The shortest sort algorithm requires passing over the data as many times as there are items. ~O(N*N) (bubble sort) but only takes a few lines to code. Other (fat) algorithms require a couple pages to code (merge O(N*log(N)))...
Is that relevant?
No. Your analogy is off the point entirely.
XML is a format used for storing and transmitting hierarchically structured data. Bandwidth is a concern.
Here's a better analogy: Imagine that for some insane reason you were concerned about the size of your source files, and you had to keep them as small as possible. Imagine that this is a major design consideration. Would you then choose to implement your quicksort in C, or in Cobol? Likewise: If you were doing an embedded system, with severely limited storage, you might find it profitable to code simpler algorithms just to save a few bytes in the executable. Development is about trade-offs. When you can count on having a lot of storage, you can sacrifice memory in order to optimize for speed. On the other hand, sometimes you have to sacrifice speed to keep the code small.
Bandwidth is still a major design consideration WRT the Internet: Lots of people are still using 56k modems. XML and HTML demand that users waste their limited bandwidth downloading unnecessarily fat files. They also squander processor time when they get parsed, but that's not a problem: It's network bandwidth that's expensive these days, not cycles. We've got cycles to burn. It's those skinny little pipes that cause trouble.
As I understand it the core tenet of conservatism is the freedom to live one's life free from governmental interference.
That is correct. We have devoted our "lives, liberties, and sacred honor" to limiting the power of the central government. This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Being told to defend a nation or a Constitution you may or may not believe in seems to be the antithesis of this concept.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument. Predictable. In any case, you are correct: We firmly and unequivocally reject all attempts to force us to fight and die for other nations. Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
It is intolerable that free American men should be conscripted into the service of foreign and barbaric governments.
"Cussards and reprobates" indeed! I couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, indeed, let them retreat into their weird fantasies of "moons" and "native Americans", let them destroy themselves . . .
And of course you are correct: Slashdot will be renewed. And the time is fast approaching.
Be that as it may, "endowing" a "right" with anything (you didn't specify what) is a waste of energy. I mean, like, that's not what "endow" means, dude.
Are you saying that God plays partisan politics?
God prefers those who keep His Law. If one party does so, and the other does not, why then quite naturally God will tend to prefer the members of the former to those of the latter.
That's an obvious truth, but it doesn't have much to do with "partisan politics" as you understand it: God's not sitting up there saying, "My team, right or wrong!" He's saying, "My team, because the only way to be on it is to be right in the first place." See the difference?
This has nothing to do with "diversity", "tolerance", or "broad-mindedness": Those slogans are all red herrings. Would you be "tolerant" of somebody who bombed your city? No. Some things are just plain wrong.
By what right do YOU decide who is and isn't a patriot, much less even a citizen?
Simple common sense. Imagine you're running a business. Imagine that one of your employees sets your office on fire. Would you consider that person a good and loyal servant, or a dangerous nut? Would you give him a raise, or fire him? You'd fire him. You'd get rid of the dumb bastard, because even if he believes that he is right, he is still a dangerous lunatic. So it is with the liberals: They are devoted to destroying the foundations of our nation. We have a right to act in self-defense, whether you like it or not.
when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in the revolutionary war, that was heroic.
but when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in Seattle, that's a bunch of long haired freaks.
You are correct on the first one, but in the second you drift off into absurd propaganda. Those so-called "long-haired freaks" (in fact, most of them were skinheads, the liberals' racist shock-troops) were not being kept under anyone's thumb. They were "protesting" against freedom. They were there to oppose the natural rights and liberties of business enterprises. They were fighting against the creation of wealth. They were fighting against the right to private property and freedom of association.
The dogmatic anti-prosperity/anti-freedom ideology of the Left is hardly comparable to the noble principles set forth by our Founding Fathers.
Your entire argument is meaningless gibberish. Reasoning by analogy is a bad idea: The results are rarely valid, and even then only by accident.
" . ..inalienable rights are endowed by our creator . .."
No, we are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator. But you were at least trying to quote the Declaration, so I'll take the thought for the deed and let it slide.
The problem here is that you and the rest of the liberals do not acknowledge your Creator. So how then can you appeal to Him for these rights? You can't. By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well. Where does that leave you? Nowhere. By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen -- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who fought and died for them.
You want "natural rights"? Here's a Natural Law instead: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
When the going gets tough, the liberals hide under the bed until the conservatives handle the situation. Our War of Independence was fought by armed free men, and don't you forget it.
The wealth of our nation -- which you enjoy -- was created by free men, not by liberals. The freedoms which you enjoy were created by free men, not by liberals.
