Anybody who saw pictures of American B-52's using GPS-guided bombs to dramatically reduce collateral damage (compare with WWII) should understand why we did not want anyone else to be able to use GPS against us.
If someone does bomb us, we want as much collateral damage as possible?
And a bunch of whiney civilians living in a make-believe world complaining about it should get shot at a couple of times and see how they feel about security and keeping a secret.
That's the first intelligent comment I've seen in this thread. Explain WHY! In fact, if you write a small program to strip the comments out and place them in a file, it should function effectively as your design documentation. (You do write design documentation, right?:)
If the name of the function doesn't make it obvious what the code is supposed to do, you need better naming of functions (as well as variables).
Re:From the "Reminds me of this classic prose" guy
on
Review: Harry Potter
·
· Score: 1
Ugh. My mother bought me some of "The Hardy Boys" -- it was years before I found out reading could actually be enjoyable... (thanks to R.A. Heinlein, after someone gave me "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", I read another 20 or so of his books within the couple years, then branched out).
If you want kids to start reading, you have to give them something enjoyable. Otherwise, they'll be turned off by the whole thing. I blame the kinds of English teachers I had in school for the number of people who don't read regularly...
I'm sure the Standard Model has endured way more than 400 tests.
Err, actually, this part of the standard model has not borne anywhere near that many tests. The number four comes to mind, two of which were not accurate enough to pinpoint this problem, and two of which have suggested it's wrong. So not, it has not in fact endured any testing on this particular issue. So far, it has failed every time. The only problem being, "every time" means roughly "twice", as I understand...
You're both forgetting to include acceleration and decleration time. You can't make a trip to Neptune AND BACK in six minutes at top speed the entire time without inertial nullifiers, which they probably haven't researched yet... (trying to remember how many research points you need to get inertial nullifiers -- it's been a while since I played MOO2 but I think it was pretty advanced tech...:)
Clue alert: Red Klingon blood is continuity. We've seen plenty of Klingon blood in Trek, and it has already been red except for the one movie with the fucked up continuity...
I'm afraid I missed the pilot, but I have to question this. Did every member of the crew declare himself or herself to be heterosexual at some point? If not, what makes you think they're all straight? The fact that you like to stereotype bisexuals and homosexuals and these people didn't fit your neat little stereotype?
I have a lot of gay and bi friends (about half of my friends, in fact). Okay, one or two of them you could probably tell right off. Most of them you could know for years without knowing this if they didn't come out and say it...
I think this was something from the books, but of course the books aren't canon.
In the series they never said this, but they do frequently portray Vulcan's and being uncomfortable with physical contact. One of my favorite Trek moments is when Nelix beams aboard Voyager for the first time. Upon greeting Tuvok, he gives him a big hug! Tuvok clearly does not look comfortable with this...
Changes from what's in the books are not "revisionist" -- the books aren't canon. Anything that doesn't appear on screen might as well be "Trek: The Alternate Universe"
That really wouldn't make any sense since the Romulans ARE Vulcans who split off from Vulcan, and thus would already have warp drive, and for thousands of years, yet.
Umm, no. There's nothing that prevents Romulans from splitting off from Vulcans without using warp drives. We've seen plenty of Trek episodes where cultures manage to cross interstellar space without using warp drives.
But we do know from TNG that Romulan drive technology is actually quite different from Federation/Klingon technology...
I hadn't heard that, but I'm not surprised. I've been working on compiling an interpretted LISP-like language I have, and halfway through designing the compiler I realized it was producing code that was very, very Forth-like. At the time I attributed this to the fact that the only compiler I'd written before was for a Forth-like language, but in retrospect I think it's just a very natural way to express this sort of thing...
Functional, side-effect-less programs and primitives
A side-effect-less program is a program that doesn't do anything. Fun research tool, but actually useful programs cannot satisfy this requirement, and thus lambda calculus returns to being effectively sequential...
