there's something odd about swapping out RAM contents to disk so that you can mirror disk contents in RAM.
Oh BS. If I'm not using something that's been loaded into RAM, while frequently accessing something on disk, which do I want occupying physical memory?
This time around, we've got pseudo-government entities and unelected people like Paulson messing it up.
No, this time around, we have fewer regulations, and a multi-trillion-dollar shadow market that magnified the losses considerably.
Take off your libertarian blinders and do some god damned research. The problems we're in right now are a consequence of corporate largess, enabled by a government that turned a blind eye. Nothing less, nothing more.
Naturally the history of aluminium screw ups in housing make it nearly impossible to consider wiring a house with anything that's not copper. The fears are so great that I don't think it will ever be legal to use anything other than copper for a long, long time.
Well, that and, as you've just demonstrated, electricians can't be trusted to install aluminum properly, as they're accustomed to the procedures used for installing copper. Until the industry is properly educated, I know *I* wouldn't be happy going with aluminum, simply because I wouldn't trust the work to be done correctly.
May I suggest that you obtain either Notepad++ or Kdevelop? Both are free, and both handle the indentation problem neatly.
They can't. The lack of an 'end' keyword makes automatic indentation impossible. Go read my other posts on the topic if you're curious why this might be the case.
If you're the one doing the refactoring, then you'll know how far the indentation is wrong, and you can apply the correction.
I *shouldn't have to*. Besides which, the fact that I do introduces a major source of potential error: because indentation is semantically significant in Python, if I screw up during the refactoring process (particularly large scale refactorings), I can actually introduce bugs simply by not getting the indentation right. That's just unacceptable.
So no, I wouldn't think anyone should be even slightly inconvenienced by this when refactoring their own project's code.
Except, of course, I already have, so you're demonstrably wrong.
The markers will all be there though so the editor should be able to get it right, and if not the programmer should.
And those markers would be what? Oh, right... there aren't any, which was my original point. 'course, if the Python devs simply added an 'end' keyword, this entire conversation would be moot.
but in practice it doesn't seem like a big enough issue to avoid using the language.
Given the plethora of competing offerings, I humbly disagree. Why deal with Python's silliness when I could just use, say, Ruby instead? Or Perl (assuming you're not an undisciplined hack)?
And I decide i want to collapse those loops, so I copy and paste the code:
def myfunc2()
while another_thing:
if some_thing:
do_something
do_something_else
last_thing
one_other_thing
There is *no way the editor can handle this correctly*. It will always get it wrong somehow. After all, how can it know that the if block *and* last_thing should be indented so it's included in the while statement? Worse, when it gets it wrong, it'll change the semantics of the code. And *you won't know*, because the code will continue to parse correctly.
Of course, this is just one, somewhat contrived example. But I have, on numerous occasions, endured cases where refactoring has been made *much* harder thanks to Python's lack of a block termination marker. If you haven't encountered such cases, I would contend you've never had to maintain a non-trivial Python codebase.
No, I'm not. You're claiming that, because no one knows the complete truth, nobody can make statements about what that truth might or might not include. That's incorrect.
How is that incorrect? The poster made these two claims: a) that know one can know "the truth" regarding the existence of the "soul", and b) they know "the truth" regarding the existence of the "soul". Those two statements are in diametric opposition to one another.
Fundamentally, the problem is this: I hold the positive belief that the human being is simply a biological machine. The original poster pointed out that, hey, no one knows the truth. And that's true. There is neither evidence for, nor against, my position. But the poster then made an equally baseless, absolute claim: that the human being has a "soul" of some kind. This belief comes into direct conflict with their previously stated claim: that no one can know which of these claims is true.
Ultimately, I think this just highlights a bit of cognitive dissonance. They attempt to buttress their irrational beliefs by stating that, well, know one can really say one way or the other. Well, except that their beliefs are correct, of course.
Have you considered using a decent editor which can fix the indentation for you?
Except that it can't. Python doesn't provide block end markers, and so it's impossible for the editor to know what lexical level a given piece of code belongs in. Worse, the programmer can't, either. Example:
if a > b: a = a + 1
print(a)
So, tell me, what should the indentation be? 'course, this will all be solved if Python added just one more keyword: end.
Ah, I see, you've never refactored code before. Well, good for you, apparently everything you write is either immediately perfect, or you never have to maintain it!
Here in the real world, however, we *do* have to cut and paste blocks of code occasionally, and Python makes that annoyingly difficult.
Re:I don't know why this story's flagged "endofday
on
Python 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
And Rakudo, aka Perl6 on Parrot, is coming along quite nicely, as well.
