c++ and c obviously have their respective places in systems programming...
but does c# really have a place? it seems almost syntactically identical to java, and the same conceptually (CLS run in.Net runtime evironment v. Java bytecode run in JVM...)
just in case you haven't heard, the killer app for 'joe sixpack' (i hate that phrase, but just keeping with your original words) is AOL (with possibly MSN in the mix).
most dumbasses i know on the internet want to a. get email b. search for 'nude pics of britney spears' or c. chat with (what they believe are) 17 years old girls.
most windows users don't have a gory fps on their computer (although i'm sure anyone who gets royalties from quake would be just thrilled if this were the case).
so even though i disagree with you on how to convert average users to linux, i agree that any coder on any project should try to think originally, write killer code, and take pride in their work - whether open source or not.
fine, they've released XP. honestly, from all i've heard, it's a superior OS to previous windows releases. so, that means that millions of home users of windows may have slightly less blue screen filled days.
now, they really are facing the reality they will be broken up for unfair monopoly practices. that is great, and I will be the first to throw a party in honor of the day this happens. Even if it does though, windows will still be the dominating home OS... so if they can improve it, great. XP would probably be released anyway, if MS was broken up beforehand - where they going to toss all the code?
this just means we may have to suffer through 1 more release of inferior product tie-ins (ie4, ms messenger...) and internet wizards holding our hand all the way to an msn lifetime subscription...
it is a selling point. if the code for *BSD were not open, i assure you, it would not be as widely adopted. sure, it's fast and reliable. so are other operating systems... and i would consider getting a BSD distro over any of the closed source alternatives, for the learning experience of being able to delve into a matured and tested code base. it's great, and it's open source. both are selling points in this case. i know the phrase 'open source' is overused here a lot, but in this case it's appropriate...
C = d(aA + bB + c)^e + f
C - f = d(aA +bB +c)^e
(C-f)^-e = d(aA+bB+c)
(C-f)^-e)/d = aA+bB+c
((C-f)^-e)/d) - bB - c = aA
and.. A = (((C-f)^-e)/d)-bB-c)/a
same problem.
and why on earth should a generic R2 -> R function take this form? I don't see why having 6 constants/variables is of any consequence unless you're talking about a special class of functions.
only because your half-baked pseudo-scientific math/physics/philosophy bother me so much am i even bothering to reply.
your first 6 paragraphs are devoted to making a point that i don't care about. my advice to you was this: a geodesic (Great circle) on a 2 sphere embedded in 3 dimensional euclidean space is NOT a straight line in euclidean space. the frame of reference is clear from my original assertion, which is the 3-d euclidean space. it IS a geodesic on the 2 sphere. "geodesic" IMPLIES 'straightness' on a manifold. so, to sum that up: your math teachers were right, but should have appended "this is true in 3 dimensional space" - you get -1 style points for trying to spin a symantic error into a mathematical error.
your whole post is devoted to clearing up an 'assumption' which you wrongfully assumed that I had made.
now, as to your "real" vs. "wannabe" scientist arguement, I now know 1 thing at least. you are not a scientist. scientist have humility in the face of the achievement of previous other scientists. they read, research, and know every goddam detail about research in their field. real scientists do start out reading encyclopedias and journals, because they don't want to redo work that another scientist has already done. and they don't make up terminology for phenomena that already have names. plasma researchers may have coined the phrase "sausage instabilities", but they didn't change the word "gravity" into "fred". making up word is exactly what it sounds like. absolutely nothing.
Re:What a load of clich�d bull...
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 2, Funny
yeah, i sprained my duende once, and could hardly sit down for a week. terrible stuff.
