"Human Brain Still Beats Computers At Finding Messages and Meaning Within Noise?" That must explain why I keep tuning in here at/., whereas my Bot's favorite place to waste time is Ashley Madison...
Just yesterday, I put an ancient CRC Math Handbook in a pile to donate to my local public library. One sign of its age is that it's pretty small. I don't know how much use it is at this point: the library might put it on the shelves, sell it, or trash it - who knows?
Although these things arguably are made obsolete by the Internet, the humble printed handbook still has its value. My favorite in the math-table genre has always been Schaum's Outline of Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables, which is very handy for browsing and for refreshing yourself on your favorite page of formulas via another paper gadget, the humble sticky note.
Wow...that article was equal parts interesting and scary...
Coincidentally, a few weeks ago, I had independently noticed many points of similarity between Trump and Hitler. Glad I'm not the only one. The most obvious thing is this unfortunate penchant for demagogery, specifically, a habit of blaming minorities as the cause of every problem. Let's just hope if can't happen here. But as they say, those who don't learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat history class.
Or, to paraphrase an old saw: "Bitcoins, bitcoins everywhere, and not a bit to spend."
I don't understand much about the technical details of Bitcoin anonymity, but if what you say is true, something seems to have gone afoul in his (their) plan. What sort of "anonymity" is it that can be "de-anonymized in mere hours?"
FWIW, if you're sitting on a big pile of bitcoins, the best thing to do would be to sell them slowly. If I were the inventor, I would:
- Remain steadfastly anonymous (unlike anyone else who creates a major new technology.) Using a pseudonym doesn't hurt. (Hey, it works for me here.) - Mint myself a big pile at first - Sell them slowly so as not to devalue them or draw too much attention to myself.
IIRC, Spain once had a problem where they had acquired a big pile of gold from the New World and they thought they were rich. Then, they learned that they weren't as rich as they thought because a sudden increase in the supply of any currency inevitably devalues it.
The primary selling point of gold as a currency is that it can't be created, it can only be mined at ever-increasing cost - much like Bitcoin. The sudden increase of supply from the New World was an anomalous exception to that rule. I'm sure the Bitcoin folks won't make the same mistake.
Coincidentally, in the book I mentioned, they covered an academic study of which U.S. presidents were the most narcissistic based on whatever historical data was available. As one might expect, most of them scored fairly high on the scale. I forget which one scored highest, but IIRC it was Lyndon Johnson. For example, he had a habit of holding meetings while he sat on the toilet, with his (reportedly impressive) "johnson" in full view. Obviously, that's not something that a non-narcissist would do.
Although the word "narcissist" sounds pejorative, it's not necessary a bad thing unless it's carried to extremes. In fact, why would any non-narcissist run for President in the first place? Most of us would feel unqualified to carry that much responsibility. But somebody's gotta do it, and someone who believes deep in his heart that he (or she...) is the best - if not only - person for the job would feel not only capable but even obligated to run for it, no matter what cost is in terms of privacy, personal attacks, time, energy, etc. So, by definition, anyone who runs for President is probably not a psychologically "normal" person.
There's a reason lots of folks are scared of Trump: because his narcissism seems to go to extremes. And as he goes farther and farther across the line that other politicians won't cross, let's just hope he manages to keep his johnson in his pocket. Personally, I don't care to see it. And I doubt that his advisers do either.
I recently read a book called "The Narcissist Next Door" which details narcissistic personality disorder. Although the book was written years ago, it specifically mentions The Donald as a possible sufferer of the disorder. And based on the symptoms they described, it seems quite likely to me. If so, that would adequately explain all of his behavior that we've seen. In effect, all this isl about drawing attention to himself (which actually is the motivation of any troll.) And if he happens to get elected as President, that's just gravy (for him.) That said, as a narcissist, he would fully believe that he's the best person for the job. So he would believe that he should be elected.
I recently saw program where a commentator observed that unlike other politicians, Trump "doubles down" on anything stupid that he says. For example, the more that people point out that there is no evidence of thousands celebrating in New Jersey when the twin towers came down, the more he pushes the idea.
According to the book, a narcissist - in the clinical sense - is incapable of admitting he's wrong. So, whenever that gets pointed out by someone, it must be the fault of an external party. In this case, he can blame the media for misreporting the "facts" or whatever: he's never, ever, ever, simply "wrong."
