query for the OS version number.
As a PHP programmer I can testify that morons can indeed program. I'm one of them.
Ultimately, if someone wants a promise to be paid in return for their work, there are a number of options available to them, starting with charging for it just like every other industry in the world that produces value.
Or they'll switch to angular.js and similar technologies to deliver the content. No js, no content. If adblock interferes, crash the page, log the ip and block the user.
Adblock will of course try to stop this. And the cat & mouse game will have begun.
Apples and Oranges freeloader.
Sharing music doesn't degrade the performance of the artist's servers, and how often you share it doesn't cost them anything directly (indirectly there's a perceived loss of profits, but since when did freeloaders pay for anything so it's a red herring). Besides, the real money for artists is in concerts, not records.
Stripping a site of its ads denies the site owner of the revenue of those ads while still costing him the bandwidth to send you the content. So there is a direct cost. Insignificant in terms of a single freeloader, but if everyone on the net used adblock, the net would collapse because there'd be no revenue to pay for the servers.
So yes, if you use adblock you're a freeloader, and worse, a thief.
Haven't seen ads since I installed adblock plus and no script. Cost me nothing.
Translation: I'm a worthless freeloader.
In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win. This has been true since democracy started - "politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"
We see this in our current political system as well - wingnuts running the show in both parties because reasonable people won't speak up.
Time and again I've seen this on forums I've been on that have been unmoderated, such as the OkCupid forums. After awhile, only the rudest and the crudest remain there along with those willing to tolerate them.
Consider that if California was an independent nation it would rank as the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, then think on that comment some more. It's not too surprising.
Indeed Sony has it up to 185 tb now. Impressive by anyone's count - and why would anyone want to archive on blue ray disks with those baby's around. With archiving, random access to the data is mostly moot.
You suspect wrong. Australia has powerful laws to control what banks can charge for written to protect its citizens. The US has powerful laws to grant authority to banks to charge for anything written to exploit its citizens.
...there will be no automated car. The legal system is so screwed up right now no company, even one 100 times Google's size, could hope to absorb the lawsuit costs.
I was experimenting with these things at the University of Kentucky back in 97 or so, and the professor at that time said a few feet. That accuracy has improved since then doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me to find a unit from '97 or so that was accurate to the inch, but I could believe it. I am not an expert in the technology though - just giving the general reason why ground stations are important.
GPS is normally only accurate to within a few yards, and when the system was opened up to civilian use in the late 90's the military put in a discrepancy to the civilian signals so that they'd be off by a few dozen yards.
Then someone hit upon the idea of checking GPS against a known good reading.
GPS base stations do this. They know where they are, exactly. They listen to the GPS satellites report of where the satellites think they are, then broadcast the margin of error out to nearby GPS receivers. As a result, the accuracy of the readings can be gotten exact down to a few feet.
So successful was this that the military eventually discarded the idea of putting in an intentional margin of error for civilian signals.
Obama should grow a pair. Instruct the FCC commissioners to reclassify, or be dismissed. If they call as if he's bluffing, fire all of them and replace them with commissioners that will do the reclassification. These snots serve at the pleasure of the President and, in turn, the people. It's high time someone blew up their perceived fiefdoms.
To my mind religion is fundamentally about power and money and influence.
Then you know nothing beyond what your prejudice limits you to.
Religion is like a virus of the mind to which we have built insufficient vaccines for. I'd modify that to say only small minds need a god at all.
Small minds aren't limited to theists. Gnostic atheists display small minded bigotry all the time, as you have just have.
Personally, I'm agnostic, but unusual in that I am an agnostic theist. The Gnostic question (Can God's existence be proven?) and the Theist question (Does God exist?) are too often conflated by laypeople. To anyone who has done even a cursory study of theology, the conflation is as absurd as confusing RAM for diskspace because both are measured in bytes.
Most people who label themselves agnostic simply don't understand the question or are trying to avoid it. An agnostic (under the correct definition of the term) believes an objective proof of God doesn't exist. This is a separate question from whether God exists. I do believe God exists, but the proofs of his existence are subjective and not verifiable by science. A leap of faith is required. God cannot be objectively proven because he doesn't want to be objectively proven.
Most theists are gnostic theists, and most strident atheists are gnostic atheists -- they believe they can prove their belief in 0. We are all computer scientists here - surely if any group understands null and 0 are not strictly equal it would be us yes? The charge of the government is to proceed upon the religion question as null. Usually, but not always, that will turn out in the atheist's favor - just as after all in most computer programs the course of action for the program for 0 or null is the same. But there are times when they are not - calls to destroy churches or make the propagation of beliefs illegal are just as onerous as any other call to set up a single state religion and just as illegal in the United States under the first amendment.
There is nothing incompatible with Intelligent design and evolution. If there is a God that created the universe then, that God also created evolution and therefor science is simply discovering Gods work.
