Exactly. By leaving the poor, the desolate, the hungry to die, we are negating all advances made by society.
Malthus still wants his due. As some point we're going to have to have some sort of triage.
We can't save everyone, and neither should we. We need to remove between $X and $X+$Y (where both $X and $Y are in the billions) people from the planet. How do you want to do it? War? Famine? Disease? Drought?
By not taking action new, we're condemning a lot MORE people to suffer in the future.
Compared to that, compulsory abortion after the second kid is a blessing.
That is not a fair question. It is a simple matter to define what you want as only those options available within the confines of your ideology. There is no way to check if you or anyone else has foregone anything you might have chosen with a pragmatic mindset. It then becomes a circular argument - you claim you are pragmatic because you claim to have made pragmatic choices.
The labels "pure" and "pragmatic" are both positive labels whose meanings are easily determined. Clearly being one does not prescribe you from being the other, but then isn't the fact they have a lot common very much implied by the GP's post?
Short answer: no.
Longer answer:
The original choice asked why people who want to be pure can't coexist with people who want to be pragmatic - in other words, the traits are assumed not to coexist in the same person. The post also uses the term choice, but only in the context of an either-or choice. You can choose to be either pragmatic or pure - no 3rd option (both pragmatic AND pure) is offered. It's a false dichotomy:
There is no reason why people who want to be pure can't be pure and the people who are pragmatic can't coexist.
It's wrong to force a choice upon others and I thought that was one of the main points about 'free'-software?
"if the San Francisco experiment works, no one will have to murder anyone over a parking space," said Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose work on the pricing of parking spaces and whether more spaces are good for cities has led to a revolution in ideas about relieving congestion." - from TOA
Wow... because you know, we all _have_ to murder people for a parking space now.
They found evidence that the ears of these early hominids would have had a sensitivity peak in the same 2-4 KHz range that the ears of modern humans do the range in which most information is carried in language. Sensory systems are neurologically expensive, and it's unlikely that the body would invest the resources in maintaining such a system if it didn't serve a purpose.
It's more likely that language evolved to use the existing hardware, and most language content is between 2-4khz BECAUSE the existing systems were optimal in that range. Suggesting otherwise is a return to lamarckism.
Which is likely why he didn't say "The GNU project is very nice and very idealistic, but has so far failed." He did say "The GNU project is very nice and very idealistic, but has so far failed to displace close source software."
You need to finish sentences, not stop when you see a partial implication that gets your knickers in a wad.
It did't have to replace it completely to completely alter the way the world looks at software. Unlike Bush, the GNU project can already say "Mission Accomplished" in that respect.
There is no reason why people who want to be pure can't be pure and the people who are pragmatic can't coexist.
Why do you assume that the people who are running "pure" desktops aren't also pragmatic?
To cite the 3 examples FTFA, I don't use skype, I don't run windows apps under wine, and the video card in this box is an ati... it does everything I want, the way I want it, at no cost to either my freedom or my bank account in terms of software... How is that not pragmatic?
It appears you are not interested in what a candidate knows, nor what a candidate has accomplished, but rather the methodology he uses.
When I hire a contractor to do some carpentry on my house I do not ask him what types of hammers or nails he uses.
Carpentry has been around for thousands of years. Accomplishing a task is pretty straight-forward. Need a deck built? There's plenty of plans, lists of materials, step-by-step instructions, etc. Need custom software built? You need to draw up your own plans, figure out all the steps, etc.
Come back in a couple of thousand years, and maybe then your analogy will hold up.
In the meantime, if the person can't even get a handle on the problem, who gives a shit on how they might code? Damn straignt I want to know their thought processes. that's one reason you'll see something like a RATIONALE: section in lots of documentation - explaining WHY something was done in a particular way. You don't need that for a deck, or a house, and the maintenance of fixed structures is also much more straight-forward.
why do the bsd users have to look like sas(s C+?
can't we pick the semi decent apparel options and leave the pc crowd to wear a button up and slacks?
Poll time!
[X] bsd kicks ass, so anything bad wearss *is* cool
[X] It's not cool to be pc (politically correct)
[X] A leather jacket isn't cool? (okay, not in mid-July in the northern hemisphere)
[X] I shaved my head for additional cooling for my meat-based cpu, you ignorant clod!
