Personally, I think it's a twisted variant on the famous Milgram Experiment. Here's Wikipedia's description of that, adapted to the variant:
The Dice manager (PHB) orders the editor (E), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter recognizes are painful electric shocks to Slashdotters (S), most of whom which for the site to thrive and prosper. The subject believes that for each Bennett Haselton post, the Slashdotter experiences the same effect as receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality it was much worse.
The goal of the experiment, of course, is to determine if E will actually kill Slashdot under the orders of an authority figure, PHB, or whether he/she will stop short of a lethal dose to the site. If the Milgram Experiment is any guide, the punishment will continue regardless of the screaming of S, until a lethal voltage has been administered.
I still love mine, though I have to admit that I haven't touched it in year. Maybe it's just nostalgia. Maybe I should build the Electronic Organ and try it out on my current cat - I don't think I've ever done that. Coincidentally, my kids recently did the modern-day equivalent by pulling up a video of a cat meowing on YouTube and playing that for the cat through a cell phone. That drove her a little crazy, I guess.
Having just dissed them above, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Radio Shack sold me the best toy I ever got. It was the "100-in-1 Electronic Project Kit". Like all great toys, you could do lots of different things with it. It was endless fun. It had a set of basic electronic components attached to springs, and you wired projects up by bending a spring to the side and then poking a wire into it.
Some projects were easy (few wires) and some were hard (many wires), but all were fun. Most worked well, some worked a little, and a few didn't work at all. I don't think I ever once got the "Three Transistor AM Radio" to work. But the "Electronic Organ" was endless fun. You could turn a knob to change the pitch. And if you did that just right, you could drive the cat absolutely crazy!
I bought a couple of updated "150-in-1 Electronic Project Kits" (150? wow, even funner!) for my kids at garage sales a few years ago, but those didn't hold their interest for even an hour. I guess kids nowadays aren't interested in stuff like this - it seems pretty lame in the age of video games (we only had Pong back then) and cellphones (all phones had cords back then, and were the property of AT&T in those monopoly days). They don't know what they're missing. And unfortunately, neither does their cat.
It'll be a sad day when Radio Shack is gone. Here are a few of my favorite things: - Drawers full of overpriced components and do-dads in small-quantity bubble packs. All except the one you need. - Not-so-great stereo equipment that you could get cheaper nearly anywhere else - Strange electronic toys - Cellphones that nobody actually buys - Not knowing quite where I should stand to get in line to pay around that counter in the center of the store
But here's what I'll miss most: being asked for my contact information each and every time I buy even just a couple of small parts, and having to either politely decline or else patiently repeat myself several times while the salesman types it all into the computer.
Although Radio Shack has many obvious disadvantages compared to various big-box and online retailers, none will ever be able to match the special experience it provides of having an enormous amount of your time wasted for just a few parts gained and a few dollars spent.
I just saw a "Nova" episode about the Large Hadron Collider. And sure enough, there he was: Michio Kaku. I knew he wandered shows on the Discovery and Science channels like a lost soul wandering Hades, but we can't escape him even on PBS!
He immediately made some comment to the effect that GPS could be used to "locate your car within inches". Actually, Mr. Know It All, it's meters, not inches...
Yeah, don't you just hate it when a President shows leadership. Next thing you know, he'll be scheming with other heads of state to coordinate efforts on global issues like climate change - in fact, I think he even pulled that stunt recently with the Chinese at some sort of "summit meeting". And I bet he even sits at the head of the table at those pretentious "cabinet meetings" he holds. Of all the nerve...
I switched from Perl to Python immediately after I discovered Python. Ironically, I first heard of Python when it was offhandedly mentioned in the book "Advanced Perl Programming." In Perl, I had developed the habit of writing a comment for nearly every line of code - much as most assembly programmers do. Python had similar semantics but much better syntax. It practically documents itself if you do it right. I never did figure out Perl's object syntax (bless, 'em), but objects are easy in Python.
