I suppose Microsoft might seem to be the bumbling 300 pound gorilla at times, but I can't argue with results. Can you?
If they get these results by criminal activities -- yes, then you can and should argue with the result.
Not to mention, it seems they lobbied the president administration to get cheaper fines than IBM for much worse. It's really dangerous when criminals get direct influence on politics, especially crime prevention.
(For a similar story, consider how HIV attacks the body's immunity system... 1/2 a ":-)" )
Now I am learning OO perl and its MUCH easier to code OO in perl.
You get more rope, yes?:-)
The problem (except being a bit kludgy and missing "real" members) is that you really need to know what you're doing.
My point in my comment was that given reviews of the new people's code and forcing people to follow the coding standards, OO in Perl is no harder than working in any other language. And you need to lay down and follow coding standards in any language, anyway.
I can agree on that the Perl interpreter model is less of a pain than save-compile-test, but IDEs today are quite OK. Without being too much of a Java expert, I'd say Java is quite OK to use, today. What's your specific criticism?
My main problem with Java is that if they took the painful hit of a GC, why did they not go the whole way and do a Lisp/Perl, or something good?? (Yes, yes, backward compatibility... The same reason today's std processor architecture is uglier than a festering wound.)
As I've understood introspection (rather, as my high school philosophy teacher explained!), it was a hot research method 100+ years ago.
A researchers would formulate a hypothesis about how the mind worked, then he would sit down and think (and think and...) about how his mind worked. Usually, the researcher would confirm his own hypothesis -- and contradict others introspection!
Humans --
The Self-Deceiving Animal! (Read up on psychology -- we humans tend to believe what suits us. This is well established.)
(Besides, there are theories that self conscience is an illusion. Read up on the subject. I haven't and can pick your argument to pieces...)
Death is an important part of life in the same way that 0 is an important part of 1.
Now, now, don't be mean to the guy with a different opinion. If he wants to live differently -- then let him!
Remember, it is quite common with people believing all changes to be totally against god and nature. A classical example is that pain relief during operations took decades longer unnecessary.
So, let us try to be tolerant of short sighted fools -- when the world changes, there will be lots of them not understanding the new and better world!
Wait with your anger until this and other idiots tries to ram through laws that makes his personal ethics obligatory for you and me. As those kinds of (mostly religious) nitwits always do.:-(
we have to hire a much better class of programmer who understands the limitations of Perl's OO model
I love programming in Perl! The sheer power and expressiveness combined with the (less than totally elegant) everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach is fun!
But I really don't get this harping about the OO model? It's ugly syntax (and a "bit" of a hack), but it works. Perl's OO has much fewer things to do wrong than e.g. C++. (Advice -- read "Effective C++", I wish I had before!:-)
With good coding standards, and if some experienced programmer introduced the newbies, it shouldn't be hard to learn how to do it right? You need coding standards in any language, anyway, for a project with more than two programmers.
I also enjoy a good blast at Uneal Tournament 2004. Mind you, that game is pretty... but as for gameplay? I've pretty much seen it all before... so in a way I was a bit unimpressed by it.
One of the main feature of newer FPS games is better protection against cheating.
If humanity in its current state cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, why?
(a) Well, you have the intellectually honesty position -- to not believe things without good reasons to hold them for true.
(b) Read Bertrand Russel's "History of Western Philosophy", the chapter on Roussau.
He argues that until Rousseau, the standard position was that enough research would prove the existence of ghod (the christian one -- not one of all the others!). According to Russel, the no-need-for-proof position is quite new and came after reason-based analysis started to criticize the church's positions.
So your option "C" is an ad-hoc theory... not good for probability!
(c) Then you have the problem with all the contradicting faiths (at most, a small subset of all religions can be true) where believers have very similar psychology and strength of faith. This similarity is a problem because:
1) Some devil is able to inspire the same religious feelings as the one true god.
2) There is a psychological need of religion in some people -- evolution of a social cohesive. probably.
3) God inspired all the contradicting faiths -- and lied to some believers??
As far as I know, all religions deny the possibility of 1 or 3 to be true.
