> You'll get the Short Attention Span Theatre's
> version of Waterworld. It'll be three minutes
> long, and people will still complain that it's too
> long!
I was bored by the end of the 30 second ad trailer.
Which, in turn, seems to have failed because of a lack of technology.
"Click here and you will pay $12.00 for a year of access, easily and quickly, no credit cards, etc." well, where is that? I can think of a few dozen sites I'd gladly click for, this one included. It's almost there, click here and bang, paid $5 by paypal, charged to your hidden cc account. But not just quite yet...
> And, every now and then you get sued, but that may
> be cheaper than actually doing what's right.
That's the purpose of the punative damages. A company that says, gee, payouts for unnecessary deaths is cheaper than a recall should get pounded hard. Indeed, it could be argued the bean counters who decided this should even go to jail, should they hide the info about the dangers.
Re:It means the US has taken over the world
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I blame God for this mess. He knew what He was doing.
Re:Globalism is not the problem: Government is
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the price of diamonds are coming down vs. inflation. Debeers just has enough in storage to what, lower the cost of 1 carat diamonds to $10.00? So they refuse to flood the market, and keep other miners in check by threats to flood the market. As long as they make no other threats, Mafia style, they're hardly doing anything wrong. You don't have to have a diamond any more than you have to have a cheeseburger from McDonald's. Yet they keep danglin' diamonds at high prices (remember the prices seem high only because of the surplus, which only exists because they developed the equivalent of mass production mining) and guess what? People keep jumpin'!
I saw that Frontline, too. Note that Debeers wouldn't have gotten their start in the first place had they not convinced the SA government to put a head tax on all the bushmen, forcing them to work, where, conveniently, Debeers stood with shovels awaiting.
> The pharoes of the 21st century have the slaves begging for work
Actually, the slaves start up their own businesses all the time.
Part of the socialist straw man is the concept that everybody has no choice whatsoever but to work for giant corporations at unionless wages.
We all "know" this to be true.
It's still hogwash, though.
You do not have the right to work for a giant corporation at some awesome wage that you feel is "good enough". You have the right to work for them at a mutually negotiated wage, or you can go start your own business, or go work for a smaller company.
Heck, if schools are failing at anything, it's that they're failing to teach kids how to start their own business the way they make sure they know how to read and write.
> That they wouldn't be able to just subscribe to a
> single dogma like "the free market is always
> correct" and thereby abdicate their ability and
> responsibility to govern?
Sign here, please:
____________________________ I hereby give authority on what drugs I may put in my body, whether I smoke, whether I drink, what kinds of windows I use, what kinds of sex I may engage in, to others such that these things may be decided by THEM and not by me. I hereby revoke my decision making in this matter and leave it entirely and completely up to their whim, whatever it may be. This is irrevocable.
When was the last time the US lacked for greedy lawyers to sue the deep pockets corporations for anything at all?
Yes, YOU bringing a suit paying a lawyer could hardly afford it.
A greedy LAWYER, though, would have no problem, especially if you could sue for their fee + punitive damages (which should not be limited.)
Re:Globalization without rules == Corporate Heaven
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
> * A central goverment who collects Earnings
> Tax worldwide and then invest on poor regions to
> improve living standards
Keep dumping cash into poor countries? No thank you.
They can lift themselves up just like the "rich" countries did. Heck, globalization of getting multinationals in there will help this.
The poor countries are poor because they have dictatorships or are following heavy-handed socialist policies recommended by western, ivory-tower intellectuals who fantasize a better way.
Dump my cash into those kinds of situations? No, thank you.
> while increasing economic inequality overall by
> providing more opportunities to exploit workers
I fail to see how offering someone $5.00 per day to work in a factory that they are glad to do because it's way better than being a peasant is somehow exploiting someone. By bringing in an improved quality of life (as seen by those workers, whose opinion is the only one that matters) the "exploitation" does more to help them than a hundred years of ivory tower socialist bleating across the oceans.
> and making it easier for a small number of
> people to become grossly rich.
Your error is in the assumption this is oriented toward smaller numbers of people. As a practical matter, it may be harder for smaller companies than large to force open economic borders, but this is about wealth in general, not for a specific few. And, anyone who brings jobs to the peasantry is a hero, not someone to be hated. Your ancient argument from moral intimidation is hereby rejected.
Probably posted as html, in which case < br>'s are required. The good thing is they actually no longer require you to post with html selected for the html tagsto work.
> Learning Common Lisp as an undergraduate at CMU in
> the late 1980s changed my life for the better. I
> guess to each his own.
I agree. It's like taking courses in the development of Western thought, or living in Europe (or the USA) for awhile. You get exposure you otherwise wouldn't, and can subsequently grasp a lot more.
I have programmed professionally in Lisp for about 4 years (actual AI work out in the real world, no U attachment.) I have also programmed C, and now C++ for about 8 years.
I can't count the number of months worth of debugging I've done in C and C++ doing things that would not have been any problem whatsoever in Lisp.
The ungodly ease of development when you can effortlessly encode processing a list of objects and single objects is worth it just for that alone. Pass in the arg, test if it's a list or not, recurse or run thru the list.
