Re:Java: Where Components come from
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
I do a lot of bash scripting at work; I keep thinking "I need to learn perl."
I've tried to use other languages to do what bash scripting does, and there's just nothing as good as bash.
Can you do the equivalent of a "mkdir -p" easily in perl, and can you do the verious tricks like "FOO=`./blah.sh`" and "$$" and stuff like that?
Re:Java: Where Components come from
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
And I agree; I spoke too brusque.
Guido's talking about run-time interface conformance requirements for 3.0.
If it happens, it could be really cool. Granted, it's not compile-time, but, it might make some projects easier than they are right now.
Re:Java: Where Components come from
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
Python doesn't have anything like this yet.
Hey; I get to be the first to tell you! Yay me.:)
EasyInstall. And no, this isn't some "fringe" thing: TurboGears uses it as it's basic installation method.
I'm not sure on inclusion in the standard distro (of EGGs and EasyInstall,) but I know people are talking about it.
Re:Java: Where Components come from
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
Petty, isn't it? I agree.
And yet, I don't use Eclipse. Ah well, it's only my loss, I suppose.
Java: Where Components come from
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm a Python guy, and I think the advantages of Python, Ruby, and (do people still program in?) Perl, and (cough) PHP, are clear.
That said: I envy the Java guys their component research.
If you want to do anything really cool with components, you pretty much have to use Java. It's not because it's a better language. (It's not.) It's not because it's elegant. (It's not.) It's just because Java is where the people are. That's where just about all the component people are.
Java is hideous, Java is complicated, Java is large, Java is unwieldly, and there's nothing more unpleasant than waiting for a Java app to load. Than waiting for Eclipse to load. (shudder.) But you can't beat their components research.
Just about every single component project I know of, is just copying technique from the Java people. And usually far behind.
What's this "pushing the blog thing" you're talking about?
I think a major shift in how people make and get news is interesting, and there's very good evidence that it's changing people's lives. Politicians have had to dramatically change their strategies, it's affecting how war works, and it's changing business. People are rethinking what personal boundaries mean, and where they should be.
So, it seems natural to me that people should talk about blogs.
So, I'm wondering: What's your concern? Are you just not finding the conversations entertaining enough? Are you bored by the talk? Do you want something else? Is there some concern of yours that's not being met?
Honestly, what's the complaint?
Was the poster treating you poorly, or disrespecting you in some way? Are you worried that the proportion of respect is wrong? Should we respect media analysis less, and think about something else, more? What do you think people should be paying attention to, that conversations about blogs are getting in the way of?
Or maybe media study is just not your thing. Perhaps you just wish Slashdot didn't bring in news about media, and stuff like that.
The only problem I have with this theory, I think, is: Why would all the high influence people continue to read a higher influence person, if it's clear that they're just repeating corporate influence?
It seems to me like you would need to pay off 12,000 more people, because they have nothing to gain by repeating that piece of spam, just on their own. In fact, they lose credibility with their readers, if they do so.
The World in a Computer
on
Hooked On The Web
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But, they say, the Internet's omnipresent offer of escape from reality, affordability, accessibility and opportunity for anonymity can also lure otherwise healthy people into an addiction.
It's not that the Internet is becoming an escape from reality.
It's that the Internet is becoming reality.
Look around a house: There's a thing called a bookshelf. That's where all the books go. When you want to go read a book, you go to a physical space, that's entirely so that you can read.
In another corner, there's where the telephone is hooked to the wall. That's where you go to talk with people.
When you want to play games, you pull out the board game, or the Nintendo, or something.
"Oh, I feel like drawing." You pull out the pens, pencils, paper. Those too, are in a special location in the house.
For everything that you want to do, there's a place in the house.
But now, pretty much everything but the bathroom and the kitchen fits nicely, (and much more affordably,) within the computer.
So, if you hear about "Internet Addiction," just think to yourself: "World Addiction."
Does somebody have an "online gambling problem?" Just call it for what it is: a gambling problem.
Does somebody look at porn so much, that they can't get themselves to go to work? Call it a porn problem.
For whatever problem you have, and then attach the word "online" to it, just strip off that "online" word, and attack the problem.
After 2nd wave feminism, men & the patriarchy were considered bad guys. And not entirely without reason, considering relative crime rates and what not.
Perhaps there is little to no place for male sexuality, until the age of, say, 22 years old. Perhaps women have an easier time at having sex at 15 than men do, regardless of law. Speaking of law, a 15 year old male will suffer rape charges, a 15 year old female will not. I think we just pretty much expect that men are criminals. Is this not unjustified?
Lack of positive role models? I think not: Movies are full of positive role models for males. That said, these positive role models usually feature violence.
