Well, not to feed the trolls Mr. AC, but "deeply concerned" is a judge's way of saying "I'm not happy." Judges shouldn't be "happy" "sad" "pissed" "livid".... get it?
So when a judge issues an order, and that order is violated, they're, what, supposed to be pleased with the lawyer's conduct? Have you never heard the phrase "contempt of course"? Because that's what this lawyer is flirting with.
In short: this has nothing to do with "pleasing" the judge, and everything to do with following their instructions, which is something the lawyers are legally bound to do lest they wish to be sanctioned.
That dell won't be running in 27 years to make a similar comparison. It may be huge and slow, but that atari is still running in 2009. That's no small feat.
Two words for you: survivorship bias. Or: No, they didn't actually make things any better back then.
Actually SoundExchange is THE collection agency for streamed royalties in the US, even indie artists have to collect through them unless they negotiate other contracts which is very difficult to do as it involves lawyers and lots of paperwork to opt out of SoundExchange and they would still collect royalties through SoundExchange for any webcasters they didn't have direct agreements with.
So why don't Indie artists interested in more reasonable royalties for internet streaming start up a new co-op which can act as a clearing house for licensing their works?
Trolling? Buh? It was a pointless comment, to be sure, but it certainly wasn't trolling. Hell, did you just choose to ignore the smilie, indicating it was meant to be a good-natured jest? Or perhaps your humour circuits are simply disabled?
That said, oddly enough, my post does allude to an important point that's relevant to this article: writing code isn't all there is to being a developer. Effective spelling and compositional skills are vital when assembling proposals, writing requirements and design documents, and communicating with clients and co-workers. Making a basic spelling mistake like "alot" in a professional email to a business partner would look decidedly *un*professional.
Unfortunately, your average computing science/engineering degree program doesn't properly emphasize language skills, and so I regularly encounter those who possess a minimal grasp of basic spelling and grammar. 'course, that's not to say you fall into that category (you capitalize the first letter in your sentences, make appropriate use of commas, finish those sentences with periods, and follow them by paired spaces, putting you head and shoulders above many I encounter).
Although, apparently "a lot" of us haven't put the same effort into our spelling and grammar skills...;)
Re:Is it just me ?
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Because local climate suddenly equates to global mean temperature? Huh... go figure...
Re:Well, now we'll know.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And, once again, it doesn't make sense, as the global temperature should then correlate with the sunspot cycles, and in the last 50 years, it hasn't.
Re:Well, now we'll know.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So, what, the last 50 years of steady warming, during which multiple sunspot cycles occurred, isn't enough for you? Or are you just a big fan of cherry-picking data to support your pet conclusions?
What the hell are you talking about? In Python, to create an anonymous closure to register with a callback, you use lambda or a nested function definition. With C#, you create an anonymous delegate. What you end up with is a lexical closure. It's the exact same fucking thing. Although, as I already mentioned, Python's lambda keyword is basically useless in this context, as it can't encapsulate multiple lines of code, and they're limited to very simple statements, so you're basically stuck with the nested function approach.
Note, I should point out that Python's lexical closures are slightly different to C#'s... in that they're more limited. In Python, closed variables are read-only, while in C#, that limitation doesn't exist (as it should be... it's a stupid limitation).
As an aside, this is a great illustration of why Python really is an excellent example of someone trying to re-invent Lisp... badly.
Your lack of clue about lambda betrays your understanding (or lack thereof) of subject matter.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you...
"Obviously"? According to whom? Python's reference-counting GC has certainly been hit-and-miss (eg, in the past it's handled cycles very poorly... not sure if it's better now). Events and delegates are basically equivalent (although Python more or less requires seperate named methods... it's lambda keyword is utter shit). Both are extensible.
Honestly, I think the worst thing to happen to Python is the influx of newbs who seem to think Python is the programming language equivalent of the second coming of Christ. Does it do some things well? Yes. Does it do some things extremely poorly? Hell yes.
I find it funny how kids these days think C# brings something new to table. They don't have what it takes to do it in C++, but require the safety wheels of static typing in order to keep their spaghetti manageable.
