No its not one of the stupidist stories, you've made one of the stupidist comments. The line of code is a rather famous one, that was well known in the 80s as something kids would memorize and drop into peoples computers as a way of impressing each other. I had memorized the amstrad version of it.
The book is about the history of the line and people musing on the meaning of it all. These folks getting upset that its not a real maze or whatever are *seriously* missing the point. It was silly in the early 1980s, its no less silly now. But it was also something that was impressive then, and thus historically relevant now.
I at first thought RMS was being pedantic, but I've come to realise he actually had a point. Its not just enough to let people see the code, the code has to be defended against those who would seek to close it up. We've seen plenty of times where people have tried to take GPL code and close it, and that GPL licence has proven to be a weapon on our side. It provided a (fortunately unneeded) backline defense in the SCO case where if all the other defences failed, we had a final option of pointing to SCO's acceptance of the GPL. We've seen router and set-top boxes stealing peoples hard work on GPL code and we've been able to pry that code back off them. If it was just "open source" we would have had to accept the fail, but because of the *free* stuff , we've kept code free.
Look at the free-software GNU/Linux desktops. Still for the most part free. Now look at android with its open-source userland, locked down almost as bad as the iphones. The difference couldn't be starker.
Lol no it isn't. Seriously, its quite an effective absorber. Even as back as far as early 1930s (We knew its absorbsion properties from experiments in te 1870s shining IR light into CO2 gasses and measuring temperature rises but it was later we started to piece together exactly how, as our chemistry knowledge increased) it had been identified as quite comprehensive absorbtiion at the 4.3u and 15u bands. That energy has to go somewhere , and that energy is the climate in the form of all the whacky nonsense you get when you turbulate a big old complicated non linear system like the climate.
1) You say climate change is happening. Well we agree on that. Lets put that into "Known knowns".
2) We know CO2 significantly traps infra red radiation. This was known since the 1800s when researchers first started putting alarm bells out about climate change after Fourier first demonstrated CO2s effect on IR spectrum light in the laboratory.
3) And we are putting staggering amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Something in the range of 35000 teragrams per year.
Yet.
4) You dont think humans are responsible for most of the climate change.
The question I ask then, is what mechanism are you proposing that is stopping physics from doing its thing here.
This is the thing the "Humans are not having an effect" people seem to miss here. Thats a huge claim which breaks a tonne of very old and very established physics, and for the "we are not causing climate change" thing to be true, novel physics needs to be proposed to provide a mechanism that causes CO2 to stop absorbing IR light.
I should note some caution here. If a mechanism is proposed, a LOT of things break. Huge amounts of our knowledge of chemistry , astronomy (absorbsion lines, etc) , and so on are dependent on our understanding of how gasses absorb light, and we'd be throwing out perhaps entire fields of science, because holy crap have we got a lot of things wrong? All that stuff we learned from staring at black lines on rainbows shitting out of our telesopes? Wrong wrong wrong. All the whacky stuff we've learned bouncing light through gasses in laboratories? Wrong wrong wrong. Chemistry wrong, physics wrong, astronomy wrong, biology wrong, its exaustive.
To wit;- Big claims require big evidence.
And I'm not seeing that evidence, instead I'm seeing frauds like "lord" monkton, a guy whos entire scientific/mathematical education was finishing highschool, being paraded around by right-wing think tanks as a "renowned mathematician". I'm seeing incredibly detailed frame ups of researchers involving multiple right-wing thinktanks pushing campaigns of deliberate misrepresentation of peoples emails. I'm seeing polls of scientists, in such dead-on fields as "political science" and "marketing" denouncing basic observational physics and not a single damn qualified climate scientist in sight.
I'm actually not seeing shit. Theres almost no legitimate reason left to doubt climate change and our role in it anymore. Its happening, its real. That debate ended 150 years ago in Fouriers laboratory.
Actually Mainstream science has been fairly unequivocal since long before the 1970s. You can subract a century off that for when Fourier first demonstrated the green-house effect in the laboratory and started warning about the possible impacts of what it might mean for the industrial revolution of the time.
Scientists have been saying this for WELL over a century that if you increase CO2, you trap in Infra-red spectrum energies really seriously , and that means things get hot.
