Yeah, that used to be the big stumbling block for all those micro-generator ideas, right up until genetically enhanced rocket scientists with brains the size of your house figured out that hair dryers are really energy intensive, and not really all that important.
What gives anyone the right to try set out and change what someone believes?
I don't have to be given that right, it comes free with the freedom of speech. In a little plastic bag at the bottom. Oh, no wait, it fills the entire fucking box, that's it.
In any case, I believe I have that right, so who the hell are you to try and convince me otherwise? See how well that rule works?
I don't think it has much to do with coping with the tragedy. Coping with the complexities of this world might, though.
Lots of other ludicrous conspiracy theories were alive and well before 9/11, and the mindset of these guys matches the ones of the old ones perfectly. Just a few more recruits.
The central purpose of a conspiracy theory is to aggrandize the believer. "I have seen through it all", "I am better than all those sheep". In addition it provides a way to simplify the world into something more mentally manageable. Reality is full of tangled webs of causality, people with erratic behavior, alien mindsets, motives you might not be equipped to understand, randomness and coincidence, mixed agendas, unforeseeable consequences, moral ambiguity, and a general lack of personal control.
The 'truther' mindset offers in stead a small set of agents, deals them clear motives and moral alignments, and posit simple and direct lines of cause and effect for big events.
Just like any other religion really. The big two differences are 1) Conspiracy theories never made anyone happy - not the believers, anyway. 2) They provide an explanation, hugely attractive to some, of how you can be a genius yet not more of a success: you're the good guy and the bad guys rule. No surprise it has extra oomph in the US, where personal success is such a huge common social value.
Also, in the old days, people with little interest in complex stuff like politics and the rest of the world would simply know little about it. Cheering for your country was enough. Today those things more visibly have an effect on your life, and your are bombarded with information about it, whether you're equipped to deal with it or not.
I was always of the impression that even if you shed light on dark matter you still wouldn't see it, and if you did , we already would. But I commend the initiative, and wish the best of luck to any and all who attempt to shedding some light on the matter of dark, shed some dark on the matter of light mass, shed some mass in order to become become light, or even just light some dark sheds.
What a bunch of content-free drivel. Independently of whom you or I actually support. You're not a nerd at all, are you? Nerds think more clearly than that.
I don't need original ideas. I need long-established good ideas to be practiced in office.
I don't care if a candidate is a puppet or not. What matters is that whomever I assume ends up making the decisions will make the right decisions. According to me.
I would never support anyone because of their speech writing or public speaking abilities. If I already support a candidate then I would of course be glad if he or she has those qualities, because it might help achieve the result that I want. But there have to be reasons that I want that person in office in the first place, and those should have purely to do with the expected politics. I might not be immune to good speaking, but I try, and I certainly refuse to consciously put it into the equation.
What matters is results. Result that I want and that I truly believe will be for the better.
People you know are more likely to care what you think. Provided you convincingly appear to care what they think. The easiest way to appear so is to take an interest for real. Don't dump a lot of ready-made propaganda on them. Get them interested and explain in fresh, conversational words why you will vote, and why that vote will be what it will. Make sure you know the answers to both. Listen to their opinions and objections. Answer in a measured and respectful way. Make it a personal goal to truly understand why other people think the way they do; this will help you. Don't get snooty or dismissive. Work on not resenting the opposition, even if you believe they are misguided. Steer the discussion towards objectives, policies, and political ideals, not the candidates' personality, personal life, silly little mistakes, or characteristics of their voters. Listen. Make sure you notice and focus on objectives and policies your subject is interested in, not the ones you enjoy shooting off about. Target the undecided and the stay-at-homers. The "other side" may be more interesting and invigorating to argue with, but you are unlikely to sway them. Listen. When you disagree, explain what is wrong with the point, don't tell people _they_ are wrong, or how smart _you_are. Observe your subject and their reactions. Alter your behavior accordingly. Know when to stop; boring people will not help your cause.
He does at least seem to fix hacking vulnerabilities though. According to accounts there used to be a lot more magic about only a few centuries ago. Or maybe the talent just matured and moved over to the more challenging but reliable fileds of reverse engineering and repurpousing the apparrently intentional features.
If only similar attention was directed to safety...
It sounds better because the inevitable degradation from the vinyl chain is of a kind that suits your taste for this type of music. And possibly because because the sound production was done with that degradation in mind. Porting such masters directly to CD will indeed sound different from the vinyl, and quite possibly worse, for various subjective values of worse.
