Who am I to tell someone they can't destroy their own body?
You are a taxpayer and you have to cover the social costs of drug use.
This is a bullshit argument. If "society" thinks it's unfair that it has to pay the price of helping those who fuck themselves up with drugs, then it bloody well ought to stop paying. It's completely asinine to ban a substance because of the irresponsibility of a small subset of the population. The substance isn't what fucks people up. Fucked up people turn to substance abuse. It's idiots like you parroting discredited religious nutjob temperance bullshit from the turn of the previous century that are the problem. The foolish notion that the only difference between a drunkard and a pious churchgoing citizen is the bottle of whiskey is what keeps reasonable programs to address the root of the problem from being created. Do you treat suicidal tendencies by banning razor blades, ropes, guns, etc.? Of course not. You treat the person so they don't feel like they need to kill themselves! Why, then, does it make sense to you that the way to treat drug problems is more aggressive prohibition of drugs?
Hmm I spose so. Well what about swappable batteries? You could just sign up for a scheme where you swap your spent battery for ready charged batteries at a service station.
This has been hashed over before, and the general answer is "too big, too heavy". Not only would the logistics of moving 500lbs of batteries around be obscene, but so would be the massive redesign necessary to the vehicles themselves in order to accommodate easy removal. Have you seen how they put the batteries in electric vehicles? They cram them into the most inconvenient places. And relocating them all to (say) the trunk isn't the answer, as the major problem with battery placement is keeping the vehicle weight distribution low and centered. No, battery swapping schemes are completely unworkable with present battery technology (size & weight vs energy density), and the advances necessary to make it workable would also make it completely unnecessary.
Not really. The problem lies within the BSD license. What they should do is quickly re-license the project under the GPL, and then work for the company. The company has the BSD licensed part, while the community has the GPL licensed part.
Why? Even if he "joins the dark side", all the code he contributed under BSD up to that point will still be available to everyone under BSD license in perpetuity. You can't retroactively "de-license" BSD code. The only stuff the company would "own" would be everything he added or changed after he hired on.
Well, send me the title for your car. It's just a piece of paper, and you can keep the car and continue using it. I'll just register as the owner of the car. And start sending you invoices for your use of the car. You still have the car and can continue to use it, so it's not theft.
Go right ahead dumbfuck, and see what the law says about the forgery and fraud you committed when you registered the car in your name without a legitimate signature from the owner. A copy of his car title in your possession deprives him of nothing until you commit a crime by using it illegally.
Can you execute expressions that consume data (inputs) and generate results (outputs)? Then it's a programming language. Is it turing complete? No. But I wasn't aware that was a requirement of being classified a "programming language".
Come on, that's a serious weaselly "yeah, well technically..." answer. Granted, it's not, by the very literal meaning of the words "programming language", necessary for a language to do anything other than tell a [machine|software] how to do something. Not being Turing Complete is a pretty serious strike against it, however, for the category of "Languages People Who Can Program Consider Programming Languages"*
* three categories:
1) those who include every language under the sun, even when you couldn't (or reasonably wouldn't) write a stand-alone application with it (SQL, the scripting language for my programmable TV remote, etc)
2) those who draw the line at being able to implement a ROT-13 encoder with no unreasonable hoop-jumping, Turing-Completeness, etc.
3) those that say that if it can't be used to write and compile its own compiler it's Not A Real Programming Language, and other similar nuts.
1) and 3) represent the ends of the bell curve. Come join the rest of us at 2) where the actual discussion is happening.
Umm... it *is* a programming language. Or were you not aware of that fact?
I'd say that's highly debatable. One can, in theory, write "programs" in SQL, but no one ever really does. It's more like a scripting language that gives people programming in real programming languages a common interface for retrieving database contents.
My take on this is: Java is more clear about what it is doing, C# has a nicer sintax, the code looks better, but a reader can be deceived by it.
I would go with Java, its better to have ugly code that is easy to understand
That being the case, you might want to check out assembly language. It's a LOT uglier, but you will never be deceived by assembly.
