You don't *have* to have a separate name for the slot, keyword, and accessor (getter and setter), but it's nice to know you can. If you typically never do that (I do, but I can see the argument for usually not doing so), then you could trivially wrap defclass:
Of course, if you decide you need to have more than one reader, writer, or accessor for a slot, you can do that with DEFCLASS instead of DEF-GRUMBEL-CLASS.
But should they be able to out-bid you on your own name?
Well, that's between them and the seller (of whatever), no? I'm not sure why you think that would be a tough question; of course they shouldn't be stopped by force or the threat of it from purchasing ad space, no matter what they want to say in their ad, or where the seller agrees to show it on the seller's site/page/whatever.
If there's an error in the code wrapped in the connect(), which isn't handled inside that code, is the connection still properly closed before the error is handled outside the connect()?
It doesn't sound odd at all. We Mac users understand. I gave Emacs more than two months of my time, switched back to J, and detailed my irritations with Emacs on LiveJournal.
I used to use TextWrangler (bought it more than a year ago), but it just doesn't have the Lisp-related features I need.
Let me get this straight, eh? You're saying that people who do not read and watch local news to decipher this week's list of forbidden activities are stupid?
Have you noticed the police state you're describing, or is it completely transparent to you?
By assuming all else is equal, you assume away the problem. If the money had to be taxed from the public, then it wasn't worth spending on that, by definition. Stealing something from someone is, in and of itself, an admission that you couldn't get it from them voluntarily. So, while filling in all the details of what's going on might (or might not) show us where the waste is, or demonstrate the root of the reason you cannot trade for or ask for the money to do a thing, the fact that it was stolen/taxed is a fairly clear indicator that it was economically inefficient to spend it on that.
"And are there any other web apps that are this sophisticated?"
Is this a joke? There are much more sophisticated web apps out there (leaving aside the searching bit). Since client-side seems to impress, check out hushmail.com. That is on the low end of "sophisticated".
Lisp started as a "hardware-close" language. I mean, CAR and CDR were assembly language on the PDP-whatever.:)
In some Common Lisp implementations, you can explicitly manage your own memory if you feel like dealing with the pain; just wrap everything in (without-gcing...) or whatever the equivalent is for your implementation.
I use CMUCL, OpenMCL, and SBCL on my Mac. The only reason I'm usin CMUCL on it, though, is that most of my development is for a Linux server, and CMUCL is the target CL on that server.
I believe I read this in a novel, _Unintended Consequences_, so it very well could be that the author was embellishing for effect (it *is* fiction, after all), or merely mistaken. However, when that author had characters talk about things I knew about, he seemed to know what they were talking about.
While I don't know what "Sharpshooter" entails for the Marines, my father purchased a shiny new "Expert" in Army Basic in 1946, so I'm not inclined to think that means a lot in the 40s and 50s.:)
Being armed means having that choice. Being unarmed means having only the choice to do as you're told, or die. If people are basically evil, then evil will result whether the masses are armed or not, but being armed gives us the power to say, "No, I will not."
It's not hard ot take two shots and miss and hit with a third one, even at a moving target if you are an experienced marksman.
Well, the problem is using the rifle he was supposed to have used to place all those shots so close to the target so quickly. If I understand correctly (and I've never tried, so take with a grain of salt), it's difficult to even come close to your target in that timespan, and Oswald was such a notoriously bad shot that his coworkers (when he worked at a factory in Russia) would shoot something for him on hunts, so he wouldn't look bad to his girlfriend.
That's a fascinating article about how short-term thinking can destroy a business. I understand how a company like Vlasic can make such a mistake if no one has made it before, because it's human nature to expect "decent behavior" in those you deal with, but surely no competent business owner or manager is *now* making such mistakes. They have to take into consideration the fact that Walmart is willing to switch providers at the drop of a hat for a lower price, and either get a signed contract for enough business that expansion is worth it, or, failing that, don't do business in such a way that they're overextended.
It's been manageable since the 1960s. A craft in either the NERVA or Orion families would be much more capable than any chemical rocket, and pretty straightforward to build.
Until we can discover/create a sufficiently small, powerful, manageable power source, we aren't going beyong the moon.
Nukes. Solar power. Either suffice for travel to Mars. Nukes can be used for farther than that, but solar power requires much larger collection equipment in the asteroids.