Perhaps men have been violent for the last 100+ years, and nothing has changed. Perhaps there hasn't been a positive role for men for the last 100+ years. Perhaps we males are just suffering from karmic balancing.
What do we want males to be? What would you, as a male, want to be?
("Respected," my mind shouts out.) Not being portrayed as an idiot would be a nice start. I'm afraid that the stereotypes are working against us.
I can conceive of a sub-culture forming it's own vision, it's own ideals, of what men would be. Or rather, a set of options for men- it couldn't be just 1 thing, realistically. We need archetypes.
But speaking for myself, I'm just glad I had a daughter; So that-- I don't have to think about these things.
Boys can just shoot each other, for all I care. (..!) Strange that I should be so callous about it. But then, isn't that a big part of what being a man is all about?
Security?! I'd be more afraid for the geek's security, than the cube's.
Knowing Google, I would think that these shipping container computer things would be covered with sensing devices. It's probably scanning the face, gait, apparent weight, and shoe size of anyone that gets near it, and googling for their name, their address, their family and children, employer, and all other relations. As it prepares to activate the lightning sprocket, it's probably composing emails, editing video footage, and notifying the newspapers of an impending obituary.
I'd sooner touch the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord your God, than touch one of these here Google Skynet Singularity Machines.
I really wish that there were a programmatic interface to Apache configuration.
I think we could really use some tools to help with Apache configuration.
Something where, in any directory, you could ask: "Apache, tell me what you think about this directory. Talk to me, Mother Goose." You know- it could say, "Options ExecCGI, blah, blah, and blah." It would tell you if Apache had permission to go to that directory, it could tell you what rights Apache had in that directory, it could tell you what things it would do in that directory. That tool, right there, would end SO MANY HEADACHES.
Something to programmatically change the Apache configuration. Why is this important? INSTALLERS. You can make automatic installers that don't mess up your other Apache stuff, if you could do this. That will result in speeding up web service deployments, and head us toward web component utopia.
I, too, am a card-carrying Free/Liber/OpenSource Software fanatic, and I feel I should attest: I have many times modded up people talking about the very real limitations of the GIMP for professional photo manipulators.
The clearer the limitations are, the better we fit people with the right product, and the clearer what needs to be worked on is.
There is a small contingent of newbies in the FLOSS society. As in most societies, there is a group of people at the entry gates who rave wild madness about whatever it is that they have discovered. It is just part of the passage of perspectives.
The problem, in the book, is the problem we're seeing here. Some rich club mob wants to take over the Internet. They want to control the communications system, and they want to be the gatekeepers of what all will go over the wires. And they're using it to leech off of, and eventually control, society.
Cities have a way of becoming self-aware. In the book, we meet San Fransisco: City. And we meet Sacramento, briefly. (She looks like a prostitute, apparently.) Chicago's also got a soul- in a living man. New York. Phoenix. The major cities- They start to take on a life of their own.
And they fight as hard as they can against the network controllers. But... "When the city comes a walkin' we'll all be obsolete."
Not tentirely true; We need DRM in the OpenSource community as well.
For example, we need to be able to automatically keep GFDL an CC-copyleft texts separate. In wiki, we need licensing information to transport along with a document, and it's history, if required by the license.
In 1988, if you asked me what IBM does, I would say, "They make computers."
Because, while my mom owned a Compaq, my friend had an IBM at his house.
Now, it's 2005, and I find myself asking: "Just what exactly does IBM do do?"
Joel tells me that they make clear plastic telephones. One of my bosses say they provide "business solutions." This post seems to imply that they have something to do with search. Their website is indecypherable to me.
So, please, if someone could explain to me in plain language: What is IBM, and what does it do?
I'm aware of what Wikipedia says, but I'm interested in hearing what juicy nuggets local Slashdot readers may have to offer.
North American Christians downplay the Big Bang because it doesn't include the idea that the world was created in seven days.
Reasons to Believe features horrible arguments, the most common violate the anthropic principle.
The site basically exists to persuade people (mostly existing believers, I suspect) with the appearance of science. But a critical thinker is going to see right through this.
Hm, my understanding is that macro-evolutionary theories are tested all the time.
We obviously can't live long enough to see whether or not they are true, but: People make predictions about the ''kinds'' of things that we will find in the fossil records, and those things are found. For example, we fill in the gaps in the fossil record all the time, as we discover stuff.
Whereas creationists don't have very many predictions about what we'll find in the fossil records.
Slashdot Mirror
I do a lot of bash scripting at work; I keep thinking "I need to learn perl."
I've tried to use other languages to do what bash scripting does, and there's just nothing as good as bash.
Can you do the equivalent of a "mkdir -p" easily in perl, and can you do the verious tricks like "FOO=`./blah.sh`" and "$$" and stuff like that?