For it not to work, it requires some very novel physics to be invented and it would require completely throwing out a huge amount of current physics , including almost the entirity of astronomy and the practice of using absorbsion spectra for analysis (Since apparently atmospheres have stopped following physics and dont absorb shit and it all bounces now)
Its always the part in these descriptions of inflation where I read that in fact some parts of space are moving apart from each other *faster* than the speed of light that different parts of my brain start angrily yelling at each other and a bit of smoke comes out my ear.
In fact, the greatest damage moderates and left-wing could do to the right wing extremists is to invite them to freely speak their minds. The resulting spew of homophobic, sexist, and racist non-sequiturs would likely shift most people just a bit to the left.
The problem with this view is that its logical, but it also doesn't really work like that. Humans have awful psychology when it comes to political views and crowds. If you have a large group of people chanting racists slogans, very quickly people around them , onlookers, can find themselves chanting along, and believing those slogans and not asking themselves why. The cronulla riot in australia left many people who had joined in the racist violent asking themselves "What the hell did I just do? I dont understand it? I was just in cronulla for shopping and next thing I'm in a crowd of people bashing lebanese shopkeepers". The inverse of this is the "spiral of silence" effect where once a view becomes popular, everyone starts changing their view to the popular one because its popular, and the less popular view becomes more and more rare and dangerous to express.
Finally there is a large part of the population that research shows find themselves attracted to angry conservative type opinions and actually become MORE attracted to the opinion when evidence of its incorrectness is presented. Witness the absolute insanity of the anti gay-marriage league, or the "teach creationism in schools" league. It seems the more evidence as to why these guys are loons is presented to them, the more it convinces them that evolution/climate-change/drug-reform/gay-marriage/etc is some sort of evil communist plot.
There are so many sociological factors involved with why people adopt political positions that are not at all related to rationality or free/open speech.
Keep in mind that when he introduced the cosmological constant everyone still thought that our galaxy was the only thing in the universe. Hubble figured out that that was wrong about a decade later (and half a decade before noting the correlation between red shift and distance).
Ya know I was about to tear you a new one, and point out that at the very least andromeda and the whirlpool galaxy where known about in the 1700s.
Except holy crap your right! It seems there was a huge debate in astronomy over exactly this in the 1920s with most astronomers being unwilling to accept the distances needed for the multiple galaxy hypothesis. It wasnt until hubble & co's work with redshifts that the utterly mindboggling distances that really where in the universe, became hard to contest....
Liberalism and leftism are not a fan clubs. Many of us might prefer the big O over the alternative whilst also deeply disaproving drone strikes against allied countries.
Whoever this community member is, he needs to be very very careful about what he's doing. Many countries hold that malicious hijacking of trademarks or implied trademarks to be a criminal rather than merely civil matter. Ie if you go to a company or organization and maliciously register their trademark to fuck them over, you can expect a policeman at your door with a warrant.
This happens quite regularly, and it rarely turns out as happily as the malicious party expected.
The problem is, counter-intuitively you can defame people with the truth.
Lets say Barack Obama has serious Asthma (I dont know, I'm just making this up as an innocuous example). Well, lets say he uses an asthma puffer quite regularly, in fact a bit more than the doctor recomends, he's a busy man and easier to huff a puffer than follow a full prevention plan after all. Ventolin is also a drug that the more you use the more dependent you can become of it, despite the fact its also utterly essential for warding off an asthma attack. In this case his only real crime is one we all commit from time to time, he's not paying his doctor enough attention.
Now if I print "Barack Obama heavily drug dependent" and print whole stories about ommitting only the specific detail of which drug , I'm defaming barack Obama by creating the impression of him being some sort of henious depraved drug addict, despite the fact that technically I haven't told a lie. In an American court this would not be defamation and despite the fact that I'm harming the man greatly with my news empire for someting he really ought not be, he has no recourse because I told no lie, I defamed his reputation with the truth.
Now despite whats being said here, in Australia, as of recently the truth really is a defense. In other words you could do the same to someone here. But previously the asthma libel could indeed be held to be defamatory.
Its not as simple as "Did he tell the truth". You *can* defame someone with the truth, but usually they have no defense against you doing that to them.
We see a similar thing with our healthcare in australia. When labor is in theres a fair bit of cash flowing around healthcare, then the conservatives come back in, decide its in everyones interest to stop paying nurses and everthing goes to hell.