When I first learned Python, there were lots of Perl books on the shelf in the tech section of any large bookstore, and just a couple of Python books. As a Python fan, I was hoping it would catch on, and couldn't figure out why it wasn't taking the world by storm. Perl was the dominant player in CGI at that time, which made it a big thing. Over the years, I kept taking my little bookshelf polls every now and then, and the ratio changed. Turns out it just took awhile. Now, there are very few Perl books and lots of Python books.
Having a real scientist as a TV spokesmodel isn't all bad, but it just seems to be terribly overdone. I get tired of seeing folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson and especially Michio Kaku (who thankfully was omitted from TFS) on TV. When they appear, each is presented as "the guy who knows everything." Micho Kaku has a particularly smug, know-it-all, condescending presentation that grows old in light of his seeming omnipresence on the science-related channels.
The fact is, though, that true scientists are specialists who know a great deal about their particular specialty but certainly don't "know everything." At best, they have a strong education in general science topics such as physics and chemistry and likely are extremely smart. And if they really know everything, they oughtta be on Jeopardy. So give us Ken Jennings instead.
Hopefully, what these folks gain in celebrity among the public by playing this game is equaled by the stature they lose among their fellow scientists. I'm not a scientist (and don't even play one on TV), but if I were, I certainly would giggle each time I saw one of these guys spouting off about something.
But it has nothing to do with Python itself, its just the community built fantastic math libraries in python, generally because of historical reasons.
Yes and no. One key strength of Python with regard to math is its built-in support for complex numbers. Without that, Python probably never would have attracted the attention of people who write complex (but not complicated) math libraries.
I realized recently that morality applies mostly in relation to one's own species. For example, I currently have some squirrels living in my attic that I'm trying to...shall we say..."euthanize". Many (though not all) folks would consider that moral. However, other euthanization programs in the past (or even present) that have involved humans always make that moral by first dehumanizing them by applying labels such as "vermin", "infidel", [racial epithet of your choice], etc.
A robot would presumably be considered another species, so in this moral framework, it would be moral for humans to exterminate robots (much as we currently do pop cans and old cars), and for robots to do the same to us. So, maybe our best bet would be to become their pets. Then, they would be more like my cat, who I happily share my house with, rather than my squirrels, who I don't.
So now I basically don't care about the morality - I mean, why should I when to all appearances no one else does?
If your own morality is dependent on the morality of others, rather than hard coded, please don't use that same approach when you do finally succeed in creating intelligent machines. Even if someone else thinks that's OK.
You make some interesting points, especially this:
Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt.
I read something similar on CNN. But that leaves those of us on the outside wondering why anyone would find it so offensive that someone else had made an image of Mohamed. Apparently, there is no known image of him drawn from life, so any depiction must be a work of imagination. Therefore, an image only becomes "an image of Mohammed" because one puts a "Mohammed" label on it - much as we've seen on the clever little textual pictures of him in this thread. And from the outside, the zeal we've seen applied to this - to the point of murder - looks like nothing less than the very veneration of a man that's it's supposed to be preventing.
I can understand the idea that someone finds an unflattering image related to one's beliefs to be offensive. But we in America value freedom of religion (and are therefore willing to pay the price of granting same to others), whereas in other value systems, freedom of religion would be seen as something that's explicitly wrong - or maybe even evil.
So, is that's what's going on here? Is perhaps a prohibition against making images of Mohammed right in one value system, whereas freedom of expression is right in another? If so, it's hard to see how two diametrically opposed views could ever be reconciled among all us folks who are stuck living together here on Planet Earth.
Interesting point. Certainly, there is a tradeoff here. I think in specific case of cable, though, the burden of selecting channels at first and perhaps once a year wouldn't be too onerous. In fact, most people make choices about channels - specifically, which ones to watch - on a daily basis.
