Way offtopic here, but I've got Slashdot Karma to burn.
In the strictest sense, Catholics are Christians. They believe:
"...in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead..."
This, from the Apostles Creed, recited by Catholics. This is actually from the "modern" version - I remember actually reciting the Traditional version when I was a Catholic.
All Christians would agree with those phrases from the Creed.
The problem that other Christians have is that some Catholic beliefs contradict the Bible, which most Cristians believe is without flaw (including Catholics).
Problems include: "Intercessory prayer", in which one prays to Mary, or one of the other Saints to "intercede" for them, rather than praying directly to God. The Bible does not mention this behavior, and commands us to pray only to the one, true God (the holy trinity of the Fater, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are as one). In addition, the Catholics believe that one is addmitted into heaven on the basis of good works, rather than faith alone. The Bible does not agree. Catholics believe that sins are forgiven though a priest in confession (again in a sort of intercession to God). The Bible says that only God has the power to forgive all sins. At least a few other major problems exist, but I won't go into an exhaustive list here.
Many of these beliefs did not exist in the early Christian church. The process of "indulgences" in which one bought "get out of jail free cards" from Catholic priests, so that they could freely sin did not emerge until the middle ages. In fact, it is indulgences primarly (along with other corruptions in the Catholic church) that caused the great schism (or the Protestant Reformation, depending on who you're talking to). Luther posted the 95 theses as a formal protest against the ways of the Catholic church. This made public the growing protest of many priests against the ways of the Catholic church.
Some of the things which Luther protested against, such as the reciting of Mass in Latin, which was not understood in his native Germany (or to almost anyone outside the priesthood), and especially indulgences, have since been revised by the Catholic church. Others have not.
In closing, to say that the "Catholic Church is genetically "more christian"" may be true, but is useless. The Catholic church is an institution. Institutions can and will become corrupted by men, especially those who believe themselves infallible (Catholics believe the Pope is infallible - other Christians do not).
So I say your logic is flawed, for it does not account for corruption.
Many Christians think of the Catholics as not being truly Christian, because their beliefs contradict the Bible.
I remember overhearing a conversation one time at a graduation party for a friend of mine (got his MBA).
Anyway, one guy there was talking about some programming project he was working on. (Some kind of front end GUI for something is what it sounded like.) Wanting to quickly ascertain whether this guy knew what he was doing, or was just another joker, I asked him this question:
"Oh, so you're in software development then?"
His answer:
"No, I'm in IT."
I had my answer.
Honestly, the only ones confused about the IT moniker are management. I would never call myself an IT worker. I don't think many self respecting CS degree holders (or for that matter, any serious developers) would. I use the terms "Software Engineer" or "Applications Developer". If I'm asked to classify my job, I always look for Computer Software or the like, and avoid the Information Technology option.
There is nothing wrong with the IT moniker, it just needs to be used more consistently to describe Support Reps, VB+Access Coders, and other true IT jobs. Using it to describe OOP software development is a disservice to everyone.
"One will be a full 3D animation series (with 30-minute episodes) of the recent Cartoon Network Clone Wars shorts, and the other a live-action series, that will be set in the time between Episodes III and IV, but won't feature the main characters."
You misspelled "an unmitigated disaster".
Re:Software devel. could learn from Blizzard.
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
Although Blizzard does do extensive in-house testing, the testing phase that makes their products really stand out cannot always be applied to other areas. Specifically, I'm referring to their extensive beta testing program.
Blizzard has a large advantage because their applications are not mission critical. If you lose your level 35 warrior, no big deal, its a beta and they told you that might happen. Even though they are running in a "production" environment, people can't get too upset because ITS A GAME.
This is not so in many other areas. You can't say, "please use our new beta financial software to automatically manage your accounts", then have people lose millions. Or, "we're releasing a beta of our new tumor irradiating program, try it out"! Obviously, many applications aren't as critical as these, but my point is that betas the way Blizzard does betas aren't always feasible in other arenas.
Betas in the business world are tricky, and often not all that effective. If you tell people to use your beta in addition to whatever they're currently doing, you've added to their work load. Since the beta isn't really in production in that scenario, the users don't have any incentive to track what its doing carefully. But if you tell people to switch over and run your beta in production, there will be hell to pay when things go wrong.
Blizzards beta testing period is what really gives their products the polish and last few critical bug fixes before they roll them out. The unfortunate thing is that not all software products can follow the Blizzard model.
Languages are a tool - and each tool has its own use. You shouldn't use a screwdriver to pound a nail, as it were. Because even though you might get it to work, you're putting more effort into it than you really need to.
To me, PHP is great for small, agile projects - ones that need to be designed and written quickly, and require a lot of changes to the code to happen throughout implementation.
I think OO PHP isn't all bad - being able to compartmentalize your code for reuse and complexity reduction is great.
My concern, however, is that people will start to look at PHP as an enterprise level language, which in my opinion, it isn't. Every PHP project that I've worked on started to break down after a certain level of complexity. I think part of this was due to the lack of Object Orientation, but I think part of it was also the nature of the language itself. I'll be interested to see what IBM can do with PHP, but lets just say I don't envy their guys if they're trying to switch their enterprise level development to use it.
1. The PDF chart lists.Net as a separate item and links each of the supported MS languages to it. I think this is an accurate representation.
2. ASP = VB6. You could include ASP as an offshoot of Visual Basic if you like, but it has exactly the same snytax. The real changes came with VB.Net, which is included in both charts.
3. Dylan is included in the PDF chart as an offshoot of C++ and CLOS.
4. Nope, no Hypercard.
5. I suppose so. I don't really have any comment other than I'm not sure how legitimate sh is as a actual language.
6. Erlang is included in the PDF chart as an offshoot of Prolog and Common Lisp.
7. I don't see Cilk on either chart, which is funny since I'd actually heard of it before today. One could probably argue that it isn't different enough from standard C, but I think the implications of parallelism are probably enough to merit its own place on the chart.
