Yes and possibly my kids where kidnapped by aliens while they were asleep and hypnotized into believing that LED lights are better. Care to discuss other "realistic" alternatives?
At any rate the kids part was anecdata, and only one piece in a wider argument which is "the preference for present incandescent yellow has a large historical component" and that part will go away with time.
The conclusion that your childens' stated preference is based on color alone is non-sequitur, at best. At worst, it's a blatant red herring.
Except for the minor fact that they said so themselves. Here's the quote again for your benefit "they describe it as artificially yellow".
I also gave evidence that this has happened before, when we transitioned from gas light to incandescent light. Lastly even today people prefer the somewhat whiter hue of halogen over regular incandescent yellow, indicating that the present yellow isn't really all that is made to be.
Now, and here's something you don't seem to be aware of, constructing an argument is different than a logical proof. E.g. "he had a gun, motive and opportunity. He was at the scene of the crime and was seen running away after shoots were fired". It does not logically follow that the person did the crime and it would be a logical fallacy to state as much, yet it is the reasonable and logical conclusion nonetheless.
They look almost exactly like Tungsten filament bulbs
In my house there are three consecutive rooms: one with an incandescent bulb, the second with a compact fluorescent and the third one with a LED light. I asked my kids which one they prefer and to my surprise, they both chose the LED light. Then I bought a somewhat "warmer" LED and put it in the corridor next to the white LED room. As an old timer, I prefer the warmer LED. Not my kids. They describe it as artificially yellow and again to my surprise they choose the whiter LED.
The only reason we prefer the ugly yellow hue from indandescents is because we are used to i. It isn't "warm", its sucky. Same with thing happened when gas lighting was first replaced by incandescents: people pined for the soft orange glow of gas lights but within a few years people realized how bad that hue was.
My kids, young and unencumbered by tradition prefer the LED lights. So will everyone else rather soon, as we slowly transition to whiter more sunlight-like hues that are now possible with LEDs.
, then DropBox is most likely hashing the content and only storing a single copy of a file even if there are thousand virtual instances of that same file throughout their system.
I'm pretty sure they have said as much themselves.
First of all, I was giving some reasons why it didn't take off. Second Scheme/Lisp still doesn't have easy to use pointers to implement a threaded binary tree which is point (2). Third, point number (3) is not a matter of taste. This is like saying that not liking a shit sandwich "is a matter of taste".
Lastly, the person who needs to wake up and smell the coffee is you: Lisp hasn't taken off. So clearly there must be powerful reasons why this is so. I listed some, and the way you deal with them is plain old denial. I've learned Lisp thirty years ago, and heard arguments like yours back then. With your attitude I can guarantee you that we will be having this same conversation in another thirty years.
Sorry, but the original Lisp got quite a few things wrong itself and by the time it got around to fixing it had missed the boat. Here's a sample
the only data structure available is the list. Scheme includes arrays and so much better for it
it doesn't have pointers, which means it is hell to build a complicated but very efficient data structure like threaded trees
(it(has(too(many(parenthesis) ) ) ) ). In part because it attempts to operate under the illusion that a function call like (ADD 1 2) is the same as the list (ADD 1 2) which it isn't and hence the setq and ' rigamarole. In fact back when Lisp was first introduced its creators thought that not long from there a version 2.0 would be introduced using more standard notation, like ADD(1,2) or even, _gasp_ 1+2.
The main flow control structure is recursion. Recursion can be very nice and elegant, but there are times where one needs a for loop or a while loop, and one can either shoe horn it under recursion, or simply make the language richer and include those control structures (see again Scheme) for things are best understood as a for or a while loop.
variables were a bit of a kludge which lead to juggling of partial results into function parameters
If modern Scheme had been introduced in 1965 instead of 1975 we might be today programming in some modern dialect of Lisp.
Now some fanboi will come and explain why these things aren't a bug but a feature in 3, 2, 1
I was a manager and never missed a deadline. It really isn't that hard. Most people fail because they do it the wrong way. First give no estimates until you have developed a good picture of the global architecture and have some bare bones functionality running. This takes about 1-3 months of your team, but well worth the effort. Then keep an eye from the very beginning on who's falling behind, and move resources around to support the people who ended up with more than their fair share. Assign a medium size portion of the project to your senior developer(s) so that they are available near the end to go and help in those areas that turned out to be gorier than predicted. You cannot bring people from outside since it takes them too long to ramp up as obseved by Fred Brooks. This is why you use your senior people: they know the whole system and can jump in in any part***. Stand firm in your refusal to add features and lastly, near the end, drop any minor feature which gets postponed to version X.1.
