Thats not error prone. It's like claiming that C is more error COBOL because you might forget your semicolons (which in certain cases can actually cause runtime errors, but never mind that for now). Your program won't run if you screw up your indenting, just like it won't run if you don't type and "end" in Ruby. Further, your conjecture is contrary the experience of almost everyone who's used Python (anyone who's bothered to talk about it, anyway) so I'd be interested if you could back this up with some sort of meaningful statistic.
It was the first platform with a highly complete API set included in the core, it was the first dynamic web server technology that used a multithreaded model in addition to runtime-compiled code (bye-bye CGI), it was the first language with reflection designed into its core, and it was the first language to bring OOP, Virtual Machine, and cross-platform capabilities together into a workable package.
It wasn't any of these things (except maybe the first). However, it was the first well-marketed language/platform with all these capabilities. I'm still not sure how Java survived the transition from "applets will obselete the OS" to "It's really good for long running server processes", but that as much as anything else is one of it's "firsts" - lots of other languages never survived moving out of thier niche.
'm going to extrapolate that you are refering to the fact that the money isn't tied to a gold standard
Money isn't tied to *any* standard. A gold standard, by the way, is almost as arbitrary as a our current made up money.
Actually, our government did let us keep all of our money prior to the 16th ammendment. And we did just fine. In fact, we created one of the most successful, fastest growing countries in the world...and we did it all without a federal income tax.
I was about to point out how everything you said here was wrong in just about every way possible, then I noticed that you said "federal income tax". If your definition of "our government" is "the US federal government" then I'm pretty sure that there's not mcuh I can discuss with you.
Zip Codes are created soley by and for the USPS. It represents one "delivery bucket", and as far as I know it's one physical post office - for example, an office building I worked in in Manhattan had it's own zip code. The post office that delivers your mail is responsible for which zip code you get (and your zip code can change if/when the USPS reorganizes and relocats post offices). Also as far as I know, no agency or entity other than the USPS has any say in how they allocate zip codes (there was a flap in CA a few years ago when a bunch of people got moved out of the famous 90210 zip code).
People are more willing to accept lots of small taxes instead of one large tax. Roughly the same amount of money has to be recovered regardless of how it's done (although a single flat tax would certainly be a more efficent way of recovering it). People talk about money being taxed more than once like thats some kind of problem. It's not.
And of course theres the fact that this "money" of which much is spoken is actually just a share in a government run fantasy, with no intrinsic value (of course, you can argue up and down for years about intrinsic value, and taken to an extreme there's no such thing).
And that fantasy requires money to subsidise and operate. Yes, strange but true - if you had a system that "let[s] me keep ALL my money and spend it how I see fit", you wouldn't have "money" at all!
The OP is correct, it's just that he over-estimates criminals. Sure, your typical Oceans 11/Italian Job style master criminal is going to have a stable of legal plates associated with cars with provably innocent owners, in areas where they won't trip any duplicate alarms. But your average gas station robbing hoodlum doesn't. Everyone knows that cops can trace plates (even without this sort of flagging), but it's far from uncommon for people to rob gas stations in thier own cars, and then to drive them the next day like nothing happened. There are tons of reasons not to implement this, and tons of problems with it, but "it doesn't work" isn't one of them.
Or you could use your Administrator privledges to insert a file system driver hook (no log event) that refuses to write certain log entries.
Or use a kernel-level debugger to halt the log service (this happens outside the services framework and won't generate events) and edit the log there, or even redirect it's file handles elsewhere, or any number of things. There are other even more obscure things you can do, but they get progressively more difficult and awkward.
The Windows security model is powerful (much more so than it gets credit for on Slashdot), but it's not impenetrable. No general purpose OS is or can be
Visual Studio plugins are written as COM components and all the non-trivial bits will neccesarily be heavily intertwined with the VS com interfaces, especially the interesting parts like the editor. I also believe, but I'm not sure since it's been a while since I looked at it, that the license you have to agree to to publish VS extensions precludes open sourcing.
Intellisense in modern versions of Visual Studio vastly outstrip anything available for VI or emacs, at least for C++. Besides a vastly better and more intelligent engine than ctags, the ability to list & autocomplete as you're typing is a lot better than tab completion. If you supplement Intellisense with Visual Assist you've got the best code completion in the industry right now.
I don't know if VS is neccesarily faster than VI/emacs when you consider all the customization and macros and practice the long time user will have. On the other hand, VS absolutely has some features that no OSS editor/IDE/whatever can match, and for someone who hasn't spent 10 years memorizing keystrokes and customizing an emacs installtion, will absolutely be more productive.
