Guess this poster (and a few people with moderation points as well) doesn't realize that thats pretty much what they're doing with Perl 6. They're not throwing out the whole language, but they're cleaning up some of the syntax, improving object support and redesigning the engine itself.
Like I said...moderates don't make headlines. You just hear the people screaming "death to isreal". Anybody who seriously believes that most muslims seek the death of all non-muslims is gullible and a fool.
" If they want me to think the West should change it's behavior, they need to explain point by point why they have a problem, *AND* their complaints must be valid and rational."
Who says they aren't? The media isn't interested in talking to moderates though. Extremists make much better headlines. As long as you passively wait for information to be brought to you, you will remain uninformed and therefore easily manipulated. You become dangerous to your fellow human beings because you can be turned against others through simple misinformation.
Dude, you can say the same thing about virtually any religion. The Koran, like most religious texts, is subject to many interpretations. The Koran also says things like forcing someone to believe in God is wrong.
" The Islamic terrorists don't attack because we treat them like trash (which we really don't). They attack because we aren't muslims. Simple as that."
Like most simple ideas about peoples motives, thats almost entirely wrong. There are lots of reasons, one of the primary being the presence of US soldiers in their holy land.
They'd have to create an emergency where the only possible response is to fly into a restricted area. That would not be easy. How many abandoned air strips can there be in downtown DC, and how do you create a situation where that is the ONLY airstrip you can land at? Beyond that, it requires a great deal of cooperation from the plane's piolet since ground control would be unlikely to grant access to a stranger on the radio claiming such an emergency.
I live in the city. The problem is definitly NOT that not enough people have guns. What is a problem is that there are backwards redneck states who will sell guns to anyone and everyone within a days drive of the city.
I suppose if we took months to implement any change and we didn't do anything with the internet except email, we'd probably have years of up-time too. Now if you ran a major web site (thats what the article's about you know) and you followed that policy, your system might have years of up-time, but your company wouldn't;)
" I mean, it's not hat hard to hit cp -R and transfer your updated functioning website to the primary directory..."
The problem isn't people editing files that are in production (except in cases of extreme stupidity) The problem is that code isn't tested adequately. Even when it is, you can still have problems moving it to production due to high load or poor deployment. Most big websites are a lot more complicated then a directory tree with a few html pages and some CGIs. cp -R isn't going to make changes to the database or cleanly restart back-end applications, or ensure that the proper versions of applications or libraries are installed.
"Is it fair to say that sysadmins fix things and developers break them?"
Not in my experience. I've seen sysadmins break software by installing security patches, changing server passwords, changing firewall rules, restarting servers at the wrong time, swapping hardware, tinkering with network topology, failing to follow proper startup or shutdown proceedures, failing to perform necessary maintenance, etc. DBAs can cause just as much trouble tinkering with optimization, DB parameters, passwords, etc.
Thing is, anyone involved in the software process in any meaningful way can break it if they do something stupid, and in my experience, stupidity is not a trait confined to a particular profession, culture, religion, or ethnicity but is shared generally by all.
"The reason why society has widely adopted back-stabbing as the road to success -- as opposed to personal responsibility and honest achievement -- is the nanny state."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Libertarians generally believe in removing government regulation and letting corporate behavior be kept in check by litegation? That sounds like more law suits to me, not less.
The real reason? People sue because its to their advantage to sue. They can get money by suing, and there's very little risk. Thats a combination that will always be popular.
"Those who hold beliefs based on observations and deduction do not see it as faith. That is one of the points made in the Matrix (Sorry to wander back on topic.)"
When you're speaking of things beyond the realm of observation, you can't make any deductions. It may be that there is nothing beyond the realm of observation, but that unknowable by definition.
Following you back onto the topic however, I have to disagree that thats one of the points of the movie. Trusting observation (ie the senses) is what keeps you in the matrix. Those who escape the matrix are following a vague feeling of discontent...listening to their intuition. Its suggesting a reality beyond appearances.
I myself am an agnostic. Smug athiests alwasy get a rise out of me because they have the same sense of certainty that the religious have.
"I don't much care one way or the other, but until there is some proof available about a god, I'll go on assuming there isn't one because I think that's the safest approach."
Familiar with Pascal's Wager? Sorry, just being a devil's advocate...err god's advocate.
" If proof was found that a god does exist, non-religious people everywhere would say something to the affect of 'huh... whadya know about that!'"
Depends. If the proof was in the form of angry dieties, fiery lakes etc I doubt they'd be so circumspect;)
I don't know why you think an affirmation is only a statement of logic. That certainly isn't the sense in which I used the word. Beyond that, if it is a statement of logic, it must be based on premises, which may be incorrect. Or are you saying that its a tautology?
Witnessing death, experiencing loss, loosing friends, disappointment, illness and injury, war, violence, abuse, injustice, failure, deprivation, loneliness. In short - life.
