Seriously, are you honestly wanting to waste your time cutting shit that is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the US Budget?
Seriously, people should ask themselves that question more. If you're not talking about Social Security, Medicare, Military Expenditures, or Debt Service, you're not serious about the budget. Of course maybe it's not about that for them. Maybe they just have a bone to pick.
Such comparisons are both fair and not fair. The best comparison I can make explaining why it might have an element of fairness is to consider standards that apply to men and women, and why it is that creeps who go into women's bathrooms are not in the same league as girls who go into mensrooms in order to take an emergency leak. The basic issue is the asymmetry between the sexes. Upper body strength of the average man is 2-4X that of the average woman. So standards end up being asymmetrical, because men don't have to spend their lives worrying about being physically brutalized and raped by/women/.
Something similar applies to disadvantaged communities. But only to a degree. The situation has to do with power.
Ultimately, however, if you have power (such as if you are on the city counsel), then perhaps you should consider your obligations to behave in a fair manner...
And how does a double negative ("ir" and "less") convey meaning?
Human beings are remarkable creatures, with powerful linguistic capability. Most of us, in attempting to communicate, are able to do so in spite of grave linguistic errors by other parties. To be clear, and to answer your question, I know, you know, and everyone else knows what is meant when someone says "irregardless". Did I mention you here? Yes, even you are conveyed meaning when someone uses this not favorite word of yours. You perfectly well know what they mean.
I think we have established that you cringe when this meaning is conveyed, yes? But conveyed it is. And a word is not "a combination of phonemes or syllables used to uncringingely convey meaning." I will go out on a limb and assert it so.
Therein lies the irony. When someone says "that's not a word!" they are using a form of pedantry which, due to its inaccuracy, is itself subject to pedantry. "That is not a word" is not what one means to say here. "That is an improper word," might be more accurate, or more honestly: "that's a word that some people might not approve of," or more honest yet: "using that word might make you appear to be uneducated."
The fact of the matter is, words are combinations of morphemes or syllables used to convey meaning. I never saw the original post, so I have no context. Whatever the case may be as to what was originally said, correcting someone by telling them that "irregardless is not a word," is in fact wrong.
When I said "what definition of the word 'word' do you prefer?" I was asking you to provide one. You, as in personally you, are going to be hard pressed to come up with a good working definition of the word 'word' that disallows "irregardless" as one. Go ahead, try. You don't really mean "word" here, you only think you do. It will become obvious over time to you when you spend some intellectual time on it. You haven't done that yet. That, too, is obvious.
I didn't say MW. I said "your favorite dictionary".
In any case, what definition of the word "word" do you prefer? I think you will find yourself struggling to come up with one that doesn't allow "irregardless" as actually being a word. The problem is--and I find it amusing--when someone says that something's "not a word," they actually don't mean that. They themselves are engaging in sloppy English; hence, the irony.
There are two flaws with your attempt to make an analogy to just in time censorship:
The first flaw is that it is, in your analogy, the end user applying a technical means to exercise their right to not view/hear certain forms of content.
The second flaw is that you attempt to make an analogy between the deletion of trivial content to the wholesale substitution and or addition of independent copyrightable creative work.
It doesn't matter what the websurfer agreed two. The websurfer cannot absolve the ISP of their legal obligation to not create derivative works without the original content owner's consent. The remote content was modified, created an unlicensed derivative work.
Well; regardless of more controversial positions on copyright, I've thought for a while that software copyright should be about 7 years or so, and then completely expire. I really don't think all works are created equal. Things that have a short value on the market should not have the near-indefinite copyright that they do today. Rather, it should transition to the commons soon enough that it still has some value to the commons.
Using my approach, the creator of the software still has every reasonable ability to monetize their work, and yet the commons still greatly benefits. This gives all software 7 years until it becomes "legally" abandonware. I can't say it would hurt very many people very much, and the market would thrive.
Software patents, which I despise and would rather have go away, should have equally short periods (say 7 years and not 17)... if we're going to tolerate them at all.
The initial version, patches, support, and other infrastructure are all labor that go into making the software. In additions to all this, there are fringe costs, such as the building, power, computers, administrative support, social security fees, and so forth. The fact that the marginal cost of production is zero is neither here nor there. Investments must be recouped, or there will be no investments to speak of.
If you have a broken nose, the appearance gets worse and worse, by day two it looks just terrible. The blood drains from the nose area and gives you black eyes and what not. Typically.
Heh. Using the word "discovery" in an intellectual property rights discussion is extremely sloppy. Admittedly the subject is complicated. But it's quite questionable that someone discovering a natural process should have any rights to it at all. Patents are about developing things, not discovering them, generally.
Oh yes, certain varieties of smalltalk and lisp were known to be within 100% additional margin of compiled. Unlike Python which is 10X or worse (for the worst cases, such as benching a high N count for loop or what not).
Python has some features which make it difficult to optimize, is all. I personally think you could write a near-Python that is less than 100% additional overhead versus C if one wanted to. There'd be compromises you'd have to make, however.
