Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...absolutely none. It's a horrible language. The only thing it has going for it is the reasonably useful IDE (although even that irritates me most of the time).
I guess you don't want to try SNOOZ, which is my COBOL-ification of VB.
I find it interesting that Slashdotters, for some reason, draw the line at making money off of someone else's work. Stealing it is okay, but selling it afterward is crossing the line?
If I burn a CD from a friend, the owners lose one sale. If I then make multiple copies of the music and sell it on street corners, the owners lose far more
In this case, it is like pirating the album, then claiming all sales of that album are mine. How is actual creator supposed to sell his work -- or even give it away -- if the thief is ready to assert copyright?
If children aren't taught the metric system, they'll have to learn it. As a scientist, I can attest to the massive superiority of the metric system for scientific measurements et cetera, after all, that's partly what it was DESIGNED for. (1cm^3 of pure water doesn't weight 1g at sea level for no reason, for example...).
As a scientist, you should also acknowledge the massive superiority of Planck units (AKA "natural units" or "God's units") over the metric system when measuring relativistic or quantum effects. It's easy enough to use a scaling factor (presumably some power of ten) and get units that are usable by the general public. If we are going to go to the trouble and expense of changing from English units anyway, we might as well use the best system to begin with.
You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people?
Just like everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame, in the future, everyone will get fifteen minutes of notoriety. As long as you can withstand that, you're golden.
Look at Richard Jewell. He was falsely accused of planting a bomb and had every media outlet on the planet broadcasting his picture. Yet how many people today could pick him out of a lineup, or have more than the vaguest recollection of what he looks like, other than his weight? Anything less newsworthy will net you fifteen minutes of fury, and then people will go on to the next scandal.
...a camera can be there. As long as it's a public area and a police officer can be there without warrant, or a private area where the owner consents, I don't see the problem. Only when it's somewhere where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy should there be any question as to whether it should be tolerated.
In this case, it's like putting a pile of junk beside the road and sticking a carboard sign on it that says "car." I wonder what the value of random digital garbage is.
Just like the market solved Jim Crow. No intervention by the government necessary at all.
I identified this as sarcasm, and responded to the following:
"The market did not solve Jim Crow. Government intervention was necessary."
I then stated that Jim Crow was government intervention, implying that what was necessary was its removal.
Now, I've missed sarcasm before. I'd be happy to have you, Umbral Blot, or the A.C. clarify the parent post, in case I made some mistake in interpretation.
A small correction. The above was Baldwin's variant of Nanson's method. Nanson actually drops the bottom 50% of Borda scores with each iteration, while Baldwin's drops the single lowest score. Both would seem to be covered by this patent, though, as would any voting method that drops a subset of the data and recalculates.
A unique system and method that facilitates improving the ranking of items is provided. The system and method involve re-ranking decreasing subsets of high ranked items in separate stages. In particular, a basic ranking component can rank a set of items. A subset of the top or high ranking items can be taken and used as a new training set to train a component for improving the ranking among these high ranked documents. This process can be repeated on an arbitrary number of successive high ranked subsets. Thus, high ranked items can be reordered in separate stages by focusing on the higher ranked items to facilitate placing the most relevant items at the top of a search results list.
Nanson's method:
Candidates are voted for on ranked ballots as in the Borda count. Then, the points are tallied in a series of rounds. In each round, the candidate with the fewest points is eliminated, and the points are re-tallied as if that candidate were not on the ballot.
Well, we all saw Saddam shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld 23 years ago didn't we? He used to be your son of a bitch out in the Middle East not too long ago too... Who knows what embarrassing things he might reveal about the extent of the support he got from the United States back then.
This is not an apology for the moronic war in Iraq, I'm just pointing out that high-ranking U.S. government officials meet with all sorts of sordid people, and sometimes even treat those people respectfully. Roosevelt met with Stalin, Nixon met with Mao, and several presidents met with Yasser Arafat. Even I shake hands with people I don't care for once in awhile, and I'm not acting on behalf of the U.S. government.