Second of all, if you are developing in either C or C++, you should develop in a different language.
OK, I'll bite. C and C++ are commonly used for real-time embedded applications, primarily because of speed. Do you have a better language for that? Remember, it has to compile on the processor you're actually using. My current project uses a Blackfin DSP processor by Analog Devices. The toolset that Analog provides supports only C, C++, and assembly. I don't expect them to provide Java,.Net, PHP, Haskell, Python or [your favorite language here] anytime soon.
Thanks, that was also interesting. I don't know much about Parrot or other virtual machines, but now that.NET has been opened up by Microsoft, I could imagine someone porting it to Parrot if it offers some sort of run-time advantage. Got any thoughts on that?
Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on our preferred scripting language. But I'm curious: which things do you feel are the most mistaken about Python? (Besides blocks-by-indenting - practically anyone who dislikes Python cites that as a showstopper for them so I'll go out on a limb and guess that it is for you, too...)
...but seriously, if Perl code is hard to read, it's the author's fault.
Now, let's be nice to Larry Wall. It's not all his fault. He's actually made a tremendous contribution to programming languages by helping jump start the web via Perl/CGI, and by popularizing many good ideas in programming languages. Most importantly, Guido van Rossum might have made many more mistakes in Python if he didn't have Perl as a counter-example. So, God bless() him.
Coincidentally, you answered something I was wondering about: what niche is Perl 6 supposed to serve? I like the idea a scripting language that is designed for compilation, but I wonder how well that would actually work in practice. Various compilers are available for Python, though they don't seem to have caught on - presumably because the speed benefits aren't compelling. Facebook created a PHP compiler of some sort, which I assume they use. Fundamentally, though, the basic principles of a scripting language - primarily dynamic variables - run contrary to the needs of a compiler.
So, is Perl 6 supposed to be a scripting language which allows variables to be statically typed in order to allow effective compilation? If so, that sounds intriguing...if it wasn't somehow still some form of Perl.;-)
I agree wholehearted. In fact, I've often likened writing in Perl to a circus performer walking on a high wire without a net: it's quite entertaining to watch, and I'm glad folks have the opportunity to impress us with their skill and daring in the face of danger but I'm glad I don't have to do it myself. In fact, if I were up there, I'd want a close net, a safety harness, and a really, really, thick wire. (Thanks, Python!)
Lemme guess: you're one of those "geniuses" who thinks that the assembly code (and Perl) they write is so obvious that it doesn't need any comments...
I used to read comp.lang.perl many years ago and soon became horrified at they way Tom Christensen consistently skewered any newbie who wasn't as much of a genius at Perl as he was. (Kindda makes you wonder why he ever bothered to write a book about it if he didn't want to teach newbies.) I've always wondered: what is it about Perl that attracts "geniuses" like you and Tom?...
Although you did pick up on the important word "obvious," you missed another important word: "should." Notice that it isn't "must." It's more of a goal than a hard-and-fast rule.
I don't think we should take any of the Zen of Python too literally. In that vein, Tim Peters gives us a little wink in that regard with his next line, "Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch." (Guido, the inventor of Python, happens to be Dutch.)
Part of the process of learning Python involves learning how to program "Pythonically." That basically involves using the "best" or "canonical" method when there are alternatives. It took me a couple of years before I felt I had truly absorbed all that. That's why it's called The Zen of Python: you just have to slowly absorb it.
I don't know of any programming language that you can be truly good at without having practiced over a period of years. The same holds true for Python, though an experienced programmer can become at least competent in it in a very short time. Unlike Perl.
PHP's "purple elephant" was bad enough, but the perl 6 logo makes it look like a masterpiece of corporate design.
I suspect that this is yet another Microsoft conspiracy to make their famous goof on Clippy the dancing paperclip look better - they probably abused the Open Source process to somehow sneak that in.
Perl isn't meant to be simple, it's meant to be expressive. A simple language is wordy, requires a lot of typing and keywording to express a thought.
Interesting point, but when I first learned Python many years ago, I converted my set of useful Perl scripts into Python, partly as a learning exercise. I was surprised to learn that each one was smaller in terms of both number of lines. After doing a post mortem, I realized that the elimination of braces more than made up for Python's more explicit keywords.
That said, I would never claim that one can create powerful "one liners" in Python as one famously can in Perl. But I consider that a feature.
