If I have decided to murder somebody, the presence or absence of a bayonet lug is not going to dissuade me.
You are making a number of questionable assumptions:
That the way you arrive at the decision to murder somebody does not take into account the means you have to do so.
That whether the weapons you have available to you make it easy to kill people is irrelevant to this discussion.
If you decide that you want to murder one specific person, why, yes, there are plenty of perfectly legal weapons that will do the trick. If you however have decided that you want to kill a few dozen in a short amount of time, what weapons are available to you impinge on your chances of success.
And before you go into some rant about the bayonet lug in particular, no, I don't think that the bayonet lugs matter much; I certainly do think a ban on high-capacity cartridges is a good idea, and possibly one on pistol grip rifles. What I do think is that the bullshit talking point that the AWB banned weapons that just "look scary" is precisely that, a bullshit talking point, which should be stamped out of the discussion. The AWB was an attempt to ban weapons with features designed to make them efficient for shooting multiple opponents in a gunfight, without banning weapons that are useful for hunting. The details of how it attempted to do that can be questioned, but frankly, I'm not inclined to waste time discussing them with somebody who doesn't want to grant that the purpose of the ban is a reasonable one.
From a design perspective, killing a person is not very different from killing a deer.
The deer doesn't shoot back. Or, to amend it slightly: the deer don't shoot back, much less as an organized fighting force. The furniture of a gun is not cosmetic; the Assault Weapons Ban regulated the furniture of the weapon and not its action because the furniture is designed around the function that the weapon is supposed to serve. A gun designed for combat between infantrymen will have different furniture than one designed for hunters (or for snipers, for that matter).
Women don't enroll because men assume they don't want to enroll? Where's the gorram cause and effect in there?
That's a version of the , itself a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. How this works is not fully understood, but yeah, expectations of outcomes tend to lead to outcomes that match the expectations. (Self-fulfilling prophesies are the reason that well-designed experiments with people as subjects use double-blind tests, for example.)
I do object to GP's formulation of this as "men's expectations." It's not just men's expectations that are a factor here--it's the aggregate of everybody's expecations about what men and women are good at and interested in that has an effect in shaping the distribution of skills and interests at the level of the whole society.
Personally I have no interest in signing up for a degree in Fashion Design. Some men may and more power to them but if there are more women signing up than men I don't think they should spend time or money trying to make fashion design more butch.
You're failing to dig in and ask the hard questions. Why do you believe that the number of men who enroll in Fashion Design is much lower than the number of women? Are the sorts of beliefs and expectations that you have about this widespread among the general population, both among men and women? If so, what sort of effect does this have in the education, development and career choices of men and women? Does it constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy of the sort of that is widely documented in the educational psychology literature? (I.e., is there any kind of Pygmalion Effect?)
You also need to couple the answers to these questions with the answers to others like: what is the relative size of the computer/technology industry and the fashion industry? More specifically, how many people does each of these industries employ, what's the pay scale for each of them? Does the different rates at which men and women participate in these two different industries contribute to the income gap between men and women?
No, Wikipedia there is giving you a collection of snippets of data of varying value. For example: that article implicitly claims that Haitian Creole developed from a previous pidgin. That's certainly a possibility, but it is far from certain.
It is essentially the act of being falsifiable that actually makes Evolution a real scientific theory [...]
This is a popular statement of Karl Popper's falsificationist philosophy of science. Falsification is known to be an inadequate demarcation criterion for what counts as science. No evidence can falsify any particular hypothesis, because we can always revise some belief other than the hypothesis.
[...] if they had programmed the thing in a safe language (specifically, one which does not allow buffer overflows to be coded), this vulnerability would not have occurred.
No, this can be guaranteed only to the extent that the underlying language implementation is safe. There's plenty of space for errors in implementing a language, which can in principle lead to exploitability. (Do you want to vouch for the absolute security of, say, the Java HotSpot VM? I've seen it dump core, I can tell you.)