Most costumers are happier with a version in time with 95% of the features than a complete version three months late.
Also be realistic with what means to be in time. If you take three years to develop a system and you are five days late, you were off by 0.5%. Any one who tells you in this case that you were late is just mathematically innumerate. I was never more than a week late, but I'd dare say that even an error of 5% (which for a three year project is seven weeks) should not be considered late. Forecasting is an imprecise science afterall.
Oh and one last thing, there is one estimate you tell the team and there is another one in your head. So the goal is "we run as hard as we can to finish by May 10th, so that when sh*t happens (which always does) we make the real June 1st deadline (which you always keep secret so programmers don't budget for it.... you know, work expands to fill allotted time).
*** Stu Feldman, a Unix principal was used this way, according to Ritchie. Stu didn't fully own a single component of Unix but his code is everywhere, doing central things that had fallen behind and were passed on to him.
Most human beings proficient in both, want to use the same notations in both.
Which is why C's choice of assignment operator is so asinine and bug inducing, yet one that few of its descendants has been willing to break. In fact I can only think of Go as a modern language which eschewed it.
Private companies can be incredibly shortsighted too. Around here they built penny-wise pound foolish buildings in the 70s and 80s that are energy inefficient and terrible workspaces but were cheap to build back then. You cannot give that space away.
So again, while I generally agree with the virtues of the private sector, I haven't drank the kool-aid that they are always preferable.
Not so if there is only one privately owned highway coming out of your town.
Yes, generally speaking privately provided services are more efficient, but as I pointed out, there are well known exceptions. Usually they have to do with what are at heart either insurance schemes (defense, healthcare) or natural monopolies (roads, utilities).
You are now changing the subject. since you cannot deny that government provided health-care is cheaper, so off you go about the economic crisis, the welfare state and other side issues.
Thanks for participating dude. So much for your (false) assumption that private healthcare is cheaper.
Again, all of the western world provides government healthcare more efficiently than private health care in the US. This is an undisputed fact. By the way, of the public/private portions of healthcare in the US the government ones are the ones that provide the most bang for the buck. This has been confirmed in numerous studies, going all the way from medicare/medicaid/armed services insurance to Obamacare today.
I know you will refuse to believe it. It is clear you care more for ideology than reality.
Funny you mention healthcare, where we have abundant data from all over the world that conclusively prove government provided healthcare is cheaper than privately provided one.
We have similar data for private energy, highways, and public transportation. For others the private sector is more efficient.
Those are the facts, the rest is foaming-at-the-mouth ideology.
You go to a restaurant and you do not cover the entire dinner bill. I.e you underpaid and ran a deficit. The restaurant then allows you to run a tab and charges you interest over the balance as it is done by any and all financial institutions. Now you are trying to use this as an argument that you "overpaid" the restaurant bill?
Try that in front of the court together with all your "sophistication" and you can write to me from jail telling me what the judge thought about your reasons for not covering the entire restaurant bill because you "overpaid".
You are getting services and you pay for it through taxes. This does not fit any sensible definition of stealing. I can see that you are one of those libertarians that operate under the pretense that we would be better off with highways built by private parties for which you would have to pay a fee just like a tax to the government but with the difference that you have no say where it is built.
Fine, you are welcome to believe that. It still does not make takes theft or slavery. They are democratically agreed to and you get something in return for them. Let me know when a robber gives you back something in return for the stolen goods. That is how false your analogy is.
Right because things such as interstate highways, NIH, NSF, defense. medicare are all "corruption",
Things like the internet, and the web browser were funded by federal money, but we are busy making a partisan argument so lets wrap all of it under "corruption", facts be damned.
Sigh, American really has no hope when (1) that is the level of discussion and (2) it is considered "insightful".
A tax is not stealing. Period. You might be in favor or against it but the present deal is that you do not pay upfront for every consumable, e.g. roads, defense education of your workforce: instead you pay through taxes.
You lack the sophistication to explain why you disagree with taxes and falsely equate a levy with stealing to cover up for this.
Your malicious argument is like raping the readers (see what i did there?). Go back to the drawing board and come back when you can explain why a government that is running a deficit is according to GOP-types overtaxing rather than undertaxing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and possibly my kids where kidnapped by aliens while they were asleep and hypnotized into believing that LED lights are better. Care to discuss other "realistic" alternatives?
