Have you asked to be made an editor on Slashdot, so you can post your own stories -- and those that don't want to read your crap can just filter you out instead of filling up the comment sections with complaints like mine?
True, although the newspapers don't have control over the political choices that have led to a situation where we don't have any idea which people are actually in the nation.
I'm not really sure why the PC police even care about this. Did they not have a reason to dislike the North Korean government until the government used a term that these people have decided is offensive?
The "training" of exceptional people does not have the same nature as training for other people. Exceptional people train themselves and some help can accelerate the process, but it is not the usual case of a teacher training them.
That is simply not true for other disciplines. Exceptional musicians are trained by teachers. Exceptional athletes have coaches. Exceptional scientists learn their skills from teachers. So again, why do you think programmers are different?
Exceptional people are exceptional because of their obsessive unquenchable interest in a subject. Exceptional people don't need "training", they just need experience, and even without experience, can still be much better than "normals". A lot of training focuses on rules of thumbs, and dumbs down those rules of thumbs to the point of being "written in stone". There are so many things taught as "never do this", when really they mean, "you're too stupid to know when to do this correctly". Training can help, but much of it is a waste of time.
In every other discipline that I can think of, the people who are exceptional in their field have undergone extensive training. Scientists, engineers, musicians, artists, athletes -- the list goes on and on. It takes training for people to reach the potential of their innate ability. Why do you think that programming is somehow different?
...while you can train people to be competent, you can't train them to be exceptional.
Two things:
First off, American companies love programmers that are merely "competent" -- or that don't even meet that standard. That's why jobs keep getting shipped overseas to shops that can hire three incompetent programmers for the cost of one good programmer here in the US. The tech companies' actions speak louder than their words here.
Second, while you might not be able to train everyone to become exceptional, it's safe to say that most people with the ability to become exceptional will not do so without training. Mr. Graham is relying on the argument that the only way to get more exceptional programmers in the US is to import them. That is flat-out not true.
Because Amazon does not publish information about that format, there is exactly one tool that is known to generate this format in a guaranteed forward-compatible way. That tool, kindlegen, was written by Amazon, and the licensing terms from 2.0 onwards (the first version to support nontrivial formatting) do not allow you to use it for creating content that is sold outside Amazon's store. So in order to distribute content elsewhere, you have to either...
Although I haven't used the tool myself, Amazon's description says that "KindleGen is a command line tool which enables publishers to work in an automated environment with a variety of source content including HTML, XHTML or EPUB." So unless there is something more to the licensing terms than you're suggesting, there shouldn't be any problem with creating your content in an open format, and then using KindleGen to generate the content for the Amazon store.
Sorry - if the tools that we have for managing the labels that humans wish to place on their objects are lacking, we should fix the tools, not the labels. For example, I've named my dog "Crankshaft" - does that confuse mechanics? The only thing we humans have is the ability to manipulate symbols. I'd prefer to have no restrictions on the labels that I use, since they simply refer to objects.
It's a common problem in the programming field to make a virtue out of overgeneralization, even when it conflicts with other virtues, such as ease of use or security. What actual benefit do you get from allowing the inclusion of control characters in filenames? How does that benefit compare with the amount of pain and extra effort involved in dealing with those filenames?
The other thing is that "fixing the tools" is a complete non-starter. You're talking about "fixing" a large subset -- possibly even a majority -- of programs on Unix systems, in a way that will be incompatible with existing tools. The elegance of putting some minor restrictions on filenames into the filesystem is that it works with virtually all existing user-level software, with no changes to that software required.
at a cost of roughly a tank of gas in a premium sedan.
Roughly, not exactly. Pegging the price of a battery switch to the price of gas really wouldn't make any sense, although it might make sense to make it based on the cost of electricity in the area, assuming that that varies.
In other words, one group of "skeptics" has appointed themselves to be the gatekeepers of the definition of skepticism, and is now throwing a tantrum because there are other people using term that don't match the definition that this group came up with.