The virus scanner and indexing service will normally be running under another account (SYSTEM, usually) so if this 3000 files number is from an audit log, it should be possible to screen out that activity. If it's from some indirect measure, maybe by analyzing the journals or something, it may not.
Book has less failure modes, cheap to produce, could be produced under an "open source" license free to distribute...
And can't be updated and don't provide any sort of communication capacity. This laptop can provide everything a book provides except toilet paper, but also more - like communication infrastructure via mesh networking. Handing out almanacs isn't education either - there needs to be a continuous communication effort. These laptops can provide some of the infrastructure for that. Not to mention (several) orders of magnitude more information than your 1000 page almanac holds. Of course a laptop isn't "education in a box". But it is a far, far more powerful tool than a book, or even a similiarly costing amount of books, would provide.
I'd say that you're incompetent with a barely adequate command of the English language? That you're totally unfamliar with the concept of technical definitions and that you enjoy making provocative comments just so you can get a cheap thrill out of people pointing out how stupid you are? Maybe that your pissant pet store is not the sole defining authority on the office workflow and document formats?
That is because in a lot of organizations the Legal and HR departmets are idiots who don't know anything about technology and won't listen to the people who do. You cannot guaranteee proper formatting with HTML, even with mshtml. If proper formatting is actually important to you you won't use HTML for that - you'll publish your documents as PDFs or similiar instead. People who write documents in Word, save them as HTML, and consider that "saving the formatting" because it looks right in IE don't actually care about saving formatting - they use it as an excuse for not doing things the right way.
True as far as it goes, but incomplete. Car companies are (at least) as much about branding as they are about technology, and like a lot of brand-based markets they do in fact try very hard to set trends as well as respond to them.
In your previous post, your assertion was that "but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things." and now it "anything that animals don't do is human". Which is it? Do they not exist as you first asserted, or do you simply dismiss them because you disagree with them as you are currently asserting?
I don't consider them to be usefull. If you read carefully, you will note that there are no inconsistencies in what I say. Maybe your language skills are lacking.
NO. Please do not read MY link, then attempt to comment on it as though you knew anything about it. Your previous assertion was that a case such a Genie does not exist, and now that I've shown you it does, you're rewriting your arguments AGAIN in a vain attempt to be right instead of learning you were wrong. Stop doing that.
I knew about Genie and similiar incidents. They aren't scientific studies, which is what I said didn't exist. If you're claiming that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn soley from Genie, then you're the one who should be learning instead of arguing.
We are not now, nor were we ever talking about intelligence. We are talking about language, and your insistence on equating the two is mildly amusing, in a "this guy is making this shit up as he goes along" type of way.
If you believe there is no correlation between language and intelligence, or between language use and intelligence, or even between communication and intelligence, then you're not someone who needs to be talking about *anything* on this topic. And I'm not responsible for whatever delusions you have about the topic.
Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist.
Such scales are defined as "anything that animals don't do is human". Genie didn't develop language and never learned, even with instruction and therapy, grammar beyond what signing chimpanzees can demonstrate, not that her case is scientific in any way.
There is no standard for measuring intelligence. There isn't even a useful scientific definition of the *word*. There are lots of attempts at categorizing and approximating it, every single one of which is subjective and has enormous margins of error and inconsistencies even when applied to regular, "normal" humans, much less when we attempt to apply the same principles to animals or feral humans. We can measure the distances between neutrons more accurately than we can even define human intelligence.
I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical.
Nobody has come up with a quantified definition of what human intelligence is, much less animal. Pretty much everything that is easy to test has been observed in animals, both in the wild and in the lab. For a long time it was tool usage, remember? And then it was creating tools, not using found objects, and now it's just "really complex tools that animals can't make". And since you can't do proper experiments on humans with any sort of ethical framework, and within any reasonable timeframe, we really don't know in any rigourous sense exactly how capable a human baby is of learning absent direction and intervention from adults.
So while I appreciate that you (and others) beleive they are learning "language" that belief stems from a too loose definition of what language is.
There are plenty of humans that aren't capable of learning grammar without instruction. For almost every question and "debunking" of ape speach, it hinges on a question that can't be answered for humans. Thats not to say that apes use language or that they are of equivilent intelligence to humans - they clearly do not (at least not to the level we do), but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things.
Re:Well lets try one ourselves shall we
on
Videogame Mythbusting
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm not sure why you think that anything you make up and/or pull out of your ass is very important. You commit every single sin you accuse the author of, without any proof that the author actually committed them. You have not one single concrete point or link to evidence here, and you dismiss evidence cited by the author with handwaving. Your assertions about the juvenile crime rate are especially egregious, because you claim that his statistics should be discounted because your made-up conditions might disagree!