And I find it funny how kids these days think Python brings anything new to the table. They don't have what it takes to do it in Lisp, but require the safety wheels of mandatory indentation in order to keep their spaghetti code readable.
Because he did exactly what he said he would do. For better or worse.
No he didn't.
Did he increase transparency? Nope. In fact, he did the opposite, muzzling his cabinet.
Did he increase accountability? Nope. In fact, the conservatives have been rocked by scandals reminiscent of the old Liberal days (can we say "Chuck Cadman"?)
Has he done anything to excise Canada from Afghanistan (something I oppose, but something he promised)? Nope.
And I'm sure I could go on. The simple fact is the conservatives certainly do *not* live up to their promises or their lofty ideals.
And don't forget Philp K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual world
Uhh... I must've missed that part. Last time I read it, it was about a real, entirely non-virtual, post-apocalyptic world in which humans where confined to dreary cities and took care of the few remaining animals, the possession of which was an outward expression of both social status and inherent humanity (people believe that compassion and empathy are uniquely human traits, thus taking care of animals is an outward expression of that trait). Meanwhile, for those without the money to afford a real animal, mechanical substitutes would be used.
No offense, but it's not *that* "astonishing". The wasp, for example, does something similar, laying their eggs on caterpillars, which are then fed on by the larvae as they develop. Weirder yet, some variety of wasp larvae actually seem to zombify the caterpillars and take control of them.
That would explain why the "Gnote" fork of Tomboy was apparently easy enough to implement in C++ instead - which suggests that the use of Mono (rather than C++) was, while not necessarily outright "pointless", at least "unnecessary".
Use of *any* high-level language is "pointless" if your definition is whether or not you can translate the application to C or C++. They're all turing complete languages, after all...
The real question is, does C# and.NET provide you with tools and features that make programming more productive. My experience, having used Java, C, C++, C#, and a variety of other languages, says the answer is a resounding "yes" (hell, proper, integrated garbage collection, alone, makes a language like C# or Java worth it, IMHO).
'course, if you ask me, anything that allows someone to avoid the clusterfuck that is C++ is a boon to the industry.;)
Because you break your light bulbs so often that this is a major inconvenience that makes it worth trading off the substantial efficiency gains? Something tells me you're doing something wrong...
I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.
"They" do? Really! Funny, as a C# programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java, I've never said any such thing. Maybe you should try *not* stereotyping large groups of people, eh?
For the record, C# is really Java polished up. It provided generics and a foreach loop first, implements type-safe function pointers, lambdas (the absence of lambdas in Java always annoyed the hell out of me), a much better native call interface, and a few minor but handy language features (eg, safe ref and out parameters, using blocks, etc). And I very much prefer the native GUI of C# applications (although the nasty boilerplate necessary to build them makes a GUI builder absolutely required).
On the API side, they're about equivalent, though both have their warts... although, I must confess, some of the problems in the.NET API are a bit baffling (date handling in.NET 2.0, for example, is unbelievably primitive... there is simply no facility for doing arbitrary time zone conversions... seriously, what the hell?).
But anyone who argues that C# is basically the same as Java doesn't understand how some of those features can make a programmer's life *much* easier. Are they necessary? No, of course not. But they certainly are handy (honestly, without proper anonymous closures, I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean, reusable, modular code, they're simply invaluable).
And as an aside, while I realize that Java is starting to take on a lot of these features, keep in mind, it probably never would have if it weren't for the competition that C# and.NET are offering. So, in the end, the Java fans out there can thank Microsoft for Java finally moving forward and gaining some of it's new, modern features (can we say "generics"?).
Of course there is nothing to stop Java using native libraries too (see java-gnome) but so far, this hasn't caught on to the extent it has for Mono.
On this topic, I think part of the reason is that Java makes interfacing with native libraries stupidly difficult. Honestly, anyone who's dealt with JNI will understand what a horribly, horribly painful experience it can be. Meanwhile, C# has an excellent native call facility which makes interfacing with native libraries a snap.
As a result, between this and the ability to create proper, native GUIs, C#/.NET is a much better platform for writing applications that integrate very well with the underlying platform (which is rather ironic when you consider that, originally, it was clear MS intended for C#/.NET to tie the developer down to Windows).