Seriously, there's so little difference between C# and Java that arguing the a gnat's hair's less abstraction is any easier to understand merely illustrates that you're conditioned to looking at Java code. Look at C# code for 6 months and you won't even notice anymore.
Re:oh goody.
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It hides from the developer that you are actually doing something that could be costly.... there are ways to prevent this, but are mostly related to procedures the developers must follow.
You mean like reading the documentation and/or the source code of the class you're using? If you don't know how or where the object is getting its data, then you're just as in the dark whether it's data passed via a C# get/set or a Java method. Granted the Java method approach is a "clue" that it's not just a member int being set, but I'm not sure that's the ideal way to "get a clue"...
I understand what you're getting at with all this, but at some point familiarity with the road is going to serve you better than guardrails all over the place.
Are you also proud of being in the party of the deregulators then led us to this mess?
I wish I had mod points because this should not be moderated as Troll. It is all too true.
Dumbass partisans. This shit goes all the way back to Carter, with every president and congress in between having a hand in it. I could detail for you all the ways they helped, even. You think it was all done by Phil Gramm? Please. This mess predates the '99 deregulation. Which party has had the White House since '76? Which party has controlled congress since '76? That's right: BOTH OF THEM!
Yeah, as someone pointed out recently, it's odd how they tightened the screws on PERSONAL bankruptcy, but now want to open the money spigot for INSTITUTIONAL failure. I suppose it's because the market doesn't crash when it's just my boss running up credit card bills he can't pay, but still....
Or, better yet, decide that recouping a few quid on ebay isn't worth it, and just destroy the damn camera.
20 years ago when I was still new in the Army, the protocol for dealing with hard drives in secure areas was:
1) wipe drive, format, fill with 1's, fill with 0's, format again
2) remove drive, disassemble
3) use grinding wheel to remove all magnetic coating from metal disc surfaces
4) put ruined disc in a file cabinet forever, because once it held classified data, it COULD NOT be removed from the site
I guarantee the perishable data on the disposition of Soviet Army units on exercise in East Germany didn't even approach the sensitivity of the kind of HUMINT they had in this camera. If someone doesn't have their career ruined over this, then it's probably a Major or higher that did it. That's the way it always goes.
Well, you could just have a box hidden in your house..maybe somewhere in the attic, buried in the insulation...wireless...
I've never understood why people think wireless is harder to find than wired. Well, OK, I understand that people are thinking "if you can't follow a wire...", but really, you can obfuscate wiring far easier than you can hide a box that's shouting "HERE I AM!" at 2.4gHz. Seriously, if someone is actually determined enough to physically follow every CAT5 cable up inside your walls, through the crawlspaces, and under the floors just on the chance of finding ONE that goes into the hollow space behind the bathtub where your secret FTP file server lives, then they have an 802.11g card with a yagi antenna too.
Perhaps its because most people don't have their home networks installed PROPERLY inside the walls, but instead just have long network patch cords running in plain sight under rugs, over door frames, through windows....
Right off the bat I think of Grace Hopper. She was the first to develop a compiler, for the UNIVAC system
Whether she was the absolute first is disputable.
If it's disputable, put up or shut up. Name a compiler that predates the A-0 compiler for the UNIVAC I in 1951. You can't, because there isn't one. She developed the first compiler for a programmable electronic computer. This is documented. This is fact.
The scary thing is both of them were hired to prove that programming was so easy "that even a woman could do it".
No, Grace Hopper was hired because she had a PhD in mathematics and understood how electronic computers worked. There was sexism in the 20th century, but was nothing compared to the 19th.
There really aren't that many famous programmers. There aren't any at all other than perhaps Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and they may not be considered programmers by the masses.
Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a programmer. His contribution to the original Apple computer consisted of marketing, goading Steve Wozniak on, and helping solder components when they were up against a delivery deadline.