A hard-working, moral man can do just about anything, and in the United States we've have done just about anything -- with one exception: We've allowed ourselves to be enslaved by the parasitic liberals. We've allowed them to sap our substance with their taxes, their welfare beaurocracy, and their lawyers. We are being nibbled to death by mice, whining, cowardly mice with beards and sandals. When a man can take your property, you are -- in principle -- his slave. This situation is intolerable and will long not be permitted to endure.
They (unfortunatly [sic]) dont [sic] vote because they are more apathetic and lesse[sic]-faire . . . Most Liberals are enlightened and wise enough to not try and starve his [sic] neighbours [sic] children for his [sic] own benefit . . .
. . . and several butchers' aprons.
Welcome to planet Earth in the year of our Lord 2001. There's still an 'e' in "unfortunately", we still put apostrophes in contractions like "don't" (not to mention "what's", "it's", etc.), and the French still haven't made any radical changes in the way they spell "laissez". Futhermore, plural pronouns haven't yet become singular, and the possessive of "neighbor" is still "neighbor's", unless you mean the plural -- in which case "neighbors'" would do nicely. Your misspelling of "neighbor" itself suggests the source of the problem: You're either European, or a sadly ill-educated liberal American pretending to be European -- presumably because the other guys down at the leather bar find it a turn-on.
Now that we've disposed of your implied claim to human ancestry, we can move along and demolish the substance of your outburst.
"Liberals" are "moral"?! Your definition of "morality" seems to include men having anal sex with hundreds of partners in a given year. It also includes Ted Kennedy's murderous crimes, the "mysterious" rash of killings surrounding the Clinton regime, the wholesale butchering of unborn children for profit, armed robbery of an entire nation (income tax), the forcible disarming of a free population, the murder of innocents at Waco, Ruby Ridge and elsewhere, divorce, paganism, satanism, drug addiction (encouraged and paid for by YOUR TAX MONEY, thanks to the insane liberal welfare religion), broken homes, shattered lives, a crippled educational system, wealth-creating businesses destroyed by lawsuits and crippled by insane legal impositions ("affirmative action", anyone?), and a thousand other crimes against humanity.
Is it "moral" when I am forced to hire and retain hopelessly incompetent employees by "affirmative action"? Is it moral that women are driven out of the home and into a workplace in which they have nothing to offer an employer? Do you think they enjoy their positions? Their employers hate them because they're a constant reminder of the abuses of a tyrannical government. Their co-workers hate them because they're unproductive dead weight. They soon learn to hate themselves, and rightly so. Deprived by abortion of any natural outlet for their natural maternal drive, instead they're mismolded into crude, hapless pseudo-men for the delectation of the feminist bull-dykes who exert absolute control over the legal system. These bull-dykes (like "Mrs." Clinton, for example) have hated themselves all along. They can do nothing but try to get a poor sort of revenge on their own twisted, malfunctioning biology by inflicting their own misery on women who were born healthy.
The crimes of the liberals defy description. You, my little friend, are either deluded are genuinely evil. Since you're clearly an idiot, I'm betting on "deluded".
Your "knowledge" of economics is laughable.
on
Agenda VR3 Review
·
· Score: 3
Quite frankly, I'm [sic] enjoying the so called "Clinton-Damaged" economy for the last few years.
I think you're trying to say that you've been enjoying the economy -- but even if that is what you mean, you're quite confused.
The Republicans fought Clinton every step of the way. We fought like tigers to preserve the gains of the Reagan/Bush years. We sweated blood to preserve the prosperity that we'd brought to America in the 1980's. And we did not fail. True, if we'd been able to stay on track between 1992 and 2000, you'd be looking at a 15,000 Dow today -- and you'd be enjoying a hard currency, too, not the same old soft "Democratic funny money" based on the "paper standard".
The entire "Internet Bubble" was the direct result of government interference in the economy. The real, solid prosperity of the 1980's was based on the financial acumen of brilliant men like Michael Milken. The false, soap-bubble "prosperity" of the 1990's was based on the grimy jabberings of a million "nerds" creating "products" which don't even really exist. Software is a nice hobby, but there is no product there. A long series of zeroes and ones is not something a sane man will spend money on -- regardless of how much care was lavished on putting them in just the right order.
