Since when is a developer spoon fed every detail of the process? When in doubt, do whatcha think it right. Don't act like an automaton awaiting instructions.
I think it works like this. You have people in the patent office who's job it is to issue patents. They issue the patent if the patent application is filled out in a certain way and is either well written or so boring that they'd be embarrassed to admit that they don't understand it. If they've heard of the place who's written it, that ads credibility from the name recognition.
On the other side of the coin, you have people in companies who are experts at writing patents. They know the verbage (ugh, I hate that word) to use and the hoops to jump through.
Long story short - the people involved with the patents are experts in patents, not experts in whatever the patent is about.
I don't know too much about LISP. Why do you think it failed to catch on the way these other languages did? If it has modern data structure capabilities, it must be lacking in some other way...
Thinking in doubly recursive execution paths is a rare skill/ability.
You have to identify the harm in order to make something a pollutant.
Are you talking politically here? My opinion isn't going to change things. The burden of proof should be on those who would change the atmosphere, not those who oppose the change. Why? Because of the potential far reaching effects of the change.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. I think its
"CO2 hasn't been shown to be harmful in a specific way. If it is not harmful then it's not pollution".
Thus, it puts the burden of proof for those favouring the reduction of CO2 production to not only show that CO2 is harmful, but also show exactly the way in which CO2 is harmful.
My argument is that the volume of CO2 emissions is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere in significantly measurable ways. I concede that the long term effects of those changes are not predictable. I put forth that there are more unfavourable outcomes than favourable ones, and the odds are that CO2 is a pollutant.
And there is plenty of disagreement that there are much negative externalities about carbon dioxide.
I think its fair to say that the effects of pollution are hard to predict, but that there are more negative outcomes than positive ones.
Saying that pollution isn't going to cause global warming is sort of like saying heavy use of crack cocaine doesn't cause skin cancer. Even if you are correct, it doesn't mean pollution or crack cocaine are not harmful. It's quibbling about the specifics of the harm.
This is where so many programers go wrong. The code is self documenting in the respect that you know it's checking the age of something to see if it was 7 days ago, but you have no idea WHY it's checking that. Why not 6 days ago? What if it's 8 days ago?
Comments should say WHAT and WHY you are doing something not HOW you are doing it. The HOW is the code itself. If someone was to look at that code, do they know what your intent was? Were you looking for something that was exactly 7 days old, or something 7 days old or older.
This is such an excellent point. The ultimate example of this was//add 1 to x x++;
I kid you not. That comment is a weed. A comment explaining 'why' something doesn't go out of date as quickly as a comment explaining implementation detail.
Interpreted languages, in general, are not faster than compiled languages. Period.
Excellent point. Better implementations are faster than poor implementations. Period.
I'm sure the authors of this web server would argue that lisp makes it easier to write a better implementation and concede that any such implementation could also be written in C.
I think we are actually in agreement. When I said 'can', I meant 'capable of doing', not 'should be able to do'.
The ability to do this crap and get away with it favours a flourishing corruption. What brings down the corrupt is eventually they will have enemies who are powerful enough to bring them down. Sadly, it doesn't mean their enemies are not corrupt.
So you are saying because a cop 'puts their life on the line' that they can be as crooked as they want, sell drugs, steal shit, harass people, assault people, etc, etc. The obvious answer is no they can't, they still have to abide by the laws that they are sworn to protect.
Yes, I am saying that. I don't like it and I'm not saying that that it's ethical. I'm just saying that they can do that an get away with it and that is the way it is.
They have to abide by the laws as much as most people have to abide by the speed limit.
Expecting a country of law? There is only one real law - people will do as much as they like that they think they can get away with.
If you are a cop, you can get away with a whole lot, and you are a pretty good judge of what you can get away with and what you can't. Pepole will give a cop the benefit of the doubt in many cases. They don't want to piss off a cop, and cops do put their lives on the line and are given slack for that reason.
Why do they rabidly want such control over thoughts, ideas, words?
Money. The US is losing ground on making physical things. Some of the few things that is left that the US actually makes is movies, tv shows, music and computer programs.
It shouldn't be surprising that the US is going to defend these things tooth and nail as very valuable and vital to the national interest.
Whether this is misguided or not, and whether the actions taken is not ethical is a different issue.
But seriously, why should there be nothing on the internet or attached to it that could threaten national security?
The obvious answer to that is because it increases the risk. Consider that any radio communication between soldiers in war can potentially be a risk because there is the possibility of interception. Does that mean that radio should not be used? no!