(d) No, I'm not going to spend time on the hilariousness of divinely inspired, absolutely true, facts about the world and how to live our life -- that are continously updated every 2-3 generations! (Read Russel's "Why I'm not a christian", first the chapter on Paine and why he became really hated for opinions that was standard among bishops in Russel's 30s -- and then the chapter on the English clergy, compare that to today. No need to discuss Bruno or Galileo.)
[I have read a book on the scientific method] Now go and see how it works in real life.
Maybe you have. But you wrote:
Tell me of any seriously revolutionary idea which you know was accepted with open arms by all.
Academics quarrels and questions everything. It's not only their personality but their jobs...
You can't find any idea about anything that was accepted by everyone.
Maybe you have read up on the math and the subjects you discuss enough to have a well developed opinion on why the researchers are wrong. I have enough with what I'm trying to do and learn to check. But the quote doesn't sound like you do.
Tell me of any seriously revolutionary idea which you know was accepted with open arms by all.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-- Carl Sagan
Also note that there are quite a few more clowns than very good and misunderstood scientists.:-)
I was going to claim that the only sports I consider worth watching are when female sprinters (and Venus, of course) run around in tight dresses. And I might care for a bit of thai boxing and sumo wrestling.
I generally agree with HHGTTG about cricket and consider baseboll something similar. I was going to ask if you couldn't filter those subjects on/.
But this did seem like something for me:
Baseball is a game played by a bunch of drunken, tobacco chewing goons
Does snuff count for chewing? Hmm, maybe should start.
How common is orbital disruption?
on
Unruly Milky Way
·
· Score: 1
.. star SYSTEMS collide. That means that in a galactic cluster, two solar systems can pass closely enough to cause orbital disruption. This would be especially a risk to life, as any disruption of a star's Oort cloud would cause an incoming rain of cometary objects.
I've wondered about this.
What percentage of solar systems in the spriral arms would have experienced a larger disruption than a bunch of measly dinosaur killers?
Any life on a planet in such a system would at least be "reset" quite a bit, yes? Is this a major influence on the Drake equation?
Being raped should not be part and parcel of a prison sentence.
I really don't understand that this system is allowed in the USA, since it obviously gives a lot of grief to the general public.
As far as I've understood, a large proportion of victims (of both sexes) get mental problems for life. I really don't understand how smoking can be banned, but not creating a large number of people that either have the habit of being rapists or are mentally unbalanced...
Rape is just something that you really, really want the minimal amount of in the same society that you live in.
(Then we have the weaker argument -- human rights aspects and human suffering. [1/2:-)] )
Re:Before berating /. for their stories...
on
Dating Design Patterns
·
· Score: 3, Funny
This ISBN checks out. The books is real.
Wow, that's an elaborate 1st April joke. Both a website and in the database at Amazon, B&N, etc!
What competition? Farming is heavily subsidized in the US and Europe.
Even if you're inside a subsidy system you can't be 10-20% more expensive than other producers inside the same system.
Can you give references to support that modern farming is more expensive than non-mechanized 3ld world farming? (Neither European leftwing nor eco group, please.)
Never mind -- considering the terrible way of life for people working in labor intensive developing world farming, I don't care. It is something that should go away.
the cost of most non-renewable resources, labor, and pollution all tend to go up over the long term.
A quick Google gave this
page, search for Simon. (The rest of the article is the inverse of your position.)
Yes, oil use will have to end. But we usually find other ways when we get to such an end. (labor has gone up in cost -- which is a damn good thing!)
(Besides, pollution is a problem when industrialization starts. It then start to cost real money, so if the country isn't totally corrupt, it gets solved. Here in Sweden and West Europe, it is a much smaller problem now than a few decades ago.)
To sum up with an ugly buzzword, modern farming isn't sustainable.
Ah, but it takes decades until you have to leave the ground to cows for a while? Shouldn't be a large problem in most of the industrialised world.
You describe a "race to the bottom"? Farmers can't be 10-20% less effective and keep soil quality up because of competition from other farmers?
