A few deployed applications doesn't make a programming language "real world"; there have been far more successful functional programming languages than Erlang, and they are still not considered mainstream.
The distinction between lazy and non-lazy functional programming languages is also not as clearcut as you seem to think; hence, my comment that functional programming languages will not look like Haskell; Haskell's approach to laziness is one of its (many) problems.
I bought a MacBook originally because that was important to me in a laptop, and I thought that Apple at least got this right since they control both the hardware and the software.
It didn't work. Every now and then, when closing the lid, the MacBook doesn't sleep, it gets incredibly hot and the battery runs out. Other people have the same problem.
Yes, and now, why don't you write something that computes a digital filter over an audio signal in Haskell and compare its performance and resource usage to the C version. Spend as much time as you like. It's infinite streams, it's recursive, it should be easy, right?
No matter how much time you invest, you cannot get Haskell code to run as fast as well-written C code; not even close.
The problem with languages like Haskell is that they make easy things easier, and the stuff that actually takes development time in real-world systems hard or impossible.
I wish there were high performance functional programming languages, I really do. But people like the Haskell developers have always ignored those needs. Until language designers like that start taking real world needs seriously, FP will not catch on.
There have been functional programming languages that actually work well for high performance computing. One of them is called SISAL. Unfortunately, the FP community didn't care and SISAL's funding was canceled.
Haskell is largely an academic exercise: cute but hard to use and slow. Functional programming will become ever more important in the future, but it won't look anything like Haskell when it meets the real world.
...unless the privacy being violated is that of some politician they don't like
The reason why these E-mails are of interest is because they are *not* private E-mails. It appears that she has been using a Yahoo E-mail account to evade government rules on accountability of public officials. That is very much something that, whatever the legal situation may be, the public has a right and compelling interest to know this before electing someone like Palin. It is even more serious in light of what appear to be multiple previous abuses of power by her.
The ability to download and install Linux doesn't imply the existence of any consistent ethical system.
Of course, it doesn't. However, ethically, exposure of this kind of misconduct by a VP candidate happens to be justified. If you don't understand that, there is something wrong with *your* ethical system. And it is clear that there is something wrong with Palin's ethical system.
She doesn't have a "right to privacy" in regards to her official E-mail correspondence, nor should she have. Any protection of her official correspondence is only justifiable based on government concerns and interests.
Using a Yahoo account to evade her public responsibility under FOIA constitutes grave misconduct, in particular in light of her already apparent multiple abuses of power.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops interoperable technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to lead the Web to its full potential. W3C is a forum for information, commerce, communication, and collective understanding.
When Einstein came up with his theory of Relativity, he threw "conventional knowledge out the window".
Einstein actually knew what conventional thinking was before coming up with a new theory to challenge it; you don't.
You, however, simply don't know what you're talking about at all. You merely use the generic objection "that's not been fully proven" to cover up your ignorance.
1. You claim that the genome for bacteria is as big as it will ever get... How do you know that?
Because reduction of genome size is one of the fundamental driving forces in the evolution of bacterial genomes. It's not a hard cutoff, it's that if you add another 10kb, the bacterium will replicate more slowly and require more resources accordingly, and it's competing with bacteria that don't pay that price.
2. Genes might stop working after a few generations but they do not have to.
Genes invariably stop working if they don't increase fitness.
I just asked you to support your claims. A good scientist is always skeptical
A scientific skeptic understands the mainstream position and then makes a reasoned challenge. You just scream "prove your claims" for anything you don't understand. That's not scientific skepticism, it's ignorance and unscientific belligerence.
And that's the same kind of unscientific bullshit we're getting from politicians that want to cast doubt on scientific results that interfere with their power or the wealth of their constituents.
What I articulated about bacterial evolution is elementary and mainstream. If you want to be skeptical about it, be my guest. You can start by understanding what I said and why I said it and then asking a well-reasoned question that shows that you actually understand what I said and why I said it.
I generally agree with the sentiment, but we need a certain number of users to make sure drivers and other stuff keep getting written. 10-20% market share is good for that. Let the idiots that comprise the other 80% of the market go with Windows and Macintosh.
Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning.
Not as damning as what we already know for a fact: that the Bush administration was lying to the American people about Iraq and that the American people were stupid enough to believe that bullshit even though the facts were already on the table in 2004 at election time.
How do you know that they have to shed other resistances?
Because if they didn't, they'd already have lots of resistances.
In fact, bacterial genomes are ruled by two principles: (1) they are as big as they can be, and (2) bits that aren't being used stop working after a few generations. So, if you add a resistance gene, something else has to go, and resistance genes that aren't being used stop working. In addition, a lot of resistance genes make the bacteria sick.
Do you know of any studies that support your claim? I doubt that you can find any credible studies that say so because scientists will always hedge their bets. One can't predict that this will actually be the result.
