No longer will any one company determine what is best for the market or the user, but the market will decide and users will choose.
No longer will files and documents wear the cement shoes of a single vendor or operating system, but standards will flourish and compatibility reign across platforms.
For the first time, a commercial grade, full-featured office suite will be opened up to the innovative input of the global developer community.
Free to be changed. Free to be improved. Free to adapt to meet the needs of any situation. Free.
Wait, I can't make money from free? Nevermind, we're gonna charge for it.
Contrary to the mantra that "Open" development is always better for performance issues the advantage of Free Software have to do with Freedom: improved performance is a frequent desirable epiphenomenon.
I didn't really mean to state whether or not the benefits of FS are real, just that they cannot exist when a majority of the system is closed.
As far as I know, not many advocates of FS claim FS is better because it is faster. FS on the average is not faster because either certain optimizations are copyrighted (Intel C++ for example).
He obviously doesn't address what you point out, but I think the argument against the VM-ized version is valid. The benefits of Free Software obviously do not apply when the underlying system is closed.
I wonder if Linux still suffers the horrible performance issues when running natively verses when running on top of a VM (or atleast, the issues pointed out in the article).
Going to a club every once in a while is not a bad thing. Going quite frequently is not bad either.
Watching TV is not a bad thing. Watching TV quite frequently is not a bad either.
In fact, both have their good aspects and are almost necessary to create a well-rounded individual.
I used a 'club' example simply because it is the most extreme example. In a club, you do not typically interact greatly with others. It's not a place where people share ideas or connect on any kind of intellectual level.
Sure, it's fun, but so is TV. I cannot understand though why someone who value one 'fun' thing over another 'fun' thing.
I've always said that I'd rather a woman spend an hour reading a book before going out on a date with me than spending that hour making sure every little thing is perfect. It just seems to me that if you really are interested in someone, you would try to communicate something to them that would be lasting and meaningful verses something that is trivial and fleeting.
NOTE: Don't get me wrong, I like when women look good:) Don't think of that hour as the entire time spent getting ready (God knows no woman on Earth is that effient), but think of that hour as the hour spent making sure each eye lashing isn't clumpy or trying on 5 outfits on to see which one looks best.
Increased quanity is not an excuse for lack of quality.
I don't know if this was in reference to my post or to the actual parent since it doesn't make much sense for the parent.
I'm not preaching isolationism at all. Social interaction is important. It is important though that the interaction has some kind of meaning to it.
IMHO, there is no difference between sitting in front of the TV and watching Jerry Springer than there is sitting at a bar and _talking_ with others about Jerry Springer.
Life has more to offer than that. I would much rather spend one minute of meaningful conversation and a year of isolation, than spend a year of meaningless interaction.
I also have to disagree with you a bit on your assertion that idiots are bad. I think there is a bad mentality amoungst more educated people to see the world as "all of us, and then the idiots." Socrates once said that "He is wisest who understands that wisdom has no value." I have found greater meaning in conversing with what many would consider "Idiots" than in conversing with would be considered the "intellegent" people.
So, to summarize: I do believe in social interaction and do interact with people quite frequently (what a strange way to describe it...). I do choose who I interact with very closely. I have no problem staying home on a Friday night reading a book though instead of going out somewhere in desperation in order to fullfill the notion that an individual must have social interaction at all times no matter how meaningless.
Perhaps I do not have as finely tuned of an anti-linux ear as the/. admins but it doesn't really seem to me that Sun is bashing Linux.
Sun brings up a few very valid points:
Linux on mainframes is still running on top of a properitery VM. This kills the whole Free Software argument for using Linux.
Linux is not designed to run on top of z/VM. It isn't:) That's not a bad thing, it's the truth.
Using Linux on top of z/VM limits the amount of fault recovery that can occur compared to IBM's old z/OS. This seems logically to me.
I don't think Sun is trashing Linux. I just think they are saying that Linux does not scale to Mainframes that great right now. Perhaps the only thing they aren't doing is saying that while there are issues with Linux now, the fact that Linux is FS allows those issues to be resolved in the future. Of course, why would a company endorse another company's product?