Any ship that would take anyone (except Apollo 11-type explorers) on interplanetary travel will need to be robust enough to protect against small meteors, adequately shielded from radiation, and large enough to provide some sort of pseudo-gravity.
If it's fast enough (nukes, again), it need not protect exceedingly well from small particles, and you can take enough stuff with you that much of it can do double duty as radiation shielding (not from the reactor, but from the environment). Rotational "gravity" isn't required unless it's going to be longer than 6 months or so, which a fast ship wouldn't be.
Accelerating such a craft to a speed adequate to "rapidly" cross the ~300(*) million km from Earth to Mars and then deccelerate it once it gets there (and back!) will take a lot of energy...
Why "back"? We're talking about colonists. We only need to get them there, and resupply them with some things. Leaving off the return stage eases the problem enormously.
Badnarik might not agree with this, but here's a quick rule of thumb (which ought to be fleshed out into more, but I don't have time right now): If everyone else and everything that is owned by someone other than you disappeared tomorrow, anything you could still do would be your natural right. Anything that you do that depends on someone else is a negotiated right, or not a right at all.
Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but that's the literal truth. Such things are useful abstractions, but we shouldn't confuse them with the most basic reality.
By the time I can see it on my screen, that document is part of my computer.
That said, I have no problem with this as far as it goes; if technological solutions will work, then by all means use them. If they won't neither will legal ones anyway, in the long run.
Ultimately, businesses just need to learn how WalMart treats them, and turn down their initial offers [...]
Um, no? Businesses were assuming that Wal*mart would "play fair", and renew a contract for the next year without much fuss. Now that everyone knows that that isn't true, the logical solution is to hold out for enough money to pay off the additional costs and turn the profit desired, whether that means higher up front costs or signing a longer initial contract at once with penalties for Wal*mart if they breach the contract. Seems simple enough.
If Wal*mart won't sign a contract which is acceptable, then screw 'em. Let your competitors go out of business next year, not you.
Now, the best thing to do is use the Wal*mart contract to help finance an expansion which doesn't rely on Wal*mart's contract next year to make money, but that's trickier, admittedly.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, if you decide you need to have more than one reader, writer, or accessor for a slot, you can do that with DEFCLASS instead of DEF-GRUMBEL-CLASS.
I think it's unlikely that many MPAA employees really believe that. I'm sure they understand, really, that they're just rent-seeking.
But should they be able to out-bid you on your own name?
Well, that's between them and the seller (of whatever), no? I'm not sure why you think that would be a tough question; of course they shouldn't be stopped by force or the threat of it from purchasing ad space, no matter what they want to say in their ad, or where the seller agrees to show it on the seller's site/page/whatever.
If there's an error in the code wrapped in the connect(), which isn't handled inside that code, is the connection still properly closed before the error is handled outside the connect()?
It doesn't sound odd at all. We Mac users understand. I gave Emacs more than two months of my time, switched back to J, and detailed my irritations with Emacs on LiveJournal.
I used to use TextWrangler (bought it more than a year ago), but it just doesn't have the Lisp-related features I need.
10 to 15 years? :)
Let me get this straight, eh? You're saying that people who do not read and watch local news to decipher this week's list of forbidden activities are stupid?
Have you noticed the police state you're describing, or is it completely transparent to you?
By assuming all else is equal, you assume away the problem. If the money had to be taxed from the public, then it wasn't worth spending on that, by definition. Stealing something from someone is, in and of itself, an admission that you couldn't get it from them voluntarily. So, while filling in all the details of what's going on might (or might not) show us where the waste is, or demonstrate the root of the reason you cannot trade for or ask for the money to do a thing, the fact that it was stolen/taxed is a fairly clear indicator that it was economically inefficient to spend it on that.
"And are there any other web apps that are this sophisticated?"
Is this a joke? There are much more sophisticated web apps out there (leaving aside the searching bit). Since client-side seems to impress, check out hushmail.com. That is on the low end of "sophisticated".
Lisp started as a "hardware-close" language. I mean, CAR and CDR were assembly language on the PDP-whatever. :)
...) or whatever the equivalent is for your implementation.
In some Common Lisp implementations, you can explicitly manage your own memory if you feel like dealing with the pain; just wrap everything in (without-gcing
No Arc?! Paul Graham; paging Paul Graham!
;)
Where's my dinner^WArc?!
