Nothing at all wrong with the user interface. "git clone", "git add", "git commit", "git push"... how hard is that?
If you must have a GUI, there are several of them out there. It's a hell of a lot easier to write a GUI (or web) interface for a CLI tool than vice versa.
The people in charge of them have no respect for the voting public and vice versa.
Wow, a few misconceptions to clear up here.
The people in charge of the Hugos (ignoring the SMOFs*) are the people running the particular WorldCon in the year that they're awarded. Which is to say, they're the folks responsible for running the nomination procedures, the voting, tallying the votes, etc, all within the "constitution" of WorldCon itself (which rules are, by design, NOT easy or quickly changed.) These people are in turn chosen by the "voting public" at a prior WorldCon as (part of the) con committee associated with a city competing to host the con that year. Oh, they're also responsible for the design and manufacture of that year's Awards (within certain constraints; the spaceship is a must).
This is NOTHING AT ALL like the professionally-run, for-profit cons like ComiCon. (In many ways its more fun -- no ridiculous lines, no charging for autographs or pictures, room parties and bid parties,...)
The "voting public" comprises, for the sake of nominations, anyone who has purchased a supporting or attending membership for the con. Actual voting (which also includes voting on a couple of other awards and the location of the next worldcon) is limited to those with an attending membership (although you don't have to show up, voting is by mail/email beforehand). If you want to vote on WorldCon business matters (like changing rules), you have to show up and attend the business meeting.
(* SMOF -- Secret Master Of Fandom. It's a long-running joke.)
That's not counting the SF writers who just get plain fucking weird. Philip Jose Farmer and Robert Heinlein both wrote some pretty disturbing eroticism in later life.
Many of the SF writers of that era wrote erotica even early in life, they had bills to pay. Most of it under pseudonyms, unlike Farmer's stuff (IMHO a lot more disturbing then Heinlein's, if you're talking about something like Blown). I've got a porn book (tame by today's standards) written by Robert Silverberg back in the 60s -- published of course under a pen name. (Heh, I should try to get him to autograph it while he's still around to do so.)
And Heinlein's "'-- All You Zombies --'" was written in 1958, a story involving gender reassignment and (thanks to time travel) self-impregnation, which David Gerrold expanded on in his The Man Who Folded Himself.
A good SF writer leaves nothing unexplored, no matter how disturbing, although it may be tough to market. That was kind of the point behind Harlan Ellison's 1967 anthology Dangerous Visions.
Really? You'd put Stranger in a Strange Land into the right wing subgenre? Time Enough for Love? What about Glory Road? And the rest of his stuff is more libertarian than right wing (of course from the left, there may not be much difference). Starship Troopers was written as it was in part to get out of a long-term publishing contract, because he was tired of writing juveniles. He knew the publisher would reject Troopers as a juvenile which would end the contract.
Pournelle maybe, although for example his (and Niven's) Lucifer's Hammer is a pretty broad mix. Again, I think much of his stuff is at core more libertarian than right wing.
Fans read an SF (not skiffy) book a week, or at least I did when I had the time. The "job" is volunteer, and you get to vote by buying a membership in the con.
The Hugo Awards have always been a popularity contest, since they're nominated and voted on by the fans (or, anyone else willing to pony up the money for a membership, although there are a couple of rules to discourage organized (vs disorganized, like the Puppies) bloc voting.
For that matter, the Nebula Awards, which are nominated and voted on by SF/F writing professionals (ie, SFWA members) are also something of a popularity contest, it's just a different crowd.
I suppose it's inevitable that any kind of award for the "best" in a subjective field like the arts (whether writing, filmmaking, whatever) ultimately devolves to a popularity contest of some kind.
In some objective sense the only contest that counts is who has more readers. As Jerry Pournelle put it when one of his books was nominated but didn't win, "New York Times best sellers [which his was] will get you through times of no Hugos better than Hugos will get you through times of no best sellers."
And while I'd love to have one of those little silver spaceships sitting on my mantle, Jerry has a point. A Hugo by itself isn't going to let me quit my day job and spend more time writing.
For one, I can put stuff on paper with a pen that is slower, or even almost impossible, with a keyboard or even stylus. Circles and arrows, diagrams, lines linking one chunk of text to another, double-underlining, triple-underling, etc, etc.
Of course that means I'm also thinking about what I'm putting down on the page, not just playing stenographer, so I rarely have to go back and look through those notes: it's passed through audio memory, visual memory, muscle memory and analytic memory already. (For key facts I may go back and look). Moreover, skimming the notes months or years later tends to put you back in the environment when/where you wrote them if they're handwritten. Much less so for something typed.
