That's not a problem with indentation; Python just doesn't have a full lambda construct.
As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. Python has a number of alternative constructs (iterators, with, explicitly nested functions, list comprehensions, etc.) that are individually more limited, but end up encouraging people to write clearer code. Functionally, it's not a limitation.
It just presents the data and does not surmise anything about the causes or what should be done about it."
Let me fill in the blanks for you. It's getting warmer because of anthropogenic carbon emissions. And no matter what you think should be done about it, nothing is going to be done about it because people are not going to agree on a common course of action.
So, better get used to it: it's going to get a lot warmer. But why that may be unpleasant and costly for some, it's not going to be the end of civilization.
University education in America has been declining in quality, and the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans for that.
Actually, what's responsible for declining quality is the high growth in college degrees: you can't send a third of your population to college and expect the quality and standards to be as high as when you sent only a tenth of your population to college.
Nor is it clear that it helps much: a big percentage of those extra graduates are outside of STEM subjects, and people end up getting college degrees that don't really help them in their job.
I love how skewed the right has become that they actually still spout that bullshit about the "extreme left" owning the media.... If anything, the media is centrist
No, the media isn't centrist, it is commercial. Their primary interest is to make money, and that trumps all other interests. Making money translates into advertising dollars, and that means making their sponsors happy and getting viewers/readers.
Having said that, stories published by media tend to be slightly left leaning on average. But that really doesn't matter a great deal. First, that might b to stir up controversy. Second, there are so many media outlets to choose from that such a bias really need not have any practical effect.
I suggest you search for "global warming" on Google Images and look at what tendentious images come up from global warming activists: the planet in flames, scorched earth, etc. Both sides, both climate alarmists and climate change deniers, are guilty of gross distortions of facts and fear mongering.
Stop bullshitting. If you want to claim that there is an independent Java implementation, i.e., an implementation that was produced from spec only, without licenses from Sun, the burden of proof is on you.
In fact, I think it's doubtful that any implementation can meet that standard in principle, since the Java specification itself comes under a license that restricts your ability to build independent implementations. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/ Sun and Oracle have consistently refused to even subject Java to a standards process.
That is highly unusual among programming languages and platforms. You can implement C, C++, Fortran, and even C# from spec without any legal obligations to any company.
Java is the epitome of proprietary programming languages, and the fact that Sun, Oracle, and people like you keep lying about it makes it even worse.
The PROBLEM IS when we (Australians) have elected certain parties into power on the grounds of carring out the marority populations' wishes, once in power they prompty do the exact oposite.
That's a problem, but it's a domestic Australian problem.
Case in point ~ our draconion Carbon Dioxide Tax that we've been burdened with. Our Prime Minister publicly stated on TV and Mass Media there "Will Be No Caron Tax" ~ Then as soon as she entered government she rammed the laws through ~ even with our public gallery's in parllement full of people booing and chanting No Bloody Carbon Tax...
Well, in the context of complaining about American bullying, that's kind of a funny complaint to bring up, since the US keeps getting blamed for resisting efforts to curb global warming.
This is not an isolated incident which is WHY we're "WHINING" (to use YOUR words) about these further restictions placed on us from your IMPERIAL MOTHERLAND.
My motherland is neither imperial, nor can it force your country to do anything your country doesn't want to do. What we do do is offer your government deals: you can travel more easily to the US if you share this data; our military will help protect you if you let us deploy our troops on your soil; etc. You don't like those deals? Don't take them.
What we in Australia are rapidly realising is democracy IS A JOKE and it really is only a thin guise to cover the fact that the political system as it currently stands only serves the power elite...
Apparently, you're also a country of whiners. Australia has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and a human development index second only to Norway (and slightly ahead of the US), high press freedom, low corruption, etc., and you still aren't satisfied. And those numbers are probably why your government keeps getting reelected.
IBM's VM and BEA's JRockit are VM implementations. Furthermore, IBM was a Java licensee (and BEA probably was as well, founded as it was by former Sun employees). Hence, they are neither independent implementations, nor implementations of the Java platform.
Anyone can look at this pact and tell it's not about terrorism and national threats (both Aus and US), it's mostly about file sharing and America trying to spread it's onerous copyright laws to protect its exports.
"America's onerous copyright laws" are the laws set by the Berne convention, largely at the behest of European publishers and artists, who wanted long copyright terms after an author's death and wanted to abolish registration requirements. Even today, Europe has effectively no public domain and no fair use, and much of the copyright mess we are in is the consequence of choices imposed by Europeans.