I use CMUCL, OpenMCL, and SBCL on my Mac. The only reason I'm usin CMUCL on it, though, is that most of my development is for a Linux server, and CMUCL is the target CL on that server.
I believe I read this in a novel, _Unintended Consequences_, so it very well could be that the author was embellishing for effect (it *is* fiction, after all), or merely mistaken. However, when that author had characters talk about things I knew about, he seemed to know what they were talking about.
:)
While I don't know what "Sharpshooter" entails for the Marines, my father purchased a shiny new "Expert" in Army Basic in 1946, so I'm not inclined to think that means a lot in the 40s and 50s.
Whereas an armed man can replicate the evil.
Being armed means having that choice. Being unarmed means having only the choice to do as you're told, or die. If people are basically evil, then evil will result whether the masses are armed or not, but being armed gives us the power to say, "No, I will not."
It's not hard ot take two shots and miss and hit with a third one, even at a moving target if you are an experienced marksman.
Well, the problem is using the rifle he was supposed to have used to place all those shots so close to the target so quickly. If I understand correctly (and I've never tried, so take with a grain of salt), it's difficult to even come close to your target in that timespan, and Oswald was such a notoriously bad shot that his coworkers (when he worked at a factory in Russia) would shoot something for him on hunts, so he wouldn't look bad to his girlfriend.
ServerBeach is great. I use them. They are not right for this project, which you'll notice if you do the math. :)
That's a fascinating article about how short-term thinking can destroy a business. I understand how a company like Vlasic can make such a mistake if no one has made it before, because it's human nature to expect "decent behavior" in those you deal with, but surely no competent business owner or manager is *now* making such mistakes. They have to take into consideration the fact that Walmart is willing to switch providers at the drop of a hat for a lower price, and either get a signed contract for enough business that expansion is worth it, or, failing that, don't do business in such a way that they're overextended.
Nukes.
Isn't manageable (yet)
It's been manageable since the 1960s. A craft in either the NERVA or Orion families would be much more capable than any chemical rocket, and pretty straightforward to build.
Until we can discover/create a sufficiently small, powerful, manageable power source, we aren't going beyong the moon.
Nukes. Solar power. Either suffice for travel to Mars. Nukes can be used for farther than that, but solar power requires much larger collection equipment in the asteroids.
Any ship that would take anyone (except Apollo 11-type explorers) on interplanetary travel will need to be robust enough to protect against small meteors, adequately shielded from radiation, and large enough to provide some sort of pseudo-gravity.
If it's fast enough (nukes, again), it need not protect exceedingly well from small particles, and you can take enough stuff with you that much of it can do double duty as radiation shielding (not from the reactor, but from the environment). Rotational "gravity" isn't required unless it's going to be longer than 6 months or so, which a fast ship wouldn't be.
Accelerating such a craft to a speed adequate to "rapidly" cross the ~300(*) million km from Earth to Mars and then deccelerate it once it gets there (and back!) will take a lot of energy...
Why "back"? We're talking about colonists. We only need to get them there, and resupply them with some things. Leaving off the return stage eases the problem enormously.
Badnarik might not agree with this, but here's a quick rule of thumb (which ought to be fleshed out into more, but I don't have time right now): If everyone else and everything that is owned by someone other than you disappeared tomorrow, anything you could still do would be your natural right. Anything that you do that depends on someone else is a negotiated right, or not a right at all.
I think you should end this now.
Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but that's the literal truth. Such things are useful abstractions, but we shouldn't confuse them with the most basic reality.
By the time I can see it on my screen, that document is part of my computer.
That said, I have no problem with this as far as it goes; if technological solutions will work, then by all means use them. If they won't neither will legal ones anyway, in the long run.
Ultimately, businesses just need to learn how WalMart treats them, and turn down their initial offers [...]
Um, no? Businesses were assuming that Wal*mart would "play fair", and renew a contract for the next year without much fuss. Now that everyone knows that that isn't true, the logical solution is to hold out for enough money to pay off the additional costs and turn the profit desired, whether that means higher up front costs or signing a longer initial contract at once with penalties for Wal*mart if they breach the contract. Seems simple enough.
If Wal*mart won't sign a contract which is acceptable, then screw 'em. Let your competitors go out of business next year, not you.
Now, the best thing to do is use the Wal*mart contract to help finance an expansion which doesn't rely on Wal*mart's contract next year to make money, but that's trickier, admittedly.