How much time does C++ programming require to change parameters, values, etc.? A ton. In Lisp, just pass in extra quoted values as additional parameters, with associated quoted symbol identifier (don't even hafta bother with:) and you're done. It's (for those who know) the blackboard system applied to functions. Gather up a bunch of data you do know, even if some is extra or irrelevant, and pass it in and let the function pull out what it needs. If it doesn't find what it needs, it can return without doing anything.
Quick, fast, don't worry about crashing, rapid development, far more robust. I was rather sad that Lisp didn't take off as the language of the web -- it's been 10 years since a desktop PC had to worry about speed in executed script code for anything other than a number crunching program.
Yes, you can suffer from the same logic bugs as any other language, but everything else is a ton easier.
> Sounds like your three-legged stool is only bipedal.
Worse, yet. The stool's upside down, and when he sings the praises of environmentalism, believes his beautiful, magical castrato voice comes from the gods.
> One of the problems with the point of view that
> this essay takes is that it neglects 'precaution'
> in favour of the idea that we should be more
> concerned with short term economical gain.
A thousand needless regulations adds up to massive economic slowdown.
> Even if we are only right 1 in 10 times on
> whether something can cause damage to the
> environment, I would rather waste the money
> controlling the nine than sweeping the one under
> the rug.
Run two planets in parallel, one with this idea, one that is very skeptical about environmental regulations, and in two hundred years, one will be a hundred and seventy years ahead of the other in technology, wealth, and standard of living.
> Global Warming, Pollution...they won't destroy the
> earth, but it sure as hell could kill humans ( or
> atleast lower their overall quality of life ).
Kill? Doubtful. Lower quality of life? Very doubtful. Lower quality of life more than the combined effects of massive environmental regulation? Completely wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
When you adjust for inflation, size of the world, etc., things like Gone With The Wind are on the list, if not at the top, even above Titanic.
When you charge a quarter or ten cents to see a movie in a country half our size, it's tough to get up to half a billion dollars.
> You'll get the Short Attention Span Theatre's
> version of Waterworld. It'll be three minutes
> long, and people will still complain that it's too
> long!
I was bored by the end of the 30 second ad trailer.
Which, in turn, seems to have failed because of a lack of technology.
"Click here and you will pay $12.00 for a year of access, easily and quickly, no credit cards, etc." well, where is that? I can think of a few dozen sites I'd gladly click for, this one included. It's almost there, click here and bang, paid $5 by paypal, charged to your hidden cc account. But not just quite yet...
That's not my point. My point is -- sign the above statement, and leave the rest of us alone.
> And, every now and then you get sued, but that may
> be cheaper than actually doing what's right.
That's the purpose of the punative damages. A company that says, gee, payouts for unnecessary deaths is cheaper than a recall should get pounded hard. Indeed, it could be argued the bean counters who decided this should even go to jail, should they hide the info about the dangers.
Personally, I blame God for this mess. He knew what He was doing.
Actually, the price of diamonds are coming down vs. inflation. Debeers just has enough in storage to what, lower the cost of 1 carat diamonds to $10.00? So they refuse to flood the market, and keep other miners in check by threats to flood the market. As long as they make no other threats, Mafia style, they're hardly doing anything wrong. You don't have to have a diamond any more than you have to have a cheeseburger from McDonald's. Yet they keep danglin' diamonds at high prices (remember the prices seem high only because of the surplus, which only exists because they developed the equivalent of mass production mining) and guess what? People keep jumpin'!
I saw that Frontline, too. Note that Debeers wouldn't have gotten their start in the first place had they not convinced the SA government to put a head tax on all the bushmen, forcing them to work, where, conveniently, Debeers stood with shovels awaiting.
> The pharoes of the 21st century have the slaves begging for work
Actually, the slaves start up their own businesses all the time.
Part of the socialist straw man is the concept that everybody has no choice whatsoever but to work for giant corporations at unionless wages.
We all "know" this to be true.
It's still hogwash, though.
You do not have the right to work for a giant corporation at some awesome wage that you feel is "good enough". You have the right to work for them at a mutually negotiated wage, or you can go start your own business, or go work for a smaller company.
Heck, if schools are failing at anything, it's that they're failing to teach kids how to start their own business the way they make sure they know how to read and write.
> That they wouldn't be able to just subscribe to a
> single dogma like "the free market is always
> correct" and thereby abdicate their ability and
> responsibility to govern?
Sign here, please:
____________________________ I hereby give authority on what drugs I may put in my body, whether I smoke, whether I drink, what kinds of windows I use, what kinds of sex I may engage in, to others such that these things may be decided by THEM and not by me. I hereby revoke my decision making in this matter and leave it entirely and completely up to their whim, whatever it may be. This is irrevocable.
When was the last time the US lacked for greedy lawyers to sue the deep pockets corporations for anything at all?
Yes, YOU bringing a suit paying a lawyer could hardly afford it.
A greedy LAWYER, though, would have no problem, especially if you could sue for their fee + punitive damages (which should not be limited.)
> * A central goverment who collects Earnings
> Tax worldwide and then invest on poor regions to
> improve living standards
Keep dumping cash into poor countries? No thank you.
