I'm sure the design parameters required it to be basically an enhanced Objective-C. Otherwise the entire Cocoa stack and all the libraries would need re-writing from scratch, and that ain't easy. So yeah, it's a bit pointless to compare it to other stuff.
I haven't checked, but its a great idea to have override as a mandatory descriptor (If it is). Java now has @Override, but code quality suffers from it not being compulsory, leading later to subtle bugs. As for func and let, I imagine it makes it easier to make a scripting language to have less ambiguity about what you are trying to declare up front. I mean, without func, would the line "area()" be the start of a declaration, or a call to a function? Sure, you could wait for a semi-colon to finalise the decision, but then you've got to have semi-colons.
Errrm, how does this announcement make it better or worse? Were you using Objective-C for your windows apps? This is just the old Objective-C brought into the 21 century. It doesn't really change the compatibility landscape.
It doesn't seem likely that even the NSA could get a court order, when there doesn't actually exist any "master key" that would benefit them. This isn't like other cases where some central authority has the power to decrypt stuff if only they are willing to hand over the master key. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the court would order them to deliberately break the distributed code for the NSA's benefit.
If Wikipedia is statistically as accurate as Britannica, then that remains the case regardless of its "editability". It hardly matters if you read an error in Britannica that has been there for 10 years, or one that just appeared 3 seconds ago
I disagreed with you. There are not two categories of scientific knowledge, facts and theories. There is only one category with varying levels of certainty. Unless you can be sure the pan dimensional mice don't exist, you can't say it isn't true. All you can say is there is no evidence for that. You can't be sure if evidence for something similarly outlandish might appear one day. Lots of things accepted in science today would have been considered magic a hundred years ago.
I think micro and macro evolution are commonly understood terms. In micro evolution various traits that were basically already existent in the gene pool become dominant. Like the peppered moths in the industrial evolution. Probably the gene for dark moths was already there, it just came to dominate in the face of soot. In macro evolution a whole new adaption comes into existence. One that never existed before. Both are forms of evolution, but the mechanism is quite different.
Do you mean to say that evolution isn't directed by mice which are merely the protrusion into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan- dimensional beings who, unbeknownst to the human race, are the most intelligent species on the planet, and who had the earth constructed as a giant computer to find the meaning of life with the beings on earth part of the computing matrix itself? That's what the Hitchhikers guide says.
I'm being a bit tongue in cheek sure, but the point is, there is always a different explanation for what you observe than the most obvious one, no matter how apparently certain you are about the meaning of your observations. Observations are just that - observations. No observation rises to the level of being fact. Some just present more overwhelming evidence for a particular view than others.
"there is a very significant difference between "I believe X because recognized X experts suggest that X is the best available theory, given their understanding of the data" and "I believe X because $HOLY_BOOK says so."
I don't know that the difference is as epistemologically different as you make out. You believe an expert because he perhaps witnessed some experiment or gathered certain pieces of evidence, and you believe that he did so. You believe $HOLY_BOOK because it purports to be an eyewitnesses saying that such and such events took place and he witnessed it.
Technically it is "a" scientific explanation, not "the" explanation. It may be the most prominent, most widely accepted etc etc. But there is no such thing as "the" explanation for anything, unless there is literally nobody who disagrees. There are a number of sub-theories within evolution for a start. "The" explanation for continents in the 19th century repudiated continental drift as bunkum. Everything is tentative.
Energy efficiency and good ventilation are pretty much two concepts at odds. Preventing air circulation with the outside combined with insulation is one of the two most important ways to make a building energy efficient. The other important method is thermal mass. i.e having the building full of concrete and brick, which is also at odds with temporary structures. If you have enough thermal mass, you can afford a bit more ventilation without losing all the heat instantly.
So as far as I see, this is pie in the sky. You'll have to build it permanent. If its there for decades, is it really temporary anyway?
bittorrent is not a scheme for file search. It's a data transfer protocol. How you find torrents is not within the realm of bit torrent. If your aim is to suck down huge amounts of data, there is no competitor.
