If something is all salt, than it is not sugar at all.
By grammar alone: The word "than" implies exclusion; while the exclusion is on a continuum in the case of the mixture, such a continuum doesn't even exist when using the terms "theory" and "fact" as a scientist would use them.
To the layman, the word "theory" means "not proved to be factual" (it is more akin to what a scientist would call "hypothesis"); here a continuum would exist. However, to the scientist, the word "theory" describes a set of related/self-consistent/dependent statements regardless of whether or not they are physical facts: The Theory of Evolution was a theory before it was proved to be factual, and it remains a theory after it was proved to be factual.
The statement "it is more theory than fact" is like saying: "it is more thing than cat" (it is a thing regardless of whether or not it is a cat).
What is particulary humorous is that the Maintainer of GNUstep recently wrote a blog post titled GNUstep Is Not OpenStep...:
Hey guys. I thought I would make this blog post to make a point: GNUstep is not OpenStep. GNUstep is a Cocoa implementation and has been for quite some time.
"Lebe nicht für andere, sondern lebe für dich!", war das Motto des gelernten Kfz-Mechanikers, der mit 17 Jahren auf einen Strommasten geklettert war und dabei beide Arme verloren hatte.
Think of space as muffin batter, and think of the galaxies as chocolate chips in the batter; as this mixture bakes, the batter expands everywhere, and consequently the chocolate chips become farther apart from each other.
Or, think of space as a balloon, and think of the galaxies as little ink marks on the surface of the balloon; as air is pumped into the balloon, the surface of the balloon expands, and consequently the chocolate chips become farther apart from each other.
There is no central point from which galaxies were flung; after all, into what could they have been flung? Instead, the space between matter has expanded with time (and the greater the distance between two things, the greater the rate of expansion between them).
Not open like Firefox, not open like OpenOffice. Open like Darwin.... I'm just saying that its openness provides no real benefit and shouldn't be regarded as a positive selling point.
I may disagree here; from what I understand, Android users ultimately* don't have to wait for some centralized authority to approve an application, and consequently Android users don't have to worry about some centralized authority removing acces to applications.
*Official `App Stores' aren't required; in that sense, Android does provide users with more computing benefits.
.NET is not even a C/C++ framework, so why it's listed alongside gcc is beyond my comprehension. It's like complaining that you can't write Rails apps with gcc.
GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...). GCC was originally written as the compiler for the GNU operating system. The GNU system was developed to be 100% free software, free in the sense that it respects the user's freedom.
Re:No amount of documentation ...
on
Autotools
·
· Score: 1
For instance, instead of making a C program which outputs values with printf, make it so that the values are used as initializers for static data. Then use the cross-compiling toolchain's "nm" utility to extract the values from the compiled object file. You don't have to run a program to know how wide a (void *) is. Just do "static char size_of_void_star[sizeof (void *)]". Compile it, and then interrogate the.o to discover what is the content of the size of the data region named by size_of_void_star!
Slashdot Mirror
If something is all salt, than it is not sugar at all.
By grammar alone: The word "than" implies exclusion; while the exclusion is on a continuum in the case of the mixture, such a continuum doesn't even exist when using the terms "theory" and "fact" as a scientist would use them.
To the layman, the word "theory" means "not proved to be factual" (it is more akin to what a scientist would call "hypothesis"); here a continuum would exist. However, to the scientist, the word "theory" describes a set of related/self-consistent/dependent statements regardless of whether or not they are physical facts: The Theory of Evolution was a theory before it was proved to be factual, and it remains a theory after it was proved to be factual.
The statement "it is more theory than fact" is like saying: "it is more thing than cat" (it is a thing regardless of whether or not it is a cat).
more theory than fact
To scientists, these terms are not mutually exclusive.
It is possible for anyone to have contributed or to contribute further to the C++ standard; all members of the 'committee' are volunteers.
AT&TOL is begging for people to please give them a try because they put the internets in your computer
I'm looking forward to my FREE HOURS !
"Lebe nicht für andere, sondern lebe für dich!", war das Motto des gelernten Kfz-Mechanikers, der mit 17 Jahren auf einen Strommasten geklettert war und dabei beide Arme verloren hatte.
"I love driving. My licence has given me back my independence," he wrote, saying his motto was: "Don't live for others, live for yourself!"
I think the motto as printed is a mistranslation. Consider this variant:
"I love driving. My licence has given me back my independence," he wrote, saying his motto was: "Don't live through others, live through yourself!"
Think of space as muffin batter, and think of the galaxies as chocolate chips in the batter; as this mixture bakes, the batter expands everywhere, and consequently the chocolate chips become farther apart from each other.
Or, think of space as a balloon, and think of the galaxies as little ink marks on the surface of the balloon; as air is pumped into the balloon, the surface of the balloon expands, and consequently the chocolate chips become farther apart from each other.
There is no central point from which galaxies were flung; after all, into what could they have been flung? Instead, the space between matter has expanded with time (and the greater the distance between two things, the greater the rate of expansion between them).
Not open like Firefox, not open like OpenOffice. Open like Darwin.... I'm just saying that its openness provides no real benefit and shouldn't be regarded as a positive selling point.
I may disagree here; from what I understand, Android users ultimately* don't have to wait for some centralized authority to approve an application, and consequently Android users don't have to worry about some centralized authority removing acces to applications.
*Official `App Stores' aren't required; in that sense, Android does provide users with more computing benefits.
Typical elite geek attitude that only people who know how to hack are entitled to the fullest benefits of computing.
Only people who know how to hack are CAPABLE of harnassing the fullest benefits of computing.
.NET is not even a C/C++ framework, so why it's listed alongside gcc is beyond my comprehension. It's like complaining that you can't write Rails apps with gcc.
From gcc's website:
For instance, instead of making a C program which outputs values with printf, make it so that the values are used as initializers for static data. Then use the cross-compiling toolchain's "nm" utility to extract the values from the compiled object file. You don't have to run a program to know how wide a (void *) is. Just do "static char size_of_void_star[sizeof (void *)]". Compile it, and then interrogate the .o to discover what is the content of the size of the data region named by size_of_void_star!
<limits.h>