8. Mercury is included in the PDF chart as an offshoot of Haskell, SML 90, and CLOS.
9. Funny, but you almost could do that... Is there any library or language that hasn't been grafted onto Perl at this point?
According to wikipedia, the "commercial variant" of Flow-Matic started in 1955. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOW-MATIC Wikipedia lists FORTRAN as being developed in 1954-1957. However, the forbears of Flow-Matic definitely preceed FORTRAN, as you'll see below:
B-0 was the original name of Flow-Matic. More interesting perhaps is that both owe influence from A-0, a language developed for the Univac I, and the first language to have a compiler. (Flow-Matic was also developed for the Univac I.) For that reason alone, the tree should probably include it. (Perhaps even as the "root" of the modern languages.) One could argue that the inclusion of Flow-Matic on the chart encompasses A-0, although I would argue that A-0 should probably simply replace B-0 on the chart, since Flow-Matic and B-0 are one and the same.
"You left just when you were beginning to get interesting."
Seems like this show is finally starting to gain some momentum. Too bad the never-ending moronic Xindi plot had already killed the show.
I think all the interesting parts of the Xindi story arc honestly could have been compressed into about 3 episodes.
And WTF was up with the "Beauty and the Beast" episode complete with medieval sytle castle? Ugh, what a disaster that was. Probably lost 40% of what was left of their viewership on that episode alone.
Still, once that lame arc finally completed, there have been a few interesting episodes. They're finally getting back to actually exploring the galaxy, rather than hunting "Osma in space". They've had some interesting characters, and getting into dealing with the implications of a lot of "cutting edge" technology happening at that point in the Trek timeline. Some promise there, but nobody's watching anymore. Well, except me, which apparently puts me in the minority of even the geeky slashdot crowd. Scary.
The main reason being that most of the people pirating windows XP are above average computer users.
Your average Joe doesn't pirate XP because: 1) He didn't know you could 2) He likes the safe, secure feeling that having support gives him (until he actually has to call them:) 3) He's not technically literate enough to build and install a pirated copy.
The portion of the XP population that would most strongly be driven towards macs (users who are less computer literate) own legal copies of XP.
Users who have pirated copies of XP are looking for the lowest cost OS. They choose XP because MS dominates the market, so all the stuff they want to run is available. These users are likely to choose linux if they realize that an insecure system is not worth running, because they'll go to the lowest cost secure OS that runs on their current hardware.
I agree, Base Wars is a truly outstanding game. Really innovative, and a lot of fun without having to resort to authentic licensed players.
The "build your team" aspect of it is really the reason for this, since you can customize your players names, as well as the equipment you buy for them.
That era also resulted in another great baseball game: Baseball Simulator 1.000 for the NES. (And Super Baseball Simulator 1.000 for the SNES) Similar to Base Wars, well except for the players aren't robots. And Ultra Plays allow for zany things to happen.
* Hyper Hit (9) - Home run on contact * Missile Hit (5) - line drive which will pin fielders in its path against the outfield wall * Tremor Hit (4) - causes an earthquake when the ball hits the ground
... and many more, including power ups for pitching also.
You know, your point is actually valid. I think everyone looks back and regrets that they didn't really do anything during high school. But you have to ask yourself, at the maturity level you at in high school, would you actually have had the drive to engage yourself in something without external stimuli?
I think thats the hurdle that people cross when they truly become adults, that they realize they have to have an internal drive if they want to get somewhere. No one is going to come to you and hand you an interesting project to work on. You have to seek it out yourself.
Some people never cross this threshold. Though they have the bodies of adults, they're really children inside, simply reacting to circumstances instead of trying to shape their life. I see a lot of these people every day.
I work in a tight knit team of programmers who all have great drive to work on interesting projects. But we're the minority at the campus we work at, where most employees are working in the call center. The break room discussions I've heard would not be out of place in high school. So and so is seeing that hot guy (or girl). I got blasted last night and slept with my ex (boyfriend, girlfriend). I'm so excited to go to this party tonight, I'm going to get blasted. On and on and on. Nothing about, I'm going to school in my spare time. Or, I finished a project on my house. Nope, just pointless relationships and where's the next party and crap like that.
Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, except that there is a certain level of maturity needed to become a self-motivator. Maybe some are ready for this in high school, but many are not.
Still, regardless, its not a bad message to spread to high schoolers that it doesn't have to be that way.
Because school is about rote memorization and the ability of the student to repeat what they are told.
Ever wonder why so many students complain how "word problems are so hard"? Because schools teach memorization, not problem solving.
They teach: if the problem looks like example_1 then use equation_alpha to solve it. Nothing on why equation alpha works, or the history of equation alpha - there simply isn't time for that sort of thing.
Fortunately it gets somewhat better in college, but even then I pity the poor fool who questions his professor. Teachers are all knowing! Do not question the teacher! Now memorize another equation that includes 10 greek characters because I said so.
Stinking greek characters. I'm glad I've got my degree so I don't have to write that damn squiggly S anymore unless I have an actual use for the thing. Take your lambda and pi and theta and shove 'em, I say.
Sorry, please go back to your regularly scheduled memorization.
Lucky me, I kept my TI-85. First of all, its a great calculator, and very durable because of the plastic cover. My parents complained when I asked (make that begged) them to get me one in high school, but I think if they knew the use I'd gotten out of it, they'd be proud of the investment. Its outlasted many other calculators that I've had since that time.
It also pretty much launched my career in comp sci. I loved video games and computers as a kid (built my first computer, a 486, from some cast off parts). But the TI allowed me to write my own games. Sure, the TI BASIC interpreter was slow as hell, and the calculator didn't have enough memory to code anything really cool, but I did manage to write at least 10 games for the thing. A number guessing game, a blackjack program, even a highly simplified version of Armor Alley (which really was more like an airborne Moon Patrol than anything else). Still, it featured a climactic battle against an evil enemy helicopter, which was pretty neat considering I didn't know hardly anything about programming at the time.
