Damn right. People can either choose to be poor and work at Wal-Mart and mooch food stamps from the rest of us, or they can simply decide to move to New York and become hedge fund managers.
Libertardian: n. 1. An anarchist who wants to do away with government, but expects police protection from his slaves, judicial enforcement of contract law, and the free and unfettered use of a modern and magically maintained infrastructure. 2. Someone blithely unaware of the consequences and logical inconsistencies of the nonsense they're babbling.
I'll even push the analogy a little further. Once you use (or, more likely are forced to by some other project) the tweezers from the Swiss Army knife, it FORCES you to use it as your ONLY tweezers. And your ONLY knife. And your ONLY screwdriver. And your ONLY corkscrew. And your ONLY toothpick. And your ONLY scissors. And your ONLY saw...
Could you please speak to the bait-and-switch (i.e. changing definitions midstream) inherent in the Chinese Room argument? Can you elucidate how the program encodes/encapsulates/contains the intelligence, and how the symbols used/manipulated are immaterial? The idea that the program encodes "two-ness", irrespective of whether I use the symbol "two" or "dos" or "zwei". The word-games and verbal-sleight-of-hand inherent in the Chinese Room argument have irritated me for many years, but I lack the precision vocabulary to explain well how the program (using my term) "encodes" intelligence.
You've got that exactly backwards. The systemd lovers are more like the people who say "I don't care WHAT the Mormons believe, as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior".
The juxtaposition of your post and sig "Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it." has me ROFLing. Systemd is, indeed, just like the spam skit - it's in EVERYTHING, and everybody gets stuck with it, even though nobody wants it. In the same way that spam isn't really FOOD, it's just on your plate, systemd isn't UNIX, it's just on your system.
Systemd vs init: It's a Swiss Army knife vs a chef's knife. A shiny abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed, vs a simple tool that does one thing very very well.
The problem is with saying a particular Tor node might be involved in a "crime" (copyright infringement (shudder)). The summary's example is a little flawed, it's more akin to arresting a car dealer because an auto they sold might be involved in a crime. The same argument could be made about cash (could be involved in something nefarious and untraceable) or, god help us, guns. This is just kowtowing to corporate interests, masquerading as shoddy legal thinking.
Clearly you've never maintained someone else's code. With code maintenance, you're not just climbing into an existing codebase, you're climbing into the author's head. The problem with Perl is it supports rampant schizophrenia and cutseypoo hacks. Trying to refactor someone else's Perl can be like an acid trip down the rabbit hole. I use Perl on occasion, usually for one-offs, but if it take more than about 10 lines, I look for a more appropriate tool, even AWK. And I've sworn a mighty oath to never again work on anyone else's Perl code. Life is too short for that kind of aggravation.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn right. People can either choose to be poor and work at Wal-Mart and mooch food stamps from the rest of us, or they can simply decide to move to New York and become hedge fund managers.
Libertardian: n. 1. An anarchist who wants to do away with government, but expects police protection from his slaves, judicial enforcement of contract law, and the free and unfettered use of a modern and magically maintained infrastructure. 2. Someone blithely unaware of the consequences and logical inconsistencies of the nonsense they're babbling.
I'll even push the analogy a little further. Once you use (or, more likely are forced to by some other project) the tweezers from the Swiss Army knife, it FORCES you to use it as your ONLY tweezers. And your ONLY knife. And your ONLY screwdriver. And your ONLY corkscrew. And your ONLY toothpick. And your ONLY scissors. And your ONLY saw...
No. I used Bing.
Could you please speak to the bait-and-switch (i.e. changing definitions midstream) inherent in the Chinese Room argument? Can you elucidate how the program encodes/encapsulates/contains the intelligence, and how the symbols used/manipulated are immaterial? The idea that the program encodes "two-ness", irrespective of whether I use the symbol "two" or "dos" or "zwei". The word-games and verbal-sleight-of-hand inherent in the Chinese Room argument have irritated me for many years, but I lack the precision vocabulary to explain well how the program (using my term) "encodes" intelligence.
You've got that exactly backwards. The systemd lovers are more like the people who say "I don't care WHAT the Mormons believe, as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior".
The juxtaposition of your post and sig "Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it." has me ROFLing. Systemd is, indeed, just like the spam skit - it's in EVERYTHING, and everybody gets stuck with it, even though nobody wants it. In the same way that spam isn't really FOOD, it's just on your plate, systemd isn't UNIX, it's just on your system.
Systemd vs init: It's a Swiss Army knife vs a chef's knife. A shiny abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed, vs a simple tool that does one thing very very well.
They're drawing pictures with AN ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPE, and we're discussing it like it's going to be on the next generation of smart phones.
This technology is at the "hey, look at the shadow of this Maltese cross created by the cathode rays!" stage.
You can't LOOK at it!
So, 4.5% of this ONE SINGLE Defense Department program, then. Yeah. I see your point. /sarcasm
They exist, but they're a lot like neutrinos - they almost never interact with anything.
They're in good company - there's an infinite number of earth-like exoplanets that don't exist.
You should probably plan on being unemployable after you're 52 or so.
Well, I LOLed. Sorry, no mod points.
In other words, even they couldn't maintain a large codebase written in Perl.
When you knock the "rough edges" off of Perl, there's nothing left.
The problem is with saying a particular Tor node might be involved in a "crime" (copyright infringement (shudder)). The summary's example is a little flawed, it's more akin to arresting a car dealer because an auto they sold might be involved in a crime. The same argument could be made about cash (could be involved in something nefarious and untraceable) or, god help us, guns. This is just kowtowing to corporate interests, masquerading as shoddy legal thinking.
I love you Monet Monet...
Yup. Them with the "incredible thinking" and the "incredible ideas". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Clearly you've never maintained someone else's code. With code maintenance, you're not just climbing into an existing codebase, you're climbing into the author's head. The problem with Perl is it supports rampant schizophrenia and cutseypoo hacks. Trying to refactor someone else's Perl can be like an acid trip down the rabbit hole. I use Perl on occasion, usually for one-offs, but if it take more than about 10 lines, I look for a more appropriate tool, even AWK. And I've sworn a mighty oath to never again work on anyone else's Perl code. Life is too short for that kind of aggravation.
I want to know where they found happy software developers in the first place.
I'm sure the buggy whip manufacturers thought Henry Ford was arrogant, too.
Kudos for your honesty.
The plural of "anecdote" isn't "data".
That's news to me. Have any proof for that?