"We don't need the government or banks to help us with our currency!" *Loses entire savings to a JS XSS exploit with no recourse to the law or bank security*
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity). Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
This is the sort of libertarian nonsense that leads philosophers and psychologists to utterly detest randoids.
The problem with egotism, is it rests almost entirely on tautology. When almost any action can be "explained" by a circular reference to "because its in my self interest" (Why? Because I want to? Why do I want to? Because its in my self interest, ad nauseum) its a theory with no predictive powers, and frankly it runs completely at odds with everything we know about psychology and neuro-biology.
We know we have other drives other than self interest, and they are not underwritten by "self interest" either, just biology and if you explain biology by motive, you end up with mystical reification of processes. Just because we have evolved in our reproductive interests that is not the same as the claim of *intentions*. A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
We have extensive networks of mirror neurons that give us the ability to empathise with others.
We have deeply wired structures in our brain that cause us to give up comfort for our children.
We are succeptable to ideological configurations that lead us to place the national interest over our own, and no dying in a kamikase attack in no way advances our personal wellbeing, because our brain design (for want of a better word) allows us to decide that the interest of the nation is more important to our personal interest.
And no, claiming that this is "irrational" doesn't help us here, because if rationality can only be defined (by the egotist creed) as self interested behavior, and self interested behavior is that, according to the randian, which is rational (by the same creed) then we are back into tautology territory again.
I could go on.
So we are stuck with a situation of a thesis about human behavior that can't be justified philosophically without committing fundamental logical errors. We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
And to be honest, the hardest task, is to justify it politically because it seems to demand behaviors that go against everything we know about the proper running of a civil society.
Why do people persist in believing such hogwash? Its mystical solipsist randian nonsense.
The "odo" attribute is often used purely for semantic purpose. Its intended as an implied "eyebrow" tag , however,commonly it may be styled however one wishes it to appear.
The "wall" command was the frigging joy of my life as a student doing unix. It taught me about/dev/tty* priveleges and the fact that on the unix boxes at the time for a brief few seconds any logging in terminal had a wide open write permission, in which you could make havok.
And yeah, I nearly got kicked out of my studies for "CHUNGA LIVES". But it was for Frank Zappa, and since I didnt get kicked out, it was worth it.
If angry developers can screw over a mega-corp like oracle, something like xfree dont stand a chance. Moral of the story;- If your volunteer devs don't like your attitude , they will knife you, because your getting free labor and not showing respect.
No, the "Chuck" in question is Chuck Moore, and the universe is thus written in Forth (aka "Toaster code", or "back to front lisp" [stacks instead of lists] if you wish.).
I can , in fact, confirm that Chuck Moore is God.
The strange and paradoxical puzzles of physics are nothing more than the universe expressing itself in Reverse Polish Notation.
Library support is amateur hour? How? There are some 10,000 libraries in the PyPI (easy_install / pip ) repository, and the pip tool gives you all the package management/dependency goodness that CPAN or gem does. You can use virtualenv to install stuff locally to your app, or install at a system level. The libraries are namespace isolated, but generally have a flatter heirachy than say JAVA , although this has been changing a bit with Python 3 (I prefer them flat , who the hell wants to remember com.thing.otherthing.funlibrary when you can just remember funlibrary) .
I really can't think of a single thing that makes it "amateur hour", espececially when you throw heavy hitters like Django and so on into the mix.
Just to amplify, you have to remember that Hillary is the woman that made the President of the United States sleep on the couch, and the hated Obamacare was basically her baby.
Yeah after he boned his intern. By rights she should have divorced his sorry ass and taken half of what he owns.
But none of this has anything to do with this conversation bro, so quit the derail.
Slashdot Mirror
No its not one of the stupidist stories, you've made one of the stupidist comments. The line of code is a rather famous one, that was well known in the 80s as something kids would memorize and drop into peoples computers as a way of impressing each other. I had memorized the amstrad version of it.
The book is about the history of the line and people musing on the meaning of it all. These folks getting upset that its not a real maze or whatever are *seriously* missing the point. It was silly in the early 1980s, its no less silly now. But it was also something that was impressive then, and thus historically relevant now.
