I want to thank you for this explanation. One personal interaction is worth quite a lot of book reading. I've read a few things on dark matter, but it was never explained very well. One description even called it a possibly new kind of matter that exudes gravity but doesn't reflect light or respond to particle bombardment. By those terms, it sounds like a magical philosopher's stone that can make all the equations balance.
I do still have a question though, how does one falsify a claim that 90% of the universe's matter can't be detected? I'm having a hard time with this because I've never been a scientist proper.
I've met a lot less lazy programmers than I have time-strapped programmers. Every hour not spent managing mallocs and making sure you're not returning stack variables, or verifying that string tests are bounded or x y z you have to do to make sure you C program is safe, that's time you could spend being productive.
Making code safe is not "being productive". You are not meeting customer requirements by making your software secure--security is assumed. If you can use a language where you are not spending 20-40% of your time making it safe, you just got 20-40% more time to implement the stuff the software is actually supposed to do.
I have never in my life seen a customer requirement: "make sure all char array operations are bounded." My job as a programmer is to satisfy customer requirements, not bang rocks together to make sparks.
That's what dark matter is by definition, right? Matter that based on current theories should exist, but cannot be accounted for, hence "dark" matter, dark in the same sense as "dark Africa" was in centuries past, unknown.
I find this to be an interesting concept. If your theory requires ten times the amount of matter in the universe than you can actually account for, just change your assumptions to state that 10x as much matter exists in the universe than you can currently account for. This sounds awful unscientific. I mean, what if in archaeology, I had this theory that an unkown creator created everything. There should be evidence for that, right? We just haven't found it yet. Riiiiiight.
You missed the point. Flying Spaghetti monster IS "intelligent design". The difference between ID and creationism is that in ID we "don't know" who did the designing. That's where FSM comes in. Since we don't know, you can't disprove it!
Personally, I like to think the connection here is Richard Stallman: I have been touched by his GNU-dly appendage. hallelujah and pass the soap.
The hugeass elephant in the room here is that for centuries builders have been relying on reusable components and clear standards, while massive numbers of programmers shun these despite their availability, and constantly reinvent the wheel. I'm looking directly at every dink on Slashdot that bitches XML is too complicated and trashes (ha!) on automatic garbage collection. (if someone has some obscure exception, keep it to yourself. The exception isn't the rule.)
Another difference is, typically if an engineer says something is unsafe, people actually fucking listen to her.
Oh yeah, and you can't hide how a bridge works. Proprietary code encourages cut corners.
I believe that good software is attainable. But that won't necessarily come from legislation, it'll come from the industry growing up.
The PC BIOS code was still copyrighted, and the implementation of the clone BIOS was a clean-room implementation according to every source I have ever read. As for duplicating the functionality of the BIOS being easy, I can't speak to that. The PC ASM I had done in college would lead me to believe that it wouldn't be too complicated for an expert. But boy, I really wouldn't know.
Even if there is not a law, the rating is supposed to be a guide in this case. That's why everyone gets so freaked out and wants a law when the ratings aren't perceived to be working--because they are supposed to both do the same thing.
It's not the watching or playing by minors, it's the selling to minors. You're right about the parents though. It pisses me off that parents who won't lift a finger to protect their childrens welfare, get cowtowed to for votes by politicians. Then we all get to pay for it. I wish they voted as lazily as they parented.
Junior, Twins, Jingle all the way and Kindergarten Cop aren't action movies (which is why I didn't include them), so what the hell is your point? If he made more successful films that are not action movies, that only helps prove the original post was completely wrong. I don't disagree with the OP point that he made his career on violent movies, but apparently you do? With Kindergarten Cop, he moved over to comedy/family friendly stuff, and I remember quite clearly at the time there was question as to whether he could do this successfully, since typically action to comedy star does not work.
I missed Batman & Robin, sorry. My brain repressed all memory of that horrible, horrible experience.
It's not illegal because it's not a problem. With video games it is. Hence legislation. It keeps coming back to the games industry, and how they operate. Anyway, I don't see the difference. Both are labelled not for under the age of X, that is their fig leaf, not a law.
