potentially less corruption and graft (it still exists but the death penalty reduces the behaviour to those in favour with the government)
I have this bridge in Brooklyn, NY I'm trying to unload... You can have it at $1,000,000; it's a steal at that price...
China is at minimum at least as economically corrupt as the U.S. . Large deals of any type cannot take place without Central Committee members getting their cut. Military leaders get their kickbacks on weapons contracts. And it goes all the way down to the local mayors skimming from the top. The death penalty exists to get rid of political competitors, not economic ones. You could say its aimed at the same people. Not having to worry about the DP just means you're not a player. The only positive thing I can say about Chinese economic corruption is that it may not be as pervasive as Indian corruption.
Even Iran could give the US fits due to a large, dedicated ground force, excellent missiles and high-speed torpedoes....too bad the US doesn't have the stealth destroyer in production yet because aircraft carriers and the current generation of US cruisers and destroyers show up just fine on radar and if you see it, you can kill it.
The Iranians are quite unlikely to sink an American warship. The reason why US ships can afford to leave large radar signatures is because having a large profile doesn't sink ships. You still have to put a missle into it. Good luck. The formula totally changes when you can send a tactical nuke at a US warship. Iran can't, but any major world power can. No, the reason why the U.S. loses to Iran is not issues of technology, its strategic concerns. They are that the U.S. has everything to lose, and the Iranians nothing by shutting down the Persian Gulf, and it would be trivial for the Iranians to accomplish that.
I find it vaguely amusing that everyone presumes that the Chinese military will be able to crush its way in any military conflict, but its not that simple. Properly trained and deployed mobile forces can do quite a bit to hold its own against a bigger AND MUCH CLUMSIER enemy. China will have modern forces and modern tactics by the time it decides to make a play on the world stage, but whether it will be an effective fighting force will depend on how much it learns after its "blooded". The last, semi-major military engagement by the Chinese was in the '80's, and the Vietnamese handed them their asses. Granted, it was more like a gesture than a real military operation, and the Chinese rightfully put the scare into the VietCong. Ironic... lose the battle, but get everything they wanted. My point is, its an error to overestimate the Chinese military forces until they are seen in recent action.
It had to do with law (who controls another human being since there were no written instructions from her).
The law is pretty clear. The spouse has the final say in terms of medical decisions made on behalf of the spouse. The legal responsibilities and power of familial members at both ends pretty much end when the child becomes an adult. Ah, but you believe THEOCRACTIC institutions should ultimately decide who has the right to decide medical decisions.
It had to do with whether we are the kind of people who will dispose of the inconvenient, whether we will choose death over life.
Or what kind of obscene treatment can perpetrated upon a person based on religious beliefs of Cult members.
To be consistent, we ought to apply that argument to people who have Life without Parole sentences.
Society does not want to expend the tax dollars to give all indigent citizens a reasonably competent defense attorney and his costs. Its pretty obvious that if you're poor, you're much more likely to get railroaded for a murder you didn't commit. Yes, the overwhelming majority of murder convictions probably have the right guy. The question is whether the gov't (and by extention, its citizens) is entitled to "murder" convicted people with a reasonable expectation that some miniscule percentage of them are innocent. Its pretty much the sole reason I'm against the death penalty.
Schaivo is a totally different issue. The question there is: "who has jurisdiction over a spouse's medical care?" How remote a relation can you be in order to override the medical decisions the married partner makes on behalf of their spouse? If its purely an issue of "sanctity of life", how can there be any such thing as DNR orders? They would all be illegal. There would be no reason for family members to have any decision making power on behalf of the incapacitated member. That power would be emplaced by fiat to what the Congress and the Courts decided best fullfilled the "moral" imperative. (Screw the Constitution of the US.) How long before before people be compelled to donate their organs when diagnosed as brain dead? They perpetuate life, and that's the overriding "moral" value...
What place have you worked at where management actually did that? You're expending money for a typical project, and then increasing the cost by running a parallel Indian effort. Its presuming the goal is to derive an opinion from an empirical test (which would be anecdotal anyway), and not the goal to maximize ROI. Its almost a sure money loser, even if the project meets delivery targets.
Its more gaming efficient to hire a team for a task which you can live with a failure. If they suceed, you profit. If they do fail, you learn what you needed to learn. At least this way, you minimize your financial loss to one team (not two), and give yourself a chance to make money.
Free speech is about ensuring open access to information to make an informed public decision.
Free speech is not limitless. You cannot make false, derogatory statements against individuals. You cannot make statements that can result in direct injury to individuals. (Whether its yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or inciting violence upon a doctor who works in an abortion clinic.)
These people have a right to protest the war, protest homosexuals, or whatever. They do not have the right to intrude upon a religious ceremony conducted for private individuals.
And when the people execute an innocent man, that makes the people murderers.
You have no ethical core. You can keep kidding yourself, but its pretty apparent to everyone else.
So lets see, your kids will have the right to bear arms, and you will save them from paying taxes on abortions. But their tax dollars will be used to pay off war debts in the trillions of dollars, and they will probably live in a country so poverty stricken, it will be at the mercy of foreign interests and rich capitalists. You retard.
Yes, in the real world, fascism and corporatism always wins. The strong always get their way. The concept of using law to protect individual rights is a sham. The English were able to put down those puny colonists... oh wait...
I think it shows that the ruling mostly shifts the decision making from the courts to local governments.
No, it shifts the arbiter of the definition of "public good" from the court to the local gov't. The court never got involved in deciding each petition for eminent domain.
As I see it, it was a horrific copout on the courts part. The court is obliged to protect property rights of law abiding individuals against gov't seizure. Protection of individual property rights is a cornerstone of "Republican" based gov't. The damage to the public by arbitrary seizure of property by gov't was demonstrated during the Roman Empire. And the determinant factor for eminent domain cases would have still been apparent; you can seize land for publicly controlled property uses, not for a private interest to make a profit off of theft of property. Even if you boot out the corrupt gov't, the damage is done; the gov't has suceeded in stealing from the individual. The potential for corrupting local gov't is staggering.
On the other hand, Google is clearly irresponsible in its editorial decisions here. Criticism of fanatical Islam is a valid perspective and ought to be published.
