There are a thousand things--from CP violations to the inverse-square law of gravity to the valency of carbon--any of which, if different, could have prevented life from forming.
When theories predict that one link in the chain is missing, and therefore we shouldn't exist, then finding that missing link does explain why we are here.
Nobody claimed that CP violation makes life inevitable; merely, that it makes life possible. --
I was surprised by a few things in this movie. Firstly, except for "We Will Rock You" at the start, the modern songs didn't detract from the movie like I thought they would. They worked quite well. Secondly, the characters actually seemed interesting: the Count wasn't pure evil, just a jerk; and the woman he wanted (Jocelyn) wasn't a perfect fairy princess. The plot seemed to be driven by the characters for the first half of the movie.
<SPOILERS>
Then, halfway through, everything freezes up, and the interesting characters vanish and are replaced by one-dimensional robots whose only purpose is to get the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Everyone seems to forget that Jocelyn was a spoiled brat. The Count became the epitome of evil. All the supporting characters became identical weepy-eyed sycophants whose only purpose was to spout supposedly inspiring tripe at the appropriate moment. (Note to writers: you can't create drama just by having everyone cry.) And just when our hero is in the stocks, with no hope of escape, we have the textbook deus ex machina moment when the prince of Wales comes and releases him.
</SPOILERS>
I thought the first half of this movie was very entertaining, and the second half was as dull and inevitable as watching bathwater flowing down the drain.
I guess that's pretty harsh, but I was all the more disappointed because the first half seemed so good.
Overall, I think the movie is worth seeing. It's quite entertaining if you don't think too hard. --
It is ok to use http over tcp-ip to hit the machine, noone has a problem with that... But suddenly it isn't ok to use sql over tcp to hit that same machine?
Stop trying to be naive for a minute, and admit there's a big difference based on whether or not the owner of the computer wants you to access the information.
Go ahead and argue what should be legal, but don't pretend that you can't tell the difference between a website and an unintentional security hole. Tons of existing laws (like first- vs. second-degree murder) already use criteria as fuzzy as this. --
I think leaving a DB wide open on the internet is akin to putting some very personal information in the garbage can outside your house, rather than in a locked safe as you meant.
Interesting opinion, but what matters is the law. Many states consider leaving a DB wide open on the internet as akin to leaving your front door wide open: people don't have the right to walk in and look around without your permission.
How much credibility would these guys give a free security review? Free == alterior motive. If they can't figure out your motive, they won't let you in the door (especially for a security review). --
Before you get too bent out of shape, you should know that I'm in a union myself.
Anyway, what I meant was that if you can threaten to quit, and have it actually mean something to your employer, then you'll be treated fairly or you'll go somewhere else. The trouble is for people for whom threatening to quit doesn't hurt the employer; basically, those who are easily replaced.
So yes, I suppose that "unskilled" was an unfair characterization. Perhaps I should have said "easily replaced". That includes me as a teaching assistant: if I quit, they'll find someone else. --
The entire rope assembly needs to be super-strong because it is holding a massive swinging weight that normally would be flung off into space, but isn't because it is attached by (in this case) the carbon nanotube rope.
Duh, if it's holding up the station, then why is the small end at ground level?
The cable is hanging from a geostationary satellite. It needs to be super strong to support its own weight. If disconnected from the satellite, it would indeed fall to the earth.
This is why we need engineers. It seems like nobody else can remember that you can't push a rope. --
I assume the elevator would work the same way that most elevators work, a car that holds passengers that holds cargo which is attached to a long cable which goes over a pully system that has the drive motor and a counterweight on the other end.
Then you assume wrong. It's based on magnetic levitation. --
That's exactly what I felt when I looked at them. It's tough to look at them and simultaneously appreciate how old they are. It just doesn't seem real somehow. --
Lastly, the temperature underground is quite stable. As soon as you're more than a few tens of feet below the surface, the earth above you will insulate quite well.
Isn't the temperature stable down there precisely because earth is such a good heat sink? Sure, a few hundred meters of earth will insulate you from surface temperature changes, but the hot air in the mine would still lose a lot of heat to the earth. --
It looks like you have a lot of influence from Ada. Ada adds a new language feature for everything a programmer could want. I always found that this made it tough to learn and understand Ada because there are so many built-in language features. (The difference between Ada and C++, of course, is that in Ada it works.)
I'm glad to see the influence of Eiffel in there. Eiffel is a language which achieves its generality not by adding features to the language, but by removing them. It doesn't try to cover everything you could want to do with a special case; it has a few well-chosen abstractions that cover a lot of ground.
Anyway, when your language description looks like a big bag of toys a programmer could use, then perhaps you should take a step back here and ask yourself "what am I contributing?" What is new about your language? If it's just syntactic sugar, then don't bother.
(I'm not saying LX is just syntactic sugar; I'm saying that your website hasn't convinced me that it isn't. The presentation of language features as a shopping list doesn't convey the real contribution of your new language.)
You seem to have a grasp of languages that are general because of their complexity (Ada, C++), but make sure you have experience with languages that are general because of their simplicity (Eiffel, scheme, Smalltalk).