Government interference, you say? Yes, indeed. Read up about the ARPANet: That's the government pork-barrel boondoggle that grew into the Internet. During the 1980's, honest businesses in a fair, competitive environment produced far superior alternatives: Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, the list goes on. All were more resource-efficient than the wasteful Internet, with its bloated packet-switching and insane reliance on text files for so many purposes (and even by text standards, they're still fat -- look at how much space in an XML file is wasted on "tags" some time). Any one of those private-sector innovations was far superior to what we've got now -- but the government essentially went into competition with the private sector, and steamrollered them with massive expenditures of tax money.
Imagine that -- an innovative, honest company called Prodigy was TAXED INTO PENURY, with the government's ill-gotten gains immediately spent to destroy what was left.
Naturally, the government-created Internet spawned a culture of lies, delusions, and theft.
And now we reap the whirlwind. The psychotic "Internet mentality" has taken such a deep hold that Americans actually oppose a tax cut that will restart the economy by putting wealth back into the hands of the justly wealthy who created it in the first place, and who will gladly create more if they only have some spare capital to work with.
It's true that most lawyers are bloodsucking scum (I trust we're both familiar with the incredible damage that anti-male, anti-white feminist lawyers have done to our freedoms), but what about the lawyers who defend against personal injury suits, product liability suits, malpractice suits, and the like?
I wouldn't go so far as to call such lawyers "freedom fighters", but they're pretty close. These guys suing Red Hat are on the same high ethical level: They're acting in the interest of investors. You may not be aware of this, but we've got what's called a capitalist economy (that's why you're not starving to death, kiddo) and investors are the motor that makes it go. Red Hat is a frontal assault on the very existence of investors, and therefore they are sucking at the lifeblood of our economy, our freedom, and our future.
Sorry, guys, but they've got to be destroyed before they do any more damage.
Vaporware, vaporware, how I adore thee . . .
on
Agenda VR3 Review
·
· Score: 1
These things are inevitable, I suppose, though I'm still sad to see it happen yet again.
A real business sells products that work properly. The "dot-com" feeding frenzy is over, and we're back to real life: If the product is crap, keep it to yourself. "Linux" and "Open-Source" were magic words for a few months, from the Red Hat IPO (they're being sued for fraud now, aren't they?) to the VA Linux IPO (nobody's bothering to sue those wretched bankrupts). But that was more than a year ago, and nobody gives a rat's ass about "Linux".
Nobody pays money for this garbage. Let the real engineers and the real businessmen take over. The Clinton-damaged economy has taken enough blows. Enough is enough.
Slashdot Mirror
The shortest sort algorithm requires passing over the data as many times as there are items. ~O(N*N) (bubble sort) but only takes a few lines to code. Other (fat) algorithms require a couple pages to code (merge O(N*log(N)))...
Is that relevant?
No. Your analogy is off the point entirely.
XML is a format used for storing and transmitting hierarchically structured data. Bandwidth is a concern.
Here's a better analogy: Imagine that for some insane reason you were concerned about the size of your source files, and you had to keep them as small as possible. Imagine that this is a major design consideration. Would you then choose to implement your quicksort in C, or in Cobol? Likewise: If you were doing an embedded system, with severely limited storage, you might find it profitable to code simpler algorithms just to save a few bytes in the executable. Development is about trade-offs. When you can count on having a lot of storage, you can sacrifice memory in order to optimize for speed. On the other hand, sometimes you have to sacrifice speed to keep the code small.
Bandwidth is still a major design consideration WRT the Internet: Lots of people are still using 56k modems. XML and HTML demand that users waste their limited bandwidth downloading unnecessarily fat files. They also squander processor time when they get parsed, but that's not a problem: It's network bandwidth that's expensive these days, not cycles. We've got cycles to burn. It's those skinny little pipes that cause trouble.
As I understand it the core tenet of conservatism is the freedom to live one's life free from governmental interference.
That is correct. We have devoted our "lives, liberties, and sacred honor" to limiting the power of the central government. This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Being told to defend a nation or a Constitution you may or may not believe in seems to be the antithesis of this concept.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument. Predictable. In any case, you are correct: We firmly and unequivocally reject all attempts to force us to fight and die for other nations. Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
It is intolerable that free American men should be conscripted into the service of foreign and barbaric governments.
"Cussards and reprobates" indeed! I couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, indeed, let them retreat into their weird fantasies of "moons" and "native Americans", let them destroy themselves . . .
And of course you are correct: Slashdot will be renewed. And the time is fast approaching.
I wasn't trying to quote anything.
Be that as it may, "endowing" a "right" with anything (you didn't specify what) is a waste of energy. I mean, like, that's not what "endow" means, dude.
Are you saying that God plays partisan politics?