You'd have to have a mapping of all encodings to a common encoding to know this sort of thing.
If I understand Unicode correctly, the entire point is that Unicode provides a code point space, which defines all the possible characters available. The various encodings are then ways to represent those code points as a set of bytes. So if you're comparing a UTF-8 string to a UTF-16 string, you just decode both and compare the code points.
Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. However the largest restrictions (e.g. the local telco's you mention) are created and maintained by the government.
Bah, that's a bullshit libertarian fantasy. The largest barriers to entry are cost-related. Let's pretend that governments didn't get involved in providing easements for laying copper. Now, you go start an ISP. Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you have to outlay millions upon millions of dollars to dig up the ground and lay said infrastructure. And then you've gotta actually deploy the service.
Yeah, I'm sure a little ol' startup can handle all that. *snicker* Hell, large telcos can barely afford it (Verizon has blown enormous dollars to roll out fiber, and they've only been able to afford it because they were sitting on a truly enormous pile of cash).
Of course, there are many *many* other types of barriers to entry (for example, monopolies leveraging their position to cut out competitors), and some of them are government-induced (eg, health and safety regulations), but resource limitations are some of the most profound.
Bah, you're picking nits. Either "nobody knows the truth" is accurate, or "one thing is certain... blah blah blah" is accurate. You can't have it both ways.
I couldn't agree more.:) I'm just saying that monopolies, in and of themselves, aren't evil (hence why, in this case, I think the DoJ was being overzealous... without evidence that Google was planning to leverage that monopoly, there was nothing actually wrong going on (yet)).
Is there a way that the message itself could convince you that it is truly from God?
Well that's trivially easy. God should just do something that blatantly contradicts our laws of physics. Like, say, bring my dead grandfather back to life. See? Easy, simple proof that, at minimum, the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of God are possible (obviously not certain, but *far* more likely).
'course, it'll never happen because, let's face it, like the virgin birth story, the resurrection story was either made up on the spot, or invented after the fact. But it'd be pretty impressive if it did.
Nobody knows the truth, but one thing is certain, we are more than our physical body
So... nobody knows the truth... but your silly superstition is true.
Uhuh.
On the bright side, I think you might have actually topped the OP on the comment stupidity meter by actively contradicting yourself within the very same sentence. Congratulations!
Paul claimed that, when his books were written, one could go find eyewitnesses who would validate his claims.
So Paul was a lying sack of shit (or the authors of the Bible were). I'm not sure how that proves anything.
This would be difficult to claim if the eyewitnesses did not in fact exist, and likewise difficult to claim if the book claimed to have been written when the eyewitnesses were alive but nobody had seen the book or heard of it before.
Uhh, why? If thousands of sheeple are willing to believe, who'se going to listen to the lone voice that points out that, no, things didn't actually happen that way?
Hell, if such miraculous things *did* happen, I would've expected that there's be some corroborating evidence in sources outside of the Christian community. I mean, a dude coming back to life seems like a pretty huge event. And yet, there's nothing. Interesting, that...
What Jesus said and did is still remembered by millions of Christians almost 2000 years later.
I'm not sure what your point is. Notoriety doesn't equate to correctness. Billions of people throughout this planet believe remarkably irrational things, but their beliefs are still that: irrational.
As for the rest of your post, there's not much to say. If you actually believe the Bible is inerrant, or that it wasn't written by human beings decades after those events supposedly happened, then there's no point arguing, as you've already rejected rational, fact-based thinking.
Incidentally, I'm not going to argue whether my particular set of beliefs is correct. They may not be, for all I know. But I *do* know that neither Jesus nor the GP have evidence for their wild-ass claims (and in this particular case, the GP has made claims that are, plain and simply, flat out wrong based on existing facts), and as we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I couldn't agree more. Life after death, the existence of god, all these questions are outside the realm of science. Which is why you, and everyone else like you, should stop attempting to misuse science (such as the various conservation laws) to "prove" your beliefs. You just end up looking stupid, while misinforming other, more ignorant people in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, you may disagree with what he said. You may not like how it's said. But it's clearly *not* flamebait.
Fucking Slashdot mods...
Except, of course, that government run crown corporations *make* money...
Yes, because you're your child's only cultural influence...
I hate to stand up for Windows, but "this process has been idle for 16 hours" is hardly a "poor job of deciding what to page".
Yeah, but if the machine was just sitting their idle overnight, why the hell was anything paged out in the first place?
there's something odd about swapping out RAM contents to disk so that you can mirror disk contents in RAM.
