Well, I guess you're trying to be funny. But seriously, it's not about what's being abstracted. Rather, it's about borrowing implementation. Dynamic languages don't usually have 'multiple inheritance' in the classic sense, anyway. They use an approach called 'mixins', which varies in subtle and useful ways from the way that the static languages community is accustomed to thinking about it (has to do with dynamic dispatch...).
Although, to be fair, you don't see much MI in Python in practice...
I have yet to see a *single* PowerPoint presentation that I would in any way consider useful, informative, or basically anything other than a complete waste of time.
I'm often wary of those who talk about their worlds in such stark, absolute terms.
you (SIC) can't readily make drastic changes to a PowerPoint presentation on-the-fly
You mis-spelled "I". As in "I can't readily make drastic changes to..."
One can. One just has to know the tool. And the tool is dead simple. And the changes make for a good artifact, unlike the white board, which in virtually all environments has to be meticulously recorded onto paper, by hand. Now that's SLOW!
The white board does have it's place. It's as much about context, as anything else. One/expects/ to erase and modify things on a white board. People expect to passively receive in a power point setting. But it's easy-shmeasy to change stuff around there if one wants...
I applaud them for their efforts, and think they are doing the right thing. But this was a big risk they took. If someone were to sue them for damages, the situation isn't "negligent". It's not like they failed to take due dilligence precautions! Rather, they deliberately created the problem. Be that as it may, I rather doubt you'll find any litigants.
I'd think they'd be able to more than sue. Access to entities like these zombies is a federal offense, and punishable by years in a federal penitentiary (as in 10 PLUS). They should force the prosecution issue, that would really shut these spammers down and send a message.
I would most certainly say that a person has "right" to an education though. Without it, you lack the capability to be a citizen in a democratic society that can truly contribute.
I am an incessant quibbler. I will rearrange your sentence, and convert it into an argument:
"Without an education, one lacks the capability to be a citizen in a democratic society that can truly contribute. THERFORE, I would most certainly say that a person has "right" to an education."
I would call this a non sequitur. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises introduced. However, it could be phrased differently such that the conclusion DOES follow. Here's how:
"Without an education, one lacks the capability to be a citizen in a democratic society that can truly contribute. THERFORE, the people may have an interest in seeing that the citizens are educated."
There are many things that society has an interest in. For example, society has proclaimed an interest in peaceful domestic race relations. We therefore have equal opportunity and non descrimination laws and the like. Some of these can be rightly referred to as "rights". Other of these laws actually tromp on the rights of some (i.e., the right to associate with, or to do business with, whom one pleases), with the stated objective of making the nation a more peaceful, more prosperous place.
We say freedom of speech is a right that only requires that people don't "take" from you. But there is considerable expense in legislature, police, and our judicial system.
Thomas Paine summarized this: "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best stage, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
To enjoy the negative right of "not being invaded by a foreign power," one must first contribute, somehow, to the forces that will prevent it. Yes, this is understood.
When, in your mind, does this "right to an education" end?
Whilst we're talking about "rights", it's a shame people don't seem to think we have a right to education.
When one describes a right in terms of the things (implied) that others must give you, then assuredly it is not a right.
Conversely, if one describes a right in terms of things that others must not take from you, then quite possibly it is indeed a right.
One cannot have a right to education, a home, or medical insurance, without forcing others to pay for them. One can have a right to pursue an education, purchase a house on the free market, and so forth, without intruding upon others. One set of things are probably rights. The other set of things probably are not.
There are probably other angles you can take on your private school has public school responsibilities tack, though. I don't see your opinion as wrong, really. I'm just objecting to the whole "right" thing.:)
I'm a hiring engineer at a major defense firm. My experience backs your own. If we wanted a java web developer, and couldn't hire a java web developer, hiring someone skilled in apache, mod_perl, mod_php, and other distributed web platform technologies and concepts is a better choice than hiring a plain old java programmer. The distributed web is conceptually more difficult than the java programming language per se.
Teaching an HR guy that "apache+mod_php+zope is equivalent to J2EE, and in some ways may be better, even though we want J2EE" is impossible though. Their brains would melt...:(
While SkyBuilt has 140 patent claims on its energy system, most of its individual component parts are widely available.
Isn't this sickening? ---------------------
Not per se, no. It's a routine matter of invention and innovation to build brand new things out of well-understood pieces and parts. Your thought belongs to the family of fallacies called fallacies of composition. It appears to be your thinking that if something isn't made out of new components, the composition itself cannot be new. This is a non sequitur. One cannot conclude that from the premises and (implied) argument presented.
However, at present, members of the radical, "laissez-faire-" (snip)...
