Exactly. But maybe not because of the reason you meant. They would pass it, because they either 1. are all uninformed at the same level (I would have said that this is unlikely, but then again, this may be additionally true.) 2. or have a different plan and motivation than what we expect them to have anyway. (Very likely, as we already accepted the criminal action of corruption as normal, by giving it the euphemistic name "lobbying" and then looking away even further,)
I'd like to note, that your comment contains no arguments and therefore does not disagree with my post. You only attacked the person. Not the arguments itself. (Have you read and understood them?)
But I would like to hear your arguments on why being *too correct/proper* is something bad anyway, because I think there is no such thing.
Then again I could follow your style and say, that you are probably an American. From the land where intelligence is see as a negative quality and a probable future president is actually *criticized* for being in intellectual.
But I know that you can't argue with an idiot, because first he'll drag you down to his level (what would have happened if I really had meant the last argument to be serious), and then they'll beat you with experience (at that low level).
Oh, what a great argument you have! Have you actually read past the first sentence of my post and discovered the very valid arguments? Or is it you that is an idiot?:P
There are two reasons for someone deleting something: 1. He disagrees. 2. He thinks it's not relevant.
In both cases, they could create a common base by exchanging their knowledge, and then use the same rules of logic to come to the same solution.
But there are always ignorant and stubborn people that you can not reason with, because they ignore knowledge or the rules of logic, because it would endanger their reality too much, for them to cope with it. They base the rules for relevance an correctness solely on their own incomplete reality.
And don't be fooled by references. They do not guarantee correctness. They can only be used as a part of the knowledge base for reasoning. But they can be wrong too.
This means that we would have to enforce a graph of logical deduction for every statement in a Wikipedia article, and structure the whole documents and knowledge in that way. Unfortunately this is impossible, for the obvious reason that we do not have such a complete knowledge. And even if we could create such a graph it would be incredibly much more work. (It would NOT even be a tree. It would be an ontologic net.)
But what's left if we do not try to create complete graphs? Relative points of view, based on the state of the thinking entities, which is the result of their specific lives. Notice the plural.
Here the solution is much more simple, and goes like this: - There are many versions of an article. - A POV is defined by a specific choice for these versions, - and if no choice is made, inherit it from another (base-)POV. - A user can freely select a POV and create his own one. - His view is created in the same way as cascading style sheets (CSS) select the rules: By cascadation until a version is found. Of course, this is not an optimal solution. But I think it's the only realistic one. (If you have a better / more advanced one, *please* tell me!:D)
Now there's an important thing that's playing in the background: This solution looks like it would support bullshit like creationism, because of course someone could create a POV for it. But would disallowing it change their opinions? Very unlikely. So just let them do whatever they want. But keep them separate from you / your group / your POV. This is exactly what my solution tries to do. "I would even go as far" as to say that everyone has the right to think as he pleases, as long as he's not hurting someone (by the definition of that someone). Unfortunately we live in a world, where it is expected that only one thing can be correct everywhere. Ignoring the relativity of things (the one men's hot it he other woman's cold;). Hence the current structure and problems with Wikipedia.
I'm sorry, but are you retarded or something? Nothing? Really? So you either think that it is impossible that there can be a bill that everyone in there supports, or you think that if they would vote like that, none of the bills they create nowadays would pass?
The first one is obviously wrong because if you disagree, you exchange information so that you have the same level of information, and then logically, come to the same conclusion. And about the second one: In such a world, nobody would have the heart to come up with such a bullshit of a bill in the first place.
"Every time the economy realizes that the share market is imaginary money, we have a crash. But then they forget it again." This was proven many many times my economy scientists (or how you call them in the USA).
I don't believe in imaginary money. And neither should you.:)
Stock markets trading real goods are another thing.
How about pushing every non-monad trough a "monadizer" and then generalizing on handling monads only?;)
But you are right. It's realistic, that you can't handle something unpredictable and timing-dependent in the same way than the completely deterministic rest of the program. If you assume non-deterministic behavior, of course you can generalize it.
Well, considering that Wii games lead the charts month for month (see Gamasutra for stats), I say the only reason Microsoft and Sony survive, is because of the large pile of cash backing them.