Life may be easy for you, but its very hard for others, so try not to be so dismissive when talking about how they cope with it.
"Damn near every problem in the world today can be traced back to a belief in a higher power."
No, but people have often used religion as an EXCUSE for what they do. Often the conflicts over religion are really about economic or other social issues. Without religion, people would generally do the same things they do now, but with different justifications (political beliefs for instance)
Incidentally, the affirmation that there couldn't possibly be a god is a statement of faith. Despite the fact that you have no way of knowing this, you devoutly believe it and prostletize others that they may be saved. Enjoy your religion!
1. a. A mineral crystallizing in another mineral in the form of a branching or treelike mark.
b. A rock or mineral bearing such a mark or marks.
2. A branched protoplasmic extension of a nerve cell that conducts impulses from adjacent cells inward toward the cell body. A single nerve may possess many dendrites. Also called dendron
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Looks like you got the first definition crossed with the second one. Symantic synesthesia?
Insurance for software? Imagine having to get new features ok'd by your insurance company because it increases liablity. Imagine scrapping features because you couldn't afford the increased insurance costs.
Now think about how hard it would be to fix a client's bug when they won't disclose user errors because it could adversly affect any potential law suits. You'd have to talk to their lawyers to get access to a log file.:p
Sorry, I have to agree with Microsoft on this. I work for a small financial software company. We sell trading software to brockerage houses. If every feature we introduced exposed us to potential law suits, I doubt we could stay in business. A single lawsuit could sink us - regardless of whether the software problem was do to a bug we introduced or user error etc. The only company that could take the legal risks of introducing new features in an evironment like that would be software giants like MS or IBM who could fight off the inevitable law suits. Small software companies would simply vanish.
" "OTOH, if computers were reliable enough to crash only once every few years, then users might report every crash that happens, the vendor can diagnose it, and fix the bug or family-of-bugs so that it never happens again. This is roughly what happens when a mainframe crashes, I believe - it's a big event."
I think that has alot more to do with the critical, often costly, tasks that mainframes are used for than because its an infrequent occurance.
In my experience, infrequent crashes are much easier to ignore than one that occurs constantly:P
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Ashcroft thing was *gasp* a joke. You're right, many slashdot posters do take themselves too seriously. Take yourself, for instance.
Guess this poster (and a few people with moderation points as well) doesn't realize that thats pretty much what they're doing with Perl 6. They're not throwing out the whole language, but they're cleaning up some of the syntax, improving object support and redesigning the engine itself.
Yeah, it does. Hard to follow at times, but very clever. Would you rather he just struted around the stage saying "developers developers developers"?
Like I said...moderates don't make headlines. You just hear the people screaming "death to isreal". Anybody who seriously believes that most muslims seek the death of all non-muslims is gullible and a fool.
" If they want me to think the West should change it's behavior, they need to explain point by point why they have a problem, *AND* their complaints must be valid and rational."
Who says they aren't? The media isn't interested in talking to moderates though. Extremists make much better headlines. As long as you passively wait for information to be brought to you, you will remain uninformed and therefore easily manipulated. You become dangerous to your fellow human beings because you can be turned against others through simple misinformation.
Dude, you can say the same thing about virtually any religion. The Koran, like most religious texts, is subject to many interpretations. The Koran also says things like forcing someone to believe in God is wrong.
" The Islamic terrorists don't attack because we treat them like trash (which we really don't). They attack because we aren't muslims. Simple as that."
Like most simple ideas about peoples motives, thats almost entirely wrong. There are lots of reasons, one of the primary being the presence of US soldiers in their holy land.
They'd have to create an emergency where the only possible response is to fly into a restricted area. That would not be easy. How many abandoned air strips can there be in downtown DC, and how do you create a situation where that is the ONLY airstrip you can land at? Beyond that, it requires a great deal of cooperation from the plane's piolet since ground control would be unlikely to grant access to a stranger on the radio claiming such an emergency.
I live in the city. The problem is definitly NOT that not enough people have guns. What is a problem is that there are backwards redneck states who will sell guns to anyone and everyone within a days drive of the city.
Most people are too much a flake to be trusted with a gun. Thats why so many people end up shooting themselves or their family members.
Just wait till my patent on self-enlarging penises comes through. Soon you'll all be paying a liscense fee for each erection!
I suppose if we took months to implement any change and we didn't do anything with the internet except email, we'd probably have years of up-time too. Now if you ran a major web site (thats what the article's about you know) and you followed that policy, your system might have years of up-time, but your company wouldn't ;)
" I mean, it's not hat hard to hit cp -R and transfer your updated functioning website to the primary directory..."
The problem isn't people editing files that are in production (except in cases of extreme stupidity) The problem is that code isn't tested adequately. Even when it is, you can still have problems moving it to production due to high load or poor deployment. Most big websites are a lot more complicated then a directory tree with a few html pages and some CGIs. cp -R isn't going to make changes to the database or cleanly restart back-end applications, or ensure that the proper versions of applications or libraries are installed.