I plan on using the calculator as a tool to introduce my son to programming. He's 2 and a half now, but someday he'll get interested in games. And when he does, I'll be sure to quickly dispel the "magic" that surrounds their creation, and show him how he can even create his own.
As for your brothers-in-law, you may want to look for a BASIC interpreter, and write (or "find") a couple simple BASIC games that they can modify. Sure, they aren't rocket science, but the fact that you can toy with their innards and make them do other things is what gets people started. All they need after that is a BASIC manual, and maybe some helpful pointers. If they have the right mindset, they'll get excited about it, you won't be able to stop them! (Just wind them up and watch them go, as it were.)
I think the lack of amazement at computers these days is twofold: 1) Computers are everywhere. Everybody has one. They're just ordinary tools to people now. 2) Computer programming has gotten very high level, and very "untouchable" to the average person. Consoles make this problem even worse. You can't just sit down and code Quake Eighteen in a couple nights. Heck, even the mods take a person with a lot of programming skill a long time to complete.
Good luck. (And if you're really desperate, start looking for a TI-82 on ebay:)
I can tell you that I, for one, will not be buying ANY EA sports titles for the next 5 years. Furthermore, if I receive any as a gift, I will return them.
I simply refuse to support these strong-armed tactics from EA. That corporation is rife with slimeballs. Just take a look at what they're doing to their employees - they're going to be sued over some of their practices. http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_61129 98.html If they can't be trusted to treat their own employees with respect, I certainly don't think you can expect them to do so with their consumers.
The next 5 years looks like a very dark time for football games. My only hope is that the Sega/ESPN franchise works around this problem by allowing players to swap player created rosters online.
EA officials say that development of Madden won't stangnate, but I say that's bull. Why bother to innovate when all you have to do is release the same game with updated rosters every year? Honestly its like they're being allowed to exclusively lease a money printing machine.
I'll be purchasing alternative products, and I encourage others to do the same. Don't support these monopolistic tactics.
Totally agree with you here - this problem seems especially epidemic in image editing software. For instance, in some (older) versions of photoshop, you might want to use layers, given that apparently using the Undo option more than once is a foreign concept to the image editing gurus who created it. (Though I still have to admit that layers are cool, and very, very useful.)
If you open a "flat" image, such as you might find on the internet or from your digital camera or from a scan or pretty much anywhere else, the program will not you use any layer functionality, greying out the menu items. It would have been nice to know that I had to save the image into a format which supported layers, then change the color depth via 14 nested menus, then hold my nose while standing on my head for 64.7 seconds, rather than having to look it up on the internet, or worse, attempting to find the magic combination via the not-so-helpful Help menu.
So at least for the more esoteric menu disabling combinations, I completely agree that some information about why the option is disabled would be an extremely good idea. One whose time should have come long ago.
They can keep it. Just stow it away in a vault. We don't want it.
No more horrible 3D clunkers with camera problems.
No more Age of Empires with Star Wars skins (what an atrocity that was).
I'm with another poster, lets have a GTA 3 style game. One where I can choose to be good or evil. One where I can use my Jedi powers to beat down anybody who gets in my way, or fight for truth, justice, and the new republic way.
Just give me an open ended environment and let me do whatever I want. Maybe I'll use Jedi mind tricks to cheat at Pazaak.
Well please, this time, can we not have missles be able to hit fighters? Or at least limit the amount of missles available? Because it just got out of hand, with missle gunboats holding dozens of missles, then calling for a reloading ship and shooting off dozens more. I realize you could shoot missles down, but they were just irritating, and unbalanced the series. Some missions were nearly impossible to complete because you had to spend the whole time shooting down missles.
Bring back Tie Fighter, I agree. But lets keep it true to the movies, with World War II type combat, not modern style combat.
The next logical step in this is likely to be a Tit for Tat program which starts off by imitating the "code" of the Master Slave, identifying itself as the Master. If the other program does not play along after a certain number of moves, it makes a cooperate move and ignores the move that the other program makes, in order to "seed" a Tit for Tat. Then it goes into Tit for Tat mode.
This program would take slight losses in some cases, but would likely come out ahead of Southampton due to its ability to cooperate with Tit for Tat.
In fact, I'm surprised that Southampton didn't choose to start their "code" with cooperations to test for Tit for Tat first. Southamptons entries could make a suspicious defect in response to the cooperate at some point to initiate the code. The "Master" entries could have had a higher score by cooperating with any entries that always cooperate, such as Tit for Tat will as long as it is not betrayed.
They're called 'parking brakes' on the continent, because they tend to lock the back wheels solid if you pull them on in an emergency. Meaning we use them for parking rather than skating around in doughnuts on busy urban streets.
Clearly then, on the "continent", you are not using your e-brake to its full potential.
Re:MUCH Stiffer Penalties Needed!
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 1
Reform versus Penalize has been an ongoing debate for a long time now. Longer than you or I have been alive, I can assure you. It is not limited to the way prisons are operated in the USA vs Canada or "many other parts of the world for that matter".
To characterize the US penal system as being used soley as a punishment and deterrent is rediculous. The US system attempts to strike a balance between penalization and rehabilitation, as most civilized countries do. Perhaps the US system falls more towards the side of penalization, but thats a matter of degrees, and not central to the debate.
I think its really the death penalty that you're debating here. Whether it is right to kill someone for their crimes or simply lock them away until they die. Because even in Canada, the sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" exists. I'll bet you even have multiple life sentences. To suggest that Canadians would give a second chance to a convicted serial killer and/or rapist is rediculous. We all know that person will be eliminated from society for the duration of their life in any penal system that offers any sense of justice. The only question is the means. Will the death be natural or artificial?
I consider myself on the fence of this debate. I don't really care one way or another. My biggest qualm is that, if you kill someone, they cannot be given even part of their life back if they are later found innocent.