Come up with a constitution governing it, and a way of amending that constitution (but a fairly long and involved process so it's not amended willy-nilly). Have a legislative branch and a judicial branch. You can even have an internet "security council" with veto power over proposed changes. Then have every nation that wants in on the governance sign the constitution.
You can include things like freedom of expression and spam control, just spell it out in the document. Then the U.S. can relinquish control of the internet and still know that its concerns are being addressed.
This idea is brought up many times, but is inherently flawed. The moment you allow people to take back physical records of how they voted, you open up the possibility (or even inevitability) that people will start selling votes, or start being forced to vote a certain way.
Additionally, if their machines are flawed, it is entirely possible that the printout that you get and the actual vote tally won't be the same anyway. So getting physical printouts really doesn't solve anything at all.
Actually, that's not quite true. Look down the thread for "Here is an interesting idea for a paper trail" for a link to a method that allows verification without the problem of coercion or buying votes.
I just wanted to point out an interesting method of creating a secure paper trail that came out recently (September 28th 2006) by Ronald L. Rivest of M.I.T's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It's called the ThreeBallot Voting System (.pdf format).
The interesting thing about it is that it handles both voter privacy and verifiability without requiring encryption of the ballot. Rather than give a poor explanation because of lack of space (the paper itself is 13 pages long), I encourage interested people to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
...absolutely none. It's a horrible language. The only thing it has going for it is the reasonably useful IDE (although even that irritates me most of the time).
I guess you don't want to try SNOOZ, which is my COBOL-ification of VB.
That would be the killer app for the iPhone.
I find it interesting that Slashdotters, for some reason, draw the line at making money off of someone else's work. Stealing it is okay, but selling it afterward is crossing the line?
If I burn a CD from a friend, the owners lose one sale. If I then make multiple copies of the music and sell it on street corners, the owners lose far more
In this case, it is like pirating the album, then claiming all sales of that album are mine. How is actual creator supposed to sell his work -- or even give it away -- if the thief is ready to assert copyright?
If children aren't taught the metric system, they'll have to learn it. As a scientist, I can attest to the massive superiority of the metric system for scientific measurements et cetera, after all, that's partly what it was DESIGNED for. (1cm^3 of pure water doesn't weight 1g at sea level for no reason, for example...).
As a scientist, you should also acknowledge the massive superiority of Planck units (AKA "natural units" or "God's units") over the metric system when measuring relativistic or quantum effects. It's easy enough to use a scaling factor (presumably some power of ten) and get units that are usable by the general public. If we are going to go to the trouble and expense of changing from English units anyway, we might as well use the best system to begin with.
You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people?
Just like everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame, in the future, everyone will get fifteen minutes of notoriety. As long as you can withstand that, you're golden.
Look at Richard Jewell. He was falsely accused of planting a bomb and had every media outlet on the planet broadcasting his picture. Yet how many people today could pick him out of a lineup, or have more than the vaguest recollection of what he looks like, other than his weight? Anything less newsworthy will net you fifteen minutes of fury, and then people will go on to the next scandal.
...a camera can be there. As long as it's a public area and a police officer can be there without warrant, or a private area where the owner consents, I don't see the problem. Only when it's somewhere where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy should there be any question as to whether it should be tolerated.
What if there is a confusing or misleading title on a torrent, and they download something they do not own the copyright for?
In this case, it's like putting a pile of junk beside the road and sticking a carboard sign on it that says "car." I wonder what the value of random digital garbage is.
It was murder most fowl.
What if the government censors it, you might accidently walk off a cliff or something
For some reason, I keep getting lost in Tiananmen Square.
Here is the original statement:
Just like the market solved Jim Crow. No intervention by the government necessary at all.
I identified this as sarcasm, and responded to the following:
"The market did not solve Jim Crow. Government intervention was necessary."
I then stated that Jim Crow was government intervention, implying that what was necessary was its removal.
Now, I've missed sarcasm before. I'd be happy to have you, Umbral Blot, or the A.C. clarify the parent post, in case I made some mistake in interpretation.