A typical problems with capitalism -- things like this should be regulated centrally, but too often aren't. On the other hand, no other way of organizing a society has succeeded in avoiding lots of stupidity like this, either.
Slashdot Mirror
If they get these results by criminal activities -- yes, then you can and should argue with the result.
Not to mention, it seems they lobbied the president administration to get cheaper fines than IBM for much worse. It's really dangerous when criminals get direct influence on politics, especially crime prevention.
(For a similar story, consider how HIV attacks the body's immunity system... 1/2 a ":-)" )
You get more rope, yes? :-)
The problem (except being a bit kludgy and missing "real" members) is that you really need to know what you're doing.
My point in my comment was that given reviews of the new people's code and forcing people to follow the coding standards, OO in Perl is no harder than working in any other language. And you need to lay down and follow coding standards in any language, anyway.
I can agree on that the Perl interpreter model is less of a pain than save-compile-test, but IDEs today are quite OK. Without being too much of a Java expert, I'd say Java is quite OK to use, today. What's your specific criticism?
My main problem with Java is that if they took the painful hit of a GC, why did they not go the whole way and do a Lisp/Perl, or something good?? (Yes, yes, backward compatibility... The same reason today's std processor architecture is uglier than a festering wound.)
Sigh, the survival time of games are getting shorter. :-(
A researchers would formulate a hypothesis about how the mind worked, then he would sit down and think (and think and ...) about how his mind worked. Usually, the researcher would confirm his own hypothesis -- and contradict others introspection!
Humans -- The Self-Deceiving Animal! (Read up on psychology -- we humans tend to believe what suits us. This is well established.)
(Besides, there are theories that self conscience is an illusion. Read up on the subject. I haven't and can pick your argument to pieces...)
Remember, it is quite common with people believing all changes to be totally against god and nature. A classical example is that pain relief during operations took decades longer unnecessary.
So, let us try to be tolerant of short sighted fools -- when the world changes, there will be lots of them not understanding the new and better world!
Wait with your anger until this and other idiots tries to ram through laws that makes his personal ethics obligatory for you and me. As those kinds of (mostly religious) nitwits always do. :-(
But I really don't get this harping about the OO model? It's ugly syntax (and a "bit" of a hack), but it works. Perl's OO has much fewer things to do wrong than e.g. C++. (Advice -- read "Effective C++", I wish I had before! :-)
With good coding standards, and if some experienced programmer introduced the newbies, it shouldn't be hard to learn how to do it right? You need coding standards in any language, anyway, for a project with more than two programmers.
You're a serious graphics fan!?
I'm probably a grumpier and older man than you, but I play at high resolution for about 30 minutes in any given game -- just when I've bought it.
Then I see how I can change the configuration so the good graphics isn't in the way of my main purpose of gaming -- murdering my friends!
I almost never play oneplayer games anymore. Being an asocial nerd, that is my favored social interaction. :-)
For instance, I think BZFlag is wonderful -- but you shouldn't download it, since you'd mutter about "pong" clone... :-)
(The problem with BZFlag is the amount of cheating that seems to be going on.)
No, that word is also Norwegian! :-)
Original -- vindöga. Literally, Wind Eye.
(Since that time we Scandinavians have imported the French (?) word for windows. At least here in Sweden.)
(b) Read Bertrand Russel's "History of Western Philosophy", the chapter on Roussau.
He argues that until Rousseau, the standard position was that enough research would prove the existence of ghod (the christian one -- not one of all the others!). According to Russel, the no-need-for-proof position is quite new and came after reason-based analysis started to criticize the church's positions.
So your option "C" is an ad-hoc theory... not good for probability!
(c) Then you have the problem with all the contradicting faiths (at most, a small subset of all religions can be true) where believers have very similar psychology and strength of faith. This similarity is a problem because:
1) Some devil is able to inspire the same religious feelings as the one true god.
2) There is a psychological need of religion in some people -- evolution of a social cohesive. probably.
3) God inspired all the contradicting faiths -- and lied to some believers??
As far as I know, all religions deny the possibility of 1 or 3 to be true.