If we even admit that sometimes people are induced into it through improper influences, it's not victimless.
Okay. So, here we have a group of people who decide to make a porn. Tell me, who are the victims? Are the actors, who choose to participate, victims? Are the directors? The producers? Who? Who, in this scenario, is a "victim"?
And before you point out that the woman in the OP's anecdote is a victim (which she may be, presumably a rape victim, if the OP is to be believed), remember, the production of porn doesn't typically involve the drugging and raping of the actors. In fact, the industry has, in general, been extremely good at self-regulating to protect all those involved (for example, requiring STD tests for actors).
So, given that, once again I ask, who are the victims?
Yeah, social and economic activities tend more to abuse when driven underground, but I don't want to invite government regulation, either.
Uhh... what the hell do you think obscenity laws are, exactly?
We should, as a society, be able to regulate ourselves.
And now you contradict yourself. Do you want the government to "regulate" obscenity, or not?
Hell, ignoring that contradiction, what would you prefer? That we get the government out of the regulation game entirely? Should we do away with all health and safety regulation? What about food labeling requirements, banking regulations, pollution regulations, and so forth? I mean, those are just nasty rules getting in the way of the magical free market, right?
Uhh, you are aware this was a case that was tried in a US District court, and not the Supreme Court, right?
You're saying if I don't defend extremists then I have no value of law?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Either the first amendment grants you the right to free speech, or it doesn't. End of story. Like it or not, that applies to neo-nazis and their right to distribute anti-semitic propaganda (so long as they aren't deliberately inciting violence, which violates other's right to personal safety), just as it applies to you and your right to speak out against your government.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, even I haven't heard of the phrase "contempt of course". "Contempt of court", on the other hand...
Well, not to feed the trolls Mr. AC, but "deeply concerned" is a judge's way of saying "I'm not happy." Judges shouldn't be "happy" "sad" "pissed" "livid".... get it?
So when a judge issues an order, and that order is violated, they're, what, supposed to be pleased with the lawyer's conduct? Have you never heard the phrase "contempt of course"? Because that's what this lawyer is flirting with.
In short: this has nothing to do with "pleasing" the judge, and everything to do with following their instructions, which is something the lawyers are legally bound to do lest they wish to be sanctioned.
Of course they use more memory--you have duplicate code pages in different processes
Uh, no you don't. Linux has copy-on-write for forked processes. Of course, the same can't be said for other OSes (Solaris, for example).
That dell won't be running in 27 years to make a similar comparison. It may be huge and slow, but that atari is still running in 2009. That's no small feat.
Two words for you: survivorship bias. Or: No, they didn't actually make things any better back then.
Actually SoundExchange is THE collection agency for streamed royalties in the US, even indie artists have to collect through them unless they negotiate other contracts which is very difficult to do as it involves lawyers and lots of paperwork to opt out of SoundExchange and they would still collect royalties through SoundExchange for any webcasters they didn't have direct agreements with.
So why don't Indie artists interested in more reasonable royalties for internet streaming start up a new co-op which can act as a clearing house for licensing their works?
Trolling? Buh? It was a pointless comment, to be sure, but it certainly wasn't trolling. Hell, did you just choose to ignore the smilie, indicating it was meant to be a good-natured jest? Or perhaps your humour circuits are simply disabled?
That said, oddly enough, my post does allude to an important point that's relevant to this article: writing code isn't all there is to being a developer. Effective spelling and compositional skills are vital when assembling proposals, writing requirements and design documents, and communicating with clients and co-workers. Making a basic spelling mistake like "alot" in a professional email to a business partner would look decidedly *un*professional.
Unfortunately, your average computing science/engineering degree program doesn't properly emphasize language skills, and so I regularly encounter those who possess a minimal grasp of basic spelling and grammar. 'course, that's not to say you fall into that category (you capitalize the first letter in your sentences, make appropriate use of commas, finish those sentences with periods, and follow them by paired spaces, putting you head and shoulders above many I encounter).
Because an 8 year coincidence overrides a 50 year non-correlation? Please... that's the very essence of cherrypicking data.
Alot of us learned how you learned
Although, apparently "a lot" of us haven't put the same effort into our spelling and grammar skills... ;)
Because local climate suddenly equates to global mean temperature? Huh... go figure...
