I've been running over an idea: I'm not sure we can get hackers (in the good sense) to write all of our code, so perhaps the best thing is just to make all code monkeys subject to hackers: i.e., have hackers on code review (so they can bitch somewhere besides/.:) and writing code that's beyond the range of mere code monkeys, while the code monkeys write the code they are good at.
BNF has many forms. In one of them the distinction between literals and productions is that productions are wrapped in <>s. That's where the usage comes from.
Furthermore, I don't think the syntax even makes sense for templates: it would be like seeing (deity) and thinking it was a reference to function call syntax.
Speaking of VS6: am I the only one who noticed that VC++ would ICE on examples from it's own manual!?! (Something about incomplete (i.e., non-existant) support for nested templates).
Let me clarify my position a little: Merriam-Webster defines purpose as:
1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION
b : RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION
2 : a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution
synonym see INTENTION
All of those definitions seem to imply that a purpose is something that can only exist in the mind of an intelligent agent. So, if humans have an intrinsic ``purpose'', there must be some intelligent agent intending that purpose. Otherwise, humans have at best a ``contribution'' (i.e., something that falls out of the facts of our existance combined with those of the rest of the planet), which could perhaps be called a ``role'', but not a ``purpose''.
Every civilization has been fasinated with exploring and the stars, this instinct is built into us to make us fulfill our destiny of serving as the reproductive system of the earth. This is the real purpose of humans in the eco-system. It's a shame more people haven't realized this and think that humans are somehow outside the earth's eco-system. Just like a fox doesn't know what its role in the eco-system is, so neither is it obvious to us.
Just out of curiosity, where are you drawing your notion of ``destiny'', ``purpose'', ``role'' from? It has to be some sort of religious source, as I can't see natural selection having purpose or assigning roles, but I'm drawing a blank what religion you could be drawing from.
The funny thing about it is, the back button on the website he mentions works for me (in Galeon). Has the website changed, or is this a Galeon/Mozilla/wherever feature?
Alright, I'll agree with everything you said (although I only think a 17 yr. old usually should have most of the rights that person will have at 18). However, we do have well-established rules about children & sexuality (can't have sex with someone under x, can't do it without parental permisssion for people between x and 18, etc.), and common sense dictates that similar (although maybe a little losser) restrictions apply to a child's exposure to pornography. I certainly don't see how you can claim that a 12 yr. old has an absolute right to view pornography w/o parental permission.
You are just forcing your child to learn about it from someone else in an uncontrolled setting.
By restricting his access to porn?
Would you leave your child alone in any other government building and expect others to take care of him?
I hope you never send children to a government school.
Damn it. Look. Believe it or not, there are actually parents out there that don't mind their children looking at naked people. I know that sounds amazing, but it is quite true. What gives you the right to enforce your misguided sense of morality on them?
So give those kids access to the porn-available computers (with parental permission, of course). But don't force your misguided sense of morality on me:)
I actually have difficulty swallowing this. After all: what are people going to do with this tax cut money? Stick it in drawers? No; they'll put it in the bank. And the bank (in order to be able to pay interest) will loan it out. And whoever takes out the loan will spend it. So, the money will get spent. Neoclassical economists may believe that money will just be stuffed under matresses, but I don't buy it.
Right. It was written by someone outside of Sun's Java group, complaining about said group, and trying to get Sun's management to bring some righteous wrath to bear on said group.
Slashdot Mirror
You never randomly click a pen? Can you teach me that trick?
I've been running over an idea: I'm not sure we can get hackers (in the good sense) to write all of our code, so perhaps the best thing is just to make all code monkeys subject to hackers: i.e., have hackers on code review (so they can bitch somewhere besides /. :) and writing code that's beyond the range of mere code monkeys, while the code monkeys write the code they are good at.
BNF has many forms. In one of them the distinction between literals and productions is that productions are wrapped in <>s. That's where the usage comes from.
Furthermore, I don't think the syntax even makes sense for templates: it would be like seeing (deity) and thinking it was a reference to function call syntax.
Also, silently truncating long lines is probably a bad idea.
Not to flame (well, ok, I am flaming), but you do know that has nothing to do with templates, right? It's BNF...
Na. If you'll go to googol.com, you'll find they have a link to google right there on the front page. And a google search applet.
Actually, searchin Google for google takes you right to it (as always).
We also have plenty of examples of Democracys, rarely with good results.
Hell, you could say the same thing for about any form of government.
Speaking of VS6: am I the only one who noticed that VC++ would ICE on examples from it's own manual!?! (Something about incomplete (i.e., non-existant) support for nested templates).
He's the FSF's legal counsel. I'd guess the answer is ``no'' :)
No, you meant prefix---place before.
If you're familiar with the history of Mars probes, why do you expect one to return to Earth?
All of those definitions seem to imply that a purpose is something that can only exist in the mind of an intelligent agent. So, if humans have an intrinsic ``purpose'', there must be some intelligent agent intending that purpose. Otherwise, humans have at best a ``contribution'' (i.e., something that falls out of the facts of our existance combined with those of the rest of the planet), which could perhaps be called a ``role'', but not a ``purpose''.
You're not that familiar with the history of Mars probes, are you?
Just out of curiosity, where are you drawing your notion of ``destiny'', ``purpose'', ``role'' from? It has to be some sort of religious source, as I can't see natural selection having purpose or assigning roles, but I'm drawing a blank what religion you could be drawing from.
The funny thing about it is, the back button on the website he mentions works for me (in Galeon). Has the website changed, or is this a Galeon/Mozilla/wherever feature?
Alright, I'll agree with everything you said (although I only think a 17 yr. old usually should have most of the rights that person will have at 18). However, we do have well-established rules about children & sexuality (can't have sex with someone under x, can't do it without parental permisssion for people between x and 18, etc.), and common sense dictates that similar (although maybe a little losser) restrictions apply to a child's exposure to pornography. I certainly don't see how you can claim that a 12 yr. old has an absolute right to view pornography w/o parental permission.
Adults also have a right to engage in (consensual) sex with whomever they want. Are you saying children should have that right?
By restricting his access to porn?
I hope you never send children to a government school.
So give those kids access to the porn-available computers (with parental permission, of course). But don't force your misguided sense of morality on me
Um, no. Plenty of Protestants have condemned Harry Potter too.
I realize it's human nature to lump other people together into groups, but please try to do better than that!
I actually have difficulty swallowing this. After all: what are people going to do with this tax cut money? Stick it in drawers? No; they'll put it in the bank. And the bank (in order to be able to pay interest) will loan it out. And whoever takes out the loan will spend it. So, the money will get spent. Neoclassical economists may believe that money will just be stuffed under matresses, but I don't buy it.
I dare you to name one credible example of that kind of thinking in any piece of libertarian literature.
Right. It was written by someone outside of Sun's Java group, complaining about said group, and trying to get Sun's management to bring some righteous wrath to bear on said group.
That's because Communism's assumptions (e.g. scarcity is a product of capitalism) are in inescapable contradiction to the real world.
s/might/will/