A few other things:
I never really liked Eiffel exceptions much. I think Java does it better, but YMMV.
Don't make polymorphism explicit (with the "any" keyword). It should be the default. Non-polymorphic references should be the special case.
Have you really studied genericity? You seem to have bounded (ala Eiffel) and unbounded (ala C++) genericity, which is good, but have you looked at different schemes, like virtual types, or even Structural Virtual Types?
Slashdot Mirror
There are a thousand things--from CP violations to the inverse-square law of gravity to the valency of carbon--any of which, if different, could have prevented life from forming.
When theories predict that one link in the chain is missing, and therefore we shouldn't exist, then finding that missing link does explain why we are here.
Nobody claimed that CP violation makes life inevitable; merely, that it makes life possible.
--
http://www.psrw.com/~markc/Articles/May7pred/index .html
Doesn't look much like a face to me.
--
I was surprised by a few things in this movie. Firstly, except for "We Will Rock You" at the start, the modern songs didn't detract from the movie like I thought they would. They worked quite well. Secondly, the characters actually seemed interesting: the Count wasn't pure evil, just a jerk; and the woman he wanted (Jocelyn) wasn't a perfect fairy princess. The plot seemed to be driven by the characters for the first half of the movie.
<SPOILERS>
Then, halfway through, everything freezes up, and the interesting characters vanish and are replaced by one-dimensional robots whose only purpose is to get the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Everyone seems to forget that Jocelyn was a spoiled brat. The Count became the epitome of evil. All the supporting characters became identical weepy-eyed sycophants whose only purpose was to spout supposedly inspiring tripe at the appropriate moment. (Note to writers: you can't create drama just by having everyone cry.) And just when our hero is in the stocks, with no hope of escape, we have the textbook deus ex machina moment when the prince of Wales comes and releases him.
</SPOILERS>
I thought the first half of this movie was very entertaining, and the second half was as dull and inevitable as watching bathwater flowing down the drain.
I guess that's pretty harsh, but I was all the more disappointed because the first half seemed so good.
Overall, I think the movie is worth seeing. It's quite entertaining if you don't think too hard.
--
Jeez, who modded this up? This could very well be the most over-told joke ever.
--
Go ahead and argue what should be legal, but don't pretend that you can't tell the difference between a website and an unintentional security hole. Tons of existing laws (like first- vs. second-degree murder) already use criteria as fuzzy as this.
--
Here are the laws of Texas, Massachusetts, and California for starters.
--
Oh please.
How much credibility would these guys give a free security review? Free == alterior motive. If they can't figure out your motive, they won't let you in the door (especially for a security review).
--
Anyway, what I meant was that if you can threaten to quit, and have it actually mean something to your employer, then you'll be treated fairly or you'll go somewhere else. The trouble is for people for whom threatening to quit doesn't hurt the employer; basically, those who are easily replaced.
So yes, I suppose that "unskilled" was an unfair characterization. Perhaps I should have said "easily replaced". That includes me as a teaching assistant: if I quit, they'll find someone else.
--
I'm in a union, and I'm not unskilled. Just easily replaced.
--
Unions exist to give job security to unskilled laborers. That's a Good Thing, but if it applies to the IT field, we're all in a lot of trouble.
--
Still, if it's fighting centrifugal force, then there are two questions:
--
--
The cable is hanging from a geostationary satellite. It needs to be super strong to support its own weight. If disconnected from the satellite, it would indeed fall to the earth.
This is why we need engineers. It seems like nobody else can remember that you can't push a rope.
--
--
You're afraid an engineering degree would make you dumber?
--
That's exactly what I felt when I looked at them. It's tough to look at them and simultaneously appreciate how old they are. It just doesn't seem real somehow.
--
--
Not all the energy in compressed air is in the form of heat. Air at 1500psi, even at room temperature, still contains a lot of energy.
--
"Kernel Drivers"? Does anyone call them that? I would have called them "device drivers". Is this because they don't all deal with devices?
--
That's because Google recently started indexing PDF files in addition to HTML.
--
Well, syntax is superficial, but it can't be ignored. I'd say semantics is 90%, but it's not everything.
--
Your wish is my command.
--
I'm glad to see the influence of Eiffel in there. Eiffel is a language which achieves its generality not by adding features to the language, but by removing them. It doesn't try to cover everything you could want to do with a special case; it has a few well-chosen abstractions that cover a lot of ground.
Anyway, when your language description looks like a big bag of toys a programmer could use, then perhaps you should take a step back here and ask yourself "what am I contributing?" What is new about your language? If it's just syntactic sugar, then don't bother.
(I'm not saying LX is just syntactic sugar; I'm saying that your website hasn't convinced me that it isn't. The presentation of language features as a shopping list doesn't convey the real contribution of your new language.)
You seem to have a grasp of languages that are general because of their complexity (Ada, C++), but make sure you have experience with languages that are general because of their simplicity (Eiffel, scheme, Smalltalk).
A few other things:
--
Sorry about the repeat. I think some of us posted within a few minutes of each other.
--
What retard moderated this article as Offtopic?
--