Anything to try and stay on top (apart from fixing the underlying issues with the government and legal system in the USA and stop bullying the world, turning everyone on the face of the planet against you).
How do you think the US government is "bullying" your government into signing these agreements? Do our trade representatives beat up yours? Or what?
You just don't want to face the much more obvious and simpler explanation: your government is choosing to screw you because it is in their own political interest to do so, and they are using supposed American bullying as a smokescreen.
I'll do what I can from this side, but I'll stop there.
A good start would be to get your head out of the sand and realize that it is the government you elected that is responsible for what is happening to you, from copyright terms to extradition treaties.
US imposed rule? How does the US "impose" its rule on Australia or the UK? These governments agree to these treaties voluntarily, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why: it makes their own copyright industries happy, it's easier than passing domestic laws, it's far more intimidating to be extradited to the US than getting a slap on the wrist from a domestic court, and as icing on the cake, the politicians can pose as victims of supposed American imperialism.
Don't feel sorry for Australians or the British; they elected these piss-poor governments. And as an American, I see that a lot of power of the copyright lobby comes from Europe and is so hard to rein in because Europeans aren't doing shit about it. In fact, many of the people who complain about the evils of US copyright enforcement have no trouble with draconian copyright enforcement when it protects the supposedly superior European culture. And many big publishers that are lobbying hard in the US are from Europe in the first place.
You don't like the current US copyright system and enforcement? Welcome, join the club, stop whining, and start becoming part of the solution by changing your own governments and their policies. Complaining about the US government isn't going to do you any good.
No, the fact that people get sued over this stuff demonstrates that Java is a quagmire of IP claims. And this isn't the first time either. Sun may have been playing nice with Google since they had to, but they had screwed over lots of companies with Java-related IP claims before Google.
But at least, Java is as free and open as the GPL - which clears all problems of copyrights and patents (as far as Oracle is concerned);
All that guarantees is that you can use that GPL'ed implementation in perpetuity without fear of getting sued by Oracle; that doesn't make the language or platform free or open. A free or open platform must demonstrably allow conforming independent implementations, and nobody has ever been able to create one of those for Java.
The problem is that Australians (and Europeans for that matter) have to give that data to their governments in the first place, and then elect governments that share this data with the US. Don't blame the US just because you can't be bothered to elect a government that actually cares about you.
And, of course it's not "that big of a deal to use Java". But neither is using Windows or C#. It's just that they are all proprietary platforms effectively controlled by a single company.
violated this part, of the license, that you omitted to quote: 2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Oracle also grants you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license
Nobody has to give a f*ck about that. That license is a license you need to agree to in order to copy Oracle's copyrighted material. If you don't copy their copyrighted material, that license doesn't matter.
There is only one thing you can't do: develop an incompatible implementation of the Java platform and call that thing Java.
If that were the case, Oracle would be suing Google over trademark violations. But Oracle is suing Google over copyright and patent violations, so your statement that that is "the only thing" you can't do is wrong.
The Oracle lawsuit demonstrates that Java is, in fact, a quagmire of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and it is neither free nor open.
No, it's not; it's a purely formal question: if you didn't come up with it yourself, you have to attribute it. It doesn't matter what academic discipline it is in. You usually don't need to be an expert in figuring out whether a passage is plagiarized or not; while there are some border cases, in many cases, it's pretty obvious. And the identity of the person finding these passages also doesn't matter.
A few plagiarized passages can be excused by accident, sloppiness or false memories, but at some point it crosses a line where deliberate plagiarism is the only plausible explanation. Schavan's thesis looks close to that line; we need to wait for the final tally to see whether it crosses it.
Incorrect citation does NOT mean that there is no scientific value in the conclusive part of the thesis, nor does it mean that the conclusive part is invalid.
Plagiarism is a violation of standards of scientific conduct, no matter whether it affects the conclusions of the thesis or not. If there is significant plagiarism present in the thesis, she should lose her degree even if the thesis otherwise is sound.
A thesis is about describing your own, original, significant ideas and contributions to science. If you don't remember whether something is your own contribution or whether you saw it on a web page somewhere, it's probably not significant enough to put into a thesis in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that if you got the price down to about $50, people would find a lot more uses for this, including sharing network connections with friends (in particular in rural areas), secure communications, and distributing access points. Not everybody lives in cities with otherwise excellent coverage.