Uh huh. People always complain about such and such programming language being "too hard to maintain", and when pressed they say it's "too hard to read the code". I get this from a couple of my coworkers a lot, since I code a lot of stuff in LISP-derived languages. I used to find this puzzling, since LISP is a heck of a lot cleaner and clearer than the C++ they favor. But I figured it out:
Any language you actually use is easy to read, understand, and maintain. Any you don't use as often is harder to read, understand, and maintain. It has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the language, it has to do with the user.
Except Smalltalk, of course. That really is hard to read or maintain.;)
Jokes aside, though, I always find criticisms of any language as "hard to read" or "hard to maintain" curious. It's obvious that the critic in question simply isn't familiar with enough different languages to have realized this is never a valid complaint against a language, it only speaks of your own unfamiliarity with it...
Refactorings which are easy in Java are horribly painful in C (because of
the lack of classes, for example)....
The reason? Java uses object orientation. C doesn't.
This I have to object to. Object oriented programming is a design
methodology, not a language feature. It's programmers that use
object orientation or not. You can write non-OOP programs in Java, and you
can write OOP programs in C. I learned OOP under C, in fact. The computer
I was using at the time didn't have any C++ compilers available for it. Not
that it matters -- C can easily support classes, (single) inheritence, and
polymorphism, and the syntax isn't that far off from C++. When a C++
compiler became available for that machine, I translated many of my C
programs to C++. The biggest change was removing the explicit "this"
parameter from function declarations (since C++ does the exact same thing
but does it implicitly), a task I easily accomplished with find and replace.
Anyhow, to make a long story short, if someone is doing it the "horribly
painful" way in C rather than the easy way they would have done it in Java,
that's their fault, not the C language's fault. If an object oriented
solution would work best, then code an object oriented solution, for crying
out loud! I'm starting to think OOP classes at universities ought to be
taught in C -- there are too many confused people that think if a language
doesn't have explicit syntactic-sugar for OOP concepts, they can't use those
concept in the language. I can't ever stress this enough: OOP is a
design methodology, not a language feature!
To pull this off, four planes had to be hijacked at precise times, and strike their targets in sequence.
Translation: The perps had to have access to advanced chronotechnology (watches) and training in their use (they knew how to tell time).
Sorry, but I'm getting a little sick of comments along these lines. On CNN earlier some idiot was talking about how the terrorists must have been piloting the planes, therefore they had to be pretty sophisticated to pilot a high-tech jet. Err, sorry, but although there's no way in hell I could get a 767 off the ground, or land it without making a large flaming disaster, get someone else to get the thing airborne and I could easily fly it into any sufficiently hard to miss target. Once they're in the air, they're not that hard to fly, assuming everything is and continues to work perfectly.
In any case, we don't know who did this, but they did not require planning above and beyond the capabilities of most groups, nor any particular sophistication or training. Maybe they were sophisticated, maybe not. Maybe the planned it for six months, maybe they planned it over the weekend. There's no real evidence one way or the other yet.
I seem to recall the last major terrorist attack in America (Oklahoma City) was caused by Americans. As you said, more investigation is definately needed. If we're going to wipe someone off the map, we need to makre sure it's the right someone...
Most American's are not the slightest bit interesting in being better than anyone else in the sense that you mean. We're more than happy to attempt to win any war on whatever terms the opponent sets. We're more than happy to become murderous unethical bastards in response to murderous unethical bastards. We call it "fighting fire with fire" and it's a favorite phrase and tactic among Americans.
Nietzsche warned, "beware when fighting monsters lest a monster ye become". American's response "let us show you what a real monster is..."
I wouldn't call this getting even, but it would prevent them from ever attacking again.
"Getting even" is not now nor has it ever been the point of any US response. That would serve no practical purpose. The point is to deter future attacks. This has worked in the past. It's not a perfect or permament solution (witness today's activities), but it often does work, somewhat, for a time...