It would be entirely possible to build a digital filter to do the same with the CD signal, but you can't sell that to most consumers because it is then obvious that it is a distorting and lossy process.
On a modern, well-produced CD you do all that shit in the mixing room if you want it, not on the player without choice. Unfortunately, engineers barely had time to learn to produce well for CD before the volume wars made everyone compress everything to hell and make the CD effectively 8-bit.
Learn to read please. I did not call regex users childish. I called 'macho coders' who sneer at legible code childish.
I can and do read and write regexes. They're useful, just like lots of other lagugages. A steaming pile of dense one-line-code, however, remains an evil thing, whatever language you do it in, and no matter how much you comment it.
To correctly change a complex regex you need not only to know the syntax, but to run its whole functioning in your head. I'm sure you can do that. I'm sure I can too. But it remains a complete waste of my time if it could easily have been expressed more directly and clearly.
Now the steps or parts can of course use regexes. I'm just saying "show your work". Don't leave it to me to "disassemble" your code, or it will be faster for me to reimplement if I need to change or debug something. Or for yourself too, if you return to the same code a year later.
Sounds to me like you're really supporting my point.
I don't hate regexes. I just hate big fricking unreadable wads of noise that I have to spend time to dechipher just because the author was to lazy to explain what's going on. In any language. Including regex.
Split it up like you suggest, naming the variables for their role, and I'm all sold. It communicates the point, and it makes altering the rule much easier and less risky.
And this approach is much much better than adding text comments to the still-monolithic regex.
I have, and when you need to optimize then of course you make those sacrifices. But only do it when and where it is needed, and where it actually works. Doing complex but 'probably faster' things out of habit and outside the inner loops takes time with zero payoff and makes the product more bug prone and more expensive to maintain.
I agree completely, and I do not consider map() to be one of those obfuscated or "clever" one-liners I railed against. Those hide the point and crowd you with details.
Map is quite the opposite: if used in the normal way, it is a shining example of clarity and expresses perfectly clearly what you code is for. Even better than the for loop would. It hides the details and not the point.
Sure there are workarounds, but to me that does not defend the problems being there in the firt place. Most of them have little or nothing to do with its power or speed anymore anyway, they're just plain dreadful design and obsolete baggage.
As my first post said, there is still stuff that C++ is best for (low-level or extremely performance critical things), but the stuff most people make with it is better served by something else.
Nasty hack was indeed a bit unfair. I've been coding php full time lately, and version 5 is finally possible to do real work in, and the Zend framework constitutes a really nice standard library as well. It's just that every now and again you bump into some esoteric remnant or limitation that has you screaming "WHY?" to the heavens.
Along with the regular annoyances of $this not being part of the scope, and the ability to read variables that have never been defined or assigned to.
The libraries were pretty standard. I guess I never coded C++ intensively enough for it to really get into my fingers, but I still maintain that returning to C++ after C# feels like you are doing half the compiler's job manually. All those little things have to be there but do nothing to express the point of what you're doing. Even Java feels slightly like that compared to C#, but on a microscopic scale compared to C++.
I'm almost sorry I participated in this thread; that is one beauty of a post.
Good to see someone couple design pattens and languages too. Many really frequently used patterns are IMO really just symptoms of a weaknesses in the language. In fact many of the famous ones were born as emulations of features in smalltalk, but that is a different discussion...
The meme of 'syntactic sugar' has done untold damage to the progress and productivity of computer languages, but it seems at least parts of the world are now slowly coming to its senses. The entire point of a programming language is to express the logic in a fashion that is readable and understandable by both people and the machine, goddammit!
I suppose you consider 100K+ line systems developed in Perl to be small applications? Any language in the right hands can perform small miracles.
Sure. But that doesn't make Perl a good or natural choice for large projects. If those "right hands" spent a couple of weekends learning a modern OO language and its core APIs, they too would be that much more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that used to be the big stumbling block for all those micro-generator ideas, right up until genetically enhanced rocket scientists with brains the size of your house figured out that hair dryers are really energy intensive, and not really all that important.
What gives anyone the right to try set out and change what someone believes?
I don't have to be given that right, it comes free with the freedom of speech. In a little plastic bag at the bottom. Oh, no wait, it fills the entire fucking box, that's it.