There is the matter of most of the talent for such absolutely great compiled dynamic language optimization having been lost for the most part (IMO; admittedly I haven't been keeping track lately).
Is the local stack context always treatable as a hash table also?
I'm asking because while theoretically hash tables and simple object offsets are the same O(), pragmatically these things are expressed as O(1)+K, where hash tables are amortized O(1) with high K. Now as it so happens we know from years of lisp-family optimizing compilers that there are ways to optimize that, it's considered both very very hard as well as a bit of a lost art. One of the main reasons that python is slow is that every time you lookup a variable in any context it is actually a hash table lookup. Not to say that there isn't a way around this, but the optimizations for this are rather nightmarish.
Not only do I agree with your assertion that the correlation for bugs is mostly with lines of code, there are various studies out there showing that larger systems reach a maintainability limit at about 1,000,000 lines of code, at which point they become far too fragile to maintain.
I do wish there was an after-the-prototype method of cementing down python variables and namespaces, and I do wish there was way to 'compile it better,' perhaps in a final publication step. Python namespaces would need to be 'sealed' to have any chance of performance-optimizing a final python compilation pass; this has something to do with the way that all python namespaces are by contract with the current interpreter treated as mutable hash tables. That's immensely useful for a variety of purposes, but once a certain part of the design is finished, it would be useful to be able to pin that down and speed it up.
Python does have one major weakness in today's day and age: the python interpreter is not reentrant, meaning that it is all but useless for a significant multithreaded programming effort. Guido should totally work on that. And he needs to lose his 'tude about threading. It is holding Python back.
You have attempted to establish a false equivalency of trust. Unfortunately for you, in one epistemology--science, questioning is encouraged. In the other--christian superstition--questioning is actively discouraged. One method is known to be good for determining facts, the other not so much. So, no, it is not at all "arrogant" to accept facts coming from certain quarters as more reliable as facts coming from others. One faction is genuinely reliable; the other has an imaginary sky friend. Come now. Rilly.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, are you honestly wanting to waste your time cutting shit that is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the US Budget?
Seriously, people should ask themselves that question more. If you're not talking about Social Security, Medicare, Military Expenditures, or Debt Service, you're not serious about the budget. Of course maybe it's not about that for them. Maybe they just have a bone to pick.
Such comparisons are both fair and not fair. The best comparison I can make explaining why it might have an element of fairness is to consider standards that apply to men and women, and why it is that creeps who go into women's bathrooms are not in the same league as girls who go into mensrooms in order to take an emergency leak. The basic issue is the asymmetry between the sexes. Upper body strength of the average man is 2-4X that of the average woman. So standards end up being asymmetrical, because men don't have to spend their lives worrying about being physically brutalized and raped by /women/.
Something similar applies to disadvantaged communities. But only to a degree. The situation has to do with power.
Ultimately, however, if you have power (such as if you are on the city counsel), then perhaps you should consider your obligations to behave in a fair manner...
Don't you think?
And how does a double negative ("ir" and "less") convey meaning?
Human beings are remarkable creatures, with powerful linguistic capability. Most of us, in attempting to communicate, are able to do so in spite of grave linguistic errors by other parties. To be clear, and to answer your question, I know, you know, and everyone else knows what is meant when someone says "irregardless". Did I mention you here? Yes, even you are conveyed meaning when someone uses this not favorite word of yours. You perfectly well know what they mean.
I think we have established that you cringe when this meaning is conveyed, yes? But conveyed it is. And a word is not "a combination of phonemes or syllables used to uncringingely convey meaning." I will go out on a limb and assert it so.
What do you think of that?
C//
If we were discussing words as such...
Therein lies the irony. When someone says "that's not a word!" they are using a form of pedantry which, due to its inaccuracy, is itself subject to pedantry. "That is not a word" is not what one means to say here. "That is an improper word," might be more accurate, or more honestly: "that's a word that some people might not approve of," or more honest yet: "using that word might make you appear to be uneducated."
The fact of the matter is, words are combinations of morphemes or syllables used to convey meaning. I never saw the original post, so I have no context. Whatever the case may be as to what was originally said, correcting someone by telling them that "irregardless is not a word," is in fact wrong.
C//
When I said "what definition of the word 'word' do you prefer?" I was asking you to provide one. You, as in personally you, are going to be hard pressed to come up with a good working definition of the word 'word' that disallows "irregardless" as one. Go ahead, try. You don't really mean "word" here, you only think you do. It will become obvious over time to you when you spend some intellectual time on it. You haven't done that yet. That, too, is obvious.
I didn't say MW. I said "your favorite dictionary".
In any case, what definition of the word "word" do you prefer? I think you will find yourself struggling to come up with one that doesn't allow "irregardless" as actually being a word. The problem is--and I find it amusing--when someone says that something's "not a word," they actually don't mean that. They themselves are engaging in sloppy English; hence, the irony.
C//
I agree."Original content displayed below" is fine. Replacing the ads of the original content, however: not so much.
Look up the definition of the word "word" in your favorite dictionary and get back to us.