If no one were faulted, anarchy would be the ideal.
yes... and if my farts smelled like flowers, i'd have bees flying up my ass. but i don't.
somewhat more seriously, the same can be said for communism. in fact, they become very similar under the assumption that no one is faulted. but everyone on earth was no more faulted than the least faulted person ever, we'd probably all be too faulted for either to work...
your stupid math teachers?? reading your words, you might have been wise to listen to them more than insulting them.
first off, before dissing them, read all this page on differential geometry: http://147.4.150.5/~matscw/diff_geom/tc.html.
if you do not understand the following phrase: "a geodesic on the 2-sphere, when embedded in 3 dimensional euclidean space, does not have a non-zero first curvature vector", do not bother replying yet. go back and read that again. take care to look carefully at section 8.
also, if a terminology exists for something, don't make up your own. it only makes you sound overly self important.
i was going to respond point by point to your posting. however, i would just like to say this.
if you read the constitution through, you will find a document which is incapable of providing realistic guidelines for running a country the size of the united states. if you get to far into the wording, you forget the spirit of the constitution, which is far more important. like some christians reading the wording of the bible, and beating gay men to death/bombing abortion clinics.. conveniently forgetting the love+forgiveness that jesus was preaching.
As i've mentioned, the constitution had the 3/5s compromise in it. But another aspect of the constitution is evident here (not coincidently in article 1 sec. 9, which you referred me to...)
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
what is 'time to time'? every month, year, decade, century? the founders of the constitution laid guidelines, not dogma. it is clear they mean a reasonable amount of time (not eons), but no precise time is given. another classic example of the benefit of loose interpretation is in section 8, where they do not mention an air force... do you really think the constitution should have been amended for the provision of an air force? those are petty issues, subject to semantics. acting within the spirit of the constitution is more important than analyzing the original wording as though it were presented to us from the hands of the gods...
are you saying that if the founding father were not faulted, they would have chosen anarchy, or as i would guess you might say - pure free market society? that is asinine...
if the FCC were disbanded, no good would come of it. free market is an illusion. it is exactly like pure communism. it does NOT exist due to human nature.
yeah, and this can't possibly change. or maybe we can pay them more, and attract better people.
wasn't there just a posting in the last couple of day about a municipality in florida going to a linux over thin client model, saving the town hundreds of thousands in NT/Win2K licensing costs? if the average loser in the private sector did half as well as that guy (& his team), the state of the computer industry would be a whole lot better (except for overcharging monopolies...)
what is it about the private sector that makes people assume it's so much better?? maybe you can elaborate, because I just don't see it...
there's no mention of NASA and a space program in the constitution either. in fact, you'll find nothing about WANs, broadband, or even personal computers. the people who wrote it were NOT perfect (see 3/5s compromise), and even though it's excellently thought through, the original writers could not see the future, either. they even anticipated that it wouldn't be perfect or complete, and left a framework for creating new laws, and extrapolating the constitution to cover anything they missed. it involves the supreme court, and the legislative branch. legislative branch can make ANY law they want. they can prohibit left handed people from going to the bathroom under penalty of death. the balance is that it must pass constitutional muster in the eyes of the supreme court, which would look at the constitution, and strike down the law. if the legislative branch hates this so much, they can CHANGE the constitution, and the supreme court would have to analyze the new law in that light.
anyway, i'm sure you're aware of all this. but it's suprising then that you consider the absence of permission in the verbage of the constitution is implied prohibition. do a search of strict vs. loose interpretationalists on google, and i'm sure that you'll get something on the long standing philosophical differences between the 2 schools of thought (original bank of the united states provides a nice example of this conflict)
juniper made lots of money, but so did cisco, et al. Dell made money, but so did gateway, micron,... you see where i'm going.
on the other hand, Ma Bell made money, microsoft made money... but not through offering the best product, necessarily. if a company holds a monopoly and abuses it, then they should be held to different standards. what they do is uncapitolistic and unethical, and it should have consequences and laws preventing it.
I would turn this right around and say that you've never been involved with or been a serious spectator in either competitive Quake 3 playing or a serious chess competition.
you're absolutely right, i wasted much,much more of my college years playing unreal tournament. i enjoyed it more than quake, but that's just my preference. i was never in a serious chess competion, but only because i never wanted to shell out the $15 or so it took for entrance fees. last i checked, i could stand my ground at a +1700 level. i also played several sports.