You are accusing Google of clearly being irresponsible because they don't like hate speech such as
"Muslims are true victims of Islam. However, they fail to realize that Islam is a cult, and the prophet was a demon, possessed by a huge sexual appetite."
Characterizing Mohammed as a pederast, yet ignoring Romans pederasty, the West shacking up with 13 years olds until the 20th century, or what a few Catholic priests do today? Would I be fair minded for calling Catholicism a cult with huge sexual appetites? What makes "Amil Imani" fairminded?
Or this "valid" perspective?
"Then there is Iran. Iran claims it has never attacked another country. Technically, Iran committed an act of war when the American embassy was overrun and the Americans within that embassy were taken hostage. Every embassy is considered the sovereign soil of the country that occupies it. Therefore, Iran invaded American soil that day and attacked another country."
What do you call an coup against a democratically elected gov't?
Unlike Islamics, America will not target women and children.
As has been said by many true proponents of free speech: the answer to bad speech (or non-speech) is more speech, hopefully of the good variety. That is all that one can ask for in a free society.
Ask news organization pay to propagate the views of Osama bin Laden, Neo-nazis and pederasts? A morally upright individual knows what to ask for.
Get over it - if MSN(BC)/FOX/CNN was doing this no one would care.
Actually, for me, it is because MSN(BC)/FOX/CNN does it, I really don't care that Google chose to exercise editorial control. Particularly after reading the flagged articles. I wish Slashdot's editor had been competent, and chose to pass on giving a right-wing hate blog "free" publicity to scream from the rooftops, "I'm a "victim" of the leftist media".
The question that needs to be answered first is: Are you a professor at a real university with a real computer science program, or are you teaching at a VoTech school.
If it is the latter, absolutely teach with the IDE, because showing proficiency with tools is a selling point with employers. After all, isn't it why they are accepting the institution's diploma as validation of competence?
If its the former, its irrelevant. You're supposed to be teaching concepts of computer science which impacts on the specifics of the course. Yes, a credible computer science program should put out people capable of developing code in an effective manner. But as I understand it, you're supposed to be educating students to be able to properly determine the best approach towards solving a computer resolvable problem, using the state of the art techniques. Not teaching students how to be the best code monkeys they can be for their employer. The tools used should be utterly irrelevant. You're teaching applied concepts and theory.
As an aside, a good academic program should have exposure to both IDE environments, and "non-automated" environments. But how that is structured should really be considered by the Dean. More important, I believe, is to teach an assembler class, or at least cover assembler in a systems class. Yes, its "painful", and almost all career programmers will never use it. But I think its a vehicle to insights as to how the computer really "thinks", and gives a better appreciate of what is possible and not possible with hardware. To remove THAT from the curriculum is a lot more damaging to an educated conception of the machine, than being spoiled by an IDE.
The government cannot possibly stay out of such a debate, since one of its prime missions is to enforce the laws, which forbid murder.
No, the prime mission of gov't is to enforce "order" in society; to establish an environment where people can conduct business, and live life as they choose as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's right to do the same. Law is a tool that is used to preserve that "order". If gov't did not enforce an edict against murder, "order" would devolve in a system where the most effective killers, or most effective organization of killers would dictate how society would be run. There would be an edict against murder probably regardless whether there is a God. The vast majority of people do not want to spend their time defending against murderers, premptively killing potential threats, etc.
You (and many others) have the confused notion that law must exist to enforce principle. "Murder is in principle a bad thing, therefore all murder is bad, and thus gov't must prevent or punish anything which can be interpreted as murder." Abortion does not tangibly affect the function of society. There are societies that exist with laws permitting abortion, and they are not falling into disorder, nor suffering a specific ailment that can be attributed to abortion. People may desire a gov't to act in a manner that enhances quality of life, but that is not gov't's prime responsibility. When you have gov't enforcing laws to dictate morality, particularly the views of a minority, then you will have a gov't expending an inordinate amount of societies' resources fighting its citizens who believe otherwise. That's not gov't's legitimate purpose.
When gov't is used to enforce "morality", it really is being used to enforce theocracy; the opinions of a few, or many, people who think things must be done as the Noodly Appendage directs, regardless how silly it is, or how detrimental it may be. No, its is not morally obvious whether abortion is a medical procedure on a batch of cells, or if its murder. The problem is when one tries to use gov't to legislate morality, the law then needs to make determinations as to what is considered a medical requirement, and what is "murder". Thus, the legalistic hypocrisy.
The real problem is stupid people, who think because "I beleive its acceptable or "right" to murder ragheads for their oil, I am entitled to murder ragheads". Or, "because I like most of what my President does, I am obliged to disregard his violations of the law". These people are prepared to legislate that a woman who is made pregnant by rape, incest, or will suffer grievous disability be compelled to carry the fetus to term. That includes your mother and possible sister, or girlfriend. I will not indulge the pretense of intellectual credence or morality for such people.
If you're going to have a camera on a phone, it SHOULD be an 8 megapixel camera. It makes your camera a 2-in-1 device (no need to bring/own a fancy shmancy camera). Real handy if you're a insurance claims adjuster, contractor, Al-Queda terrorist, or live in NYC and like to risk your life photographing murders or police brutality.
I, on the other hand, am quite DISPLEASED that they put a crappy camera on my Treo 600. If I go to court, or certain gov't buildings, they take it away from me.
1) Obviously, it is a relatively rare fatality, or we would have seen this occuring frequently enough pre-PC age to have made note of it. Accountants and lawyers have done similar marathon sessions sitting down; its not unique to the programmer profession. (It makes me wonder how many Karoshi deaths occurred in this manner.)
2) Some people, such as myself, have pretty damn retentive bladders. Even after knocking off a six-pack, I don't have to immediately run to releive myself. Sometimes, I can realize that perhaps I should have taken the leak at the bar, but its too inconvenient at that point. Three hours later, after a barely registered discomfort, and an hour subway ride home, I then take the leak, pretty much knowing I could have gone another hour if I had to. Questions: Do you think this guy is such a feeb he can't work through an 8 hour hack session without dying? Do you suspect that I think you're a girl because you need to take a wizz every hour, and are incapable of an 8 hour sitting session? Perhaps we are being judgemental assholes?
