In erlang all scoping is local and single assignment. There are special APIs to access global variables and they are very limited. If you try access a local that was not assigned yet, you will get a compilation error. If you try to do it with a global, it depends on the function you are using if i remember correctly, either an exception or null.
In Haskell and Erlang you can also use variables on the fly without declaring them, and yet they don't allow one to just refer to a non existent variable and have its value automatically replaced with null or empty or undefined or whatever they call it in js land.
I understand that there was a bug that caused them to render the cursor at 60fps, but why does it take 13% of the CPU? I used to play games that rendered full frames at 30 or 60 fps, if only a cursor takes 13% I would expect that to be impossible. Something is terribly inefficient somewhere, way beyond just rendering too many fps.
Even 4chan has some censorship (they removed pedo stuff if i remember correctly). Comunication between masses of people without any censorship are a platonic ideal, not a reality.
Then again, if you get too homogeneous, you end up with hereditary diseases (i.e. asheknazi jews like me), or their intellectual parallels (i.e. every little crappy town out there, and to some extent the reason that the Seattle and Portland people are so disconnected from reality).
Well, some weapon dealer's job is to sell weapons to 3rd world dictatorships, Just because according to the "libertarian ethics" doing one's job is the most moral thing ever doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to follow.
No it doesn't, it says "SJW is someone I don't like", not that everyone I don't like is an SJW. In other words, if I call you an SJW, I'm calling you someone I don't like. That doesn't imply the converse that everyone I don't like is an SJW.
Good point, I apologize for my mistake.
That's the problem, it doesn't mean anything because people can't agree on remotely consistent meanings. Your meaning is new to me, for example.
This is also true for many other terms, like "left" and "right". I assumed that when I said "between Trump and SJWs" that the SJWs are extremists but in the opposite direction of Trump. My point was to say that political extremist factions are gaining more and more power and hate science because they prefer their own "alternative truth". I thought that it could be inferred from what I wrote, but I may be wrong, therefore I explained my opinion more verbosely (and I hope better).
If you want, I can easily write what I mean to by SJWs. I mean people in gender/sociology faculties and the radical left who think that their field of study is more "intellectual" than natural sciences and math, and are trying to supress funding and/or censor sciences. Their will to do this has two official reasons: 1) They believe that while science improves the "material" side of men, they improve humanity spiritually. 2) A believe that academia is not about discovering truth but about manufacturing truth (a specific variation on post modernism).
Amimojo's signature claims that I call every preson that I don't like an SJW. However, I don't like Trump, and I do not think he is an SJW. I don't like you, and I don't think you are an SJW. I use SJW because it is a shorter word for "people in gender/sociology faculties and the radical left". Ironically, I use it for the same reason that SJWs always say they use "pansexual" or "transsexual" or similar words, because it's easy to use one word rather than to write an entire explanation. However, in your comment's case, I felt that an explanation is needed.
When you try to respect ALL cultures, you have to respect the racist (jewism) and misogynistic (islam) ones too. And just to clarify, I agree with you, I would rather if citizenship criteria here was something better than "you are related to someone who prayed to the jehovah the blood god". I prefer to believe in IQ tests (despite all their flaws) than in jehovah.
Excellent point, I forgot about this part, but it's correct, Israel, despite being considered racist/facist/whatever is actually more multi cultural than many eurpoeans countries, TOO multi cultural in this case.
the other two are not well disposed to religion as a political system.
I don't about jews in general, but as an israeli jew, I can tell you that there are plenty of people here who want religion to play a stronger part in our government. In Israel marrige and divorce must go through a rabbi, and there are parties whose size is roughly one sixth (the biggest party in general is one quarter) that define themselves as "religious parties". It is feasible that Israel might become "sharia-lite - jewish version" at some point.
I don't know whether someone owes me a living or not. I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it. After all, if even living is denied out of you, whta have you got to lose? I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia, but others prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working, rather than face a much higher level of crime.
Regarding "aren't useful on earth" well... Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?
I'm using facebook and google hangouts to communicate with people. Since I don't want to install applications, I use them as browser tabs. Does this mean I will no longer get noticed when someone messages me?