It never ceases to amaze me how few principles people actually stick to when moneys involved. Here is a site (and I was going to quote before it went down) based on the premise that popular media is being deceptive in order to make money. And the first thing that happens when I goto it is some little window pops up an advertisement for a @disinfo.com email address.
Of course, the background was black and the text that said "For only $39.95 a year" was about #010101. In fact, it took like 30 seconds for me to actually figure out what it said since it was a silly animated gif.
So this bastion of truth is trying to trick me into buying an email address using methods that surely wouldn't pass the FCC standards for commerical advertising (FCC has no standards for the net, but it does for TV). Right. Thanks again Jon.
Perhaps you should read more about democracy then:)
If you are familar with Locke (or have read the Declaration of Independence), then you'll agree that the only time a government is legitimate, is when it keeps it end of the social contract by protecting it's citizen's inalienable rights. The social contract is an absolute agreement between citizens of a state and government of that state. The citizens all have a right to abolish the government which is why all citizens of the US have the right to vote. This way, when our government breaks the social contract, we can remove them.
The UN cannot be viewed as a government because it does guarentee any of it's citizens (the countries included in the UN) inalienable rights. It provides no means to protect one country from another. Instead, everything is decided by commitee based on majority decision. This is because there is no social contract in the UN. There is only covenants made between the members of the UN. If a country decides to break a covenant with another country, oh well. All of the treaties and such are all voluntary.
This is because all the countries with the UN wish to about their own autonomy since if it were a government, then surely the US could not coexist with socialistic or theocratic regimes. Instead, the UN is more like a corporation. It's a collection of individuals set about for a single purpose (a desire to profit). Just like a corporation, the individuals with the most power (the largest GNP) should atleast have the most influence on the future of the corporation. It simply a pooling of resources, and this way, the group who's contributing most to the pool should have the most say.
It's like capitalism. Everyone works and contributes to the economy. Everyone also gets back from the economy in proportion to what they put into it.
The only justification for equal representation within the UN is if all parties were contributing equally and that simply isn't the case.
Veto power is a small priviledge. Considering that 75% of the UN's budget comes from the top 5 supporting countries (the US being number one) and another 23% comes from the next 25 countries. All in all, only about 66 countries last year contributed at all.
Since 31% is close to half of the contributions from the top 5 countries, I think it's safe to say that the US is by far, making the majority contribution to the UN's budget. Just because the sum of the minorities is greater than the majority, doesn't mean that it's not the majority.
Think of it in terms of politics. The actual percentage of people who vote for a politician is not nearly half of the population, but it is still considered the majority relative the the nearest minority.
It's not about money buying power, but it the justification for having the US pay more than everyone else is that the bulk of the WDP comes from this country, than likewise, our vote should count that much more.
Simply having the power to veto isn't enough (especially since 4 other countries have it too).
We have a congress and a house to proportionally represent Americans, and likewise, states with higher populations (and therefore, higher GDPs) have greater representation. There is nothing like that in the UN. If the UN expects US citizens to pay the bulk of the UNs budget, then it's only fair for the US to have a greater say in the UNs proceeding than any other country.
Whether you agree or not, this is what most of the world (who actually listen to the UN and pay its dues on time) goes by.
The US is responsible for 26% of regular UN budget and 31% of the peacekeeping budget. For the amount being paid into it, the US should have such a majority control (not in a dictoral manner, but in a majoritian manner). In a democratic nation, such as the US, one cannot blame the people for not wanting to be the majority support of an organization that likewise does not provide a majority voice to the US (it essentially goes against the fundamental concepts of democracy).
Either way, you raise valid points in regards to the effects that disabled people (particularily mentally disabled) have on society.
I think there is a difference between required treatment, and aesthic treatments. Indeed, one would have to say that a heart transplant is not a required treatment simply because it does not have an adequate success rate nor does it provide any sort of quality of life assurance. In many ways, it could be seen as more humane to allow such a person to die than to keep them alive.
As far as the elderly are concerned, I think the same applies. I think that if an individual cannot pay for a treatment that can be considered aesthic, then the state should not be obligated to treat it. What treatments are defined as aesthic obviously becomes defined by the finite resources of the state.