Ask somebody what else the Lear who built Learjets invented first
Car radio. Later, he invented the stereo 8 track tape player. Almost as interesting is what Bill Lear named his daughter. Personally, I wouldn't name my daughter Shanda Lear, if for no other reason than it might encourage her to marry the first guy that seemed adequate just to get rid of the name.
Yeah, if it weren't for her, computing the ratio would always exit with division-by-zero. We owe her much.
My god, you people have no education in the history of computing. There are more. Right off the bat I think of Grace Hopper. She was the first to develop a compiler, for the UNIVAC system, and pioneered the entire notion of compiled high level languages in an age when everyone was basically still thinking in terms of programming the bare metal with 1's and 0's.
2 megapixel is more than enough to scan a 2D barcode
This assumes ideal conditions. In low light or with somewhat oblique angles , 2MP becomes marginal. 3MP+ makes the difference between taking one casual shot and having it work, and having to try two or three times.
I don't think you're being fair, second hand you'll get that X40 cheap enough, but it sells for about 2000USD. You're really paying for a bit more then. The EeePC's obviously meant to be a cheap toy, and is priced respectively.
But that's the whole point! A new EeePC is functionally inferior to a an old X40. The "new" price of an X40 is irrelevant.
My favourite is when it loses its stylus calibration. It's so random. I can through a period of weeks or months where it loses its calibration any time it goes into power saving mode. But then it can go months without it doing that and I've not changed my usage habits. It's almost like they've built that into that system to screw with people.
That's actually a hardware issue. Really, touch screens are a simple matter of variable resistance across two circuits. All WM knows is the min ohms and max ohms for the X and Y axes. Apply Occam's Razor. Do you really think WM is "forgetting" four simple integers? Or do you think that maybe the resistance of the touch screen hardware on some phones might be flaky? Add in the fact that there are plenty of people whose WM phones don't lose stylus calibration, and the answer seems pretty obvious to me.
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?
Yes, but they're called "sights". This is the source of the confusion. THe writer is clueless and doesn't know that "scope" generally means a little thing clamped to a rifle. It's the same kind of ignorance found when they call magazines "clips".
This is true. The problem is with the idiot knowlessman writer who chose the word "scope". The more correct term would be "sight", as found on large armored vehicles, ATGM launchers, and aircraft. They're not likely to be able to pack the equipment necessary to use "advances in signal processing made possible by advances in computer processing power and increased storage capabilities" into anything a guy with a bolt action rifle will want clamped to his receiver.
It's not your guy, it's every guy! Reagan really started the ball rolling on the deregulation that is one of the reasons we're in this mess now.
No, it was Carter, who lifted rate caps and and upped FSLIC coverage to 100% for the S&L's...
No, wait... it was Nixon monkeying with the gold standard....
No, it was Johnson mortgaging our future with uncontrolled government spending...
Hold on.... I think I've spotted a pattern....
But the Democrats have been more than happy to suck at the teat of the taxpayer while enriching their own cronies. Get rid of them all is what I'm saying.
Another example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required
savings and loan organizations to have sufficient assets
to cover their loans, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the
resulting bankruptcies.
Now now, let's not engage in hyperbole here! The regulations requiring them to have sufficient assets were never changed. What was changed was the definition of what constitutes an "asset"! The key line in the Wikipedia entry is
"They were also allowed to take an ownership position in the real estate and other projects to which they made loans"
Essentially what happened was that oversight over the real value of their assets was removed, which allowed the S&L's to basically buy worthless swampland and sell it back and forth to each other until its "value" was artificially high, then use the swampland's inflated value towards their "assets" calculation.
It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. Because it happened that way, the S&L's were able to say, up to the bitter end, that they had "federal law requiring sufficient assets" protecting their customers. If the asset requirement had actually been removed, people would have rightfully freaked out and withdrawn their money. This illustrates how fiendishly corrupt government is, and how you have to be diligent, how can't depend on them doing something bad in a blatant manner to warn you you're about to get hosed.
