This might sound a bit like flame bait -- but I am speaking from the experience of nearly a decade of software/algorithm development. I've known good programmers, great programmers, and bad programmers. Women just don't (usually) fall into that great category.
This may stem from many factors. For instance, women may not be drawn to computer programming as a hobby as men. Thinking of those that I classify as great -- the vast majority of them knew how to program well before they ever attended any formal setting.
I've known solid female programmers. But I can't come up with one whom I'd trust to write 10,000 lines of code in a week to come up with a working prototype -- Aren't that many men in that category, but there are a few.
Your argument would make some sort of sense if "imaginary property" was actually something someone had to pay for. All he did is replicate some bits. How long does a sequence of bits have to be in order to deserve protection? (100 bits? 1k? 1M?).
Any spore installation (or any other program for that matter) is copied millions of times in the course of normal use on a single computer (regardless of whether money was given to some 3rd party). It is loaded from the hard disk to RAM, occasionally swapped back to disk and vice versa. What makes this copying "OK" and other copying not "OK"?
We profess not to police religion or thoughts. So, if I meditate on the first 1K bits of spore, am I performing a violation of some act?
Then you have no business maintaining said piece of code. RTFM, before you start maintaining. Some ops, in some machines, have side affects that aren't obvious from a single one-liner comment on the side.
The ternary op is often more readable than an if, if used correctly. (this almost always holds true if the condition in question affects a single assignment, and if the assignment itself is a relatively simple one (i.e. a = (cond) ? b : c))
-- Ben, whose code is riddled with ternary ops, but seldom a goto.
Some exception should be given to someone that is received free of charge. Just as you don't check the teeth of a horse given as a gift, you shouldn't rely on the durability of free software (which is great!). However, if you pay someone for their services, then they should be liable for the quality of their product. Security exploits and hacks are not "exploits" -- they are (usually) defects in the software. Bugs don't happen, people cause bugs by reckless behavior. We would have a higher standard of coding if companies were held liable to buffer overflows carelessly written in by their engineers. We might even have better engineers -- this would probably weed out those 20% of engineers who are responsible for 80% of gross defects.
The coverage here sounds overhyped. Hype aside, the true nature of the problem is that software vendors are not held accountable to defects in their products (by drafting EULAs that basically negate any responsiblity to any such defect).
We'd have less exploits if vendors, such as M$, were held liable to any damage incurred by their customers.
Due to the grave nature of my crime, and since I feel that my posting is of an inadequate nature in such an august forum, I shall commit seppuku immediately.
No 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation services. Video isn't needed, nor these cheap built in cameras, nor crippled web browsing. I want a phone to talk with, maybe text with. Anything else, is something extra I, and 90% of the population, doesn't want to pay for.
If someone came up with a standard with reduced bandwidth but with increased range (vs. 3G GSM's tradeoff of maintaining range but increasing bandwidth) -- then the cost of deploying said network would be much lower (less basestations). If this were coupled with cheap, simple, phones, then you could have a cheap service that catered to 90% of the population.
Of course, the cost of all of these gadget laden phones and networks would go up, but that's life.
Is 90 ducks all it takes to get coverage in CNN these days? I can't credit the science behind this, but kudos to whoever is managing the media relations for this project... Great return on a very small investment (say, 10$ a duck?) -- much cheaper than buying a add spot.
As the war was duly approved by the house, this was a legal action by the commander in chief -- at least under US law. (it is also possible to take military action without congressional approval -- however this is more complex in terms of legality of the action).
Now, you might claim illegality under the so called "international law". But here too, one can find a legal basis in various UN resolutions (e.g. 678, 687).
But, advocating for taking war actions only under the direction of the UN is fairly silly. There are plenty of situations in which the United States should be compelled to act even if various nations disagree with US policy.
Instead of focusing on the legality of the action in question, the more interesting question is if the war itself was in America's best interests. Here, one can most certainly raise all sorts of claims vis-a-vee whether the war itself was a worthwhile action (cost vs. benifeits).
With all this postering, media attention, UN speeches, and this righteous war, I was sure there were WMDs in Iraq. After all, Bush would not tell a lie, would he?
Can't really answer the question, as emacs is the most friendly editor out there.
VI isn't too shabby as well. How can you expect to be taken seriously after taking a rude swipe at the two most popular (and for good reason) editors out there?
1) suppose that you have a "bot" underneath the cloak, that is remotely controlled, where the vision function is provided a video-feed not mounted on the bot (e.g. a few hundred feet away). Could wreak quite a bit of havoc.
2) While this bends visible light, it might not bend other wavelengths.
3) You could always have "peep-holes" for eyes/IR-sensor/camera. How much attention would "floating eyes" garner? Probably fairly hard to spot even when fairly close. (besides providing a cool "ghost effect").