The fact of the matter is, India would still be part of the British Empire if the English had had the stomach to commit the kinds of acts of brutal repression that some other people have done in history.
Gandhi was right to believe he could win his battles without violence. Had he been fighting a different battle, against a different enemy, his tactics would have needed to be different, or he would have lost.
The people who committed these acts are not squeemish. They don't have an island full of more or less ethical people who will react in horror and rage over what's being done. Gandhi shamed the British into giving up India. I doubt very much the people responsible for this attack feel much shame over what has been done...
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody who saw pictures of American B-52's using GPS-guided bombs to dramatically reduce collateral damage (compare with WWII) should understand why we did not want anyone else to be able to use GPS against us.
If someone does bomb us, we want as much collateral damage as possible?
And a bunch of whiney civilians living in a make-believe world complaining about it should get shot at a couple of times and see how they feel about security and keeping a secret.
Ah, yes, now I understand...
That's the first intelligent comment I've seen in this thread. Explain WHY! In fact, if you write a small program to strip the comments out and place them in a file, it should function effectively as your design documentation. (You do write design documentation, right? :)
If the name of the function doesn't make it obvious what the code is supposed to do, you need better naming of functions (as well as variables).
If you want kids to start reading, you have to give them something enjoyable. Otherwise, they'll be turned off by the whole thing. I blame the kinds of English teachers I had in school for the number of people who don't read regularly...
Err, actually, this part of the standard model has not borne anywhere near that many tests. The number four comes to mind, two of which were not accurate enough to pinpoint this problem, and two of which have suggested it's wrong. So not, it has not in fact endured any testing on this particular issue. So far, it has failed every time. The only problem being, "every time" means roughly "twice", as I understand...
It could be worse. Much much worse.
300:A9 07 4C ED FD
300G
If you just heard a particular frequency beep in your head, you know what I mean...
[Fighting desire to pull machine out of closet...]
You're both forgetting to include acceleration and decleration time. You can't make a trip to Neptune AND BACK in six minutes at top speed the entire time without inertial nullifiers, which they probably haven't researched yet... (trying to remember how many research points you need to get inertial nullifiers -- it's been a while since I played MOO2 but I think it was pretty advanced tech... :)
Clue alert: Red Klingon blood is continuity. We've seen plenty of Klingon blood in Trek, and it has already been red except for the one movie with the fucked up continuity...
I have a lot of gay and bi friends (about half of my friends, in fact). Okay, one or two of them you could probably tell right off. Most of them you could know for years without knowing this if they didn't come out and say it...
In the series they never said this, but they do frequently portray Vulcan's and being uncomfortable with physical contact. One of my favorite Trek moments is when Nelix beams aboard Voyager for the first time. Upon greeting Tuvok, he gives him a big hug! Tuvok clearly does not look comfortable with this...
Changes from what's in the books are not "revisionist" -- the books aren't canon. Anything that doesn't appear on screen might as well be "Trek: The Alternate Universe"
Remember how long Guinan's people live. When Guinan says "they'll be coming soon" it means within the next few centuries...
Umm, no. There's nothing that prevents Romulans from splitting off from Vulcans without using warp drives. We've seen plenty of Trek episodes where cultures manage to cross interstellar space without using warp drives.
But we do know from TNG that Romulan drive technology is actually quite different from Federation/Klingon technology...
I hadn't heard that, but I'm not surprised. I've been working on compiling an interpretted LISP-like language I have, and halfway through designing the compiler I realized it was producing code that was very, very Forth-like. At the time I attributed this to the fact that the only compiler I'd written before was for a Forth-like language, but in retrospect I think it's just a very natural way to express this sort of thing...
A side-effect-less program is a program that doesn't do anything. Fun research tool, but actually useful programs cannot satisfy this requirement, and thus lambda calculus returns to being effectively sequential...