Being a capitalistic society, it's important to not change the health care system to a socialist type system. Capitalism is effective because it allows for competition, and the US healthcare system and it's capitalistic nature is exactly why the US produces the largest amount of medical discoveries in the world.
Your bring up a point too about the best case senario of a heart transplant being 5-10 years of rather poor quality of life.
For a 50 year old man, this may make sense, but for an 8 year old child, is this really such a good thing? It's one thing to live to extend your life to the twilight years, but to extend it just long enough to where you are no longer a burden on society?
The kid will never have a chance to actually be a normal kid. To me, this is exactly the reason why our society should be more open to euthanasia.
Violence is not a biological urge, it's a biological reaction. In an unprovoked environment, a person will not act out in violence (neither will an animal in a similiar environment). Upon provocation, then a violent reaction may occur.
Take a dog for instance. If properly care for (providing an ideal amount of food/exercise and the approriate social structure), the dog will not act out in violence. This is why people keep dogs as pets. If the dogs environment is not perfect, then he may act out in violence. But it not an uncontrollable biological urge, it is in fact reactions to the negatives in his environment.
This is how one can have a dog who is absolutely vicious to it's owner but then on the same hand, incredible tolerant and protective of a young baby. The dog acts out against the perceived threat.
So, we can arrange ourselves as a society to eliminate the biological response of violence. Merely trying to outlaw the response is unproductive though as the stimulate is not eliminated.
Ok, so the kid needs a heart transplant. It's not as if there are tons of matched hearts laying around and one only needs 1/4 mill to get them.
IIRC, hospitals must treat patients regardless of whether they have insurance or not in a life-or-death situation. If the kid was going to die, he would have to receive the heart transplant.
Now, medications and stuff are a whole different story. And, again IIRC, I do not believe heart transplants have a very long life-extension rate. I am rather sure that folks don't live forever with them.
One would think the sheer fact that it is a child would complicate the situation more since a child obviously could not get an adult's heart. So the hospital would need a child of a similar age's heart that was also compatible with the kid's blood type.
It's hard to speak out on an issue using an unrealistic circumstance. Considering that we live in a free market, the fact that so many people who can't afford the level of care they receive are actually getting it.
This is sort of like the senior prescription drug stuff. Elderly individuals that did not live their lives planning to live so long, can be kept artifically alive via medication. What happens in society if we figure out a way to add 20 more years to a persons live (but of the quality that most seniors suffer^H^H^H^H^Henjoy now). Is that a good thing and more importantly, whose going to pay for it?
Note: I don't think guns or video games are dangerous or cause violence. I firmly believe those things can always be traced back to stupid people.
"He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing." - Socrates, Plato's "Apology"
Violence does in fact breed violence. The violence presented by video games is not the creator of violence in society, but rather the result of violence in society.
There is no logical reason why one should enjoy engaging in violence, be it simulated or real. It is an expression of a deeper emotional problem. Perhaps instead of trying to ban violence in video games, or trying to protect violence in video games, our society should try address why our society is so infatuated with violence to begin with. If you try to fight a fire by pumping in fresh air to replace the smoke, it's only going to burn hotter.
There are now-a-days professors of philosophy but not philosophers. - HDT
Merely learning about philosophy is a trivial task. It must be lived.
The teacher would do his students better by teaching literature. Literature contains the best bits of human knowledge we have thus obtained. Let students come to philosophy on their own as it is not something that can just be taught and then forgotten as so many things are in high schools.
Especially folks like More. Imagine if a student only remembered More and thought that philosophy was his twisted view of the world. What a shame that would be.
This author absolutely does not know what he's talking about (or there's no merit to this man's claim - which I think is unlikely).
He mentions then term 'escape sequence' and then somehow binds that to the escape key. The only relation between an 'escape sequence' and an escape key is that the begining on the traditional ansi escape sequence starts with the same code the escape key generates.
An 'escape sequence' according to Webopedia is:
A sequence of special characters that sends a command to a device or program. Typically, an escape sequence begins with an escape character, but this is not universally true.