If this "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" is worried that they'll be confused with the climate-change skeptics, then they need to come up with another term for themselves. Demanding that the English language change to suit their own preferences is stupid, and the only reason why it's getting any support here on Slashdot is because of the personal animosity that most of us have towards the climate-change skeptics.
And yes, I'm going to purposefully use the term "climate-change skeptics" from now on.
A quick glance at that article seems more like a compelling case for teaching people how to write shell scripts properly.
If you read the article, you'll find that writing shell scripts to handle filenames containing every possible character "properly" is so difficult that virtually everyone gets it wrong. When something's been around for close to 40 years and still nobody can get it right, maybe it's time to admit that it's the tool that's broken.
Obviously every character except for the path separator and the string terminator should be valid. Why should the file system restrict what character encoding I want to use for my names other than restrictions that simply make implementation easier.
This article makes a pretty convincing case that we'd be better off with some restrictions on filenames. It's hard to argue the point that allowing certain characters in filenames causes more problems than it solves.
The context of this discussion is that TechyImmigrant claimed that someone who would support deporting an illegal immigrant "has something against immigrants." So TechyImmigrant was equating the two. I simply pointed out that doing that is dishonest.
I have several reasons for being against illegal immigration while not being against legal immigration. I did not expound on them in my post, as they were not relevant to the point I was making, but I still see no reason why you should immediately jump to the conclusion that those reasons do not exist.
From your reply, it appears that purpose number 3 is your answer.
I don't see how you could possibly make that assessment based on my statement, which was simply that you can be against illegal immigration without being against legal immigration.
And do you make the same bet that women commit the same crimes as men, or youth as elderly?
Men and women from the same culture and class demonstrate very different behavior, as do young and old people. I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that there are significant behavioral differences associated with skin color. If you've got some evidence that shows that black people are more likely to commit crimes than white people that were raised the same way, I'd love to see it.
There's a difference between having something against immigrants, and having something against illegals. Pretending that the two are equivalent is a typical dishonest tactic of the supporters of illegal immigration.
What degree of risk would you associate with the KKK, a predominately Christian organisation, may start targetting muslins? I would say it is non-zero.
Well, maybe, but as long as they stick to targeting muslin and don't attack wool or polyester, I think we'll be OK.
Hey, Bennett. Have you asked the/. editors if you can be made an editor so those of us who want to block your stories can? It would improve the S/N ratio on the comments for your stories.
not to be over simplistic or even the least bit forgiving against GP and this ridiculously stupid stunt, but perhaps they should look into a device called a "rake".'
it does wonders in sand traps for removing footprints...a different beast to be sure but come on..."no known technique"?:)
While you probably can't just fix it with a rake, I find it hard to believe that it's impossible to restore it at all. Get some engineers out there -- at Greenpeace's expense -- and have them figure out a way to put dark rocks on top of light sand.
It's kind of like those boy scout leaders that knocked over the rock formation at Goblin Valley. People were calling for them to spend the rest of their lives in jail over it. We've been putting rocks on top of other rocks for thousands of years -- the better solution would have been to have them pay to get a construction crew out there to fix it.
It doesn't matter, he can't veto it. 325-100 is a veto-proof passage.
My understanding is that he can. Congress could then override the veto with a 2/3 majority of both the House and the Senate, but at least the President would be on record that he refused to approve the bill.
Is Slashdot paying Reuters and the BBC for the stories summarized and linked to here? Do you think they should be?
There's a potential difference. The problem is that Google News has become a one-stop-shop for many people (myself included). This means that we don't stay on the newspaper site, going back to Google News to look for the next interesting story.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you asked to be made an editor on Slashdot, so you can post your own stories -- and those that don't want to read your crap can just filter you out instead of filling up the comment sections with complaints like mine?
True, although the newspapers don't have control over the political choices that have led to a situation where we don't have any idea which people are actually in the nation.
I think the copyright laws in the US need reform, but frankly if I were to write a book, I'd like my descendants to benefit for some while.