In any case, I believe I have that right, so who the hell are you to try and convince me otherwise? See how well that rule works?
I don't think it has much to do with coping with the tragedy. Coping with the complexities of this world might, though.
Lots of other ludicrous conspiracy theories were alive and well before 9/11, and the mindset of these guys matches the ones of the old ones perfectly. Just a few more recruits.
The central purpose of a conspiracy theory is to aggrandize the believer.
"I have seen through it all", "I am better than all those sheep".
In addition it provides a way to simplify the world into something more mentally manageable. Reality is full of tangled webs of causality, people with erratic behavior, alien mindsets, motives you might not be equipped to understand, randomness and coincidence, mixed agendas, unforeseeable consequences, moral ambiguity, and a general lack of personal control.
The 'truther' mindset offers in stead a small set of agents, deals them clear motives and moral alignments, and posit simple and direct lines of cause and effect for big events.
Just like any other religion really. The big two differences are
1) Conspiracy theories never made anyone happy - not the believers, anyway.
2) They provide an explanation, hugely attractive to some, of how you can be a genius yet not more of a success: you're the good guy and the bad guys rule. No surprise it has extra oomph in the US, where personal success is such a huge common social value.
Also, in the old days, people with little interest in complex stuff like politics and the rest of the world would simply know little about it. Cheering for your country was enough. Today those things more visibly have an effect on your life, and your are bombarded with information about it, whether you're equipped to deal with it or not.
I was always of the impression that even if you shed light on dark matter you still wouldn't see it, and if you did , we already would. But I commend the initiative, and wish the best of luck to any and all who attempt to shedding some light on the matter of dark, shed some dark on the matter of light mass, shed some mass in order to become become light, or even just light some dark sheds.
I was just making a joke, pretending you had slipped a troll into your own post.
What a bunch of content-free drivel.
Independently of whom you or I actually support.
You're not a nerd at all, are you?
Nerds think more clearly than that.
I don't need original ideas. I need long-established good ideas to be practiced in office.
I don't care if a candidate is a puppet or not. What matters is that whomever I assume ends up making the decisions will make the right decisions. According to me.
I would never support anyone because of their speech writing or public speaking abilities. If I already support a candidate then I would of course be glad if he or she has those qualities, because it might help achieve the result that I want. But there have to be reasons that I want that person in office in the first place, and those should have purely to do with the expected politics. I might not be immune to good speaking, but I try, and I certainly refuse to consciously put it into the equation.
What matters is results. Result that I want and that I truly believe will be for the better.
'George lied to us, so we should impeach him so that we can throw him in jail' is a troll
Nice try. Won't bite, though.
People you know are more likely to care what you think. Provided you convincingly appear to care what they think. The easiest way to appear so is to take an interest for real. Don't dump a lot of ready-made propaganda on them. Get them interested and explain in fresh, conversational words why you will vote, and why that vote will be what it will. Make sure you know the answers to both. Listen to their opinions and objections. Answer in a measured and respectful way. Make it a personal goal to truly understand why other people think the way they do; this will help you. Don't get snooty or dismissive. Work on not resenting the opposition, even if you believe they are misguided. Steer the discussion towards objectives, policies, and political ideals, not the candidates' personality, personal life, silly little mistakes, or characteristics of their voters. Listen. Make sure you notice and focus on objectives and policies your subject is interested in, not the ones you enjoy shooting off about. Target the undecided and the stay-at-homers. The "other side" may be more interesting and invigorating to argue with, but you are unlikely to sway them. Listen. When you disagree, explain what is wrong with the point, don't tell people _they_ are wrong, or how smart _you_are. Observe your subject and their reactions. Alter your behavior accordingly. Know when to stop; boring people will not help your cause.
And start a war of independence from, umm, the US?
at least this world doesn't have script kiddies.
Ever heard of grimoires? Sounds like script collections to me.
Just made obsolete by patches.
He does at least seem to fix hacking vulnerabilities though. According to accounts there used to be a lot more magic about only a few centuries ago. Or maybe the talent just matured and moved over to the more challenging but reliable fileds of reverse engineering and repurpousing the apparrently intentional features.
If only similar attention was directed to safety...
You just use a hole punch on your page file, and you can write to it from the other side!
I live on a road that is adjusted every year to remain aligned with magnetic north/south.
the sail is presumably acting like a sail, to going faster than the wind, where the sail acts as a wing.