And, once again, it doesn't make sense, as the global temperature should then correlate with the sunspot cycles, and in the last 50 years, it hasn't.
So, what, the last 50 years of steady warming, during which multiple sunspot cycles occurred, isn't enough for you? Or are you just a big fan of cherry-picking data to support your pet conclusions?
They are nowhere near equivalent.
What the hell are you talking about? In Python, to create an anonymous closure to register with a callback, you use lambda or a nested function definition. With C#, you create an anonymous delegate. What you end up with is a lexical closure. It's the exact same fucking thing. Although, as I already mentioned, Python's lambda keyword is basically useless in this context, as it can't encapsulate multiple lines of code, and they're limited to very simple statements, so you're basically stuck with the nested function approach.
Note, I should point out that Python's lexical closures are slightly different to C#'s... in that they're more limited. In Python, closed variables are read-only, while in C#, that limitation doesn't exist (as it should be... it's a stupid limitation).
As an aside, this is a great illustration of why Python really is an excellent example of someone trying to re-invent Lisp... badly.
Your lack of clue about lambda betrays your understanding (or lack thereof) of subject matter.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you...
Obviously, C# does all of this worse and Python,
"Obviously"? According to whom? Python's reference-counting GC has certainly been hit-and-miss (eg, in the past it's handled cycles very poorly... not sure if it's better now). Events and delegates are basically equivalent (although Python more or less requires seperate named methods... it's lambda keyword is utter shit). Both are extensible.
Honestly, I think the worst thing to happen to Python is the influx of newbs who seem to think Python is the programming language equivalent of the second coming of Christ. Does it do some things well? Yes. Does it do some things extremely poorly? Hell yes.
I find it funny how kids these days think C# brings something new to table. They don't have what it takes to do it in C++, but require the safety wheels of static typing in order to keep their spaghetti manageable.
And I find it funny how kids these days think Python brings anything new to the table. They don't have what it takes to do it in Lisp, but require the safety wheels of mandatory indentation in order to keep their spaghetti code readable.
Because he did exactly what he said he would do. For better or worse.
No he didn't.
Did he increase transparency? Nope. In fact, he did the opposite, muzzling his cabinet.
Did he increase accountability? Nope. In fact, the conservatives have been rocked by scandals reminiscent of the old Liberal days (can we say "Chuck Cadman"?)
Has he done anything to excise Canada from Afghanistan (something I oppose, but something he promised)? Nope.
And I'm sure I could go on. The simple fact is the conservatives certainly do *not* live up to their promises or their lofty ideals.
And don't forget Philp K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual world
Uhh... I must've missed that part. Last time I read it, it was about a real, entirely non-virtual, post-apocalyptic world in which humans where confined to dreary cities and took care of the few remaining animals, the possession of which was an outward expression of both social status and inherent humanity (people believe that compassion and empathy are uniquely human traits, thus taking care of animals is an outward expression of that trait). Meanwhile, for those without the money to afford a real animal, mechanical substitutes would be used.
No offense, but it's not *that* "astonishing". The wasp, for example, does something similar, laying their eggs on caterpillars, which are then fed on by the larvae as they develop. Weirder yet, some variety of wasp larvae actually seem to zombify the caterpillars and take control of them.
That would explain why the "Gnote" fork of Tomboy was apparently easy enough to implement in C++ instead - which suggests that the use of Mono (rather than C++) was, while not necessarily outright "pointless", at least "unnecessary".
Use of *any* high-level language is "pointless" if your definition is whether or not you can translate the application to C or C++. They're all turing complete languages, after all...
The real question is, does C# and .NET provide you with tools and features that make programming more productive. My experience, having used Java, C, C++, C#, and a variety of other languages, says the answer is a resounding "yes" (hell, proper, integrated garbage collection, alone, makes a language like C# or Java worth it, IMHO).
'course, if you ask me, anything that allows someone to avoid the clusterfuck that is C++ is a boon to the industry. ;)
Because you break your light bulbs so often that this is a major inconvenience that makes it worth trading off the substantial efficiency gains? Something tells me you're doing something wrong...