TFA bascially makes the point that you now have to pay for a lot of things individually on airlines that you used to get for "free", and that not everybody enjoys paying for these things. True enough, but the article brushes off the very real benefits of paying less when you get (and need) less. For example:
As fliers have learned all too well in the last decade, air flight has become unbundled. Want a bit of leg room? That will be a $50 upgrade for a seat in your airline’s “premium economy” cabin. Sandwiches are on sale for $9, a glass of wine for $7. Checking that bag costs $25, and there is a $200 change fee for your ticket, or buy a much more expensive one upfront.
However, what's wrong with bringing fewer bags, if you want to, or else paying the going price for the bags you really need?
In the cable world, I certainly can imagine someone whining about "Why do I now have to pay X for channel Y - that's a ripoff!", but I don't see how it can be a bad thing to pay less for only what you really want. It really boils down to economics: if it now is efficient to allow people to select and pay for cable channels individually, that's bound to happen. It's only a matter of time.
I've only used it for longer than five years, but only intermittently. I keep hoping it will grow on me.;-)
The basic problem for an intermittent user like me is that the syntax seems ugly and non-intuitive. (Note to moderators: YMMV.) For that reason, I have to keep referring to docs or my own prior examples every time I do anything. But maybe like Lady Gaga, it eventually looks beautiful to it fans.
Python has a much cleaner approach to generic programming, for example. Isn't Python an imperative language? Maybe it isn't fair, though, to compare a freshly designed dynamically typed language to a statically typed language which was constrained to be backwards compatible with a much older language that never anticipated generic programming as we know it today. In that context, maybe my term "mess" shouldn't be taken as a pejorative - though I'll confess that I meant it that way.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think it's a twisted variant on the famous Milgram Experiment. Here's Wikipedia's description of that, adapted to the variant:
The Dice manager (PHB) orders the editor (E), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter recognizes are painful electric shocks to Slashdotters (S), most of whom which for the site to thrive and prosper. The subject believes that for each Bennett Haselton post, the Slashdotter experiences the same effect as receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality it was much worse.
The goal of the experiment, of course, is to determine if E will actually kill Slashdot under the orders of an authority figure, PHB, or whether he/she will stop short of a lethal dose to the site. If the Milgram Experiment is any guide, the punishment will continue regardless of the screaming of S, until a lethal voltage has been administered.
For a related experiment, see beta.slashdot.org.
Hey, that's pretty good! At the time, I was never able to go beyond simple mods to the projects that came with it.
Were there any projects that you never once got to work? - I eventually decided that some simply didn't work, though I may have been wrong about that.
I still love mine, though I have to admit that I haven't touched it in year. Maybe it's just nostalgia. Maybe I should build the Electronic Organ and try it out on my current cat - I don't think I've ever done that. Coincidentally, my kids recently did the modern-day equivalent by pulling up a video of a cat meowing on YouTube and playing that for the cat through a cell phone. That drove her a little crazy, I guess.
Having just dissed them above, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Radio Shack sold me the best toy I ever got. It was the "100-in-1 Electronic Project Kit". Like all great toys, you could do lots of different things with it. It was endless fun. It had a set of basic electronic components attached to springs, and you wired projects up by bending a spring to the side and then poking a wire into it.
Some projects were easy (few wires) and some were hard (many wires), but all were fun. Most worked well, some worked a little, and a few didn't work at all. I don't think I ever once got the "Three Transistor AM Radio" to work. But the "Electronic Organ" was endless fun. You could turn a knob to change the pitch. And if you did that just right, you could drive the cat absolutely crazy!
I bought a couple of updated "150-in-1 Electronic Project Kits" (150? wow, even funner!) for my kids at garage sales a few years ago, but those didn't hold their interest for even an hour. I guess kids nowadays aren't interested in stuff like this - it seems pretty lame in the age of video games (we only had Pong back then) and cellphones (all phones had cords back then, and were the property of AT&T in those monopoly days). They don't know what they're missing. And unfortunately, neither does their cat.
It'll be a sad day when Radio Shack is gone. Here are a few of my favorite things:
- Drawers full of overpriced components and do-dads in small-quantity bubble packs. All except the one you need.
