In the USA and other OPEC countries... but not 'out there' as a whole.
'Out there' includes countries like India, China, Indonesia, Brazil etc,
This is off-topic, but by OPEC, do you mean the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries? If so, the United Stated is not an OPEC country. Indonesia, on the other hand, is an OPEC country.
Another incident I remember is a student body president who raided the student association funds to create a life size copy of the head of the Statue of Liberty and the torch and park it out on the frozen lake one winter. Instead of getting kicked out for wasting funds, they were re-elected by a landslide and followed that trick by covering the commons with pink plastic flamingos. The details are hazy but that's mostly accurate.
The Wisconsin State Journal recently did a "where are they now" type of piece on Leon Varjian, who was behind these pranks. It details some of his best mischief:
Having been incredibly productive with dynamically-typed languages, it would be difficult for me to put into words how wrong-headed and foolish your opinions are.
I didn't say that these languages are unproductive. I said that they are dangerous.
So, instead, I'll point out that you misunderstood: they mean "typing" as in "writing text on a keyboard with fingers".
Okay, having reread TFA, it appears you're right. I read the comment in the context of a discussion on Applescript, and assumed that the author was referring to the weak, dynamic typing of Applescript. It didn't occur to me that the author was making a far more stupid comment.
I should start using this in interviews to weed out people like you. You are talking about dynamic typing, not weak typing.
Actually, I was referring to both, though I should have made that more clear. Dynamic typing is dangerous in the same way that static, implicit typing (see old Fortran) is dangerous. Explicit, static typing prevents one from unintentionally creating two distinct variables that are supposed to be the same, due to a typo.
As far as your "I should [use this] to weed out people like you": I don't want a job writing crappy Ruby code. I've already got a job (as a compiler writer). Thanks, though.
"...any language that still requires typing shows the essential failure of the computer industry to pry programming out of the hands of geeks."
I couldn't agree more. I definitely remember the idea being bandied round a few years back of high level drag and drop programming for the masses. We have Labview which does that for automated instrumentation control and analysis, is it really so hard to make a high level programming language in the same mould?
The point is: untyped languages are dangerous! They disguise programming errors. That's the reason why Fortran added "implicit none", and subsequent languages have enforced stronger and stronger typing. Any language for real programming (writing an OS, controlling a car or an airplane or a spacecraft or a radiation machine, running a communications network, etc.) NEEDS to be strongly typed, so that simple typos are rejected by the compiler instead of resulting in serious (fatal!) failures. If you're just automated the workflow on your PC, an untyped language might do the trick. But the computing industry has not failed "to pry programming out of the hands of geeks": real, serious programming is hard, and no amount of drag-and-drop or syntactic sugar or weak typing can change that.
Why? Too many students come to college with calculus credits on their transcript, but almost no understanding of basic algebra, let alone calculus. I don't see the point in rushing through these subjects.
A lot of essential math is NEVER taught: logic? non-Euclidean geometry? probability and statistics? linear algebra? These are basic building blocks of rational thought.
Non-Euclidean geometries are essential for rational thought? In what world? Hell, most professional mathematicians don't really need to know much about non-Euclidean geometries.
I agree that students should study probability and statistics, as well as basic logic.
Oh sure, isolated from the outside world...With full encryption everywhere, double redundant systems security, high security physical access control, the works.
In that sort of environment, they might actually use telnet, because it'd be running through multiple levels of hardware encryption, and thus somewhat secure.
No, you don't get it. There's often NO encryption on such a system. What's the need? The only things on the network are the workstation and the data-processing hardware (a cluster of single-board computers running an embedded OS, for example). There's no need for encryption there. If someone can sniff packets on the network, then they already have complete physical access.
What does this have to do with a hobby system set up by a guy who is so lazy he won't bother setting up the most basic encryption because he can't see any need?
What's the difference? If you use telnet over an isolated network, then the only way to exploit telnet's weaknesses is to physically compromise the network. In that case, the attacker could just as well install a keylogger, or a hidden camera, etc.
Frankly, if you know a lot of people that have no net connections and tiny little hardwired lans, then no, you probably don't have a damn thing worth protecting, so I'll shut my mouth.
Classified systems are often set up this way, where the LAN connects a workstation to specialized embedded hardware. The whole system is isolated from the internet (obviously) and resides in a secure, fortified environment.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
As for the comment about how much more I have to learn about statistics, data analysis etc. I do hope you have several years of lab experience (in a University or other academic research environment) and that wasn't just a bluff, was it?:)
I didn't play the authority card; you did. But since you asked, yes, I have plenty of lab experience. I'm a mathematician, not a physicist, but I've paid my dues over the years.
Yes, indeed you could be wrong here and you forgot the "IANAP" disclaimer. In fact, I Am A Physicist and I can tell you that what we don't know is exactly how much and how fast the temperature will rise, how the climate change will vary from place to place and how exactly all this will affect our world. What we do know is that the temperature is rising and that for at least half a century we are the ones mainly responsible for that.
Okay, since you've played the authority card, kindly explain how your training or research qualifies you to conclude this. That wasn't just a bluff, was it?
By the way, if you genuinely believe the "people are causing global warming" hypothesis is an absolute, irrefutable fact universally accepted by the scientific community, then you have a whole hell of a lot to learn about statistics, data analysis, and the difference between observational and controlled experiments.
