I would add that this approach of theory w/out specifics of implemenatation is not as workable on a practical level.
People learning to code want to get in their and 'do' something. They want to see some results and I don't think there is anything wrong w/that. You need to give them that opportunity to keep enthusiasm.
The best way to learn programming is to do it. The more the better. And see what works and what doesn't.
You have to know syntax and semantics to practice.
To take the high road right off the bat is good conceptually but the problem is implementation is often where it gets difficult. I know a lot of people will disagree but I can tell you that the concepts behind something do not have a lot of value until the user has a level of experience that brings out that value.
I believe this is true across a wide range of disciplines - not just programming. If you tell someone that breaking in boots is important to hiking (w/out getting into a lot of messy details) they may listen they may not. If they sit at the end of a trail w/blisters all over their feet (or see a companion in that shape) they will value the information much, much more.
I've never found a conceptual approach to be nearly as useful before I've tried something compared to after those attempts.
Thanks for that. Reminds me of something a professor told me once. Practice doesn't make perfect - Perfect practice makes perfect. If you practice doing something wrong for a long time it will not help you at all.
I realize what the original saying means - but it is good to remember both sides - as you did and I didn't.
And people wonder why science and religion so seldom walk hand-in-hand
I think that they always are in agreement when science is done correctly. But there is tension when the science begins w/the assertion that there is no God or supernatural. This assumption as a starting point is flawed.
I knew there would be someone smarter than myself who could describe it all better. Very interesting stuff- unfortunately difficult to discuss as many people tend to get inflamed rather quickly. Thanks for the comment.
If God does exist then there must be a place for Him in science - as science looks for truth. But science is not equipped to prove or disprove God.
Science deals w/measurable and repeatable events. God is neither. (This is also why science can only produce theories in regards to creation - the whole repeating thing)
No doubt there are greater minds about who will disagree w/me but those are my thoughts on the matter.
It is a great message. Because the message a little more clearly stated is this,
"The status quo is not universal law. It can be altered if enough people work together to force that change. Stupid rules, that help no one and harm everyone should not be blindly accepted."
or are broadband providers pricing themselves out of the market?
I've never had broadband and I wont until it becomes really, really cheap or the profit I gain from the connection is more than the cost.
My dial up gives me the most valuable item very efficiently - that is my email. Other things work o.k. too. I don't really need anything else at the moment. I would think the situation is the same for many others.
The moderator says that there is heavy reading ahead.
I go look at it and there is nothing heavy there. But it is as long as all get out. So I make a humorous (to me anyway) remark.
Honestly tell me there is something deep or difficult to comprehend here. Yes it is informative but there is nothing that is difficult to grasp. It just lays out the rules of the road.
Here is the irony. I post the comment and figure it will go unnoticed (w/out my bonus to keep it lower). But it doesn't. Real quick it gets modded up to +5. No good to me I'm at the cap. But then sure enough - an hour or so down the road I start getting modded down - flamebait, troll, overrated, etc. So I lose points even though the mods are equivalent because I was at the cap. No big deal but kind of interesting.
What's funny too is how at first my post was informative and interesting and then later it's suddenly a troll, and I wonder if it is the editors who feel that way not the readers.
Once again - no big deal. But I'm not kidding. If we're going to start seeing extended tutorials on basic topics - I've got a few I would like to see.
Ruby stuff would be nice
Perl (don't know a thing about how to use it)
Python (just what is it - I've never touched it)
And don't tell me that beginner stuff on that would not be in the same boat as this tutorial. XML is not that new and you can't avoid tutorials, books, and web sites all about it.
I regret that I have but 50 karma points to give in defense of my opinion.
Believe me, my wondering is not about the article itself but rather how they chose to showcase it.
When I ask what's the point it is a rather vague question - to clarify I am wondering why this is on the front page of slash dot and posted in its entirety. This seems to be somewhat unusual. I don't see a lot of tutorials posted here.
I'm definitely not an XML expert but I have a good grasp of what is in your article from what little XSLT work I've done. That's what made me very curious.
I can imagine what it would be like if something on the same level were posted in regards to PERL or C.
Well - I am sure my opinion is not what will make or break your day and I appreciate that you even responded to my little/. rant.
Programmers, like any other profession, will be paid based on supply and demand. There will always be a need for custom software. (I would love to see what percentage of software engineers work on products intended for resale - I bet it is lower than everyone thinks)
Open source, better tools that make programming easier, etc. will not destroy the profession as there will always be a need for qualified professionals to do difficult work.