That'd make Mono pointless, though.
Weird, considering that Tomboy, for example, is built using "just the ECMA spec (plus its own extensions in its own namespace)"...
I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.
"They" do? Really! Funny, as a C# programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java, I've never said any such thing. Maybe you should try *not* stereotyping large groups of people, eh?
For the record, C# is really Java polished up. It provided generics and a foreach loop first, implements type-safe function pointers, lambdas (the absence of lambdas in Java always annoyed the hell out of me), a much better native call interface, and a few minor but handy language features (eg, safe ref and out parameters, using blocks, etc). And I very much prefer the native GUI of C# applications (although the nasty boilerplate necessary to build them makes a GUI builder absolutely required).
On the API side, they're about equivalent, though both have their warts... although, I must confess, some of the problems in the .NET API are a bit baffling (date handling in .NET 2.0, for example, is unbelievably primitive... there is simply no facility for doing arbitrary time zone conversions... seriously, what the hell?).
But anyone who argues that C# is basically the same as Java doesn't understand how some of those features can make a programmer's life *much* easier. Are they necessary? No, of course not. But they certainly are handy (honestly, without proper anonymous closures, I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean, reusable, modular code, they're simply invaluable).
And as an aside, while I realize that Java is starting to take on a lot of these features, keep in mind, it probably never would have if it weren't for the competition that C# and .NET are offering. So, in the end, the Java fans out there can thank Microsoft for Java finally moving forward and gaining some of it's new, modern features (can we say "generics"?).
Of course there is nothing to stop Java using native libraries too (see java-gnome) but so far, this hasn't caught on to the extent it has for Mono.
On this topic, I think part of the reason is that Java makes interfacing with native libraries stupidly difficult. Honestly, anyone who's dealt with JNI will understand what a horribly, horribly painful experience it can be. Meanwhile, C# has an excellent native call facility which makes interfacing with native libraries a snap.
As a result, between this and the ability to create proper, native GUIs, C#/.NET is a much better platform for writing applications that integrate very well with the underlying platform (which is rather ironic when you consider that, originally, it was clear MS intended for C#/.NET to tie the developer down to Windows).
If we even admit that sometimes people are induced into it through improper influences, it's not victimless.
Okay. So, here we have a group of people who decide to make a porn. Tell me, who are the victims? Are the actors, who choose to participate, victims? Are the directors? The producers? Who? Who, in this scenario, is a "victim"?
And before you point out that the woman in the OP's anecdote is a victim (which she may be, presumably a rape victim, if the OP is to be believed), remember, the production of porn doesn't typically involve the drugging and raping of the actors. In fact, the industry has, in general, been extremely good at self-regulating to protect all those involved (for example, requiring STD tests for actors).
So, given that, once again I ask, who are the victims?
Yeah, social and economic activities tend more to abuse when driven underground, but I don't want to invite government regulation, either.
Uhh... what the hell do you think obscenity laws are, exactly?
We should, as a society, be able to regulate ourselves.
And now you contradict yourself. Do you want the government to "regulate" obscenity, or not?
Hell, ignoring that contradiction, what would you prefer? That we get the government out of the regulation game entirely? Should we do away with all health and safety regulation? What about food labeling requirements, banking regulations, pollution regulations, and so forth? I mean, those are just nasty rules getting in the way of the magical free market, right?
The hardware is great but I don't want to be tied to Amazon.
Uhh... you aren't. The DX will read PDFs, and every other Kindle can read TXT, PRC, and MOBI, all of which you can produce on your desktop for free.
clearly the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
Uhh, you are aware this was a case that was tried in a US District court, and not the Supreme Court, right?
You're saying if I don't defend extremists then I have no value of law?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Either the first amendment grants you the right to free speech, or it doesn't. End of story. Like it or not, that applies to neo-nazis and their right to distribute anti-semitic propaganda (so long as they aren't deliberately inciting violence, which violates other's right to personal safety), just as it applies to you and your right to speak out against your government.
Rape isn't legal. And yet, we have problems getting women to report it. Colour me skeptical.
Skeptical of what? That pushing the industry further underground will simply exacerbate that problem? Seems like a no-brainer to me...