The fact is that the escape sequence in a traditional hyperlink is the information encoded after the filename (that's encoded with URL-encoding). It's all those neat %20 characters.
Check out this quote:
Escape's powers are huge but at its most basic level, it is a command that tells a computer to make a shift in its processing - allowing a user to move up, down or sideways through files, programs or networks. For example, every press of a phone key that allows a user to move through an automated information service is an invocation of Berner's escape principle.
This is just absurd. Escape sequences special sequences encoded other data. A telephone navigation system is merely a command driven system. Nothing is escaped. By this logic, every time anyone tells anything to do anything they are invocating Berner's escape principle.
I understand the guy's position, but Wired really blew it on this story. I'm suprised this made it past the technical editors...
BTW: The article mentions the '/' character as being an escape sequence, but this is not true. If they are referring to the href of a URL, then since the protocol preceeds the '/', this would not be an example of an escape sequence. I think the real issue is the escape sequences preceeded by '%' signs.
(1) You said you hope it was 'fixed' infering that it was a bug. If you wish for an additional feature, you would say you hoped it was 'added.' If you feel it should be changed, then you would say 'changed.'
(2) In the time it takes to move to that silly mouse, you could have been done copying it. Copying five words is as simple as:
C-[space] ; C-u 5 M-f ; C-xrk
Five words, cut into the clipboard. Best part is that you could easily bind the above to a single key so that any time you wanted to copy 5 words from the middle of a sentence, it only required a single key. Or you could just use a macro if you needed it temporarily.
You will be faster _without_ a mouse. I promise:)
MS is developing for FreeBSD?!?!?
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
I'm amazed that more folks are screaming here.
MS's implementation of the CLI isn't alone. Aside from some MS-led effort to provide a version for FreeBSD,...
WTH is this? MS is developing a version of CLI for FreeBSD? I can't believe they are using FreeBSD to circumvent Linux. What's worse is that I can't believe the FreeBSD people are going along with this. I guess someone forgot to mention that Free doesn't really go well with Monopoly...
How come more people aren't bitching about this? They use Apple to circumvent Sun and now are blatantly using FreeBSD to circumvent Linux and yet no one seems to care. I don't get it.
(1) This is by no means a bug and has been standard Unix behavior for some time. Just because it doesn't work the same in Windows, doesn't mean it's a bug.
(2) If your programming, why the hell would you be using the mouse to copy stuff??? Wouldn't you be using C-k or C-xrk like a normal person? Sheesh, my only compliant about KDE is that it encourages people to use lesser tools (KDeveloper) when better tools exist (Emacs). One would think that FS projects would borrow code from each other...
Even if your not using Emacs, if your a programmer and your stuck to a mouse, your productivity has to be hurting... Even on Windows, I still use the keyboard to copy and paste.
Yes, but what happens if some goofy programmer comes along and decides to make a Matrix.multiply? They same argument can be used. It's all about have good names that have good meanings.
I've worked with many programmers who use methods so irresponsibly. They end up using.get() to do just about everything. This all comes down to good documentation and good requirements.
I knew I'd get this response... Complex numbers are perhaps a better example:)
ComplexNumber a(1, 0), b(2, 3);
a += b;
Now that's intuitive atleast:) infix is more intuitive for the idiot programmers that have to implement the code from Mathematica:) That's actually the problem, the math/physics guys hand down these algorithms written in Mathematica and have to be translated into code. You need something that is inuitive for the average programmer to use.
Typing may not be important to the mathematicians, but it's surely important to the programmers:)
Well, your just plain wrong. The C++ spec only requires non-trivial constructors/destructors (12.1 paragraph 6) as per section 12.2 paragraph 3.
And, recently added to the spec is the ability for even named objects that are used as return values to be optimized away so what ends up happening for:
a = b + c
is that the temporary used by operator+ is actually replaced with a. Inlined correctly and there is absolutely no overhead whatsoever.
C++ is efficent if you know how to use it.
BTW: the call to the member function was in Java syntax as the debate was between Java and C++. Java uses Classnamestatic_function whereas C++ uses Classnamestatic_function.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets just say I've encountered a similar setup when trying to put Linux on a Win box.