Slashdot Mirror
This might sound a bit like flame bait -- but I am speaking from the experience of nearly a decade of software/algorithm development. I've known good programmers, great programmers, and bad programmers. Women just don't (usually) fall into that great category.
This may stem from many factors. For instance, women may not be drawn to computer programming as a hobby as men. Thinking of those that I classify as great -- the vast majority of them knew how to program well before they ever attended any formal setting.
I've known solid female programmers. But I can't come up with one whom I'd trust to write 10,000 lines of code in a week to come up with a working prototype -- Aren't that many men in that category, but there are a few.
Your argument would make some sort of sense if "imaginary property" was actually something someone had to pay for. All he did is replicate some bits. How long does a sequence of bits have to be in order to deserve protection? (100 bits? 1k? 1M?).
Any spore installation (or any other program for that matter) is copied millions of times in the course of normal use on a single computer (regardless of whether money was given to some 3rd party). It is loaded from the hard disk to RAM, occasionally swapped back to disk and vice versa. What makes this copying "OK" and other copying not "OK"?
We profess not to police religion or thoughts. So, if I meditate on the first 1K bits of spore, am I performing a violation of some act?
Then you have no business maintaining said piece of code. RTFM, before you start maintaining. Some ops, in some machines, have side affects that aren't obvious from a single one-liner comment on the side.
The ternary op is often more readable than an if, if used correctly. (this almost always holds true if the condition in question affects a single assignment, and if the assignment itself is a relatively simple one (i.e. a = (cond) ? b : c)) -- Ben, whose code is riddled with ternary ops, but seldom a goto.
Some exception should be given to someone that is received free of charge. Just as you don't check the teeth of a horse given as a gift, you shouldn't rely on the durability of free software (which is great!). However, if you pay someone for their services, then they should be liable for the quality of their product. Security exploits and hacks are not "exploits" -- they are (usually) defects in the software. Bugs don't happen, people cause bugs by reckless behavior. We would have a higher standard of coding if companies were held liable to buffer overflows carelessly written in by their engineers. We might even have better engineers -- this would probably weed out those 20% of engineers who are responsible for 80% of gross defects.
The coverage here sounds overhyped. Hype aside, the true nature of the problem is that software vendors are not held accountable to defects in their products (by drafting EULAs that basically negate any responsiblity to any such defect).
We'd have less exploits if vendors, such as M$, were held liable to any damage incurred by their customers.
Due to the grave nature of my crime, and since I feel that my posting is of an inadequate nature in such an august forum, I shall commit seppuku immediately.
No 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation services. Video isn't needed, nor these cheap built in cameras, nor crippled web browsing. I want a phone to talk with, maybe text with. Anything else, is something extra I, and 90% of the population, doesn't want to pay for.
If someone came up with a standard with reduced bandwidth but with increased range (vs. 3G GSM's tradeoff of maintaining range but increasing bandwidth) -- then the cost of deploying said network would be much lower (less basestations). If this were coupled with cheap, simple, phones, then you could have a cheap service that catered to 90% of the population.
Of course, the cost of all of these gadget laden phones and networks would go up, but that's life.
Is 90 ducks all it takes to get coverage in CNN these days? I can't credit the science behind this, but kudos to whoever is managing the media relations for this project... Great return on a very small investment (say, 10$ a duck?) -- much cheaper than buying a add spot.
Now, you might claim illegality under the so called "international law". But here too, one can find a legal basis in various UN resolutions (e.g. 678, 687).
But, advocating for taking war actions only under the direction of the UN is fairly silly. There are plenty of situations in which the United States should be compelled to act even if various nations disagree with US policy.
Instead of focusing on the legality of the action in question, the more interesting question is if the war itself was in America's best interests. Here, one can most certainly raise all sorts of claims vis-a-vee whether the war itself was a worthwhile action (cost vs. benifeits).
With all this postering, media attention, UN speeches, and this righteous war, I was sure there were WMDs in Iraq. After all, Bush would not tell a lie, would he?
Can't really answer the question, as emacs is the most friendly editor out there. VI isn't too shabby as well. How can you expect to be taken seriously after taking a rude swipe at the two most popular (and for good reason) editors out there?
1) suppose that you have a "bot" underneath the cloak, that is remotely controlled, where the vision function is provided a video-feed not mounted on the bot (e.g. a few hundred feet away). Could wreak quite a bit of havoc.
2) While this bends visible light, it might not bend other wavelengths.
3) You could always have "peep-holes" for eyes/IR-sensor/camera. How much attention would "floating eyes" garner? Probably fairly hard to spot even when fairly close. (besides providing a cool "ghost effect").