So I disagree with both of you. Prison IS about reform, though that is not the primary focus in the US penal system. The Canadian system, great as though it may be, is not without its flaws. To characterize the Canadian penal system as being soley reformational, and that punishment is some sort of side effect, is just as rediculous as saying that prison is only about punishment and deterrent.
To put it simply, there isn't an easy answer. Statistics show that most criminals will commit a crime and return to prison after their release. Nor is prison, even the death penalty, an effective deterrent. Prisons are neither very good at deterring crime, nor very good at rehabilitation of criminals. The one thing they do effectively is to eliminate individuals that are harmful to a society from that society.
Appropriate subtitle for the Ewok Adventure movie.
Was it just me, or did it seem like the family crashed their intragalactic RV? Even when I was 10 years old watching this thing, I had the following thought: These guys are the trailer trash of the star wars universe.
When I was 10, these were good movies. Somehow I would imagine they hold up as well as my favorite show when I was a kid: The Dukes of Hazzard. That is to say, not well at all. I'm not even sure if I want to find out at this point. It think I'll stick with nostalgia and continue to delude myself that these were good films.
Besides, all the suspense is gone - I know that there won't be any tornado to suck them, along with their little furball friends, into the sky.
For the sub launch, another poster helpfully posted the following information: Near Earth, Solar Sails are particularly suited for high orbital inclination satellite missions. Weather forecasting and global positioning systems would directly benefit from satellites orbiting the poles. Most satellites take advantage of the natural speed of Earth's rotation to boost them into an orbit relatively close to the equatorial plane. Changing the plane requires a large fuel burn for a conventional rocket and greatly increases launch costs. With its small but continuous thrust, a solar sail can reach polar orbits without a massive fuel payload, making them more accessible to scientific research.
It would appear that the scientists want to insert the satellite into a polar orbit, which is confirmed by the fact that the launch point will be the Barents Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean. Since this location is a rather inhospitable region for a conventional launch, the scientists have rather ingeniously selected a submarine launch. The Russian military is highly likely to be the provider making this available for a "reasonable" price, since the mission is scientific in nature. Thus it poses no threat to them, while providing profit where it is much needed.
The reason for using a ballistic missle is that Russia is brimming with extra ballistic missles. They've been decommisioning hundreds, if not thousands of former nuclear missles over the last couple decades. This does not mean they've destroyed the entire missle, merely that the nuclear warheads have been removed, and they're no longer housed in silos or subs for launch against other countries. Since the rockets were designed to carry nuclear payloads, they are both powerful and highly reliable. This obviously makes them an ideal platform for carrying anything into orbit which they can be fitted to carry.
This situation is really a win-win propostion. The scientists get a powerful, highly reliable launch platform and rocket in an inhospitable launch location for likely a rather sweet price. The Russian military gets rid of a decommisoned rocket they just had laying around anyway, and gets to run one of their subs through a launch test complete with the actual launching of a rocket, plus they make a profit on the deal.
I think both of these questions can easily be addressed.
The reason for using a ballistic missle is that Russia is brimming with extra ballistic missles. They've been decommisioning hundreds, if not thousands of former nuclear missles over the last couple decades. This does not mean they've destroyed the entire missle, merely that the nuclear warheads have been removed, and they're no longer housed in silos or subs for launch against other countries. Since the rockets were designed to carry nuclear payloads, they are both powerful and highly reliable. This obviously makes them an ideal platform for carrying anything into orbit which they can be fitted to carry.
As for the sub launch, another poster helpfully posted the following information: Near Earth, Solar Sails are particularly suited for high orbital inclination satellite missions. Weather forecasting and global positioning systems would directly benefit from satellites orbiting the poles. Most satellites take advantage of the natural speed of Earth's rotation to boost them into an orbit relatively close to the equatorial plane. Changing the plane requires a large fuel burn for a conventional rocket and greatly increases launch costs. With its small but continuous thrust, a solar sail can reach polar orbits without a massive fuel payload, making them more accessible to scientific research.
It would appear that the scientists want to insert the satellite into a polar orbit, which is confirmed by the fact that the launch point will be the Barents Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean. Since this location is a rather inhospitable region for a conventional launch, the scientists have rather ingeniously selected a submarine launch. Again, the Russian military is highly likely to be the provider making this available for a "reasonable" price, since the mission is scientific in nature. Thus it poses no threat to them, while providing profit where it is much needed.
This situation is really a win-win propostion. The scientists get a powerful, highly reliable launch platform and rocket in an inhospitable launch location for likely a rather sweet price. The Russian military gets rid of a decommisoned rocket they just had laying around anyway, and gets to run one of their subs through a launch test complete with the actual launching of a rocket, plus they make a profit on the deal.
Noone gets a degree in CS because they are a true geek and they love programming.
I did.
Yes, what you learn in any CS program is going to be behind the times of whats out there on the cutting edge. But how do you get to cutting edge knowledge? You have to start somewhere, and I truly believe that if you want to really understand the founding principles of computing that a good CS program is the place to go. Once you've gotten that solid foundation, you can get out to the bleeding edge, by either going out into the right place in the industry or by pursuing a masters.
Some folks do as little work as possible going through a CS program, and those who skate through retain very little knowledge. But I know that doesn't reflect on 100% of people with CS degrees because I happen to have one.
I do find it very disappointing though that the promise of a payoff isn't in fact paying off. Just last week I contacted my agent...
First of all, this sounds like a problem specific to the company you work for. I suggest you start looking elsewhere, since your company apparently does not understand that your market value has changed. Unless you're already salaried at a reasonable rate, in which case I'd say that they'd be justified, having esentially overpaid you during the time you've been there so far.
Slashdot Mirror
Way offtopic here, but I've got Slashdot Karma to burn.
In the strictest sense, Catholics are Christians. They believe:
"...in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead..."
This, from the Apostles Creed, recited by Catholics. This is actually from the "modern" version - I remember actually reciting the Traditional version when I was a Catholic.