Put the hood open, and *whoops*, looks like the CMOS battery got knocked out of place. No more BIOS protection.
Quick rescue floppy, and you've magically got root.
CMOS batteries die. Happens all the time. It would be pretty obvious that they screwed you, but you wouldn't have any grounds to seek damages.
No longer will any one company determine what is best for the market or the user, but the market will decide and users will choose.
No longer will files and documents wear the cement shoes of a single vendor or operating system, but standards will flourish and compatibility reign across platforms.
For the first time, a commercial grade, full-featured office suite will be opened up to the innovative input of the global developer community.
Free to be changed. Free to be improved. Free to adapt to meet the needs of any situation. Free.
Wait, I can't make money from free? Nevermind, we're gonna charge for it.
Contrary to the mantra that "Open" development is always better for performance issues the advantage of Free Software have to do with Freedom: improved performance is a frequent desirable epiphenomenon.
I didn't really mean to state whether or not the benefits of FS are real, just that they cannot exist when a majority of the system is closed.
As far as I know, not many advocates of FS claim FS is better because it is faster. FS on the average is not faster because either certain optimizations are copyrighted (Intel C++ for example).
I took that from what the article had stated.
He obviously doesn't address what you point out, but I think the argument against the VM-ized version is valid. The benefits of Free Software obviously do not apply when the underlying system is closed.
I wonder if Linux still suffers the horrible performance issues when running natively verses when running on top of a VM (or atleast, the issues pointed out in the article).
Going to a club every once in a while is not a bad thing. Going quite frequently is not bad either.
:) Don't think of that hour as the entire time spent getting ready (God knows no woman on Earth is that effient), but think of that hour as the hour spent making sure each eye lashing isn't clumpy or trying on 5 outfits on to see which one looks best.
Watching TV is not a bad thing. Watching TV quite frequently is not a bad either.
In fact, both have their good aspects and are almost necessary to create a well-rounded individual.
I used a 'club' example simply because it is the most extreme example. In a club, you do not typically interact greatly with others. It's not a place where people share ideas or connect on any kind of intellectual level.
Sure, it's fun, but so is TV. I cannot understand though why someone who value one 'fun' thing over another 'fun' thing.
I've always said that I'd rather a woman spend an hour reading a book before going out on a date with me than spending that hour making sure every little thing is perfect. It just seems to me that if you really are interested in someone, you would try to communicate something to them that would be lasting and meaningful verses something that is trivial and fleeting.
NOTE: Don't get me wrong, I like when women look good
Increased quanity is not an excuse for lack of quality.
I see know what you were replying to. Now I agree with you :)
I don't know if this was in reference to my post or to the actual parent since it doesn't make much sense for the parent.
:)
I'm not preaching isolationism at all. Social interaction is important. It is important though that the interaction has some kind of meaning to it.
IMHO, there is no difference between sitting in front of the TV and watching Jerry Springer than there is sitting at a bar and _talking_ with others about Jerry Springer.
Life has more to offer than that. I would much rather spend one minute of meaningful conversation and a year of isolation, than spend a year of meaningless interaction.
I also have to disagree with you a bit on your assertion that idiots are bad. I think there is a bad mentality amoungst more educated people to see the world as "all of us, and then the idiots." Socrates once said that "He is wisest who understands that wisdom has no value." I have found greater meaning in conversing with what many would consider "Idiots" than in conversing with would be considered the "intellegent" people.
So, to summarize: I do believe in social interaction and do interact with people quite frequently (what a strange way to describe it...). I do choose who I interact with very closely. I have no problem staying home on a Friday night reading a book though instead of going out somewhere in desperation in order to fullfill the notion that an individual must have social interaction at all times no matter how meaningless.
And obviously, I do respond to replies
Sun brings up a few very valid points:
I don't think Sun is trashing Linux. I just think they are saying that Linux does not scale to Mainframes that great right now. Perhaps the only thing they aren't doing is saying that while there are issues with Linux now, the fact that Linux is FS allows those issues to be resolved in the future. Of course, why would a company endorse another company's product?
Vegitate in front of a television...