You exemplify the "doubting moron" approach to science, also frequently found among global warming deniers.
A researcher not associated with the UK team pointed out the problem with developing products based on this idea: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance... ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."
The "researcher" is full of shit. Evolution is about tradeoffs, not about "getting stronger"; after billions of years of evolution, bacteria are about as strong as they are going to get.
Resistance to TiO2 paints would have to come at a price for bacteria: they need to shed some other resistance, grow more slowly, become more susceptible to phages, etc.
except, of course, that with Tor, the egress routers can (and probably do) look at your unencrypted communications, which often can be traced back to you, too.
If you want reasonable anonymity, you need to buy VPN access from a source using a non-traceable payment method. And, of course, they can still correlate your online activity on various sites. A single unencrypted Yahoo Mail or GMail session will unlock your entire usage history.
I have an iPod Touch, and the podcasting support sucks. The idea that I need to synchronize with my desktop application in order to receive a podcast when I have a perfectly good WiFi network connection built into my phone is ridiculous. Ditto for iTunes purchases; why the hell do I need to maintain my own music file server just in order to play music on my WiFi connected player? Why can't I download the stuff whenever and wherever I want to?
If Apple doesn't get rid of the desktop iTunes application quickly and offer MobileMe for free to iPod and iPhone owners, other companies and platforms are going to eat their lunch. The iPhone/OS X desktop/MobileMe setup is bordering on a Rube Goldberg contraption in its bizarre complexity and it's even beyond Microsoft on the nickle-and-diming.
Apple is getting more and more out of touch with reality.
Pointing out people's security problems to them is usually about as "good a deed" as saying something like "Did you know you have a big, ugly, black mole on your nose? You should really have that removed."
Slashdot Mirror
A few deployed applications doesn't make a programming language "real world"; there have been far more successful functional programming languages than Erlang, and they are still not considered mainstream.
The distinction between lazy and non-lazy functional programming languages is also not as clearcut as you seem to think; hence, my comment that functional programming languages will not look like Haskell; Haskell's approach to laziness is one of its (many) problems.
but the Sleep mode works properly [on MacOSX]
I bought a MacBook originally because that was important to me in a laptop, and I thought that Apple at least got this right since they control both the hardware and the software.
It didn't work. Every now and then, when closing the lid, the MacBook doesn't sleep, it gets incredibly hot and the battery runs out. Other people have the same problem.
Don't believe me? Check Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+sleep+problems
Point 1: Sleep and wake actually works on MacOS/X
My MacBook hangs every few dozen or so cycles. It's also rather ponderous.
Sleep/wake works a lot better on the OLPC or the EEE PC
No, you're confused. Go look it up in a dictionary.
It's only difficult to read if you don't know it.
In my experience, Haskell syntax is much more prone to typos that don't get caught by the compiler or, at best, get reported as bizarre type errors.
So, you claim Haskell syntax is just like anything else, I claim it's worse. Do you have any studies on Haskell syntax to convince me otherwise?
Yes, and now, why don't you write something that computes a digital filter over an audio signal in Haskell and compare its performance and resource usage to the C version. Spend as much time as you like. It's infinite streams, it's recursive, it should be easy, right?
No matter how much time you invest, you cannot get Haskell code to run as fast as well-written C code; not even close.
The problem with languages like Haskell is that they make easy things easier, and the stuff that actually takes development time in real-world systems hard or impossible.
I wish there were high performance functional programming languages, I really do. But people like the Haskell developers have always ignored those needs. Until language designers like that start taking real world needs seriously, FP will not catch on.
You can build all these things in Haskell. You can also build all these things in Perl, Fortran, or Brainf*ck. What are you trying to say?
There have been functional programming languages that actually work well for high performance computing. One of them is called SISAL. Unfortunately, the FP community didn't care and SISAL's funding was canceled.
Haskell is largely an academic exercise: cute but hard to use and slow. Functional programming will become ever more important in the future, but it won't look anything like Haskell when it meets the real world.
Aye, matey, but that be not meanin' that th' act be legal.
That's the point: contract violations are not illegal because they are civil matters.
Get it?
breach of contract? I dunno.
Breach of contract is a civil matter.
Palm, Nokia, and other phones have had equivalent software for years.
Apple frequently patents things and takes credit for other people's inventions. The company is evil.
Why ever would you think doctors need organic chemistry? Dr. Lexus to the rescue!
...unless the privacy being violated is that of some politician they don't like
The reason why these E-mails are of interest is because they are *not* private E-mails. It appears that she has been using a Yahoo E-mail account to evade government rules on accountability of public officials. That is very much something that, whatever the legal situation may be, the public has a right and compelling interest to know this before electing someone like Palin. It is even more serious in light of what appear to be multiple previous abuses of power by her.
