When they say "Easy" they don't mean "Easy to come up with" or "Easy to say"... I think they really mean something more along the lines of "Doesn't require any work".
At least, that's almost always what I mean in that sort of context.
I doubt that would be an effective defense. There's no lesser "Attempted copyright infringement" statute that I'm aware of... and the inability to commit a crime is generally no defense when it's clear that you intended to and took steps to commit it.
Yes, VB has been a fantastic language for people who wish to remain beginners. Unfortunately, as many people here have pointed out, this learning-exclusion feature may have been removed in the latest version.
Either you're a clever troll, or you're the first creationist in the history of the world to remain both informed _and_ honest.
Each of those characteristics pops up all the time in young earth creationists but in my experience the combination pretty much always terminates the 'creationist' bit. It did for me. How (and/or why) do you maintain your beliefs when you're obviously aware that the vast preponderance of evidence says you're wrong?
I'm with Gene Wilder in the "awake, but very, very puzzled" state of mind...
Just curious. By what criteria do you accept the claims contained at the above sites, and reject other claims?
I don't know what "junkscience.com" advocates, but the other site is pretty clear. Do you think it's plausible that a 10% alcohol mix in gasoline really causes a 50% drop in mileage? Have you noticed that? I haven't. Why hasn't everyone noticed it?
Personally, I'm usually prepared to accept what experts say in their own field of expertise, just on their authority, but I might not always believe that someone is an expert just because they're claimed to be.
Well, maybe. But using this sort of out-of-scope control flow to accomplish what is essentially an exception is bizarre. What if someone else, looking at the loop, puts status() in a new routine that *doesn't* use a loop? Are you going to fix that by writing "for (1) { $state = status($aux) }" ?
Eval/die is the standard way to "handle" this. One, if the exception is not handled, the program blows up and doesn't exhibit heisenbugs. Two, it works when there aren't any loops. Three, perhaps most importantly, other Perl programmers are familiar with it. Or should be.
This sort of programming can only lead to unmaintainable spaghetticode.
On the other hand, assuming that the 10% who die automatically go to heaven to enjoy paradisiacal life forever, we can use the technique safely, on everyone!...What? My fact-free assumption is just as valid as yours:-)
At least it throws a warning... although the kind of programmers who will use this are unlikely to have warnings turned on, or even know that they can turn warnings on.
Well, mine were Jews AND Protestants! And at least one Cherokee! So there! I'm a Dutch-German-Scots-Irish-Polish-Jewish-Native American and we are proud of our heritage.
Though you can find examples of creationists from all those camps and more, especially Turkish Muslims. I have seen a Native American anti-evolutionist argument as well, but I don't have the details anymore.
I'm an atheist, but I think you're wrong. It's perfectly plausible to claim that some god could have started the universe spinning and then left it alone. It is, of course, completely unsupportable and thoroughly speculative, but the idea doesn't contradict anything I'm aware of. You could even claim that God interferes in the natural world, in a 100% undetectable way, and that would be perfectly legitimate and 100% unconvincing.
I've got my invisible pink unicorn, and my flying spaghetti monster. God is superfluous...
As an US ex-fundamentalist, I will attest that they do believe that evolution denies their faith, and I think they're right. Evolution doesn't contradict theism, or Christianity in general, but fundamentalist beliefs cannot accommodate it. There are two reasons for this.
One, they demand that the entire Bible be read literally, except for parts that are specifically labeled as poetry or metaphor. So, Genesis 1 describes six literal days, and they more or less ignore the fact that it contradicts Genesis 2.
Two, they believe (by taking Genesis and Romans 5:12 literally) that death is a specific punishment for Adam & Eve's sin, and did not exist before the Fall of Man (the literal event). Obviously, evolution implies that death occurred for billions of years before humans existed.
It's a pity that they don't take other parts of the Bible literally. For example, "prove all things, hold fast what is true" or "provide things honest in the sight of all men".