Mind, it's the opposite when I'm writing (fiction or code) -- that's mostly brain to keyboard with only a little outlining by hand. But then I'll do mark-up edits on paper if it's more than a few lines.
You may have a point. I don't know about musicians, but one of Niven's Laws is that "writers who write for other writers should write letters". And Louis B. Mayer (of MGM Studios) is said to have proclaimed "if you want to send a message, use Western Union."
I may not agree entirely with those sentiments, but it's a valid question: is someone writing (music, stories, screenplays, whatever) to entertain or to make an unpopular point? (It's easy to entertain if your message is one most will agree with -- although some still botch it.)
Yep. Dish Network, for example (actually Echostar, the Dish sibling which operates the satellites), has launched from Kazakhstan, China, French Guiana, and even the middle of the ocean (via Sea Launch). Wherever is cheap.
(And the sats themselves are US built, mostly by Space Systems/Loral, some of the older ones by Lockheed Martin.)
Hey, if "Of Course I Still Love You" and "Just Read the Instructions" can be valid boat names (they're the names of SpaceX's landing/recovery ships), then the "It's Bloody Cold Here" is perfectly cromulent.
Bureaucrats, no f*cking imagination or sense of humour.
The NTSB investigates the cause of the crash. The FAA investigates which regulations the pilot was breaking. But yeah, if the NTSB is involved (they're not always, especially for single-occupant non-fatality accidents) they get first dibs.
NTSB reports have been known to put some of the blame on FAA, for example in the Korean 801 crash in Guam some years back, where FAA had made some "irresponsible" changes to the operation of the MSAW. (The pilot training was also faulted.)
Reminds me of the night vision 'scope I have around somewhere. I was checking it out one night and thought the image, though reasonably clear, was somewhat dimmer than usual. Then I realized I'd left the plastic lens cap on.
Too bad all that rain, drizzle etc just sits there in puddles or soaks into the ground instead of, say, flowing down to rivers which could be dammed for hydroelectric power.
This is likely some variation on the Farnsworth Fusor. The main dangers to the students come not so much from radiation as from working with near vacuum in glass vessels, high voltages, and explosive gases (deuterium is, after all, hydrogen).
In my day the popular science fair experiments were also being done with near vacuum in glass vessels and high voltages, with the other danger being the emitted laser beam that could blind you (HeNe, argon) or burn holes through things (CO2).
"there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons,"
In related news, across the nation's university campuses the entire freshman class of geology majors looked at each other and said "shit, now what?".
(I joke because I have sons at two of the big petro-geology colleges (Colorado School of Mines and U of Oklahoma), and although one is taking geology, it's with an eye to paleontology. He already knows he's not going to make any money. (grin))
More like use Enterprise or Budget. Certainly they seem a much better deal for personal rentals (like when my own car is in the shop, or I'm flying somewhere). Hertz is typically the most expensive, I'll only go with them if somebody else is booking the car and paying for it (eg company travel).
It's not like the cars are really any different from one rental company to the next.
I think Oregon has or borders a few rivers where they could use hydroelectric for their base load. Wait, yes, yes it does. Over half of Oregon's power now is hydroelectric.
Not that I have anything against nukes. Ontario, Canada, has a pretty good mix of hydro and nuclear.
Designs do not a power plant make. And frankly, I doubt the designs reflect anything real-world-buildable at a price anyone is willing to pay in the time frame in which they'll be useful.
The fact is, if coal plants had to meet the same standards for radioactive emissions that nuclear plants do (which they don't), they'd have to be shut down. (They're burning so much coal per plant that even the traces of radon, radium, thorium etc in that coal are significant. Not to mention other fun thinks like arsenic.)
Even if you processed the coal until was 100.00% carbon (at what cost?), so that the plant really is only emitting CO2... CO2 is what you don't want if you're worried about it as a greenhouse gas. And what do you do with all the crap you scrub out of the coal and/or smoke? That arsenic has a toxic half-life of infinity (or until the protons decay, effectively the same thing).
Slashdot Mirror
I bet the interfaces are less than 3% of the code base. If not, we have an over-architected language on our hands here..
Well, we are talking about Java here...
Nothing at all wrong with the user interface. "git clone", "git add", "git commit", "git push" ... how hard is that?
If you must have a GUI, there are several of them out there. It's a hell of a lot easier to write a GUI (or web) interface for a CLI tool than vice versa.
The people in charge of them have no respect for the voting public and vice versa.
Wow, a few misconceptions to clear up here.