At any rate the kids part was anecdata, and only one piece in a wider argument which is "the preference for present incandescent yellow has a large historical component" and that part will go away with time.
The conclusion that your childens' stated preference is based on color alone is non-sequitur, at best. At worst, it's a blatant red herring.
Except for the minor fact that they said so themselves. Here's the quote again for your benefit "they describe it as artificially yellow".
I also gave evidence that this has happened before, when we transitioned from gas light to incandescent light. Lastly even today people prefer the somewhat whiter hue of halogen over regular incandescent yellow, indicating that the present yellow isn't really all that is made to be.
Now, and here's something you don't seem to be aware of, constructing an argument is different than a logical proof. E.g. "he had a gun, motive and opportunity. He was at the scene of the crime and was seen running away after shoots were fired". It does not logically follow that the person did the crime and it would be a logical fallacy to state as much, yet it is the reasonable and logical conclusion nonetheless.
They look almost exactly like Tungsten filament bulbs
In my house there are three consecutive rooms: one with an incandescent bulb, the second with a compact fluorescent and the third one with a LED light. I asked my kids which one they prefer and to my surprise, they both chose the LED light. Then I bought a somewhat "warmer" LED and put it in the corridor next to the white LED room. As an old timer, I prefer the warmer LED. Not my kids. They describe it as artificially yellow and again to my surprise they choose the whiter LED.
The only reason we prefer the ugly yellow hue from indandescents is because we are used to i. It isn't "warm", its sucky. Same with thing happened when gas lighting was first replaced by incandescents: people pined for the soft orange glow of gas lights but within a few years people realized how bad that hue was.
My kids, young and unencumbered by tradition prefer the LED lights. So will everyone else rather soon, as we slowly transition to whiter more sunlight-like hues that are now possible with LEDs.
, then DropBox is most likely hashing the content and only storing a single copy of a file even if there are thousand virtual instances of that same file throughout their system.
I'm pretty sure they have said as much themselves.
First of all, I was giving some reasons why it didn't take off. Second Scheme/Lisp still doesn't have easy to use pointers to implement a threaded binary tree which is point (2). Third, point number (3) is not a matter of taste. This is like saying that not liking a shit sandwich "is a matter of taste".
Lastly, the person who needs to wake up and smell the coffee is you: Lisp hasn't taken off. So clearly there must be powerful reasons why this is so. I listed some, and the way you deal with them is plain old denial. I've learned Lisp thirty years ago, and heard arguments like yours back then. With your attitude I can guarantee you that we will be having this same conversation in another thirty years.
I refuse to crucify one of mine for a minor transgression when yours walk away with treason time and time again.Simple as that.
She should be as harshly punished as Bush Jr was for lying about WMD or as Cheney for illegally releasing the name of a CIA agent.
Sorry, but the original Lisp got quite a few things wrong itself and by the time it got around to fixing it had missed the boat. Here's a sample
If modern Scheme had been introduced in 1965 instead of 1975 we might be today programming in some modern dialect of Lisp.
Now some fanboi will come and explain why these things aren't a bug but a feature in 3, 2, 1
I was a manager and never missed a deadline. It really isn't that hard. Most people fail because they do it the wrong way. First give no estimates until you have developed a good picture of the global architecture and have some bare bones functionality running. This takes about 1-3 months of your team, but well worth the effort. Then keep an eye from the very beginning on who's falling behind, and move resources around to support the people who ended up with more than their fair share. Assign a medium size portion of the project to your senior developer(s) so that they are available near the end to go and help in those areas that turned out to be gorier than predicted. You cannot bring people from outside since it takes them too long to ramp up as obseved by Fred Brooks. This is why you use your senior people: they know the whole system and can jump in in any part***. Stand firm in your refusal to add features and lastly, near the end, drop any minor feature which gets postponed to version X.1.
Most costumers are happier with a version in time with 95% of the features than a complete version three months late.
Also be realistic with what means to be in time. If you take three years to develop a system and you are five days late, you were off by 0.5%. Any one who tells you in this case that you were late is just mathematically innumerate. I was never more than a week late, but I'd dare say that even an error of 5% (which for a three year project is seven weeks) should not be considered late. Forecasting is an imprecise science afterall.
Oh and one last thing, there is one estimate you tell the team and there is another one in your head. So the goal is "we run as hard as we can to finish by May 10th, so that when sh*t happens (which always does) we make the real June 1st deadline (which you always keep secret so programmers don't budget for it.... you know, work expands to fill allotted time).