And Quake 3 players don't spend thousands of hours practicing and becoming experts at their game? Chess players often start their careers as young children to fully develop a brain that can make the leaps required for chess.
i'm sure that lots of q3 players spend even more than thousands of hours playing that game (that's only averaging 3 hours a day for a year), and i'm not being totally insensitive to their efforts. i'm just saying it's more difficult to train as an athlete than it is as a gamer.
Wow that's quite a blanket assertion: The Quake 3 world is just waiting for the day that a 100m athletes comes over and wipes up the field. Sorry, but that is proposterous. There are millions of players who partake in computer gaming, and of those the best of the best of the best, with the best mental abilities (for the requirement) and the best reflexes, move to the top. This idea that "naturally superior" superhuman track and field athletes could be the best Q3 player if they only wanted to is absolutely, positively proposterous (no different than me claiming that the top Q3a player could be the fastest runner and the longest jumper if only that's what he wanted to do). Let me guess: a baseball player would automatically make a great chess player?
it is no different than you claiming that the best q3 players could be the "fastest runners and longest jumpers". barring certain aberrations (really obese quake players, athletes too dumb to turn on a computer), these would probably have a large intersection. as i said, both groups benefit from a higher percentage of high twitch muscle fibers and higher than average body/eye coordination. who knows, many of the better q3 players might be able to be quality sprinters/shotputters
the reason you don't see 100m sprinters overrunning the quake world (and vice versa), is that they don't care. anyone who's trained heavily in sprinting isn't going to give it up to spend a couple of months getting instantly fragged on a quake server. no 1334 quake players are going to sell the computer and start doing wind sprints and stadium runs...
i spoke to strongly when i said that i would "totally dismiss Q3 accomplishments in the face of most athletic accomplishment". however, i do feel that many athletes that compete at very high levels work harder. it's just my opinion, and it doesn't mean anything.
however, when you say something like: It is sad to see a jock like attitude on Slashdot of all places berating those people "sitting on their ass" because they aren't competing in the traditional sense. Sorry but I respect the guy who has the most frags more than I respect the guy who throws a metal ball or runs down a track: While both have little value in the real world, the former seems like more of an accomplishment to me.
you have to know that there's going to be some reaction.
i don't mean offense, but it seems really obvious you've neither 'thrown a metal ball' or 'ran down a track' in a seriously competitive way.
i would totally dismiss Q3 accomplishments in the face of most athletic accomplishment.
the people at the top of these fields practice many hours a day, through intense physical stress/injuries. the mental discipline it takes is absolutely incredible. and i wouldn't be shocked if there reflexes were far superior to most q3 players, as both of the activities you mentioned rely greatly on fast twitch muscle and body/eye coordination. if these people spent the same playing q3 as 99% of q3 players, they'd be better.
great, make broad generalizations about a large group of people based on your limited high school chess experience.
i'm glad you could share.
let's see if I have this right. people who think they're smart because of great skill with a game of strategy are way off base. here's a question: how much difference can you really point out between chess, a mathematical proof, and computer programming... they all require very similar cognitive processes. perhaps you can prove me wrong, or give me a pointer to 'scientists' who have proved it.
as for chess clubs having poorly-socialized members, and linux user groups coming in a close second... i'd like to direct your attention to the following...
and last of all. you say that chess is stupid, and magic and d&d are real games of strategy that demand true intelligence. how about this... maybe some chess players think that fantasy games are immature? i don't, but just a thought.
but it's missing the point that there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why chess should be an olympic game.
i'm a pretty enthusiastic chess player. i like the game. but i can play chess in a suit, and if you can do an activity (competitively) in a suit, then it shouldn't be in the olympics.
Slashdot Mirror
c++ and c obviously have their respective places in systems programming...