The ability to download and install Linux doesn't imply the existence of any consistent ethical system.
Of course, it doesn't. However, ethically, exposure of this kind of misconduct by a VP candidate happens to be justified. If you don't understand that, there is something wrong with *your* ethical system. And it is clear that there is something wrong with Palin's ethical system.
She doesn't have a "right to privacy" in regards to her official E-mail correspondence, nor should she have. Any protection of her official correspondence is only justifiable based on government concerns and interests.
Using a Yahoo account to evade her public responsibility under FOIA constitutes grave misconduct, in particular in light of her already apparent multiple abuses of power.
From w3c.org:
I give that at best a C- in terms of truth.
<sarcasm>Yeah, obviously that's all wrong; obviously, heart disease and cancer induce false memories of using plastic bottles.</sarcasm>
But indiscriminate name calling solves nothing!
My name calling is actually quite discriminate.
When Einstein came up with his theory of Relativity, he threw "conventional knowledge out the window".
Einstein actually knew what conventional thinking was before coming up with a new theory to challenge it; you don't.
You, however, simply don't know what you're talking about at all. You merely use the generic objection "that's not been fully proven" to cover up your ignorance.
1. You claim that the genome for bacteria is as big as it will ever get... How do you know that?
Because reduction of genome size is one of the fundamental driving forces in the evolution of bacterial genomes. It's not a hard cutoff, it's that if you add another 10kb, the bacterium will replicate more slowly and require more resources accordingly, and it's competing with bacteria that don't pay that price.
2. Genes might stop working after a few generations but they do not have to.
Genes invariably stop working if they don't increase fitness.
I just asked you to support your claims. A good scientist is always skeptical
A scientific skeptic understands the mainstream position and then makes a reasoned challenge. You just scream "prove your claims" for anything you don't understand. That's not scientific skepticism, it's ignorance and unscientific belligerence.
And that's the same kind of unscientific bullshit we're getting from politicians that want to cast doubt on scientific results that interfere with their power or the wealth of their constituents.
What I articulated about bacterial evolution is elementary and mainstream. If you want to be skeptical about it, be my guest. You can start by understanding what I said and why I said it and then asking a well-reasoned question that shows that you actually understand what I said and why I said it.
I generally agree with the sentiment, but we need a certain number of users to make sure drivers and other stuff keep getting written. 10-20% market share is good for that. Let the idiots that comprise the other 80% of the market go with Windows and Macintosh.
Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning.
Not as damning as what we already know for a fact: that the Bush administration was lying to the American people about Iraq and that the American people were stupid enough to believe that bullshit even though the facts were already on the table in 2004 at election time.
How do you know that they have to shed other resistances?
Because if they didn't, they'd already have lots of resistances.
In fact, bacterial genomes are ruled by two principles: (1) they are as big as they can be, and (2) bits that aren't being used stop working after a few generations. So, if you add a resistance gene, something else has to go, and resistance genes that aren't being used stop working. In addition, a lot of resistance genes make the bacteria sick.
Do you know of any studies that support your claim? I doubt that you can find any credible studies that say so because scientists will always hedge their bets. One can't predict that this will actually be the result.
You exemplify the "doubting moron" approach to science, also frequently found among global warming deniers.
A researcher not associated with the UK team pointed out the problem with developing products based on this idea: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance... ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."
The "researcher" is full of shit. Evolution is about tradeoffs, not about "getting stronger"; after billions of years of evolution, bacteria are about as strong as they are going to get.
Resistance to TiO2 paints would have to come at a price for bacteria: they need to shed some other resistance, grow more slowly, become more susceptible to phages, etc.
except, of course, that with Tor, the egress routers can (and probably do) look at your unencrypted communications, which often can be traced back to you, too.
If you want reasonable anonymity, you need to buy VPN access from a source using a non-traceable payment method. And, of course, they can still correlate your online activity on various sites. A single unencrypted Yahoo Mail or GMail session will unlock your entire usage history.
I have an iPod Touch, and the podcasting support sucks. The idea that I need to synchronize with my desktop application in order to receive a podcast when I have a perfectly good WiFi network connection built into my phone is ridiculous. Ditto for iTunes purchases; why the hell do I need to maintain my own music file server just in order to play music on my WiFi connected player? Why can't I download the stuff whenever and wherever I want to?
If Apple doesn't get rid of the desktop iTunes application quickly and offer MobileMe for free to iPod and iPhone owners, other companies and platforms are going to eat their lunch. The iPhone/OS X desktop/MobileMe setup is bordering on a Rube Goldberg contraption in its bizarre complexity and it's even beyond Microsoft on the nickle-and-diming.
Apple is getting more and more out of touch with reality.
Pointing out people's security problems to them is usually about as "good a deed" as saying something like "Did you know you have a big, ugly, black mole on your nose? You should really have that removed."