All Christians would agree with those phrases from the Creed.
The problem that other Christians have is that some Catholic beliefs contradict the Bible, which most Cristians believe is without flaw (including Catholics).
Problems include:
"Intercessory prayer", in which one prays to Mary, or one of the other Saints to "intercede" for them, rather than praying directly to God. The Bible does not mention this behavior, and commands us to pray only to the one, true God (the holy trinity of the Fater, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are as one). In addition, the Catholics believe that one is addmitted into heaven on the basis of good works, rather than faith alone. The Bible does not agree. Catholics believe that sins are forgiven though a priest in confession (again in a sort of intercession to God). The Bible says that only God has the power to forgive all sins. At least a few other major problems exist, but I won't go into an exhaustive list here.
Many of these beliefs did not exist in the early Christian church. The process of "indulgences" in which one bought "get out of jail free cards" from Catholic priests, so that they could freely sin did not emerge until the middle ages. In fact, it is indulgences primarly (along with other corruptions in the Catholic church) that caused the great schism (or the Protestant Reformation, depending on who you're talking to). Luther posted the 95 theses as a formal protest against the ways of the Catholic church. This made public the growing protest of many priests against the ways of the Catholic church.
Some of the things which Luther protested against, such as the reciting of Mass in Latin, which was not understood in his native Germany (or to almost anyone outside the priesthood), and especially indulgences, have since been revised by the Catholic church. Others have not.
In closing, to say that the "Catholic Church is genetically "more christian"" may be true, but is useless. The Catholic church is an institution. Institutions can and will become corrupted by men, especially those who believe themselves infallible (Catholics believe the Pope is infallible - other Christians do not).
So I say your logic is flawed, for it does not account for corruption.
Many Christians think of the Catholics as not being truly Christian, because their beliefs contradict the Bible.
I remember overhearing a conversation one time at a graduation party for a friend of mine (got his MBA).
Anyway, one guy there was talking about some programming project he was working on. (Some kind of front end GUI for something is what it sounded like.) Wanting to quickly ascertain whether this guy knew what he was doing, or was just another joker, I asked him this question:
"Oh, so you're in software development then?"
His answer:
"No, I'm in IT."
I had my answer.
Honestly, the only ones confused about the IT moniker are management. I would never call myself an IT worker. I don't think many self respecting CS degree holders (or for that matter, any serious developers) would. I use the terms "Software Engineer" or "Applications Developer". If I'm asked to classify my job, I always look for Computer Software or the like, and avoid the Information Technology option.
There is nothing wrong with the IT moniker, it just needs to be used more consistently to describe Support Reps, VB+Access Coders, and other true IT jobs. Using it to describe OOP software development is a disservice to everyone.
"One will be a full 3D animation series (with 30-minute episodes) of the recent Cartoon Network Clone Wars shorts, and the other a live-action series, that will be set in the time between Episodes III and IV, but won't feature the main characters."
You misspelled "an unmitigated disaster".
Although Blizzard does do extensive in-house testing, the testing phase that makes their products really stand out cannot always be applied to other areas. Specifically, I'm referring to their extensive beta testing program.
Blizzard has a large advantage because their applications are not mission critical. If you lose your level 35 warrior, no big deal, its a beta and they told you that might happen. Even though they are running in a "production" environment, people can't get too upset because ITS A GAME.
This is not so in many other areas. You can't say, "please use our new beta financial software to automatically manage your accounts", then have people lose millions. Or, "we're releasing a beta of our new tumor irradiating program, try it out"! Obviously, many applications aren't as critical as these, but my point is that betas the way Blizzard does betas aren't always feasible in other arenas.
Betas in the business world are tricky, and often not all that effective. If you tell people to use your beta in addition to whatever they're currently doing, you've added to their work load. Since the beta isn't really in production in that scenario, the users don't have any incentive to track what its doing carefully. But if you tell people to switch over and run your beta in production, there will be hell to pay when things go wrong.
Blizzards beta testing period is what really gives their products the polish and last few critical bug fixes before they roll them out. The unfortunate thing is that not all software products can follow the Blizzard model.
Languages are a tool - and each tool has its own use. You shouldn't use a screwdriver to pound a nail, as it were. Because even though you might get it to work, you're putting more effort into it than you really need to.
To me, PHP is great for small, agile projects - ones that need to be designed and written quickly, and require a lot of changes to the code to happen throughout implementation.
I think OO PHP isn't all bad - being able to compartmentalize your code for reuse and complexity reduction is great.
My concern, however, is that people will start to look at PHP as an enterprise level language, which in my opinion, it isn't. Every PHP project that I've worked on started to break down after a certain level of complexity. I think part of this was due to the lack of Object Orientation, but I think part of it was also the nature of the language itself. I'll be interested to see what IBM can do with PHP, but lets just say I don't envy their guys if they're trying to switch their enterprise level development to use it.
1. The PDF chart lists .Net as a separate item and links each of the supported MS languages to it. I think this is an accurate representation.
2. ASP = VB6. You could include ASP as an offshoot of Visual Basic if you like, but it has exactly the same snytax. The real changes came with VB.Net, which is included in both charts.
3. Dylan is included in the PDF chart as an offshoot of C++ and CLOS.
4. Nope, no Hypercard.
5. I suppose so. I don't really have any comment other than I'm not sure how legitimate sh is as a actual language.
6. Erlang is included in the PDF chart as an offshoot of Prolog and Common Lisp.
7. I don't see Cilk on either chart, which is funny since I'd actually heard of it before today. One could probably argue that it isn't different enough from standard C, but I think the implications of parallelism are probably enough to merit its own place on the chart.
8. Mercury is included in the PDF chart as an offshoot of Haskell, SML 90, and CLOS.
9. Funny, but you almost could do that... Is there any library or language that hasn't been grafted onto Perl at this point?