.Net runtime evironment v. Java bytecode run in JVM...)
but does c# really have a place? it seems almost syntactically identical to java, and the same conceptually (CLS run in
just in case you haven't heard, the killer app for 'joe sixpack' (i hate that phrase, but just keeping with your original words) is AOL (with possibly MSN in the mix).
most dumbasses i know on the internet want to a. get email b. search for 'nude pics of britney spears' or c. chat with (what they believe are) 17 years old girls.
most windows users don't have a gory fps on their computer (although i'm sure anyone who gets royalties from quake would be just thrilled if this were the case).
so even though i disagree with you on how to convert average users to linux, i agree that any coder on any project should try to think originally, write killer code, and take pride in their work - whether open source or not.
... released anyway. If MS were to be broken up beforehand, would they throw away all the code to XP? ...
fine, they've released XP. honestly, from all i've heard, it's a superior OS to previous windows releases. so, that means that millions of home users of windows may have slightly less blue screen filled days.
now, they really are facing the reality they will be broken up for unfair monopoly practices. that is great, and I will be the first to throw a party in honor of the day this happens. Even if it does though, windows will still be the dominating home OS... so if they can improve it, great. XP would probably be released anyway, if MS was broken up beforehand - where they going to toss all the code?
this just means we may have to suffer through 1 more release of inferior product tie-ins (ie4, ms messenger...) and internet wizards holding our hand all the way to an msn lifetime subscription...
it is a selling point. if the code for *BSD were not open, i assure you, it would not be as widely adopted. sure, it's fast and reliable. so are other operating systems... and i would consider getting a BSD distro over any of the closed source alternatives, for the learning experience of being able to delve into a matured and tested code base. it's great, and it's open source. both are selling points in this case. i know the phrase 'open source' is overused here a lot, but in this case it's appropriate...
C = d(aA + bB + c)^e + f .. A = (((C-f)^-e)/d)-bB-c)/a
C - f = d(aA +bB +c)^e
(C-f)^-e = d(aA+bB+c)
(C-f)^-e)/d = aA+bB+c
((C-f)^-e)/d) - bB - c = aA
and
same problem.
and why on earth should a generic R2 -> R function take this form? I don't see why having 6 constants/variables is of any consequence unless you're talking about a special class of functions.
wow, what a conceited jerk you are.
only because your half-baked pseudo-scientific math/physics/philosophy bother me so much am i even bothering to reply.
your first 6 paragraphs are devoted to making a point that i don't care about. my advice to you was this: a geodesic (Great circle) on a 2 sphere embedded in 3 dimensional euclidean space is NOT a straight line in euclidean space. the frame of reference is clear from my original assertion, which is the 3-d euclidean space. it IS a geodesic on the 2 sphere. "geodesic" IMPLIES 'straightness' on a manifold. so, to sum that up: your math teachers were right, but should have appended "this is true in 3 dimensional space" - you get -1 style points for trying to spin a symantic error into a mathematical error.
your whole post is devoted to clearing up an 'assumption' which you wrongfully assumed that I had made.
now, as to your "real" vs. "wannabe" scientist arguement, I now know 1 thing at least. you are not a scientist. scientist have humility in the face of the achievement of previous other scientists. they read, research, and know every goddam detail about research in their field. real scientists do start out reading encyclopedias and journals, because they don't want to redo work that another scientist has already done. and they don't make up terminology for phenomena that already have names. plasma researchers may have coined the phrase "sausage instabilities", but they didn't change the word "gravity" into "fred". making up word is exactly what it sounds like. absolutely nothing.
yeah, i sprained my duende once, and could hardly sit down for a week. terrible stuff.