Any language you actually use is easy to read, understand, and maintain. Any you don't use as often is harder to read, understand, and maintain. It has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the language, it has to do with the user.
Except Smalltalk, of course. That really is hard to read or maintain. ;)
Jokes aside, though, I always find criticisms of any language as "hard to read" or "hard to maintain" curious. It's obvious that the critic in question simply isn't familiar with enough different languages to have realized this is never a valid complaint against a language, it only speaks of your own unfamiliarity with it...
The reason? Java uses object orientation. C doesn't.
This I have to object to. Object oriented programming is a design methodology, not a language feature. It's programmers that use object orientation or not. You can write non-OOP programs in Java, and you can write OOP programs in C. I learned OOP under C, in fact. The computer I was using at the time didn't have any C++ compilers available for it. Not that it matters -- C can easily support classes, (single) inheritence, and polymorphism, and the syntax isn't that far off from C++. When a C++ compiler became available for that machine, I translated many of my C programs to C++. The biggest change was removing the explicit "this" parameter from function declarations (since C++ does the exact same thing but does it implicitly), a task I easily accomplished with find and replace.
Anyhow, to make a long story short, if someone is doing it the "horribly painful" way in C rather than the easy way they would have done it in Java, that's their fault, not the C language's fault. If an object oriented solution would work best, then code an object oriented solution, for crying out loud! I'm starting to think OOP classes at universities ought to be taught in C -- there are too many confused people that think if a language doesn't have explicit syntactic-sugar for OOP concepts, they can't use those concept in the language. I can't ever stress this enough: OOP is a design methodology, not a language feature!
Translation: The perps had to have access to advanced chronotechnology (watches) and training in their use (they knew how to tell time).
Sorry, but I'm getting a little sick of comments along these lines. On CNN earlier some idiot was talking about how the terrorists must have been piloting the planes, therefore they had to be pretty sophisticated to pilot a high-tech jet. Err, sorry, but although there's no way in hell I could get a 767 off the ground, or land it without making a large flaming disaster, get someone else to get the thing airborne and I could easily fly it into any sufficiently hard to miss target. Once they're in the air, they're not that hard to fly, assuming everything is and continues to work perfectly.
In any case, we don't know who did this, but they did not require planning above and beyond the capabilities of most groups, nor any particular sophistication or training. Maybe they were sophisticated, maybe not. Maybe the planned it for six months, maybe they planned it over the weekend. There's no real evidence one way or the other yet.
Which is interesting, since the Navajo have more cause to hate the U.S. than anyone in the middle east...
"Wee! Now I can flatten bullets against body armor faster than ever before!"
I seem to recall the last major terrorist attack in America (Oklahoma City) was caused by Americans. As you said, more investigation is definately needed. If we're going to wipe someone off the map, we need to makre sure it's the right someone...
Partisan politics sucks. Of course, I voted for Nader...
Most American's are not the slightest bit interesting in being better than anyone else in the sense that you mean. We're more than happy to attempt to win any war on whatever terms the opponent sets. We're more than happy to become murderous unethical bastards in response to murderous unethical bastards. We call it "fighting fire with fire" and it's a favorite phrase and tactic among Americans.
Nietzsche warned, "beware when fighting monsters lest a monster ye become". American's response "let us show you what a real monster is..."
I wouldn't call this getting even, but it would prevent them from ever attacking again.
"Getting even" is not now nor has it ever been the point of any US response. That would serve no practical purpose. The point is to deter future attacks. This has worked in the past. It's not a perfect or permament solution (witness today's activities), but it often does work, somewhat, for a time...
Gandhi was right to believe he could win his battles without violence. Had he been fighting a different battle, against a different enemy, his tactics would have needed to be different, or he would have lost.
The people who committed these acts are not squeemish. They don't have an island full of more or less ethical people who will react in horror and rage over what's being done. Gandhi shamed the British into giving up India. I doubt very much the people responsible for this attack feel much shame over what has been done...