The majority of the people in positions of power today are career politicians, people who have worked a small part of their lives - if at all - outside of their political parties.
Worse than that, they usually had their education and their post-doctoral work financed by public funds, and by that I don't mean competitive scholarships, but public funds specifically allocated to each political party to pay for raising the next generation of party officials. Parties have also been trying to get more power over their representatives in parliament, trying to prevent them from speaking out or voting against the party line. I wonder whether this system wasn't imported from East Germany as part of reunification.
But it's a dilemma: in the US, politicians often come in from having real careers, but they now need to raise so much money that they spend much of their time on it and lose some of their independence.
The web site lists a bunch of passages and analyzes them; I don't see anything "unfair" about that. It doesn't demand that the thesis be withdrawn and passes no judgment. On the other hand, once people get started, they tend to find more.
"Peer review" is a mechanism for vetting scientific results for publishing. It has little to do with adjudicating plagiarism claims. A university inquiry may also be held by "peers", but it's a different process. And plagiarism was very much a violation of rules of scientific conduct in 1980 already.
Having looked at some of the passages, there seem to be some improprieties there, but probably not yet enough to condemn the entire thesis. The thesis itself, however, looks like a bunch of b.s. to me. People get Ph.D.'s for such nonsense?
"The dissertation was written 32 years ago, and I will be happy to give my account to those who are looking into the work; but it is difficult to deal with anonymous allegations," Schavan said
I don't see how knowing who makes the allegations of plagiarism makes it "difficult" to respond to the substance of the allegations. Who dug out these passages is not relevant to whether they are plagiarized.
Germany seems to have a serious problem with anonymous speech; it's already somewhat restricted, and politicians and other important figures are increasingly saying that anonymity and democracy are incompatible and seem to intend creating laws to restrict it further. I think it's Germany's totalitarian heritage: for nearly all of Germany's history, people in power have oppressed inconvenient speech via reprisals, and reprisals are still frequent in Germany today.
More importantly, with Java you will finish your program sooner, and with fewer lines of code, than in C++ (save months of development means the software costs less to build, you are earlier to market, and sooner to start using it - all of which should not be sneezed at
Java lacks multidimensional arrays, slicing, array ops, parallel loops, arrays of structures, usable numeric semantics, by-value passing, fast parameterized types, overloading, and tons more features that are pretty much required for numerical computing and that are impossible to provide well through libraries. Even when performance is no object, writing and debugging numerical Java code is cumbersome, and when performance matters, it's it makes you want to jump off a bridge (believe me, I have stood over that precipice). A line of efficient, natural C++ or Fortran 2008 code may take dozens of lines of equivalent Java code and still not run as fast, and often take orders of magnitude longer to write and debug.
There are Java-like languages for which what you say is true. For example, numerical computing in C# could be both fairly efficient and easy if people invested a bit more effort in the compilers and created decent libraries. But Java is singularly badly designed for numerical computing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a problem with indentation; Python just doesn't have a full lambda construct.
As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. Python has a number of alternative constructs (iterators, with, explicitly nested functions, list comprehensions, etc.) that are individually more limited, but end up encouraging people to write clearer code. Functionally, it's not a limitation.
Well, that's extremely bad code in any language with exceptions, and it can fail even in C with signals or longjmp.
In Python, you should use "with lock:" or "try: ... finally: ..." which automatically give you the indentation.
If you really want an extra level of indentation for no good reason, you can use "if 1:" before the block.
Let me fill in the blanks for you. It's getting warmer because of anthropogenic carbon emissions. And no matter what you think should be done about it, nothing is going to be done about it because people are not going to agree on a common course of action.
So, better get used to it: it's going to get a lot warmer. But why that may be unpleasant and costly for some, it's not going to be the end of civilization.
Actually, what's responsible for declining quality is the high growth in college degrees: you can't send a third of your population to college and expect the quality and standards to be as high as when you sent only a tenth of your population to college.
Nor is it clear that it helps much: a big percentage of those extra graduates are outside of STEM subjects, and people end up getting college degrees that don't really help them in their job.
Really? Like Obama's stimulus ended the current recession?
No, the media isn't centrist, it is commercial. Their primary interest is to make money, and that trumps all other interests. Making money translates into advertising dollars, and that means making their sponsors happy and getting viewers/readers.