Oh BS. If I'm not using something that's been loaded into RAM, while frequently accessing something on disk, which do I want occupying physical memory?
This time around, we've got pseudo-government entities and unelected people like Paulson messing it up.
No, this time around, we have fewer regulations, and a multi-trillion-dollar shadow market that magnified the losses considerably.
Take off your libertarian blinders and do some god damned research. The problems we're in right now are a consequence of corporate largess, enabled by a government that turned a blind eye. Nothing less, nothing more.
Naturally the history of aluminium screw ups in housing make it nearly impossible to consider wiring a house with anything that's not copper. The fears are so great that I don't think it will ever be legal to use anything other than copper for a long, long time.
Well, that and, as you've just demonstrated, electricians can't be trusted to install aluminum properly, as they're accustomed to the procedures used for installing copper. Until the industry is properly educated, I know *I* wouldn't be happy going with aluminum, simply because I wouldn't trust the work to be done correctly.
May I suggest that you obtain either Notepad++ or Kdevelop? Both are free, and both handle the indentation problem neatly.
They can't. The lack of an 'end' keyword makes automatic indentation impossible. Go read my other posts on the topic if you're curious why this might be the case.
If you're the one doing the refactoring, then you'll know how far the indentation is wrong, and you can apply the correction.
I *shouldn't have to*. Besides which, the fact that I do introduces a major source of potential error: because indentation is semantically significant in Python, if I screw up during the refactoring process (particularly large scale refactorings), I can actually introduce bugs simply by not getting the indentation right. That's just unacceptable.
So no, I wouldn't think anyone should be even slightly inconvenienced by this when refactoring their own project's code.
Except, of course, I already have, so you're demonstrably wrong.
The markers will all be there though so the editor should be able to get it right, and if not the programmer should.
And those markers would be what? Oh, right... there aren't any, which was my original point. 'course, if the Python devs simply added an 'end' keyword, this entire conversation would be moot.
but in practice it doesn't seem like a big enough issue to avoid using the language.
Given the plethora of competing offerings, I humbly disagree. Why deal with Python's silliness when I could just use, say, Ruby instead? Or Perl (assuming you're not an undisciplined hack)?
I have this code:
def myfunc()
if some_thing:
do_something
do_something_else
last_thing
def myfunc2()
while another_thing:
myfunc()
one_other_thing
And I decide i want to collapse those loops, so I copy and paste the code:
def myfunc2()
while another_thing:
if some_thing:
do_something
do_something_else
last_thing
one_other_thing
There is *no way the editor can handle this correctly*. It will always get it wrong somehow. After all, how can it know that the if block *and* last_thing should be indented so it's included in the while statement? Worse, when it gets it wrong, it'll change the semantics of the code. And *you won't know*, because the code will continue to parse correctly.
Of course, this is just one, somewhat contrived example. But I have, on numerous occasions, endured cases where refactoring has been made *much* harder thanks to Python's lack of a block termination marker. If you haven't encountered such cases, I would contend you've never had to maintain a non-trivial Python codebase.
No, I'm not. You're claiming that, because no one knows the complete truth, nobody can make statements about what that truth might or might not include. That's incorrect.
How is that incorrect? The poster made these two claims: a) that know one can know "the truth" regarding the existence of the "soul", and b) they know "the truth" regarding the existence of the "soul". Those two statements are in diametric opposition to one another.
Fundamentally, the problem is this: I hold the positive belief that the human being is simply a biological machine. The original poster pointed out that, hey, no one knows the truth. And that's true. There is neither evidence for, nor against, my position. But the poster then made an equally baseless, absolute claim: that the human being has a "soul" of some kind. This belief comes into direct conflict with their previously stated claim: that no one can know which of these claims is true.
Ultimately, I think this just highlights a bit of cognitive dissonance. They attempt to buttress their irrational beliefs by stating that, well, know one can really say one way or the other. Well, except that their beliefs are correct, of course.
Have you considered using a decent editor which can fix the indentation for you?
Except that it can't. Python doesn't provide block end markers, and so it's impossible for the editor to know what lexical level a given piece of code belongs in. Worse, the programmer can't, either. Example:
if a > b:
a = a + 1
print(a)
So, tell me, what should the indentation be? 'course, this will all be solved if Python added just one more keyword: end.
Cut-n-paste is not a good way to learn.
Ah, I see, you've never refactored code before. Well, good for you, apparently everything you write is either immediately perfect, or you never have to maintain it!