After observing above that Perl and Python have converse philosophies on the point of "There's more than one way to do it," I realized that a Zen of Perl could be formulated by creating the Zen of Python's evil twin:
Ugly is better than beautiful. Implicit is better than explicit. Complex is better than simple. Complicated is better than complex. Nested is better than flat. Dense is better than sparse. Obscurity counts. Special cases aren't ordinary enough to follow the rules. Although obtuseness beats clarity. Errors should sometimes pass silently. Unless you tell them to die. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to delineate. There's more than one way to do it. Although those ways may not be obvious at first unless you've consulted the manual. Fifteen years is better than three. Although never is often better than *fifteen* years. If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a good idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a bad idea. Namespaces are one honking good idea -- let's use as many as possible!
Presumably, this applies to Perl 6 as much - if not more - than to Perl 5. Otherwise, exactly what sort of "improvement" is Perl 6?
(with apologies to Tim Peters for applying a little Artistic License to his fine work.)
I've used Perl since the first release, gotten pretty good at it 5-6 times over the years, and loved it for it's capabilities. But I've also become disgusted with the whole idea of There's More Than One Way to Do It. What TMTOWTDI means in the real world is that, if you have to maintain someone else's perl script, you're in for a world of hurt unless you're a guru at it.
I, too, once loved Perl for its capabilities. Then, a couple of years later, I found Python. I haven't looked back. It's remarkable that two languages which are fairly semantically similar (you can do most of the same things in about the same way) have such converse philosophies: Perl has "There's More Than One Way to Do It" and Python has "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
Even before I found Python, I became disenchanted with Perl for the fact that I found that I had to a comment on nearly every line of my own code to be able to read it later - much as I had learned to do with assembly language. In contrast, I use comments very sparingly in Python because it reads so beautifully.
Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine why the world would ever need such a thing as Perl 6 - and particularly why the world was supposed to wait 15 years for the privilege. Oh, I forgot...you get to use braces...
Slashdot Mirror
"Human Brain Still Beats Computers At Finding Messages and Meaning Within Noise?" That must explain why I keep tuning in here at /., whereas my Bot's favorite place to waste time is Ashley Madison...
Just yesterday, I put an ancient CRC Math Handbook in a pile to donate to my local public library. One sign of its age is that it's pretty small. I don't know how much use it is at this point: the library might put it on the shelves, sell it, or trash it - who knows?
Although these things arguably are made obsolete by the Internet, the humble printed handbook still has its value. My favorite in the math-table genre has always been Schaum's Outline of Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables, which is very handy for browsing and for refreshing yourself on your favorite page of formulas via another paper gadget, the humble sticky note.
Wow...that article was equal parts interesting and scary...
Coincidentally, a few weeks ago, I had independently noticed many points of similarity between Trump and Hitler. Glad I'm not the only one. The most obvious thing is this unfortunate penchant for demagogery, specifically, a habit of blaming minorities as the cause of every problem. Let's just hope if can't happen here. But as they say, those who don't learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat history class.
(feel free to discuss - despite Godwin's law ;-)
Very interesting, thanks.
Or, to paraphrase an old saw: "Bitcoins, bitcoins everywhere, and not a bit to spend."
I don't understand much about the technical details of Bitcoin anonymity, but if what you say is true, something seems to have gone afoul in his (their) plan. What sort of "anonymity" is it that can be "de-anonymized in mere hours?"
FWIW, if you're sitting on a big pile of bitcoins, the best thing to do would be to sell them slowly. If I were the inventor, I would:
- Remain steadfastly anonymous (unlike anyone else who creates a major new technology.) Using a pseudonym doesn't hurt. (Hey, it works for me here.)
- Mint myself a big pile at first
- Sell them slowly so as not to devalue them or draw too much attention to myself.
IIRC, Spain once had a problem where they had acquired a big pile of gold from the New World and they thought they were rich. Then, they learned that they weren't as rich as they thought because a sudden increase in the supply of any currency inevitably devalues it.
The primary selling point of gold as a currency is that it can't be created, it can only be mined at ever-increasing cost - much like Bitcoin. The sudden increase of supply from the New World was an anomalous exception to that rule. I'm sure the Bitcoin folks won't make the same mistake.
Yes, but a lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns...
Coincidentally, in the book I mentioned, they covered an academic study of which U.S. presidents were the most narcissistic based on whatever historical data was available. As one might expect, most of them scored fairly high on the scale. I forget which one scored highest, but IIRC it was Lyndon Johnson. For example, he had a habit of holding meetings while he sat on the toilet, with his (reportedly impressive) "johnson" in full view. Obviously, that's not something that a non-narcissist would do.
