Hey, Javascript is a great language. One of these days it'll
even support unicode correctly. But it's not like anyone
actually uses unicode on the web, right?
All you have to do is invest thousands of man-hours into coding up your own Slashdot alternative, cultivating a community of readers and contributors, and curating all the content yourself. Or pay a team of people to do it for you.
What's that? You don't want to? Well then maybe you should just shut the fuck up. Slashdot is a privately-operated website that exists solely for the benefit of it's owners, and is theirs to do with as they please, including updating the software every few months.
The actual issue is hardly the cost of developing the software,
(open source software to do this exists, including some versions
of the slash code). The trouble is that bit about "cultivating a
community", and slashdot, like every web site in existance,
babbles incessantly about The Community this, and The Community
that.
You don't "cultivate a community" by telling them to "shut the
fuck up". Strangely enough, people who have bought into a
"community" like to feel that they're respected and valued, and
if not they'll probably go looking for some other community out there.
(You have to love knee-jerk libertarians, you wind-em up, they
spew the same crap... "If you want to protest
racist shopping mall security, you should build your own shopping
mall first!")
Xyrus wrote:
Everyone wants web. No one wants to take the time and effort to develop a sane platform. I've been writing software for a long time...
And you certainly have the rap down. Question: when do
programmers want to throw everything away and re-write it
according to their own tastes? Answer: always.
Question: how do you know when it's really a good idea to throw
everything away? Answer: good luck.
I like the limitations of web browsers. They stop developers being asshats.
I like apps too. Unlike web apps I can keep using the last good version indefinitely.
If only we had web developers with some respect for their users, maybe we could find some way to combine the virtues of both.
Let me file that idea over here with the "sane republicans" project.
Testable in principle means jack shit. Testable in physics is not some kind of eternal property. It is contextual to a specific time and place.
But I want my proof and I want it now. It makes me all
squiggy and uncomfortable to live with uncertainty. Science is
supposed to be the font of absolute knowledge, if they can't give
it to me, then what business do they have calling themselves
Scientists! What a bunch of con-artists. I may have to go back
to EST or AKB48 or something.
Also, there is the pesky fact that predictions have been made about the foundations of string theory (that, for example, the LHC would detect the supersymmetric partners of existing particles), and they have not been born out by experiment,
I don't claim to be an expert on String Theory, but that doesn't
reflect my understanding of it at all. String theorists do a lot
of calculations assuming supersymmetry, but it's essentially just
a mathematical simplification: it's understood that the actual
universe we're living in is not supersymmetric. They're exploring
the "landscape" of possible universes, and hoping that
understanding the supersymmetric case will help with the
non-supersymmetic ones.
By that logic: * The Big Bang Theory is not Science, * hell, most of Astrophysics is not science either...
If we tossed out every scientific philosophy
simply because we didn't have a way to (yet) test it, Science
would remain an incredible narrow domain. Science is supposed to
be about Truth. Once we start artificially limiting how the Truth
is arrived at you have a cult / dogma.
Yeah, you've got it: there is no Definition of Science that doesn't exclude a bunch of stuff that certainly seems like science. And no, Virginia, Popper's falsification is not accepted by actual scientists as the fundamental principle of science: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Wikipedia.
In the case of String Theory we've got a bunch of smart folks working very hard at making inferences pushing the limits of what's known and what's knowable. If it was easy to do experiments to settle these issues, then they'd have been done already and the frontier would be somewhere else. It doesn't follow that no one is ever going to come up with relevent experimental data, and scientific theories don't actually come with expiration dates, like, "must be verified by Christmas".
Arguably these guys were working on a quickie experiment to settle an aspect of string theory (though I expect someone to jump in with a dogmatic definition of string theory that excludes the theory that the universe has a distributed information character to it in the same manner as a hologram).
The people working at Netscape originally called the project Mozilla (Mosaic + Godzilla = Mozilla). The marketing people at Netscape changed the name, which is the kind of thing that pisses off techies (however unreasonably), so when they got control back they also resurrected the old name. You can think of Netscape as "the original Mozilla" if you want.