You'd see a vastly improved rebate industry ramp up, and more importantly, you'd see retailers "bundling" things that they would then instantly take back for a substantial credit/refund. Anyone who's worked retail (especially IT supporting retail!) knows how creative someone can get while competing with someone else two doors down in the strip mall.
I don't mean by "prototypical" anything more precise than "prominent" or "important," because the argument I'm making doesn't require it. Simula can be equally "prototypical" for OO as Smalltalk, and my conclusions still follow:
Abstract data types aren't exclusive to OOP, however you define it, so calling it an "OOP technique" is misleading.
Language features for explicitly defining ADTs can't be central to OOP, because Smalltalk doesn't have any such features. (The closest it gets to that is duck typing, i.e., relying on all objects that respond to a message name to conventionally implement the same operation for that name).
Implementation inheritance, on the other hand, is truly a central OOP concept.
Compare that to the GP's claim that the central thing to "OOP" isn't inheritance, but rather, ADTs. The GP gives off a strong impression of thinking that good program organization practice is synonymous with "OOP," as if OOP somehow had a monopoly on abstraction and encapsulation.
Basically, Gosling said that he regretted not having gone "pure interface" in Java. Java could have been a much cleaner language if Gosling had gone this way: remove the "abstract" keyword/construct from the language (and hence remove the "protected" keyword too, which makes no sense once the "abstract" keywork is gone). And prevent concrete inheritance. So Java would have been a more OO language, where only inheritance of interface would have been possible. Some people (a tiny minority) program in Java in this way. Most people do not get that concept: that OO is all about ADT (Abstract Data Types) and that a concrete implementation should be a detail.
Just to make sure we get this clear: abstract data types are in no way an idea exclusive to OO; tons of languages have had ADTs, procedural and functional. Inheritance isn't exclusive to OO either, but, on the other hand, all of the prototypical OO languages have that mechanism, and their native programming styles use it heavily; the best example here is Smalltalk, which is as prototypical an OOP language as you can get, which uses inheritance very heavily, but doesn't have any ADT features (unless you count duck typing as ADTs, which I do not).
Of course, using composition and small, clearly defined interfaces is a great way to structure systems, but calling this "OO" is plain misleading, unless you somehow want to claim that, say, the Standard ML module system is "OO".
In all my CS courses they were playing up recursive algorithms, and brow beat me for using for loops to do the same thing in 1/100th the memory footprint.
Yes, because they wanted you to actually become capable of writing programs that solve non-trivial problems in a way that they could become reasonably confident that your code worked. (As opposed to prematurely-optimized dreck that nobody, not even you, could understand.)
When I see somebody who complains about recursion, I see somebody who can't program.
Though not familiar with the project, I'm impressed that the project with by far the most errors (Cardinal), indicating I assume that the least work has been done on it, is still so close to YARV - only 2-4 times slower in a couple tests.
If your program doesn't have to return the right answer, it's very easy to make it go really fast.
Umm. I type as fast as I generally speak. I *can* speak faster, but then, I *can* type faster too, if I don't have to stop and think what I'm going to say. I imagine signing would be similar. So I would think text messaging would be just as fast.
That just shows that you're a fast typist. And you have another advantage over deaf people that you're not aware of: English is your first language.
(As in "Read The Fucking Article Linked From The Article".)
The RIAA page that's being used as a source doesn't suggest that CDs should cost more than they do now. It argues that, given how the price of CDs has not gone up with inflation with their introduction, how the amount of music in them has gone up, and how convenient they are as a format, CDs at their current price are a good value.
It wasn't in TFA, but did anyone else notice the resemblance between the name of the village, Liqian, and the latin word Legion (it was pronounced legio or legionis according to wikipedia)?