(d) No, I'm not going to spend time on the hilariousness of divinely inspired, absolutely true, facts about the world and how to live our life -- that are continously updated every 2-3 generations! (Read Russel's "Why I'm not a christian", first the chapter on Paine and why he became really hated for opinions that was standard among bishops in Russel's 30s -- and then the chapter on the English clergy, compare that to today. No need to discuss Bruno or Galileo.)
Yes, the old inside/outside of a paradigm discussion.
Generally, most new ideas fail -- no matter how smart the people that put them forward.
To apply a simple heuristic: /.
If you really understand everything better than anyone else you would be to busy to post to
I have nothing more to say here.
(-: If my heuristic fails and you get the Nobel prize -- put up a sign with an URL to my comment here... :-)
You can't find any idea about anything that was accepted by everyone.
Maybe you have read up on the math and the subjects you discuss enough to have a well developed opinion on why the researchers are wrong. I have enough with what I'm trying to do and learn to check. But the quote doesn't sound like you do.
-- Carl Sagan
Also note that there are quite a few more clowns than very good and misunderstood scientists. :-)
Etc, etc.
Go read a book on the scientific method.
I was going to claim that the only sports I consider worth watching are when female sprinters (and Venus, of course) run around in tight dresses. And I might care for a bit of thai boxing and sumo wrestling.
I generally agree with HHGTTG about cricket and consider baseboll something similar. I was going to ask if you couldn't filter those subjects on /.
But this did seem like something for me:
Does snuff count for chewing? Hmm, maybe should start.
I've wondered about this.
What percentage of solar systems in the spriral arms would have experienced a larger disruption than a bunch of measly dinosaur killers?
Any life on a planet in such a system would at least be "reset" quite a bit, yes? Is this a major influence on the Drake equation?
I really don't understand that this system is allowed in the USA, since it obviously gives a lot of grief to the general public.
As far as I've understood, a large proportion of victims (of both sexes) get mental problems for life. I really don't understand how smoking can be banned, but not creating a large number of people that either have the habit of being rapists or are mentally unbalanced...
Rape is just something that you really, really want the minimal amount of in the same society that you live in.
(Then we have the weaker argument -- human rights aspects and human suffering. [1/2 :-)] )
Wow, that's an elaborate 1st April joke. Both a website and in the database at Amazon, B&N, etc!
Sorry, you didn't win -- the Anon poster's joke was even worse... :-)
But I think there is work on extending the TCP/IP protocols for interplanetary missions, so timeouts etc might be OK?
There is an old saying -- "Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a truck loaded with magnetic tape".
(Today that would be CDs och DVDs, of course.)
(-: Well, of course it's me. But maybe not to a 100% in this case. :-)
Even if you're inside a subsidy system you can't be 10-20% more expensive than other producers inside the same system.
Can you give references to support that modern farming is more expensive than non-mechanized 3ld world farming? (Neither European leftwing nor eco group, please.)
Never mind -- considering the terrible way of life for people working in labor intensive developing world farming, I don't care. It is something that should go away.
A quick Google gave this page, search for Simon. (The rest of the article is the inverse of your position.)
Yes, oil use will have to end. But we usually find other ways when we get to such an end. (labor has gone up in cost -- which is a damn good thing!)
(Besides, pollution is a problem when industrialization starts. It then start to cost real money, so if the country isn't totally corrupt, it gets solved. Here in Sweden and West Europe, it is a much smaller problem now than a few decades ago.)
Ah, but it takes decades until you have to leave the ground to cows for a while? Shouldn't be a large problem in most of the industrialised world.
You describe a "race to the bottom"? Farmers can't be 10-20% less effective and keep soil quality up because of competition from other farmers?
A typical problems with capitalism -- things like this should be regulated centrally, but too often aren't. On the other hand, no other way of organizing a society has succeeded in avoiding lots of stupidity like this, either.
I've seen the argument that if the launch price went down a lot, the cost of hardware would go down.
If a subsystem didn't cost $10,000/lbs to launch it would be built much, much cheaper.
There would also be a push to standardisation of interfaces and modules.
Right you are, Sir, no problems!