"Is it fair to say that sysadmins fix things and developers break them?"
Not in my experience. I've seen sysadmins break software by installing security patches, changing server passwords, changing firewall rules, restarting servers at the wrong time, swapping hardware, tinkering with network topology, failing to follow proper startup or shutdown proceedures, failing to perform necessary maintenance, etc. DBAs can cause just as much trouble tinkering with optimization, DB parameters, passwords, etc.
Thing is, anyone involved in the software process in any meaningful way can break it if they do something stupid, and in my experience, stupidity is not a trait confined to a particular profession, culture, religion, or ethnicity but is shared generally by all.
"The reason why society has widely adopted back-stabbing as the road to success -- as opposed to personal responsibility and honest achievement -- is the nanny state."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Libertarians generally believe in removing government regulation and letting corporate behavior be kept in check by litegation? That sounds like more law suits to me, not less.
The real reason? People sue because its to their advantage to sue. They can get money by suing, and there's very little risk. Thats a combination that will always be popular.
"Those who hold beliefs based on observations and deduction do not see it as faith. That is one of the points made in the Matrix (Sorry to wander back on topic.)"
When you're speaking of things beyond the realm of observation, you can't make any deductions. It may be that there is nothing beyond the realm of observation, but that unknowable by definition.
Following you back onto the topic however, I have to disagree that thats one of the points of the movie. Trusting observation (ie the senses) is what keeps you in the matrix. Those who escape the matrix are following a vague feeling of discontent...listening to their intuition. Its suggesting a reality beyond appearances.
I myself am an agnostic. Smug athiests alwasy get a rise out of me because they have the same sense of certainty that the religious have.
;)
"I don't much care one way or the other, but until there is some proof available about a god, I'll go on assuming there isn't one because I think that's the safest approach."
Familiar with Pascal's Wager? Sorry, just being a devil's advocate...err god's advocate.
" If proof was found that a god does exist, non-religious people everywhere would say something to the affect of 'huh... whadya know about that!'"
Depends. If the proof was in the form of angry dieties, fiery lakes etc I doubt they'd be so circumspect
I don't know why you think an affirmation is only a statement of logic. That certainly isn't the sense in which I used the word. Beyond that, if it is a statement of logic, it must be based on premises, which may be incorrect. Or are you saying that its a tautology?
Witnessing death, experiencing loss, loosing friends, disappointment, illness and injury, war, violence, abuse, injustice, failure, deprivation, loneliness. In short - life.
Life may be easy for you, but its very hard for others, so try not to be so dismissive when talking about how they cope with it.
"Damn near every problem in the world today can be traced back to a belief in a higher power."
No, but people have often used religion as an EXCUSE for what they do. Often the conflicts over religion are really about economic or other social issues. Without religion, people would generally do the same things they do now, but with different justifications (political beliefs for instance)
Incidentally, the affirmation that there couldn't possibly be a god is a statement of faith. Despite the fact that you have no way of knowing this, you devoutly believe it and prostletize others that they may be saved. Enjoy your religion!
dendrite
1. a. A mineral crystallizing in another mineral in the form of a branching or treelike mark.
b. A rock or mineral bearing such a mark or marks.
2. A branched protoplasmic extension of a nerve cell that conducts impulses from adjacent cells inward toward the cell body. A single nerve may possess many dendrites. Also called dendron
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Looks like you got the first definition crossed with the second one. Symantic synesthesia?
I think I read an article about that once in Scientific American. If only I could find the link.
Insurance for software? Imagine having to get new features ok'd by your insurance company because it increases liablity. Imagine scrapping features because you couldn't afford the increased insurance costs.
:p
Now think about how hard it would be to fix a client's bug when they won't disclose user errors because it could adversly affect any potential law suits. You'd have to talk to their lawyers to get access to a log file.
Sorry, I have to agree with Microsoft on this. I work for a small financial software company. We sell trading software to brockerage houses. If every feature we introduced exposed us to potential law suits, I doubt we could stay in business. A single lawsuit could sink us - regardless of whether the software problem was do to a bug we introduced or user error etc. The only company that could take the legal risks of introducing new features in an evironment like that would be software giants like MS or IBM who could fight off the inevitable law suits. Small software companies would simply vanish.
"
:P
"OTOH, if computers were reliable enough to crash only once every few years, then users might report every crash that happens, the vendor can diagnose it, and fix the bug or family-of-bugs so that it never happens again. This is roughly what happens when a mainframe crashes, I believe - it's a big event."
I think that has alot more to do with the critical, often costly, tasks that mainframes are used for than because its an infrequent occurance.
In my experience, infrequent crashes are much easier to ignore than one that occurs constantly