You cannot be a free marketeer and favor strong government interventions at the same time! That's why libertarians are against codified monopolies, don't like medical guilds very much, and aren't the strongest supporters of intellectual property.
Let's just say that the repeated embarrassing slams you got for mischaracterizing libertarianism were thoroughly desserved. Next time do some homework before hitting the (SEND) button!
You got modded 'funny', which would suggest slash thought you were kidding. In my work place, we actually had a coworker deliberately not bathe as part of some bohemian schtick she was doing. Management/ordered/ her to bathe.
Yes, Dorothy, they/can/ do that.
She came back to work the next day... appropriately washed.
After note: sorry. It was early AM, and I misread your comment. My point was that I wasn't concluded that (this should have been obvious from my aside regarding computer 'science', yes?).
As far as the chemists-earn-shit problem (well, unless you are a winery chemist), this is an issue of the market. Sad, but true.
I wonder how chemists do versus engineers and physicians in china, india, and japan?
This is true. But even within those companies that aren't amalgams of other companies, my above comment is true. It is, of course, even more true when you're going around between subsidiaries.
As I have posted here numerous times, a smart person can make a lot more money in law, business, or medicine, all without having to stay in school until one is 30 (or older, depending on the number of post-docs you have to grind through).
Err. Well, I'm in this troubled spot: agreeing with you, but needing to quibble over some details. Perhaps you aren't including CS in science (old quip, "anything calling itself a science isn't"). Be that as it may:
My wife is physician. I know ALOT of physicians. Methinks you're underestimating the time commitment involved in getting started in Medicine. Other thing: it's not unusual for a physician to end residency with well over $100K in medical school debt.
I'm a software "engineer". My wife and I are the same age. If you subtract her debt service from her income, I outearn her, and that's before you add the rolling residual income from previous investments into that formula.
The whole point is that people who are nerdy are usually shy and socially inept.
If you think about this at length, though, you'll see that this serves a valuable function. Individuals who marry and have children early are generally not making longer term investments in their future. Those nerdy, socially inept people eventually get over it, later in life, and a good many of them/do/ make those investements in their future. Like getting degrees (and higher degrees) in hard areas.
There are good groups and there are bad groups. good managers and very bad managers.
People who don't know big companies, don't realize that the truly large ones are more like many companies under one name. I work in one of America's top 10 defense companies; when the market changes around a bit, we actually shop for job (resume passing, interviews, and all) INSIDE the company. The differences in groups and even cultures is quite large.
The funny thing is that they don't go into CS "cuz every one knows there is no jobs"...
Having personally witnessed a huge batch of the wrong type of people being pumped out by CS programs during the.com era, I'm very glad that the system has elected to produce people at a more even pace.
Well my basic complaint is that: 1) Corporations enjoy all the rights of people under modern jurisprudence, up to and including SCOTUS rulings, and 2) The Constitution itself has an equal protection clause. So it really strikes me as disjoint for Corporations to enjoy tax privileges that individuals do not.
If I had infinite money, I'd be interested in making a case out of this, just to see what SCOTUS had to say about it. But superficially, this difference in treatment is contrary to the equal protection clause.
They should just implement continuations and be done with it.
It's been tried. There were problem with 3rd party C libraries. It's not like you can hand-wavey, hand-wavey, and suddenly C itself is stackless. That's what Christian Tismer ran up against, why the PEP to add continuations to Python was ultimately rejected.
Hah! The irresistable force just encountered the immovable object. When barriers to entry are high, a market can exhibit, well, distinctly unmarket-like properties.
It would only take a solid establishment of the current avian influenza (H5N1) into the human population for that to happen. And get this. IT COULD HAPPEN LITERALLY AT ANY TIME. There have 35 confirmed cases of this influenza actually making the leap to human beings with a 65% fatality rate.
When the CDC wants to talk about serious viruses, they generally focus on flu. This surprises a lot of people. Want a sobering read? Go here:
It's already criminal, though. Misrepresenting one's identity in a transaction of business, or offer of transaction, is a serious felony (i.e., FRAUD). We're talking slammer time!
I guess the hope here is that the civil violation part will encourage some cowboy lawyers to do civil take downs on these folks. Apparently the cops can't make the time...
I'm just waiting for a bunch of pissed off black hats to start offering $500 cash rewards for the heads of nigerian scammers, though. You'd be surprised at how enticing $500 can be to a Nigerian thug... ha, ha.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess you're trying to be funny. But seriously, it's not about what's being abstracted. Rather, it's about borrowing implementation. Dynamic languages don't usually have 'multiple inheritance' in the classic sense, anyway. They use an approach called 'mixins', which varies in subtle and useful ways from the way that the static languages community is accustomed to thinking about it (has to do with dynamic dispatch...).