Having said that, stories published by media tend to be slightly left leaning on average. But that really doesn't matter a great deal. First, that might b to stir up controversy. Second, there are so many media outlets to choose from that such a bias really need not have any practical effect.
I suggest you search for "global warming" on Google Images and look at what tendentious images come up from global warming activists: the planet in flames, scorched earth, etc. Both sides, both climate alarmists and climate change deniers, are guilty of gross distortions of facts and fear mongering.
Stop bullshitting. If you want to claim that there is an independent Java implementation, i.e., an implementation that was produced from spec only, without licenses from Sun, the burden of proof is on you.
In fact, I think it's doubtful that any implementation can meet that standard in principle, since the Java specification itself comes under a license that restricts your ability to build independent implementations. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/ Sun and Oracle have consistently refused to even subject Java to a standards process.
That is highly unusual among programming languages and platforms. You can implement C, C++, Fortran, and even C# from spec without any legal obligations to any company.
Java is the epitome of proprietary programming languages, and the fact that Sun, Oracle, and people like you keep lying about it makes it even worse.
That's a problem, but it's a domestic Australian problem.
Well, in the context of complaining about American bullying, that's kind of a funny complaint to bring up, since the US keeps getting blamed for resisting efforts to curb global warming.
My motherland is neither imperial, nor can it force your country to do anything your country doesn't want to do. What we do do is offer your government deals: you can travel more easily to the US if you share this data; our military will help protect you if you let us deploy our troops on your soil; etc. You don't like those deals? Don't take them.
Apparently, you're also a country of whiners. Australia has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and a human development index second only to Norway (and slightly ahead of the US), high press freedom, low corruption, etc., and you still aren't satisfied. And those numbers are probably why your government keeps getting reelected.
IBM's VM and BEA's JRockit are VM implementations. Furthermore, IBM was a Java licensee (and BEA probably was as well, founded as it was by former Sun employees). Hence, they are neither independent implementations, nor implementations of the Java platform.
"America's onerous copyright laws" are the laws set by the Berne convention, largely at the behest of European publishers and artists, who wanted long copyright terms after an author's death and wanted to abolish registration requirements. Even today, Europe has effectively no public domain and no fair use, and much of the copyright mess we are in is the consequence of choices imposed by Europeans.
How do you think the US government is "bullying" your government into signing these agreements? Do our trade representatives beat up yours? Or what?
You just don't want to face the much more obvious and simpler explanation: your government is choosing to screw you because it is in their own political interest to do so, and they are using supposed American bullying as a smokescreen.
A good start would be to get your head out of the sand and realize that it is the government you elected that is responsible for what is happening to you, from copyright terms to extradition treaties.
US imposed rule? How does the US "impose" its rule on Australia or the UK? These governments agree to these treaties voluntarily, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why: it makes their own copyright industries happy, it's easier than passing domestic laws, it's far more intimidating to be extradited to the US than getting a slap on the wrist from a domestic court, and as icing on the cake, the politicians can pose as victims of supposed American imperialism.
Don't feel sorry for Australians or the British; they elected these piss-poor governments. And as an American, I see that a lot of power of the copyright lobby comes from Europe and is so hard to rein in because Europeans aren't doing shit about it. In fact, many of the people who complain about the evils of US copyright enforcement have no trouble with draconian copyright enforcement when it protects the supposedly superior European culture. And many big publishers that are lobbying hard in the US are from Europe in the first place.
You don't like the current US copyright system and enforcement? Welcome, join the club, stop whining, and start becoming part of the solution by changing your own governments and their policies. Complaining about the US government isn't going to do you any good.
No, the fact that people get sued over this stuff demonstrates that Java is a quagmire of IP claims. And this isn't the first time either. Sun may have been playing nice with Google since they had to, but they had screwed over lots of companies with Java-related IP claims before Google.
All that guarantees is that you can use that GPL'ed implementation in perpetuity without fear of getting sued by Oracle; that doesn't make the language or platform free or open. A free or open platform must demonstrably allow conforming independent implementations, and nobody has ever been able to create one of those for Java.
The problem is that Australians (and Europeans for that matter) have to give that data to their governments in the first place, and then elect governments that share this data with the US. Don't blame the US just because you can't be bothered to elect a government that actually cares about you.
Google never agreed to any licensing agreement.