[X] I wore these shit-kickers to stomp the mac fanboi who stole my sandals
[X] I don't want the pc crowd to *wear* a button-up, and they're already pretty slack
I've actually had to start using OOo because people just don't want to read reports that look like a man page (sigh)
So I end up making reports that don't get read, and we instead end up doing a quickie summary on the white board, which I prefer because I can tell if someone's not "getting it."
Today I learned that the OOo spell checker doesn't know "indices". I knew it would puke on malloc or realloc, but "indices"?
There was a survey done where they had HR staff conduct interviews with 2 actors. they told the subject (who were the ones doing the interviews) to interview the two actors, who were supposed to be applying for a graphics arts job. One actor wore a beret, turtle-neck, jeans and sandals, and had a modest portfolio. The other actor wore the suit and tie, and had a much more impressive portfolio.
Guess which one the HR staff consistently picked? The "hippy-looking one - he *looks* more like an artist."
Standing up there shaking while sweating in a suit
Show some confidence - don't wear a suit to the interview.
A good-quality shirt if you're a PC, a turtleneck if you're a mac, a T-shirt if you're linux, or a leather jacket if you're *bsd.
Slacks if you're a PC, black jeans if you're a mac or *bsd, blue jeans if you're linux.
Dress shoes if you're a PC, loafers if you're a mac, runners if you're linux, boots or sandals if you're *bsd.
No hat if you're a PC, a kepi if you're a mac, a ballcap if you're linux (a red one if you're Fedora/RHEL), and a shaved head if you're *bsd.
A briefcase if you're a PC, a leather portfolio if you're a mac, a softsider if you're linux, and a pull-behind carrying a 4u server if you're *bsd.
A crackberry if you're a PC, an iPhone if you're a mac, any flip-phone if you're linux, Chuck Norris if you're *bsd.
Your resume in Word if you're a PC, as a video clip if you're a mac, in openoffice if you're linux, and 7-bit clean ASCII if you're *bsd.
Hide your Zune if you're a PC, subtly show off your iPod if you're a mac, wow them with streamripper if you're linux, and run a script to make the sound of the drive heads seeking play "Take this job and shove it!" if you're *bsd.
A business card if you're a PC, a mini-dvd if you're a mac, a bootable distro dvd with customized splash screen, borwser, etc., if you're linux, your phone number and email address on the back of a beer coaster if you're *bsd.
Coca-cola if you're a PC, bottled water if you're a mac, real beer (not that 5% piss) if you're linux, shots if you're *bsd.
This is on the right track, but I think that there's another aspect of any candidate that could be gleaned in a half-hour... their ability to *think*. Being able to write code is only half the job (the easy half). Give them a goal, and ask them to describe on the board their thought processes as they analyse the problem, and how they'd go about doing the data design, the code, etc.
You'll get a feel for whether they're agile on their feet, enthusiastic, can grok something quickly and come up with some useful ideas, etc., without actually having them sit a a computer and write code. If they get lost at this stage, there's no need to see any code.
It also lets you see if they're a "I know this particular "hammer", so everything looks like a nail that's best whacked with that particular hammer" type of dev., or whether they actually have a grounding in more than one solution.
It's a LOT more accurate than a written test at weeding out the "I can write the code if you hold my hand" types. You'll *know* if they're enthusiastic or not.
Alternatively, just ask for their slashdot user id, or just say "CowboyNeal". (Don't laugh - it works).
If it really comes to you walking in on your wife having sex with another man, I doubt you will see the situation as "humans lawfully and consensually having sex" right at that moment
One day Rosenberg caught his wife having sex with Greenbaum, his business partner. Rosenberg was outraged.
"Solly, I don't understand this! Why are you doing this thing? She's my wife! I'm married to her! I have to! But you...?"
(source -- Isaac Asimov's Joke Book)
IOW, if someone is screwing around on you, you haven't lost anything of great value, so why get so upset just because your illusion was shattered.
If someone is positing "Do my will or I'll kill you" - why not apply that exact standard to them. They don't do what we want (refrain from murder) by killing others, so we apply their rule - "Do my will or I'll kill you" to them, killing them.
It's holding someone to their own standards. Can't get more just than that...
If I were separated from my wife and bound by a restraining order, and she was having sex with her new lover IN MY HOUSE, I would probably kill her, too.
And if you admitted as much to the cops, and testified to such in court, the district attorney would likely seek no more than manslaughter.
Is thay you, O.J.?