I'm sure somebody has, and right now they're engaging in silly speculation just like you. There's no lack of examples of pairs of words in widely separated or unrelated languages that have vaguely similar pronunciation and meaning (and the link in meaning you have in mind is very vague). Your reaction is just pareidolia and confirmation bias.
Compare to the way historical linguists compare languages: they don't just put words next to each other and say "gee, don't they look similar," but rather, they state rules that describe a systematic sound correspondence between the core vocabularies of the languages in question ("in every place where a core word of language A contains a 'k' sound between two vowels, its proposed cognate in language B contains a hard 'g' sound").
Also, 'Liquian' is a pinyin romanization of a modern Mandarin word, using a contemporary Beijing pronunciation of the words in questions. Now, I'm no sinologist, but I can tell you that you should not assume too quickly that the pronunciation of a word today reflects very closely the way it was pronounced 2,000 years ago.
I would not call myself an expert on multi-threading (yet) - that's one reason why I am reading the book.
Your problem now is that reading a book on Java concurrency won't make you an expert in the general problem of how a language system ought to be designed to simplify writing massively concurrent programs.
If you want to get a broader view of this topic, the best recommendation I can give you is to study some Erlang. (Note that I did not claim it's a great recommendation--I'm not an expert on multi-threading, and I don't expect to become one in the near future; but I've certainly seen more than one programming paradigm, and understand how paradigms can make it easier or harder to write some programs.)
I wouldn't draw conclusions about the caffeine content of matcha (powdered green tea) from the content of brewed leaf green tea. One of them is the stuff that readily dissolves into hot water from dried tea leaves; the other one is the whole of the leaves, ground into a fine power, and then dissolved in water.
Googling is only giving me contradictory claims as to which has more caffeine, so far.
Do all those Japanese green tea flavored cookies and ice cream and such have caffeine in them, I wonder? (They're made using matcha, which is ground dried tea leaves...)
Not for a long time. Most do not pay dividends, and their value has little relation to any actual assets a company might have.
You are right about one thing: the value of a stock is not based on the value of the actual dividends it pays out. The whole point of the stock market is to finance economic growth, where "economic growth" means something like "people can now obtain goods and services that they couldn't obtain before." Thus, the valuation of a company is based on the expectation that it will be able to take part in such growth; i.e., the expectation that the company will in future make it possible for people to obtain goods they could not obtain before, either by making some goods cheaper than they are now, or by making new valuable goods that didn't exist before.
Ponzi schemes and pyramids are set apart by the fact that they have zero chance of producing any economic growth; the wealth that goes into them is exactly the wealth that will come out of them, but in different pockets. The stock market allows you to profit from future economic growth in exchange for bearing the risk that the economic growth won't in fact occur.
Slashdot Mirror
You are making a number of questionable assumptions:
If you decide that you want to murder one specific person, why, yes, there are plenty of perfectly legal weapons that will do the trick. If you however have decided that you want to kill a few dozen in a short amount of time, what weapons are available to you impinge on your chances of success.
And before you go into some rant about the bayonet lug in particular, no, I don't think that the bayonet lugs matter much; I certainly do think a ban on high-capacity cartridges is a good idea, and possibly one on pistol grip rifles. What I do think is that the bullshit talking point that the AWB banned weapons that just "look scary" is precisely that, a bullshit talking point, which should be stamped out of the discussion. The AWB was an attempt to ban weapons with features designed to make them efficient for shooting multiple opponents in a gunfight, without banning weapons that are useful for hunting. The details of how it attempted to do that can be questioned, but frankly, I'm not inclined to waste time discussing them with somebody who doesn't want to grant that the purpose of the ban is a reasonable one.
The deer doesn't shoot back. Or, to amend it slightly: the deer don't shoot back, much less as an organized fighting force. The furniture of a gun is not cosmetic; the Assault Weapons Ban regulated the furniture of the weapon and not its action because the furniture is designed around the function that the weapon is supposed to serve. A gun designed for combat between infantrymen will have different furniture than one designed for hunters (or for snipers, for that matter).