But I know from internal sources, that Sony is in fact in a near-death (shall I say "zombie"?) state for at least the last five years. One unlucky thing more could bring the whole company to it's knees. And for Microsoft. Have you seen what their stock was worth once and what it's worth now?
No. It's not because of a huge lib. It's because code can be so much more generic than in other languages. And that's the biggest point/plus in Haskell. You don't have to write a new for loop for everything. Even the for loop is abstracted (map, fold, zipWith,...). And this works with everything. I have yet to find something that's not generalizable in Haskell,
Your 4GL claim turns out to either be true for all languages with a compiler or the Haskell compiler is just an abstraction you do *once* instead of reinventing it every time and using it in a crude and ugly way, like in C or similar languages,
Your real problem with Haskell is that it is more complex per written token, and so you have to think more per token. Most people seem to generate some inner fear for things they don't understand as good as they expect. And that's the base of all your motivation to find reasons why you dislike Haskell. Of course you could simplify it, and get something like Python. But this is a bad idea on the long run, because then nature will only create bigger idiots. It's better to wise up a bit, because what you get then, is really really nice!
P.S.: I once tried to design the "perfect language". I stopped as soon as I learned Haskell, because it was not only extremely similar to what I had created myself, but even much better.
Which on of the following is that:
* National Partnership for Reinventing Government under the Clinton administration in the United States
* Nevada Public Radio
* Non-photorealistic rendering, a computer graphics rendering technique that does not aim toward photorealism
* North Pennsylvania Railroad
* Nuclear posture review, the occasional assessment and planning taken by the United States of its strategies and tactics for fighting a nuclear war
* Nepalese rupee, the ISO 4217 code for the currency of Nepal
* Noise Power Ratio, a telecommunications term, referring to a type of Signal-noise ratio
* NPR, the AAR reporting mark for Northern Plains Railroad in the northern United States
* Non-processor request, an operation on the Unibus computer system bus
* NPR, call sign for Napier Airport in New Zealand
* nPr, a representation of the mathematics concept permutation
You miss the point that computers are *way* more complex than anything else in common use.
There may be a time where they "just work" for the non-techies. But they "just work" already right now for me.
Instead of dumbing them down so even bigger idiots can exist, I think they should use their brains for once, or not fail at using a machine that they don't understand.
The point of this is, that if you dumb them down, you lose the power of (fully/really) using a computer.
The best example is the huge comfort boost I got from just being able to create the "glue" parts between the applications I use, when I switched to (Gentoo) Linux. (The point here is not the problems with Gentoo, but that I had to learn the internal stuff.) I finally understood the OS.
I have small scrips and hooks everywhere that finally make my life easier as computer salesman promised me for the decades where I did not really understand the computer.
An open OS, shell scripting (maybe not in bash:), DBUS, Firefox add-ons, Greasemonkey... those are miletones on way we should follow. It's efficient, high-level, and you can quickly come up with something basic and then let it grow.
There should be a computer license that requires you to be able to script the "glue" and understand the system. (= Understanding the most basic and global concepts. Not learning every detail by heart.)
Have you actually tried to be tow seconds behind someone on a city road? There's *always* someone who gets between you. Then you slow down. Then another one gets in between you... and so on. There is no way to ever put two seconds of free room in front of you if you're not on a nearly empty road (like a highway at night or a road in the middle of nowhere).
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. But maybe not because of the reason you meant.
They would pass it, because they either
1. are all uninformed at the same level (I would have said that this is unlikely, but then again, this may be additionally true.)
2. or have a different plan and motivation than what we expect them to have anyway. (Very likely, as we already accepted the criminal action of corruption as normal, by giving it the euphemistic name "lobbying" and then looking away even further,)
I'd like to note, that your comment contains no arguments and therefore does not disagree with my post.
You only attacked the person. Not the arguments itself. (Have you read and understood them?)
But I would like to hear your arguments on why being *too correct/proper* is something bad anyway, because I think there is no such thing.
Then again I could follow your style and say, that you are probably an American. From the land where intelligence is see as a negative quality and a probable future president is actually *criticized* for being in intellectual.
