They were called actor-based programming systems. They came about in the mid-to-late 1960's and incorporated into languages in the early 1970's (look up Hewitt's work on Actors). Pros: Decentralized computational agents connected by message-passing can increase resilience in a system. Cons: Non-local flow of control and unknown state/functionality within remote computational agents (which always inadvertently leaks out) makes understanding what is actually happening in the system overall difficult, leading to problems in debugging; lack of state within systems (monads, which are a difficult concept for most programmers to fit their head around, notwithstanding) leads to extraneous message passing load, potentially killing performance.
So, TL;DR (OK, so I did read it, sue me...) and tells us stuff we knew fifty years ago. About par for the course.
Fine, the reactive document is a manifesto describing a set of architectural principles that supposedly has benefits in the current world. The agile document is a manifesto describing a set of project management principles that supposedly has benefit in the current world (although, in reality, it's twenty years old now and the people who are now promoting it are becoming just as rigid and annoying as the UML/SEI/PDP/heavy doc assholes they replaced). Conflating the two as related (other than in name) was incorrect. Not only was the agile manifesto, short, pithy, and to the point, the reactive manifesto is just another TL;DR page that looks like it hasn't had enough work by actual smart (as opposed to successful) people to be short. Does this help?
Frankly, we need more manifestos released more often. The good ones will be followed; the stupid ones will evaporate in time.
Christ on a shingle, what's up with the "Will it be a pointless venture?" You already answered that when you said you wouldn't be the next Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan. If that's your only limitation, then there's a lot of room between doing nothing and being in the top 100 recognized members of the pack.
And, even if it is a pointless venture, who cares? A person doesn't need to justify his choice of hobby and we all need our recreation time. Astronomy and astrophysics seems to be a place where an amateur could potentially still contribute - there's EM radiation coming down in a lot of different wavelength ranges and not a lot of coverage for what seems to be a very big sky. Sure, it'll be a lot of work, but what worthwhile isn't? Besides, you'll be entertained and you don't seem to have anything else better to do.
OK, let's put it this way - if you don't show up in uniform, you're sent home and don't get invited back to the party. The employer gives you a list of place(s) to buy your uniforms. How you pay for those is up to you. This happened at the first low wage job I had (as an orderly in a nursing home), as a construction worker (you couldn't show up in tennis shoes), and I'm pretty sure that's the case in almost any place in this country where low-wage employees are hired. And it's completely legal. So legal that you're allowed to write those off as a tax deduction. So, yeah, it's not "paying for a job" per se, but it does put a financial burden on people who are just starting one.
Yeah, but luckily you haven't told him the "2. ???" part of your strategy yet. So STFU quick, unless you want to be poor and not keep the "best" goats for yourself!
But if they are actually stupid enough to do that they'll have made an enemy of an economy much larger than theirs, their largest export market, a country they're heavily dependent on for the basic infrastructure of running a government...
I have no dog in this fight (not that it's not entertaining theatre), but I also know that capitalists have very few enemies they will not sell to. If they were willing to deal with tinpot Central American dictators, you know they'll have no issue whatsoever in dealing with the Scots. You're probably overestimating the actual level of dislike between Britain and Scotland, even in the face of divorce. And you're especially overestimating the dislike of bankers cozying up to whomever they can make a profitable deal with - sharks have no national loyalties.
That being said, if the Scots really wanted to piss off the British, they could apply to France to become a protectorate and then keep the nukes.
Fine, Wrong, why do we have doctors? After all, a bunch of sensors cameras and pressure monitors guiding a functional idiot could do the job if backed with the proper knowledge base. After all, it works so well with Comcast.
Be happy she's an ex-wife. Besides, one of my ex's sisters would have been fine for boinking, if not any sort of long-term thing. At least that's the only reason she'd be in my bed.
Because they don't need to succeed, they need to DISRUPT. And disrupt one of the largest and most entrenched institutions in the world - the higher education system, which has been around, adapting, and surviving since the mid-15'th century. Plus they have to do it with a minimum of money to pay for decent course materials. But it needs to DISRUPT! Simple success is not enough. Investors don't pay for success any more. You must DISRUPT the dominant paradigm or you're rubbish. Whether this is a problem with the education system or financial system can be decided by the casual observer.
This is what the idiots on the House science committee think is their most useful work to do at this time? Making space "safe" for mineral interests? Fuck, I can't believe that this is the most immediate concern in science (or even space, for that matter).