First, these "police officers" are already using excessive force on someone who is not a threat to anyone. If someone suddenly becomes an actual threat, how do you think the cops will react?
You may have to have ID or an account to check out books, but you certainly don't need it to simply be there.
That's not always the case. Back when I was a UC student, some of the campus libraries required a university ID to enter. The University of Wisconsin requires a university ID to enter the main campus library, though I think local residents can apply for a library card. My point wasn't that public property is open to anybody (consider the White House, National Labs, military installations, etc.), but simply that a UC library is certainly not "private property". (However, I agree that a public University's libraries should be open to the public.)
Even if the paper was withdrawn, I'd venture that it's likely it will still lead to a correct proof. Even Wiles' proof of Fermat was originally flawed and had to be corrected.
What are you basing this on? I have not seen any indication that anyone (including Smith) believes the error can be corrected.
Yeah, because a mathematician without a first-rate pedigree couldn't possibly do important math. (As for Brooklyn Polytechnic, I know of at least three prominent mathematicians who earned their undergraduate degrees there.)
I mean, if you win 20 hands of blackjack in a row, but don't make more then a couple grand, the casinos aren't likely to care even if you are card counting, because you're winning so little in comparison to what you could be raking in. The mistake a lot of card counters make is going for too much, too quickly.
Do you even know how card-counting works? Why are you commenting about things you know nothing about?
As long as kids try to patent and profit from ideas they hear in class as well as use ideas transmitted from the professor to them to wreck the professor's career (see my reference to the Eisenhower remark), you are fucking 'A' right.
You're pathetic. I mean, really fucking pathetic. You have absolutely no business teaching.
apparently nothing, they compile fine with supposedly the best compilers in.net and C++. If it took out everything it deemed useless, you'd be missing a lot of code and your app wouldn't work. It would waste so much resources determining if that loop variable was "used usefully" anywhere because that's a human term.
Slashdot Mirror
This is off-topic, but by OPEC, do you mean the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries? If so, the United Stated is not an OPEC country. Indonesia, on the other hand, is an OPEC country.
The Wisconsin State Journal recently did a "where are they now" type of piece on Leon Varjian, who was behind these pranks. It details some of his best mischief:
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj
I didn't say that these languages are unproductive. I said that they are dangerous.
Okay, having reread TFA, it appears you're right. I read the comment in the context of a discussion on Applescript, and assumed that the author was referring to the weak, dynamic typing of Applescript. It didn't occur to me that the author was making a far more stupid comment.
Actually, I was referring to both, though I should have made that more clear. Dynamic typing is dangerous in the same way that static, implicit typing (see old Fortran) is dangerous. Explicit, static typing prevents one from unintentionally creating two distinct variables that are supposed to be the same, due to a typo.
As far as your "I should [use this] to weed out people like you": I don't want a job writing crappy Ruby code. I've already got a job (as a compiler writer). Thanks, though.
The point is: untyped languages are dangerous! They disguise programming errors. That's the reason why Fortran added "implicit none", and subsequent languages have enforced stronger and stronger typing. Any language for real programming (writing an OS, controlling a car or an airplane or a spacecraft or a radiation machine, running a communications network, etc.) NEEDS to be strongly typed, so that simple typos are rejected by the compiler instead of resulting in serious (fatal!) failures. If you're just automated the workflow on your PC, an untyped language might do the trick. But the computing industry has not failed "to pry programming out of the hands of geeks": real, serious programming is hard, and no amount of drag-and-drop or syntactic sugar or weak typing can change that.
Why? Too many students come to college with calculus credits on their transcript, but almost no understanding of basic algebra, let alone calculus. I don't see the point in rushing through these subjects.
Non-Euclidean geometries are essential for rational thought? In what world? Hell, most professional mathematicians don't really need to know much about non-Euclidean geometries.
I agree that students should study probability and statistics, as well as basic logic.
No, you don't get it. There's often NO encryption on such a system. What's the need? The only things on the network are the workstation and the data-processing hardware (a cluster of single-board computers running an embedded OS, for example). There's no need for encryption there. If someone can sniff packets on the network, then they already have complete physical access.
What's the difference? If you use telnet over an isolated network, then the only way to exploit telnet's weaknesses is to physically compromise the network. In that case, the attacker could just as well install a keylogger, or a hidden camera, etc.
Classified systems are often set up this way, where the LAN connects a workstation to specialized embedded hardware. The whole system is isolated from the internet (obviously) and resides in a secure, fortified environment.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
Okay, since you've played the authority card, kindly explain how your training or research qualifies you to conclude this. That wasn't just a bluff, was it?
By the way, if you genuinely believe the "people are causing global warming" hypothesis is an absolute, irrefutable fact universally accepted by the scientific community, then you have a whole hell of a lot to learn about statistics, data analysis, and the difference between observational and controlled experiments.
That's not all. Read this story: http://www.dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?ID=270 99
Does anyone detect a pattern?
Yeah, because a mathematician without a first-rate pedigree couldn't possibly do important math. (As for Brooklyn Polytechnic, I know of at least three prominent mathematicians who earned their undergraduate degrees there.)