Thats just rediculous. Why is sorting information by user any better than by protocol? While i agree by protocol isnt usually the best way, what you need is a sort by X. If I am having a mutliple person email discussion on some technical topic I dont want to have to remember the 17 different people that are in the discussion, i want to sort by topic. Outlook lets me do this. If this can extend to include other protocols... cool. But don't tell me there is a new single way to arrange data. That is worthless.
Conceded Facts: 1) "The BSA figures everyone would like an ocean front home" 2) "hardly anyone buys ocean front homes" is true when compared to the "everyone" from #1
Illogical Conclusion: "difference between demanded homes and bought homes are pirated"
There are a fixed number (at a given point in time) of ocean front homes. The number of bought ocean front homes is probably nearly identical to this fixed number. Therefore, there is little to no piracy. The desire of an ocean front home cannot yield the piracy of one.
The problem is that digital software can be exactly duplicated; this is not true for ocean front homes. Just because it is illogical to correlate desire to piracy for real world physical objects, does not mean it is for things like software.
I seem to recall this argument over 5 years ago from an article read in undergrad philosophy. I can't seem to find it, but I know this is not a new idea.
I want one that also tracks hungry, angry bears and emits a loud noise when it senses their proximity
Who needs that; I'd rather pay my Bear Patrol Tax. And while I'm at it, I think I'll pick one of those Tiger Deterant Rocks.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
The objective is to create a syntax which is the simplest way to convey the semantics of the program.
Do you see mathematicians "evolving" into using natural language? "Four plus four times two divided by three"
I highly doubt it. Natural language is not the best way to describe math, nor is it the best way to describe computer programs.
While I am positive we will have excellent natural language user interfaces for programs in the future, this is only because the end user doesn't want to learn a new, more expressive language, he wants to use what he knows (English).
This is the very nature of abstraction. Abstraction inherently causes loss of expressiveness.
I don't want to "speak" my program to my computer, I want to describe the algorithm in the most expressive and elgant way.
If you are serious about "waiting for this release for quite some time!" you should look into using the stable development releases.
I have been using 2.1 for many months now. And since I use it every day, all day, I can point out the bugs early on, and make sure they don't still exist by the time it goes into release.
For the most part you will find the Stable builds are indeed very stable.
Just because you can bypass the built-in safety features of a language, doesn't mean you should. Dynamic behaviors are very difficult to maintain and understand inherantly; it is difficult to understand them from a static analysis (reading the code).
If you find yourself needing to do that all over the place, either: 1) you don't know how to design properly or 2) you should be using a scripting language.
from what I have read about it and how it works, I think think the indirection it adds may create some bugs which are very difficult to track down.
I suppose I agree with one of the main axioms, which states it is inevitable that a properly deisgned OO program will have some methods which are scattered throughout many classes. What I have not been convinced of, is that good design is not sufficent to minimize these to a level at which they are more easily managed by "cross-cutting" than good refatoring tools and practices.
Otherwise we may find ourselves needing to go to war over terriorialy and resource-related disputes. I am glad all it takes is a document to keep everyone in line. Maybe we should try some of these declarations here on Earth...
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could read the summary and know that you can put a CD in your tray and restart. Or is it easier to go to the store and buy one game?
Next they need these at their homes so they need never leave thier trucks.
Thats just rediculous. Why is sorting information by user any better than by protocol? While i agree by protocol isnt usually the best way, what you need is a sort by X. If I am having a mutliple person email discussion on some technical topic I dont want to have to remember the 17 different people that are in the discussion, i want to sort by topic. Outlook lets me do this. If this can extend to include other protocols... cool. But don't tell me there is a new single way to arrange data. That is worthless.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020210150513/http://h aystack.lcs.mit.edu/index.html
This analogy is false.
Conceded Facts:
1) "The BSA figures everyone would like an ocean front home"
2) "hardly anyone buys ocean front homes" is true when compared to the "everyone" from #1
Illogical Conclusion:
"difference between demanded homes and bought homes are pirated"
There are a fixed number (at a given point in time) of ocean front homes. The number of bought ocean front homes is probably nearly identical to this fixed number. Therefore, there is little to no piracy. The desire of an ocean front home cannot yield the piracy of one.