Vegitate in a club with friends...
Don't really see the difference here.
If you must complain about people watching TV, don't suggest an equally mind-numbing alternative.
Dangit, disinfo's /.'d.
It never ceases to amaze me how few principles people actually stick to when moneys involved. Here is a site (and I was going to quote before it went down) based on the premise that popular media is being deceptive in order to make money. And the first thing that happens when I goto it is some little window pops up an advertisement for a @disinfo.com email address.
Of course, the background was black and the text that said "For only $39.95 a year" was about #010101. In fact, it took like 30 seconds for me to actually figure out what it said since it was a silly animated gif.
So this bastion of truth is trying to trick me into buying an email address using methods that surely wouldn't pass the FCC standards for commerical advertising (FCC has no standards for the net, but it does for TV). Right. Thanks again Jon.
Bah! Bah!
You should of pointed them here.
It was first after all.
Perhaps you should read more about democracy then :)
If you are familar with Locke (or have read the Declaration of Independence), then you'll agree that the only time a government is legitimate, is when it keeps it end of the social contract by protecting it's citizen's inalienable rights. The social contract is an absolute agreement between citizens of a state and government of that state. The citizens all have a right to abolish the government which is why all citizens of the US have the right to vote. This way, when our government breaks the social contract, we can remove them.
The UN cannot be viewed as a government because it does guarentee any of it's citizens (the countries included in the UN) inalienable rights. It provides no means to protect one country from another. Instead, everything is decided by commitee based on majority decision. This is because there is no social contract in the UN. There is only covenants made between the members of the UN. If a country decides to break a covenant with another country, oh well. All of the treaties and such are all voluntary.
This is because all the countries with the UN wish to about their own autonomy since if it were a government, then surely the US could not coexist with socialistic or theocratic regimes. Instead, the UN is more like a corporation. It's a collection of individuals set about for a single purpose (a desire to profit). Just like a corporation, the individuals with the most power (the largest GNP) should atleast have the most influence on the future of the corporation. It simply a pooling of resources, and this way, the group who's contributing most to the pool should have the most say.
It's like capitalism. Everyone works and contributes to the economy. Everyone also gets back from the economy in proportion to what they put into it.
The only justification for equal representation within the UN is if all parties were contributing equally and that simply isn't the case.
Veto power is a small priviledge. Considering that 75% of the UN's budget comes from the top 5 supporting countries (the US being number one) and another 23% comes from the next 25 countries. All in all, only about 66 countries last year contributed at all.
Since 31% is close to half of the contributions from the top 5 countries, I think it's safe to say that the US is by far, making the majority contribution to the UN's budget. Just because the sum of the minorities is greater than the majority, doesn't mean that it's not the majority.
Think of it in terms of politics. The actual percentage of people who vote for a politician is not nearly half of the population, but it is still considered the majority relative the the nearest minority.
It's not about money buying power, but it the justification for having the US pay more than everyone else is that the bulk of the WDP comes from this country, than likewise, our vote should count that much more.
Simply having the power to veto isn't enough (especially since 4 other countries have it too).
We have a congress and a house to proportionally represent Americans, and likewise, states with higher populations (and therefore, higher GDPs) have greater representation. There is nothing like that in the UN. If the UN expects US citizens to pay the bulk of the UNs budget, then it's only fair for the US to have a greater say in the UNs proceeding than any other country.
More info
Whether you agree or not, this is what most of the world (who actually listen to the UN and pay its dues on time) goes by.
The US is responsible for 26% of regular UN budget and 31% of the peacekeeping budget. For the amount being paid into it, the US should have such a majority control (not in a dictoral manner, but in a majoritian manner). In a democratic nation, such as the US, one cannot blame the people for not wanting to be the majority support of an organization that likewise does not provide a majority voice to the US (it essentially goes against the fundamental concepts of democracy).
Either way, you raise valid points in regards to the effects that disabled people (particularily mentally disabled) have on society.
I think there is a difference between required treatment, and aesthic treatments. Indeed, one would have to say that a heart transplant is not a required treatment simply because it does not have an adequate success rate nor does it provide any sort of quality of life assurance. In many ways, it could be seen as more humane to allow such a person to die than to keep them alive.