If no one were faulted, anarchy would be the ideal.
yes... and if my farts smelled like flowers, i'd have bees flying up my ass. but i don't.
somewhat more seriously, the same can be said for communism. in fact, they become very similar under the assumption that no one is faulted. but everyone on earth was no more faulted than the least faulted person ever, we'd probably all be too faulted for either to work...
your stupid math teachers?? reading your words, you might have been wise to listen to them more than insulting them.
first off, before dissing them, read all this page on differential geometry: http://147.4.150.5/~matscw/diff_geom/tc.html.
if you do not understand the following phrase: "a geodesic on the 2-sphere, when embedded in 3 dimensional euclidean space, does not have a non-zero first curvature vector", do not bother replying yet. go back and read that again. take care to look carefully at section 8.
also, if a terminology exists for something, don't make up your own. it only makes you sound overly self important.
i was going to respond point by point to your posting. however, i would just like to say this.
if you read the constitution through, you will find a document which is incapable of providing realistic guidelines for running a country the size of the united states. if you get to far into the wording, you forget the spirit of the constitution, which is far more important. like some christians reading the wording of the bible, and beating gay men to death/bombing abortion clinics.. conveniently forgetting the love+forgiveness that jesus was preaching.
As i've mentioned, the constitution had the 3/5s compromise in it. But another aspect of the constitution is evident here (not coincidently in article 1 sec. 9, which you referred me to...)
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
what is 'time to time'? every month, year, decade, century? the founders of the constitution laid guidelines, not dogma. it is clear they mean a reasonable amount of time (not eons), but no precise time is given. another classic example of the benefit of loose interpretation is in section 8, where they do not mention an air force... do you really think the constitution should have been amended for the provision of an air force? those are petty issues, subject to semantics. acting within the spirit of the constitution is more important than analyzing the original wording as though it were presented to us from the hands of the gods...
are you saying that if the founding father were not faulted, they would have chosen anarchy, or as i would guess you might say - pure free market society? that is asinine...
if the FCC were disbanded, no good would come of it. free market is an illusion. it is exactly like pure communism. it does NOT exist due to human nature.
the only advice that i have to give you is to not ask for legal advice on slashdot.
IANAL
yeah, and this can't possibly change. or maybe we can pay them more, and attract better people.
wasn't there just a posting in the last couple of day about a municipality in florida going to a linux over thin client model, saving the town hundreds of thousands in NT/Win2K licensing costs? if the average loser in the private sector did half as well as that guy (& his team), the state of the computer industry would be a whole lot better (except for overcharging monopolies...)
what is it about the private sector that makes people assume it's so much better?? maybe you can elaborate, because I just don't see it...
or europe... that argument doesn't hold water.
bull.
there's no mention of NASA and a space program in the constitution either. in fact, you'll find nothing about WANs, broadband, or even personal computers. the people who wrote it were NOT perfect (see 3/5s compromise), and even though it's excellently thought through, the original writers could not see the future, either. they even anticipated that it wouldn't be perfect or complete, and left a framework for creating new laws, and extrapolating the constitution to cover anything they missed. it involves the supreme court, and the legislative branch. legislative branch can make ANY law they want. they can prohibit left handed people from going to the bathroom under penalty of death. the balance is that it must pass constitutional muster in the eyes of the supreme court, which would look at the constitution, and strike down the law. if the legislative branch hates this so much, they can CHANGE the constitution, and the supreme court would have to analyze the new law in that light.
anyway, i'm sure you're aware of all this. but it's suprising then that you consider the absence of permission in the verbage of the constitution is implied prohibition. do a search of strict vs. loose interpretationalists on google, and i'm sure that you'll get something on the long standing philosophical differences between the 2 schools of thought (original bank of the united states provides a nice example of this conflict)
no, it doesn't include those at the very top.
juniper made lots of money, but so did cisco, et al. Dell made money, but so did gateway, micron,... you see where i'm going.
on the other hand, Ma Bell made money, microsoft made money... but not through offering the best product, necessarily. if a company holds a monopoly and abuses it, then they should be held to different standards. what they do is uncapitolistic and unethical, and it should have consequences and laws preventing it.
think about the physics there...
I would turn this right around and say that you've never been involved with or been a serious spectator in either competitive Quake 3 playing or a serious chess competition.
you're absolutely right, i wasted much,much more of my college years playing unreal tournament. i enjoyed it more than quake, but that's just my preference. i was never in a serious chess competion, but only because i never wanted to shell out the $15 or so it took for entrance fees. last i checked, i could stand my ground at a +1700 level. i also played several sports.