Soft sails act as wings too, unless you're on a run. So really it is acting as a sail all the time. And a wing.
It sounds better because the inevitable degradation from the vinyl chain is of a kind that suits your taste for this type of music. And possibly because because the sound production was done with that degradation in mind. Porting such masters directly to CD will indeed sound different from the vinyl, and quite possibly worse, for various subjective values of worse.
It would be entirely possible to build a digital filter to do the same with the CD signal, but you can't sell that to most consumers because it is then obvious that it is a distorting and lossy process.
On a modern, well-produced CD you do all that shit in the mixing room if you want it, not on the player without choice. Unfortunately, engineers barely had time to learn to produce well for CD before the volume wars made everyone compress everything to hell and make the CD effectively 8-bit.
A war on venture capitalism, no less.
Learn to read please. I did not call regex users childish. I called 'macho coders' who sneer at legible code childish.
I can and do read and write regexes. They're useful, just like lots of other lagugages.
A steaming pile of dense one-line-code, however, remains an evil thing, whatever language you do it in, and no matter how much you comment it.
To correctly change a complex regex you need not only to know the syntax, but to run its whole functioning in your head. I'm sure you can do that. I'm sure I can too. But it remains a complete waste of my time if it could easily have been expressed more directly and clearly.
Now the steps or parts can of course use regexes. I'm just saying "show your work". Don't leave it to me to "disassemble" your code, or it will be faster for me to reimplement if I need to change or debug something. Or for yourself too, if you return to the same code a year later.
Sounds to me like you're really supporting my point.
I don't hate regexes.
I just hate big fricking unreadable wads of noise that I have to spend time to dechipher
just because the author was to lazy to explain what's going on.
In any language. Including regex.
Split it up like you suggest, naming the variables for their role, and I'm all sold. It communicates the point, and it makes altering the rule much easier and less risky.
And this approach is much much better than adding text comments to the still-monolithic regex.
You've clearly never had to code for performance.
I have, and when you need to optimize then of course you make those sacrifices. But only do it when and where it is needed, and where it actually works. Doing complex but 'probably faster' things out of habit and outside the inner loops takes time with zero payoff and makes the product more bug prone and more expensive to maintain.
I agree completely, and I do not consider map() to be one of those obfuscated or "clever" one-liners I railed against. Those hide the point and crowd you with details.
Map is quite the opposite: if used in the normal way, it is a shining example of clarity and expresses perfectly clearly what you code is for. Even better than the for loop would. It hides the details and not the point.
Sure there are workarounds, but to me that does not defend the problems being there in the firt place.
Most of them have little or nothing to do with its power or speed anymore anyway, they're just plain dreadful design and obsolete baggage.
As my first post said, there is still stuff that C++ is best for (low-level or extremely performance critical things), but the stuff most people make with it is better served by something else.
Nasty hack was indeed a bit unfair. I've been coding php full time lately, and version 5 is finally possible to do real work in, and the Zend framework constitutes a really nice standard library as well.
It's just that every now and again you bump into some esoteric remnant or limitation that has you screaming "WHY?" to the heavens.
Along with the regular annoyances of $this not being part of the scope, and the ability to read variables that have never been defined or assigned to.
The libraries were pretty standard. I guess I never coded C++ intensively enough for it to really get into my fingers, but I still maintain that returning to C++ after C# feels like you are doing half the compiler's job manually. All those little things have to be there but do nothing to express the point of what you're doing. Even Java feels slightly like that compared to C#, but on a microscopic scale compared to C++.
I'm almost sorry I participated in this thread; that is one beauty of a post.
Good to see someone couple design pattens and languages too. Many really frequently used patterns are IMO really just symptoms of a weaknesses in the language. In fact many of the famous ones were born as emulations of features in smalltalk, but that is a different discussion...
The meme of 'syntactic sugar' has done untold damage to the progress and productivity of computer languages, but it seems at least parts of the world are now slowly coming to its senses. The entire point of a programming language is to express the logic in a fashion that is readable and understandable by both people and the machine, goddammit!
I suppose you consider 100K+ line systems developed in Perl to be small applications? Any language in the right hands can perform small miracles.
Sure. But that doesn't make Perl a good or natural choice for large projects.
If those "right hands" spent a couple of weekends learning a modern OO language
and its core APIs, they too would be that much more efficient.