- Not-so-great stereo equipment that you could get cheaper nearly anywhere else
- Strange electronic toys
- Cellphones that nobody actually buys
- Not knowing quite where I should stand to get in line to pay around that counter in the center of the store
But here's what I'll miss most: being asked for my contact information each and every time I buy even just a couple of small parts, and having to either politely decline or else patiently repeat myself several times while the salesman types it all into the computer.
Although Radio Shack has many obvious disadvantages compared to various big-box and online retailers, none will ever be able to match the special experience it provides of having an enormous amount of your time wasted for just a few parts gained and a few dollars spent.
I'm gonna miss that [sniffle].
Perhaps it's a conspiracy to create more opportunities to monetize it via bundled adware. Then again, never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
I just saw a "Nova" episode about the Large Hadron Collider. And sure enough, there he was: Michio Kaku. I knew he wandered shows on the Discovery and Science channels like a lost soul wandering Hades, but we can't escape him even on PBS!
He immediately made some comment to the effect that GPS could be used to "locate your car within inches". Actually, Mr. Know It All, it's meters, not inches...
$_ = 'Dagnabb';
'$_it! I guess that proves the old adage that "you can write Perl in any language"';
I'm not sure I $_ what you mean.
Yeah, don't you just hate it when a President shows leadership. Next thing you know, he'll be scheming with other heads of state to coordinate efforts on global issues like climate change - in fact, I think he even pulled that stunt recently with the Chinese at some sort of "summit meeting". And I bet he even sits at the head of the table at those pretentious "cabinet meetings" he holds. Of all the nerve...
I switched from Perl to Python immediately after I discovered Python. Ironically, I first heard of Python when it was offhandedly mentioned in the book "Advanced Perl Programming." In Perl, I had developed the habit of writing a comment for nearly every line of code - much as most assembly programmers do. Python had similar semantics but much better syntax. It practically documents itself if you do it right. I never did figure out Perl's object syntax (bless, 'em), but objects are easy in Python.
When I first learned Python, there were lots of Perl books on the shelf in the tech section of any large bookstore, and just a couple of Python books. As a Python fan, I was hoping it would catch on, and couldn't figure out why it wasn't taking the world by storm. Perl was the dominant player in CGI at that time, which made it a big thing. Over the years, I kept taking my little bookshelf polls every now and then, and the ratio changed. Turns out it just took awhile. Now, there are very few Perl books and lots of Python books.
Thank you, Python. Oh, and thank you, Perl 6.
Having a real scientist as a TV spokesmodel isn't all bad, but it just seems to be terribly overdone. I get tired of seeing folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson and especially Michio Kaku (who thankfully was omitted from TFS) on TV. When they appear, each is presented as "the guy who knows everything." Micho Kaku has a particularly smug, know-it-all, condescending presentation that grows old in light of his seeming omnipresence on the science-related channels.
The fact is, though, that true scientists are specialists who know a great deal about their particular specialty but certainly don't "know everything." At best, they have a strong education in general science topics such as physics and chemistry and likely are extremely smart. And if they really know everything, they oughtta be on Jeopardy. So give us Ken Jennings instead.
Hopefully, what these folks gain in celebrity among the public by playing this game is equaled by the stature they lose among their fellow scientists. I'm not a scientist (and don't even play one on TV), but if I were, I certainly would giggle each time I saw one of these guys spouting off about something.
But it has nothing to do with Python itself, its just the community built fantastic math libraries in python, generally because of historical reasons.
Yes and no. One key strength of Python with regard to math is its built-in support for complex numbers. Without that, Python probably never would have attracted the attention of people who write complex (but not complicated) math libraries.
I realized recently that morality applies mostly in relation to one's own species. For example, I currently have some squirrels living in my attic that I'm trying to...shall we say..."euthanize". Many (though not all) folks would consider that moral. However, other euthanization programs in the past (or even present) that have involved humans always make that moral by first dehumanizing them by applying labels such as "vermin", "infidel", [racial epithet of your choice], etc.