Hey, just because you're anal retentive doesn't prevent me from being anal retentiver.
LOL
Ever heard of Blue Coat? Most users will just accept the cert, alas.
There are two flaws with your attempt to make an analogy to just in time censorship:
The first flaw is that it is, in your analogy, the end user applying a technical means to exercise their right to not view/hear certain forms of content.
The second flaw is that you attempt to make an analogy between the deletion of trivial content to the wholesale substitution and or addition of independent copyrightable creative work.
This is a weak analogy.
Incorrect. An unauthorized change is an unlicensed derivative work.
It doesn't matter what the websurfer agreed two. The websurfer cannot absolve the ISP of their legal obligation to not create derivative works without the original content owner's consent. The remote content was modified, created an unlicensed derivative work.
Well; regardless of more controversial positions on copyright, I've thought for a while that software copyright should be about 7 years or so, and then completely expire. I really don't think all works are created equal. Things that have a short value on the market should not have the near-indefinite copyright that they do today. Rather, it should transition to the commons soon enough that it still has some value to the commons.
Using my approach, the creator of the software still has every reasonable ability to monetize their work, and yet the commons still greatly benefits. This gives all software 7 years until it becomes "legally" abandonware. I can't say it would hurt very many people very much, and the market would thrive.
Software patents, which I despise and would rather have go away, should have equally short periods (say 7 years and not 17)... if we're going to tolerate them at all.
Joe.
The initial version, patches, support, and other infrastructure are all labor that go into making the software. In additions to all this, there are fringe costs, such as the building, power, computers, administrative support, social security fees, and so forth. The fact that the marginal cost of production is zero is neither here nor there. Investments must be recouped, or there will be no investments to speak of.
It is objectivly to say Microsoft is the most evil software company ever. By a large margin.
You've lost it.
Former kickboxer here.
If you have a broken nose, the appearance gets worse and worse, by day two it looks just terrible. The blood drains from the nose area and gives you black eyes and what not. Typically.
Heh. Using the word "discovery" in an intellectual property rights discussion is extremely sloppy. Admittedly the subject is complicated. But it's quite questionable that someone discovering a natural process should have any rights to it at all. Patents are about developing things, not discovering them, generally.
I don't know why a discovery grants an intellectual property right...
Oh yes, certain varieties of smalltalk and lisp were known to be within 100% additional margin of compiled. Unlike Python which is 10X or worse (for the worst cases, such as benching a high N count for loop or what not).
Python has some features which make it difficult to optimize, is all. I personally think you could write a near-Python that is less than 100% additional overhead versus C if one wanted to. There'd be compromises you'd have to make, however.
There is the matter of most of the talent for such absolutely great compiled dynamic language optimization having been lost for the most part (IMO; admittedly I haven't been keeping track lately).
C//
Is the local stack context always treatable as a hash table also?
I'm asking because while theoretically hash tables and simple object offsets are the same O(), pragmatically these things are expressed as O(1)+K, where hash tables are amortized O(1) with high K. Now as it so happens we know from years of lisp-family optimizing compilers that there are ways to optimize that, it's considered both very very hard as well as a bit of a lost art. One of the main reasons that python is slow is that every time you lookup a variable in any context it is actually a hash table lookup. Not to say that there isn't a way around this, but the optimizations for this are rather nightmarish.
C//
Not only do I agree with your assertion that the correlation for bugs is mostly with lines of code, there are various studies out there showing that larger systems reach a maintainability limit at about 1,000,000 lines of code, at which point they become far too fragile to maintain.
I do wish there was an after-the-prototype method of cementing down python variables and namespaces, and I do wish there was way to 'compile it better,' perhaps in a final publication step. Python namespaces would need to be 'sealed' to have any chance of performance-optimizing a final python compilation pass; this has something to do with the way that all python namespaces are by contract with the current interpreter treated as mutable hash tables. That's immensely useful for a variety of purposes, but once a certain part of the design is finished, it would be useful to be able to pin that down and speed it up.
Python does have one major weakness in today's day and age: the python interpreter is not reentrant, meaning that it is all but useless for a significant multithreaded programming effort. Guido should totally work on that. And he needs to lose his 'tude about threading. It is holding Python back.
Can a LUA object be treated like a hash table?
I.e:
myobject.i = 3
j = myobject['i']
Where j is then set to 3?
Python treats all namespaces as hash tables, which makes optimization very difficult.
Not all. Just most.
Maybe you should try another religion where all questions are encouraged, instead of a bastardized fear-based one?
I should? I can't imagine why I should try any religion. Needing an imaginary sky friend is a form of infancy.
You have attempted to establish a false equivalency of trust. Unfortunately for you, in one epistemology--science, questioning is encouraged. In the other--christian superstition--questioning is actively discouraged. One method is known to be good for determining facts, the other not so much. So, no, it is not at all "arrogant" to accept facts coming from certain quarters as more reliable as facts coming from others. One faction is genuinely reliable; the other has an imaginary sky friend. Come now. Rilly.