I think most anti-creationists don't dispute the possibility that the universe was created by a god. (If they do, it's not on scientific grounds.) It's likely that the majority, or at least a large minority, are even Christians. If that seems paradoxical, the problem is with confusing terms. Creationist and intelligent design in that context refer to those political movements specifically, not to the general idea that the universe might have been specially created. Opposition to intelligent design consists of opposition to specific arguments - Behe's (er, Paley's) irreducible complexity, Dembski's complex specified information, the idea that Genesis 1 is to be taken as a literal timeline, etc.
The judge in Dover certainly didn't rule that God does not exist, just that public schools can't say that he does.
Hmm, well, wine is typically made in stainless steel vats nowadays (even most of the reasonably good wines) which probably impart little to no flavor... so you're down to four.:-)
All right, perhaps my point was too oblique, but how do you propose to do this? Who's going to "pull the plug"? Do you propose to shut down the sites? Porn sites aren't violating any US laws, and if they were, they could just go buy hosting in some other country. Or do you propose content filtering for everyone? I don't think that's going to be too popular, or effective: Even China can't pull it off properly, and they've been building that infrastructure for years.
If there were some hypothetical global authority that could arbitrarily block websites either at the source or the destination, how do you propose to enforce your own religious ideas but prevent Nigeria and Saudi Arabia from using it to enforce Sharia law against the whole world?
I have a better proposal: You can refuse to participate in activities that you object to, and everyone else can be responsible for their own behavior.
Well, aren't you going to go the whole way and ban any site that has idolatrous images of people on it? We are created in God's image after all - duplicating that is blasphemous - and the second commandment declares "You shall make no graven image". No sites allowed for graven images, of any kind.
Slashdot Mirror
There was an intellectual here, briefly, in 1997, I think.
just don't. :-)
When they say "Easy" they don't mean "Easy to come up with" or "Easy to say"... I think they really mean something more along the lines of "Doesn't require any work".
At least, that's almost always what I mean in that sort of context.
HTH. HAND...
I doubt that would be an effective defense. There's no lesser "Attempted copyright infringement" statute that I'm aware of... and the inability to commit a crime is generally no defense when it's clear that you intended to and took steps to commit it.
Just another demonstration of the failure of security through obscurity!
Yes, VB has been a fantastic language for people who wish to remain beginners. Unfortunately, as many people here have pointed out, this learning-exclusion feature may have been removed in the latest version.
The probability of having a girlfriend is inversely related to the UID, of course. That said, my own probability is about 3% and rising...
Either you're a clever troll, or you're the first creationist in the history of the world to remain both informed _and_ honest.
Each of those characteristics pops up all the time in young earth creationists but in my experience the combination pretty much always terminates the 'creationist' bit. It did for me. How (and/or why) do you maintain your beliefs when you're obviously aware that the vast preponderance of evidence says you're wrong?
I'm with Gene Wilder in the "awake, but very, very puzzled" state of mind...
My head just exploded. I'll bet you have that effect all the time...
Just curious. By what criteria do you accept the claims contained at the above sites, and reject other claims?
I don't know what "junkscience.com" advocates, but the other site is pretty clear. Do you think it's plausible that a 10% alcohol mix in gasoline really causes a 50% drop in mileage? Have you noticed that? I haven't. Why hasn't everyone noticed it?
Personally, I'm usually prepared to accept what experts say in their own field of expertise, just on their authority, but I might not always believe that someone is an expert just because they're claimed to be.
Well, maybe. But using this sort of out-of-scope control flow to accomplish what is essentially an exception is bizarre. What if someone else, looking at the loop, puts status() in a new routine that *doesn't* use a loop? Are you going to fix that by writing "for (1) { $state = status($aux) }" ?
Eval/die is the standard way to "handle" this. One, if the exception is not handled, the program blows up and doesn't exhibit heisenbugs. Two, it works when there aren't any loops. Three, perhaps most importantly, other Perl programmers are familiar with it. Or should be.