God prefers those who keep His Law. If one party does so, and the other does not, why then quite naturally God will tend to prefer the members of the former to those of the latter.
That's an obvious truth, but it doesn't have much to do with "partisan politics" as you understand it: God's not sitting up there saying, "My team, right or wrong!" He's saying, "My team, because the only way to be on it is to be right in the first place." See the difference?
This has nothing to do with "diversity", "tolerance", or "broad-mindedness": Those slogans are all red herrings. Would you be "tolerant" of somebody who bombed your city? No. Some things are just plain wrong.
By what right do YOU decide who is and isn't a patriot, much less even a citizen?
Simple common sense. Imagine you're running a business. Imagine that one of your employees sets your office on fire. Would you consider that person a good and loyal servant, or a dangerous nut? Would you give him a raise, or fire him? You'd fire him. You'd get rid of the dumb bastard, because even if he believes that he is right, he is still a dangerous lunatic. So it is with the liberals: They are devoted to destroying the foundations of our nation. We have a right to act in self-defense, whether you like it or not.
It's sad, but true: Statistics don't lie.
when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in the revolutionary war, that was heroic.
but when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in Seattle, that's a bunch of long haired freaks.
You are correct on the first one, but in the second you drift off into absurd propaganda. Those so-called "long-haired freaks" (in fact, most of them were skinheads, the liberals' racist shock-troops) were not being kept under anyone's thumb. They were "protesting" against freedom. They were there to oppose the natural rights and liberties of business enterprises. They were fighting against the creation of wealth. They were fighting against the right to private property and freedom of association.
The dogmatic anti-prosperity/anti-freedom ideology of the Left is hardly comparable to the noble principles set forth by our Founding Fathers.
Your entire argument is meaningless gibberish. Reasoning by analogy is a bad idea: The results are rarely valid, and even then only by accident.
" . . .inalienable rights are endowed by our creator . . ."
No, we are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator. But you were at least trying to quote the Declaration, so I'll take the thought for the deed and let it slide.
The problem here is that you and the rest of the liberals do not acknowledge your Creator. So how then can you appeal to Him for these rights? You can't. By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well. Where does that leave you? Nowhere. By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen -- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who fought and died for them.
You want "natural rights"? Here's a Natural Law instead: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
When the going gets tough, the liberals hide under the bed until the conservatives handle the situation. Our War of Independence was fought by armed free men, and don't you forget it.
The wealth of our nation -- which you enjoy -- was created by free men, not by liberals. The freedoms which you enjoy were created by free men, not by liberals.
A hard-working, moral man can do just about anything, and in the United States we've have done just about anything -- with one exception: We've allowed ourselves to be enslaved by the parasitic liberals. We've allowed them to sap our substance with their taxes, their welfare beaurocracy, and their lawyers. We are being nibbled to death by mice, whining, cowardly mice with beards and sandals. When a man can take your property, you are -- in principle -- his slave. This situation is intolerable and will long not be permitted to endure.
They (unfortunatly [sic]) dont [sic] vote because they are more apathetic and lesse[sic]-faire . . . Most Liberals are enlightened and wise enough to not try and starve his [sic] neighbours [sic] children for his [sic] own benefit . . .
. . . and several butchers' aprons.
Welcome to planet Earth in the year of our Lord 2001. There's still an 'e' in "unfortunately", we still put apostrophes in contractions like "don't" (not to mention "what's", "it's", etc.), and the French still haven't made any radical changes in the way they spell "laissez". Futhermore, plural pronouns haven't yet become singular, and the possessive of "neighbor" is still "neighbor's", unless you mean the plural -- in which case "neighbors'" would do nicely. Your misspelling of "neighbor" itself suggests the source of the problem: You're either European, or a sadly ill-educated liberal American pretending to be European -- presumably because the other guys down at the leather bar find it a turn-on.
Now that we've disposed of your implied claim to human ancestry, we can move along and demolish the substance of your outburst.
"Liberals" are "moral"?! Your definition of "morality" seems to include men having anal sex with hundreds of partners in a given year. It also includes Ted Kennedy's murderous crimes, the "mysterious" rash of killings surrounding the Clinton regime, the wholesale butchering of unborn children for profit, armed robbery of an entire nation (income tax), the forcible disarming of a free population, the murder of innocents at Waco, Ruby Ridge and elsewhere, divorce, paganism, satanism, drug addiction (encouraged and paid for by YOUR TAX MONEY, thanks to the insane liberal welfare religion), broken homes, shattered lives, a crippled educational system, wealth-creating businesses destroyed by lawsuits and crippled by insane legal impositions ("affirmative action", anyone?), and a thousand other crimes against humanity.