The more subtle answer to that is that the internet isn't yet perfectly secure or maybe 'secure enough'. The answer to that is to be educated and use encryption. Don't forget the original purpose of the internet.
Even addressing security questions, you might say "if there are alternatives that work, just let the government use those." Well, fine, but that may sacrifice efficiency.
Maybe I'm wrong, but there seems to be a very compartmentalized attitude in such an objection. The government..should do whatever it does and just leave me alone. *I* should not have to pay attention to the safety of the people around me since that is not my job. Everything must be cut and dried. There is a hierarchy and I will do as told and no more and I expect everyone to follow rules to the letter.
Do you know anything about the story other than what he said?
Do you know every single criminal on the planet says 'I'm guilty and this is police harassment'?
Other than a blog post, do you have any evidence to support his story?
Fortunately, I don't have to count on you to protect me from criminals.
Fortunately, I'm not consumed by this paranoia that the government is out to get me. This allows me to just wait until someone gathers some ACTUAL FACTS about the story before drawing conclusions.
Translation :
I'm white. Police tend to like me and give me the benefit of the doubt and my neighborhood is safe. I will give them the benefit of the doubt since I probably wouldn't like the moron blathering in his blog anyway.
Hitler was a bad choice. I should have gone with Franco or Pinochet as the example for the right, but I worried that people wouldn't know who they are.
Bush 41 was a serious and careful person and he *did* know how to leverage diplomacy. I believe he (rightly) saw the UN as something that could be used to the advantage of the US. Even so, there was a lot of pressure even then in the Republican party to not pay UN dues and to ditch the UN. Bush Sr wanted stability in the region.
Bush 43 did not kick butt. It was the US military that did. That is *their* job and they take it seriously and do it well. It is laughable that anyone seriously believed that Iraq was a threat to the United States or NATO. The war was a tactical masterpiece but a strategic blunder. We come out of this so much weaker.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is a developer spoon fed every detail of the process? When in doubt, do whatcha think it right. Don't act like an automaton awaiting instructions.
Excellent point.
I think it works like this. You have people in the patent office who's job it is to issue patents. They issue the patent if the patent application is filled out in a certain way and is either well written or so boring that they'd be embarrassed to admit that they don't understand it. If they've heard of the place who's written it, that ads credibility from the name recognition.
On the other side of the coin, you have people in companies who are experts at writing patents. They know the verbage (ugh, I hate that word) to use and the hoops to jump through.
Long story short - the people involved with the patents are experts in patents, not experts in whatever the patent is about.
Borg borg borg borg borg .....
OO.o
I don't know too much about LISP. Why do you think it failed to catch on the way these other languages did? If it has modern data structure capabilities, it must be lacking in some other way...
Thinking in doubly recursive execution paths is a rare skill/ability.
You have to identify the harm in order to make something a pollutant.
Are you talking politically here? My opinion isn't going to change things. The burden of proof should be on those who would change the atmosphere, not those who oppose the change. Why? Because of the potential far reaching effects of the change.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. I think its
"CO2 hasn't been shown to be harmful in a specific way. If it is not harmful then it's not pollution".
Thus, it puts the burden of proof for those favouring the reduction of CO2 production to not only show that CO2 is harmful, but also show exactly the way in which CO2 is harmful.
My argument is that the volume of CO2 emissions is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere in significantly measurable ways. I concede that the long term effects of those changes are not predictable. I put forth that there are more unfavourable outcomes than favourable ones, and the odds are that CO2 is a pollutant.
I'm talking in general about pollution, but yes, the topic is CO2.
The amount of CO2 we are producing changes the stoichiometry of the atmosphere. I don't welcome such a change.
And there is plenty of disagreement that there are much negative externalities about carbon dioxide.
I think its fair to say that the effects of pollution are hard to predict, but that there are more negative outcomes than positive ones.
Saying that pollution isn't going to cause global warming is sort of like saying heavy use of crack cocaine doesn't cause skin cancer. Even if you are correct, it doesn't mean pollution or crack cocaine are not harmful. It's quibbling about the specifics of the harm.
"round up the usual suspects"`
This is where so many programers go wrong. The code is self documenting in the respect that you know it's checking the age of something to see if it was 7 days ago, but you have no idea WHY it's checking that. Why not 6 days ago? What if it's 8 days ago?