On the other hand - it may make it more difficult for those w/a very narrow background or small skill sets that are easily mastered by others. And what is wrong w/that?
It is about time some of the cost associated w/spam got moved to the spammer. More of this can only be a good thing. If it gets too expensive, maybe it will slow down.
I do worry though about legal remedies just moving the problem to where the laws don't exist.
As already stated - you don't transport construction materials there - just initial tools to use materials already present.
Developing more of earth is constantly under fire. The moon may not be less expensive in the long run. Especially if you put some value on maintaining the atmosphere around earth. Apparently we are currently damaging it w/all of our current development.
If nothing else it would be a good penal colony. (unless they revolt and sling rocks at us down the gravity well- nah! that could'nt happen!)
I read the article. But let me respond to a couple of your questions.
"Are humans inherently flawed?" Yes- and ironically or not I would say that they inherit that flaw. So again, yes -exactly.
"..~3 million year existence" Nope. I don't think so. "..(out of the blue) grew flaws?" - no we inherit them from the first sinner - Adam.
If you have not figured it out - the autor of the essay refers to my ilk in his essay:
"Facts that were indisputable to all but BIBLICAL LITERALISTS had radically repositioned us not only in the physical universe but in the history of our own species. " (emphasis mine)
I thought I gave that away in my original response referring to this as a fallen world. Interesting essay but completely wrong. Thanks for the link though.
We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.
As has already been affirmed this is correct. I agree anyway. The thing is what do you do between now and when these better people arrive? You can decide to be a non combatant as many others have done in the past. Personally I don't have a problem w/that. But many others, myself included, would rather be proactive.
Peace and harmony I would like to see. In fact I think I will see it but not on this side of life. It is a fallen world full of bad people. Our government and many of us as individuals are a part of the process of finding ways of protecting what we hold dear.
You don't need neural networks - all you need is FOPEN
The automatic target detection algorithms have already been written and are being tested by various parties receiveing funding from DARPA and the various branches of the military. SAR delivers the data needed to not only identify targets but to find them even when they are hidden, and relay the coordinates to a ground station.
There is a lot of this work going on that is in the public domain (like the link above) and much, much more that is classified.
I would think that another is that one way missions become much more viable. In fact as posted above - if the target is too far away to make a round trip- just add the aircraft to the payload at the end of the mission.
You can also hot swap pilots on long missions. No more fatigue or other bilogically related limitations. This is the future of aviation as much as pilots in the military hate it.
I got you. You mean there would be no difference if this was all they ever flew as opposed to real aircraft. Sorry I did not pick up on that. You are correct - that would be a real advantage in my mind.
.
Re:I wonder if these could be launched from Carrie
on
X-45 Makes Debut Flight
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You've got to think about the scale involved here. W/the high stall speeds and size of a manned fighter- recovery is incredibly difficult. I bet these little guys have no trouble. Their target - relatively speaking is huge. There are acres of flight deck. If they can slow down real well - and this X-45 is subsonic - it would be no problem. Carriers have had automated landing systems for some time. They would work w/this fine. You don't need to worry about actually trapping on one of the arresting gear engines. The angle should be long enough for the aircraft to stop on its own.
I promise you I am not just talking out the side of my head. Launch and Recovery was my life for some time.
Slashdot Mirror
I said the same but not as well.
I would add that this approach of theory w/out specifics of implemenatation is not as workable on a practical level.
People learning to code want to get in their and 'do' something. They want to see some results and I don't think there is anything wrong w/that. You need to give them that opportunity to keep enthusiasm.
The 2 track idea is excellent.
.
The best way to learn programming is to do it. The more the better. And see what works and what doesn't.
You have to know syntax and semantics to practice.
To take the high road right off the bat is good conceptually but the problem is implementation is often where it gets difficult. I know a lot of people will disagree but I can tell you that the concepts behind something do not have a lot of value until the user has a level of experience that brings out that value.
I believe this is true across a wide range of disciplines - not just programming. If you tell someone that breaking in boots is important to hiking (w/out getting into a lot of messy details) they may listen they may not. If they sit at the end of a trail w/blisters all over their feet (or see a companion in that shape) they will value the information much, much more.
I've never found a conceptual approach to be nearly as useful before I've tried something compared to after those attempts.
.