The black guys' lives do not depend on whether a girl is willing to date them. Our lives DO depend on whether someone is willing to employ us. When you have a UBI high enough to allow people to survive WITHOUT having a job, then your analogy is correct (and I might even agree with it as I consider many racial discrimation complaints to be idiotic). We need to disconnect jobs from survival, otherwise there will always be a conflict between allowing people to survive and allowing companies to succeed.
Well, in that case, i have to wonder, I'm sure that if you'll look for it a bit, you'll see many cases of rich people getting away with obvious crimes, cases that are much more easier to solve (just arrest the fuckers) than somehow making all our computers automatically secure. Why focus specifically on what seems to be technically impossible?
Well, I guess we have anarchy then... Or maybe, not everything is black and white and we can't have heaven on earth and just need to try and make things a little better bit by bit.
Considering the fact that if you're rich enough you can kill and rape and get away with it, I really think that them having a bit more privacy is negligible. If the lives of all "normal people" were out in the open, it would still prevent all the witch hunts that we have going (i.e. let's pretend that it's completely wrong and rare to be attracted to someone 16) and would reduce the ability of many people up the chain (not its top) to spy on us. I am not saying it's the best option, I just feel that with how technology is so complicated, it's impossible to hide things. Let's assume that laws are set in your favor, how do you protect your system from being compromised? How do you protect any of your friends' system from being compromised?
I think it is impossible because even if you don't provide information on yourself, your computer can be hacked, street cameras will take photos of you. To some extent, I would say that information technology, networking, and computing, are making privacy harder and harder to keep, even if you do your best to do it, and even if you lived in some utopia where you would have no problems with your future employers because of it.
I do not think that privacy is mental illness or anything similar, I do, however, that privacy is becoming more and more impossible. I think that the correct solution is to legally enforce transparency in ALL layers of society, maybe even to change technology so that secrets become impossible for EVERYONE. Guess I may be brainwashed, but can you give a batter solution?
Are they? Look at how many adults fawned over communism/absolute-capitalism/nazism/whatever, how many believe right now that their state is "the good side", etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
In erlang all scoping is local and single assignment. There are special APIs to access global variables and they are very limited. If you try access a local that was not assigned yet, you will get a compilation error. If you try to do it with a global, it depends on the function you are using if i remember correctly, either an exception or null.
In Erlang this is impossible, In Haskell code is supposed to be small enough so that it doesn't happen.
In Haskell and Erlang you can also use variables on the fly without declaring them, and yet they don't allow one to just refer to a non existent variable and have its value automatically replaced with null or empty or undefined or whatever they call it in js land.
I understand that there was a bug that caused them to render the cursor at 60fps, but why does it take 13% of the CPU? I used to play games that rendered full frames at 30 or 60 fps, if only a cursor takes 13% I would expect that to be impossible. Something is terribly inefficient somewhere, way beyond just rendering too many fps.
Even 4chan has some censorship (they removed pedo stuff if i remember correctly). Comunication between masses of people without any censorship are a platonic ideal, not a reality.
Then again, if you get too homogeneous, you end up with hereditary diseases (i.e. asheknazi jews like me), or their intellectual parallels (i.e. every little crappy town out there, and to some extent the reason that the Seattle and Portland people are so disconnected from reality).
Well, some weapon dealer's job is to sell weapons to 3rd world dictatorships, Just because according to the "libertarian ethics" doing one's job is the most moral thing ever doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to follow.
No it doesn't, it says "SJW is someone I don't like", not that everyone I don't like is an SJW. In other words, if I call you an SJW, I'm calling you someone I don't like. That doesn't imply the converse that everyone I don't like is an SJW.
Good point, I apologize for my mistake.
That's the problem, it doesn't mean anything because people can't agree on remotely consistent meanings. Your meaning is new to me, for example.
This is also true for many other terms, like "left" and "right". I assumed that when I said "between Trump and SJWs" that the SJWs are extremists but in the opposite direction of Trump. My point was to say that political extremist factions are gaining more and more power and hate science because they prefer their own "alternative truth". I thought that it could be inferred from what I wrote, but I may be wrong, therefore I explained my opinion more verbosely (and I hope better).