According to wikipedia, the "commercial variant" of Flow-Matic started in 1955. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOW-MATIC Wikipedia lists FORTRAN as being developed in 1954-1957. However, the forbears of Flow-Matic definitely preceed FORTRAN, as you'll see below:
B-0 was the original name of Flow-Matic. More interesting perhaps is that both owe influence from A-0, a language developed for the Univac I, and the first language to have a compiler. (Flow-Matic was also developed for the Univac I.) For that reason alone, the tree should probably include it. (Perhaps even as the "root" of the modern languages.) One could argue that the inclusion of Flow-Matic on the chart encompasses A-0, although I would argue that A-0 should probably simply replace B-0 on the chart, since Flow-Matic and B-0 are one and the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-0
"You left just when you were beginning to get interesting."
Seems like this show is finally starting to gain some momentum. Too bad the never-ending moronic Xindi plot had already killed the show.
I think all the interesting parts of the Xindi story arc honestly could have been compressed into about 3 episodes.
And WTF was up with the "Beauty and the Beast" episode complete with medieval sytle castle? Ugh, what a disaster that was. Probably lost 40% of what was left of their viewership on that episode alone.
Still, once that lame arc finally completed, there have been a few interesting episodes. They're finally getting back to actually exploring the galaxy, rather than hunting "Osma in space". They've had some interesting characters, and getting into dealing with the implications of a lot of "cutting edge" technology happening at that point in the Trek timeline. Some promise there, but nobody's watching anymore. Well, except me, which apparently puts me in the minority of even the geeky slashdot crowd. Scary.
The major sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA, and well if there ever is an NHL again) have anti-trust exemptions.
However, I think this sort of behavior is the sort of thing that should violate that exemption.
I have to disagree.
:)
The main reason being that most of the people pirating windows XP are above average computer users.
Your average Joe doesn't pirate XP because:
1) He didn't know you could
2) He likes the safe, secure feeling that having support gives him (until he actually has to call them
3) He's not technically literate enough to build and install a pirated copy.
The portion of the XP population that would most strongly be driven towards macs (users who are less computer literate) own legal copies of XP.
Users who have pirated copies of XP are looking for the lowest cost OS. They choose XP because MS dominates the market, so all the stuff they want to run is available. These users are likely to choose linux if they realize that an insecure system is not worth running, because they'll go to the lowest cost secure OS that runs on their current hardware.
I agree, Base Wars is a truly outstanding game. Really innovative, and a lot of fun without having to resort to authentic licensed players.
... and many more, including power ups for pitching also.
s eball_simulator_1000.txt
The "build your team" aspect of it is really the reason for this, since you can customize your players names, as well as the equipment you buy for them.
That era also resulted in another great baseball game: Baseball Simulator 1.000 for the NES. (And Super Baseball Simulator 1.000 for the SNES) Similar to Base Wars, well except for the players aren't robots. And Ultra Plays allow for zany things to happen.
* Hyper Hit (9) - Home run on contact
* Missile Hit (5) - line drive which will pin fielders in its path against the outfield wall
* Tremor Hit (4) - causes an earthquake when the ball hits the ground
There is a FAQ at http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/file/super_ba
BTW, stupid text entry box on slashdot keeps adding a space between "base" and "ball" in the displayed URL. The link works, though.
Lets hope that some of these innovative style games appear as a result of these exclusivity contracts...
You know, your point is actually valid. I think everyone looks back and regrets that they didn't really do anything during high school. But you have to ask yourself, at the maturity level you at in high school, would you actually have had the drive to engage yourself in something without external stimuli?
I think thats the hurdle that people cross when they truly become adults, that they realize they have to have an internal drive if they want to get somewhere. No one is going to come to you and hand you an interesting project to work on. You have to seek it out yourself.
Some people never cross this threshold. Though they have the bodies of adults, they're really children inside, simply reacting to circumstances instead of trying to shape their life. I see a lot of these people every day.
I work in a tight knit team of programmers who all have great drive to work on interesting projects. But we're the minority at the campus we work at, where most employees are working in the call center. The break room discussions I've heard would not be out of place in high school. So and so is seeing that hot guy (or girl). I got blasted last night and slept with my ex (boyfriend, girlfriend). I'm so excited to go to this party tonight, I'm going to get blasted. On and on and on. Nothing about, I'm going to school in my spare time. Or, I finished a project on my house. Nope, just pointless relationships and where's the next party and crap like that.
Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, except that there is a certain level of maturity needed to become a self-motivator. Maybe some are ready for this in high school, but many are not.
Still, regardless, its not a bad message to spread to high schoolers that it doesn't have to be that way.
Because school is about rote memorization and the ability of the student to repeat what they are told.
Ever wonder why so many students complain how "word problems are so hard"? Because schools teach memorization, not problem solving.
They teach: if the problem looks like example_1 then use equation_alpha to solve it. Nothing on why equation alpha works, or the history of equation alpha - there simply isn't time for that sort of thing.
Fortunately it gets somewhat better in college, but even then I pity the poor fool who questions his professor. Teachers are all knowing! Do not question the teacher! Now memorize another equation that includes 10 greek characters because I said so.
Stinking greek characters. I'm glad I've got my degree so I don't have to write that damn squiggly S anymore unless I have an actual use for the thing. Take your lambda and pi and theta and shove 'em, I say.
Sorry, please go back to your regularly scheduled memorization.
Thank you.
Lucky me, I kept my TI-85. First of all, its a great calculator, and very durable because of the plastic cover. My parents complained when I asked (make that begged) them to get me one in high school, but I think if they knew the use I'd gotten out of it, they'd be proud of the investment. Its outlasted many other calculators that I've had since that time.
:)
It also pretty much launched my career in comp sci. I loved video games and computers as a kid (built my first computer, a 486, from some cast off parts). But the TI allowed me to write my own games. Sure, the TI BASIC interpreter was slow as hell, and the calculator didn't have enough memory to code anything really cool, but I did manage to write at least 10 games for the thing. A number guessing game, a blackjack program, even a highly simplified version of Armor Alley (which really was more like an airborne Moon Patrol than anything else). Still, it featured a climactic battle against an evil enemy helicopter, which was pretty neat considering I didn't know hardly anything about programming at the time.