3) Even though this will occur in a miniscule population of people, it is totally prevented by a walk/stretch for 1 minute of every two hours. Is that such a disgraceful thing to do? Is it such an egregious thing to even inform people of it? If people fall victim to DVT, are they better off dead because they don't meet your definition of macho? Are you so far up your boss's anus, that you would look upon 4 minutes/day away from work as an affront to the company?
Oh man, I laughed so hard when I read the Wikipedia entry. Who would think that an ad-hoc committee could be even less efficient than a gov't bureaucracy? Is there a website that provides running commentary on the executive decisions made by the HURD committee? I have to believe there are at least a few L4 developers that are ticked off, but its not worth it to subscribe to the mailing list.
The same arguements for using monolithic kernels vs. microkernels is the same sort of arguement for using C/C++ over languages like Lisp, Java, Python, Ruby, etc.
Not really. Mono-kernels vs u-kernels is a "great taste, less filling" debate. People who care more about slowing down are going to pick the "lite" beer. People who care more about theoretical considerations are going to go for "great taste".
I have been working too long with computers to really give a damn about language debates. Languages are designed to emphasis certain philosophic tenets. By their nature, preference will be individualized and value can only be determined subjectively. By logical corrollary, because people think differently; there will never be a universally ideal language.
I should be happy to see new "languages" being birthed every few years, but in truth, I've become disgusted with them all. Evangelists all try to claim their language to be the acme of programming technology, but they all have strengths and weakness. My disgust stems from my belief a new language should only exist if they REALLY make a significant difference in programming metrics. There just isn't a point to keep learning a few new languages every few years just to find out they don't provide a significant advantage. It irritates me that php became the web language of choice over perl. And python? WHO CARES? Smalltalk is probably a better language if you care about being generic and "clean". Python is not going blow away all other languages in execution speed or development ease. Java was an interesting case of frankenstein design, and I'm betting it will probably die on the vine due to its lack of selling points, and because Sun is too control obsessive to hand the language over to a standards committee. Microsoft's C# was probably a slightly better implementation of java's ideas, but ironically, if it becomes prevalent, it will only be because mono made it cross-platform. I'm old school; for me, its ASM, C, C++, bash/perl for scripting, shoutouts to smalltalk/lisp/FORTH (but nothing for practical use), and java's only worth learning if you want to increase your pool of programming jobs.
I think maybe we're at a point that microkernels are now practical, same as with those high-level languages.
They were practical in the early '90's. There were many u-kernel systems put out (QNX comes to mind). The question is whether you want to take the kernel messaging performance hit (for some other yet-to-be-perceived advantage), and more important, can you convince enough people to give up "less filling" for "great taste". (I don't see that happening.)
I'm no kernel designer, but it seems reasonable that a monolithic kernel could be refactored into a microkernel.
Its already been done, mklinux and l4linux. I like the taste of u-kernels enough to wish Torvalds & Co. would migrate to it, but its not going to happen. Torvalds routinely rejects kernel changes made purely for aethetic reasons, and unless the body of linux application code was rewritten to exploit u-kernel advantages, you will not see a single benefit, and a 10-15% hit in performance. The "next-great-thing" will be VM features, and that works in well with u-kernels. Its sad really. Someone is going to have to fork the linux kernel, implement an entire distribution, and convince people its better, before there is a chance in hell of people changing to a u-kernel. C'est la vie.
What is it with you people?!?! Does it occur to you there is more things to Heaven and Earth that can be dreamt in your philosophy, Horatio? Why is it every person trained on using a hammer thinks all problems can be solved by hammering it?!?!?!
The real problem is that Windoze doesn't come bundled with a programming language???
Its 2006. Have you not heard of a computer communication network called... the Internet? You can do really neat things like... download all the programming packages in the world that one would wish to use! You are a man dying of thirst floating in the middle of a freshwater lake because you're too stupid to realize its potable water keeping you afloat!!!
And why would one think the best way of introducing kids to computers is using crippled, archaic language technologies like BASIC??? Introducing kids to BASIC is the computer science equivalent of CHILD ABUSE! "It was good fer me, its what'll be best for my kid." Yeah, my dad felt the same way about using a belt when we got out of line. Some people grew up in Sudan; I guess chewing narcotic leaves and learning to kill people with AK-47s is the best way to raise an adolescent.
You don't see me telling kids to learn FORTRAN and COBOL when I was a kid. And hell, you can program games in COBOL too! I deliberately keep a copy of COBOL TREK in case I'm trapped, and only have access to a 370.
The kid wants to learn to program? Teach them to use a webbrowser and google.com, and they can go download the java SDK. Do you really think writing something like:
Java too hard? Try this. Its as straightforward as BASIC, its an object oriented language, and much more conceptual and educational. Hell, it even caters to kids, here.
There's no way you can get started easily.
UNBELEIVABLE! Is it me? Am I the only one here who sees mentally crippled BASIC programmers?!?!?
Many have never heard of a command prompt and wouldn't know what to do with one if they saw it.
I grew up in the era of the CLI. Hell, when I went to college, they still had punch card terminals (and discontinued their use the year before I matriculated). To this day, the "kids" look at me like some kind of freak when I'm using bash notation and regex to extract information. Wouldn't trade it for the world. But those days are gone, and you are mistaken when you imply one needs to be fluent with a CLI to be programming literate
The focus on harder science is declining.
That is because you live and contribute to a culture that values money more than knowlege or accomplishment. You allow religious retards to serve on school boards and subvert science education with Creationism theology. Where is the reward for pursuing "hard" science? People who do basically live in poverty (academia), or at the mercy of people who spent more time working their social skills and planning their career advancement. Finally, the culture of our parents held greater respect for the educated class. TV and the print lauded people like Einstein and Braun. They lionized "Spam in the Can" flight jocks. But at least they held degrees, and accomplished something. What does TV and media lionize today? Some freak like Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, or a white chick victim like Natalee Holloway.
They have too many distractions. High School students try to do their homework while watching TV, listening to their iPod(tm), surfing the web and playing games; while being interrupted by their cellphones ringing every 30 seconds.