I at first thought RMS was being pedantic, but I've come to realise he actually had a point. Its not just enough to let people see the code, the code has to be defended against those who would seek to close it up. We've seen plenty of times where people have tried to take GPL code and close it, and that GPL licence has proven to be a weapon on our side. It provided a (fortunately unneeded) backline defense in the SCO case where if all the other defences failed, we had a final option of pointing to SCO's acceptance of the GPL. We've seen router and set-top boxes stealing peoples hard work on GPL code and we've been able to pry that code back off them. If it was just "open source" we would have had to accept the fail, but because of the *free* stuff , we've kept code free.
Look at the free-software GNU/Linux desktops. Still for the most part free. Now look at android with its open-source userland, locked down almost as bad as the iphones. The difference couldn't be starker.
As a web developer I hate you for reminding me of this horrible truth.
Ie6 users might be only a few percent now days BUT THEY KEEP BLOODY HIRING ME TO DO THEM A WEBSITE oh god kill me
Lol no it isn't. Seriously, its quite an effective absorber. Even as back as far as early 1930s (We knew its absorbsion properties from experiments in te 1870s shining IR light into CO2 gasses and measuring temperature rises but it was later we started to piece together exactly how, as our chemistry knowledge increased) it had been identified as quite comprehensive absorbtiion at the 4.3u and 15u bands. That energy has to go somewhere , and that energy is the climate in the form of all the whacky nonsense you get when you turbulate a big old complicated non linear system like the climate.
Serious failure of Occams razor going on here AC.
Lets take three things we know;-
1) You say climate change is happening. Well we agree on that. Lets put that into "Known knowns".
2) We know CO2 significantly traps infra red radiation. This was known since the 1800s when researchers first started putting alarm bells out about climate change after Fourier first demonstrated CO2s effect on IR spectrum light in the laboratory.
3) And we are putting staggering amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Something in the range of 35000 teragrams per year.
Yet.
4) You dont think humans are responsible for most of the climate change.
The question I ask then, is what mechanism are you proposing that is stopping physics from doing its thing here.
This is the thing the "Humans are not having an effect" people seem to miss here. Thats a huge claim which breaks a tonne of very old and very established physics, and for the "we are not causing climate change" thing to be true, novel physics needs to be proposed to provide a mechanism that causes CO2 to stop absorbing IR light.
I should note some caution here. If a mechanism is proposed, a LOT of things break. Huge amounts of our knowledge of chemistry , astronomy (absorbsion lines, etc) , and so on are dependent on our understanding of how gasses absorb light, and we'd be throwing out perhaps entire fields of science, because holy crap have we got a lot of things wrong? All that stuff we learned from staring at black lines on rainbows shitting out of our telesopes? Wrong wrong wrong. All the whacky stuff we've learned bouncing light through gasses in laboratories? Wrong wrong wrong. Chemistry wrong, physics wrong, astronomy wrong, biology wrong, its exaustive.
To wit;- Big claims require big evidence.
And I'm not seeing that evidence, instead I'm seeing frauds like "lord" monkton, a guy whos entire scientific/mathematical education was finishing highschool, being paraded around by right-wing think tanks as a "renowned mathematician". I'm seeing incredibly detailed frame ups of researchers involving multiple right-wing thinktanks pushing campaigns of deliberate misrepresentation of peoples emails. I'm seeing polls of scientists, in such dead-on fields as "political science" and "marketing" denouncing basic observational physics and not a single damn qualified climate scientist in sight.
I'm actually not seeing shit. Theres almost no legitimate reason left to doubt climate change and our role in it anymore. Its happening, its real. That debate ended 150 years ago in Fouriers laboratory.
Actually Mainstream science has been fairly unequivocal since long before the 1970s. You can subract a century off that for when Fourier first demonstrated the green-house effect in the laboratory and started warning about the possible impacts of what it might mean for the industrial revolution of the time.
Scientists have been saying this for WELL over a century that if you increase CO2, you trap in Infra-red spectrum energies really seriously , and that means things get hot.
For it not to work, it requires some very novel physics to be invented and it would require completely throwing out a huge amount of current physics , including almost the entirity of astronomy and the practice of using absorbsion spectra for analysis (Since apparently atmospheres have stopped following physics and dont absorb shit and it all bounces now)
Denialism is loon science.