Not realizing that the error message is *exactly* what I was looking for. An error message is *not* nothing
God, yes.
"Nothing happens when I check my email."
"Do you get an error message when you try it?"
"There was some dialog on the screen, yeah."
"Grr. What did it say?"
"Oh, I didn't read it"
Aaaarrgggh.
To be perfectly honest I have no idea if it's something anyone ever really did or not, althought I could see how it might be a real technical solution, or a social one. It's something Radar from MASH did.
If you use Ctrl+L to bring up the "type your filename" entry you can type in dot-names and enter them that way. As long as we're dissing on Gnome, the fact that there is *no way whatsoever* to discover the Ctrl+L shortcut is a massive weakness.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats not error prone. It's like claiming that C is more error COBOL because you might forget your semicolons (which in certain cases can actually cause runtime errors, but never mind that for now). Your program won't run if you screw up your indenting, just like it won't run if you don't type and "end" in Ruby. Further, your conjecture is contrary the experience of almost everyone who's used Python (anyone who's bothered to talk about it, anyway) so I'd be interested if you could back this up with some sort of meaningful statistic.
It wasn't any of these things (except maybe the first). However, it was the first well-marketed language/platform with all these capabilities. I'm still not sure how Java survived the transition from "applets will obselete the OS" to "It's really good for long running server processes", but that as much as anything else is one of it's "firsts" - lots of other languages never survived moving out of thier niche.
Money isn't tied to *any* standard. A gold standard, by the way, is almost as arbitrary as a our current made up money.
Actually, our government did let us keep all of our money prior to the 16th ammendment. And we did just fine. In fact, we created one of the most successful, fastest growing countries in the world...and we did it all without a federal income tax.
I was about to point out how everything you said here was wrong in just about every way possible, then I noticed that you said "federal income tax". If your definition of "our government" is "the US federal government" then I'm pretty sure that there's not mcuh I can discuss with you.
People are more willing to accept lots of small taxes instead of one large tax. Roughly the same amount of money has to be recovered regardless of how it's done (although a single flat tax would certainly be a more efficent way of recovering it). People talk about money being taxed more than once like thats some kind of problem. It's not.
And that fantasy requires money to subsidise and operate. Yes, strange but true - if you had a system that "let[s] me keep ALL my money and spend it how I see fit", you wouldn't have "money" at all!
The OP is correct, it's just that he over-estimates criminals. Sure, your typical Oceans 11/Italian Job style master criminal is going to have a stable of legal plates associated with cars with provably innocent owners, in areas where they won't trip any duplicate alarms. But your average gas station robbing hoodlum doesn't. Everyone knows that cops can trace plates (even without this sort of flagging), but it's far from uncommon for people to rob gas stations in thier own cars, and then to drive them the next day like nothing happened. There are tons of reasons not to implement this, and tons of problems with it, but "it doesn't work" isn't one of them.
Shatner also has answered a Slashdot interview, and he's much more famous than Wil ever will be (but no offense to Wil, cause he's way cooler).
Microsoft is the one who gets to decide what XP Home is and whether or not you can call something that. So yes, they can.
Or use a kernel-level debugger to halt the log service (this happens outside the services framework and won't generate events) and edit the log there, or even redirect it's file handles elsewhere, or any number of things. There are other even more obscure things you can do, but they get progressively more difficult and awkward.
The Windows security model is powerful (much more so than it gets credit for on Slashdot), but it's not impenetrable. No general purpose OS is or can be
PyDev has all of that except for the GUI builder, which would depend on what graphical toolkit you're using.
Visual Studio plugins are written as COM components and all the non-trivial bits will neccesarily be heavily intertwined with the VS com interfaces, especially the interesting parts like the editor. I also believe, but I'm not sure since it's been a while since I looked at it, that the license you have to agree to to publish VS extensions precludes open sourcing.
I don't know if VS is neccesarily faster than VI/emacs when you consider all the customization and macros and practice the long time user will have. On the other hand, VS absolutely has some features that no OSS editor/IDE/whatever can match, and for someone who hasn't spent 10 years memorizing keystrokes and customizing an emacs installtion, will absolutely be more productive.
The virus scanner and indexing service will normally be running under another account (SYSTEM, usually) so if this 3000 files number is from an audit log, it should be possible to screen out that activity. If it's from some indirect measure, maybe by analyzing the journals or something, it may not.
