Female Nurse Ape: Ooh, help me Dr. Zaius! Apes:[in unison] Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius Oh... Dr. Zaius Ape: Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius.
So, like, if Jobs is winning.. when he's busy trying to pin Bill to the canvas, Steve Ballmer can climb through the ropes with a couple of chairs from the front row and hit Steve in the head.
I've thrown charis before and I'll do it again! I'm going to fucking nail that guy!
Which is why as an excellent UNIX C programmer, I still get help from a VB-literate friend the odd time I delve into the nasty world of Visual C. He tells me which calls to which DLLs need to be made to do whatever system-specific task I'm unaware of (stuff like forking processes, memory mapping files, that sort of thing).
> Think of how you would react if some Perl/Python programer said > "Sure, I don't know LISP or C... but I could probably get to > moderate proficiency in two weeks".
I would consider this individual a dedicated, professional programmer.
Note that there is a HUGE difference between "moderate proficiency" and "very proficient". I figure it took me about 3,000 hours of C programming to get to the "very proficient" tier (it was also my first professional gig).
Moderate proficiency is what half the OSS C code out there is. (I'm not counting the sendmails and apaches of the OSS world either). It works, it's obvious-bug free, it's not elegant and it's probably nowhere near optimal -- and desperately needs peer review from an expert to point out where improvements can be made.
But it should be functional, not reinvent core elements of the language, perform the task correctly in the language's native paradigm, and be legible to a skilled programmer.
Note, also, that I differentiate strongly between "core language" and common libraries available for use. Java does not imply J2EE, struts, and whatnot. JavaScript does not imply W3C DOM (but it does imply Math and Date). Perl does not imply CPAN. That said, C++ *does* imply stdlib, and C [to me] implies unistd, stdlib, stdio, strings, etc, but not xpg4, sockets, iconv, blah de blah.
> If you really think C++ is that different, you don't know real C.
It's not the syntax that's the big difference. It's the programming paradigm and standard libs. So, not the language per se, more like the WAY the programs are written.
I'm still pissed about C++ templates, though; they just don't seem to be much more powerful than #defines.
Although, I gotta say, what I want to do with them would be pretty tricky for a pre-compiled language...
If you count "shell" as a language (I count it as two with several variants), then it's probably been true since 1977.
And before that... how the HELL could you even GET TO a UNIX box without showing your 31337 skillz punching cards to write FORTRAN programs, some BCPL, some BASIC, some assembler, or maybe JOVIAL?
No, I would suspect that less than 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of competent C coders know at LEAST one other language well.
Me? I consider myself a C programmer, but I know C++, classical BASIC, [bourne|korn|ba] shell, yacc, lex, JavaScript, PHP well enough to use them on a daily basis. (Also PHP, HTML, CSS -- do those count as programming languages?)
I've also worked with S/SL (a compiler construction language), MAX (music event oriented language), Turing, Prolog, SmallTalk, Miranda, TCL, LISP, Pascal, LOGO, Quick Basic, Visual Basic, several flavours of assembler (Intel, MOStek, Zilog, Motorola, DEC and MIPS CPUs)....
And I actually consider myself UNDER varied. I could certainly pick up Ruby, Python, Perl and Java if the mood struck my. Probably two weeks each to moderate proficiency.
> But usually the people who claim to "write their inner loops in ASM" have > troubles making solid contributions to compiler technology.
It has also been my experience that these people do not know how to profile their code, or analyze an algorithm. Instead, they implement the same slow algorithms just a little wee bit faster (possibly not even measurably)... whereas proper optimization (profiling and thinking steps) could have sped up the same operation by an order of magnitude.
True story, I once rewrote a hand-coded assembler operation in shell script. My version was SIGNIFICANTLY faster. Why? It did a million times less I/O....
As far as I am concerned, broadband is anything more than you could get through the phone company before the invention of DSL. Which was two ISDN B channels bonded for 128 Kbps bi-di.
And that's the way it was, we paid $400 a month for the priviledge, and we liked it.
The government even made us pay the $15 911 toll on those lines, even though we didn't even OWN an ISDN telephone. (Does anyone??)
(create new document that looks like, but is not, the old one)
before sending onward. Otherwise, somebody WILL find something untoward, even if it's not track changes, it could be a now-unused hunk of crap in the OLE2 file, etc.
Look, nobody expects judges to be experts in everything. In particular, nobody expects judges to be knowledgeable about something that was INVENTED when they were in their 40s and was really a fad-for-young-people until a relatively short time ago.
