"The "transition period" is called socialism, not communism."
No. Communism (at least the Leninist line) is an _agenda_, a program, and a philosophy, not just a form of social structure. Part of this program is revolution and dictatorship (vanguard state) before the final stage of communism -- which was never ever achieved by any communist regime.
"Communism is the communal ownership of property." No. "communal ownership" just one part of the communist program. You seem to be pretty brainwashed, as many people who defend communism. "Communal ownership" is the idea that people like, but this is more closer to the ideas of Reausseau -- and not Lenin.
It has government (at least in the transition period). This is one of the ESSENTIAL ideas in communism. Other one is world revolution.
Friedrich Engels said: “Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”
Also, from State & Revolution
". . . the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors. . . . An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism."
People mix up the ideas Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Theory_of_Natural_Man) with the ideas of communism. Communism is not about equality -- it is about giving the power to the proletariat.
Communism is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world, side-by-side with national socialism (which is also socialist!). In fact, it managed to kill more people at the end -- although during a longer timeframe.
I think the MIDI bank is what makes the difference here. If the composer did his work on soundcard X then it may sound badly on card Y -- because the MIDI banks use different sounds.
I know prolog. I learned Prolog and SML at university. Currently I found Scala as a good compromise between pragmatism and purity.
Anyway, every year I try to learn a new language. Also, I like to write mini-languages (DSL's if you like buzzwords).
Re:Asynchronous and self modifying code.
on
Programming Clojure
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Asynchronous programming sucks big time (at least for programs that are beyond trivial). There is a reason for the idea of "blocking calls" -- it makes code much more readable. Although the asynchronous model leads to faster code.
I earn part of my money by doing Discrete-Event Simulations, which are by their nature much like Actors - everything is done through message passing, and asynchronously (i.e - no blocking calls).
It always make me twitch when people come and try to sell abstractions like STM or Actors as the Final and Ultimate Answer. There is no silver bullet, I had to learn it the hard way.
My problem is the people who always strive for some divine "elegance". If someone (especially an academic) calls something "elegant" you can be 99% sure that it is pain in the ass in practice.
- Elegant theorems are usually oversimplified -- therefore unusable in practice (at least in the original form)
- Elegant proofs are too compressed -- you are not able to learn from them, because the original ideas and failures of the prover got weeded out. They need a mental reverse engineering without "source code" or "documentation"
- Elegant programming languages are too opinionated and constrained -- pure OO, pure FP, pure whatever. Static vs Dynamic typing.
Scala is uber-cool. I use it daily now -- I moved from Java 2-3 months ago.
However:
- tool support is very infant
- documentation sucks
- books and introduction materials concentrate on the shiny new things, not the day-by-day use. This can confuse newcomers as there is a lot of stuff to digest -- but you rarely use (although later you should learn).
STM does not scale really well. Actors' message passing, asynchronous nature will make even trivial code quite complex -- we implemented blocking calls for a reason!
Sometimes I just go back to plain old threads as they solve the problem better.
Well, clojure's slightly changed syntax shows that there is a need for more visual structure. Our visual systems do not work like formal language parsers -- not necessarily the simplest (or more "elegant") syntax is the best. Also, the richness and complexity of natural languages indicate that (some) complexity is more natural to us.
Anyway, I tried many time to USE Lisp-like languages (scheme, clojure), but I ended up reverting to other languages. On the other hand, I use now Scala daily and moved almost all of my development from Java to Scala.
In Opera, you can just rigth click on the Wikipedia search box, and assign a letter to it -- like w. Then you can search Wikipedia when you type in your URL bar:
Something inside me says that the patents of Apple are not in par with Nokia's ones. I am surrounded with electrical engineers working on modulation, coding, and other low level radio technologies (antennas etc.) -- it is heavy stuff. While I understand that multitouch is not trivial either, but still not in the same league.
You have only to places of distortion: the ADC and DAC. In fully analog systems every part of the analog chain adds to the degradation of the signal. In modern information processing systems and long communications lines this is too much.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you French? Anyway, never mind. Just keep out your "communism" from my country.
"The "transition period" is called socialism, not communism."
No. Communism (at least the Leninist line) is an _agenda_, a program, and a philosophy, not just a form of social structure. Part of this program is revolution and dictatorship (vanguard state) before the final stage of communism -- which was never ever achieved by any communist regime.
"Communism is the communal ownership of property."
No. "communal ownership" just one part of the communist program. You seem to be pretty brainwashed, as many people who defend communism. "Communal ownership" is the idea that people like, but this is more closer to the ideas of Reausseau -- and not Lenin.