This sort of programming can only lead to unmaintainable spaghetticode.
On the other hand, assuming that the 10% who die automatically go to heaven to enjoy paradisiacal life forever, we can use the technique safely, on everyone! ...What? My fact-free assumption is just as valid as yours :-)
Well, if code is well-understood (or you think it is) at the time it's written, that's all you really need, right?
No one will ever need to look at it again.
At least it throws a warning... although the kind of programmers who will use this are unlikely to have warnings turned on, or even know that they can turn warnings on.
Oh, and NASCAR sucks.
Well, mine were Jews AND Protestants! And at least one Cherokee! So there! I'm a Dutch-German-Scots-Irish-Polish-Jewish-Native American and we are proud of our heritage.
So, doesn't that make you anti-racist?
It ain't the Hindus, Jews or Muslims.
Though you can find examples of creationists from all those camps and more, especially Turkish Muslims. I have seen a Native American anti-evolutionist argument as well, but I don't have the details anymore.
I'm an atheist, but I think you're wrong. It's perfectly plausible to claim that some god could have started the universe spinning and then left it alone. It is, of course, completely unsupportable and thoroughly speculative, but the idea doesn't contradict anything I'm aware of. You could even claim that God interferes in the natural world, in a 100% undetectable way, and that would be perfectly legitimate and 100% unconvincing.
I've got my invisible pink unicorn, and my flying spaghetti monster. God is superfluous...
As an US ex-fundamentalist, I will attest that they do believe that evolution denies their faith, and I think they're right. Evolution doesn't contradict theism, or Christianity in general, but fundamentalist beliefs cannot accommodate it. There are two reasons for this.
One, they demand that the entire Bible be read literally, except for parts that are specifically labeled as poetry or metaphor. So, Genesis 1 describes six literal days, and they more or less ignore the fact that it contradicts Genesis 2.
Two, they believe (by taking Genesis and Romans 5:12 literally) that death is a specific punishment for Adam & Eve's sin, and did not exist before the Fall of Man (the literal event). Obviously, evolution implies that death occurred for billions of years before humans existed.
It's a pity that they don't take other parts of the Bible literally. For example, "prove all things, hold fast what is true" or "provide things honest in the sight of all men".
I think most anti-creationists don't dispute the possibility that the universe was created by a god. (If they do, it's not on scientific grounds.) It's likely that the majority, or at least a large minority, are even Christians. If that seems paradoxical, the problem is with confusing terms. Creationist and intelligent design in that context refer to those political movements specifically, not to the general idea that the universe might have been specially created. Opposition to intelligent design consists of opposition to specific arguments - Behe's (er, Paley's) irreducible complexity, Dembski's complex specified information, the idea that Genesis 1 is to be taken as a literal timeline, etc.
The judge in Dover certainly didn't rule that God does not exist, just that public schools can't say that he does.
Hmm, well, wine is typically made in stainless steel vats nowadays (even most of the reasonably good wines) which probably impart little to no flavor... so you're down to four. :-)
ITYM "ITYM". HTH. HAND.
All right, perhaps my point was too oblique, but how do you propose to do this? Who's going to "pull the plug"? Do you propose to shut down the sites? Porn sites aren't violating any US laws, and if they were, they could just go buy hosting in some other country. Or do you propose content filtering for everyone? I don't think that's going to be too popular, or effective: Even China can't pull it off properly, and they've been building that infrastructure for years.
If there were some hypothetical global authority that could arbitrarily block websites either at the source or the destination, how do you propose to enforce your own religious ideas but prevent Nigeria and Saudi Arabia from using it to enforce Sharia law against the whole world?
I have a better proposal: You can refuse to participate in activities that you object to, and everyone else can be responsible for their own behavior.
Well, aren't you going to go the whole way and ban any site that has idolatrous images of people on it? We are created in God's image after all - duplicating that is blasphemous - and the second commandment declares "You shall make no graven image". No sites allowed for graven images, of any kind.