That may not be a bad thing. Until I hit my thirties, I used to be able to listen to talk radio while focusing on programming, or some other intellectual activity. I really regret losing that ability. Listening to music while studying isn't necessarily distracting. Depending on the music, its usually to set a pace/mantra while drowning out the world. I've never seen anyone surfing web pages or playing halo while genuinely studying. And I am of the theory that learning is best accomplished in small chunks, and lots of repetition, rather than hours of cramming.
Communication skills are also in a sharp and steady decline. Children are learning how to communicate through MySpace(tm) and IM(tm) where grammar, semantics, capitalization and punctuation are never used properly.
Boo hoo. Its the future. Its about expressing the concept to be communicated in as few characters as possible. Yeah, people should be able to write and communicate like they were submitting a scholastic publication, but the reality is that they will not exist in that dry, paper tome format in 100 years.
Formal instruction teaches the fundamentals of programming.
And are you going to pay private tutors to provide that formal instruction? Jack up your property taxes to provide that kind of education in the primary school level? Mortgage your house so you can pay to provide that education to the illegal immigrant kids flooding this country? Dammit, the school system is falling apart. Shoreham can't afford to provide violin lessons to elementary school kids anymore.
On one hand, I value the formal instruction I recieved in college, for it gives me a perspective in computer science I wouldn't have otherwise. But it was only a small part in where I am today. There was no formal instruction in computers when I was growing up in the '80's. Back in the 60's, the standard college didn't even have a formal computer science program. You majored in math, and minored in electrical engineering. Its a fallacy to think formal education was or is integral to adept use of computer technology and programming.
Did you notice that the group that commissioned the study was a marketing group? Ever hear of the expression "astroturf"? Do you really think that those people who are like that are of concern to us?
Even your contention belies inexperience. Anything that requires interaction with other human beings, whether its promotion, acceptance in social niches, or management of subordinates, requires cultivation of "image". One first has to understand what is important to them, and then adapt their behavior to what best leads them to their objectives.
I'm experiencing that problem right now with software raid. I'm looking to boot off of raid, but the "thorough" documentation is close to five years old using a less popular toolset (raidtools, not mdadm). Googling is only of limited help. The most helpful pages are the ones that start "I wrote this up because the stuff I tried RTFMing was five years old...". But it is not a genuine documentation guide, in itself.
Documentation should at least give a blurb about how the whole set of components is supposed to work together, and index of basic, cookbook steps. Part of the problem is that specific details vary based upon the options of the bootloader du jour. Its really getting to the point where I have to download the source code and read it line by line. This is not going to get Linux to that "next" level of acceptance.
This is a problem I have heard over and over and over again from people who tried Linux, but when they went to their local LUG they were told to RTFM and to google it before asking questions (oh...and mention that you are trying to find the answer in Google usually fends off another flame from someone.
Unfortunately, (currently) to be a Linux user, you do need to be able to RTFM and google. You can't function as a Linux user without it. Most people do not want to use a device that requires reading documentation before attempting to use a feature. The sad truth is that there's no point in encouraging new users to adopt Linux if they aren't willing to exert that step.
This is why I currently believe Linux is not a viable replacement for Windoze. I hate the Linux assholes who think otherwise; they lack the ability to see the obvious. I think Linux at this point is a desirable desktop replacement to most business environments. But that is because large business usually had computer support staff, and most of the troublesome applications on Linux are obscure in nature. But Linux desktop adoption is an if, not a when. The fact that you need to do more thinking and reading to run a Linux desktop will make it alien to managers. When given a choice, management usually will choose to avoid the unknown. There's not enough of a fiscal payoff to go Linux. The Microsoft tax ensures Linux users will pay, unless they build their own machines.
To the religious idiots out there, give it up. Linux is not going to become a mainstream desktop. You need to encourage users unsuited to the platform. There are many commercial and social forces that make it unlikely. And yes, you do more harm than good. Also, evangelists, stop exhorting Linux users to be more user supportive. You're sending out people unsuited to do customer support/sales.
Its been a while since I've been to NYLUG, but for the years I was there, I never experience people who were rude when someone came up to them with questions, even rudimentary ones. Never anything like what has been described here. I'd suggest if LUGs are really interested in promoting Linux, the leadership should take a little time on a regular basis to lecture members on what behavior is intolerable and the value of going beyond the RTFM advice.
On one hand, you're absolutely right. Climatology is hardly a "hard" science.
On the other hand, by freshman Bio professor took a lecture day out to talk about "global warming" back in the early '80s. His position was: the laws of physics are pretty much set in stone. Civilization is pumping out a significant amount of CO2. That rate will skyrocket as the 3rd world, with many times more population than the US, industrialize. It doesn't matter if there will be global warming or cooling. What matters is the laws of physics dictate a change in environment with the increase of CO2. Do you live in Canada or the USSR? Well, then maybe the change will be good. The US generates a ton of agricultural product, due to its favorable climate. Do you want this to change? Keep generating CO2 like we currently do.
1) I don't think they make station wagons (as I remember them) anymore.
2) Station wagons (as any large car) aren't significantly more fuel efficient than an SUV.
Yes, his reply reflects that mentally challenged SUV rationalization. Two kids? There is a non-SUV car designed for those kinds of family. It has its own category: 4-door sedan. (Toyota Corolla comes to mind.) Hell, many 2 door subcompacts will have seats in the back for passengers. As for more than 2 kids, I'd just say they are avowed environmental locusts. Its called birth control, dumbasses.
How is it that Evolution "proves" there is no God? At "best", it can show there is a set of physical laws which can explain the genesis of the universe without requiring the direct interventions of a Supreme Being. But evolution cannot "prove" there was no God involved with "starting" the mess, or those set of physical laws could have come about without him/her/it.
You cannot really "prove" there is a God. But you cannot "prove" there is no God. In fact, Atheism is a form of belief system. It starts with the presumption there is no God. But how can you scientifically conclude there is no God if you cannot prove there isn't a God?