"If you're a great programmer, then you will write great code in any language. The language is less important than the skill of the person using it."
This is commonly claimed, but I'm damned if I could ever do anything elegant in perl. I've done lovely stuff in Java, but none of it is as great as what I did in scheme. The right language can make a good programmer better and a better programmer great.
I suppose its symptomatic of the generation that we can't think about the logistics of a real lunar colony until we figure out how they would get their internet porn.
If you keep private copies and shut up about it, no harm no foul. But if you release the photos, then you are in trouble.
The bigger problem with this ruling is if the photos make their way into the public domain, how to prove it was you who released them, and when you released them. By the time someone withdraws their consent formally, the damage will already be done.
Great for porn stars if you can withdraw your consent if the photo is smutty. Wait for the DVD to be released, then withdraw your consent until you get a bigger slice of the pie.
So... it took 10 years for the legal system to get to this point, and even now its only over because someone gave up, not because we had judgement? Amazing.
Yes, as Orwell observed, if you remove the vocabulary necessary to commit thought-crime, then thought-crime becomes impossible. In this case GM doesn't want to be convicted of actual crime.
Assuming there is such a right when the data is "'inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive", who exactly gets to decide? If you've got to fight it out through 3 courts to get a final ruling on whether a particular situation conforms to these tests, then its not particularly practical for most people to take advantage of it.
I always assumed it was something to do with losing energy as the microwaves penetrated the substance, and I don't see how this explanation really changes that. After all, when the pocket comes out of the freezer it is ALL frozen. OK, so frozen stuff doesn't microwave easily, but then why does the outside heat first? My intuitive thought that the microwaves don't penetrate as well seems unrefuted.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the design parameters required it to be basically an enhanced Objective-C. Otherwise the entire Cocoa stack and all the libraries would need re-writing from scratch, and that ain't easy. So yeah, it's a bit pointless to compare it to other stuff.
I haven't checked, but its a great idea to have override as a mandatory descriptor (If it is). Java now has @Override, but code quality suffers from it not being compulsory, leading later to subtle bugs. As for func and let, I imagine it makes it easier to make a scripting language to have less ambiguity about what you are trying to declare up front. I mean, without func, would the line "area()" be the start of a declaration, or a call to a function? Sure, you could wait for a semi-colon to finalise the decision, but then you've got to have semi-colons.
Errrm, how does this announcement make it better or worse? Were you using Objective-C for your windows apps? This is just the old Objective-C brought into the 21 century. It doesn't really change the compatibility landscape.
It doesn't seem likely that even the NSA could get a court order, when there doesn't actually exist any "master key" that would benefit them. This isn't like other cases where some central authority has the power to decrypt stuff if only they are willing to hand over the master key. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the court would order them to deliberately break the distributed code for the NSA's benefit.
If Wikipedia is statistically as accurate as Britannica, then that remains the case regardless of its "editability". It hardly matters if you read an error in Britannica that has been there for 10 years, or one that just appeared 3 seconds ago
I disagreed with you. There are not two categories of scientific knowledge, facts and theories. There is only one category with varying levels of certainty. Unless you can be sure the pan dimensional mice don't exist, you can't say it isn't true. All you can say is there is no evidence for that. You can't be sure if evidence for something similarly outlandish might appear one day. Lots of things accepted in science today would have been considered magic a hundred years ago.
I think micro and macro evolution are commonly understood terms. In micro evolution various traits that were basically already existent in the gene pool become dominant. Like the peppered moths in the industrial evolution. Probably the gene for dark moths was already there, it just came to dominate in the face of soot. In macro evolution a whole new adaption comes into existence. One that never existed before. Both are forms of evolution, but the mechanism is quite different.