The problem is that digital software can be exactly duplicated; this is not true for ocean front homes. Just because it is illogical to correlate desire to piracy for real world physical objects, does not mean it is for things like software.
Scott
I seem to recall this argument over 5 years ago from an article read in undergrad philosophy. I can't seem to find it, but I know this is not a new idea.
Anyone else heard of this before?
"I guess it's like knowing the root password, but not having a shell or any other way of making use of it. :-) "
Isn't it more like knowing that root is the account you want, but not knowing the password?
Scott
lets just watch more TV. When is some one gonna post a webcast of this so I don't have to read it?
Its called creative analysis... why don't you just read the Cliff Notes?
I want one that also tracks hungry, angry bears and emits a loud noise when it senses their proximity
Who needs that; I'd rather pay my Bear Patrol Tax. And while I'm at it, I think I'll pick one of those Tiger Deterant Rocks.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Wahtz wit all dem dare beg werdz an stuf?
The objective is to create a syntax which is the simplest way to convey the semantics of the program.
Do you see mathematicians "evolving" into using natural language?
"Four plus four times two divided by three"
I highly doubt it. Natural language is not the best way to describe math, nor is it the best way to describe computer programs.
While I am positive we will have excellent natural language user interfaces for programs in the future, this is only because the end user doesn't want to learn a new, more expressive language, he wants to use what he knows (English).
This is the very nature of abstraction. Abstraction inherently causes loss of expressiveness.
I don't want to "speak" my program to my computer, I want to describe the algorithm in the most expressive and elgant way.
Scott
unfortunately I dont see any revolutionary ideas here. They seem to simply be rehashing old ideas. oooowww the pointers point to qbits. wow!
When I'm programming my quantam computer I better not be allocating registers (arrays) of qbits.
As quantum computation is a completly new computing platform, so do we need completely new ways to describe computation.
If you are serious about "waiting for this release for quite some time!" you should look into using the stable development releases.
I have been using 2.1 for many months now.
And since I use it every day, all day, I can point out the bugs early on, and make sure they don't still exist by the time it goes into release.
For the most part you will find the Stable builds are indeed very stable.
Scott
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe= UTF-8&q=Google+IPO&sa=N&tab=wn
Going around in circles and ending up in the opposite direction.?
I think you mean 540.
Sorry. Self-references are only funny on Friday.
Scott
No. I think he meant 720.
Going around in circles and ending up in the opposite direction.
MacOS Y: The missing Operating System?
Scott
Actually you should "start by" reading your employeement contract. Chances are you signed away any such right when you started your job.
Scott
Care to shed some light on the seemingly unaware shadow-dwellers why "Obviously in a few months they're going to end free updates"?
Or is this pure speculation?
Scott
Hmm... Sony certainly has an interesting strategy for denying this!
Scott
Yet another /. idea to avoid doing what they should.
Cmon guys... just because slashcode is a series of hacks ontop of hacks, doesn't mean the site itself should be.
Scott
Just because you can bypass the built-in safety features of a language, doesn't mean you should. Dynamic behaviors are very difficult to maintain and understand inherantly; it is difficult to understand them from a static analysis (reading the code).
If you find yourself needing to do that all over the place, either: 1) you don't know how to design properly or 2) you should be using a scripting language.
Scott
from what I have read about it and how it works, I think think the indirection it adds may create some bugs which are very difficult to track down.
I suppose I agree with one of the main axioms, which states it is inevitable that a properly deisgned OO program will have some methods which are scattered throughout many classes. What I have not been convinced of, is that good design is not sufficent to minimize these to a level at which they are more easily managed by "cross-cutting" than good refatoring tools and practices.
Anyone have 2 cents?
Scott
international doctrine.
Otherwise we may find ourselves needing to go to war over terriorialy and resource-related disputes. I am glad all it takes is a document to keep everyone in line. Maybe we should try some of these declarations here on Earth...
Scott
Dont you mean CDRW-ROM