I personally own a 360, and also am planning on grabbing a Wii or two. Both are excellent systems,
Now now, let's be honest here, while the 360 may be excellent, we don't know a damned thing about the Wii, aside from the marketing buzz, their demos, and the experiences from some select reviewers/testers. Time will tell if it really is as good as we all hope.
The claim that there is anything particularly "unprecedented" about current climate variability, including it's rapidity and it's affect on the Arctic, is simply marketing.
Really! So you have data demonstrating an equivalently rapid upswing in global temperature? At some time in the past? I ask because, while I agree that the global temperature is, by itself, not unprecedented, my understand is that it's the rate of change that's so troubling. If you have evidence indicating this is, in fact, perfectly normal, by all means, share it!
Well, it's been a bit of an issue here in Canada. The contention of our government is that we have some degree of sovereignty up there, though I'm not sure how far that extends (there's many *many* islands up there that are Canadian territory, but there's international waters, as well). As a consequence, there's been talk of sending troops up there to protect the northern border.
It's the consumption [of bad drug] that (theoretically) causes harm, therefore it's the consumption [of bad drug] that ought to be illegal.
Thank you for demonstrating how an analogy can go wrong. Can you identify why this is different?
Answer: the consumption of a drug involves an individual harming *themselves*. This is not illegal. Harming another individual, however, *is*, which is why CP production *is* illegal.
Conclusion: neither the production *or* the consumption of drugs should be illegal. Which is, BTW, a valid opinion (and one I happen to hold).
Given that the "secondhand-smoke" hysteria genuinely was shoddy pseudoscience as a pretext to legislate lifestyle, how useful is it to tie global warming to it?
And given that I'm the greatest guy in the universe, how is it you people aren't sending me all your money and beautiful women?
1) The most frequently used key ("go to normal mode") is the furthest away from the rest of the keyboard. "You can remap it to capslock!"
Screw that, rebind it to 'jj'. It's right on the home row, and I've never had a problem with it. 'course, I happen to use capslock as a third meta for use with WindowMaker, so I have other reasons for working this way.
Yeah, I agree! That's like when I went to buy a car. I started off looking at the mini. But the thing is, it didn't have the towing capacity I wanted, not to mention the complete lack of a flatbed, and it didn't even have the clearance for proper offroading!
Funny, I made the exact opposite switch. I used Emacs for many years and made the switch to Vim a couple months back. This was primarily fueled by the need to alleviate tendonitis... emacs-finger is not fun, and Vim allows me to use both hands equally when invoking editor commands.
Of course, the speed with which Vim starts is terrific, as well, and since I do a lot of coding by remote, being able to comfortably run my editor in a GNU Screen over a terminal that may not do a create job sending control characters is really quite handy.
Finally, it's perfectly possible to implement loop in a purely functional way if a language is properly tail recursive (which Common Lisp is not, although most implementations are).
Of course it is. But then you lose the clarity of syntax, which was the original point being discussed.
So, you get clarity of syntax, but you need to write complex macros to achieve it (which, I might add, are hideous to understand and maintain).
You can even alter the parse tree at compile time with macros, which is really modifying the compiler to suit your program.
I find it very odd you made this a parenthetical. This is, AFAICT, *the* reason why Lispers bring up the equation between code and data. Basically, it lets you create domain-specific languages.
Of course, what they *don't* point out is that this is a great way to create unmaintainable code with a very high learning curve. In order to maintain your app, now developers need to a) learn Lisp, and then b) learn your nifty derivative Lisp-a-like that you created using macros.
Moreover, actually understanding and maintaining Lisp macros is, IMHO, a bear... they're not exactly the clearest constructs in the world.
Once you understand that, you'll realize why it's so cool.
Yes, very cool. Practical, no. "Cool", as in, "wow, that's pretty cool, but now I need to get some actual work done", definitely.
Of course, one might point out that the loop macro is a *terrible* (or, perhaps, carefully chosen) example, given that it's one of the least functional features in Lisp (and, amusingly, is one of the most expressive).
Huh, no kidding? Well, maybe you should tell reddit.com (one of Paul Graham's spinoffs). Because, you see, they switched from Lisp to Python a while back (sorry, I can't find the original block entry). And why? Because, to quote:
"If Lisp is so great, why did we stop using it? One of the biggest issues was the lack of widely used and tested libraries. Sure, there is a CL library for basically any task, but there is rarely more than one, and often the libraries are not widely used or well documented."