The people in charge of the Hugos (ignoring the SMOFs*) are the people running the particular WorldCon in the year that they're awarded. Which is to say, they're the folks responsible for running the nomination procedures, the voting, tallying the votes, etc, all within the "constitution" of WorldCon itself (which rules are, by design, NOT easy or quickly changed.) These people are in turn chosen by the "voting public" at a prior WorldCon as (part of the) con committee associated with a city competing to host the con that year. Oh, they're also responsible for the design and manufacture of that year's Awards (within certain constraints; the spaceship is a must).
This is NOTHING AT ALL like the professionally-run, for-profit cons like ComiCon. (In many ways its more fun -- no ridiculous lines, no charging for autographs or pictures, room parties and bid parties, ...)
The "voting public" comprises, for the sake of nominations, anyone who has purchased a supporting or attending membership for the con. Actual voting (which also includes voting on a couple of other awards and the location of the next worldcon) is limited to those with an attending membership (although you don't have to show up, voting is by mail/email beforehand). If you want to vote on WorldCon business matters (like changing rules), you have to show up and attend the business meeting.
(* SMOF -- Secret Master Of Fandom. It's a long-running joke.)
That's not counting the SF writers who just get plain fucking weird. Philip Jose Farmer and Robert Heinlein both wrote some pretty disturbing eroticism in later life.
Many of the SF writers of that era wrote erotica even early in life, they had bills to pay. Most of it under pseudonyms, unlike Farmer's stuff (IMHO a lot more disturbing then Heinlein's, if you're talking about something like Blown). I've got a porn book (tame by today's standards) written by Robert Silverberg back in the 60s -- published of course under a pen name. (Heh, I should try to get him to autograph it while he's still around to do so.)
And Heinlein's "'-- All You Zombies --'" was written in 1958, a story involving gender reassignment and (thanks to time travel) self-impregnation, which David Gerrold expanded on in his The Man Who Folded Himself.
A good SF writer leaves nothing unexplored, no matter how disturbing, although it may be tough to market. That was kind of the point behind Harlan Ellison's 1967 anthology Dangerous Visions.
Really? You'd put Stranger in a Strange Land into the right wing subgenre? Time Enough for Love? What about Glory Road? And the rest of his stuff is more libertarian than right wing (of course from the left, there may not be much difference). Starship Troopers was written as it was in part to get out of a long-term publishing contract, because he was tired of writing juveniles. He knew the publisher would reject Troopers as a juvenile which would end the contract.
Pournelle maybe, although for example his (and Niven's) Lucifer's Hammer is a pretty broad mix. Again, I think much of his stuff is at core more libertarian than right wing.
Fans read an SF (not skiffy) book a week, or at least I did when I had the time. The "job" is volunteer, and you get to vote by buying a membership in the con.
The Hugo Awards have always been a popularity contest, since they're nominated and voted on by the fans (or, anyone else willing to pony up the money for a membership, although there are a couple of rules to discourage organized (vs disorganized, like the Puppies) bloc voting.
For that matter, the Nebula Awards, which are nominated and voted on by SF/F writing professionals (ie, SFWA members) are also something of a popularity contest, it's just a different crowd.
I suppose it's inevitable that any kind of award for the "best" in a subjective field like the arts (whether writing, filmmaking, whatever) ultimately devolves to a popularity contest of some kind.
In some objective sense the only contest that counts is who has more readers. As Jerry Pournelle put it when one of his books was nominated but didn't win, "New York Times best sellers [which his was] will get you through times of no Hugos better than Hugos will get you through times of no best sellers."
And while I'd love to have one of those little silver spaceships sitting on my mantle, Jerry has a point. A Hugo by itself isn't going to let me quit my day job and spend more time writing.
Not that great, but the advantage is that they cook themselves.
And they're real easy to hunt at night, what with the glow and all.
This.
For one, I can put stuff on paper with a pen that is slower, or even almost impossible, with a keyboard or even stylus. Circles and arrows, diagrams, lines linking one chunk of text to another, double-underlining, triple-underling, etc, etc.
Of course that means I'm also thinking about what I'm putting down on the page, not just playing stenographer, so I rarely have to go back and look through those notes: it's passed through audio memory, visual memory, muscle memory and analytic memory already. (For key facts I may go back and look). Moreover, skimming the notes months or years later tends to put you back in the environment when/where you wrote them if they're handwritten. Much less so for something typed.
Mind, it's the opposite when I'm writing (fiction or code) -- that's mostly brain to keyboard with only a little outlining by hand. But then I'll do mark-up edits on paper if it's more than a few lines.
"Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
If that's really a concern you just tell them the registration number.
You may have a point. I don't know about musicians, but one of Niven's Laws is that "writers who write for other writers should write letters". And Louis B. Mayer (of MGM Studios) is said to have proclaimed "if you want to send a message, use Western Union."
I may not agree entirely with those sentiments, but it's a valid question: is someone writing (music, stories, screenplays, whatever) to entertain or to make an unpopular point? (It's easy to entertain if your message is one most will agree with -- although some still botch it.)
Yep. Dish Network, for example (actually Echostar, the Dish sibling which operates the satellites), has launched from Kazakhstan, China, French Guiana, and even the middle of the ocean (via Sea Launch). Wherever is cheap.
(And the sats themselves are US built, mostly by Space Systems/Loral, some of the older ones by Lockheed Martin.)
Hey, if "Of Course I Still Love You" and "Just Read the Instructions" can be valid boat names (they're the names of SpaceX's landing/recovery ships), then the "It's Bloody Cold Here" is perfectly cromulent.
Bureaucrats, no f*cking imagination or sense of humour.
Q: What do you call a soldier flying a jet pack?
A: Skeet.
(Stolen from Howard Tayler's Schlock Mercenary.)
Heinlein's Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) were also armored.
The NTSB investigates the cause of the crash. The FAA investigates which regulations the pilot was breaking. But yeah, if the NTSB is involved (they're not always, especially for single-occupant non-fatality accidents) they get first dibs.
NTSB reports have been known to put some of the blame on FAA, for example in the Korean 801 crash in Guam some years back, where FAA had made some "irresponsible" changes to the operation of the MSAW. (The pilot training was also faulted.)
You'd think there'd be some demand for 3D-printable clip-on lens covers for popular webcams, laptops, etc.
Last time I looked (a while back) I couldn't find such.
Reminds me of the night vision 'scope I have around somewhere. I was checking it out one night and thought the image, though reasonably clear, was somewhat dimmer than usual. Then I realized I'd left the plastic lens cap on.
Hmmm....
Metal lens caps FTW.
Too bad all that rain, drizzle etc just sits there in puddles or soaks into the ground instead of, say, flowing down to rivers which could be dammed for hydroelectric power.
Oh, wait.... ;)
This is likely some variation on the Farnsworth Fusor. The main dangers to the students come not so much from radiation as from working with near vacuum in glass vessels, high voltages, and explosive gases (deuterium is, after all, hydrogen).
In my day the popular science fair experiments were also being done with near vacuum in glass vessels and high voltages, with the other danger being the emitted laser beam that could blind you (HeNe, argon) or burn holes through things (CO2).
On the contrary, for neutron shielding you want low density materials.
And the only difference between x-rays and gamma rays is the frequency.
I do hope you're not doing radiation shielding for anything critical.
You're trying to talk common sense to a science fantasy fan. They don't mix.
There, fixed that for you.
"there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons,"
In related news, across the nation's university campuses the entire freshman class of geology majors looked at each other and said "shit, now what?".
(I joke because I have sons at two of the big petro-geology colleges (Colorado School of Mines and U of Oklahoma), and although one is taking geology, it's with an eye to paleontology. He already knows he's not going to make any money. (grin))
More like use Enterprise or Budget. Certainly they seem a much better deal for personal rentals (like when my own car is in the shop, or I'm flying somewhere). Hertz is typically the most expensive, I'll only go with them if somebody else is booking the car and paying for it (eg company travel).
It's not like the cars are really any different from one rental company to the next.
I think Oregon has or borders a few rivers where they could use hydroelectric for their base load. Wait, yes, yes it does. Over half of Oregon's power now is hydroelectric.
Not that I have anything against nukes. Ontario, Canada, has a pretty good mix of hydro and nuclear.
Designs do not a power plant make. And frankly, I doubt the designs reflect anything real-world-buildable at a price anyone is willing to pay in the time frame in which they'll be useful.
The fact is, if coal plants had to meet the same standards for radioactive emissions that nuclear plants do (which they don't), they'd have to be shut down. (They're burning so much coal per plant that even the traces of radon, radium, thorium etc in that coal are significant. Not to mention other fun thinks like arsenic.)
Even if you processed the coal until was 100.00% carbon (at what cost?), so that the plant really is only emitting CO2 ... CO2 is what you don't want if you're worried about it as a greenhouse gas. And what do you do with all the crap you scrub out of the coal and/or smoke? That arsenic has a toxic half-life of infinity (or until the protons decay, effectively the same thing).