And I agree; I spoke too brusque.
Guido's talking about run-time interface conformance requirements for 3.0.
If it happens, it could be really cool. Granted, it's not compile-time, but, it might make some projects easier than they are right now.
Python doesn't have anything like this yet.
:)
Hey; I get to be the first to tell you! Yay me.
EasyInstall. And no, this isn't some "fringe" thing: TurboGears uses it as it's basic installation method.
I'm not sure on inclusion in the standard distro (of EGGs and EasyInstall,) but I know people are talking about it.
Petty, isn't it? I agree.
And yet, I don't use Eclipse. Ah well, it's only my loss, I suppose.
I'm a Python guy, and I think the advantages of Python, Ruby, and (do people still program in?) Perl, and (cough) PHP, are clear.
That said: I envy the Java guys their component research.
If you want to do anything really cool with components, you pretty much have to use Java. It's not because it's a better language. (It's not.) It's not because it's elegant. (It's not.) It's just because Java is where the people are. That's where just about all the component people are.
Java is hideous, Java is complicated, Java is large, Java is unwieldly, and there's nothing more unpleasant than waiting for a Java app to load. Than waiting for Eclipse to load. (shudder.) But you can't beat their components research.
Just about every single component project I know of, is just copying technique from the Java people. And usually far behind.
(off-mic:) Isn't Perl a fable, these days?
I'm a GNOME guy. I read Planet GNOME daily; it's my favorite TV channel.
I can't find it for you right now, but here's some things I can find in a handful of minutes:
Honestly, I don't know the history behind it; I just know that there's been a lot of OOo advocacy coming from the GNOME community.
Personally, I'm all for it. But I still like Abiword better..!
If I had the time to work on GNOME, I'd work on documentation and tools to make Bonobo easier to understand and use.
"Many eyes make bugs shallow" - it's still true.
It's just there aren't many eyes in there.
I think I saw some GNOME developer on the street corner, with a cardboard sign that read: "Please, please, PLEASE work on OpenOffice? Pretty please?"
So it's just disinterest, not so much disagreement.
Okay; I can live with that.
Disinterest is good. It means life-changing tech is adopted.
What's this "pushing the blog thing" you're talking about?
I think a major shift in how people make and get news is interesting, and there's very good evidence that it's changing people's lives. Politicians have had to dramatically change their strategies, it's affecting how war works, and it's changing business. People are rethinking what personal boundaries mean, and where they should be.
So, it seems natural to me that people should talk about blogs.
So, I'm wondering: What's your concern? Are you just not finding the conversations entertaining enough? Are you bored by the talk? Do you want something else? Is there some concern of yours that's not being met?
Honestly, what's the complaint?
Was the poster treating you poorly, or disrespecting you in some way? Are you worried that the proportion of respect is wrong? Should we respect media analysis less, and think about something else, more? What do you think people should be paying attention to, that conversations about blogs are getting in the way of?
Or maybe media study is just not your thing. Perhaps you just wish Slashdot didn't bring in news about media, and stuff like that.
The only problem I have with this theory, I think, is: Why would all the high influence people continue to read a higher influence person, if it's clear that they're just repeating corporate influence?
It seems to me like you would need to pay off 12,000 more people, because they have nothing to gain by repeating that piece of spam, just on their own. In fact, they lose credibility with their readers, if they do so.
But, they say, the Internet's omnipresent offer of escape from reality, affordability, accessibility and opportunity for anonymity can also lure otherwise healthy people into an addiction.
It's not that the Internet is becoming an escape from reality.
It's that the Internet is becoming reality.
Look around a house: There's a thing called a bookshelf. That's where all the books go. When you want to go read a book, you go to a physical space, that's entirely so that you can read.
In another corner, there's where the telephone is hooked to the wall. That's where you go to talk with people.
When you want to play games, you pull out the board game, or the Nintendo, or something.
"Oh, I feel like drawing." You pull out the pens, pencils, paper. Those too, are in a special location in the house.
For everything that you want to do, there's a place in the house.
But now, pretty much everything but the bathroom and the kitchen fits nicely, (and much more affordably,) within the computer.
So, if you hear about "Internet Addiction," just think to yourself: "World Addiction."
Does somebody have an "online gambling problem?" Just call it for what it is: a gambling problem.
Does somebody look at porn so much, that they can't get themselves to go to work? Call it a porn problem.
For whatever problem you have, and then attach the word "online" to it, just strip off that "online" word, and attack the problem.
Quick guesses:
Perhaps men have been violent for the last 100+ years, and nothing has changed. Perhaps there hasn't been a positive role for men for the last 100+ years. Perhaps we males are just suffering from karmic balancing.
What do we want males to be? What would you, as a male, want to be?