So, sure, there may be tons of libaries, but who wants a library that's poorly documented, poorly tested, and may not even work on your CL implementation?
Moreover, in addition to the ffi, things like sockets and threads, which I think we can all agree are important, aren't standardized across implementations, which just makes things harder.
Now, is this a problem with the language? No, it's the implementations. But the fact is that until you can grab a library off the net and drop it into your Lisp implementation of choice (assuming they've implemented the standard) and hit the ground running, it will, like Scheme, Smalltalk (my poison of choice), and others, remaining a niche language.
Unfortunately, this is, in part, also an issue of critical mass. Unless you can get people using your language, there won't be high quality, well tested modules for it. OTOH, Perl, Python, and Ruby have all proved it's possible... 'course, it helps that the people running those projects aren't sequestored in ivory towers (well, okay, Guido just deigns to join us down here, occasionally).
Sure, if you enjoy rolling your own FastCGI/HTML generation/string processing/database interface/ libraries.
Languages without extensive first/third parties libraries are useless. And languages like Scheme and Lisp are particularly crippled because they don't even have a standard extension mechanism. I say this having explored the idea of rolling some interesting applications in Lisp... why would I spend half my time writing libraries when I could switch to Perl/Python/Ruby/C/C++/Java/etc and just get things done?
Bike lights are next to useless at night, useless in a city at night (any secondary reflection of a shop light will get noticed 100 times better) and just plain invisible and a waste in daylight.
Apparently you've never used a modern bike light. A decent LED lighting system can be *very* bright, and the movement of the bicycle makes it pretty clear that it's not a mere reflection. Combined with reflective materials, there's no reason a cyclist shouldn't be very noticeable at night.
As for the day, I don't think anyone advocates the use of a headlight, so that's a bit of a strawman.
* Never overtake a car on the right. Drivers don't expect it and you can find yourself in trouble if they decide to make a right-hand turn.
* Always pay attention. It seems self-explanatory, but it's very easy to settle into a rhythm and let your mind wander. This is a great way to get in an accident if an idiot driver suddenly pulls out in front of you.
* Above all, *be predictable*. Bicycles are very light and agile, so it can be very tempting to make sudden moves. Don't do it! You can also assist drivers by signaling turns and lane changes where appropriate.
OTOH, it had a CPU that was half the speed, something that was was evident in games requiring a lot of sprites, which tended to slow down and flicker on the SNES and not the Genesis.
Was the SNES more visually pleasing? Yes, I'd say so. Greater number of on-screen colours played a huge part in that, and mode7 was pretty impressive. But which was "more powerful" really depends on how you frame the question, I think.
That's idiotic, and I would know, I live in a country with a minority government: Canada. Such a situation forces politicians to *compromise* and *work across party lines*. In other words, the system becomes *less partisan*, which is a very good thing. In addition, a minority government situation makes it more difficult for the government in power to pass *any* legislation, effectively slowing down the pace of government. This is *also* a very good thing.
Anyone who thinks the US two-party "democracy" is superior to multiparty systems in Canada, Europe, or Australia is clearly in need of education.
Incidentally, it's also worth pointing out that Squeak provides a line-oriented environment on 'roids. Just fire up a Workspace, type in some code, and hit Alt-D, and voila, it executes!
I'm particularly glad you mentioned Squeak. For a kid who's very curious, Squeak is the ultimate learning environment. Not only can you write very interesting programs very easily using the powerful tools it provides, but you can also dig around in the system internals themselves! Just fire up the class browser, and voila, everything is laid bare before you. And if you bugger something up, you just terminate the VM and reload the image! Truly a *fantastic* system, one I wish I had access to when I was first dipping my feet into programming.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally own a 360, and also am planning on grabbing a Wii or two. Both are excellent systems,
Now now, let's be honest here, while the 360 may be excellent, we don't know a damned thing about the Wii, aside from the marketing buzz, their demos, and the experiences from some select reviewers/testers. Time will tell if it really is as good as we all hope.
The claim that there is anything particularly "unprecedented" about current climate variability, including it's rapidity and it's affect on the Arctic, is simply marketing.