I can hear it now in Chair Lamar Smith's office: So what do we do today to look busy? I know, we'll have hearings on a symbolic bill that is unenforceable and will never get to the floor, let alone pass, but, since most people don't know that, it should be easy to spin it as about good American capitalists (yay!) getting that awful world government (boo!) and pesky things like the treaties we don't like (boo!) out of the way, so our good American capitalists (yay!) can make money (yay!) and create jobs (yay!). I'm pretty sure that's about how deep the analysis goes on the political side. Then there's just the money side with the Democratic congressman from the great state of Boeing providing bi-partisan cover.
If I were to write a grant application on deconstructing the contents of this Slashdot post, I would hope the government would turn me down.
Don't worry, they would. Unless you (or some of your University's board members - more likely, since you're a scientist and not someone who actually did something useful like make money and donate it to politicians) were a personal friend of a senator. Then, you'd get your funding.
OK, you make sure it gets implanted in the patients so that they never leave home without it and they never lose it, otherwise the utility goes way down (although, if you're the kind of person who carries copies of all their medical records around with them now, I'm probably not going to convince you of this). Once you convince the general populace that the "Chip of the Beast" is acceptable, then you can ask for the information to be offline as it will then actually be available in the majority of patients. And, if you're thinking that a cell phone would make a fine repository for this data (and would usually be on you), I don't think my cell phone is any more secure than an encrypted online datastore, nor does everyone have one. And, if you're saying to give the patient a card with a chip to access medical service, see the whole "Chip of the Beast" thing above.
Every once in a while here on Slashdot, Someone posts something incredibly profound.
That, or incredibly horrifying or maybe clueless about the malleability of minds and time scales needed for even social change, let alone evolutionary change. The trouble is that it's really hard for me to tell in this case. I have a sneaking suspicion that the GP is essentially correct, but I know I'm not ready for that transition, nor are a lot of people. Not to mention that, even though we made our move from uni-celled to multi-celled creature, we still have not shown any sort of long-term survival advantage for this sort of creature, as uni-celled creatures are still around and, in fact, still out-perform us and our other multi-cellular brethren by almost any biological survival measure - longevity, ability to handle climatic extremes, total mass, etc. Multi-cellular life, although I'd hate to give up my own, is still a biological experiment that still has not proven itself over evolutionary time and could be destroyed in an eye-blink. So profound or stupid about probabilities? Who knows... The more profound something is, the more it can look like madness.
I guess I'm not much of a modern programmer. Although PL\I, FORTRAN, and BAL were the languages I used. And JCL... don't forget that... I also wrote a couple of RPG programs, but that was on an AS/400. Fun times.
Well, they could if they could find one branded Ford. Their OEM batteries are built for them by Johnson Controls. I don't even know if they have a Ford logo on them from the factory. In any case, what would you sue them for? Failure to prevent electrical current flowing when a torturer is present? I see no way in which the battery was not working correctly. And, yes, even here in the US, it would be unlikely that anyone on a jury would buy an argument that either Ford or Johnson Controls were even minimally at fault - it would be as stupid as someone claiming that Ford was somehow to blame when terrorists use a Ford truck to drop a suicide bomber off somewhere.
Yup, and now we have higher pneumonia rates as a result. Better for the herd? Yup. For the individual patient? Well, maybe not quite as much.
It's a tricky problem - you don't want antibiotic-resistant strains proliferating, but you don't want patients to spread or die of easily treated diseases, either. Evolution, in this case, sucks.
Any reporter who has the words "National Security" or "Counterterrorism" in their title and who isn't actively investigating the wrongdoings of the national security apparatus, is in bed with the spooks. There's no way the security apparatchicks will grant someone looking into their interests a solid middle ground - you're either with them or against them. To think otherwise is foolish.
Any news organization that has one of these reporters are simply letting a snake into their newsroom. Dina Temple-Raston with NPR should be fired for her breathless and unquestioning reporting on high-tech gadgetry and "inside analysis" that's generated for her daily by the CIA, military intelligence, and the NSA. Fuck, from David Martin of CBS to Martha Raddatz of ABC to this print-press idiot, these people are worthless as reporters.
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
No-one has quite found the right solution for websites...
And they never will until folks get it through their heads that, separation of concerns notwithstanding, needing to learn more than two or three disparate languages to make any software system is a bad idea. Just because the concerns are separated doesn't mean syntax and computational models need to be. Right now, to write a reasonable web page, you need to know HTML, CSS, and Javascript at a minimum. Take that all the way to the backend and you're probably adding Java (or Clojure, or node.js - yes, that's still Javascript, sue me - if you want to be all "up to date") and SQL to the mix. And I haven't even finished adding in persistence and UI frameworks and templating languages.