As far as the elderly are concerned, I think the same applies. I think that if an individual cannot pay for a treatment that can be considered aesthic, then the state should not be obligated to treat it. What treatments are defined as aesthic obviously becomes defined by the finite resources of the state.
Being a capitalistic society, it's important to not change the health care system to a socialist type system. Capitalism is effective because it allows for competition, and the US healthcare system and it's capitalistic nature is exactly why the US produces the largest amount of medical discoveries in the world.
Your bring up a point too about the best case senario of a heart transplant being 5-10 years of rather poor quality of life.
For a 50 year old man, this may make sense, but for an 8 year old child, is this really such a good thing? It's one thing to live to extend your life to the twilight years, but to extend it just long enough to where you are no longer a burden on society?
The kid will never have a chance to actually be a normal kid. To me, this is exactly the reason why our society should be more open to euthanasia.
Violence is not a biological urge, it's a biological reaction. In an unprovoked environment, a person will not act out in violence (neither will an animal in a similiar environment). Upon provocation, then a violent reaction may occur.
Take a dog for instance. If properly care for (providing an ideal amount of food/exercise and the approriate social structure), the dog will not act out in violence. This is why people keep dogs as pets. If the dogs environment is not perfect, then he may act out in violence. But it not an uncontrollable biological urge, it is in fact reactions to the negatives in his environment.
This is how one can have a dog who is absolutely vicious to it's owner but then on the same hand, incredible tolerant and protective of a young baby. The dog acts out against the perceived threat.
So, we can arrange ourselves as a society to eliminate the biological response of violence. Merely trying to outlaw the response is unproductive though as the stimulate is not eliminated.
Ok, so the kid needs a heart transplant. It's not as if there are tons of matched hearts laying around and one only needs 1/4 mill to get them.
IIRC, hospitals must treat patients regardless of whether they have insurance or not in a life-or-death situation. If the kid was going to die, he would have to receive the heart transplant.
Now, medications and stuff are a whole different story. And, again IIRC, I do not believe heart transplants have a very long life-extension rate. I am rather sure that folks don't live forever with them.
One would think the sheer fact that it is a child would complicate the situation more since a child obviously could not get an adult's heart. So the hospital would need a child of a similar age's heart that was also compatible with the kid's blood type.
It's hard to speak out on an issue using an unrealistic circumstance. Considering that we live in a free market, the fact that so many people who can't afford the level of care they receive are actually getting it.
This is sort of like the senior prescription drug stuff. Elderly individuals that did not live their lives planning to live so long, can be kept artifically alive via medication. What happens in society if we figure out a way to add 20 more years to a persons live (but of the quality that most seniors suffer^H^H^H^H^Henjoy now). Is that a good thing and more importantly, whose going to pay for it?
Note: I don't think guns or video games are dangerous or cause violence. I firmly believe those things can always be traced back to stupid people.
"He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing." - Socrates, Plato's "Apology"
Violence does in fact breed violence. The violence presented by video games is not the creator of violence in society, but rather the result of violence in society.
There is no logical reason why one should enjoy engaging in violence, be it simulated or real. It is an expression of a deeper emotional problem. Perhaps instead of trying to ban violence in video games, or trying to protect violence in video games, our society should try address why our society is so infatuated with violence to begin with. If you try to fight a fire by pumping in fresh air to replace the smoke, it's only going to burn hotter.
There are now-a-days professors of philosophy but not philosophers. - HDT
Merely learning about philosophy is a trivial task. It must be lived.
The teacher would do his students better by teaching literature. Literature contains the best bits of human knowledge we have thus obtained. Let students come to philosophy on their own as it is not something that can just be taught and then forgotten as so many things are in high schools.
Especially folks like More. Imagine if a student only remembered More and thought that philosophy was his twisted view of the world. What a shame that would be.
He mentions then term 'escape sequence' and then somehow binds that to the escape key. The only relation between an 'escape sequence' and an escape key is that the begining on the traditional ansi escape sequence starts with the same code the escape key generates.