Terminator 3: rated R Collateral Damage: rated R The 6th Day: rated PG-13 End of Days: rated R Eraser: rated R True Lies: rated R Last Action Hero: PG-13 Terminator 2: rated R Total Recall: rated R Red Heat: rated R Running Man: rated R Predator: rated R Raw Deal: rated R Commando: rated R Red Sonja: PG-13 Terminator: rated R Conan the Destroyer: PG (this movie was practically a live-action cartoon, btw.) Conan the Barbarian: rated R
So, there you have it, his history of action movies, spanning over 23 years. He's got one PG under his belt, and three PG-13s. I have seen every one of these movies, and the only one I might dispute the rating for is maybe Last Action Hero. "Appealing to adolescents" is so vague that I can't possibly hope to dispute it (porno appeals to adolescents too!), but clearly his movies were restricted from adolescents.
I don't think that's ironic at all. What's hypocritical to me is that he ran on a platform of being fiscally conservative and (fairly) socially liberal. He said on national TV that he didn't have a problem with homosexuals getting married, but when he had a chance to do something about it, he shitcanned it, and now this. Too rich to be bought, indeed.
Odd, then, that NetBeans and Eclipse are still slower than a sedated elephant on my Athlon 64 3200+ with 512 MB RAM. My computer must be living in a time warp.
It must be, so far I'm running Eclipse and/or Oracle JDeveloper on all the following platforms with no problems:
Dell P4 2Ghz 512MB RAM, Windows 2000 Toshiba P4 2Ghz laptop 512MB RAM, Gentoo Linux (2.6 kernel) Athlon XP 1900, 1GB RAM, WinXP/Gentoo Linux dual boot
I will give you a caveat. JDeveloper was pretty crusty until version 10G came out. Runs pretty nice now. Eclipse is no problem on any of them. If you are doing Struts development, I can tell you that I was occasionally running out of RAM at 512MB. Of course, I'm running JDeveloper, a J2EE server, and my app all at the same time, so that's not too crazy.
I'm not saying they don't run like crap on your machine, I have no idea. All I know is that the company where I work, we have a few hundred people with the exact same machine specs that I do, and we don't have the problem that you are having.
All these things eat the shit out of resources, but they do not run slow, so I half agree with you, and I half don't. I don't know what the problem is that makes it take up all the resources, but java is not slow. I've been playing with JOGL, an OpenGL java wrapper library, and no one would mistake the results for slow. Maybe this is unfair, but rendering 2D OpenGL in Java is WAY faster than rendering native GDI in Windows.
Single inheritance solves the problem of inheritance ambiguity between parent classes, which in my experience has been a good thing. But yes, there have been times when it looked like I was going to be repeating a lot of code, because I needed a little of class X and a little of class y for class z. First of all, this is an indicator that you built your inheritance model wrong. However, there are circumstances where you have similar chunks of code that get used in disparate fashions in similarly related classes. I suggest checking out the builder pattern sometime, which solves this problem.
It is my opinion that it's very easy to see many of Java's language features as weaknesses, because one looking in on the outside a) is not an advanced level Java programmer, and b) are distracted by the similarities to C++, so they only see what the language doesn't have.
There are definitely things that Java doesn't have that it's the weaker for. I miss closures and other features of dynamic languages constantly. So do a lot of other people too, because you see hacks for it like reflection and bytecode injection. When I was at the last JavaONE convention, they claimed that they were developing dynamic language extensions for version 6. However, I don't miss multiple inheritance too much.
Gosling has talked about adding multiple inheritance to Java before, but I don't know if that was serious or just musing.
As far as I'm concerned, every country could have their own root servers, and all domains would have a TLD of the country extension. It's getting to the point that portal and search engine visibility is more important than domain name anyway. Search domains could be set for the TLD in each country, but that could open up phishing like crazy.
"The web isn't DNS." DNS isn't a "DNS root server". DNS root servers can use whatever naming they want. No one is telling anyone they can't use the DNS protocol (which was invented in the US.) No one is telling anyone they can't USE an alternate root server. No one is telling anyone they cannot RUN an alternate root server. We simply are not ceding control of our root servers to another country because they are ours. I love how others want something we have, based on something we invented, because it's useful. And yet it's construed as about America's desire for power.
As a personal aside, I liked another poster's comment: that a distributed naming system of some kind that doesn't require a central authority would be much preferred. I don't particularly care about US "hegemony", but they are our damn root servers. It is very, very simple. No one has the right to tell us how to run our own root servers. If we can be convinced to share control of them, fine. If not, get your own. Which is what is being talked about.