And, of course it's not "that big of a deal to use Java". But neither is using Windows or C#. It's just that they are all proprietary platforms effectively controlled by a single company.
Nobody has to give a f*ck about that. That license is a license you need to agree to in order to copy Oracle's copyrighted material. If you don't copy their copyrighted material, that license doesn't matter.
If that were the case, Oracle would be suing Google over trademark violations. But Oracle is suing Google over copyright and patent violations, so your statement that that is "the only thing" you can't do is wrong.
The Oracle lawsuit demonstrates that Java is, in fact, a quagmire of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and it is neither free nor open.
No, it's not; it's a purely formal question: if you didn't come up with it yourself, you have to attribute it. It doesn't matter what academic discipline it is in. You usually don't need to be an expert in figuring out whether a passage is plagiarized or not; while there are some border cases, in many cases, it's pretty obvious. And the identity of the person finding these passages also doesn't matter.
A few plagiarized passages can be excused by accident, sloppiness or false memories, but at some point it crosses a line where deliberate plagiarism is the only plausible explanation. Schavan's thesis looks close to that line; we need to wait for the final tally to see whether it crosses it.
Plagiarism is a violation of standards of scientific conduct, no matter whether it affects the conclusions of the thesis or not. If there is significant plagiarism present in the thesis, she should lose her degree even if the thesis otherwise is sound.
A thesis is about describing your own, original, significant ideas and contributions to science. If you don't remember whether something is your own contribution or whether you saw it on a web page somewhere, it's probably not significant enough to put into a thesis in the first place.
Let's wait for a complete analysis; right now, we don't whether it's limited to a few isolated passages or more pervasive.
I have to say though: plagiarized or not, the thesis looks awful. People get Ph.D.'s for that kind of cr*p?
I'm pretty sure that if you got the price down to about $50, people would find a lot more uses for this, including sharing network connections with friends (in particular in rural areas), secure communications, and distributing access points. Not everybody lives in cities with otherwise excellent coverage.
Worse than that, they usually had their education and their post-doctoral work financed by public funds, and by that I don't mean competitive scholarships, but public funds specifically allocated to each political party to pay for raising the next generation of party officials. Parties have also been trying to get more power over their representatives in parliament, trying to prevent them from speaking out or voting against the party line. I wonder whether this system wasn't imported from East Germany as part of reunification.
But it's a dilemma: in the US, politicians often come in from having real careers, but they now need to raise so much money that they spend much of their time on it and lose some of their independence.
The web site lists a bunch of passages and analyzes them; I don't see anything "unfair" about that. It doesn't demand that the thesis be withdrawn and passes no judgment. On the other hand, once people get started, they tend to find more.
"Peer review" is a mechanism for vetting scientific results for publishing. It has little to do with adjudicating plagiarism claims. A university inquiry may also be held by "peers", but it's a different process. And plagiarism was very much a violation of rules of scientific conduct in 1980 already.
Having looked at some of the passages, there seem to be some improprieties there, but probably not yet enough to condemn the entire thesis. The thesis itself, however, looks like a bunch of b.s. to me. People get Ph.D.'s for such nonsense?
I don't see how knowing who makes the allegations of plagiarism makes it "difficult" to respond to the substance of the allegations. Who dug out these passages is not relevant to whether they are plagiarized.
Germany seems to have a serious problem with anonymous speech; it's already somewhat restricted, and politicians and other important figures are increasingly saying that anonymity and democracy are incompatible and seem to intend creating laws to restrict it further. I think it's Germany's totalitarian heritage: for nearly all of Germany's history, people in power have oppressed inconvenient speech via reprisals, and reprisals are still frequent in Germany today.
Java lacks multidimensional arrays, slicing, array ops, parallel loops, arrays of structures, usable numeric semantics, by-value passing, fast parameterized types, overloading, and tons more features that are pretty much required for numerical computing and that are impossible to provide well through libraries. Even when performance is no object, writing and debugging numerical Java code is cumbersome, and when performance matters, it's it makes you want to jump off a bridge (believe me, I have stood over that precipice). A line of efficient, natural C++ or Fortran 2008 code may take dozens of lines of equivalent Java code and still not run as fast, and often take orders of magnitude longer to write and debug.
There are Java-like languages for which what you say is true. For example, numerical computing in C# could be both fairly efficient and easy if people invested a bit more effort in the compilers and created decent libraries. But Java is singularly badly designed for numerical computing.