Although, to be fair, you don't see much MI in Python in practice...
C//
I have yet to see a *single* PowerPoint presentation that I would in any way consider useful, informative, or basically anything other than a complete waste of time.
I'm often wary of those who talk about their worlds in such stark, absolute terms.
you (SIC) can't readily make drastic changes to a PowerPoint presentation on-the-fly
You mis-spelled "I". As in "I can't readily make drastic changes to..."
One can. One just has to know the tool. And the tool is dead simple. And the changes make for a good artifact, unlike the white board, which in virtually all environments has to be meticulously recorded onto paper, by hand. Now that's SLOW!
The white board does have it's place. It's as much about context, as anything else. One
C//
I applaud them for their efforts, and think they are doing the right thing. But this was a big risk they took. If someone were to sue them for damages, the situation isn't "negligent". It's not like they failed to take due dilligence precautions! Rather, they deliberately created the problem. Be that as it may, I rather doubt you'll find any litigants.
I'd think they'd be able to more than sue. Access to entities like these zombies is a federal offense, and punishable by years in a federal penitentiary (as in 10 PLUS). They should force the prosecution issue, that would really shut these spammers down and send a message.
C//
I would most certainly say that a person has "right" to an education though. Without it, you lack the capability to be a citizen in a democratic society that can truly contribute.
I am an incessant quibbler. I will rearrange your sentence, and convert it into an argument:
"Without an education, one lacks the capability to be a citizen in a democratic society that can truly contribute. THERFORE, I would most certainly say that a person has "right" to an education."
I would call this a non sequitur. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises introduced. However, it could be phrased differently such that the conclusion DOES follow. Here's how:
"Without an education, one lacks the capability to be a citizen in a democratic society that can truly contribute. THERFORE, the people may have an interest in seeing that the citizens are educated."
There are many things that society has an interest in. For example, society has proclaimed an interest in peaceful domestic race relations. We therefore have equal opportunity and non descrimination laws and the like. Some of these can be rightly referred to as "rights". Other of these laws actually tromp on the rights of some (i.e., the right to associate with, or to do business with, whom one pleases), with the stated objective of making the nation a more peaceful, more prosperous place.
We say freedom of speech is a right that only requires that people don't "take" from you. But there is considerable expense in legislature, police, and our judicial system.
Thomas Paine summarized this: "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best stage, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
To enjoy the negative right of "not being invaded by a foreign power," one must first contribute, somehow, to the forces that will prevent it. Yes, this is understood.
When, in your mind, does this "right to an education" end?
C//
Whilst we're talking about "rights", it's a shame people don't seem to think we have a right to education.
:)
When one describes a right in terms of the things (implied) that others must give you, then assuredly it is not a right.
Conversely, if one describes a right in terms of things that others must not take from you, then quite possibly it is indeed a right.
One cannot have a right to education, a home, or medical insurance, without forcing others to pay for them. One can have a right to pursue an education, purchase a house on the free market, and so forth, without intruding upon others. One set of things are probably rights. The other set of things probably are not.
There are probably other angles you can take on your private school has public school responsibilities tack, though. I don't see your opinion as wrong, really. I'm just objecting to the whole "right" thing.
C//
I'm a hiring engineer at a major defense firm. My experience backs your own. If we wanted a java web developer, and couldn't hire a java web developer, hiring someone skilled in apache, mod_perl, mod_php, and other distributed web platform technologies and concepts is a better choice than hiring a plain old java programmer. The distributed web is conceptually more difficult than the java programming language per se.
:(
Teaching an HR guy that "apache+mod_php+zope is equivalent to J2EE, and in some ways may be better, even though we want J2EE" is impossible though. Their brains would melt...
C//
While SkyBuilt has 140 patent claims on its energy system, most of its individual component parts are widely available.
Isn't this sickening?
---------------------
Not per se, no. It's a routine matter of invention and innovation to build brand new things out of well-understood pieces and parts. Your thought belongs to the family of fallacies called fallacies of composition. It appears to be your thinking that if something isn't made out of new components, the composition itself cannot be new. This is a non sequitur. One cannot conclude that from the premises and (implied) argument presented.
C//
However, at present, members of the radical, "laissez-faire-" (snip)...
You cannot be a free marketeer and favor strong government interventions at the same time! That's why libertarians are against codified monopolies, don't like medical guilds very much, and aren't the strongest supporters of intellectual property.
Let's just say that the repeated embarrassing slams you got for mischaracterizing libertarianism were thoroughly desserved. Next time do some homework before hitting the (SEND) button!
