It's a British-ism meaning about the same as "bloke"
More usually, it means "someone who is in interested in buying something". It's most frequently used with respect to gamblers (particularly occasional horse-racing gamblers), since "having a punt" means "taking a gamble." It also means "people who frequent prostitutes", thus PunterNet, the leading online guide to "facilitate the exchange of information on prostitution in the UK"
They'll fail to agree on this issue, but decide to organise a joint conference next year entitled : "Price Gouging For Fun And Profit : How to make a de facto monopoly work for you"
I'm still wondering about the "Insightful" moderation.
Dear mods : it was a play on the word "Uncertainty". That's all. He worked in quantum mechanics (uncertainty in the sense that two non-communting operators cannot be simultaneously measured exactly).
They took a long time (uncertainty in the sense of not being able to make your mind up).
That's it. It's barely Informative, and it's certainly not Insightful. It may be Funny, depending on whether your sense of humour is as childish as mine.
The point is that the supreme court cannot appoint their own!
Well, it's un-American for me to say so, but if you believe that the Supreme Court form an informed, legally minded, august, impartial, non-partisan body, free from undue political influence (and I'd argue that they should be), then, it seems to me that they're exactly who you would want appointing judges.
And if they Supremes aren't an august, impartial, non-partisan body, free from undue political influence, then what possible service do they perform?
That's all very well in principle, but when a single party (be they Demublican or Repemocrat) controls both Senate and presidency, that doesn't in fact make a blind bit of difference. It worked fine when Senators were independently minded and weren't afraid to speak against the party line, but these days, that's no kind of check or balance at all.
And then, on top of that, to the outsider there's a weird line of thought that emerges when discussing civics with Americans : this meme that "that's what the Founding Fathers decided, and therefore it simply must be the best of all possible systems."
Furthermore, they discuss the Berne Convention on international copyright, without ever mentioning the bureaucrats who originally drafted it in 1886. Surely they deserver their props?
how outdated stuff should be adapted to today's circumstances, who does the apraising / adapting
Pat Robertson gets to do the appraising, and after due thought he's decided that when God said "Thou shalt not kill", he meany "Kill the President of Venezuela."
I think there is some confusion between the idea of 'software specifications' and 'standard interface specifications'. One may referenct the other, but they are not the same.
That's certainly the case, but there's a deeper problem in that, in reality, a given specification might not neatly fall into one category or another. Since there is overlap between the two classes of spec, it's still hard (and unwise) to make generalisations about the worth of either type. I think it's safe to say Linus meant the former, but I still think he's wrong.
And not all books, movies, and video games that revolve around violent themes promote violence. Bible stories are a great example of this.
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. -- Deuteronomy 20:10-14"
Blaming TV and movies isn't going to get you votes.
It might get you votes, but what good are a few votes if you've lost the enormous amount of campaign funding that Hollywood were going to give you at the election.
That's a reasonable point. In fact, the problem most people have noticed with Linus's statements is that he fails to draw that distinction. If he said "specs imposed from the top down `this is how we should do this thing'" tend to be bad, as opposed to specs which say, "people have had success doing it like this -- let's all do it that way."
No-one, as far as I know, is denying that many many many bad specs exist, and that they should all be cheerfully ignored.
Re:I don't get it - of course you need specs
on
Linus Says No to 'Specs'
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
He talks about contamination of specs while others defend the concept of spec.
Yes, but "Linus Says No To Bad Specs" just doesn't generate the same level of ad revenue^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H informed debate on slashdot.
He dislikes theory work because it often gives nothing in practice.
Indeed. And, in fact, for those specs that aren't theoretical, he's followed quite closely (albeit without calling them a spec). There's a lot of work gone in to making Linux POSIXly correct, and POSIX is a spec, even if Linus doesn't consider it one. Similarly for VESA framebuffers, or tty specs.