A robot would presumably be considered another species, so in this moral framework, it would be moral for humans to exterminate robots (much as we currently do pop cans and old cars), and for robots to do the same to us. So, maybe our best bet would be to become their pets. Then, they would be more like my cat, who I happily share my house with, rather than my squirrels, who I don't.
So now I basically don't care about the morality - I mean, why should I when to all appearances no one else does?
If your own morality is dependent on the morality of others, rather than hard coded, please don't use that same approach when you do finally succeed in creating intelligent machines. Even if someone else thinks that's OK.
And don't forget the Chevy Jolt. Runs on highly caffeinated cola.
Yes, and we can look forward to hearing from Miss Piggy, Cookie Monster, Bert, Grover, and Yoda a the plaintiff's star witnesses.
There's hope for Dr. Strangelove.
You make some interesting points, especially this:
Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt.
I read something similar on CNN. But that leaves those of us on the outside wondering why anyone would find it so offensive that someone else had made an image of Mohamed. Apparently, there is no known image of him drawn from life, so any depiction must be a work of imagination. Therefore, an image only becomes "an image of Mohammed" because one puts a "Mohammed" label on it - much as we've seen on the clever little textual pictures of him in this thread. And from the outside, the zeal we've seen applied to this - to the point of murder - looks like nothing less than the very veneration of a man that's it's supposed to be preventing.
I can understand the idea that someone finds an unflattering image related to one's beliefs to be offensive. But we in America value freedom of religion (and are therefore willing to pay the price of granting same to others), whereas in other value systems, freedom of religion would be seen as something that's explicitly wrong - or maybe even evil.
So, is that's what's going on here? Is perhaps a prohibition against making images of Mohammed right in one value system, whereas freedom of expression is right in another? If so, it's hard to see how two diametrically opposed views could ever be reconciled among all us folks who are stuck living together here on Planet Earth.
For reference, see Kudzu in the United States and think Law of Unintended Consequences on a global scale.
Next thing you know, Minecraft will be self-hosting. Lord help us, the singularity awakes!
Interesting point. Certainly, there is a tradeoff here. I think in specific case of cable, though, the burden of selecting channels at first and perhaps once a year wouldn't be too onerous. In fact, most people make choices about channels - specifically, which ones to watch - on a daily basis.
TFA bascially makes the point that you now have to pay for a lot of things individually on airlines that you used to get for "free", and that not everybody enjoys paying for these things. True enough, but the article brushes off the very real benefits of paying less when you get (and need) less. For example:
As fliers have learned all too well in the last decade, air flight has become unbundled. Want a bit of leg room? That will be a $50 upgrade for a seat in your airline’s “premium economy” cabin. Sandwiches are on sale for $9, a glass of wine for $7. Checking that bag costs $25, and there is a $200 change fee for your ticket, or buy a much more expensive one upfront.
However, what's wrong with bringing fewer bags, if you want to, or else paying the going price for the bags you really need?
In the cable world, I certainly can imagine someone whining about "Why do I now have to pay X for channel Y - that's a ripoff!", but I don't see how it can be a bad thing to pay less for only what you really want. It really boils down to economics: if it now is efficient to allow people to select and pay for cable channels individually, that's bound to happen. It's only a matter of time.
I've only used it for longer than five years, but only intermittently. I keep hoping it will grow on me. ;-)
The basic problem for an intermittent user like me is that the syntax seems ugly and non-intuitive. (Note to moderators: YMMV.) For that reason, I have to keep referring to docs or my own prior examples every time I do anything. But maybe like Lady Gaga, it eventually looks beautiful to it fans.
Python has a much cleaner approach to generic programming, for example. Isn't Python an imperative language? Maybe it isn't fair, though, to compare a freshly designed dynamically typed language to a statically typed language which was constrained to be backwards compatible with a much older language that never anticipated generic programming as we know it today. In that context, maybe my term "mess" shouldn't be taken as a pejorative - though I'll confess that I meant it that way. :-)