Sounds premeditated AND with intent to me. You're not to go to the house, so you do anyway. Why? "To get a cup of sugar?" Or is it because you want to see if she's screwing with someone else - which shows some sort of planning. What she's doing is none of your business once you're separated. You kill her while committing another crime - the breaking of the restraining order. It's not manslaughter. You had, in your mind, a reason that motivated you to go over there in defiance of a court order. That shows planning and intent.
"If you love it, let it go. If it comes back, it's yours - if it doesn't get a shotgun and hunt it down and kill it" is stupid, but that's what you're excusing, if only partially.
One of the reviews reveals the *real* reason they're selling it:
I purchased the OS and also Installation by Geek Squad for only $150.00. Even though I paid $170, I can tell you the included software was worth it.
This is the same gang that wants to charge you $150 to "set up" your brand new Vista laptop - when all that means is booting it, burning the 2 backup dvds, and rebooting.
Offer Linux, setup and new hard disk for same price as Geek Squad ($170) charges for just the OS and installation.
There is no second step
You know the 3rd step...
The newbie gets a new hard disk, all their old data and os remains intact, it's easier to install on a secondary drive anyway, and you make a few bucks.
Well, my copy of Windows XP has been 100% stable the whole time I've used it (3+ years), so its 1000% stable? Even when I ran 98se (which did crash fairly often) I never had the problems some people seemed to have.
... by the same token I could say my copies of Win95 and Win3.1 are 1000000% stable - they haven't crashed in over a decade. And they haven't been rebooted in over a decade, either.
Of course, they haven't been *booted*, in over a decade either.
That being said, I couldn't believe it when I found out one of the guys at the office still uses Win98 as his OS at home. On a P2-300. Go figure - because I can't.
By 1971, our miniature computer center was beginning to have users. We all wanted to create interesting software more easily. Using assembler was dreary enough that B, despite its performance problems, had been supplemented by a small library of useful service routines and was being used for more and more new programs. Among the more notable results of this period was Steve Johnson's first version of the yacc parser-generator [Johnson 79a].
The code for yacc was certainly not originally written in c - c didn't exist at that time.
In 1978 Brian Kernighan and I published The C Programming Language [Kernighan 78]. Although it did not describe some additions that soon became common, this book served as the language reference until a formal standard was adopted more than ten years later.
The "archaic behaviour" was never part of that standard - it was a mistake in early implementations while they were still "working out the details" of the language, well before K & R, as Ritchie says:
After the TMG version of B was working, Thompson rewrote B in itself (a bootstrapping step). During development, he continually struggled against memory limitations: each language addition inflated the compiler so it could barely fit, but each rewrite taking advantage of the feature reduced its size. For example, B introduced generalized assignment operators, using x=+y to add y to x. The notation came from Algol 68 [Wijngaarden 75] via McIlroy, who had incorporated it into his version of TMG. (In B and early C, the operator was spelled =+ instead of += ; this mistake, repaired in 1976, was induced by a seductively easy way of handling the first form in B's lexical analyzer.)
It wasn't an archaism in c - it was an archaism from b that was removed during the development of what became c. Small difference, and for all practical purposes, it gives the same result - previously-working code that wasn't reviewed as the language evolved towards a standard ended up with "implementation-dependent behaviour" - bugs... The worst part is that the buggy code is syntactically correct, so no compiler warnings. Of course, if your conforming compiler doesn't give a warning, you assume that the code written with the experimental versions is still valid.
He had plenty of motive. Plus, he had already threatened to kill her. He also had the means, and the opportunity. All this was apparent during the trial.
yypv =- yyr2[n];
yyval=yypv[1];
access an item above the stack pointer. If yyr2[n] is zero, this is a potential access outside the stack. Note the archaic use of =-, we write -= these days.
"-=" is NOT the same as "=-".
Example:
#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[], char* env[]) { int a=10; int b=10;
No, it's not true. Its "for every person alive today, there are 30 who lived in the past" - and this was back in the 1980s. It has to do with the population explosion, and was in the preface of an Isaac Asimov book.
Slashdot Mirror
God IS a karma whore, you ignorant clod!
Malthus still wants his due. As some point we're going to have to have some sort of triage.
We can't save everyone, and neither should we. We need to remove between $X and $X+$Y (where both $X and $Y are in the billions) people from the planet. How do you want to do it? War? Famine? Disease? Drought?