Then you get the situation that there's such a proliferation of the ancillary technology that employers who see anything from their technology stack missing from your resume and assume that the H1B who's lied on his resume about it is better qualified. We are building our own coffins with these new tools.
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
Since assembly or C (or C++ for that matter) are the main languages used today that can give you buffer overflow if used incorrectly, why are people letting programmers who have "never seen them before" work in these languages? It would seem a modicum of training might be needed to fill in the gap. Shouldn't employers who are worried about such things provide training in these areas if they need it? Oh, I see... It's all the contrac... uh, I mean employee's responsibility.
Asshole or misogynist, it doesn't matter. The behavior should be viewed as unacceptable. Fuck, do you go around telling people on the street that you're going to kill or rape them? And trying to shade the issue because someone used one negative term rather than the other, when no one will know what the actual motivation was, just gives cover for this obnoxious behavior. You just shouldn't fucking do that shit, mmmkay?
Plus, idiots like these are driving us towards the day when anonymity on the internet goes away. Do you want that? Because that's what it's coming to, boys and girls. So either act like adults and figure out a way to police yourselves in a reasonable way, or get locked down - the internet is now too important to the "normal" function of our society to allow a bunch of misogynists, assholes, or whatever to disrupt it. And the powers that be certainly won't let that happen. Defense of anyone who acts like this for any reason only makes things worse.
Well, gosh... Weren't you fine young nerds smart enough to see through this charade and not play? I guess not. Sounds to me like someone got his dick bent out of shape and is just making his whine bigger. Man up, pussies.
Yes, but there is common sense, isn't there? If you like going around offending people just because you can, you will probably be seen as an asshole with all the rights and privileges that entails, freedom of speech notwithstanding.
Freedom of speech is a right, not a mandate. And that freedom doesn't mean your speech won't have consequences to you. For example, I can tell my hostess that her soup sucked. After that, I wouldn't expect to be invited back (sorry, Mom...).
Slashdot Mirror
They were called actor-based programming systems. They came about in the mid-to-late 1960's and incorporated into languages in the early 1970's (look up Hewitt's work on Actors). Pros: Decentralized computational agents connected by message-passing can increase resilience in a system. Cons: Non-local flow of control and unknown state/functionality within remote computational agents (which always inadvertently leaks out) makes understanding what is actually happening in the system overall difficult, leading to problems in debugging; lack of state within systems (monads, which are a difficult concept for most programmers to fit their head around, notwithstanding) leads to extraneous message passing load, potentially killing performance.
So, TL;DR (OK, so I did read it, sue me...) and tells us stuff we knew fifty years ago. About par for the course.
Fine, the reactive document is a manifesto describing a set of architectural principles that supposedly has benefits in the current world. The agile document is a manifesto describing a set of project management principles that supposedly has benefit in the current world (although, in reality, it's twenty years old now and the people who are now promoting it are becoming just as rigid and annoying as the UML/SEI/PDP/heavy doc assholes they replaced). Conflating the two as related (other than in name) was incorrect. Not only was the agile manifesto, short, pithy, and to the point, the reactive manifesto is just another TL;DR page that looks like it hasn't had enough work by actual smart (as opposed to successful) people to be short. Does this help?
Frankly, we need more manifestos released more often. The good ones will be followed; the stupid ones will evaporate in time.
Christ on a shingle, what's up with the "Will it be a pointless venture?" You already answered that when you said you wouldn't be the next Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan. If that's your only limitation, then there's a lot of room between doing nothing and being in the top 100 recognized members of the pack.
And, even if it is a pointless venture, who cares? A person doesn't need to justify his choice of hobby and we all need our recreation time. Astronomy and astrophysics seems to be a place where an amateur could potentially still contribute - there's EM radiation coming down in a lot of different wavelength ranges and not a lot of coverage for what seems to be a very big sky. Sure, it'll be a lot of work, but what worthwhile isn't? Besides, you'll be entertained and you don't seem to have anything else better to do.
OK, let's put it this way - if you don't show up in uniform, you're sent home and don't get invited back to the party. The employer gives you a list of place(s) to buy your uniforms. How you pay for those is up to you. This happened at the first low wage job I had (as an orderly in a nursing home), as a construction worker (you couldn't show up in tennis shoes), and I'm pretty sure that's the case in almost any place in this country where low-wage employees are hired. And it's completely legal. So legal that you're allowed to write those off as a tax deduction. So, yeah, it's not "paying for a job" per se, but it does put a financial burden on people who are just starting one.