ID fanatics are retards, but you atheists are no different. You're all about making people believe what you believe. A GOOD scientist only cares about what they can prove. And if they're competent, they should also be amenable to the probability that the analysis of the empirical data is flawed. What the professional body of professionals believe to be "truth" has changed from time to time, from ulcers, to Michaelson-Morley, to human flight.
ID fanatics are theocratic politicians. Its important to them to use the education system to indoctrinate children to believe in a scientific basis for the existence of God. The problem is that they undermine the logically derived basis which gives science its value. The other problem is that the general public is too stupid to understand how ID does that. Flawed education produces flawed practitioners, and that "wishful" reasoning for the voter that gives us "global warming" and the "Iraq invasion". Its the same kind of threat Chinese Emperors farsaw whenever they saw technological innovation which could threaten their political power. A couple of centuries later, they ended up the "dogs" of the European devils. The Divinity of the Emperor, their enlightened and "superior" culture couldn't stand against the products of the "Age of Reason".
On the other hand, atheists are no better than the Jesus freaks. Science doesn't prove there is no God, anymore than ID proves there is one. When they state otherwise, they are merely espousing lies and claim science gives it credence. How is it different from the ID zealot that uses science to claim there is a God? Atheists only show themselves to be anti-Jesus freaks, and just as stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I have this bridge in Brooklyn, NY I'm trying to unload... You can have it at $1,000,000; it's a steal at that price...
China is at minimum at least as economically corrupt as the U.S. . Large deals of any type cannot take place without Central Committee members getting their cut. Military leaders get their kickbacks on weapons contracts. And it goes all the way down to the local mayors skimming from the top. The death penalty exists to get rid of political competitors, not economic ones. You could say its aimed at the same people. Not having to worry about the DP just means you're not a player. The only positive thing I can say about Chinese economic corruption is that it may not be as pervasive as Indian corruption.
The Iranians are quite unlikely to sink an American warship. The reason why US ships can afford to leave large radar signatures is because having a large profile doesn't sink ships. You still have to put a missle into it. Good luck. The formula totally changes when you can send a tactical nuke at a US warship. Iran can't, but any major world power can. No, the reason why the U.S. loses to Iran is not issues of technology, its strategic concerns. They are that the U.S. has everything to lose, and the Iranians nothing by shutting down the Persian Gulf, and it would be trivial for the Iranians to accomplish that.
I find it vaguely amusing that everyone presumes that the Chinese military will be able to crush its way in any military conflict, but its not that simple. Properly trained and deployed mobile forces can do quite a bit to hold its own against a bigger AND MUCH CLUMSIER enemy. China will have modern forces and modern tactics by the time it decides to make a play on the world stage, but whether it will be an effective fighting force will depend on how much it learns after its "blooded". The last, semi-major military engagement by the Chinese was in the '80's, and the Vietnamese handed them their asses. Granted, it was more like a gesture than a real military operation, and the Chinese rightfully put the scare into the VietCong. Ironic... lose the battle, but get everything they wanted. My point is, its an error to overestimate the Chinese military forces until they are seen in recent action.
The law is pretty clear. The spouse has the final say in terms of medical decisions made on behalf of the spouse. The legal responsibilities and power of familial members at both ends pretty much end when the child becomes an adult. Ah, but you believe THEOCRACTIC institutions should ultimately decide who has the right to decide medical decisions.
Or what kind of obscene treatment can perpetrated upon a person based on religious beliefs of Cult members.
Yes, thank God the Fundamentalist Taliban failed.
Society does not want to expend the tax dollars to give all indigent citizens a reasonably competent defense attorney and his costs. Its pretty obvious that if you're poor, you're much more likely to get railroaded for a murder you didn't commit. Yes, the overwhelming majority of murder convictions probably have the right guy. The question is whether the gov't (and by extention, its citizens) is entitled to "murder" convicted people with a reasonable expectation that some miniscule percentage of them are innocent. Its pretty much the sole reason I'm against the death penalty.
Schaivo is a totally different issue. The question there is: "who has jurisdiction over a spouse's medical care?" How remote a relation can you be in order to override the medical decisions the married partner makes on behalf of their spouse? If its purely an issue of "sanctity of life", how can there be any such thing as DNR orders? They would all be illegal. There would be no reason for family members to have any decision making power on behalf of the incapacitated member. That power would be emplaced by fiat to what the Congress and the Courts decided best fullfilled the "moral" imperative. (Screw the Constitution of the US.) How long before before people be compelled to donate their organs when diagnosed as brain dead? They perpetuate life, and that's the overriding "moral" value...
What place have you worked at where management actually did that? You're expending money for a typical project, and then increasing the cost by running a parallel Indian effort. Its presuming the goal is to derive an opinion from an empirical test (which would be anecdotal anyway), and not the goal to maximize ROI. Its almost a sure money loser, even if the project meets delivery targets.
Its more gaming efficient to hire a team for a task which you can live with a failure. If they suceed, you profit. If they do fail, you learn what you needed to learn. At least this way, you minimize your financial loss to one team (not two), and give yourself a chance to make money.
Free speech is about ensuring open access to information to make an informed public decision.
Free speech is not limitless. You cannot make false, derogatory statements against individuals. You cannot make statements that can result in direct injury to individuals. (Whether its yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or inciting violence upon a doctor who works in an abortion clinic.)
These people have a right to protest the war, protest homosexuals, or whatever. They do not have the right to intrude upon a religious ceremony conducted for private individuals.
And when the people execute an innocent man, that makes the people murderers.
You have no ethical core. You can keep kidding yourself, but its pretty apparent to everyone else.
So lets see, your kids will have the right to bear arms, and you will save them from paying taxes on abortions. But their tax dollars will be used to pay off war debts in the trillions of dollars, and they will probably live in a country so poverty stricken, it will be at the mercy of foreign interests and rich capitalists. You retard.
Yes, in the real world, fascism and corporatism always wins. The strong always get their way. The concept of using law to protect individual rights is a sham. The English were able to put down those puny colonists... oh wait...
No, it shifts the arbiter of the definition of "public good" from the court to the local gov't. The court never got involved in deciding each petition for eminent domain.