By not taking action new, we're condemning a lot MORE people to suffer in the future.
Compared to that, compulsory abortion after the second kid is a blessing.
Short answer: no.
Longer answer:
The original choice asked why people who want to be pure can't coexist with people who want to be pragmatic - in other words, the traits are assumed not to coexist in the same person. The post also uses the term choice, but only in the context of an either-or choice. You can choose to be either pragmatic or pure - no 3rd option (both pragmatic AND pure) is offered. It's a false dichotomy:
Maybe they had Hans Reiser as a consultant?
It's more likely that language evolved to use the existing hardware, and most language content is between 2-4khz BECAUSE the existing systems were optimal in that range. Suggesting otherwise is a return to lamarckism.
At least not until Netcraft confirms it.
And maybe not even then ...
It did't have to replace it completely to completely alter the way the world looks at software. Unlike Bush, the GNU project can already say "Mission Accomplished" in that respect.
Why do you assume that the people who are running "pure" desktops aren't also pragmatic?
To cite the 3 examples FTFA, I don't use skype, I don't run windows apps under wine, and the video card in this box is an ati ... it does everything I want, the way I want it, at no cost to either my freedom or my bank account in terms of software ... How is that not pragmatic?
Carpentry has been around for thousands of years. Accomplishing a task is pretty straight-forward. Need a deck built? There's plenty of plans, lists of materials, step-by-step instructions, etc. Need custom software built? You need to draw up your own plans, figure out all the steps, etc.
Come back in a couple of thousand years, and maybe then your analogy will hold up.
In the meantime, if the person can't even get a handle on the problem, who gives a shit on how they might code? Damn straignt I want to know their thought processes. that's one reason you'll see something like a RATIONALE: section in lots of documentation - explaining WHY something was done in a particular way. You don't need that for a deck, or a house, and the maintenance of fixed structures is also much more straight-forward.
Are you related to BadCarAnalogyGuy?
Poll time!
[X] bsd kicks ass, so anything bad wearss *is* cool
[X] It's not cool to be pc (politically correct)
[X] A leather jacket isn't cool? (okay, not in mid-July in the northern hemisphere)
[X] I shaved my head for additional cooling for my meat-based cpu, you ignorant clod!
[X] I wore these shit-kickers to stomp the mac fanboi who stole my sandals
[X] I don't want the pc crowd to *wear* a button-up, and they're already pretty slack
Please add your own ...
You don't have a firewire or usb connection for an external el-cheapo burner?
I've actually had to start using OOo because people just don't want to read reports that look like a man page (sigh)
So I end up making reports that don't get read, and we instead end up doing a quickie summary on the white board, which I prefer because I can tell if someone's not "getting it."
Today I learned that the OOo spell checker doesn't know "indices". I knew it would puke on malloc or realloc, but "indices"?
Congratulations!
There was a survey done where they had HR staff conduct interviews with 2 actors. they told the subject (who were the ones doing the interviews) to interview the two actors, who were supposed to be applying for a graphics arts job. One actor wore a beret, turtle-neck, jeans and sandals, and had a modest portfolio. The other actor wore the suit and tie, and had a much more impressive portfolio.
Guess which one the HR staff consistently picked? The "hippy-looking one - he *looks* more like an artist."
Show some confidence - don't wear a suit to the interview.
A good-quality shirt if you're a PC, a turtleneck if you're a mac, a T-shirt if you're linux, or a leather jacket if you're *bsd.
Slacks if you're a PC, black jeans if you're a mac or *bsd, blue jeans if you're linux.
Dress shoes if you're a PC, loafers if you're a mac, runners if you're linux, boots or sandals if you're *bsd.
No hat if you're a PC, a kepi if you're a mac, a ballcap if you're linux (a red one if you're Fedora/RHEL), and a shaved head if you're *bsd.
A briefcase if you're a PC, a leather portfolio if you're a mac, a softsider if you're linux, and a pull-behind carrying a 4u server if you're *bsd.
A crackberry if you're a PC, an iPhone if you're a mac, any flip-phone if you're linux, Chuck Norris if you're *bsd.
Your resume in Word if you're a PC, as a video clip if you're a mac, in openoffice if you're linux, and 7-bit clean ASCII if you're *bsd.
Hide your Zune if you're a PC, subtly show off your iPod if you're a mac, wow them with streamripper if you're linux, and run a script to make the sound of the drive heads seeking play "Take this job and shove it!" if you're *bsd.