You say that now, but I'm sure you'll sing a different tune if you go blind or deaf.
I doubt I could carry a tune if I were deaf.
Just like the market solved Jim Crow. No intervention by the government necessary at all.
Actually, Jim Crow was government intervention. That's why they were called "laws."
Luckily, my house has stairs, so they'll be stuck milling around outside in their wheelchairs when they come to get me.
A small correction. The above was Baldwin's variant of Nanson's method. Nanson actually drops the bottom 50% of Borda scores with each iteration, while Baldwin's drops the single lowest score. Both would seem to be covered by this patent, though, as would any voting method that drops a subset of the data and recalculates.
Patent description:
A unique system and method that facilitates improving the ranking of items is provided. The system and method involve re-ranking decreasing subsets of high ranked items in separate stages. In particular, a basic ranking component can rank a set of items. A subset of the top or high ranking items can be taken and used as a new training set to train a component for improving the ranking among these high ranked documents. This process can be repeated on an arbitrary number of successive high ranked subsets. Thus, high ranked items can be reordered in separate stages by focusing on the higher ranked items to facilitate placing the most relevant items at the top of a search results list.
Nanson's method:
Candidates are voted for on ranked ballots as in the Borda count. Then, the points are tallied in a series of rounds. In each round, the candidate with the fewest points is eliminated, and the points are re-tallied as if that candidate were not on the ballot.
Well, we all saw Saddam shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld 23 years ago didn't we? He used to be your son of a bitch out in the Middle East not too long ago too... Who knows what embarrassing things he might reveal about the extent of the support he got from the United States back then.
We also saw Madeleine Albright toasting Kim Jong Il six years ago.
This is not an apology for the moronic war in Iraq, I'm just pointing out that high-ranking U.S. government officials meet with all sorts of sordid people, and sometimes even treat those people respectfully. Roosevelt met with Stalin, Nixon met with Mao, and several presidents met with Yasser Arafat. Even I shake hands with people I don't care for once in awhile, and I'm not acting on behalf of the U.S. government.
Come up with a constitution governing it, and a way of amending that constitution (but a fairly long and involved process so it's not amended willy-nilly). Have a legislative branch and a judicial branch. You can even have an internet "security council" with veto power over proposed changes. Then have every nation that wants in on the governance sign the constitution.
You can include things like freedom of expression and spam control, just spell it out in the document. Then the U.S. can relinquish control of the internet and still know that its concerns are being addressed.
I *really* hate it when these idiots claim what they're doing is science:
"Webvastu, a fusion of two sciences Vastu Shasta and Internet (websites)."
Then you're really going to hate my science of Astrolphrenics.
So yes, the English are qualified to make references to Big Brother. But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
At least, not if a camera is pointed in their direction.
...if a top tech could take tech?
Just ignore my above comment, because another poster already mentioned encryption.
Nope, data compression is where it's at. I want my genes 50% smaller!
(*sobs at making such a pathetic joke after my first choice was redundant*)
Now, where can I go to get my genes encrypted?
This idea is brought up many times, but is inherently flawed. The moment you allow people to take back physical records of how they voted, you open up the possibility (or even inevitability) that people will start selling votes, or start being forced to vote a certain way.
Additionally, if their machines are flawed, it is entirely possible that the printout that you get and the actual vote tally won't be the same anyway. So getting physical printouts really doesn't solve anything at all.
Actually, that's not quite true. Look down the thread for "Here is an interesting idea for a paper trail" for a link to a method that allows verification without the problem of coercion or buying votes.
I just wanted to point out an interesting method of creating a secure paper trail that came out recently (September 28th 2006) by Ronald L. Rivest of M.I.T's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It's called the ThreeBallot Voting System (.pdf format).
The interesting thing about it is that it handles both voter privacy and verifiability without requiring encryption of the ballot. Rather than give a poor explanation because of lack of space (the paper itself is 13 pages long), I encourage interested people to read it.