Slashdot Mirror
Who am I to tell someone they can't destroy their own body?
You are a taxpayer and you have to cover the social costs of drug use.
This is a bullshit argument. If "society" thinks it's unfair that it has to pay the price of helping those who fuck themselves up with drugs, then it bloody well ought to stop paying. It's completely asinine to ban a substance because of the irresponsibility of a small subset of the population. The substance isn't what fucks people up. Fucked up people turn to substance abuse. It's idiots like you parroting discredited religious nutjob temperance bullshit from the turn of the previous century that are the problem. The foolish notion that the only difference between a drunkard and a pious churchgoing citizen is the bottle of whiskey is what keeps reasonable programs to address the root of the problem from being created. Do you treat suicidal tendencies by banning razor blades, ropes, guns, etc.? Of course not. You treat the person so they don't feel like they need to kill themselves! Why, then, does it make sense to you that the way to treat drug problems is more aggressive prohibition of drugs?
Hmm I spose so. Well what about swappable batteries? You could just sign up for a scheme where you swap your spent battery for ready charged batteries at a service station.
This has been hashed over before, and the general answer is "too big, too heavy". Not only would the logistics of moving 500lbs of batteries around be obscene, but so would be the massive redesign necessary to the vehicles themselves in order to accommodate easy removal. Have you seen how they put the batteries in electric vehicles? They cram them into the most inconvenient places. And relocating them all to (say) the trunk isn't the answer, as the major problem with battery placement is keeping the vehicle weight distribution low and centered. No, battery swapping schemes are completely unworkable with present battery technology (size & weight vs energy density), and the advances necessary to make it workable would also make it completely unnecessary.
Not really. The problem lies within the BSD license. What they should do is quickly re-license the project under the GPL, and then work for the company. The company has the BSD licensed part, while the community has the GPL licensed part.
Why? Even if he "joins the dark side", all the code he contributed under BSD up to that point will still be available to everyone under BSD license in perpetuity. You can't retroactively "de-license" BSD code. The only stuff the company would "own" would be everything he added or changed after he hired on.
Well, send me the title for your car. It's just a piece of paper, and you can keep the car and continue using it. I'll just register as the owner of the car. And start sending you invoices for your use of the car. You still have the car and can continue to use it, so it's not theft.
Go right ahead dumbfuck, and see what the law says about the forgery and fraud you committed when you registered the car in your name without a legitimate signature from the owner. A copy of his car title in your possession deprives him of nothing until you commit a crime by using it illegally.
Fucktards and their idiotic car analogies...
Yeah..... isn't it AWESOME?
Can you execute expressions that consume data (inputs) and generate results (outputs)? Then it's a programming language. Is it turing complete? No. But I wasn't aware that was a requirement of being classified a "programming language".
Come on, that's a serious weaselly "yeah, well technically..." answer. Granted, it's not, by the very literal meaning of the words "programming language", necessary for a language to do anything other than tell a [machine|software] how to do something. Not being Turing Complete is a pretty serious strike against it, however, for the category of "Languages People Who Can Program Consider Programming Languages"*
* three categories:
1) those who include every language under the sun, even when you couldn't (or reasonably wouldn't) write a stand-alone application with it (SQL, the scripting language for my programmable TV remote, etc)
2) those who draw the line at being able to implement a ROT-13 encoder with no unreasonable hoop-jumping, Turing-Completeness, etc.
3) those that say that if it can't be used to write and compile its own compiler it's Not A Real Programming Language, and other similar nuts.
1) and 3) represent the ends of the bell curve. Come join the rest of us at 2) where the actual discussion is happening.
Umm... it *is* a programming language. Or were you not aware of that fact?
I'd say that's highly debatable. One can, in theory, write "programs" in SQL, but no one ever really does. It's more like a scripting language that gives people programming in real programming languages a common interface for retrieving database contents.
My take on this is: Java is more clear about what it is doing, C# has a nicer sintax, the code looks better, but a reader can be deceived by it.