*** Stu Feldman, a Unix principal was used this way, according to Ritchie. Stu didn't fully own a single component of Unix but his code is everywhere, doing central things that had fallen behind and were passed on to him.
...and the one use of GOTO that could be often justified got incorporated into modern languages as the break/continue pair.
So all in all a good outcome: stop using GOTO as the main control structure while preserving its good uses.
Most human beings proficient in both, want to use the same notations in both.
Which is why C's choice of assignment operator is so asinine and bug inducing, yet one that few of its descendants has been willing to break. In fact I can only think of Go as a modern language which eschewed it.
The private part yes, the keep it part is the one that fails. They can simply delete it, and no amount of encryption will protect you from that.
Go is timid update on C/Pascal. My response to it is meh. We can do a lot better than that.
Python has two big problems: (1) no strict type checking/variable declaration and (2) it's interpreted/compiled to byte code.
It also has a small problem: code indentation really doesn't work. Nice idea, but no, didn't work.
Private companies can be incredibly shortsighted too. Around here they built penny-wise pound foolish buildings in the 70s and 80s that are energy inefficient and terrible workspaces but were cheap to build back then. You cannot give that space away.
So again, while I generally agree with the virtues of the private sector, I haven't drank the kool-aid that they are always preferable.
Not so if there is only one privately owned highway coming out of your town.
Yes, generally speaking privately provided services are more efficient, but as I pointed out, there are well known exceptions. Usually they have to do with what are at heart either insurance schemes (defense, healthcare) or natural monopolies (roads, utilities).
Is that how you justify to yourself ignoring indisputable facts from the world over as well as the USA?
Whatever it takes just so you don't pop your ideological bubble that everything private is cheaper even though facts speak to the contrary?
Okaay.
You are now arguing that deficits are bad, which is a different topic.
Presently we are running a deficit, which is the mathematical definition of underpaying, not overpaying.
You are now changing the subject. since you cannot deny that government provided health-care is cheaper, so off you go about the economic crisis, the welfare state and other side issues.
Thanks for participating dude. So much for your (false) assumption that private healthcare is cheaper.
Again, all of the western world provides government healthcare more efficiently than private health care in the US. This is an undisputed fact. By the way, of the public/private portions of healthcare in the US the government ones are the ones that provide the most bang for the buck. This has been confirmed in numerous studies, going all the way from medicare/medicaid/armed services insurance to Obamacare today.
I know you will refuse to believe it. It is clear you care more for ideology than reality.
Sure there is corruption, just like in the private sector. Or do you think an incompetent CEO being fired with a golden parachute is anything but?
Funny you mention healthcare, where we have abundant data from all over the world that conclusively prove government provided healthcare is cheaper than privately provided one.
We have similar data for private energy, highways, and public transportation. For others the private sector is more efficient.
Those are the facts, the rest is foaming-at-the-mouth ideology.
You go to a restaurant and you do not cover the entire dinner bill. I.e you underpaid and ran a deficit. The restaurant then allows you to run a tab and charges you interest over the balance as it is done by any and all financial institutions. Now you are trying to use this as an argument that you "overpaid" the restaurant bill?
Try that in front of the court together with all your "sophistication" and you can write to me from jail telling me what the judge thought about your reasons for not covering the entire restaurant bill because you "overpaid".
You are getting services and you pay for it through taxes. This does not fit any sensible definition of stealing. I can see that you are one of those libertarians that operate under the pretense that we would be better off with highways built by private parties for which you would have to pay a fee just like a tax to the government but with the difference that you have no say where it is built.
Fine, you are welcome to believe that. It still does not make takes theft or slavery. They are democratically agreed to and you get something in return for them. Let me know when a robber gives you back something in return for the stolen goods. That is how false your analogy is.
Right because things such as interstate highways, NIH, NSF, defense. medicare are all "corruption",
Things like the internet, and the web browser were funded by federal money, but we are busy making a partisan argument so lets wrap all of it under "corruption", facts be damned.
Sigh, American really has no hope when (1) that is the level of discussion and (2) it is considered "insightful".
A tax is not stealing. Period. You might be in favor or against it but the present deal is that you do not pay upfront for every consumable, e.g. roads, defense education of your workforce: instead you pay through taxes.
You lack the sophistication to explain why you disagree with taxes and falsely equate a levy with stealing to cover up for this.
Your malicious argument is like raping the readers (see what i did there?). Go back to the drawing board and come back when you can explain why a government that is running a deficit is according to GOP-types overtaxing rather than undertaxing.