You are correct.
Thanks for that. Reminds me of something a professor told me once. Practice doesn't make perfect - Perfect practice makes perfect. If you practice doing something wrong for a long time it will not help you at all.
I realize what the original saying means - but it is good to remember both sides - as you did and I didn't.
.
And people wonder why science and religion so seldom walk hand-in-hand
I think that they always are in agreement when science is done correctly. But there is tension when the science begins w/the assertion that there is no God or supernatural. This assumption as a starting point is flawed.
I knew there would be someone smarter than myself who could describe it all better. Very interesting stuff- unfortunately difficult to discuss as many people tend to get inflamed rather quickly. Thanks for the comment.
Just a couple of thoughts from a theist.
If God does exist then there must be a place for Him in science - as science looks for truth. But science is not equipped to prove or disprove God.
Science deals w/measurable and repeatable events. God is neither. (This is also why science can only produce theories in regards to creation - the whole repeating thing)
No doubt there are greater minds about who will disagree w/me but those are my thoughts on the matter.
.
just some school rules. A good thing to see. It shows some flexibility and honest appraisal of the situation.
Much too often educational administrators become keepers of the sacred school 'laws' and forget that their sole purpose is to facilitate learning.
A good situation on the whole.
.
It is a great message. Because the message a little more clearly stated is this,
"The status quo is not universal law. It can be altered if enough people work together to force that change. Stupid rules, that help no one and harm everyone should not be blindly accepted."
I try to get that message out all the time.
.
I have a valid point. I'm telling you why I don't have broadband because it relates directly to what the editor said in the story.
I am not a minority (someone who only want b&w t.v. may be) in my not having broadband. I'm part of the majority - for the reasons I remarked on.
.
really. You are an ass.
.
Windows service pack?
No definitely not.
This would be my whole point. I really don't need it. Why would I want to download 104 meg? I've never fealt the need to do so.
If I really need high speed access I'll go somewhere and pay for a slice of time. But as I'm saying - has not happened yet.
Judging by how broadband is selling around the country to home users- I think that it is safe to say that I am not alone.
.
or are broadband providers pricing themselves out of the market?
I've never had broadband and I wont until it becomes really, really cheap or the profit I gain from the connection is more than the cost.
My dial up gives me the most valuable item very efficiently - that is my email. Other things work o.k. too. I don't really need anything else at the moment. I would think the situation is the same for many others.
I'm not.
The moderator says that there is heavy reading ahead.
I go look at it and there is nothing heavy there. But it is as long as all get out. So I make a humorous (to me anyway) remark.
Honestly tell me there is something deep or difficult to comprehend here. Yes it is informative but there is nothing that is difficult to grasp. It just lays out the rules of the road.
Here is the irony. I post the comment and figure it will go unnoticed (w/out my bonus to keep it lower). But it doesn't. Real quick it gets modded up to +5. No good to me I'm at the cap. But then sure enough - an hour or so down the road I start getting modded down - flamebait, troll, overrated, etc. So I lose points even though the mods are equivalent because I was at the cap. No big deal but kind of interesting.
What's funny too is how at first my post was informative and interesting and then later it's suddenly a troll, and I wonder if it is the editors who feel that way not the readers.
Once again - no big deal. But I'm not kidding. If we're going to start seeing extended tutorials on basic topics - I've got a few I would like to see.
Ruby stuff would be nice
Perl (don't know a thing about how to use it)
Python (just what is it - I've never touched it)
And don't tell me that beginner stuff on that would not be in the same boat as this tutorial. XML is not that new and you can't avoid tutorials, books, and web sites all about it.
I regret that I have but 50 karma points to give in defense of my opinion.
.
Believe me, my wondering is not about the article itself but rather how they chose to showcase it.
/. rant.
When I ask what's the point it is a rather vague question - to clarify I am wondering why this is on the front page of slash dot and posted in its entirety. This seems to be somewhat unusual. I don't see a lot of tutorials posted here.
I'm definitely not an XML expert but I have a good grasp of what is in your article from what little XSLT work I've done. That's what made me very curious.
I can imagine what it would be like if something on the same level were posted in regards to PERL or C.
Well - I am sure my opinion is not what will make or break your day and I appreciate that you even responded to my little
.
you idiots crack me up.
nothing better to do then sit around and nitpick over obvious typos. That has nothing to do w/my remarks on the subject.
