Trying to tell other people they are wrong all the time is a liability. Telling people, "I am smarter than you, so you are wrong" is a liability [...] If you're so smart, you should have figured this out by now.
You literally just did this with your own post. You told the parent he was wrong, and then implied it was because he wasn't smart enough.
In a Perfect World, tabs would indeed be superior to spaces. No question.
But in the Real World, tabs and spaces inevitably get mixed together as multiple people touch a project, and then indentation gets messed up.
Standardizing on spaces helps mitigate this, as everyone sees the exact same thing regardless of editor (whereas tab spacing typically depends on local editor settings). And any editor should be able to "use spaces for tabs" so there is no actual impact on developer effort.
A forum with real-names policy is basically worthless
It wouldn't be worthless, it would have pros and cons like everything else.
Cons: Easier to identify and take action against dissenters (as you stated above).
Pros: Easier to identify astroturfers/shills.
It cuts both ways.
I really worry, long-term, about the "paid/fake poster" problem. Especially as bots/AI will continue to advance, it will only get worse. How long until genuine human commentary on the internet is drowned-out/polluted by "sponsored viewpoints"?
You have it completely backwards. Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows is what CAUSED the anti-trust lawsuits.
The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. --United States v. Microsoft Corp.
How do people sign up for Facebook and Twitter, or practically anything online? By providing your email address as a unique identifier and verifiable communications channel.
My friend and I were playing around with his DK2 last night. We fired up Half-Life 2 (and later Half-Life 1 Source).
That big room with all the crates hanging from the ceiling that you have to jump your way across? That was just about the most intense gaming experience I've ever had. The vertigo feels completely real and you feel actual panic if you fall.
My friend fell down that elevator shaft in "Unforseen Consequences" and his brain just about melted. An hour later, his real-world balance was still fucked up and he had to go to bed.
They need higher-res, but other than that the illusion is pretty damn convincing. You completely forget that the screen is redrawing itself based on your head movements... it just feels like you're looking around inside a virtual space. (To the point that when the head-tracking effect pauses, like on loading screens, it feels BIZARRE)
You know I'm not a fan of abandoning anonymity, but I think there is a place online for "verified identify" for certain venues.
Wouldn't it be nice if say, when visiting say an online newspaper's comments section, you had a choice between "Verified posters discussion" and "Anonymous free-for-all"?
I think anonymous speech should always be a protected form of expression, but it cuts both ways. It's becoming (or became a long time ago) a real issue with paid astroturfers/shills polluting online discourse, but right now there is simply no way to to be sure.
And the full domain [wikipedia.org] is clearly displayed next to the actual link, so... seriously? Do you think anybody was actually confused about what I was linking to?
No, that is not that you've been saying in this thread. Not at all.
Your previous post literally starts "There's no 'probably' about it", goes on to talk about understanding "what is and isn't possible", and ends with "you have to be able to pick the possible from the impossible".
Now you say, "Like I said, exceedingly unlikely"? Give me a break.
And if you have a "better bet" than something replicated by 3 independent teams, I'm sure NASA would be all ears. I really don't understand your strenuous objection to more testing to prove/disprove the effect. As I've said multiple times, even if there is a flaw in the testing there is scientific value in understanding failure. But you keep repeating your same argument without actually addressing any of these points, so we will have to agree to disagree.
“Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”
But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.
But PRESENTATION (how something looks) and BEHAVIOUR (how something acts) are two different things.
Saying "programming machine behaviour... at the presentation level" is a nonsensical statement. HTML/CSS define content & presentation. They do not "program behaviour".
Or as Wiki puts it, "The purpose of programming is to find a sequence of instructions that will automate performing a specific task or solve a given problem". HTML & CSS simply do not qualify. They are certainly computer languages, but they are not computer programming languages.
And for fuck's sake, having a clear definition of what "programming" means is not about "bragging rights".
They thought they weren't getting a Season 5, which is why they rushed to resolve all the major plots by the end of S4, leading to a rather underwhelming S5.
So what you say is true, but not really their fault.
B5 was full of lighthearted moments and humour (admittedly less so towards the end). Thinking about Londo going "but in purple... I'm STUNNING" still cracks me up just thinking about it. Or G'Kar getting drunk with the grail seeker "They made a very satisfying.. THUMP when they hit the ground". Lennier and Vir commiserating, "they never listen...". Or Sheridan's terrible jokes.. "Kosh who?" / "Gseundheit!". I could go on all day.:)
Sure there was a serious, epic plot underlying it all.. but you can say the same thing about Guardians. I mean, let's not forget that Ronan's goal was to murder billions of innocent people.
This (appears to) fly in the face of accepted theory, which means it is probably the result of an error somewhere. Everybody realizes this!
However, taking that "probably" and stating it as "definitely" does not make you wise, or a "true skeptic". It makes you dogmatic. And that is not the scientific method.
That is why you are "wrong", even if the effect turns out to be a mistake. This perhaps explains the lack of kudos you've received in the past.