And can't be updated and don't provide any sort of communication capacity. This laptop can provide everything a book provides except toilet paper, but also more - like communication infrastructure via mesh networking. Handing out almanacs isn't education either - there needs to be a continuous communication effort. These laptops can provide some of the infrastructure for that. Not to mention (several) orders of magnitude more information than your 1000 page almanac holds. Of course a laptop isn't "education in a box". But it is a far, far more powerful tool than a book, or even a similiarly costing amount of books, would provide.
I'd say that you're incompetent with a barely adequate command of the English language? That you're totally unfamliar with the concept of technical definitions and that you enjoy making provocative comments just so you can get a cheap thrill out of people pointing out how stupid you are? Maybe that your pissant pet store is not the sole defining authority on the office workflow and document formats?
That is because in a lot of organizations the Legal and HR departmets are idiots who don't know anything about technology and won't listen to the people who do. You cannot guaranteee proper formatting with HTML, even with mshtml. If proper formatting is actually important to you you won't use HTML for that - you'll publish your documents as PDFs or similiar instead. People who write documents in Word, save them as HTML, and consider that "saving the formatting" because it looks right in IE don't actually care about saving formatting - they use it as an excuse for not doing things the right way.
True as far as it goes, but incomplete. Car companies are (at least) as much about branding as they are about technology, and like a lot of brand-based markets they do in fact try very hard to set trends as well as respond to them.
I don't consider them to be usefull. If you read carefully, you will note that there are no inconsistencies in what I say. Maybe your language skills are lacking.
NO. Please do not read MY link, then attempt to comment on it as though you knew anything about it. Your previous assertion was that a case such a Genie does not exist, and now that I've shown you it does, you're rewriting your arguments AGAIN in a vain attempt to be right instead of learning you were wrong. Stop doing that.
I knew about Genie and similiar incidents. They aren't scientific studies, which is what I said didn't exist. If you're claiming that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn soley from Genie, then you're the one who should be learning instead of arguing.
We are not now, nor were we ever talking about intelligence. We are talking about language, and your insistence on equating the two is mildly amusing, in a "this guy is making this shit up as he goes along" type of way.
If you believe there is no correlation between language and intelligence, or between language use and intelligence, or even between communication and intelligence, then you're not someone who needs to be talking about *anything* on this topic. And I'm not responsible for whatever delusions you have about the topic.
Such scales are defined as "anything that animals don't do is human". Genie didn't develop language and never learned, even with instruction and therapy, grammar beyond what signing chimpanzees can demonstrate, not that her case is scientific in any way.
There is no standard for measuring intelligence. There isn't even a useful scientific definition of the *word*. There are lots of attempts at categorizing and approximating it, every single one of which is subjective and has enormous margins of error and inconsistencies even when applied to regular, "normal" humans, much less when we attempt to apply the same principles to animals or feral humans. We can measure the distances between neutrons more accurately than we can even define human intelligence.
Nobody has come up with a quantified definition of what human intelligence is, much less animal. Pretty much everything that is easy to test has been observed in animals, both in the wild and in the lab. For a long time it was tool usage, remember? And then it was creating tools, not using found objects, and now it's just "really complex tools that animals can't make". And since you can't do proper experiments on humans with any sort of ethical framework, and within any reasonable timeframe, we really don't know in any rigourous sense exactly how capable a human baby is of learning absent direction and intervention from adults.
So while I appreciate that you (and others) beleive they are learning "language" that belief stems from a too loose definition of what language is.
There are plenty of humans that aren't capable of learning grammar without instruction. For almost every question and "debunking" of ape speach, it hinges on a question that can't be answered for humans. Thats not to say that apes use language or that they are of equivilent intelligence to humans - they clearly do not (at least not to the level we do), but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things.
I'm not sure why you think that anything you make up and/or pull out of your ass is very important. You commit every single sin you accuse the author of, without any proof that the author actually committed them. You have not one single concrete point or link to evidence here, and you dismiss evidence cited by the author with handwaving. Your assertions about the juvenile crime rate are especially egregious, because you claim that his statistics should be discounted because your made-up conditions might disagree!
God, yes.
"Nothing happens when I check my email."
"Do you get an error message when you try it?"
"There was some dialog on the screen, yeah."
"Grr. What did it say?"
"Oh, I didn't read it"
Aaaarrgggh.
To be perfectly honest I have no idea if it's something anyone ever really did or not, althought I could see how it might be a real technical solution, or a social one. It's something Radar from MASH did.
If you use Ctrl+L to bring up the "type your filename" entry you can type in dot-names and enter them that way. As long as we're dissing on Gnome, the fact that there is *no way whatsoever* to discover the Ctrl+L shortcut is a massive weakness.