That's a version of the , itself a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. How this works is not fully understood, but yeah, expectations of outcomes tend to lead to outcomes that match the expectations. (Self-fulfilling prophesies are the reason that well-designed experiments with people as subjects use double-blind tests, for example.)
I do object to GP's formulation of this as "men's expectations." It's not just men's expectations that are a factor here--it's the aggregate of everybody's expecations about what men and women are good at and interested in that has an effect in shaping the distribution of skills and interests at the level of the whole society.
You're failing to dig in and ask the hard questions. Why do you believe that the number of men who enroll in Fashion Design is much lower than the number of women? Are the sorts of beliefs and expectations that you have about this widespread among the general population, both among men and women? If so, what sort of effect does this have in the education, development and career choices of men and women? Does it constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy of the sort of that is widely documented in the educational psychology literature? (I.e., is there any kind of Pygmalion Effect?)
You also need to couple the answers to these questions with the answers to others like: what is the relative size of the computer/technology industry and the fashion industry? More specifically, how many people does each of these industries employ, what's the pay scale for each of them? Does the different rates at which men and women participate in these two different industries contribute to the income gap between men and women?
No, Wikipedia there is giving you a collection of snippets of data of varying value. For example: that article implicitly claims that Haitian Creole developed from a previous pidgin. That's certainly a possibility, but it is far from certain.
This is a popular statement of Karl Popper's falsificationist philosophy of science. Falsification is known to be an inadequate demarcation criterion for what counts as science. No evidence can falsify any particular hypothesis, because we can always revise some belief other than the hypothesis.
No, this can be guaranteed only to the extent that the underlying language implementation is safe. There's plenty of space for errors in implementing a language, which can in principle lead to exploitability. (Do you want to vouch for the absolute security of, say, the Java HotSpot VM? I've seen it dump core, I can tell you.)
I think the term for that is inefficient pricing.
- Abstract data types aren't exclusive to OOP, however you define it, so calling it an "OOP technique" is misleading.
- Language features for explicitly defining ADTs can't be central to OOP, because Smalltalk doesn't have any such features. (The closest it gets to that is duck typing, i.e., relying on all objects that respond to a message name to conventionally implement the same operation for that name).
- Implementation inheritance, on the other hand, is truly a central OOP concept.
Compare that to the GP's claim that the central thing to "OOP" isn't inheritance, but rather, ADTs. The GP gives off a strong impression of thinking that good program organization practice is synonymous with "OOP," as if OOP somehow had a monopoly on abstraction and encapsulation.Just to make sure we get this clear: abstract data types are in no way an idea exclusive to OO; tons of languages have had ADTs, procedural and functional. Inheritance isn't exclusive to OO either, but, on the other hand, all of the prototypical OO languages have that mechanism, and their native programming styles use it heavily; the best example here is Smalltalk, which is as prototypical an OOP language as you can get, which uses inheritance very heavily, but doesn't have any ADT features (unless you count duck typing as ADTs, which I do not).
Of course, using composition and small, clearly defined interfaces is a great way to structure systems, but calling this "OO" is plain misleading, unless you somehow want to claim that, say, the Standard ML module system is "OO".
;;;
;;; Return (fib n) and (fib (+ n 1))
;;;
(define (two-fibs n)
(two-fibs-aux 0 1 n))
(define (two-fibs-aux m n i)
(if (zero? i)
(values m n)
(two-fibs-aux n (+ m n) (- i 1))))
I agree 100%. *dips some french fries in ketchup*
Yes, because they wanted you to actually become capable of writing programs that solve non-trivial problems in a way that they could become reasonably confident that your code worked. (As opposed to prematurely-optimized dreck that nobody, not even you, could understand.)
When I see somebody who complains about recursion, I see somebody who can't program.
If your program doesn't have to return the right answer, it's very easy to make it go really fast.