(Myself, I think changing the name to Netscape made a lot of sense, but when they decided to change the meaning of "Netscape" to make it an application suite that only happens to include a browser -- then called the "Communicator", as I remember it -- that was a bit much.)
Kudos to the NYT for pulling the article. Shame they published it in the first place.
You got it half-right. They deserve no "kudos" for hiding a mistake. Once upon a time, this was supposed to be "the newspaper of record", now they regularly let the text of stories morph for inscrutable reasons, without so much as a "Correction" notice appended to it.
You can't expect to have a clue about what's going on in the
United States if you don't follow the British press. (Here in
the Land of the Free, we've got the best media that money can
buy.): http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
Hillary Clinton email inquiry not linked to criminal wrongdoing, official says
Despite reports to the contrary earlier on Friday, investigation isnâ(TM)t criminal
Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill criticizes New York Timesâ(TM) âfalseâ(TM) claim
Many entrepreneurs wait too long before calling in a business person to watch over the financial aspects and business goals of the company.
There are many companies that are killed by the opposite process: they bring in Responsible Management that's supposed to tell the techies how to do biz stuff right, and in turns out that the Responsible Management essentially looks at the start-up as a stock scam, they want a flashy IPO so they can turn it and burn it and cash out fast.
Venture Capital often seems like a really lousy deal, they're never interested in slow steady growth, or long term prospects, or anything like that.
If you'd like to actually know something about string theory, I suggest watching some of Leonard Susskind's lectures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You will then be in the position of being able to intelligently criticize the theory, instead of quoting other people's jibes.
Susskind is not interested in bullshitting anyone, by the way... quoting from memory: "This is why a lot of us found string theory to be so promising. And it keeps promising and promising."
The real question is why Windows 8. Okay, some dorky website run
by twenty-somethings is bound to leap on trendy, flashy
technology, because the kids look on "backwards compatibility" as some
outmoded, fuddy-duddy infringement on their creative freedom, but
you'd think a company like Microsoft would run a complete UI
revamp through a testing phase, and not just listen to some
bullshit like "oh, people are always resistant to change,
they may hate this at first, but when they get used to it,
they'll love it!".
Private debt drives the economy. And yet economists have convinced themselves and us that we can safely ignore the role of banks debt and money. This situation is absolutely insane.
You appear to have convinced yourself you can completely ignore
those "economists" and figure out what they think via telepathy.
Personal opinon: on economics, you're better off reading
Krugman than slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, Javascript is a great language. One of these days it'll even support unicode correctly. But it's not like anyone actually uses unicode on the web, right?
Yeah, that's pretty much it: the web is the worst platform ever except for all those other platforms.
CanadianMacFan wrote:
Hey. Emacs and the xpm format are all anyone needs.
Anoymous trolled:
The actual issue is hardly the cost of developing the software, (open source software to do this exists, including some versions of the slash code). The trouble is that bit about "cultivating a community", and slashdot, like every web site in existance, babbles incessantly about The Community this, and The Community that.
You don't "cultivate a community" by telling them to "shut the fuck up". Strangely enough, people who have bought into a "community" like to feel that they're respected and valued, and if not they'll probably go looking for some other community out there.
(You have to love knee-jerk libertarians, you wind-em up, they spew the same crap... "If you want to protest racist shopping mall security, you should build your own shopping mall first!")
Xyrus wrote: ...
Everyone wants web. No one wants to take the time and effort to develop a sane platform. I've been writing software for a long time
And you certainly have the rap down. Question: when do programmers want to throw everything away and re-write it according to their own tastes? Answer: always.
Question: how do you know when it's really a good idea to throw everything away? Answer: good luck.
AmiMoJo wrote:
If only we had web developers with some respect for their users, maybe we could find some way to combine the virtues of both.
Let me file that idea over here with the "sane republicans" project.