I plan on using the calculator as a tool to introduce my son to programming. He's 2 and a half now, but someday he'll get interested in games. And when he does, I'll be sure to quickly dispel the "magic" that surrounds their creation, and show him how he can even create his own.
As for your brothers-in-law, you may want to look for a BASIC interpreter, and write (or "find") a couple simple BASIC games that they can modify. Sure, they aren't rocket science, but the fact that you can toy with their innards and make them do other things is what gets people started. All they need after that is a BASIC manual, and maybe some helpful pointers. If they have the right mindset, they'll get excited about it, you won't be able to stop them! (Just wind them up and watch them go, as it were.)
I think the lack of amazement at computers these days is twofold:
1) Computers are everywhere. Everybody has one. They're just ordinary tools to people now.
2) Computer programming has gotten very high level, and very "untouchable" to the average person. Consoles make this problem even worse. You can't just sit down and code Quake Eighteen in a couple nights. Heck, even the mods take a person with a lot of programming skill a long time to complete.
Good luck. (And if you're really desperate, start looking for a TI-82 on ebay
I can tell you that I, for one, will not be buying ANY EA sports titles for the next 5 years. Furthermore, if I receive any as a gift, I will return them.
9 98.html If they can't be trusted to treat their own employees with respect, I certainly don't think you can expect them to do so with their consumers.
I simply refuse to support these strong-armed tactics from EA. That corporation is rife with slimeballs. Just take a look at what they're doing to their employees - they're going to be sued over some of their practices. http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_6112
The next 5 years looks like a very dark time for football games. My only hope is that the Sega/ESPN franchise works around this problem by allowing players to swap player created rosters online.
EA officials say that development of Madden won't stangnate, but I say that's bull. Why bother to innovate when all you have to do is release the same game with updated rosters every year? Honestly its like they're being allowed to exclusively lease a money printing machine.
I'll be purchasing alternative products, and I encourage others to do the same. Don't support these monopolistic tactics.
Totally agree with you here - this problem seems especially epidemic in image editing software. For instance, in some (older) versions of photoshop, you might want to use layers, given that apparently using the Undo option more than once is a foreign concept to the image editing gurus who created it. (Though I still have to admit that layers are cool, and very, very useful.)
If you open a "flat" image, such as you might find on the internet or from your digital camera or from a scan or pretty much anywhere else, the program will not you use any layer functionality, greying out the menu items. It would have been nice to know that I had to save the image into a format which supported layers, then change the color depth via 14 nested menus, then hold my nose while standing on my head for 64.7 seconds, rather than having to look it up on the internet, or worse, attempting to find the magic combination via the not-so-helpful Help menu.
So at least for the more esoteric menu disabling combinations, I completely agree that some information about why the option is disabled would be an extremely good idea. One whose time should have come long ago.
They can keep it. Just stow it away in a vault. We don't want it.
No more horrible 3D clunkers with camera problems.
No more Age of Empires with Star Wars skins (what an atrocity that was).
I'm with another poster, lets have a GTA 3 style game. One where I can choose to be good or evil. One where I can use my Jedi powers to beat down anybody who gets in my way, or fight for truth, justice, and the new republic way.
Just give me an open ended environment and let me do whatever I want. Maybe I'll use Jedi mind tricks to cheat at Pazaak.
Whatever.
Well please, this time, can we not have missles be able to hit fighters? Or at least limit the amount of missles available? Because it just got out of hand, with missle gunboats holding dozens of missles, then calling for a reloading ship and shooting off dozens more. I realize you could shoot missles down, but they were just irritating, and unbalanced the series. Some missions were nearly impossible to complete because you had to spend the whole time shooting down missles.
Bring back Tie Fighter, I agree. But lets keep it true to the movies, with World War II type combat, not modern style combat.
Thanks.
The next logical step in this is likely to be a Tit for Tat program which starts off by imitating the "code" of the Master Slave, identifying itself as the Master. If the other program does not play along after a certain number of moves, it makes a cooperate move and ignores the move that the other program makes, in order to "seed" a Tit for Tat. Then it goes into Tit for Tat mode.
This program would take slight losses in some cases, but would likely come out ahead of Southampton due to its ability to cooperate with Tit for Tat.
In fact, I'm surprised that Southampton didn't choose to start their "code" with cooperations to test for Tit for Tat first. Southamptons entries could make a suspicious defect in response to the cooperate at some point to initiate the code. The "Master" entries could have had a higher score by cooperating with any entries that always cooperate, such as Tit for Tat will as long as it is not betrayed.
This would do wonders for my morning commute :)
The only problem being that this is the sort of trick that only works once.
They're called 'parking brakes' on the continent, because they tend to lock the back wheels solid if you pull them on in an emergency. Meaning we use them for parking rather than skating around in doughnuts on busy urban streets.
Clearly then, on the "continent", you are not using your e-brake to its full potential.
Reform versus Penalize has been an ongoing debate for a long time now. Longer than you or I have been alive, I can assure you. It is not limited to the way prisons are operated in the USA vs Canada or "many other parts of the world for that matter".
To characterize the US penal system as being used soley as a punishment and deterrent is rediculous. The US system attempts to strike a balance between penalization and rehabilitation, as most civilized countries do. Perhaps the US system falls more towards the side of penalization, but thats a matter of degrees, and not central to the debate.
I think its really the death penalty that you're debating here. Whether it is right to kill someone for their crimes or simply lock them away until they die. Because even in Canada, the sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" exists. I'll bet you even have multiple life sentences. To suggest that Canadians would give a second chance to a convicted serial killer and/or rapist is rediculous. We all know that person will be eliminated from society for the duration of their life in any penal system that offers any sense of justice. The only question is the means. Will the death be natural or artificial?