That just shows that you're a fast typist. And you have another advantage over deaf people that you're not aware of: English is your first language.
Well, imagine if you could use your phone not just to send SMS or use TTY services, but also to talk. And in your own language, instead of English.
Why not? The parent raised the kid, is responsible for their actions.
Because of course, the actions of one's offspring are mechanically determined in a simple fashion by one's own actions, and by nothing else than that.
Is there some kind of problem you're having distinguishing between children not responsible for their actions, and adults who are?
I think the problem he's having is that the distinction you claim does not exist either in fact or in law.
(As in "Read The Fucking Article Linked From The Article".)
The RIAA page that's being used as a source doesn't suggest that CDs should cost more than they do now. It argues that, given how the price of CDs has not gone up with inflation with their introduction, how the amount of music in them has gone up, and how convenient they are as a format, CDs at their current price are a good value.
I doubt the GP was assuming anything-- he seems to just be offering it up as a possibility.
I think the correct technical term for that is "pulling stuff out of his ass."
It wasn't in TFA, but did anyone else notice the resemblance between the name of the village, Liqian, and the latin word Legion (it was pronounced legio or legionis according to wikipedia)?
I'm sure somebody has, and right now they're engaging in silly speculation just like you. There's no lack of examples of pairs of words in widely separated or unrelated languages that have vaguely similar pronunciation and meaning (and the link in meaning you have in mind is very vague). Your reaction is just pareidolia and confirmation bias.
Compare to the way historical linguists compare languages: they don't just put words next to each other and say "gee, don't they look similar," but rather, they state rules that describe a systematic sound correspondence between the core vocabularies of the languages in question ("in every place where a core word of language A contains a 'k' sound between two vowels, its proposed cognate in language B contains a hard 'g' sound").
Also, 'Liquian' is a pinyin romanization of a modern Mandarin word, using a contemporary Beijing pronunciation of the words in questions. Now, I'm no sinologist, but I can tell you that you should not assume too quickly that the pronunciation of a word today reflects very closely the way it was pronounced 2,000 years ago.
I would not call myself an expert on multi-threading (yet) - that's one reason why I am reading the book.
Your problem now is that reading a book on Java concurrency won't make you an expert in the general problem of how a language system ought to be designed to simplify writing massively concurrent programs.
If you want to get a broader view of this topic, the best recommendation I can give you is to study some Erlang. (Note that I did not claim it's a great recommendation--I'm not an expert on multi-threading, and I don't expect to become one in the near future; but I've certainly seen more than one programming paradigm, and understand how paradigms can make it easier or harder to write some programs.)
I wouldn't draw conclusions about the caffeine content of matcha (powdered green tea) from the content of brewed leaf green tea. One of them is the stuff that readily dissolves into hot water from dried tea leaves; the other one is the whole of the leaves, ground into a fine power, and then dissolved in water.
Googling is only giving me contradictory claims as to which has more caffeine, so far.
Do all those Japanese green tea flavored cookies and ice cream and such have caffeine in them, I wonder? (They're made using matcha, which is ground dried tea leaves...)
Not for a long time. Most do not pay dividends, and their value has little relation to any actual assets a company might have.
You are right about one thing: the value of a stock is not based on the value of the actual dividends it pays out. The whole point of the stock market is to finance economic growth, where "economic growth" means something like "people can now obtain goods and services that they couldn't obtain before." Thus, the valuation of a company is based on the expectation that it will be able to take part in such growth; i.e., the expectation that the company will in future make it possible for people to obtain goods they could not obtain before, either by making some goods cheaper than they are now, or by making new valuable goods that didn't exist before.
Ponzi schemes and pyramids are set apart by the fact that they have zero chance of producing any economic growth; the wealth that goes into them is exactly the wealth that will come out of them, but in different pockets. The stock market allows you to profit from future economic growth in exchange for bearing the risk that the economic growth won't in fact occur.