Although the word "narcissist" sounds pejorative, it's not necessary a bad thing unless it's carried to extremes. In fact, why would any non-narcissist run for President in the first place? Most of us would feel unqualified to carry that much responsibility. But somebody's gotta do it, and someone who believes deep in his heart that he (or she...) is the best - if not only - person for the job would feel not only capable but even obligated to run for it, no matter what cost is in terms of privacy, personal attacks, time, energy, etc. So, by definition, anyone who runs for President is probably not a psychologically "normal" person.
There's a reason lots of folks are scared of Trump: because his narcissism seems to go to extremes. And as he goes farther and farther across the line that other politicians won't cross, let's just hope he manages to keep his johnson in his pocket. Personally, I don't care to see it. And I doubt that his advisers do either.
I recently read a book called "The Narcissist Next Door" which details narcissistic personality disorder. Although the book was written years ago, it specifically mentions The Donald as a possible sufferer of the disorder. And based on the symptoms they described, it seems quite likely to me. If so, that would adequately explain all of his behavior that we've seen. In effect, all this isl about drawing attention to himself (which actually is the motivation of any troll.) And if he happens to get elected as President, that's just gravy (for him.) That said, as a narcissist, he would fully believe that he's the best person for the job. So he would believe that he should be elected.
I recently saw program where a commentator observed that unlike other politicians, Trump "doubles down" on anything stupid that he says. For example, the more that people point out that there is no evidence of thousands celebrating in New Jersey when the twin towers came down, the more he pushes the idea.
According to the book, a narcissist - in the clinical sense - is incapable of admitting he's wrong. So, whenever that gets pointed out by someone, it must be the fault of an external party. In this case, he can blame the media for misreporting the "facts" or whatever: he's never, ever, ever, simply "wrong."
I believe that they are willfully misguiding their intellects for selfish primitive instincts they choose not to to keep in check.
I have that same problem. But for me, it's not politicians - it's chocolate.
Second of all, if you are developing in either C or C++, you should develop in a different language.
OK, I'll bite. C and C++ are commonly used for real-time embedded applications, primarily because of speed. Do you have a better language for that? Remember, it has to compile on the processor you're actually using. My current project uses a Blackfin DSP processor by Analog Devices. The toolset that Analog provides supports only C, C++, and assembly. I don't expect them to provide Java, .Net, PHP, Haskell, Python or [your favorite language here] anytime soon.
Thanks, that was also interesting. I don't know much about Parrot or other virtual machines, but now that .NET has been opened up by Microsoft, I could imagine someone porting it to Parrot if it offers some sort of run-time advantage. Got any thoughts on that?
Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on our preferred scripting language. But I'm curious: which things do you feel are the most mistaken about Python? (Besides blocks-by-indenting - practically anyone who dislikes Python cites that as a showstopper for them so I'll go out on a limb and guess that it is for you, too...)
...but seriously, if Perl code is hard to read, it's the author's fault.
Now, let's be nice to Larry Wall. It's not all his fault. He's actually made a tremendous contribution to programming languages by helping jump start the web via Perl/CGI, and by popularizing many good ideas in programming languages. Most importantly, Guido van Rossum might have made many more mistakes in Python if he didn't have Perl as a counter-example. So, God bless() him.
Coincidentally, you answered something I was wondering about: what niche is Perl 6 supposed to serve? I like the idea a scripting language that is designed for compilation, but I wonder how well that would actually work in practice. Various compilers are available for Python, though they don't seem to have caught on - presumably because the speed benefits aren't compelling. Facebook created a PHP compiler of some sort, which I assume they use. Fundamentally, though, the basic principles of a scripting language - primarily dynamic variables - run contrary to the needs of a compiler.
So, is Perl 6 supposed to be a scripting language which allows variables to be statically typed in order to allow effective compilation? If so, that sounds intriguing...if it wasn't somehow still some form of Perl. ;-)
From one old guy to another, I'm glad we can both have some fun with it. :-)
Just for the record, my original comment was just a joke, son, ah say, a joke.