But I know that you can't argue with an idiot, because first he'll drag you down to his level (what would have happened if I really had meant the last argument to be serious), and then they'll beat you with experience (at that low level).
Oh, what a great argument you have! :P
Have you actually read past the first sentence of my post and discovered the very valid arguments?
Or is it you that is an idiot?
There are two reasons for someone deleting something:
1. He disagrees.
2. He thinks it's not relevant.
In both cases, they could create a common base by exchanging their knowledge, and then use the same rules of logic to come to the same solution.
But there are always ignorant and stubborn people that you can not reason with, because they ignore knowledge or the rules of logic, because it would endanger their reality too much, for them to cope with it. They base the rules for relevance an correctness solely on their own incomplete reality.
And don't be fooled by references. They do not guarantee correctness. They can only be used as a part of the knowledge base for reasoning. But they can be wrong too.
This means that we would have to enforce a graph of logical deduction for every statement in a Wikipedia article, and structure the whole documents and knowledge in that way.
Unfortunately this is impossible, for the obvious reason that we do not have such a complete knowledge. And even if we could create such a graph it would be incredibly much more work. (It would NOT even be a tree. It would be an ontologic net.)
But what's left if we do not try to create complete graphs?
Relative points of view, based on the state of the thinking entities, which is the result of their specific lives.
Notice the plural.
Here the solution is much more simple, and goes like this: :D)
- There are many versions of an article.
- A POV is defined by a specific choice for these versions,
- and if no choice is made, inherit it from another (base-)POV.
- A user can freely select a POV and create his own one.
- His view is created in the same way as cascading style sheets (CSS) select the rules: By cascadation until a version is found.
Of course, this is not an optimal solution. But I think it's the only realistic one. (If you have a better / more advanced one, *please* tell me!
Now there's an important thing that's playing in the background: ;).
This solution looks like it would support bullshit like creationism, because of course someone could create a POV for it.
But would disallowing it change their opinions? Very unlikely. So just let them do whatever they want. But keep them separate from you / your group / your POV.
This is exactly what my solution tries to do.
"I would even go as far" as to say that everyone has the right to think as he pleases, as long as he's not hurting someone (by the definition of that someone).
Unfortunately we live in a world, where it is expected that only one thing can be correct everywhere. Ignoring the relativity of things (the one men's hot it he other woman's cold
Hence the current structure and problems with Wikipedia.
I'm sorry, but are you retarded or something?
Nothing? Really? So you either think that it is impossible that there can be a bill that everyone in there supports, or you think that if they would vote like that, none of the bills they create nowadays would pass?
The first one is obviously wrong because if you disagree, you exchange information so that you have the same level of information, and then logically, come to the same conclusion.
And about the second one: In such a world, nobody would have the heart to come up with such a bullshit of a bill in the first place.
"Every time the economy realizes that the share market is imaginary money, we have a crash. But then they forget it again."
This was proven many many times my economy scientists (or how you call them in the USA).
I don't believe in imaginary money. And neither should you. :)
Stock markets trading real goods are another thing.
How about pushing every non-monad trough a "monadizer" and then generalizing on handling monads only? ;)
But you are right. It's realistic, that you can't handle something unpredictable and timing-dependent in the same way than the completely deterministic rest of the program. If you assume non-deterministic behavior, of course you can generalize it.
Aahh... I love Haskell... :D
Hmm... lol. You seem to be right. But you really make me think. There must be a way... There must... ;))
He does go out of business. Thereby making the world a better place. :D
Well, considering that Wii games lead the charts month for month (see Gamasutra for stats), I say the only reason Microsoft and Sony survive, is because of the large pile of cash backing them.
But I know from internal sources, that Sony is in fact in a near-death (shall I say "zombie"?) state for at least the last five years. One unlucky thing more could bring the whole company to it's knees.
And for Microsoft. Have you seen what their stock was worth once and what it's worth now?