What we expect judges to do is make fair rulings.
How can a judge who doesn't know anything about web sites and online forums make reasonable rulings? Well, he can't. And he knows this. So, the judge -- and MOST JUDGES -- have two choices:
- Learn enough to make a fair ruling
- Fake it and pick the lawyer with the nicest tie
Now, it has been fairly obvious that COMPLETELY CLUESS judges are making case law around the world. That is quite clearly BAD.
A judge willing to admit he lacks the deep understanding required to make a ruling, and taking steps to work around/solve the problem? NO PROBLEM, in my opinion, as long as he comes to the table with an open mind, impartiality, and a good sense of jurisprudence.
That said -- I think the judge should spend a few hours participating in IRC, reading bash.org, taking part in a forum about something he likes (maybe his car), checking out tubgirl, some pr0n, masturbating and so forth. Then maybe he will actually understand the medium. Somebody (prosecutor) should suggest that.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, America's lateness in WW-II used to always bother me.
Then I realized -- the new "pro-active" America bothers me a LOT MORE.
> First of all, Hand was presented the obvious love interest for Leia,
No offence, dude, but Carrie Fischer was hot enough in the late '70s that NOBODY would have thought that the hand-solo was her primary sexual outlet.
I'll bet she could've even gotten a rise out of that pansy droid, '3PO.
At least, in a semi-twisted pint of .. uh, I mean Alec Guiness-kind-of-way.
The evil force which Vader was totally suppressed the existence of Skywalker. Pretty much like trauma-induced multiple-personality disorder.
Like, we all know that video didn't ACTUALLY kill the radio star, but it certainly suppressed it to the point where it might as well be dead.
Female Nurse Ape: Ooh, help me Dr. Zaius!
Apes: [in unison] Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Oh... Dr. Zaius
Ape: Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius.
So, like, if Jobs is winning.. when he's busy trying to pin Bill to the canvas, Steve Ballmer can climb through the ropes with a couple of chairs from the front row and hit Steve in the head.
I've thrown charis before and I'll do it again! I'm going to fucking nail that guy!
Awhrwhrewhehsdbhfgshfhasdf!
Bingo.
Which is why as an excellent UNIX C programmer, I still get help from a VB-literate friend the odd time I delve into the nasty world of Visual C. He tells me which calls to which DLLs need to be made to do whatever system-specific task I'm unaware of (stuff like forking processes, memory mapping files, that sort of thing).
> Think of how you would react if some Perl/Python programer said ... but I could probably get to
> "Sure, I don't know LISP or C
> moderate proficiency in two weeks".
I would consider this individual a dedicated, professional programmer.
Note that there is a HUGE difference between "moderate proficiency" and "very proficient". I figure it took me about 3,000 hours of C programming to get to the "very proficient" tier (it was also my first professional gig).
Moderate proficiency is what half the OSS C code out there is. (I'm not counting the sendmails and apaches of the OSS world either). It works, it's obvious-bug free, it's not elegant and it's probably nowhere near optimal -- and desperately needs peer review from an expert to point out where improvements can be made.
But it should be functional, not reinvent core elements of the language, perform the task correctly in the language's native paradigm, and be legible to a skilled programmer.
Note, also, that I differentiate strongly between "core language" and common libraries available for use. Java does not imply J2EE, struts, and whatnot. JavaScript does not imply W3C DOM (but it does imply Math and Date). Perl does not imply CPAN. That said, C++ *does* imply stdlib, and C [to me] implies unistd, stdlib, stdio, strings, etc, but not xpg4, sockets, iconv, blah de blah.
> Now, whenever I have to use the command prompt under XP for
> god-knows what reason, I type 'ls' a few times before remembering...
I installed the Microsoft Services For UNIX one time, to see if it was useful.
I determined that it was not.
Then I typed 'ls' and it worked...
So I left it on.
> If you really think C++ is that different, you don't know real C.
It's not the syntax that's the big difference. It's the programming paradigm and standard libs. So, not the language per se, more like the WAY the programs are written.
I'm still pissed about C++ templates, though; they just don't seem to be much more powerful than #defines.
Although, I gotta say, what I want to do with them would be pretty tricky for a pre-compiled language...
If you count "shell" as a language (I count it as two with several variants), then it's probably been true since 1977.
And before that... how the HELL could you even GET TO a UNIX box without showing your 31337 skillz punching cards to write FORTRAN programs, some BCPL, some BASIC, some assembler, or maybe JOVIAL?
No, I would suspect that less than 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of competent C coders know at LEAST one other language well.
