You're right that there certainly will be negative consequences, but nothing that's a show-stopper.
Any idea why all of the GM_* functions had to go? I can see why GM_xmlhttpRequest could be a problem, but what's wrong with GM_log, or the GM_*Value functions?
After a conversation about namespace protection and security policies, someone on the mailing list proposed a neutered GM without the GM_* functions, and sent a patch. It got used.
This isn't a big deal. It means you lose:
1. Logging of GM script debug messages. Inconvenient if you're a script author, but not for anyone else.
2. Script-specific configuration values. I don't think these are commonly used, but they could be nice to have. Oh well, chances are your scripts will keep working.
3. Adding commands to the Tools->User Script Commands submenu. If, like me, you didn't know this submenu even existed, no loss.
4. Fancy GM_XmlHttpRequest. This is just like XmlHttpRequest but without domain restrictions. This may cause a few extensions to stop working (not many, but a few), but it also closes the security hole.
The satellite photos are not taken in realtime, nor are they clear enough to make out anything as small as a person sunbathing topless. There are many reasons why this is really cool, but by making yet another can't-get-laid joke, you're just being intensely lame.
So when I hit Ctrl-+ in Firefox and increase the font size, I'm creating a derived work? What if I look at a web page in Lynx and see a text-based version of the site, which is usually not what the author intended?
The theory of evolution is science because it elegantly explains a huge amount of observations in a way consistent with the scientific method and parsimony.
Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable and violates Occam's Razor, so it has no place in science. Think about it: ID isn't about coming up with mechanisms for the things we observe, it's about saying "an intelligent designer did it" and stopping scientific inquiry down right there.
The reason science doesn't concern itself with anything supernatural is because it is impossible, by definition, to observe scientifically what the supernatural is or is not doing. Science's insistance on natural explanations is hard-headed pragmatism, not an a priori declaration of philosophical naturalism.
You can look at the design of creatures and think, "would this be the sort of thing that an intelligent designer would make? Or does it look more like the result of random alteration and natural selection?"
Additionally, you can notice that Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable and therefore not a scientific theory and not worthy of mention in science classes.
Do you completely lose your grip on reality when you're high up? If so, you might want to get rid of that phobia. A regular fear of heights isn't what's being talked about here.
Also, VR is used to distract burn-therapy patients, which really helps with the pain.
I don't know either. It looks like a straight translation from Lisp to whatever language you wrote it in (Ruby?), except without a built-in oddp function. And I wrote that snippet of Lisp code to rebut the comparison of Lisp's ease of use with that of assembly language, so I'd say that what you've proven is that another language is also easier to use than assembly.
The bigger issue here is that, if you're seriously using cdadr (and similar functions) often, you probably need to rethink your data structures or the method you're using to manipulate them.
Okay, try to name (or point to an article online that names) something wrong (or suboptimal, etc.) with the Common Lisp implementation of scoping, naming, reflection and code generation. Seriously, I'm really interested. I'm not an expert on Common Lisp myself, and all I'd read suggested that Common Lisp was actually far superior to any other programming language re: reflection and code generation (and I'd never heard of any problems in the way it handles scoping or naming).
CL has some problems with the Meta Object Protocol (MOP), which is used for reflection and to modify the object system. It's not standard, but it's supported by all major Lisp implementations---and they usually have small differences, most prominently what package they put it in. Is it in the MOP package? Or perhaps the SB-PCL package? In order to make portable code that uses the MOP, you need a compatibility layer like Closer or MOPP or CLIM-MOP.
That said, once you have all the compatibility code in place you can do amazing things with the MOP. I co-wrote a graphical object inspector that made heavy use of Lisp's introspection abilities, and Pascal Costanza added Aspect-oriented programming to Common Lisp with AspectL.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck off, troll. Scrameustache stated some imprecise observations of broad statistical trends. That's all.
It's also recommended that you understand the concept of the base case.
With obesity problems nowadays, this might not be such a bad idea.
For that sort of thing, you have to use script-fu.
Any idea why all of the GM_* functions had to go? I can see why GM_xmlhttpRequest could be a problem, but what's wrong with GM_log, or the GM_*Value functions?
After a conversation about namespace protection and security policies, someone on the mailing list proposed a neutered GM without the GM_* functions, and sent a patch. It got used.
Predicted elements which we don't know about yet, similar to the blanks in Mendeleev's original Periodic Table.
This isn't a big deal. It means you lose: 1. Logging of GM script debug messages. Inconvenient if you're a script author, but not for anyone else. 2. Script-specific configuration values. I don't think these are commonly used, but they could be nice to have. Oh well, chances are your scripts will keep working. 3. Adding commands to the Tools->User Script Commands submenu. If, like me, you didn't know this submenu even existed, no loss. 4. Fancy GM_XmlHttpRequest. This is just like XmlHttpRequest but without domain restrictions. This may cause a few extensions to stop working (not many, but a few), but it also closes the security hole.
I bet this is a scam from the New York Times people to get free computers. And the rest of us can go on in a sane way.
The satellite photos are not taken in realtime, nor are they clear enough to make out anything as small as a person sunbathing topless. There are many reasons why this is really cool, but by making yet another can't-get-laid joke, you're just being intensely lame.
Microsoft does employ Haskell's lead developer, and this shell supports typed streams, so the name Monad isn't surprising.
Sometimes they do. You just don't notice the non-typos.
So when I hit Ctrl-+ in Firefox and increase the font size, I'm creating a derived work? What if I look at a web page in Lynx and see a text-based version of the site, which is usually not what the author intended?
If it isn't enough for you, and you're actually trying to read the pages, then there's something seriously wrong with you.
So that's what happened to Google. I tried to search for news that might tell me why Google was down, but then I realized that Google was down. :-(
Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable and violates Occam's Razor, so it has no place in science. Think about it: ID isn't about coming up with mechanisms for the things we observe, it's about saying "an intelligent designer did it" and stopping scientific inquiry down right there.
The reason science doesn't concern itself with anything supernatural is because it is impossible, by definition, to observe scientifically what the supernatural is or is not doing. Science's insistance on natural explanations is hard-headed pragmatism, not an a priori declaration of philosophical naturalism.
No, they changed X to NC-17. The original system had R in it, right below X.
Additionally, you can notice that Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable and therefore not a scientific theory and not worthy of mention in science classes.
Also, VR is used to distract burn-therapy patients, which really helps with the pain.
No, the dog is rotating with the ass nearer to the center of rotation than the rest of the dog.
Cut off its pointers?
If you want to learn how to use the MOP, there's a tutorial here, which is continued here.
I don't know either. It looks like a straight translation from Lisp to whatever language you wrote it in (Ruby?), except without a built-in oddp function. And I wrote that snippet of Lisp code to rebut the comparison of Lisp's ease of use with that of assembly language, so I'd say that what you've proven is that another language is also easier to use than assembly.
The bigger issue here is that, if you're seriously using cdadr (and similar functions) often, you probably need to rethink your data structures or the method you're using to manipulate them.
CL has some problems with the Meta Object Protocol (MOP), which is used for reflection and to modify the object system. It's not standard, but it's supported by all major Lisp implementations---and they usually have small differences, most prominently what package they put it in. Is it in the MOP package? Or perhaps the SB-PCL package? In order to make portable code that uses the MOP, you need a compatibility layer like Closer or MOPP or CLIM-MOP.
That said, once you have all the compatibility code in place you can do amazing things with the MOP. I co-wrote a graphical object inspector that made heavy use of Lisp's introspection abilities, and Pascal Costanza added Aspect-oriented programming to Common Lisp with AspectL.