And Quake 3 players don't spend thousands of hours practicing and becoming experts at their game? Chess players often start their careers as young children to fully develop a brain that can make the leaps required for chess.
i'm sure that lots of q3 players spend even more than thousands of hours playing that game (that's only averaging 3 hours a day for a year), and i'm not being totally insensitive to their efforts. i'm just saying it's more difficult to train as an athlete than it is as a gamer.
Wow that's quite a blanket assertion: The Quake 3 world is just waiting for the day that a 100m athletes comes over and wipes up the field. Sorry, but that is proposterous. There are millions of players who partake in computer gaming, and of those the best of the best of the best, with the best mental abilities (for the requirement) and the best reflexes, move to the top. This idea that "naturally superior" superhuman track and field athletes could be the best Q3 player if they only wanted to is absolutely, positively proposterous (no different than me claiming that the top Q3a player could be the fastest runner and the longest jumper if only that's what he wanted to do). Let me guess: a baseball player would automatically make a great chess player?
it is no different than you claiming that the best q3 players could be the "fastest runners and longest jumpers". barring certain aberrations (really obese quake players, athletes too dumb to turn on a computer), these would probably have a large intersection. as i said, both groups benefit from a higher percentage of high twitch muscle fibers and higher than average body/eye coordination. who knows, many of the better q3 players might be able to be quality sprinters/shotputters
the reason you don't see 100m sprinters overrunning the quake world (and vice versa), is that they don't care. anyone who's trained heavily in sprinting isn't going to give it up to spend a couple of months getting instantly fragged on a quake server. no 1334 quake players are going to sell the computer and start doing wind sprints and stadium runs...
i spoke to strongly when i said that i would "totally dismiss Q3 accomplishments in the face of most athletic accomplishment". however, i do feel that many athletes that compete at very high levels work harder. it's just my opinion, and it doesn't mean anything.
however, when you say something like:
It is sad to see a jock like attitude on Slashdot of all places berating those people "sitting on their ass" because they aren't competing in the traditional sense. Sorry but I respect the guy who has the most frags more than I respect the guy who throws a metal ball or runs down a track: While both have little value in the real world, the former seems like more of an accomplishment to me.
you have to know that there's going to be some reaction.
and it's not the top of the line, even, if i'm not mistaken. i thought that was the t90.
well, IANAL, but [insert official sounding FUD here]
i wrestled, and damned if i can ever find more than 5 minutes of footage on it (except when gardner beat karelin, and the coverage was not great)
i don't mean offense, but it seems really obvious you've neither 'thrown a metal ball' or 'ran down a track' in a seriously competitive way.
i would totally dismiss Q3 accomplishments in the face of most athletic accomplishment.
the people at the top of these fields practice many hours a day, through intense physical stress/injuries. the mental discipline it takes is absolutely incredible. and i wouldn't be shocked if there reflexes were far superior to most q3 players, as both of the activities you mentioned rely greatly on fast twitch muscle and body/eye coordination. if these people spent the same playing q3 as 99% of q3 players, they'd be better.
great, make broad generalizations about a large group of people based on your limited high school chess experience.
i'm glad you could share.
let's see if I have this right. people who think they're smart because of great skill with a game of strategy are way off base. here's a question: how much difference can you really point out between chess, a mathematical proof, and computer programming... they all require very similar cognitive processes. perhaps you can prove me wrong, or give me a pointer to 'scientists' who have proved it.
as for chess clubs having poorly-socialized members, and linux user groups coming in a close second... i'd like to direct your attention to the following...
and last of all. you say that chess is stupid, and magic and d&d are real games of strategy that demand true intelligence. how about this... maybe some chess players think that fantasy games are immature? i don't, but just a thought.
right on. the value of chess as a drinking game has been very underestimated...
sure, this is true.
but it's missing the point that there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why chess should be an olympic game.
i'm a pretty enthusiastic chess player. i like the game. but i can play chess in a suit, and if you can do an activity (competitively) in a suit, then it shouldn't be in the olympics.