Really! So you have data demonstrating an equivalently rapid upswing in global temperature? At some time in the past? I ask because, while I agree that the global temperature is, by itself, not unprecedented, my understand is that it's the rate of change that's so troubling. If you have evidence indicating this is, in fact, perfectly normal, by all means, share it!
Well, it's been a bit of an issue here in Canada. The contention of our government is that we have some degree of sovereignty up there, though I'm not sure how far that extends (there's many *many* islands up there that are Canadian territory, but there's international waters, as well). As a consequence, there's been talk of sending troops up there to protect the northern border.
It's the consumption [of bad drug] that (theoretically) causes harm, therefore it's the consumption [of bad drug] that ought to be illegal.
Thank you for demonstrating how an analogy can go wrong. Can you identify why this is different?
Answer: the consumption of a drug involves an individual harming *themselves*. This is not illegal. Harming another individual, however, *is*, which is why CP production *is* illegal.
Conclusion: neither the production *or* the consumption of drugs should be illegal. Which is, BTW, a valid opinion (and one I happen to hold).
Given that the "secondhand-smoke" hysteria genuinely was shoddy pseudoscience as a pretext to legislate lifestyle, how useful is it to tie global warming to it?
And given that I'm the greatest guy in the universe, how is it you people aren't sending me all your money and beautiful women?
1) The most frequently used key ("go to normal mode") is the furthest away from the rest of the keyboard. "You can remap it to capslock!"
Screw that, rebind it to 'jj'. It's right on the home row, and I've never had a problem with it. 'course, I happen to use capslock as a third meta for use with WindowMaker, so I have other reasons for working this way.
Yeah, I agree! That's like when I went to buy a car. I started off looking at the mini. But the thing is, it didn't have the towing capacity I wanted, not to mention the complete lack of a flatbed, and it didn't even have the clearance for proper offroading!
If you actually believe that replaces all the functionality of GNU Screen, you've never used it.
Funny, I made the exact opposite switch. I used Emacs for many years and made the switch to Vim a couple months back. This was primarily fueled by the need to alleviate tendonitis... emacs-finger is not fun, and Vim allows me to use both hands equally when invoking editor commands.
Of course, the speed with which Vim starts is terrific, as well, and since I do a lot of coding by remote, being able to comfortably run my editor in a GNU Screen over a terminal that may not do a create job sending control characters is really quite handy.
lousy battery life (3 hours on 6 AAs), cost, size, and weight to name four.
Hah, for a second there, I thought you were talking about the PSP...
Finally, it's perfectly possible to implement loop in a purely functional way if a language is properly tail recursive (which Common Lisp is not, although most implementations are).
Of course it is. But then you lose the clarity of syntax, which was the original point being discussed.
So, you get clarity of syntax, but you need to write complex macros to achieve it (which, I might add, are hideous to understand and maintain).
You can even alter the parse tree at compile time with macros, which is really modifying the compiler to suit your program.
I find it very odd you made this a parenthetical. This is, AFAICT, *the* reason why Lispers bring up the equation between code and data. Basically, it lets you create domain-specific languages.
Of course, what they *don't* point out is that this is a great way to create unmaintainable code with a very high learning curve. In order to maintain your app, now developers need to a) learn Lisp, and then b) learn your nifty derivative Lisp-a-like that you created using macros.
Moreover, actually understanding and maintaining Lisp macros is, IMHO, a bear... they're not exactly the clearest constructs in the world.
Once you understand that, you'll realize why it's so cool.
Yes, very cool. Practical, no. "Cool", as in, "wow, that's pretty cool, but now I need to get some actual work done", definitely.
Of course, one might point out that the loop macro is a *terrible* (or, perhaps, carefully chosen) example, given that it's one of the least functional features in Lisp (and, amusingly, is one of the most expressive).
Huh, no kidding? Well, maybe you should tell reddit.com (one of Paul Graham's spinoffs). Because, you see, they switched from Lisp to Python a while back (sorry, I can't find the original block entry). And why? Because, to quote:
"If Lisp is so great, why did we stop using it? One of the biggest issues was the lack of widely used and tested libraries. Sure, there is a CL library for basically any task, but there is rarely more than one, and often the libraries are not widely used or well documented."