If you want, I can easily write what I mean to by SJWs. I mean people in gender/sociology faculties and the radical left who think that their field of study is more "intellectual" than natural sciences and math, and are trying to supress funding and/or censor sciences. Their will to do this has two official reasons: 1) They believe that while science improves the "material" side of men, they improve humanity spiritually. 2) A believe that academia is not about discovering truth but about manufacturing truth (a specific variation on post modernism).
Amimojo's signature claims that I call every preson that I don't like an SJW. However, I don't like Trump, and I do not think he is an SJW. I don't like you, and I don't think you are an SJW. I use SJW because it is a shorter word for "people in gender/sociology faculties and the radical left". Ironically, I use it for the same reason that SJWs always say they use "pansexual" or "transsexual" or similar words, because it's easy to use one word rather than to write an entire explanation. However, in your comment's case, I felt that an explanation is needed.
(nt)
When you try to respect ALL cultures, you have to respect the racist (jewism) and misogynistic (islam) ones too. And just to clarify, I agree with you, I would rather if citizenship criteria here was something better than "you are related to someone who prayed to the jehovah the blood god". I prefer to believe in IQ tests (despite all their flaws) than in jehovah.
Excellent point, I forgot about this part, but it's correct, Israel, despite being considered racist/facist/whatever is actually more multi cultural than many eurpoeans countries, TOO multi cultural in this case.
Not in the way most people who worship it think about it, i.e. "GMOs are not natural".
Is worshipping nature really that different from worshipping god?
the other two are not well disposed to religion as a political system.
I don't about jews in general, but as an israeli jew, I can tell you that there are plenty of people here who want religion to play a stronger part in our government. In Israel marrige and divorce must go through a rabbi, and there are parties whose size is roughly one sixth (the biggest party in general is one quarter) that define themselves as "religious parties". It is feasible that Israel might become "sharia-lite - jewish version" at some point.
I don't know whether someone owes me a living or not. I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it. After all, if even living is denied out of you, whta have you got to lose? I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia, but others prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working, rather than face a much higher level of crime.
Regarding "aren't useful on earth" well... Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?
I'm using facebook and google hangouts to communicate with people. Since I don't want to install applications, I use them as browser tabs. Does this mean I will no longer get noticed when someone messages me?
If you really don't understand the difference between suicide and starving or dying from exposure to cold then we have no common base for discussion.
The black guys' lives do not depend on whether a girl is willing to date them. Our lives DO depend on whether someone is willing to employ us. When you have a UBI high enough to allow people to survive WITHOUT having a job, then your analogy is correct (and I might even agree with it as I consider many racial discrimation complaints to be idiotic). We need to disconnect jobs from survival, otherwise there will always be a conflict between allowing people to survive and allowing companies to succeed.
Well, in that case, i have to wonder, I'm sure that if you'll look for it a bit, you'll see many cases of rich people getting away with obvious crimes, cases that are much more easier to solve (just arrest the fuckers) than somehow making all our computers automatically secure. Why focus specifically on what seems to be technically impossible?
Well, I guess we have anarchy then... Or maybe, not everything is black and white and we can't have heaven on earth and just need to try and make things a little better bit by bit.
Considering the fact that if you're rich enough you can kill and rape and get away with it, I really think that them having a bit more privacy is negligible. If the lives of all "normal people" were out in the open, it would still prevent all the witch hunts that we have going (i.e. let's pretend that it's completely wrong and rare to be attracted to someone 16) and would reduce the ability of many people up the chain (not its top) to spy on us. I am not saying it's the best option, I just feel that with how technology is so complicated, it's impossible to hide things. Let's assume that laws are set in your favor, how do you protect your system from being compromised? How do you protect any of your friends' system from being compromised?
I think it is impossible because even if you don't provide information on yourself, your computer can be hacked, street cameras will take photos of you. To some extent, I would say that information technology, networking, and computing, are making privacy harder and harder to keep, even if you do your best to do it, and even if you lived in some utopia where you would have no problems with your future employers because of it.
I do not think that privacy is mental illness or anything similar, I do, however, that privacy is becoming more and more impossible. I think that the correct solution is to legally enforce transparency in ALL layers of society, maybe even to change technology so that secrets become impossible for EVERYONE. Guess I may be brainwashed, but can you give a batter solution?
Are they? Look at how many adults fawned over communism/absolute-capitalism/nazism/whatever, how many believe right now that their state is "the good side", etc etc.