As I see it, it was a horrific copout on the courts part. The court is obliged to protect property rights of law abiding individuals against gov't seizure. Protection of individual property rights is a cornerstone of "Republican" based gov't. The damage to the public by arbitrary seizure of property by gov't was demonstrated during the Roman Empire. And the determinant factor for eminent domain cases would have still been apparent; you can seize land for publicly controlled property uses, not for a private interest to make a profit off of theft of property. Even if you boot out the corrupt gov't, the damage is done; the gov't has suceeded in stealing from the individual. The potential for corrupting local gov't is staggering.
You are accusing Google of clearly being irresponsible because they don't like hate speech such as
Characterizing Mohammed as a pederast, yet ignoring Romans pederasty, the West shacking up with 13 years olds until the 20th century, or what a few Catholic priests do today? Would I be fair minded for calling Catholicism a cult with huge sexual appetites? What makes "Amil Imani" fairminded?Or this "valid" perspective?
What do you call an coup against a democratically elected gov't?
Oh no, they never knowing would...
Ask news organization pay to propagate the views of Osama bin Laden, Neo-nazis and pederasts? A morally upright individual knows what to ask for.
Actually, for me, it is because MSN(BC)/FOX/CNN does it, I really don't care that Google chose to exercise editorial control. Particularly after reading the flagged articles. I wish Slashdot's editor had been competent, and chose to pass on giving a right-wing hate blog "free" publicity to scream from the rooftops, "I'm a "victim" of the leftist media".
The question that needs to be answered first is: Are you a professor at a real university with a real computer science program, or are you teaching at a VoTech school.
If it is the latter, absolutely teach with the IDE, because showing proficiency with tools is a selling point with employers. After all, isn't it why they are accepting the institution's diploma as validation of competence?
If its the former, its irrelevant. You're supposed to be teaching concepts of computer science which impacts on the specifics of the course. Yes, a credible computer science program should put out people capable of developing code in an effective manner. But as I understand it, you're supposed to be educating students to be able to properly determine the best approach towards solving a computer resolvable problem, using the state of the art techniques. Not teaching students how to be the best code monkeys they can be for their employer. The tools used should be utterly irrelevant. You're teaching applied concepts and theory.
As an aside, a good academic program should have exposure to both IDE environments, and "non-automated" environments. But how that is structured should really be considered by the Dean. More important, I believe, is to teach an assembler class, or at least cover assembler in a systems class. Yes, its "painful", and almost all career programmers will never use it. But I think its a vehicle to insights as to how the computer really "thinks", and gives a better appreciate of what is possible and not possible with hardware. To remove THAT from the curriculum is a lot more damaging to an educated conception of the machine, than being spoiled by an IDE.
No, the prime mission of gov't is to enforce "order" in society; to establish an environment where people can conduct business, and live life as they choose as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's right to do the same. Law is a tool that is used to preserve that "order". If gov't did not enforce an edict against murder, "order" would devolve in a system where the most effective killers, or most effective organization of killers would dictate how society would be run. There would be an edict against murder probably regardless whether there is a God. The vast majority of people do not want to spend their time defending against murderers, premptively killing potential threats, etc.
You (and many others) have the confused notion that law must exist to enforce principle. "Murder is in principle a bad thing, therefore all murder is bad, and thus gov't must prevent or punish anything which can be interpreted as murder." Abortion does not tangibly affect the function of society. There are societies that exist with laws permitting abortion, and they are not falling into disorder, nor suffering a specific ailment that can be attributed to abortion. People may desire a gov't to act in a manner that enhances quality of life, but that is not gov't's prime responsibility. When you have gov't enforcing laws to dictate morality, particularly the views of a minority, then you will have a gov't expending an inordinate amount of societies' resources fighting its citizens who believe otherwise. That's not gov't's legitimate purpose.
When gov't is used to enforce "morality", it really is being used to enforce theocracy; the opinions of a few, or many, people who think things must be done as the Noodly Appendage directs, regardless how silly it is, or how detrimental it may be. No, its is not morally obvious whether abortion is a medical procedure on a batch of cells, or if its murder. The problem is when one tries to use gov't to legislate morality, the law then needs to make determinations as to what is considered a medical requirement, and what is "murder". Thus, the legalistic hypocrisy.
The real problem is stupid people, who think because "I beleive its acceptable or "right" to murder ragheads for their oil, I am entitled to murder ragheads". Or, "because I like most of what my President does, I am obliged to disregard his violations of the law". These people are prepared to legislate that a woman who is made pregnant by rape, incest, or will suffer grievous disability be compelled to carry the fetus to term. That includes your mother and possible sister, or girlfriend. I will not indulge the pretense of intellectual credence or morality for such people.
If you're going to have a camera on a phone, it SHOULD be an 8 megapixel camera. It makes your camera a 2-in-1 device (no need to bring/own a fancy shmancy camera). Real handy if you're a insurance claims adjuster, contractor, Al-Queda terrorist, or live in NYC and like to risk your life photographing murders or police brutality.
I, on the other hand, am quite DISPLEASED that they put a crappy camera on my Treo 600. If I go to court, or certain gov't buildings, they take it away from me.
1) Obviously, it is a relatively rare fatality, or we would have seen this occuring frequently enough pre-PC age to have made note of it. Accountants and lawyers have done similar marathon sessions sitting down; its not unique to the programmer profession. (It makes me wonder how many Karoshi deaths occurred in this manner.)
2) Some people, such as myself, have pretty damn retentive bladders. Even after knocking off a six-pack, I don't have to immediately run to releive myself. Sometimes, I can realize that perhaps I should have taken the leak at the bar, but its too inconvenient at that point. Three hours later, after a barely registered discomfort, and an hour subway ride home, I then take the leak, pretty much knowing I could have gone another hour if I had to. Questions: Do you think this guy is such a feeb he can't work through an 8 hour hack session without dying? Do you suspect that I think you're a girl because you need to take a wizz every hour, and are incapable of an 8 hour sitting session? Perhaps we are being judgemental assholes?
3) Even though this will occur in a miniscule population of people, it is totally prevented by a walk/stretch for 1 minute of every two hours. Is that such a disgraceful thing to do? Is it such an egregious thing to even inform people of it? If people fall victim to DVT, are they better off dead because they don't meet your definition of macho? Are you so far up your boss's anus, that you would look upon 4 minutes/day away from work as an affront to the company?