Here in the real world, however, we *do* have to cut and paste blocks of code occasionally, and Python makes that annoyingly difficult.
And Rakudo, aka Perl6 on Parrot, is coming along quite nicely, as well.
You'd have to have a mapping of all encodings to a common encoding to know this sort of thing.
If I understand Unicode correctly, the entire point is that Unicode provides a code point space, which defines all the possible characters available. The various encodings are then ways to represent those code points as a set of bytes. So if you're comparing a UTF-8 string to a UTF-16 string, you just decode both and compare the code points.
Right?
Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. However the largest restrictions (e.g. the local telco's you mention) are created and maintained by the government.
Bah, that's a bullshit libertarian fantasy. The largest barriers to entry are cost-related. Let's pretend that governments didn't get involved in providing easements for laying copper. Now, you go start an ISP. Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you have to outlay millions upon millions of dollars to dig up the ground and lay said infrastructure. And then you've gotta actually deploy the service.
Yeah, I'm sure a little ol' startup can handle all that. *snicker* Hell, large telcos can barely afford it (Verizon has blown enormous dollars to roll out fiber, and they've only been able to afford it because they were sitting on a truly enormous pile of cash).
Of course, there are many *many* other types of barriers to entry (for example, monopolies leveraging their position to cut out competitors), and some of them are government-induced (eg, health and safety regulations), but resource limitations are some of the most profound.
Bah, you're picking nits. Either "nobody knows the truth" is accurate, or "one thing is certain... blah blah blah" is accurate. You can't have it both ways.
I couldn't agree more. :) I'm just saying that monopolies, in and of themselves, aren't evil (hence why, in this case, I think the DoJ was being overzealous... without evidence that Google was planning to leverage that monopoly, there was nothing actually wrong going on (yet)).
The free market relies on companies not becoming monopolies.
Not quite. The free market relies on companies not *leveraging* their monopolies.
Is there a way that the message itself could convince you that it is truly from God?
Well that's trivially easy. God should just do something that blatantly contradicts our laws of physics. Like, say, bring my dead grandfather back to life. See? Easy, simple proof that, at minimum, the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of God are possible (obviously not certain, but *far* more likely).
'course, it'll never happen because, let's face it, like the virgin birth story, the resurrection story was either made up on the spot, or invented after the fact. But it'd be pretty impressive if it did.
Nobody knows the truth, but one thing is certain, we are more than our physical body
So... nobody knows the truth... but your silly superstition is true.
Uhuh.
On the bright side, I think you might have actually topped the OP on the comment stupidity meter by actively contradicting yourself within the very same sentence. Congratulations!
Paul claimed that, when his books were written, one could go find eyewitnesses who would validate his claims.
So Paul was a lying sack of shit (or the authors of the Bible were). I'm not sure how that proves anything.
This would be difficult to claim if the eyewitnesses did not in fact exist, and likewise difficult to claim if the book claimed to have been written when the eyewitnesses were alive but nobody had seen the book or heard of it before.
Uhh, why? If thousands of sheeple are willing to believe, who'se going to listen to the lone voice that points out that, no, things didn't actually happen that way?
Hell, if such miraculous things *did* happen, I would've expected that there's be some corroborating evidence in sources outside of the Christian community. I mean, a dude coming back to life seems like a pretty huge event. And yet, there's nothing. Interesting, that...
What Jesus said and did is still remembered by millions of Christians almost 2000 years later.
I'm not sure what your point is. Notoriety doesn't equate to correctness. Billions of people throughout this planet believe remarkably irrational things, but their beliefs are still that: irrational.
As for the rest of your post, there's not much to say. If you actually believe the Bible is inerrant, or that it wasn't written by human beings decades after those events supposedly happened, then there's no point arguing, as you've already rejected rational, fact-based thinking.
Incidentally, I'm not going to argue whether my particular set of beliefs is correct. They may not be, for all I know. But I *do* know that neither Jesus nor the GP have evidence for their wild-ass claims (and in this particular case, the GP has made claims that are, plain and simply, flat out wrong based on existing facts), and as we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sorry, no dice. Thousands of people thinking they can see Jesus in the bark of a tree doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is flowing through it's sap.
As such, hard evidence is all I'm willing to accept (and all any rational person *should* accept) as evidence of the "supernatural".
I couldn't agree more. Life after death, the existence of god, all these questions are outside the realm of science. Which is why you, and everyone else like you, should stop attempting to misuse science (such as the various conservation laws) to "prove" your beliefs. You just end up looking stupid, while misinforming other, more ignorant people in the process.