I consider myself on the fence of this debate. I don't really care one way or another. My biggest qualm is that, if you kill someone, they cannot be given even part of their life back if they are later found innocent.
So I disagree with both of you. Prison IS about reform, though that is not the primary focus in the US penal system. The Canadian system, great as though it may be, is not without its flaws. To characterize the Canadian penal system as being soley reformational, and that punishment is some sort of side effect, is just as rediculous as saying that prison is only about punishment and deterrent.
To put it simply, there isn't an easy answer. Statistics show that most criminals will commit a crime and return to prison after their release. Nor is prison, even the death penalty, an effective deterrent. Prisons are neither very good at deterring crime, nor very good at rehabilitation of criminals. The one thing they do effectively is to eliminate individuals that are harmful to a society from that society.
Appropriate subtitle for the Ewok Adventure movie.
Was it just me, or did it seem like the family crashed their intragalactic RV? Even when I was 10 years old watching this thing, I had the following thought: These guys are the trailer trash of the star wars universe.
When I was 10, these were good movies. Somehow I would imagine they hold up as well as my favorite show when I was a kid: The Dukes of Hazzard. That is to say, not well at all. I'm not even sure if I want to find out at this point. It think I'll stick with nostalgia and continue to delude myself that these were good films.
Besides, all the suspense is gone - I know that there won't be any tornado to suck them, along with their little furball friends, into the sky.
For the sub launch, another poster helpfully posted the following information:
Near Earth, Solar Sails are particularly suited for high orbital inclination satellite missions. Weather forecasting and global positioning systems would directly benefit from satellites orbiting the poles. Most satellites take advantage of the natural speed of Earth's rotation to boost them into an orbit relatively close to the equatorial plane. Changing the plane requires a large fuel burn for a conventional rocket and greatly increases launch costs. With its small but continuous thrust, a solar sail can reach polar orbits without a massive fuel payload, making them more accessible to scientific research.
It would appear that the scientists want to insert the satellite into a polar orbit, which is confirmed by the fact that the launch point will be the Barents Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean. Since this location is a rather inhospitable region for a conventional launch, the scientists have rather ingeniously selected a submarine launch. The Russian military is highly likely to be the provider making this available for a "reasonable" price, since the mission is scientific in nature. Thus it poses no threat to them, while providing profit where it is much needed.
The reason for using a ballistic missle is that Russia is brimming with extra ballistic missles. They've been decommisioning hundreds, if not thousands of former nuclear missles over the last couple decades. This does not mean they've destroyed the entire missle, merely that the nuclear warheads have been removed, and they're no longer housed in silos or subs for launch against other countries. Since the rockets were designed to carry nuclear payloads, they are both powerful and highly reliable. This obviously makes them an ideal platform for carrying anything into orbit which they can be fitted to carry.
This situation is really a win-win propostion. The scientists get a powerful, highly reliable launch platform and rocket in an inhospitable launch location for likely a rather sweet price. The Russian military gets rid of a decommisoned rocket they just had laying around anyway, and gets to run one of their subs through a launch test complete with the actual launching of a rocket, plus they make a profit on the deal.
I think both of these questions can easily be addressed.
The reason for using a ballistic missle is that Russia is brimming with extra ballistic missles. They've been decommisioning hundreds, if not thousands of former nuclear missles over the last couple decades. This does not mean they've destroyed the entire missle, merely that the nuclear warheads have been removed, and they're no longer housed in silos or subs for launch against other countries. Since the rockets were designed to carry nuclear payloads, they are both powerful and highly reliable. This obviously makes them an ideal platform for carrying anything into orbit which they can be fitted to carry.
As for the sub launch, another poster helpfully posted the following information:
Near Earth, Solar Sails are particularly suited for high orbital inclination satellite missions. Weather forecasting and global positioning systems would directly benefit from satellites orbiting the poles. Most satellites take advantage of the natural speed of Earth's rotation to boost them into an orbit relatively close to the equatorial plane. Changing the plane requires a large fuel burn for a conventional rocket and greatly increases launch costs. With its small but continuous thrust, a solar sail can reach polar orbits without a massive fuel payload, making them more accessible to scientific research.
It would appear that the scientists want to insert the satellite into a polar orbit, which is confirmed by the fact that the launch point will be the Barents Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean. Since this location is a rather inhospitable region for a conventional launch, the scientists have rather ingeniously selected a submarine launch. Again, the Russian military is highly likely to be the provider making this available for a "reasonable" price, since the mission is scientific in nature. Thus it poses no threat to them, while providing profit where it is much needed.
This situation is really a win-win propostion. The scientists get a powerful, highly reliable launch platform and rocket in an inhospitable launch location for likely a rather sweet price. The Russian military gets rid of a decommisoned rocket they just had laying around anyway, and gets to run one of their subs through a launch test complete with the actual launching of a rocket, plus they make a profit on the deal.
Noone gets a degree in CS because they are a true geek and they love programming.
I did.
Yes, what you learn in any CS program is going to be behind the times of whats out there on the cutting edge. But how do you get to cutting edge knowledge? You have to start somewhere, and I truly believe that if you want to really understand the founding principles of computing that a good CS program is the place to go. Once you've gotten that solid foundation, you can get out to the bleeding edge, by either going out into the right place in the industry or by pursuing a masters.
Some folks do as little work as possible going through a CS program, and those who skate through retain very little knowledge. But I know that doesn't reflect on 100% of people with CS degrees because I happen to have one.
I do find it very disappointing though that the promise of a payoff isn't in fact paying off. Just last week I contacted my agent...
First of all, this sounds like a problem specific to the company you work for. I suggest you start looking elsewhere, since your company apparently does not understand that your market value has changed. Unless you're already salaried at a reasonable rate, in which case I'd say that they'd be justified, having esentially overpaid you during the time you've been there so far.
Secondly, you have an agent?