I would go with Java, its better to have ugly code that is easy to understand
That being the case, you might want to check out assembly language. It's a LOT uglier, but you will never be deceived by assembly.
Seriously, there's so little difference between C# and Java that arguing the a gnat's hair's less abstraction is any easier to understand merely illustrates that you're conditioned to looking at Java code. Look at C# code for 6 months and you won't even notice anymore.
It hides from the developer that you are actually doing something that could be costly.... there are ways to prevent this, but are mostly related to procedures the developers must follow.
You mean like reading the documentation and/or the source code of the class you're using? If you don't know how or where the object is getting its data, then you're just as in the dark whether it's data passed via a C# get/set or a Java method. Granted the Java method approach is a "clue" that it's not just a member int being set, but I'm not sure that's the ideal way to "get a clue"...
I understand what you're getting at with all this, but at some point familiarity with the road is going to serve you better than guardrails all over the place.
Are you also proud of being in the party of the deregulators then led us to this mess?
I wish I had mod points because this should not be moderated as Troll. It is all too true.
Dumbass partisans. This shit goes all the way back to Carter, with every president and congress in between having a hand in it. I could detail for you all the ways they helped, even. You think it was all done by Phil Gramm? Please. This mess predates the '99 deregulation. Which party has had the White House since '76? Which party has controlled congress since '76? That's right: BOTH OF THEM!
Yeah, as someone pointed out recently, it's odd how they tightened the screws on PERSONAL bankruptcy, but now want to open the money spigot for INSTITUTIONAL failure. I suppose it's because the market doesn't crash when it's just my boss running up credit card bills he can't pay, but still....
Or, better yet, decide that recouping a few quid on ebay isn't worth it, and just destroy the damn camera.
20 years ago when I was still new in the Army, the protocol for dealing with hard drives in secure areas was:
1) wipe drive, format, fill with 1's, fill with 0's, format again
2) remove drive, disassemble
3) use grinding wheel to remove all magnetic coating from metal disc surfaces
4) put ruined disc in a file cabinet forever, because once it held classified data, it COULD NOT be removed from the site
I guarantee the perishable data on the disposition of Soviet Army units on exercise in East Germany didn't even approach the sensitivity of the kind of HUMINT they had in this camera. If someone doesn't have their career ruined over this, then it's probably a Major or higher that did it. That's the way it always goes.
Well, you could just have a box hidden in your house..maybe somewhere in the attic, buried in the insulation...wireless...
I've never understood why people think wireless is harder to find than wired. Well, OK, I understand that people are thinking "if you can't follow a wire...", but really, you can obfuscate wiring far easier than you can hide a box that's shouting "HERE I AM!" at 2.4gHz. Seriously, if someone is actually determined enough to physically follow every CAT5 cable up inside your walls, through the crawlspaces, and under the floors just on the chance of finding ONE that goes into the hollow space behind the bathtub where your secret FTP file server lives, then they have an 802.11g card with a yagi antenna too.
Perhaps its because most people don't have their home networks installed PROPERLY inside the walls, but instead just have long network patch cords running in plain sight under rugs, over door frames, through windows....
Whether she was the absolute first is disputable.
If it's disputable, put up or shut up. Name a compiler that predates the A-0 compiler for the UNIVAC I in 1951. You can't, because there isn't one. She developed the first compiler for a programmable electronic computer. This is documented. This is fact.
The scary thing is both of them were hired to prove that programming was so easy "that even a woman could do it".
No, Grace Hopper was hired because she had a PhD in mathematics and understood how electronic computers worked. There was sexism in the 20th century, but was nothing compared to the 19th.
There really aren't that many famous programmers. There aren't any at all other than perhaps Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and they may not be considered programmers by the masses.
Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a programmer. His contribution to the original Apple computer consisted of marketing, goading Steve Wozniak on, and helping solder components when they were up against a delivery deadline.