C//
You got modded 'funny', which would suggest slash thought you were kidding. In my work place, we actually had a coworker deliberately not bathe as part of some bohemian schtick she was doing. Management /ordered/ her to bathe.
/can/ do that.
Yes, Dorothy, they
She came back to work the next day... appropriately washed.
C//
The middle class has far, far fewer children than do the poor. Evolutionarily, that makes the middle class a dead end, right?
After note: sorry. It was early AM, and I misread your comment. My point was that I wasn't concluded that (this should have been obvious from my aside regarding computer 'science', yes?).
As far as the chemists-earn-shit problem (well, unless you are a winery chemist), this is an issue of the market. Sad, but true.
I wonder how chemists do versus engineers and physicians in china, india, and japan?
C//
This is true. But even within those companies that aren't amalgams of other companies, my above comment is true. It is, of course, even more true when you're going around between subsidiaries.
C//
You cant conclude that physicians dont earn more than scientists...
No I didn't. You just made that up.
C//
As I have posted here numerous times, a smart person can make a lot more money in law, business, or medicine, all without having to stay in school until one is 30 (or older, depending on the number of post-docs you have to grind through).
Err. Well, I'm in this troubled spot: agreeing with you, but needing to quibble over some details. Perhaps you aren't including CS in science (old quip, "anything calling itself a science isn't"). Be that as it may:
My wife is physician. I know ALOT of physicians. Methinks you're underestimating the time commitment involved in getting started in Medicine. Other thing: it's not unusual for a physician to end residency with well over $100K in medical school debt.
I'm a software "engineer". My wife and I are the same age. If you subtract her debt service from her income, I outearn her, and that's before you add the rolling residual income from previous investments into that formula.
C//
The whole point is that people who are nerdy are usually shy and socially inept.
/do/ make those investements in their future. Like getting degrees (and higher degrees) in hard areas.
If you think about this at length, though, you'll see that this serves a valuable function. Individuals who marry and have children early are generally not making longer term investments in their future. Those nerdy, socially inept people eventually get over it, later in life, and a good many of them
C//
There are good groups and there are bad groups. good managers and very bad managers.
People who don't know big companies, don't realize that the truly large ones are more like many companies under one name. I work in one of America's top 10 defense companies; when the market changes around a bit, we actually shop for job (resume passing, interviews, and all) INSIDE the company. The differences in groups and even cultures is quite large.
C//
The funny thing is that they don't go into CS "cuz every one knows there is no jobs"...
.com era, I'm very glad that the system has elected to produce people at a more even pace.
Having personally witnessed a huge batch of the wrong type of people being pumped out by CS programs during the
C//
Well my basic complaint is that: 1) Corporations enjoy all the rights of people under modern jurisprudence, up to and including SCOTUS rulings, and 2) The Constitution itself has an equal protection clause. So it really strikes me as disjoint for Corporations to enjoy tax privileges that individuals do not.
If I had infinite money, I'd be interested in making a case out of this, just to see what SCOTUS had to say about it. But superficially, this difference in treatment is contrary to the equal protection clause.
C//
It makes you wonder why someone hasn't challenged this under the equal protection clause.
C//
They should just implement continuations and be done with it.
It's been tried. There were problem with 3rd party C libraries. It's not like you can hand-wavey, hand-wavey, and suddenly C itself is stackless. That's what Christian Tismer ran up against, why the PEP to add continuations to Python was ultimately rejected.
C//
Hah! The irresistable force just encountered the immovable object. When barriers to entry are high, a market can exhibit, well, distinctly unmarket-like properties.
C//
Hah. Every once in when, I hear someone say something that just sounds right. Know what I mean? Anyway, this is one of those times. :)
C//
It would only take a solid establishment of the current avian influenza (H5N1) into the human population for that to happen. And get this. IT COULD HAPPEN LITERALLY AT ANY TIME. There have 35 confirmed cases of this influenza actually making the leap to human beings with a 65% fatality rate.
When the CDC wants to talk about serious viruses, they generally focus on flu. This surprises a lot of people. Want a sobering read? Go here:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/outbreaks/asia.htm
C//
It's already criminal, though. Misrepresenting one's identity in a transaction of business, or offer of transaction, is a serious felony (i.e., FRAUD). We're talking slammer time!
I guess the hope here is that the civil violation part will encourage some cowboy lawyers to do civil take downs on these folks. Apparently the cops can't make the time...
I'm just waiting for a bunch of pissed off black hats to start offering $500 cash rewards for the heads of nigerian scammers, though. You'd be surprised at how enticing $500 can be to a Nigerian thug... ha, ha.
C//
*caugh*
:)
You meant to say "everyone believes it won't function without your presence," right???
C//