Oh man, I laughed so hard when I read the Wikipedia entry. Who would think that an ad-hoc committee could be even less efficient than a gov't bureaucracy? Is there a website that provides running commentary on the executive decisions made by the HURD committee? I have to believe there are at least a few L4 developers that are ticked off, but its not worth it to subscribe to the mailing list.
Not really. Mono-kernels vs u-kernels is a "great taste, less filling" debate. People who care more about slowing down are going to pick the "lite" beer. People who care more about theoretical considerations are going to go for "great taste".
I have been working too long with computers to really give a damn about language debates. Languages are designed to emphasis certain philosophic tenets. By their nature, preference will be individualized and value can only be determined subjectively. By logical corrollary, because people think differently; there will never be a universally ideal language.
I should be happy to see new "languages" being birthed every few years, but in truth, I've become disgusted with them all. Evangelists all try to claim their language to be the acme of programming technology, but they all have strengths and weakness. My disgust stems from my belief a new language should only exist if they REALLY make a significant difference in programming metrics. There just isn't a point to keep learning a few new languages every few years just to find out they don't provide a significant advantage. It irritates me that php became the web language of choice over perl. And python? WHO CARES? Smalltalk is probably a better language if you care about being generic and "clean". Python is not going blow away all other languages in execution speed or development ease. Java was an interesting case of frankenstein design, and I'm betting it will probably die on the vine due to its lack of selling points, and because Sun is too control obsessive to hand the language over to a standards committee. Microsoft's C# was probably a slightly better implementation of java's ideas, but ironically, if it becomes prevalent, it will only be because mono made it cross-platform. I'm old school; for me, its ASM, C, C++, bash/perl for scripting, shoutouts to smalltalk/lisp/FORTH (but nothing for practical use), and java's only worth learning if you want to increase your pool of programming jobs.They were practical in the early '90's. There were many u-kernel systems put out (QNX comes to mind). The question is whether you want to take the kernel messaging performance hit (for some other yet-to-be-perceived advantage), and more important, can you convince enough people to give up "less filling" for "great taste". (I don't see that happening.)
Its already been done, mklinux and l4linux. I like the taste of u-kernels enough to wish Torvalds & Co. would migrate to it, but its not going to happen. Torvalds routinely rejects kernel changes made purely for aethetic reasons, and unless the body of linux application code was rewritten to exploit u-kernel advantages, you will not see a single benefit, and a 10-15% hit in performance. The "next-great-thing" will be VM features, and that works in well with u-kernels. Its sad really. Someone is going to have to fork the linux kernel, implement an entire distribution, and convince people its better, before there is a chance in hell of people changing to a u-kernel. C'est la vie.
What is it with you people?!?! Does it occur to you there is more things to Heaven and Earth that can be dreamt in your philosophy, Horatio? Why is it every person trained on using a hammer thinks all problems can be solved by hammering it?!?!?!
Its 2006. Have you not heard of a computer communication network called... the Internet? You can do really neat things like... download all the programming packages in the world that one would wish to use! You are a man dying of thirst floating in the middle of a freshwater lake because you're too stupid to realize its potable water keeping you afloat!!!
And why would one think the best way of introducing kids to computers is using crippled, archaic language technologies like BASIC??? Introducing kids to BASIC is the computer science equivalent of CHILD ABUSE! "It was good fer me, its what'll be best for my kid." Yeah, my dad felt the same way about using a belt when we got out of line. Some people grew up in Sudan; I guess chewing narcotic leaves and learning to kill people with AK-47s is the best way to raise an adolescent.
You don't see me telling kids to learn FORTRAN and COBOL when I was a kid. And hell, you can program games in COBOL too! I deliberately keep a copy of COBOL TREK in case I'm trapped, and only have access to a 370.
The kid wants to learn to program? Teach them to use a webbrowser and google.com, and they can go download the java SDK. Do you really think writing something like:
...is clear and easy? Compared to java???
10 J=SQRT($I)**$VLOG
20 POKE(J)
30 SPRITE(J*X,F)
50 GOSUB 470
Java too hard? Try this. Its as straightforward as BASIC, its an object oriented language, and much more conceptual and educational. Hell, it even caters to kids, here.
UNBELEIVABLE! Is it me? Am I the only one here who sees mentally crippled BASIC programmers?!?!?
I grew up in the era of the CLI. Hell, when I went to college, they still had punch card terminals (and discontinued their use the year before I matriculated). To this day, the "kids" look at me like some kind of freak when I'm using bash notation and regex to extract information. Wouldn't trade it for the world. But those days are gone, and you are mistaken when you imply one needs to be fluent with a CLI to be programming literate
That is because you live and contribute to a culture that values money more than knowlege or accomplishment. You allow religious retards to serve on school boards and subvert science education with Creationism theology. Where is the reward for pursuing "hard" science? People who do basically live in poverty (academia), or at the mercy of people who spent more time working their social skills and planning their career advancement. Finally, the culture of our parents held greater respect for the educated class. TV and the print lauded people like Einstein and Braun. They lionized "Spam in the Can" flight jocks. But at least they held degrees, and accomplished something. What does TV and media lionize today? Some freak like Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, or a white chick victim like Natalee Holloway.
That may not be a bad thing. Until I hit my thirties, I used to be able to listen to talk radio while focusing on programming, or some other intellectual activity. I really regret losing that ability. Listening to music while studying isn't necessarily distracting. Depending on the music, its usually to set a pace/mantra while drowning out the world. I've never seen anyone surfing web pages or playing halo while genuinely studying. And I am of the theory that learning is best accomplished in small chunks, and lots of repetition, rather than hours of cramming.
Boo hoo. Its the future. Its about expressing the concept to be communicated in as few characters as possible. Yeah, people should be able to write and communicate like they were submitting a scholastic publication, but the reality is that they will not exist in that dry, paper tome format in 100 years.
And are you going to pay private tutors to provide that formal instruction? Jack up your property taxes to provide that kind of education in the primary school level? Mortgage your house so you can pay to provide that education to the illegal immigrant kids flooding this country? Dammit, the school system is falling apart. Shoreham can't afford to provide violin lessons to elementary school kids anymore.