Is it "moral" when I am forced to hire and retain hopelessly incompetent employees by "affirmative action"? Is it moral that women are driven out of the home and into a workplace in which they have nothing to offer an employer? Do you think they enjoy their positions? Their employers hate them because they're a constant reminder of the abuses of a tyrannical government. Their co-workers hate them because they're unproductive dead weight. They soon learn to hate themselves, and rightly so. Deprived by abortion of any natural outlet for their natural maternal drive, instead they're mismolded into crude, hapless pseudo-men for the delectation of the feminist bull-dykes who exert absolute control over the legal system. These bull-dykes (like "Mrs." Clinton, for example) have hated themselves all along. They can do nothing but try to get a poor sort of revenge on their own twisted, malfunctioning biology by inflicting their own misery on women who were born healthy.
The crimes of the liberals defy description. You, my little friend, are either deluded are genuinely evil. Since you're clearly an idiot, I'm betting on "deluded".
Quite frankly, I'm [sic] enjoying the so called "Clinton-Damaged" economy for the last few years.
I think you're trying to say that you've been enjoying the economy -- but even if that is what you mean, you're quite confused.
The Republicans fought Clinton every step of the way. We fought like tigers to preserve the gains of the Reagan/Bush years. We sweated blood to preserve the prosperity that we'd brought to America in the 1980's. And we did not fail. True, if we'd been able to stay on track between 1992 and 2000, you'd be looking at a 15,000 Dow today -- and you'd be enjoying a hard currency, too, not the same old soft "Democratic funny money" based on the "paper standard".
The entire "Internet Bubble" was the direct result of government interference in the economy. The real, solid prosperity of the 1980's was based on the financial acumen of brilliant men like Michael Milken. The false, soap-bubble "prosperity" of the 1990's was based on the grimy jabberings of a million "nerds" creating "products" which don't even really exist. Software is a nice hobby, but there is no product there. A long series of zeroes and ones is not something a sane man will spend money on -- regardless of how much care was lavished on putting them in just the right order.
Government interference, you say? Yes, indeed. Read up about the ARPANet: That's the government pork-barrel boondoggle that grew into the Internet. During the 1980's, honest businesses in a fair, competitive environment produced far superior alternatives: Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, the list goes on. All were more resource-efficient than the wasteful Internet, with its bloated packet-switching and insane reliance on text files for so many purposes (and even by text standards, they're still fat -- look at how much space in an XML file is wasted on "tags" some time). Any one of those private-sector innovations was far superior to what we've got now -- but the government essentially went into competition with the private sector, and steamrollered them with massive expenditures of tax money.
Imagine that -- an innovative, honest company called Prodigy was TAXED INTO PENURY, with the government's ill-gotten gains immediately spent to destroy what was left.
Naturally, the government-created Internet spawned a culture of lies, delusions, and theft.
And now we reap the whirlwind. The psychotic "Internet mentality" has taken such a deep hold that Americans actually oppose a tax cut that will restart the economy by putting wealth back into the hands of the justly wealthy who created it in the first place, and who will gladly create more if they only have some spare capital to work with.
It's true that most lawyers are bloodsucking scum (I trust we're both familiar with the incredible damage that anti-male, anti-white feminist lawyers have done to our freedoms), but what about the lawyers who defend against personal injury suits, product liability suits, malpractice suits, and the like?
I wouldn't go so far as to call such lawyers "freedom fighters", but they're pretty close. These guys suing Red Hat are on the same high ethical level: They're acting in the interest of investors. You may not be aware of this, but we've got what's called a capitalist economy (that's why you're not starving to death, kiddo) and investors are the motor that makes it go. Red Hat is a frontal assault on the very existence of investors, and therefore they are sucking at the lifeblood of our economy, our freedom, and our future.
Sorry, guys, but they've got to be destroyed before they do any more damage.
These things are inevitable, I suppose, though I'm still sad to see it happen yet again.
A real business sells products that work properly. The "dot-com" feeding frenzy is over, and we're back to real life: If the product is crap, keep it to yourself. "Linux" and "Open-Source" were magic words for a few months, from the Red Hat IPO (they're being sued for fraud now, aren't they?) to the VA Linux IPO (nobody's bothering to sue those wretched bankrupts). But that was more than a year ago, and nobody gives a rat's ass about "Linux".
Nobody pays money for this garbage. Let the real engineers and the real businessmen take over. The Clinton-damaged economy has taken enough blows. Enough is enough.