If I understand it correctly, they have to carefully fine-tune the frequency to achieve resonance. From the abstract:
Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. [...] Lessons learned from test integration and operations include identification of the need to replace manual control of the resonant cavity target frequency with an automated frequency control capability.
So I think you are greatly overstating how "easy" it would be to randomly occur in nature, it's not just "microwaves bouncing off walls".
IF the effect is real, I suspect we will learn it doesn't really violate conservation of momentum, it only appears to. (ie, pushing off the quantum vacuum increases the net expansion of the universe or something).
More testing should ABSOLUTELY be conducted. Even if it's not a real effect, it is worth testing until the flaw with the testing can be identified (because there is scientific value in understanding failure as well, especially one that three different teams would have to be missing).
Until a flaw in their methodology (and an explanation for the anomalous thrust being the result of such) can be definitely proven, this is Good Science. The article is flat wrong.
The really dumb part is how they look at the "null device" showing a positive result, as somehow being evidence that there is no positive result.
What it really means they don't understand the effect enough. They had a hypothesis (from the Cannae inventor) that these carved grooves in the sides of the chamber were what caused the thrust. So they tested that hypothesis. The hypothesis turns out to be incorrect. That's how science works. It doesn't disprove the observed effect itself. It means we have to do more testing to get a better understanding of what is going on here.
Skepticism is good and healthy and all, but we have multiple independent teams getting something here, and that deserves further investigation. Is it possible there is some problem with all the results? Of course! Does that mean we should ignore these results and dismiss them because "we know it can't work"? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT.
(Oh, and the parent is incorrect about them performing the testing in a vacuum.. they couldn't because some of their equipment couldn't handle it, full vacuum testing is indeed planned for the next slate of tests)
What's stupid is the author says "Technically, HTML5 isn’t a language". Um, yes it is. It is technically a Markup Language. That's kind've what the "ML" stands for.
He is conflating "programming language" with "language".
So true. It was possible to literally know everything about the Commodore 64, down to every single byte.
And it was so great just flipping the power switch and instantly being in a programming environment. That blinking cursor was so irresistible, it just screamed of infinite possibilities, if you just knew what to type. Seems tragic in a way that that kind of built-in springboard doesn't exist in modern machines.
I still have my copies of Mapping the C64, and the hallowed C64 Programmer's Reference Guide (complete with full hardware schematic poster).:)
Slashdot Mirror
You literally just did this with your own post. You told the parent he was wrong, and then implied it was because he wasn't smart enough.
OK, I'll bite. :)
In a Perfect World, tabs would indeed be superior to spaces. No question.
But in the Real World, tabs and spaces inevitably get mixed together as multiple people touch a project, and then indentation gets messed up.
Standardizing on spaces helps mitigate this, as everyone sees the exact same thing regardless of editor (whereas tab spacing typically depends on local editor settings). And any editor should be able to "use spaces for tabs" so there is no actual impact on developer effort.
Thank you, that was very motivational.
It wouldn't be worthless, it would have pros and cons like everything else.
Cons: Easier to identify and take action against dissenters (as you stated above).
Pros: Easier to identify astroturfers/shills.
It cuts both ways.
I really worry, long-term, about the "paid/fake poster" problem. Especially as bots/AI will continue to advance, it will only get worse. How long until genuine human commentary on the internet is drowned-out/polluted by "sponsored viewpoints"?
You have it completely backwards. Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows is what CAUSED the anti-trust lawsuits.
And don't forget Metro. What a win that was. Now everybody calls it "that stupid Windows 8 touch UI that used to be called Metro".
I seem to be immune. I happily played Half-Life Source for over an hour and just wanted more.
I think the Rift will be best suited to games where you sit in a cockpit. So like racing, space/flight sim, mechwarrior...
Exactly.
How do people sign up for Facebook and Twitter, or practically anything online? By providing your email address as a unique identifier and verifiable communications channel.
It's pretty much the bedrock of online identity.
My friend and I were playing around with his DK2 last night. We fired up Half-Life 2 (and later Half-Life 1 Source).
That big room with all the crates hanging from the ceiling that you have to jump your way across? That was just about the most intense gaming experience I've ever had. The vertigo feels completely real and you feel actual panic if you fall.
My friend fell down that elevator shaft in "Unforseen Consequences" and his brain just about melted. An hour later, his real-world balance was still fucked up and he had to go to bed.
They need higher-res, but other than that the illusion is pretty damn convincing. You completely forget that the screen is redrawing itself based on your head movements... it just feels like you're looking around inside a virtual space. (To the point that when the head-tracking effect pauses, like on loading screens, it feels BIZARRE)
You know I'm not a fan of abandoning anonymity, but I think there is a place online for "verified identify" for certain venues.
Wouldn't it be nice if say, when visiting say an online newspaper's comments section, you had a choice between "Verified posters discussion" and "Anonymous free-for-all"?
I think anonymous speech should always be a protected form of expression, but it cuts both ways. It's becoming (or became a long time ago) a real issue with paid astroturfers/shills polluting online discourse, but right now there is simply no way to to be sure.