They can lift themselves up just like the "rich" countries did. Heck, globalization of getting multinationals in there will help this.
The poor countries are poor because they have dictatorships or are following heavy-handed socialist policies recommended by western, ivory-tower intellectuals who fantasize a better way.
Dump my cash into those kinds of situations? No, thank you.
> while increasing economic inequality overall by
> providing more opportunities to exploit workers
I fail to see how offering someone $5.00 per day to work in a factory that they are glad to do because it's way better than being a peasant is somehow exploiting someone. By bringing in an improved quality of life (as seen by those workers, whose opinion is the only one that matters) the "exploitation" does more to help them than a hundred years of ivory tower socialist bleating across the oceans.
> and making it easier for a small number of
> people to become grossly rich.
Your error is in the assumption this is oriented toward smaller numbers of people. As a practical matter, it may be harder for smaller companies than large to force open economic borders, but this is about wealth in general, not for a specific few. And, anyone who brings jobs to the peasantry is a hero, not someone to be hated. Your ancient argument from moral intimidation is hereby rejected.
You've still got to load the image, though, and both will result in the same print to screen.
(defun Hello-World...) doesn't start itself, either.
You must still, either at the command line, or at the end of the program input file, issue this command:
(Hello-World)
and that is functionally no different from typing:
(load-file "hello, world.lisp")
No, here is the proper "Hello, world!" program file in LISP:
"Hello, world!"
That's about it. It's loaded and returned on the command line as a string output.
Probably posted as html, in which case < br>'s are required. The good thing is they actually no longer require you to post with html selected for the html tags to work.
>> 2)we use notation thats different then what
>> mathmaticians use, but is better
>
> *Shrug* sqrt(x) isn't exactly mathematical
> notation either.
Let's not forget the woody these C++ loving engineers get with their RPN (postfix) TI calcs.
Our calc uses postfix notation, Lisp uses prefix notation, which isn't what mathematicians use, but is better.
I love that form. I laughed at the clunky try throw catch crap in C++ when it came around.
Old Geezer: I'll never forget that month I did 60,000 lines of C code. A lot was duplication with variable name change, but my god...
True story.
> Learning Common Lisp as an undergraduate at CMU in
:) and you're done. It's (for those who know) the blackboard system applied to functions. Gather up a bunch of data you do know, even if some is extra or irrelevant, and pass it in and let the function pull out what it needs. If it doesn't find what it needs, it can return without doing anything.
> the late 1980s changed my life for the better. I
> guess to each his own.
I agree. It's like taking courses in the development of Western thought, or living in Europe (or the USA) for awhile. You get exposure you otherwise wouldn't, and can subsequently grasp a lot more.
I have programmed professionally in Lisp for about 4 years (actual AI work out in the real world, no U attachment.) I have also programmed C, and now C++ for about 8 years.
I can't count the number of months worth of debugging I've done in C and C++ doing things that would not have been any problem whatsoever in Lisp.
The ungodly ease of development when you can effortlessly encode processing a list of objects and single objects is worth it just for that alone. Pass in the arg, test if it's a list or not, recurse or run thru the list.
How much time does C++ programming require to change parameters, values, etc.? A ton. In Lisp, just pass in extra quoted values as additional parameters, with associated quoted symbol identifier (don't even hafta bother with
Quick, fast, don't worry about crashing, rapid development, far more robust. I was rather sad that Lisp didn't take off as the language of the web -- it's been 10 years since a desktop PC had to worry about speed in executed script code for anything other than a number crunching program.
Yes, you can suffer from the same logic bugs as any other language, but everything else is a ton easier.
Wow, it works! It's still not the optimal solution, but that's better than adding a few cr's and a .
Ok, let's see. $400 million per launch.
400/20 = 20 Titos per launch.
Or, propose to Hollywood elite and other egocentric rich:
Bonk your honey in space!
10 couples per launch. Put up a Hyatt Regency module on the space station and go for it. Sheesh!
> Sounds like your three-legged stool is only bipedal.
Worse, yet. The stool's upside down, and when he sings the praises of environmentalism, believes his beautiful, magical castrato voice comes from the gods.
.
> One of the problems with the point of view that
> this essay takes is that it neglects 'precaution'
> in favour of the idea that we should be more
> concerned with short term economical gain.
A thousand needless regulations adds up to massive economic slowdown.
> Even if we are only right 1 in 10 times on
> whether something can cause damage to the
> environment, I would rather waste the money
> controlling the nine than sweeping the one under
> the rug.
Run two planets in parallel, one with this idea, one that is very skeptical about environmental regulations, and in two hundred years, one will be a hundred and seventy years ahead of the other in technology, wealth, and standard of living.
And here is the key point economists understand and environmentalists don't. It will be ahead at every single stage of the game.
> Global Warming, Pollution...they won't destroy the
> earth, but it sure as hell could kill humans ( or
> atleast lower their overall quality of life ).
Kill? Doubtful. Lower quality of life? Very doubtful. Lower quality of life more than the combined effects of massive environmental regulation? Completely wrong.