Ask somebody what else the Lear who built Learjets invented first
Car radio. Later, he invented the stereo 8 track tape player. Almost as interesting is what Bill Lear named his daughter. Personally, I wouldn't name my daughter Shanda Lear, if for no other reason than it might encourage her to marry the first guy that seemed adequate just to get rid of the name.
How can you forget Ada Lovelace?
Yeah, if it weren't for her, computing the ratio would always exit with division-by-zero. We owe her much.
My god, you people have no education in the history of computing. There are more. Right off the bat I think of Grace Hopper. She was the first to develop a compiler, for the UNIVAC system, and pioneered the entire notion of compiled high level languages in an age when everyone was basically still thinking in terms of programming the bare metal with 1's and 0's.
2 megapixel is more than enough to scan a 2D barcode
This assumes ideal conditions. In low light or with somewhat oblique angles , 2MP becomes marginal. 3MP+ makes the difference between taking one casual shot and having it work, and having to try two or three times.
I don't think you're being fair, second hand you'll get that X40 cheap enough, but it sells for about 2000USD. You're really paying for a bit more then. The EeePC's obviously meant to be a cheap toy, and is priced respectively.
But that's the whole point! A new EeePC is functionally inferior to a an old X40. The "new" price of an X40 is irrelevant.
My favourite is when it loses its stylus calibration. It's so random. I can through a period of weeks or months where it loses its calibration any time it goes into power saving mode. But then it can go months without it doing that and I've not changed my usage habits. It's almost like they've built that into that system to screw with people.
That's actually a hardware issue. Really, touch screens are a simple matter of variable resistance across two circuits. All WM knows is the min ohms and max ohms for the X and Y axes. Apply Occam's Razor. Do you really think WM is "forgetting" four simple integers? Or do you think that maybe the resistance of the touch screen hardware on some phones might be flaky? Add in the fact that there are plenty of people whose WM phones don't lose stylus calibration, and the answer seems pretty obvious to me.
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?
Yes, but they're called "sights". This is the source of the confusion. THe writer is clueless and doesn't know that "scope" generally means a little thing clamped to a rifle. It's the same kind of ignorance found when they call magazines "clips".
only snipers and sharpshooters use scopes
This is true. The problem is with the idiot knowlessman writer who chose the word "scope". The more correct term would be "sight", as found on large armored vehicles, ATGM launchers, and aircraft. They're not likely to be able to pack the equipment necessary to use "advances in signal processing made possible by advances in computer processing power and increased storage capabilities" into anything a guy with a bolt action rifle will want clamped to his receiver.
It's not your guy, it's every guy! Reagan really started the ball rolling on the deregulation that is one of the reasons we're in this mess now.
No, it was Carter, who lifted rate caps and and upped FSLIC coverage to 100% for the S&L's...
No, wait... it was Nixon monkeying with the gold standard....
No, it was Johnson mortgaging our future with uncontrolled government spending...
Hold on.... I think I've spotted a pattern....
But the Democrats have been more than happy to suck at the teat of the taxpayer while enriching their own cronies. Get rid of them all is what I'm saying.
Damn straight!
Another example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required savings and loan organizations to have sufficient assets to cover their loans, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the resulting bankruptcies.
Now now, let's not engage in hyperbole here! The regulations requiring them to have sufficient assets were never changed. What was changed was the definition of what constitutes an "asset"! The key line in the Wikipedia entry is
"They were also allowed to take an ownership position in the real estate and other projects to which they made loans"
Essentially what happened was that oversight over the real value of their assets was removed, which allowed the S&L's to basically buy worthless swampland and sell it back and forth to each other until its "value" was artificially high, then use the swampland's inflated value towards their "assets" calculation.
It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. Because it happened that way, the S&L's were able to say, up to the bitter end, that they had "federal law requiring sufficient assets" protecting their customers. If the asset requirement had actually been removed, people would have rightfully freaked out and withdrawn their money. This illustrates how fiendishly corrupt government is, and how you have to be diligent, how can't depend on them doing something bad in a blatant manner to warn you you're about to get hosed.