As posted below - it's a nice tutorial - if you are new to xml, xslt etc.
Anyways- sticking to my original point you are a coward as clearly stated in your post. I prefer the term pussy. And a small, small person.
feel free to help me out w/any grammar or spelling issues above as we all know that could be the very most important thing in the world.
.
What is this?
It's not knew, it's somewhat informative. It's very, very basic.
So what is the point?
If this is some kind of new thing then cool. I'm looking forward to the VB tutorial on ADO.
.
Programmers, like any other profession, will be paid based on supply and demand. There will always be a need for custom software. (I would love to see what percentage of software engineers work on products intended for resale - I bet it is lower than everyone thinks)
Open source, better tools that make programming easier, etc. will not destroy the profession as there will always be a need for qualified professionals to do difficult work.
On the other hand - it may make it more difficult for those w/a very narrow background or small skill sets that are easily mastered by others. And what is wrong w/that?
.
It is about time some of the cost associated w/spam got moved to the spammer. More of this can only be a good thing. If it gets too expensive, maybe it will slow down.
I do worry though about legal remedies just moving the problem to where the laws don't exist.
.
My group is looking for investors in what is going to be a money making machine.
I don't want to divulge too much now - but just imagine this. A few strategically places nukes, used to hollow out massive caves inside the moon.
Then we build some lakes and condos in the caves!
Old people w/hip problems pay big bucks to live in a low grav pleasure world!
I'm gonna be rich.
.
But she's worth the trouble.
As already stated - you don't transport construction materials there - just initial tools to use materials already present.
Developing more of earth is constantly under fire. The moon may not be less expensive in the long run. Especially if you put some value on maintaining the atmosphere around earth. Apparently we are currently damaging it w/all of our current development.
If nothing else it would be a good penal colony. (unless they revolt and sling rocks at us down the gravity well- nah! that could'nt happen!)
.
I read the article. But let me respond to a couple of your questions.
"Are humans inherently flawed?" Yes- and ironically or not I would say that they inherit that flaw. So again, yes -exactly.
"..~3 million year existence" Nope. I don't think so. "..(out of the blue) grew flaws?" - no we inherit them from the first sinner - Adam.
If you have not figured it out - the autor of the essay refers to my ilk in his essay:
"Facts that were indisputable to all but BIBLICAL LITERALISTS had radically repositioned us not only in the physical universe but in the history of our own species. " (emphasis mine)
I thought I gave that away in my original response referring to this as a fallen world. Interesting essay but completely wrong. Thanks for the link though.
.
We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.
As has already been affirmed this is correct. I agree anyway. The thing is what do you do between now and when these better people arrive? You can decide to be a non combatant as many others have done in the past. Personally I don't have a problem w/that. But many others, myself included, would rather be proactive.
Peace and harmony I would like to see. In fact I think I will see it but not on this side of life. It is a fallen world full of bad people. Our government and many of us as individuals are a part of the process of finding ways of protecting what we hold dear.
You don't need neural networks - all you need is FOPEN
The automatic target detection algorithms have already been written and are being tested by various parties receiveing funding from DARPA and the various branches of the military. SAR delivers the data needed to not only identify targets but to find them even when they are hidden, and relay the coordinates to a ground station.
There is a lot of this work going on that is in the public domain (like the link above) and much, much more that is classified.
That is a huge advantage.
I would think that another is that one way missions become much more viable. In fact as posted above - if the target is too far away to make a round trip- just add the aircraft to the payload at the end of the mission.
You can also hot swap pilots on long missions. No more fatigue or other bilogically related limitations. This is the future of aviation as much as pilots in the military hate it.
.
I got you. You mean there would be no difference if this was all they ever flew as opposed to real aircraft. Sorry I did not pick up on that. You are correct - that would be a real advantage in my mind.
.
You've got to think about the scale involved here. W/the high stall speeds and size of a manned fighter- recovery is incredibly difficult. I bet these little guys have no trouble. Their target - relatively speaking is huge. There are acres of flight deck. If they can slow down real well - and this X-45 is subsonic - it would be no problem. Carriers have had automated landing systems for some time. They would work w/this fine. You don't need to worry about actually trapping on one of the arresting gear engines. The angle should be long enough for the aircraft to stop on its own.
I promise you I am not just talking out the side of my head. Launch and Recovery was my life for some time.
Ron Peck
ABE, V-2 Div.
USS Carl Vinson CVN-70
.