So how does the Big Bang theory fit in, in your understanding?
In one flavor of the big bang theory there was a single "bang" event leading to an ever expanding universe. This would make our reality unique and centered about the cosmological era in which humans existed.
You miss the point. The goal is to take a childish potshot at Microsoft, to Kharma-whore a few points. In such situations one should not let pesky-facts get on the way.
At times, Slashdot seems to have the collective mental age of a five year old.
Perhaps I should add an explanation to this. I know the rules of evaluation in C, that is not the point. There are many reasons why the expression *shouldn't* return a zero. It is an example of improper overloading, it is a confusing order of type promotion, it uses a well defined, universally known mathematical operator '/' in a non-standard way.
The Antropomorphic principle is the name given by a tendency by us humans to believe that our situation is unique. It goes from believing in our divine origin, to the earth is the centre of the universe (Ptolomeic) to the sun is the centre of the universe (Copernicus), to the current incantation of the big bang (Gamow) with an ever expanding universe.
Placing humans in their own genus seems to fit right along those lines. We are unique, and no other animal deserves to be even close to us...
The first reference to the viral nature of the GPL that I could find in Usenet was dated Nov 11, 1989, well before Microsoft even had GNU in the radar scope.
Cars provided an incredible service that cannot be matched by public transportation. A truly modern and environmentally designed city that respects the rights of its citizens must keep an individual mode of transportation. Now, the key to this is that this does not mean a car. For example you can use personal transit systems (PRTs) which provide service very similar to your own car. That is, you are the only person in it and it takes you from point A to point B. Such systems run on rails or dedicated lines, and are computed controlled, which allow for much faster speeds (up to 150 mph).
These systems are actually cheap to build if you consider that road space would be freed and can be sold to private parties by the city. Think about it, selling two lanes of 5th Avenue in New York back to businesses would pay for the entire system in Manhattan.
Before AOL and its flood of newbies WHO COULDN'T FIND CAPS LOCK ON THEIR KEYBOARD, we use to be able to tell apart the newbies because they were the only ones who would pay attention to the "imminent death of the net" postings...
Look, read any college or university report, or the New York Times for that matter, and you'll find that plagiarism is rife. Why is it so hard to believe that a few out of many thousands of Linux contributors might have taken a shortcut and misappropriated SCOs code?
I had assumed that all Apple users could access the iTunes music store web site, however upon reading your comment I went to the Apple web site and indeed it seems you need OS X to access the iTunes music store...
This reminds me of a quote from French mathematician Henry Poincare: "just as houses are made out of stones, so is science made out of facts; and just as a pile of stones is not a house, a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Applied to the cyc project: a collection of facts is not necessarily intelligence.
A well run company pays attention to what users out there like and duplicates it in as much as is possible. A badly run company refuses to cede to users' demands and suffers from a bad case of "not-invented-here" (NIH) syndrome.
Here's a case (for once) in which Microsoft responds to users demands and it does so in response to the threat of competition from Apple. Wasn't this what it is supposed to be all about?.... Sorry I forgot where I was. Slashdot is about dissing Microsoft, whether justified or not.
Difference is, Microsoft has already reinvented itself three/four times. From being a developer of language compilers/interpreters to operating systems to office productivity applications to the latest x-box/internet attempts.
I've been around long enough in the programming language community, and have heard the "syntactic sugar" red-herring so often that I'm inclined to believe Hejlsberg's side of things in this case.
Huh? I'm not saying that the only difference between C and assembly is syntactic sugar. Far from it.
What I was pointing out that is that judicious amounts of syntactic sugar are extremely convenient to programmers, and hence simply being SS is not enough to dismiss a language feature. Yet this is routinely done in the programming language community, as illustrated by the real life example in the first message (not mine) of this thread.
Not long after the Cobol disaster (too many syntactic niceties), the programming language community swung the other way and since the 1970s has opposed most niceties in a language as "syntactic sugar". Sure enough, the C code: x = y + z;
is nothing but the syntactic sugared version of LDA Y ADD Z MV X
SO?? Isn't the C version far superior nonetheless?
We humans are a lot more sensitive about our intelligence than our physical abilities. As a group, we have no problem accepting, or even admiring fellow classmates who say, excell in the football team. Yet, the geeks who ace the exam will be beaten up and given wedgies daily.
This also applies to other endeavours. Tell somebody that the guy across the street is a much better piano player, and while the comment would be considered somewhat unpolite it wouldn't go any further. Tell someone that the person across the street is smarter than he is and the recipient would be downright offended.
That is why humans get so upset when a computer comes and whips their butt in chess.
On the other hand we Altusians don't care much about that, so long as we can out-hopscotch our fastests computers in our biannual Altusians vs Computers hop-scotch championship.
Now it seems run-of-the-mill and it does not set you apart from the masses whatsoever. In job hunting, I have found that if you only have a computer science degree you are not going to easily find a job.
Believe you me, as bad as it is for you right now the non-techies have it twice as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
So how does the Big Bang theory fit in, in your understanding?
In one flavor of the big bang theory there was a single "bang" event leading to an ever expanding universe. This would make our reality unique and centered about the cosmological era in which humans existed.
You miss the point. The goal is to take a childish potshot at Microsoft, to Kharma-whore a few points. In such situations one should not let pesky-facts get on the way.
At times, Slashdot seems to have the collective mental age of a five year old.
Perhaps I should add an explanation to this. I know the rules of evaluation in C, that is not the point. There are many reasons why the expression *shouldn't* return a zero. It is an example of improper overloading, it is a confusing order of type promotion, it uses a well defined, universally known mathematical operator '/' in a non-standard way.