So sell your book within a reasonable copyright term and give your descendants the money. Problem solved.
Is it centuries old in North Korea?
I'm not really sure why the PC police even care about this. Did they not have a reason to dislike the North Korean government until the government used a term that these people have decided is offensive?
The "training" of exceptional people does not have the same nature as training for other people. Exceptional people train themselves and some help can accelerate the process, but it is not the usual case of a teacher training them.
That is simply not true for other disciplines. Exceptional musicians are trained by teachers. Exceptional athletes have coaches. Exceptional scientists learn their skills from teachers. So again, why do you think programmers are different?
Exceptional people are exceptional because of their obsessive unquenchable interest in a subject. Exceptional people don't need "training", they just need experience, and even without experience, can still be much better than "normals". A lot of training focuses on rules of thumbs, and dumbs down those rules of thumbs to the point of being "written in stone". There are so many things taught as "never do this", when really they mean, "you're too stupid to know when to do this correctly". Training can help, but much of it is a waste of time.
In every other discipline that I can think of, the people who are exceptional in their field have undergone extensive training. Scientists, engineers, musicians, artists, athletes -- the list goes on and on. It takes training for people to reach the potential of their innate ability. Why do you think that programming is somehow different?
...while you can train people to be competent, you can't train them to be exceptional.
Two things:
First off, American companies love programmers that are merely "competent" -- or that don't even meet that standard. That's why jobs keep getting shipped overseas to shops that can hire three incompetent programmers for the cost of one good programmer here in the US. The tech companies' actions speak louder than their words here.
Second, while you might not be able to train everyone to become exceptional, it's safe to say that most people with the ability to become exceptional will not do so without training. Mr. Graham is relying on the argument that the only way to get more exceptional programmers in the US is to import them. That is flat-out not true.
Because Amazon does not publish information about that format, there is exactly one tool that is known to generate this format in a guaranteed forward-compatible way. That tool, kindlegen, was written by Amazon, and the licensing terms from 2.0 onwards (the first version to support nontrivial formatting) do not allow you to use it for creating content that is sold outside Amazon's store. So in order to distribute content elsewhere, you have to either...
Although I haven't used the tool myself, Amazon's description says that "KindleGen is a command line tool which enables publishers to work in an automated environment with a variety of source content including HTML, XHTML or EPUB." So unless there is something more to the licensing terms than you're suggesting, there shouldn't be any problem with creating your content in an open format, and then using KindleGen to generate the content for the Amazon store.
Sorry - if the tools that we have for managing the labels that humans wish to place on their objects are lacking, we should fix the tools, not the labels. For example, I've named my dog "Crankshaft" - does that confuse mechanics? The only thing we humans have is the ability to manipulate symbols. I'd prefer to have no restrictions on the labels that I use, since they simply refer to objects.
It's a common problem in the programming field to make a virtue out of overgeneralization, even when it conflicts with other virtues, such as ease of use or security. What actual benefit do you get from allowing the inclusion of control characters in filenames? How does that benefit compare with the amount of pain and extra effort involved in dealing with those filenames?
The other thing is that "fixing the tools" is a complete non-starter. You're talking about "fixing" a large subset -- possibly even a majority -- of programs on Unix systems, in a way that will be incompatible with existing tools. The elegance of putting some minor restrictions on filenames into the filesystem is that it works with virtually all existing user-level software, with no changes to that software required.
at a cost of roughly a tank of gas in a premium sedan.
Roughly, not exactly. Pegging the price of a battery switch to the price of gas really wouldn't make any sense, although it might make sense to make it based on the cost of electricity in the area, assuming that that varies.
In other words, one group of "skeptics" has appointed themselves to be the gatekeepers of the definition of skepticism, and is now throwing a tantrum because there are other people using term that don't match the definition that this group came up with.