Well the 99.9% who are not on the exxon-mobil payroll.
There. Followed the money.
Its always the part in these descriptions of inflation where I read that in fact some parts of space are moving apart from each other *faster* than the speed of light that different parts of my brain start angrily yelling at each other and a bit of smoke comes out my ear.
All that mass! How does it work!
In fact, the greatest damage moderates and left-wing could do to the right wing extremists is to invite them to freely speak their minds. The resulting spew of homophobic, sexist, and racist non-sequiturs would likely shift most people just a bit to the left.
The problem with this view is that its logical, but it also doesn't really work like that. Humans have awful psychology when it comes to political views and crowds. If you have a large group of people chanting racists slogans, very quickly people around them , onlookers, can find themselves chanting along, and believing those slogans and not asking themselves why. The cronulla riot in australia left many people who had joined in the racist violent asking themselves "What the hell did I just do? I dont understand it? I was just in cronulla for shopping and next thing I'm in a crowd of people bashing lebanese shopkeepers". The inverse of this is the "spiral of silence" effect where once a view becomes popular, everyone starts changing their view to the popular one because its popular, and the less popular view becomes more and more rare and dangerous to express.
Finally there is a large part of the population that research shows find themselves attracted to angry conservative type opinions and actually become MORE attracted to the opinion when evidence of its incorrectness is presented. Witness the absolute insanity of the anti gay-marriage league, or the "teach creationism in schools" league. It seems the more evidence as to why these guys are loons is presented to them, the more it convinces them that evolution/climate-change/drug-reform/gay-marriage/etc is some sort of evil communist plot.
There are so many sociological factors involved with why people adopt political positions that are not at all related to rationality or free/open speech.
Keep in mind that when he introduced the cosmological constant everyone still thought that our galaxy was the only thing in the universe. Hubble figured out that that was wrong about a decade later (and half a decade before noting the correlation between red shift and distance).
Ya know I was about to tear you a new one, and point out that at the very least andromeda and the whirlpool galaxy where known about in the 1700s.
Except holy crap your right! It seems there was a huge debate in astronomy over exactly this in the 1920s with most astronomers being unwilling to accept the distances needed for the multiple galaxy hypothesis. It wasnt until hubble & co's work with redshifts that the utterly mindboggling distances that really where in the universe, became hard to contest....
Liberalism and leftism are not a fan clubs. Many of us might prefer the big O over the alternative whilst also deeply disaproving drone strikes against allied countries.
Whoever this community member is, he needs to be very very careful about what he's doing. Many countries hold that malicious hijacking of trademarks or implied trademarks to be a criminal rather than merely civil matter. Ie if you go to a company or organization and maliciously register their trademark to fuck them over, you can expect a policeman at your door with a warrant.
This happens quite regularly, and it rarely turns out as happily as the malicious party expected.
The problem is, counter-intuitively you can defame people with the truth.
Lets say Barack Obama has serious Asthma (I dont know, I'm just making this up as an innocuous example). Well, lets say he uses an asthma puffer quite regularly, in fact a bit more than the doctor recomends, he's a busy man and easier to huff a puffer than follow a full prevention plan after all. Ventolin is also a drug that the more you use the more dependent you can become of it, despite the fact its also utterly essential for warding off an asthma attack. In this case his only real crime is one we all commit from time to time, he's not paying his doctor enough attention.
Now if I print "Barack Obama heavily drug dependent" and print whole stories about ommitting only the specific detail of which drug , I'm defaming barack Obama by creating the impression of him being some sort of henious depraved drug addict, despite the fact that technically I haven't told a lie. In an American court this would not be defamation and despite the fact that I'm harming the man greatly with my news empire for someting he really ought not be, he has no recourse because I told no lie, I defamed his reputation with the truth.
Now despite whats being said here, in Australia, as of recently the truth really is a defense. In other words you could do the same to someone here. But previously the asthma libel could indeed be held to be defamatory.
Its not as simple as "Did he tell the truth". You *can* defame someone with the truth, but usually they have no defense against you doing that to them.
Well, in the UK when conservatives are in anyway.
We see a similar thing with our healthcare in australia. When labor is in theres a fair bit of cash flowing around healthcare, then the conservatives come back in, decide its in everyones interest to stop paying nurses and everthing goes to hell.