Basically, a spec says "X should work like this." You follow a spec whenever it's clear that X should work like that (for whatever reasons, be they performance, clarity or interoperability). If it's not clear why the spec mandates that, it's a bad spec, but the existence of many many bad specs doesn't invalidate the concepts of specs.
By all means pick and choose the specs you decide to follow, but don't make silly generalisations.
I agree that some sight-reading is necessary, but it takes a hell of a long time to become really proficient at it. And, in the absence of dedicated teaching, or sufficient skill on an instrument to play it for yourself [which won't help if you can't figure out complicated rhythmic notation], you'll need some method of knowing how it should sound.
Me too. But please, please don't ever attribute it to Benjamin Franklin (as I've seen a zillion times smeared all over the internet). There's absolutely positively no evidence that he said or wrote that, or even anything terribly similar.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll fail to agree on this issue, but decide to organise a joint conference next year entitled : "Price Gouging For Fun And Profit : How to make a de facto monopoly work for you"
I'm still wondering about the "Insightful" moderation.
Dear mods : it was a play on the word "Uncertainty". That's all.
He worked in quantum mechanics (uncertainty in the sense that two non-communting operators cannot be simultaneously measured exactly).
They took a long time (uncertainty in the sense of not being able to make your mind up).
That's it. It's barely Informative, and it's certainly not Insightful. It may be Funny, depending on whether your sense of humour is as childish as mine.
Strewth.
It took the Nobel committee 42 years to decide that Glauber's work in quantum theory was worthy of their prize. Now that's what I call uncertainty.
And if they Supremes aren't an august, impartial, non-partisan body, free from undue political influence, then what possible service do they perform?
That's all very well in principle, but when a single party (be they Demublican or Repemocrat) controls both Senate and presidency, that doesn't in fact make a blind bit of difference. It worked fine when Senators were independently minded and weren't afraid to speak against the party line, but these days, that's no kind of check or balance at all.
And then, on top of that, to the outsider there's a weird line of thought that emerges when discussing civics with Americans : this meme that "that's what the Founding Fathers decided, and therefore it simply must be the best of all possible systems."
His first comment : "Tastes better than that Fosters shit we sell to the Poms."
Furthermore, they discuss the Berne Convention on international copyright, without ever mentioning the bureaucrats who originally drafted it in 1886. Surely they deserver their props?
Using sex to sell things unrelated to sex?
It'll never catch on.
Sorry. All by baggies will be employed to keep my stash dry,
There was a transcription error, apparently.
Wow, it's as if the Dead Kennedys had returned, having had their sense of humor surgically removed.
It's the religion of peace, don't you know...
What? Pretentious kiddies run a site called "GamerGod"?
I'm amazed.
That's a reasonable point. In fact, the problem most people have noticed with Linus's statements is that he fails to draw that distinction. If he said "specs imposed from the top down `this is how we should do this thing'" tend to be bad, as opposed to specs which say, "people have had success doing it like this -- let's all do it that way."
No-one, as far as I know, is denying that many many many bad specs exist, and that they should all be cheerfully ignored.
Basically, a spec says "X should work like this."
You follow a spec whenever it's clear that X should work like that (for whatever reasons, be they performance, clarity or interoperability). If it's not clear why the spec mandates that, it's a bad spec, but the existence of many many bad specs doesn't invalidate the concepts of specs.
By all means pick and choose the specs you decide to follow, but don't make silly generalisations.
... that lead in is hard to read if you only know the original, useful definition of ontology, as opposed to the modern buzzword-tastic definition.
You know, murders are good too, because they encourage us to employ smarter policemen and develop better forensic science.
I agree that some sight-reading is necessary, but it takes a hell of a long time to become really proficient at it. And, in the absence of dedicated teaching, or sufficient skill on an instrument to play it for yourself [which won't help if you can't figure out complicated rhythmic notation], you'll need some method of knowing how it should sound.
Which leads us back to the original question...