Disclaimer: I am from an ex-communist country.
"Communism has no government." -- This is not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
It has government (at least in the transition period). This is one of the ESSENTIAL ideas in communism. Other one is world revolution.
Friedrich Engels said: “Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”
Also, from State & Revolution
". . . the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors. . . . An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism."
People mix up the ideas Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Theory_of_Natural_Man) with the ideas of communism. Communism is not about equality -- it is about giving the power to the proletariat.
Communism is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world, side-by-side with national socialism (which is also socialist!). In fact, it managed to kill more people at the end -- although during a longer timeframe.
The principles of secure software are almost the same as bugfree software. No silver bullet -- again.
I think the MIDI bank is what makes the difference here. If the composer did his work on soundcard X then it may sound badly on card Y -- because the MIDI banks use different sounds.
We also did a dual soundcard setup and used two instances of Winamp to mix music :)
I had the PnP version. It was beautiful and horrible at the same time. Beautiful sound and horrible driver support.
Fucking idiots!
I know prolog. I learned Prolog and SML at university. Currently I found Scala as a good compromise between pragmatism and purity.
Anyway, every year I try to learn a new language. Also, I like to write mini-languages (DSL's if you like buzzwords).
Asynchronous programming sucks big time (at least for programs that are beyond trivial). There is a reason for the idea of "blocking calls" -- it makes code much more readable. Although the asynchronous model leads to faster code.
I earn part of my money by doing Discrete-Event Simulations, which are by their nature much like Actors - everything is done through message passing, and asynchronously (i.e - no blocking calls).
It always make me twitch when people come and try to sell abstractions like STM or Actors as the Final and Ultimate Answer. There is no silver bullet, I had to learn it the hard way.
Exactly! Wery well said.
My problem is the people who always strive for some divine "elegance". If someone (especially an academic) calls something "elegant" you can be 99% sure that it is pain in the ass in practice.
- Elegant theorems are usually oversimplified -- therefore unusable in practice (at least in the original form)
- Elegant proofs are too compressed -- you are not able to learn from them, because the original ideas and failures of the prover got weeded out. They need a mental reverse engineering without "source code" or "documentation"
- Elegant programming languages are too opinionated and constrained -- pure OO, pure FP, pure whatever. Static vs Dynamic typing.
etc.
Scala is uber-cool. I use it daily now -- I moved from Java 2-3 months ago.
However:
- tool support is very infant
- documentation sucks
- books and introduction materials concentrate on the shiny new things, not the day-by-day use. This can confuse newcomers as there is a lot of stuff to digest -- but you rarely use (although later you should learn).
In Java there are other abstractions than threads, just look into the concurrent package.
Also, Clojure supports STM (Software Transaction Memory)
and Scala supports Actors
The thing is, that there is no silver bullet.
STM does not scale really well.
Actors' message passing, asynchronous nature will make even trivial code quite complex -- we implemented blocking calls for a reason!
Sometimes I just go back to plain old threads as they solve the problem better.
Go, use Scala, and you can use functors instead of factories whenever you want.
Well, clojure's slightly changed syntax shows that there is a need for more visual structure. Our visual systems do not work like formal language parsers -- not necessarily the simplest (or more "elegant") syntax is the best. Also, the richness and complexity of natural languages indicate that (some) complexity is more natural to us.
Anyway, I tried many time to USE Lisp-like languages (scheme, clojure), but I ended up reverting to other languages. On the other hand, I use now Scala daily and moved almost all of my development from Java to Scala.
In Opera, you can just rigth click on the Wikipedia search box, and assign a letter to it -- like w. Then you can search Wikipedia when you type in your URL bar:
w [search term] ;)
Something inside me says that the patents of Apple are not in par with Nokia's ones. I am surrounded with electrical engineers working on modulation, coding, and other low level radio technologies (antennas etc.) -- it is heavy stuff. While I understand that multitouch is not trivial either, but still not in the same league.
Learn to say NO
Maybe they just want some patents for multitouch technologies.
Yes, ALL the data from ALL of the institutes were thrown out? Forget the CRU, there are MANY others.
I am very happy that only the really interested students come in, and I do not have to handle masses of students that do not want to be there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)
You have only to places of distortion: the ADC and DAC. In fully analog systems every part of the analog chain adds to the degradation of the signal. In modern information processing systems and long communications lines this is too much.
By your logic, we would be able to send arbitrary amount of data in arbitrary short time - which is obviously impossible.
Hint: think about the noise on any physical channel
H.264 ought to be enough for anybody.
*wink*