On one hand, I value the formal instruction I recieved in college, for it gives me a perspective in computer science I wouldn't have otherwise. But it was only a small part in where I am today. There was no formal instruction in computers when I was growing up in the '80's. Back in the 60's, the standard college didn't even have a formal computer science program. You majored in math, and minored in electrical engineering. Its a fallacy to think formal education was or is integral to adept use of computer technology and programming.
L4Linux is old??? Hell, L4 itself didn't stabilize ("standardize spec", whatever you call it) until a few years ago.
My question is: what the heck is newer AND working?
Ah, the naivete of youth.
Did you notice that the group that commissioned the study was a marketing group? Ever hear of the expression "astroturf"? Do you really think that those people who are like that are of concern to us?
Even your contention belies inexperience. Anything that requires interaction with other human beings, whether its promotion, acceptance in social niches, or management of subordinates, requires cultivation of "image". One first has to understand what is important to them, and then adapt their behavior to what best leads them to their objectives.
I'm experiencing that problem right now with software raid. I'm looking to boot off of raid, but the "thorough" documentation is close to five years old using a less popular toolset (raidtools, not mdadm). Googling is only of limited help. The most helpful pages are the ones that start "I wrote this up because the stuff I tried RTFMing was five years old...". But it is not a genuine documentation guide, in itself.
Documentation should at least give a blurb about how the whole set of components is supposed to work together, and index of basic, cookbook steps.
Part of the problem is that specific details vary based upon the options of the bootloader du jour. Its really getting to the point where I have to download the source code and read it line by line. This is not going to get Linux to that "next" level of acceptance.
Unfortunately, (currently) to be a Linux user, you do need to be able to RTFM and google. You can't function as a Linux user without it. Most people do not want to use a device that requires reading documentation before attempting to use a feature. The sad truth is that there's no point in encouraging new users to adopt Linux if they aren't willing to exert that step.
This is why I currently believe Linux is not a viable replacement for Windoze. I hate the Linux assholes who think otherwise; they lack the ability to see the obvious. I think Linux at this point is a desirable desktop replacement to most business environments. But that is because large business usually had computer support staff, and most of the troublesome applications on Linux are obscure in nature. But Linux desktop adoption is an if, not a when. The fact that you need to do more thinking and reading to run a Linux desktop will make it alien to managers. When given a choice, management usually will choose to avoid the unknown. There's not enough of a fiscal payoff to go Linux. The Microsoft tax ensures Linux users will pay, unless they build their own machines.
To the religious idiots out there, give it up. Linux is not going to become a mainstream desktop. You need to encourage users unsuited to the platform. There are many commercial and social forces that make it unlikely. And yes, you do more harm than good. Also, evangelists, stop exhorting Linux users to be more user supportive. You're sending out people unsuited to do customer support/sales.
Its been a while since I've been to NYLUG, but for the years I was there, I never experience people who were rude when someone came up to them with questions, even rudimentary ones. Never anything like what has been described here. I'd suggest if LUGs are really interested in promoting Linux, the leadership should take a little time on a regular basis to lecture members on what behavior is intolerable and the value of going beyond the RTFM advice.
On one hand, you're absolutely right. Climatology is hardly a "hard" science. On the other hand, by freshman Bio professor took a lecture day out to talk about "global warming" back in the early '80s. His position was: the laws of physics are pretty much set in stone. Civilization is pumping out a significant amount of CO2. That rate will skyrocket as the 3rd world, with many times more population than the US, industrialize. It doesn't matter if there will be global warming or cooling. What matters is the laws of physics dictate a change in environment with the increase of CO2. Do you live in Canada or the USSR? Well, then maybe the change will be good. The US generates a ton of agricultural product, due to its favorable climate. Do you want this to change? Keep generating CO2 like we currently do.
1) I don't think they make station wagons (as I remember them) anymore. 2) Station wagons (as any large car) aren't significantly more fuel efficient than an SUV. Yes, his reply reflects that mentally challenged SUV rationalization. Two kids? There is a non-SUV car designed for those kinds of family. It has its own category: 4-door sedan. (Toyota Corolla comes to mind.) Hell, many 2 door subcompacts will have seats in the back for passengers. As for more than 2 kids, I'd just say they are avowed environmental locusts. Its called birth control, dumbasses.
How is it that Evolution "proves" there is no God? At "best", it can show there is a set of physical laws which can explain the genesis of the universe without requiring the direct interventions of a Supreme Being. But evolution cannot "prove" there was no God involved with "starting" the mess, or those set of physical laws could have come about without him/her/it.
You cannot really "prove" there is a God. But you cannot "prove" there is no God. In fact, Atheism is a form of belief system. It starts with the presumption there is no God. But how can you scientifically conclude there is no God if you cannot prove there isn't a God?
ID fanatics are retards, but you atheists are no different. You're all about making people believe what you believe. A GOOD scientist only cares about what they can prove. And if they're competent, they should also be amenable to the probability that the analysis of the empirical data is flawed. What the professional body of professionals believe to be "truth" has changed from time to time, from ulcers, to Michaelson-Morley, to human flight.
ID fanatics are theocratic politicians. Its important to them to use the education system to indoctrinate children to believe in a scientific basis for the existence of God. The problem is that they undermine the logically derived basis which gives science its value. The other problem is that the general public is too stupid to understand how ID does that. Flawed education produces flawed practitioners, and that "wishful" reasoning for the voter that gives us "global warming" and the "Iraq invasion". Its the same kind of threat Chinese Emperors farsaw whenever they saw technological innovation which could threaten their political power. A couple of centuries later, they ended up the "dogs" of the European devils. The Divinity of the Emperor, their enlightened and "superior" culture couldn't stand against the products of the "Age of Reason".
On the other hand, atheists are no better than the Jesus freaks. Science doesn't prove there is no God, anymore than ID proves there is one. When they state otherwise, they are merely espousing lies and claim science gives it credence. How is it different from the ID zealot that uses science to claim there is a God? Atheists only show themselves to be anti-Jesus freaks, and just as stupid.