Yeah, but luckily you haven't told him the "2. ???" part of your strategy yet. So STFU quick, unless you want to be poor and not keep the "best" goats for yourself!
But if they are actually stupid enough to do that they'll have made an enemy of an economy much larger than theirs, their largest export market, a country they're heavily dependent on for the basic infrastructure of running a government...
I have no dog in this fight (not that it's not entertaining theatre), but I also know that capitalists have very few enemies they will not sell to. If they were willing to deal with tinpot Central American dictators, you know they'll have no issue whatsoever in dealing with the Scots. You're probably overestimating the actual level of dislike between Britain and Scotland, even in the face of divorce. And you're especially overestimating the dislike of bankers cozying up to whomever they can make a profitable deal with - sharks have no national loyalties.
That being said, if the Scots really wanted to piss off the British, they could apply to France to become a protectorate and then keep the nukes.
What happens to Scotty in this universe? Instead of engineering, will he go all Braveheart on the Southerners in the UK? My world is so confusing...
Fine, Wrong, why do we have doctors? After all, a bunch of sensors cameras and pressure monitors guiding a functional idiot could do the job if backed with the proper knowledge base. After all, it works so well with Comcast.
Be happy she's an ex-wife. Besides, one of my ex's sisters would have been fine for boinking, if not any sort of long-term thing. At least that's the only reason she'd be in my bed.
Because they don't need to succeed, they need to DISRUPT. And disrupt one of the largest and most entrenched institutions in the world - the higher education system, which has been around, adapting, and surviving since the mid-15'th century. Plus they have to do it with a minimum of money to pay for decent course materials. But it needs to DISRUPT! Simple success is not enough. Investors don't pay for success any more. You must DISRUPT the dominant paradigm or you're rubbish. Whether this is a problem with the education system or financial system can be decided by the casual observer.
This is what the idiots on the House science committee think is their most useful work to do at this time? Making space "safe" for mineral interests? Fuck, I can't believe that this is the most immediate concern in science (or even space, for that matter).
I can hear it now in Chair Lamar Smith's office: So what do we do today to look busy? I know, we'll have hearings on a symbolic bill that is unenforceable and will never get to the floor, let alone pass, but, since most people don't know that, it should be easy to spin it as about good American capitalists (yay!) getting that awful world government (boo!) and pesky things like the treaties we don't like (boo!) out of the way, so our good American capitalists (yay!) can make money (yay!) and create jobs (yay!). I'm pretty sure that's about how deep the analysis goes on the political side. Then there's just the money side with the Democratic congressman from the great state of Boeing providing bi-partisan cover.
Those idiots need to be voted out.
If I were to write a grant application on deconstructing the contents of this Slashdot post, I would hope the government would turn me down.
Don't worry, they would. Unless you (or some of your University's board members - more likely, since you're a scientist and not someone who actually did something useful like make money and donate it to politicians) were a personal friend of a senator. Then, you'd get your funding.
This data should be carried by the patient.
OK, you make sure it gets implanted in the patients so that they never leave home without it and they never lose it, otherwise the utility goes way down (although, if you're the kind of person who carries copies of all their medical records around with them now, I'm probably not going to convince you of this). Once you convince the general populace that the "Chip of the Beast" is acceptable, then you can ask for the information to be offline as it will then actually be available in the majority of patients. And, if you're thinking that a cell phone would make a fine repository for this data (and would usually be on you), I don't think my cell phone is any more secure than an encrypted online datastore, nor does everyone have one. And, if you're saying to give the patient a card with a chip to access medical service, see the whole "Chip of the Beast" thing above.
Every once in a while here on Slashdot, Someone posts something incredibly profound.
That, or incredibly horrifying or maybe clueless about the malleability of minds and time scales needed for even social change, let alone evolutionary change. The trouble is that it's really hard for me to tell in this case. I have a sneaking suspicion that the GP is essentially correct, but I know I'm not ready for that transition, nor are a lot of people. Not to mention that, even though we made our move from uni-celled to multi-celled creature, we still have not shown any sort of long-term survival advantage for this sort of creature, as uni-celled creatures are still around and, in fact, still out-perform us and our other multi-cellular brethren by almost any biological survival measure - longevity, ability to handle climatic extremes, total mass, etc. Multi-cellular life, although I'd hate to give up my own, is still a biological experiment that still has not proven itself over evolutionary time and could be destroyed in an eye-blink. So profound or stupid about probabilities? Who knows... The more profound something is, the more it can look like madness.