If this "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" is worried that they'll be confused with the climate-change skeptics, then they need to come up with another term for themselves. Demanding that the English language change to suit their own preferences is stupid, and the only reason why it's getting any support here on Slashdot is because of the personal animosity that most of us have towards the climate-change skeptics.
And yes, I'm going to purposefully use the term "climate-change skeptics" from now on.
A quick glance at that article seems more like a compelling case for teaching people how to write shell scripts properly.
If you read the article, you'll find that writing shell scripts to handle filenames containing every possible character "properly" is so difficult that virtually everyone gets it wrong. When something's been around for close to 40 years and still nobody can get it right, maybe it's time to admit that it's the tool that's broken.
Obviously every character except for the path separator and the string terminator should be valid. Why should the file system restrict what character encoding I want to use for my names other than restrictions that simply make implementation easier.
This article makes a pretty convincing case that we'd be better off with some restrictions on filenames. It's hard to argue the point that allowing certain characters in filenames causes more problems than it solves.
The context of this discussion is that TechyImmigrant claimed that someone who would support deporting an illegal immigrant "has something against immigrants." So TechyImmigrant was equating the two. I simply pointed out that doing that is dishonest.
I have several reasons for being against illegal immigration while not being against legal immigration. I did not expound on them in my post, as they were not relevant to the point I was making, but I still see no reason why you should immediately jump to the conclusion that those reasons do not exist.
From your reply, it appears that purpose number 3 is your answer.
I don't see how you could possibly make that assessment based on my statement, which was simply that you can be against illegal immigration without being against legal immigration.
And do you make the same bet that women commit the same crimes as men, or youth as elderly?
Men and women from the same culture and class demonstrate very different behavior, as do young and old people. I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that there are significant behavioral differences associated with skin color. If you've got some evidence that shows that black people are more likely to commit crimes than white people that were raised the same way, I'd love to see it.
Support of the term "illegal Immigrant" is just another form of slavery. Different input, same results.
Right. The good old "the illegals just can't stop themselves from jumping the border!" argument.
white people in black bodies don't commit as much crime...
I'd bet that they commit just as much crime as black people of similar social culture and class.
What do you have against immigrants?
There's a difference between having something against immigrants, and having something against illegals. Pretending that the two are equivalent is a typical dishonest tactic of the supporters of illegal immigration.
What degree of risk would you associate with the KKK, a predominately Christian organisation, may start targetting muslins? I would say it is non-zero.
Well, maybe, but as long as they stick to targeting muslin and don't attack wool or polyester, I think we'll be OK.
Hey, Bennett. Have you asked the /. editors if you can be made an editor so those of us who want to block your stories can? It would improve the S/N ratio on the comments for your stories.
good point about the Inca's not being around anymore...of course I meant their ancestors.
Presumably if the Incas aren't around anymore, their ancestors aren't either...
not to be over simplistic or even the least bit forgiving against GP and this ridiculously stupid stunt, but perhaps they should look into a device called a "rake".'
it does wonders in sand traps for removing footprints...a different beast to be sure but come on..."no known technique"? :)
While you probably can't just fix it with a rake, I find it hard to believe that it's impossible to restore it at all. Get some engineers out there -- at Greenpeace's expense -- and have them figure out a way to put dark rocks on top of light sand.
It's kind of like those boy scout leaders that knocked over the rock formation at Goblin Valley. People were calling for them to spend the rest of their lives in jail over it. We've been putting rocks on top of other rocks for thousands of years -- the better solution would have been to have them pay to get a construction crew out there to fix it.
It doesn't matter, he can't veto it. 325-100 is a veto-proof passage.
My understanding is that he can. Congress could then override the veto with a 2/3 majority of both the House and the Senate, but at least the President would be on record that he refused to approve the bill.
Is Slashdot paying Reuters and the BBC for the stories summarized and linked to here? Do you think they should be?
There's a potential difference. The problem is that Google News has become a one-stop-shop for many people (myself included). This means that we don't stay on the newspaper site, going back to Google News to look for the next interesting story.
Isn't Slashdot exactly the same?