So, sure, there may be tons of libaries, but who wants a library that's poorly documented, poorly tested, and may not even work on your CL implementation?
Moreover, in addition to the ffi, things like sockets and threads, which I think we can all agree are important, aren't standardized across implementations, which just makes things harder.
Now, is this a problem with the language? No, it's the implementations. But the fact is that until you can grab a library off the net and drop it into your Lisp implementation of choice (assuming they've implemented the standard) and hit the ground running, it will, like Scheme, Smalltalk (my poison of choice), and others, remaining a niche language.
Unfortunately, this is, in part, also an issue of critical mass. Unless you can get people using your language, there won't be high quality, well tested modules for it. OTOH, Perl, Python, and Ruby have all proved it's possible... 'course, it helps that the people running those projects aren't sequestored in ivory towers (well, okay, Guido just deigns to join us down here, occasionally).
Huh? The package system is a standard feature of Common Lisp.
Ah, sorry, as I recall it was the foreign function interface that varied from implemention to implementation.
As for your first statement, sure, any language can be tailored to be useful in a particular domain. Can you name such a domain for Scheme? I can't.
Sure, if you enjoy rolling your own FastCGI/HTML generation/string processing/database interface/ libraries.
Languages without extensive first/third parties libraries are useless. And languages like Scheme and Lisp are particularly crippled because they don't even have a standard extension mechanism. I say this having explored the idea of rolling some interesting applications in Lisp... why would I spend half my time writing libraries when I could switch to Perl/Python/Ruby/C/C++/Java/etc and just get things done?
I agree with most, but would add a nice solid OO programming language
So, did you miss him mentioning Smalltalk, or have you just never heard of it? Please *please* tell me you just missed it...
Bike lights are next to useless at night, useless in a city at night (any secondary reflection of a shop light will get noticed 100 times better) and just plain invisible and a waste in daylight.
Apparently you've never used a modern bike light. A decent LED lighting system can be *very* bright, and the movement of the bicycle makes it pretty clear that it's not a mere reflection. Combined with reflective materials, there's no reason a cyclist shouldn't be very noticeable at night.
As for the day, I don't think anyone advocates the use of a headlight, so that's a bit of a strawman.
Other good tips:
* Never overtake a car on the right. Drivers don't expect it and you can find yourself in trouble if they decide to make a right-hand turn.
* Always pay attention. It seems self-explanatory, but it's very easy to settle into a rhythm and let your mind wander. This is a great way to get in an accident if an idiot driver suddenly pulls out in front of you.
* Above all, *be predictable*. Bicycles are very light and agile, so it can be very tempting to make sudden moves. Don't do it! You can also assist drivers by signaling turns and lane changes where appropriate.
Indeed... he might just be *gasp* shy and anal. God forbid such people should exist and not have some sort of "condition".
Do you have proof of this? Google isn't being terribly helpful...
OTOH, it had a CPU that was half the speed, something that was was evident in games requiring a lot of sprites, which tended to slow down and flicker on the SNES and not the Genesis.
Was the SNES more visually pleasing? Yes, I'd say so. Greater number of on-screen colours played a huge part in that, and mode7 was pretty impressive. But which was "more powerful" really depends on how you frame the question, I think.
That's idiotic, and I would know, I live in a country with a minority government: Canada. Such a situation forces politicians to *compromise* and *work across party lines*. In other words, the system becomes *less partisan*, which is a very good thing. In addition, a minority government situation makes it more difficult for the government in power to pass *any* legislation, effectively slowing down the pace of government. This is *also* a very good thing.
Anyone who thinks the US two-party "democracy" is superior to multiparty systems in Canada, Europe, or Australia is clearly in need of education.
Incidentally, it's also worth pointing out that Squeak provides a line-oriented environment on 'roids. Just fire up a Workspace, type in some code, and hit Alt-D, and voila, it executes!
I'm particularly glad you mentioned Squeak. For a kid who's very curious, Squeak is the ultimate learning environment. Not only can you write very interesting programs very easily using the powerful tools it provides, but you can also dig around in the system internals themselves! Just fire up the class browser, and voila, everything is laid bare before you. And if you bugger something up, you just terminate the VM and reload the image! Truly a *fantastic* system, one I wish I had access to when I was first dipping my feet into programming.