No. It's not because of a huge lib. It's because code can be so much more generic than in other languages. And that's the biggest point/plus in Haskell. You don't have to write a new for loop for everything. Even the for loop is abstracted (map, fold, zipWith, ...). And this works with everything. I have yet to find something that's not generalizable in Haskell,
Your 4GL claim turns out to either be true for all languages with a compiler or
the Haskell compiler is just an abstraction you do *once* instead of reinventing it every time and using it in a crude and ugly way, like in C or similar languages,
Your real problem with Haskell is that it is more complex per written token, and so you have to think more per token. Most people seem to generate some inner fear for things they don't understand as good as they expect. And that's the base of all your motivation to find reasons why you dislike Haskell.
Of course you could simplify it, and get something like Python. But this is a bad idea on the long run, because then nature will only create bigger idiots. It's better to wise up a bit, because what you get then, is really really nice!
P.S.: I once tried to design the "perfect language". I stopped as soon as I learned Haskell, because it was not only extremely similar to what I had created myself, but even much better.
It already is. It's called VRML. And in the typical, retarded way, it's ultraverbose XML instead of a proper binary format like EBML.
Did anyone else read that as:
Asus Ships
Cracking
Software on Recovery DVD
Toooot...toooot... here comes the naval hacker fleet!
(I wonder if their ancestors were pirates...)
How blind can some people be???
I previewed it. Didn't help tough. I was too quick. :D
Which on of the following is that:
* National Partnership for Reinventing Government under the Clinton administration in the United States
* Nevada Public Radio
* Non-photorealistic rendering, a computer graphics rendering technique that does not aim toward photorealism
* North Pennsylvania Railroad
* Nuclear posture review, the occasional assessment and planning taken by the United States of its strategies and tactics for fighting a nuclear war
* Nepalese rupee, the ISO 4217 code for the currency of Nepal
* Noise Power Ratio, a telecommunications term, referring to a type of Signal-noise ratio
* NPR, the AAR reporting mark for Northern Plains Railroad in the northern United States
* Non-processor request, an operation on the Unibus computer system bus
* NPR, call sign for Napier Airport in New Zealand
* nPr, a representation of the mathematics concept permutation
*hangs his head in shame*
Please pay no attention to my typos:
- "or not fail" = "or fail"
- "salesman" = salesmen"
- "miletones" = "mileStones"
I'm sorry... and hope my comment is still appreciated. :)
Of course, what I meant was: "OR FAIL at using a machine that they don't understand."
You miss the point that computers are *way* more complex than anything else in common use.
There may be a time where they "just work" for the non-techies. But they "just work" already right now for me.
Instead of dumbing them down so even bigger idiots can exist, I think they should use their brains for once, or not fail at using a machine that they don't understand.
The point of this is, that if you dumb them down, you lose the power of (fully/really) using a computer.
The best example is the huge comfort boost I got from just being able to create the "glue" parts between the applications I use, when I switched to (Gentoo) Linux. (The point here is not the problems with Gentoo, but that I had to learn the internal stuff.) I finally understood the OS.
I have small scrips and hooks everywhere that finally make my life easier as computer salesman promised me for the decades where I did not really understand the computer.
An open OS, shell scripting (maybe not in bash :), DBUS, Firefox add-ons, Greasemonkey... those are miletones on way we should follow.
It's efficient, high-level, and you can quickly come up with something basic and then let it grow.
There should be a computer license that requires you to be able to script the "glue" and understand the system. (= Understanding the most basic and global concepts. Not learning every detail by heart.)
Exactly.
By the way... have some spare change? I need to make a call.
Do you have some change?
Change? Chaaannngeeee?? Chaaannngeeee??
The people are intellectual. The property is not. :D
In fact it's as stupid as a rock. Literally.
Have you actually tried to be tow seconds behind someone on a city road?
There's *always* someone who gets between you. Then you slow down. Then another one gets in between you... and so on.
There is no way to ever put two seconds of free room in front of you if you're not on a nearly empty road (like a highway at night or a road in the middle of nowhere).
And those formats are standardized too.
There are laptops, where you can upgrade the cpu, the ram and the graphics card. Oh, and exchange various components like a dvd drive and other stuff.
There
is
no
such
thing
as
intellectual
property
!
Case closed.