("Respected," my mind shouts out.) Not being portrayed as an idiot would be a nice start. I'm afraid that the stereotypes are working against us.
I can conceive of a sub-culture forming it's own vision, it's own ideals, of what men would be. Or rather, a set of options for men- it couldn't be just 1 thing, realistically. We need archetypes.
But speaking for myself, I'm just glad I had a daughter; So that-- I don't have to think about these things.
Boys can just shoot each other, for all I care. (..!) Strange that I should be so callous about it. But then, isn't that a big part of what being a man is all about?
I don't think it's just teenagers that want freedom without responsibility...
For instance, I want freedom without responsibility, too.
It's like: What's the point of a freedom, if all you get for it is some lame responsibility?
"We bestow upon ye... The power of flight!"
(rock on!)
"But, you can only use it to ship these rocks from here to there."
(oh...)
I just want to fly.
Security?! I'd be more afraid for the geek's security, than the cube's.
Knowing Google, I would think that these shipping container computer things would be covered with sensing devices. It's probably scanning the face, gait, apparent weight, and shoe size of anyone that gets near it, and googling for their name, their address, their family and children, employer, and all other relations. As it prepares to activate the lightning sprocket, it's probably composing emails, editing video footage, and notifying the newspapers of an impending obituary.
I'd sooner touch the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord your God, than touch one of these here Google Skynet Singularity Machines.
1. 2001
2. Star Wars 4
3. Explorers
4. Close Encounters
5. the Right Stuff
6. ET
7. Contact
8. Dune
9. Solaris (original)
10. Star Trek 1
Honorable mention: The Last Starfighter, Alien, The Black Hole
I think we could really use some tools to help with Apache configuration.
I, too, am a card-carrying Free/Liber/OpenSource Software fanatic, and I feel I should attest: I have many times modded up people talking about the very real limitations of the GIMP for professional photo manipulators.
The clearer the limitations are, the better we fit people with the right product, and the clearer what needs to be worked on is.
There is a small contingent of newbies in the FLOSS society. As in most societies, there is a group of people at the entry gates who rave wild madness about whatever it is that they have discovered. It is just part of the passage of perspectives.
There's a book about this.
:) Go read it yourself.
It's called City Come a Walkin. It was published in 1980. William Gibson had some nice things to say about it.
The problem, in the book, is the problem we're seeing here. Some rich club mob wants to take over the Internet. They want to control the communications system, and they want to be the gatekeepers of what all will go over the wires. And they're using it to leech off of, and eventually control, society.
Cities have a way of becoming self-aware. In the book, we meet San Fransisco: City. And we meet Sacramento, briefly. (She looks like a prostitute, apparently.) Chicago's also got a soul- in a living man. New York. Phoenix. The major cities- They start to take on a life of their own.
And they fight as hard as they can against the network controllers. But... "When the city comes a walkin' we'll all be obsolete."
I don't want to spoil it.
Not tentirely true; We need DRM in the OpenSource community as well.
For example, we need to be able to automatically keep GFDL an CC-copyleft texts separate. In wiki, we need licensing information to transport along with a document, and it's history, if required by the license.
There was an interesting article a while back about a Collaborative Human Interpreter (CHI).
The idea is to harness this kind of thing to develop software for the global brain.
Thank you. :)
Believe me, I'm working on fixing it from within the Church.
Wai- wha?
You're working from the inside?
Forget talking with me; You've got important work to do! Go, Go, Go!
(I'd written up a big long post for you. But then I realized: "Wait, do I really want to antagonize this person? NO!")
In 1988, if you asked me what IBM does, I would say, "They make computers."
Because, while my mom owned a Compaq, my friend had an IBM at his house.
Now, it's 2005, and I find myself asking: "Just what exactly does IBM do do?"
Joel tells me that they make clear plastic telephones. One of my bosses say they provide "business solutions." This post seems to imply that they have something to do with search. Their website is indecypherable to me.
So, please, if someone could explain to me in plain language: What is IBM, and what does it do?
I'm aware of what Wikipedia says, but I'm interested in hearing what juicy nuggets local Slashdot readers may have to offer.
North American Christians downplay the Big Bang because it doesn't include the idea that the world was created in seven days.
Reasons to Believe features horrible arguments, the most common violate the anthropic principle.
The site basically exists to persuade people (mostly existing believers, I suspect) with the appearance of science. But a critical thinker is going to see right through this.
Hm, my understanding is that macro-evolutionary theories are tested all the time.
We obviously can't live long enough to see whether or not they are true, but: People make predictions about the ''kinds'' of things that we will find in the fossil records, and those things are found. For example, we fill in the gaps in the fossil record all the time, as we discover stuff.
Whereas creationists don't have very many predictions about what we'll find in the fossil records.