An 'escape sequence' according to Webopedia is:
The fact is that the escape sequence in a traditional hyperlink is the information encoded after the filename (that's encoded with URL-encoding). It's all those neat %20 characters.
Check out this quote:
Escape's powers are huge but at its most basic level, it is a command that tells a computer to make a shift in its processing - allowing a user to move up, down or sideways through files, programs or networks. For example, every press of a phone key that allows a user to move through an automated information service is an invocation of Berner's escape principle.
This is just absurd. Escape sequences special sequences encoded other data. A telephone navigation system is merely a command driven system. Nothing is escaped. By this logic, every time anyone tells anything to do anything they are invocating Berner's escape principle.
I understand the guy's position, but Wired really blew it on this story. I'm suprised this made it past the technical editors...
BTW: The article mentions the '/' character as being an escape sequence, but this is not true. If they are referring to the href of a URL, then since the protocol preceeds the '/', this would not be an example of an escape sequence. I think the real issue is the escape sequences preceeded by '%' signs.
(1) You said you hope it was 'fixed' infering that it was a bug. If you wish for an additional feature, you would say you hoped it was 'added.' If you feel it should be changed, then you would say 'changed.'
:)
(2) In the time it takes to move to that silly mouse, you could have been done copying it. Copying five words is as simple as:
C-[space] ; C-u 5 M-f ; C-xrk
Five words, cut into the clipboard. Best part is that you could easily bind the above to a single key so that any time you wanted to copy 5 words from the middle of a sentence, it only required a single key. Or you could just use a macro if you needed it temporarily.
You will be faster _without_ a mouse. I promise
I'm amazed that more folks are screaming here.
...
MS's implementation of the CLI isn't alone. Aside from some MS-led effort to provide a version for FreeBSD,
WTH is this? MS is developing a version of CLI for FreeBSD? I can't believe they are using FreeBSD to circumvent Linux. What's worse is that I can't believe the FreeBSD people are going along with this. I guess someone forgot to mention that Free doesn't really go well with Monopoly...
How come more people aren't bitching about this? They use Apple to circumvent Sun and now are blatantly using FreeBSD to circumvent Linux and yet no one seems to care. I don't get it.
I have to problems with this post.
(1) This is by no means a bug and has been standard Unix behavior for some time. Just because it doesn't work the same in Windows, doesn't mean it's a bug.
(2) If your programming, why the hell would you be using the mouse to copy stuff??? Wouldn't you be using C-k or C-xrk like a normal person? Sheesh, my only compliant about KDE is that it encourages people to use lesser tools (KDeveloper) when better tools exist (Emacs). One would think that FS projects would borrow code from each other...
Even if your not using Emacs, if your a programmer and your stuck to a mouse, your productivity has to be hurting... Even on Windows, I still use the keyboard to copy and paste.
Yes, but what happens if some goofy programmer comes along and decides to make a Matrix.multiply? They same argument can be used. It's all about have good names that have good meanings.
.get() to do just about everything. This all comes down to good documentation and good requirements.
I've worked with many programmers who use methods so irresponsibly. They end up using
sigh.
:)
:) infix is more intuitive for the idiot programmers that have to implement the code from Mathematica :) That's actually the problem, the math/physics guys hand down these algorithms written in Mathematica and have to be translated into code. You need something that is inuitive for the average programmer to use.
:)
I knew I'd get this response... Complex numbers are perhaps a better example
ComplexNumber a(1, 0), b(2, 3);
a += b;
Now that's intuitive atleast
Typing may not be important to the mathematicians, but it's surely important to the programmers
Well, your just plain wrong. The C++ spec only requires non-trivial constructors/destructors (12.1 paragraph 6) as per section 12.2 paragraph 3.
And, recently added to the spec is the ability for even named objects that are used as return values to be optimized away so what ends up happening for:
a = b + c
is that the temporary used by operator+ is actually replaced with a. Inlined correctly and there is absolutely no overhead whatsoever.
C++ is efficent if you know how to use it.
BTW: the call to the member function was in Java syntax as the debate was between Java and C++. Java uses Classnamestatic_function whereas C++ uses Classnamestatic_function.