Comments should say WHAT and WHY you are doing something not HOW you are doing it. The HOW is the code itself. If someone was to look at that code, do they know what your intent was? Were you looking for something that was exactly 7 days old, or something 7 days old or older.
This is such an excellent point. The ultimate example of this was //add 1 to x
x++;
I kid you not. That comment is a weed. A comment explaining 'why' something doesn't go out of date as quickly as a comment explaining implementation detail.
Interpreted languages, in general, are not faster than compiled languages. Period.
Excellent point. Better implementations are faster than poor implementations. Period.
I'm sure the authors of this web server would argue that lisp makes it easier to write a better implementation and concede that any such implementation could also be written in C.
I think we are actually in agreement. When I said 'can', I meant 'capable of doing', not 'should be able to do'.
The ability to do this crap and get away with it favours a flourishing corruption. What brings down the corrupt is eventually they will have enemies who are powerful enough to bring them down. Sadly, it doesn't mean their enemies are not corrupt.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/cops-gone-wild/
Heh, excellent point. A state may have secrets, but if it has secret laws, it is at least partially a police state.
So you are saying because a cop 'puts their life on the line' that they can be as crooked as they want, sell drugs, steal shit, harass people, assault people, etc, etc. The obvious answer is no they can't, they still have to abide by the laws that they are sworn to protect.
Yes, I am saying that. I don't like it and I'm not saying that that it's ethical. I'm just saying that they can do that an get away with it and that is the way it is.
They have to abide by the laws as much as most people have to abide by the speed limit.
Expecting a country of law? There is only one real law - people will do as much as they like that they think they can get away with.
If you are a cop, you can get away with a whole lot, and you are a pretty good judge of what you can get away with and what you can't. Pepole will give a cop the benefit of the doubt in many cases. They don't want to piss off a cop, and cops do put their lives on the line and are given slack for that reason.
Why do they rabidly want such control over thoughts, ideas, words?
Money. The US is losing ground on making physical things. Some of the few things that is left that the US actually makes is movies, tv shows, music and computer programs.
It shouldn't be surprising that the US is going to defend these things tooth and nail as very valuable and vital to the national interest.
Whether this is misguided or not, and whether the actions taken is not ethical is a different issue.
*sigh*
Those axis should have little relationship to one an other.
Everyone should get ice cream.
But seriously, why should there be nothing on the internet or attached to it that could threaten national security?
The obvious answer to that is because it increases the risk.
Consider that any radio communication between soldiers in war can potentially be a risk because there is the possibility of interception. Does that mean that radio should not be used? no!
The more subtle answer to that is that the internet isn't yet perfectly secure or maybe 'secure enough'. The answer to that is to be educated and use encryption. Don't forget the original purpose of the internet.
Even addressing security questions, you might say "if there are alternatives that work, just let the government use those." Well, fine, but that may sacrifice efficiency.
Maybe I'm wrong, but there seems to be a very compartmentalized attitude in such an objection. The government..should do whatever it does and just leave me alone. *I* should not have to pay attention to the safety of the people around me since that is not my job. Everything must be cut and dried. There is a hierarchy and I will do as told and no more and I expect everyone to follow rules to the letter.
Do you know why the took his stuff?
Do you know anything about the story other than what he said?
Do you know every single criminal on the planet says 'I'm guilty and this is police harassment'?
Other than a blog post, do you have any evidence to support his story?
Fortunately, I don't have to count on you to protect me from criminals.
Fortunately, I'm not consumed by this paranoia that the government is out to get me. This allows me to just wait until someone gathers some ACTUAL FACTS about the story before drawing conclusions.
Translation :
I'm white. Police tend to like me and give me the benefit of the doubt and my neighborhood is safe. I will give them the benefit of the doubt since I probably wouldn't like the moron blathering in his blog anyway.
heheh, gracias
Meine Nase ist aber schon wider nicht weggeflogen?
Hitler was a bad choice.
I should have gone with Franco or Pinochet as the example for the right, but I worried that people wouldn't know who they are.
Bush 41 was a serious and careful person and he *did* know how to leverage diplomacy. I believe he (rightly) saw the UN as something that could be used to the advantage of the US. Even so, there was a lot of pressure even then in the Republican party to not pay UN dues and to ditch the UN. Bush Sr wanted stability in the region.
Bush 43 did not kick butt. It was the US military that did. That is *their* job and they take it seriously and do it well.
It is laughable that anyone seriously believed that Iraq was a threat to the United States or NATO. The war was a tactical masterpiece but a strategic blunder. We come out of this so much weaker.