I guess I'm not much of a modern programmer. Although PL\I, FORTRAN, and BAL were the languages I used. And JCL... don't forget that... I also wrote a couple of RPG programs, but that was on an AS/400. Fun times.
i hope uk does not get the land of the stupid and of the walking whales like the us.
As an American, I resent that characterization - you didn't mention our gun-toting habits.
Well, they could if they could find one branded Ford. Their OEM batteries are built for them by Johnson Controls. I don't even know if they have a Ford logo on them from the factory. In any case, what would you sue them for? Failure to prevent electrical current flowing when a torturer is present? I see no way in which the battery was not working correctly. And, yes, even here in the US, it would be unlikely that anyone on a jury would buy an argument that either Ford or Johnson Controls were even minimally at fault - it would be as stupid as someone claiming that Ford was somehow to blame when terrorists use a Ford truck to drop a suicide bomber off somewhere.
Yup, and now we have higher pneumonia rates as a result. Better for the herd? Yup. For the individual patient? Well, maybe not quite as much.
It's a tricky problem - you don't want antibiotic-resistant strains proliferating, but you don't want patients to spread or die of easily treated diseases, either. Evolution, in this case, sucks.
Any reporter who has the words "National Security" or "Counterterrorism" in their title and who isn't actively investigating the wrongdoings of the national security apparatus, is in bed with the spooks. There's no way the security apparatchicks will grant someone looking into their interests a solid middle ground - you're either with them or against them. To think otherwise is foolish.
Any news organization that has one of these reporters are simply letting a snake into their newsroom. Dina Temple-Raston with NPR should be fired for her breathless and unquestioning reporting on high-tech gadgetry and "inside analysis" that's generated for her daily by the CIA, military intelligence, and the NSA. Fuck, from David Martin of CBS to Martha Raddatz of ABC to this print-press idiot, these people are worthless as reporters.
No-one has quite found the right solution for websites...
And they never will until folks get it through their heads that, separation of concerns notwithstanding, needing to learn more than two or three disparate languages to make any software system is a bad idea. Just because the concerns are separated doesn't mean syntax and computational models need to be. Right now, to write a reasonable web page, you need to know HTML, CSS, and Javascript at a minimum. Take that all the way to the backend and you're probably adding Java (or Clojure, or node.js - yes, that's still Javascript, sue me - if you want to be all "up to date") and SQL to the mix. And I haven't even finished adding in persistence and UI frameworks and templating languages.
Then you get the situation that there's such a proliferation of the ancillary technology that employers who see anything from their technology stack missing from your resume and assume that the H1B who's lied on his resume about it is better qualified. We are building our own coffins with these new tools.
Since assembly or C (or C++ for that matter) are the main languages used today that can give you buffer overflow if used incorrectly, why are people letting programmers who have "never seen them before" work in these languages? It would seem a modicum of training might be needed to fill in the gap. Shouldn't employers who are worried about such things provide training in these areas if they need it? Oh, I see... It's all the contrac... uh, I mean employee's responsibility.
Asshole or misogynist, it doesn't matter. The behavior should be viewed as unacceptable. Fuck, do you go around telling people on the street that you're going to kill or rape them? And trying to shade the issue because someone used one negative term rather than the other, when no one will know what the actual motivation was, just gives cover for this obnoxious behavior. You just shouldn't fucking do that shit, mmmkay?
Plus, idiots like these are driving us towards the day when anonymity on the internet goes away. Do you want that? Because that's what it's coming to, boys and girls. So either act like adults and figure out a way to police yourselves in a reasonable way, or get locked down - the internet is now too important to the "normal" function of our society to allow a bunch of misogynists, assholes, or whatever to disrupt it. And the powers that be certainly won't let that happen. Defense of anyone who acts like this for any reason only makes things worse.
Well, gosh... Weren't you fine young nerds smart enough to see through this charade and not play? I guess not. Sounds to me like someone got his dick bent out of shape and is just making his whine bigger. Man up, pussies.
Yes, but there is common sense, isn't there? If you like going around offending people just because you can, you will probably be seen as an asshole with all the rights and privileges that entails, freedom of speech notwithstanding.
Freedom of speech is a right, not a mandate. And that freedom doesn't mean your speech won't have consequences to you. For example, I can tell my hostess that her soup sucked. After that, I wouldn't expect to be invited back (sorry, Mom...).
Did somebody say ponies?
OMG!!!!11!!!