"We don't need the government or banks to help us with our currency!" *Loses entire savings to a JS XSS exploit with no recourse to the law or bank security*
I contest that every human being is either inherently ENTIRELY selfish, or have something wrong with them (i.e. insanity). Even those ultra-religious types that beat themselves violently in repentance for sins are doing it on the promise of eternal happiness in heaven. If they truly believed that there was no afterlife, or that they'd suffer for all eternity; they wouldn't do it.
This is the sort of libertarian nonsense that leads philosophers and psychologists to utterly detest randoids.
The problem with egotism, is it rests almost entirely on tautology. When almost any action can be "explained" by a circular reference to "because its in my self interest" (Why? Because I want to? Why do I want to? Because its in my self interest, ad nauseum) its a theory with no predictive powers, and frankly it runs completely at odds with everything we know about psychology and neuro-biology.
We know we have other drives other than self interest, and they are not underwritten by "self interest" either, just biology and if you explain biology by motive, you end up with mystical reification of processes. Just because we have evolved in our reproductive interests that is not the same as the claim of *intentions*. A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
We have extensive networks of mirror neurons that give us the ability to empathise with others.
We have deeply wired structures in our brain that cause us to give up comfort for our children.
We are succeptable to ideological configurations that lead us to place the national interest over our own, and no dying in a kamikase attack in no way advances our personal wellbeing, because our brain design (for want of a better word) allows us to decide that the interest of the nation is more important to our personal interest.
And no, claiming that this is "irrational" doesn't help us here, because if rationality can only be defined (by the egotist creed) as self interested behavior, and self interested behavior is that, according to the randian, which is rational (by the same creed) then we are back into tautology territory again.
I could go on.
So we are stuck with a situation of a thesis about human behavior that can't be justified philosophically without committing fundamental logical errors. We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
And to be honest, the hardest task, is to justify it politically because it seems to demand behaviors that go against everything we know about the proper running of a civil society.
Why do people persist in believing such hogwash? Its mystical solipsist randian nonsense.
The "odo" attribute is often used purely for semantic purpose. Its intended as an implied "eyebrow" tag , however ,commonly it may be styled however one wishes it to appear.
The "wall" command was the frigging joy of my life as a student doing unix. It taught me about /dev/tty* priveleges and the fact that on the unix boxes at the time for a brief few seconds any logging in terminal had a wide open write permission, in which you could make havok.
And yeah, I nearly got kicked out of my studies for "CHUNGA LIVES". But it was for Frank Zappa, and since I didnt get kicked out, it was worth it.
God I miss the 90s.
If angry developers can screw over a mega-corp like oracle, something like xfree dont stand a chance. Moral of the story;- If your volunteer devs don't like your attitude , they will knife you, because your getting free labor and not showing respect.
Its Australia dude. Nobody is going to go about shooting at unmarked cop cars here.
Once we uncover the Shadow Battlecrabs buried under the mars surface, Our new "advisors" will see that the superior firepower becomes available.
The Vorlons might have something to say about this however!
No, the "Chuck" in question is Chuck Moore, and the universe is thus written in Forth (aka "Toaster code", or "back to front lisp" [stacks instead of lists] if you wish.).
I can , in fact, confirm that Chuck Moore is God.
The strange and paradoxical puzzles of physics are nothing more than the universe expressing itself in Reverse Polish Notation.
Library support is amateur hour? How? There are some 10,000 libraries in the PyPI (easy_install / pip ) repository, and the pip tool gives you all the package management/dependency goodness that CPAN or gem does. You can use virtualenv to install stuff locally to your app, or install at a system level. The libraries are namespace isolated, but generally have a flatter heirachy than say JAVA , although this has been changing a bit with Python 3 (I prefer them flat , who the hell wants to remember com.thing.otherthing.funlibrary when you can just remember funlibrary) .
I really can't think of a single thing that makes it "amateur hour", espececially when you throw heavy hitters like Django and so on into the mix.
I think your tripping mate.
Yeah after he boned his intern. By rights she should have divorced his sorry ass and taken half of what he owns.
But none of this has anything to do with this conversation bro, so quit the derail.
I'm not sure if giving 4chan the ability to finally beat people up physically over the internet is the wisest idea!