Do you mean to say that evolution isn't directed by mice which are merely the protrusion into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan- dimensional beings who, unbeknownst to the human race, are the most intelligent species on the planet, and who had the earth constructed as a giant computer to find the meaning of life with the beings on earth part of the computing matrix itself? That's what the Hitchhikers guide says.
I'm being a bit tongue in cheek sure, but the point is, there is always a different explanation for what you observe than the most obvious one, no matter how apparently certain you are about the meaning of your observations. Observations are just that - observations. No observation rises to the level of being fact. Some just present more overwhelming evidence for a particular view than others.
"there is a very significant difference between "I believe X because recognized X experts suggest that X is the best available theory, given their understanding of the data" and "I believe X because $HOLY_BOOK says so."
I don't know that the difference is as epistemologically different as you make out. You believe an expert because he perhaps witnessed some experiment or gathered certain pieces of evidence, and you believe that he did so. You believe $HOLY_BOOK because it purports to be an eyewitnesses saying that such and such events took place and he witnessed it.
Technically it is "a" scientific explanation, not "the" explanation. It may be the most prominent, most widely accepted etc etc. But there is no such thing as "the" explanation for anything, unless there is literally nobody who disagrees. There are a number of sub-theories within evolution for a start. "The" explanation for continents in the 19th century repudiated continental drift as bunkum. Everything is tentative.
Energy efficiency and good ventilation are pretty much two concepts at odds. Preventing air circulation with the outside combined with insulation is one of the two most important ways to make a building energy efficient. The other important method is thermal mass. i.e having the building full of concrete and brick, which is also at odds with temporary structures. If you have enough thermal mass, you can afford a bit more ventilation without losing all the heat instantly.
So as far as I see, this is pie in the sky. You'll have to build it permanent. If its there for decades, is it really temporary anyway?
Why, were they planning the flush the nuclear waste?
bittorrent is not a scheme for file search. It's a data transfer protocol. How you find torrents is not within the realm of bit torrent. If your aim is to suck down huge amounts of data, there is no competitor.
Usually I think of lower figures as better. Especially in the UK with litres / 100km.
Good to know that touch works with Ubuntu, but I doubt it has a touch friendly set of apps like Metro.
"If you're a great programmer, then you will write great code in any language. The language is less important than the skill of the person using it."
This is commonly claimed, but I'm damned if I could ever do anything elegant in perl. I've done lovely stuff in Java, but none of it is as great as what I did in scheme. The right language can make a good programmer better and a better programmer great.
We have a lunar colony? Who knew?
I suppose its symptomatic of the generation that we can't think about the logistics of a real lunar colony until we figure out how they would get their internet porn.
By the sound of it, the issue is not the relationship, the issue is that your can withdraw consent for any smutty photo.
If you keep private copies and shut up about it, no harm no foul. But if you release the photos, then you are in trouble.
The bigger problem with this ruling is if the photos make their way into the public domain, how to prove it was you who released them, and when you released them. By the time someone withdraws their consent formally, the damage will already be done.
Great for porn stars if you can withdraw your consent if the photo is smutty. Wait for the DVD to be released, then withdraw your consent until you get a bigger slice of the pie.
So... it took 10 years for the legal system to get to this point, and even now its only over because someone gave up, not because we had judgement? Amazing.
Yes, as Orwell observed, if you remove the vocabulary necessary to commit thought-crime, then thought-crime becomes impossible. In this case GM doesn't want to be convicted of actual crime.
They need to be shown how to steal the legal way.
Assuming there is such a right when the data is "'inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive", who exactly gets to decide? If you've got to fight it out through 3 courts to get a final ruling on whether a particular situation conforms to these tests, then its not particularly practical for most people to take advantage of it.
I always assumed it was something to do with losing energy as the microwaves penetrated the substance, and I don't see how this explanation really changes that. After all, when the pocket comes out of the freezer it is ALL frozen. OK, so frozen stuff doesn't microwave easily, but then why does the outside heat first? My intuitive thought that the microwaves don't penetrate as well seems unrefuted.