The Antropomorphic principle is the name given by a tendency by us humans to believe that our situation is unique. It goes from believing in our divine origin, to the earth is the centre of the universe (Ptolomeic) to the sun is the centre of the universe (Copernicus), to the current incantation of the big bang (Gamow) with an ever expanding universe.
Placing humans in their own genus seems to fit right along those lines. We are unique, and no other animal deserves to be even close to us...
The first reference to the viral nature of the GPL that I could find in Usenet was dated Nov 11, 1989, well before Microsoft even had GNU in the radar scope.
google news
SCO deliberately distributed their code under the GPL.
Really? How do you know that? There is no evidence that they knew exact copies of their copyrighted code were contained in the distribution.
Cars provided an incredible service that cannot be matched by public transportation. A truly modern and environmentally designed city that respects the rights of its citizens must keep an individual mode of transportation. Now, the key to this is that this does not mean a car. For example you can use personal transit systems (PRTs) which provide service very similar to your own car. That is, you are the only person in it and it takes you from point A to point B. Such systems run on rails or dedicated lines, and are computed controlled, which allow for much faster speeds (up to 150 mph).
These systems are actually cheap to build if you consider that road space would be freed and can be sold to private parties by the city. Think about it, selling two lanes of 5th Avenue in New York back to businesses would pay for the entire system in Manhattan.
Before AOL and its flood of newbies WHO COULDN'T FIND CAPS LOCK ON THEIR KEYBOARD, we use to be able to tell apart the newbies because they were the only ones who would pay attention to the "imminent death of the net" postings...
Personally, I love X,
Otherwise known as the Stockholm syndrome.
Look, read any college or university report, or the New York Times for that matter, and you'll find that plagiarism is rife. Why is it so hard to believe that a few out of many thousands of Linux contributors might have taken a shortcut and misappropriated SCOs code?
Apple claims 5 million users for OS X
I had assumed that all Apple users could access the iTunes music store web site, however upon reading your comment I went to the Apple web site and indeed it seems you need OS X to access the iTunes music store...
The fact remains that the service has only been available for a little of two weeks, so each mac user downloaded two to three songs in two weeks.
.
No. Songs are being purchased at a rate of two-three a year.
This is not the same as 2-3 songs per user in two weeks.
Two million songs is not impressive at all. This means total sales for the year would be about $50 million, which in corporate terms is pocket change.
Two million songs means that the average Apple user is buying songs at a rate of 2-3 a year. Hardly a figure that would impress anyone.
The only positive spin out of two million songs sold is that it does prove that iTunes is not a dud. Any other implication beyond that is pure hype.
This reminds me of a quote from French mathematician Henry Poincare: "just as houses are made out of stones, so is science made out of facts; and just as a pile of stones is not a house, a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Applied to the cyc project: a collection of facts is not necessarily intelligence.
So we split Apple into an OS company and a hardware company. Would the OS side be called NeXT and the hardware side be called LaST?
A well run company pays attention to what users out there like and duplicates it in as much as is possible. A badly run company refuses to cede to users' demands and suffers from a bad case of "not-invented-here" (NIH) syndrome.
.... Sorry I forgot where I was. Slashdot is about dissing Microsoft, whether justified or not.
Here's a case (for once) in which Microsoft responds to users demands and it does so in response to the threat of competition from Apple. Wasn't this what it is supposed to be all about?
How does one say "I need to get a life" in Klingon?
Difference is, Microsoft has already reinvented itself three/four times. From being a developer of language compilers/interpreters to operating systems to office productivity applications to the latest x-box/internet attempts.
Told you! I ain't an old wolf for nothing....
I've been around long enough in the programming language community, and have heard the "syntactic sugar" red-herring so often that I'm inclined to believe Hejlsberg's side of things in this case.
Huh? I'm not saying that the only difference between C and assembly is syntactic sugar. Far from it.
What I was pointing out that is that judicious amounts of syntactic sugar are extremely convenient to programmers, and hence simply being SS is not enough to dismiss a language feature. Yet this is routinely done in the programming language community, as illustrated by the real life example in the first message (not mine) of this thread.
Not long after the Cobol disaster (too many syntactic niceties), the programming language community swung the other way and since the 1970s has opposed most niceties in a language as "syntactic sugar". Sure enough, the C code:
x = y + z;
is nothing but the syntactic sugared version of
LDA Y
ADD Z
MV X
SO?? Isn't the C version far superior nonetheless?
I have business intelligence newsletters sitting on my shelves that are sold at a rate of hundreds of dollars per page to corporate clients...
We humans are a lot more sensitive about our intelligence than our physical abilities. As a group, we have no problem accepting, or even admiring fellow classmates who say, excell in the football team. Yet, the geeks who ace the exam will be beaten up and given wedgies daily.
This also applies to other endeavours. Tell somebody that the guy across the street is a much better piano player, and while the comment would be considered somewhat unpolite it wouldn't go any further. Tell someone that the person across the street is smarter than he is and the recipient would be downright offended.
That is why humans get so upset when a computer comes and whips their butt in chess.
On the other hand we Altusians don't care much about that, so long as we can out-hopscotch our fastests computers in our biannual Altusians vs Computers hop-scotch championship.
Now it seems run-of-the-mill and it does not set you apart from the masses whatsoever. In job hunting, I have found that if you only have a computer science degree you are not going to easily find a job.
Believe you me, as bad as it is for you right now the non-techies have it twice as bad.