Me? I consider myself a C programmer, but I know C++, classical BASIC, [bourne|korn|ba] shell, yacc, lex, JavaScript, PHP well enough to use them on a daily basis. (Also PHP, HTML, CSS -- do those count as programming languages?)
I've also worked with S/SL (a compiler construction language), MAX (music event oriented language), Turing, Prolog, SmallTalk, Miranda, TCL, LISP, Pascal, LOGO, Quick Basic, Visual Basic, several flavours of assembler (Intel, MOStek, Zilog, Motorola, DEC and MIPS CPUs)....
And I actually consider myself UNDER varied. I could certainly pick up Ruby, Python, Perl and Java if the mood struck my. Probably two weeks each to moderate proficiency.
> But usually the people who claim to "write their inner loops in ASM" have
> troubles making solid contributions to compiler technology.
It has also been my experience that these people do not know how to profile their code, or analyze an algorithm. Instead, they implement the same slow algorithms just a little wee bit faster (possibly not even measurably)... whereas proper optimization (profiling and thinking steps) could have sped up the same operation by an order of magnitude.
True story, I once rewrote a hand-coded assembler operation in shell script. My version was SIGNIFICANTLY faster. Why? It did a million times less I/O....
So, Haskell only runs on one architecture? Or they write a different Haskell compiler for every architecture they support?
Damn, that's hard core. Not even GCC is that close to the metal! (except for a very, VERY tiny piece...)
Constitution, consititution...
Oh! You mean the "E. Plebnista?"
First number fails the Luhn checksum.
Second number isn't a credit card number at all. Maybe a calling card or something (telecom MII).
Why don't you post your REAL VISA number?
And Doctor Who and HHGTTG?
Wait, I thought it was a song lyrics by The Revolting Cocks?
Oh, wait.
OMG! Porny!
Does it count if we "find" a "hole" in the current CVS snapshot?
...I mean.
That means a T1 wouldn't qualify as broadband!
As far as I am concerned, broadband is anything more than you could get through the phone company before the invention of DSL. Which was two ISDN B channels bonded for 128 Kbps bi-di.
And that's the way it was, we paid $400 a month for the priviledge, and we liked it.
The government even made us pay the $15 911 toll on those lines, even though we didn't even OWN an ISDN telephone. (Does anyone??)
That reminds me once, of a resume I got in word format.
"Track Changes" revealed that he was either lying to me, or to the other employer he'd recently sent it to.
Either way, it spared me from having to schedule him an interview...
C-A, C-C, C-N, C-V, A-F, A
(create new document that looks like, but is not, the old one)
before sending onward. Otherwise, somebody WILL find something untoward, even if it's not track changes, it could be a now-unused hunk of crap in the OLE2 file, etc.
> Don't forget that NT ran rather well (as well as one could expect it to run, anyway) on Alpha boxes.
Yeah, I got really excited when I debugging something on XP a couple of years ago, and got the Windows NT ARC Loader screen.
I thought that had only been a DEC Alpha thing... (seriously -- I'm not an MS guy but ran Linux on an Alpha UDB for years)
What?
Paragraph and line number, please. It appears to me as though you've invented your accusation out of whole cloth.
Look, nobody expects judges to be experts in everything. In particular, nobody expects judges to be knowledgeable about something that was INVENTED when they were in their 40s and was really a fad-for-young-people until a relatively short time ago.
What we expect judges to do is make fair rulings.
How can a judge who doesn't know anything about web sites and online forums make reasonable rulings? Well, he can't. And he knows this. So, the judge -- and MOST JUDGES -- have two choices:
- Learn enough to make a fair ruling
- Fake it and pick the lawyer with the nicest tie
Now, it has been fairly obvious that COMPLETELY CLUESS judges are making case law around the world. That is quite clearly BAD.
A judge willing to admit he lacks the deep understanding required to make a ruling, and taking steps to work around/solve the problem? NO PROBLEM, in my opinion, as long as he comes to the table with an open mind, impartiality, and a good sense of jurisprudence.
That said -- I think the judge should spend a few hours participating in IRC, reading bash.org, taking part in a forum about something he likes (maybe his car), checking out tubgirl, some pr0n, masturbating and so forth. Then maybe he will actually understand the medium. Somebody (prosecutor) should suggest that.
Drive up to the microphone thingy, and tell the coffee maker "Large triple triple, please!".
Then she's all like "That'll be a dollar thirty-nine, please advance to the window!".
And that's how I get my coffee. Mmmmmm-M!