A business card if you're a PC, a mini-dvd if you're a mac, a bootable distro dvd with customized splash screen, borwser, etc., if you're linux, your phone number and email address on the back of a beer coaster if you're *bsd.
Coca-cola if you're a PC, bottled water if you're a mac, real beer (not that 5% piss) if you're linux, shots if you're *bsd.
This is on the right track, but I think that there's another aspect of any candidate that could be gleaned in a half-hour ... their ability to *think*. Being able to write code is only half the job (the easy half). Give them a goal, and ask them to describe on the board their thought processes as they analyse the problem, and how they'd go about doing the data design, the code, etc.
You'll get a feel for whether they're agile on their feet, enthusiastic, can grok something quickly and come up with some useful ideas, etc., without actually having them sit a a computer and write code. If they get lost at this stage, there's no need to see any code.
It also lets you see if they're a "I know this particular "hammer", so everything looks like a nail that's best whacked with that particular hammer" type of dev., or whether they actually have a grounding in more than one solution.
It's a LOT more accurate than a written test at weeding out the "I can write the code if you hold my hand" types. You'll *know* if they're enthusiastic or not.
Alternatively, just ask for their slashdot user id, or just say "CowboyNeal". (Don't laugh - it works).
One day Rosenberg caught his wife having sex with Greenbaum, his business partner. Rosenberg was outraged.
"Solly, I don't understand this! Why are you doing this thing? She's my wife! I'm married to her! I have to! But you ...?"
(source -- Isaac Asimov's Joke Book)
IOW, if someone is screwing around on you, you haven't lost anything of great value, so why get so upset just because your illusion was shattered.
If someone is positing "Do my will or I'll kill you" - why not apply that exact standard to them. They don't do what we want (refrain from murder) by killing others, so we apply their rule - "Do my will or I'll kill you" to them, killing them.
It's holding someone to their own standards. Can't get more just than that ...
Is thay you, O.J.?
Sounds premeditated AND with intent to me. You're not to go to the house, so you do anyway. Why? "To get a cup of sugar?" Or is it because you want to see if she's screwing with someone else - which shows some sort of planning. What she's doing is none of your business once you're separated. You kill her while committing another crime - the breaking of the restraining order. It's not manslaughter. You had, in your mind, a reason that motivated you to go over there in defiance of a court order. That shows planning and intent.
"If you love it, let it go. If it comes back, it's yours - if it doesn't get a shotgun and hunt it down and kill it" is stupid, but that's what you're excusing, if only partially.
So why is *the* hot market now people buying laptops with linux pre-installed?
One of the reviews reveals the *real* reason they're selling it:
This is the same gang that wants to charge you $150 to "set up" your brand new Vista laptop - when all that means is booting it, burning the 2 backup dvds, and rebooting.
The newbie gets a new hard disk, all their old data and os remains intact, it's easier to install on a secondary drive anyway, and you make a few bucks.
Of course, they haven't been *booted*, in over a decade either.
That being said, I couldn't believe it when I found out one of the guys at the office still uses Win98 as his OS at home. On a P2-300. Go figure - because I can't.
From the link you cited:
The code for yacc was certainly not originally written in c - c didn't exist at that time.
The "archaic behaviour" was never part of that standard - it was a mistake in early implementations while they were still "working out the details" of the language, well before K & R, as Ritchie says:
It wasn't an archaism in c - it was an archaism from b that was removed during the development of what became c. Small difference, and for all practical purposes, it gives the same result - previously-working code that wasn't reviewed as the language evolved towards a standard ended up with "implementation-dependent behaviour" - bugs ... The worst part is that the buggy code is syntactically correct, so no compiler warnings. Of course, if your conforming compiler doesn't give a warning, you assume that the code written with the experimental versions is still valid.
He had plenty of motive. Plus, he had already threatened to kill her. He also had the means, and the opportunity. All this was apparent during the trial.
The jury got it right, and so did I. Eat it.
There's a bug in the explanation.
From the linky (emphasis mine):
"-=" is NOT the same as "=-".
Example:
returns a=-5, b=5
BIG difference.
No, it's not true. Its "for every person alive today, there are 30 who lived in the past" - and this was back in the 1980s. It has to do with the population explosion, and was in the preface of an Isaac Asimov book.