Anonymous wrote:
But I want my proof and I want it now. It makes me all squiggy and uncomfortable to live with uncertainty. Science is supposed to be the font of absolute knowledge, if they can't give it to me, then what business do they have calling themselves Scientists! What a bunch of con-artists. I may have to go back to EST or AKB48 or something.
mbone wrote:
I don't claim to be an expert on String Theory, but that doesn't reflect my understanding of it at all. String theorists do a lot of calculations assuming supersymmetry, but it's essentially just a mathematical simplification: it's understood that the actual universe we're living in is not supersymmetric. They're exploring the "landscape" of possible universes, and hoping that understanding the supersymmetric case will help with the non-supersymmetic ones.
UnknownSoldier wrote:
Yeah, you've got it: there is no Definition of Science that doesn't exclude a bunch of stuff that certainly seems like science. And no, Virginia, Popper's falsification is not accepted by actual scientists as the fundamental principle of science: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Wikipedia.
In the case of String Theory we've got a bunch of smart folks working very hard at making inferences pushing the limits of what's known and what's knowable. If it was easy to do experiments to settle these issues, then they'd have been done already and the frontier would be somewhere else. It doesn't follow that no one is ever going to come up with relevent experimental data, and scientific theories don't actually come with expiration dates, like, "must be verified by Christmas".
Arguably these guys were working on a quickie experiment to settle an aspect of string theory (though I expect someone to jump in with a dogmatic definition of string theory that excludes the theory that the universe has a distributed information character to it in the same manner as a hologram).
(Myself, I think changing the name to Netscape made a lot of sense, but when they decided to change the meaning of "Netscape" to make it an application suite that only happens to include a browser -- then called the "Communicator", as I remember it -- that was a bit much.)
You got it half-right. They deserve no "kudos" for hiding a mistake. Once upon a time, this was supposed to be "the newspaper of record", now they regularly let the text of stories morph for inscrutable reasons, without so much as a "Correction" notice appended to it.
What, 59 ways? With python it should just be *one* way. (And if you're going for clickbait it should be *69* ways.)
You know, perl programmers never say anything quite as inane as this.
Yeah, that stuff is for loosers.
We never had any of that back in the good old days.
But that causes autism!
Any day now, you're going to find yourself making really stupid comments on slashdot.
You can't expect to have a clue about what's going on in the United States if you don't follow the British press. (Here in the Land of the Free, we've got the best media that money can buy.):
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
You know it could be they flopped because it was hard to find people stupid enough to go for it, even on the internet.
WeWillNeverBlackmailYouTrustUs.com
Right you are, for all 16 years.
There are many companies that are killed by the opposite process: they bring in Responsible Management that's supposed to tell the techies how to do biz stuff right, and in turns out that the Responsible Management essentially looks at the start-up as a stock scam, they want a flashy IPO so they can turn it and burn it and cash out fast.
Venture Capital often seems like a really lousy deal, they're never interested in slow steady growth, or long term prospects, or anything like that.
If you'd like to actually know something about string theory, I suggest watching some of Leonard Susskind's lectures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You will then be in the position of being able to intelligently criticize the theory, instead of quoting other people's jibes.
Susskind is not interested in bullshitting anyone, by the way... quoting from memory: "This is why a lot of us found string theory to be so promising. And it keeps promising and promising."
First I need an app to nudge me to buy these apps.
The real question is why Windows 8. Okay, some dorky website run by twenty-somethings is bound to leap on trendy, flashy technology, because the kids look on "backwards compatibility" as some outmoded, fuddy-duddy infringement on their creative freedom, but you'd think a company like Microsoft would run a complete UI revamp through a testing phase, and not just listen to some bullshit like "oh, people are always resistant to change, they may hate this at first, but when they get used to it, they'll love it!".
But that is the price of Freedom!
Note that I did not close by saying "what are you, some kind of Nazi?" (going for the true meta-Godwin).
And it would be really cool if you guys would start using an [MMT] tag in the subject headings.
"MMT is a great halfway house for recovering Austrians." -- Noah Smith
You appear to have convinced yourself you can completely ignore those "economists" and figure out what they think via telepathy.
Personal opinon: on economics, you're better off reading Krugman than slashdot.