I've never heard intelligent design described that way before. Intelligent design is the idea that biological organisms required an intelligent entity to create them, that it is unlikely that complex organisms could exist without a designer, which is an idea fundamentally contradicted by evolution. It sounds like you are describing deism, not intelligent design.
That's essentially the approach the modern Catholic church takes. Broadly speaking: Religion (overall) attempts to subjectively answer 'why?' Science attempts to objectively answer 'how?'. Objective and subjective reasoning methods are largely incompatible to begin with, and anyone used to thinking objectively at all times should find subjective reasoning infuriating and off-putting at best - but it's at the heart of the logic within theology.
Personally, I see evolution as part of the creation, a mechanism no more consequential to the question of God's existence than the rainfall. Besides, if we are truly made in God's image, it should only be natural that we should attempt to understand how we were made on all levels of that question.
The problem I think is small minds need a small God. Every time science pushes the boundaries of what we know about the size and complexity of the universe, ignorant rats scuttle about to stick their heads in the sand and deny the truth of what is observable in the universe, so that they may preserve their small God. If God did indeed make the universe, then the universe itself is the ultimate testament to truth (whatever that is) - not a book - for the universe alone was authored by the hand of God. To deny it is to call God a liar.
Or more likely he's not willing to admit he needs a drug to make her think he lasted 2 hours instead of 2 seconds.
Yes, during the Apollo missions.
To find an example where PHP beats Java significantly in code compactness will be very very difficult.
Let's start with Hello World shall we? Here's the whole PHP program.
<?='Hello World'?>
18 CHARACTERS. PHP was a template engine long before anyone grafted 1,001 other crazy uses to it. In the job it was designed for - fulfilling HTML requests from webservers - few things can touch it for simplicity or development speed.
In fairness to Java, it scales better to large applications than PHP. PHP does little to discourage its largely newbie programmer base from making bad to outright catastrophic design choices. Java has its uses and it's place. It isn't a panacea though, not by a long shot.
So drop the Java fanboi act - it makes you look foolish. There are tasks which it is not the best tool for the job, or even close to the best tool.
When you make a statement like: "travelling salesman in 4 lines of code", it generally means the entire problem in 4 lines of code, not a function call to some built in function and a couple of array initializers.
Where does the line get drawn? Hell, an echo statement must look up the character code for each letter in the string and send that along to the graphics driver for further processing before even one letter is shown on the screen to the user.
The article demonstrated the language itself being able to present a solution to the traveling salesman in 2 lines of code. I personally find arguments about how many underlying function calls the language had to go to while it turned it's instructions into something the computer can understand to be useless asinine pendantry. It doesn't matter to the end user working in this language what goes on any more than it really matters to a video game programmer what exactly goes on in the GPU when a graphics call is made, or to a windows programmer exactly what the GUI must do to place the letters on the screen.
My first impression of this language and library is its a powerful new tool at a level of abstraction even further removed than current high level scripting languages like Javascript. In the field of data gathering and presentation - to which it seems to be aimed - it probably will find a lot of jobs to do. That doesn't mean other languages won't still have their place.
For example: people use PHP often because it can do in a couple lines what might take several pages of code to do in Java - and there are tasks that PHP needs several pages of code to do that Python can deal with in a few lines as well. That's the nature of programming languages. This is another tool to put in the tool case, and that's a good thing. I will admit that the article tries to write this up as a universal panacea, but I have my severe doubts on that. There's likely going to be certain tasks to which this language will prove to be poorly suited and need very long scripts to do that current languages can do fairly quickly.
Hi. I'm a 15 year old script kiddie. I just love those thousands of hideous functions because deep inside a significant fraction of them lies an exploit so obvious that three of my friends figured a half dozen of them out in a two hour Redbull and Cheetos hacking session (which consisted mostly of Googling pictures of naked 16 year olds and occasionally looking for PHP vulnerabilities).
That hardly debunks my point. Rather, it reinforces it - people choose languages on the basis of work getting done quickly - all other concerns go out the window pretty quickly.
As much as I would like to be impressed, what I see is quite underwhelming: a functional application language with some interface to "facts" and "databases" with a pattern matching engine might make some analysis easier but ... the principles of the language are mostly what you come to expect if you have seen lisp once or any modern functional language,e.g. haskell.
I can see it as being useful, but as another commenter pointed out, "FindShortestTour" is a library function (which might be handy), but definitely not an example of how concise the language might be; the same could be said about "EdgeDetect" or the like. The power of the language can be measured in how easily it can be extended or non trivial algorithms can be implemented ... not in how many functions are offered (even if this could be more convenient none-the-less).
Hello. My name is PHP. I'm the most ugly hideous language known to man, but man do I have thousands of functions to get work done. And that's why I rule the server side processing world :D
Function libraries and ability to get stuff done quickly counts for a lot.