I agree wholehearted. In fact, I've often likened writing in Perl to a circus performer walking on a high wire without a net: it's quite entertaining to watch, and I'm glad folks have the opportunity to impress us with their skill and daring in the face of danger but I'm glad I don't have to do it myself. In fact, if I were up there, I'd want a close net, a safety harness, and a really, really, thick wire. (Thanks, Python!)
Lemme guess: you're one of those "geniuses" who thinks that the assembly code (and Perl) they write is so obvious that it doesn't need any comments...
I used to read comp.lang.perl many years ago and soon became horrified at they way Tom Christensen consistently skewered any newbie who wasn't as much of a genius at Perl as he was. (Kindda makes you wonder why he ever bothered to write a book about it if he didn't want to teach newbies.) I've always wondered: what is it about Perl that attracts "geniuses" like you and Tom?...
Although you did pick up on the important word "obvious," you missed another important word: "should." Notice that it isn't "must." It's more of a goal than a hard-and-fast rule.
I don't think we should take any of the Zen of Python too literally. In that vein, Tim Peters gives us a little wink in that regard with his next line, "Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch." (Guido, the inventor of Python, happens to be Dutch.)
Part of the process of learning Python involves learning how to program "Pythonically." That basically involves using the "best" or "canonical" method when there are alternatives. It took me a couple of years before I felt I had truly absorbed all that. That's why it's called The Zen of Python: you just have to slowly absorb it.
I don't know of any programming language that you can be truly good at without having practiced over a period of years. The same holds true for Python, though an experienced programmer can become at least competent in it in a very short time. Unlike Perl.
PHP's "purple elephant" was bad enough, but the perl 6 logo makes it look like a masterpiece of corporate design.
I suspect that this is yet another Microsoft conspiracy to make their famous goof on Clippy the dancing paperclip look better - they probably abused the Open Source process to somehow sneak that in.
(Disclaimer: it's just a joke. :-)
Perl isn't meant to be simple, it's meant to be expressive.
A simple language is wordy, requires a lot of typing and keywording to express a thought.
Interesting point, but when I first learned Python many years ago, I converted my set of useful Perl scripts into Python, partly as a learning exercise. I was surprised to learn that each one was smaller in terms of both number of lines. After doing a post mortem, I realized that the elimination of braces more than made up for Python's more explicit keywords.
That said, I would never claim that one can create powerful "one liners" in Python as one famously can in Perl. But I consider that a feature.
I look forward to the day that Slashdot is rewritten in Perl 6. Heck, maybe it can even be used to breathe life back into the late great Beta.
After observing above that Perl and Python have converse philosophies on the point of "There's more than one way to do it," I realized that a Zen of Perl could be formulated by creating the Zen of Python's evil twin:
Ugly is better than beautiful.
Implicit is better than explicit.
Complex is better than simple.
Complicated is better than complex.
Nested is better than flat.
Dense is better than sparse.
Obscurity counts.
Special cases aren't ordinary enough to follow the rules.
Although obtuseness beats clarity.
Errors should sometimes pass silently.
Unless you tell them to die.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to delineate.
There's more than one way to do it.
Although those ways may not be obvious at first unless you've consulted the manual.
Fifteen years is better than three.
Although never is often better than *fifteen* years.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a good idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a bad idea.
Namespaces are one honking good idea -- let's use as many as possible!
Presumably, this applies to Perl 6 as much - if not more - than to Perl 5. Otherwise, exactly what sort of "improvement" is Perl 6?
(with apologies to Tim Peters for applying a little Artistic License to his fine work.)
I've used Perl since the first release, gotten pretty good at it 5-6 times over the years, and loved it for it's capabilities. But I've also become disgusted with the whole idea of There's More Than One Way to Do It. What TMTOWTDI means in the real world is that, if you have to maintain someone else's perl script, you're in for a world of hurt unless you're a guru at it.
I, too, once loved Perl for its capabilities. Then, a couple of years later, I found Python. I haven't looked back. It's remarkable that two languages which are fairly semantically similar (you can do most of the same things in about the same way) have such converse philosophies: Perl has "There's More Than One Way to Do It" and Python has "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
Even before I found Python, I became disenchanted with Perl for the fact that I found that I had to a comment on nearly every line of my own code to be able to read it later - much as I had learned to do with assembly language. In contrast, I use comments very sparingly in Python because it reads so beautifully.
Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine why the world would ever need such a thing as Perl 6 - and particularly why the world was supposed to wait 15 years for the privilege. Oh, I forgot...you get to use braces...