It's an abbreviation, for fuck's sake.
And the full domain [wikipedia.org] is clearly displayed next to the actual link, so... seriously? Do you think anybody was actually confused about what I was linking to?
Oh lighten the fuck up, we are laughing at some clever wordplay, not because we think child abuse is funny.
No, that is not that you've been saying in this thread. Not at all.
Your previous post literally starts "There's no 'probably' about it", goes on to talk about understanding "what is and isn't possible", and ends with "you have to be able to pick the possible from the impossible".
Now you say, "Like I said, exceedingly unlikely"? Give me a break.
And if you have a "better bet" than something replicated by 3 independent teams, I'm sure NASA would be all ears. I really don't understand your strenuous objection to more testing to prove/disprove the effect. As I've said multiple times, even if there is a flaw in the testing there is scientific value in understanding failure. But you keep repeating your same argument without actually addressing any of these points, so we will have to agree to disagree.
- Richard Feynman
But PRESENTATION (how something looks) and BEHAVIOUR (how something acts) are two different things.
Saying "programming machine behaviour... at the presentation level" is a nonsensical statement. HTML/CSS define content & presentation. They do not "program behaviour".
Or as Wiki puts it, "The purpose of programming is to find a sequence of instructions that will automate performing a specific task or solve a given problem". HTML & CSS simply do not qualify. They are certainly computer languages, but they are not computer programming languages.
And for fuck's sake, having a clear definition of what "programming" means is not about "bragging rights".
They thought they weren't getting a Season 5, which is why they rushed to resolve all the major plots by the end of S4, leading to a rather underwhelming S5.
So what you say is true, but not really their fault.
B5 was full of lighthearted moments and humour (admittedly less so towards the end). Thinking about Londo going "but in purple... I'm STUNNING" still cracks me up just thinking about it. Or G'Kar getting drunk with the grail seeker "They made a very satisfying.. THUMP when they hit the ground". Lennier and Vir commiserating, "they never listen...". Or Sheridan's terrible jokes.. "Kosh who?" / "Gseundheit!". I could go on all day. :)
Sure there was a serious, epic plot underlying it all.. but you can say the same thing about Guardians. I mean, let's not forget that Ronan's goal was to murder billions of innocent people.
This (appears to) fly in the face of accepted theory, which means it is probably the result of an error somewhere. Everybody realizes this!
However, taking that "probably" and stating it as "definitely" does not make you wise, or a "true skeptic". It makes you dogmatic. And that is not the scientific method.
That is why you are "wrong", even if the effect turns out to be a mistake. This perhaps explains the lack of kudos you've received in the past.
If I understand it correctly, they have to carefully fine-tune the frequency to achieve resonance. From the abstract:
So I think you are greatly overstating how "easy" it would be to randomly occur in nature, it's not just "microwaves bouncing off walls".
IF the effect is real, I suspect we will learn it doesn't really violate conservation of momentum, it only appears to. (ie, pushing off the quantum vacuum increases the net expansion of the universe or something).
More testing should ABSOLUTELY be conducted. Even if it's not a real effect, it is worth testing until the flaw with the testing can be identified (because there is scientific value in understanding failure as well, especially one that three different teams would have to be missing).
Until a flaw in their methodology (and an explanation for the anomalous thrust being the result of such) can be definitely proven, this is Good Science. The article is flat wrong.
The really dumb part is how they look at the "null device" showing a positive result, as somehow being evidence that there is no positive result.
What it really means they don't understand the effect enough. They had a hypothesis (from the Cannae inventor) that these carved grooves in the sides of the chamber were what caused the thrust. So they tested that hypothesis. The hypothesis turns out to be incorrect. That's how science works. It doesn't disprove the observed effect itself. It means we have to do more testing to get a better understanding of what is going on here.
Skepticism is good and healthy and all, but we have multiple independent teams getting something here, and that deserves further investigation. Is it possible there is some problem with all the results? Of course! Does that mean we should ignore these results and dismiss them because "we know it can't work"? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT.
(Oh, and the parent is incorrect about them performing the testing in a vacuum.. they couldn't because some of their equipment couldn't handle it, full vacuum testing is indeed planned for the next slate of tests)
What's stupid is the author says "Technically, HTML5 isn’t a language". Um, yes it is. It is technically a Markup Language. That's kind've what the "ML" stands for.
He is conflating "programming language" with "language".
So true. It was possible to literally know everything about the Commodore 64, down to every single byte.
And it was so great just flipping the power switch and instantly being in a programming environment. That blinking cursor was so irresistible, it just screamed of infinite possibilities, if you just knew what to type. Seems tragic in a way that that kind of built-in springboard doesn't exist in modern machines.
I still have my copies of Mapping the C64, and the hallowed C64 Programmer's Reference Guide (complete with full hardware schematic poster). :)
He used the word "likely", you blustering twat.
I am awaiting the day I can order a car2go and have the closest available one simply drive itself to my door.
There's two sides to every disagreement.
Apple wanted turn-by-turn. Google, IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING THAT SERVICE, wanted more control and data.