You're comparing a hierarchical name resolution SERVICE with a content MEDIUM. One of them needs a regulatory body or it collapses, and one does not. The WWW does have a standards body (the W3C), which is not even remotely the same thing.
I'm not a Windows admin, but I do have to mess with security settings on Windows sometime. It's not my job, but something I have to do frequently, nonetheless. I know where the tab is in 2000, but XP pro doesn't seem to have it, which threw me for a loop. Why would they move this? I guess too many people messed with it and screwed stuff up, so everyone was punished.
Junction lets you make symlinks in Windows without installing the entire Windows Resource Kit tools. Also, CACLS.EXE for changing ACLs in Windows via the command line, since I have no fucking clue where you do this in the GUI. Some of the more usefule CLI commands in Windows, IMO. I hope this discussion wasn't limited to Unix or anything.
Each state in the United States has a medical board that requires licensing to practice medicine in that state, and they are all members of the federation of state medical boards, right? While this sounds like a monopoly to me, it's a licensure monopoly by the state, which is a constitutionally defined government power. States have power to license professions that effect the public interest. You can't bring racketeering charges against the state even if you wanted to, the state is by definition a monopoly on legislative power.
Anyway, it doesn't matter because like you said, licensure of doctors clearly is a GOOD thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to thank you for this explanation. One personal interaction is worth quite a lot of book reading. I've read a few things on dark matter, but it was never explained very well. One description even called it a possibly new kind of matter that exudes gravity but doesn't reflect light or respond to particle bombardment. By those terms, it sounds like a magical philosopher's stone that can make all the equations balance.
I do still have a question though, how does one falsify a claim that 90% of the universe's matter can't be detected? I'm having a hard time with this because I've never been a scientist proper.
As another poster pointed out, Churchill said this about dangling prepositions, and I have firmly placed my head up my butt once again (ha.)
You are correct, and once again I have my head firmly placed up my butt. I've been putting off relearning the third grade.
"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."
those who choose not to do this are indeed lazy.
I've met a lot less lazy programmers than I have time-strapped programmers. Every hour not spent managing mallocs and making sure you're not returning stack variables, or verifying that string tests are bounded or x y z you have to do to make sure you C program is safe, that's time you could spend being productive.
Making code safe is not "being productive". You are not meeting customer requirements by making your software secure--security is assumed. If you can use a language where you are not spending 20-40% of your time making it safe, you just got 20-40% more time to implement the stuff the software is actually supposed to do.
I have never in my life seen a customer requirement: "make sure all char array operations are bounded." My job as a programmer is to satisfy customer requirements, not bang rocks together to make sparks.
That's what dark matter is by definition, right? Matter that based on current theories should exist, but cannot be accounted for, hence "dark" matter, dark in the same sense as "dark Africa" was in centuries past, unknown.
I find this to be an interesting concept. If your theory requires ten times the amount of matter in the universe than you can actually account for, just change your assumptions to state that 10x as much matter exists in the universe than you can currently account for. This sounds awful unscientific. I mean, what if in archaeology, I had this theory that an unkown creator created everything. There should be evidence for that, right? We just haven't found it yet. Riiiiiight.
You missed the point. Flying Spaghetti monster IS "intelligent design". The difference between ID and creationism is that in ID we "don't know" who did the designing. That's where FSM comes in. Since we don't know, you can't disprove it!
Personally, I like to think the connection here is Richard Stallman: I have been touched by his GNU-dly appendage. hallelujah and pass the soap.
The hugeass elephant in the room here is that for centuries builders have been relying on reusable components and clear standards, while massive numbers of programmers shun these despite their availability, and constantly reinvent the wheel. I'm looking directly at every dink on Slashdot that bitches XML is too complicated and trashes (ha!) on automatic garbage collection. (if someone has some obscure exception, keep it to yourself. The exception isn't the rule.)
Another difference is, typically if an engineer says something is unsafe, people actually fucking listen to her.
Oh yeah, and you can't hide how a bridge works. Proprietary code encourages cut corners.
I believe that good software is attainable. But that won't necessarily come from legislation, it'll come from the industry growing up.
The PC BIOS code was still copyrighted, and the implementation of the clone BIOS was a clean-room implementation according to every source I have ever read. As for duplicating the functionality of the BIOS being easy, I can't speak to that. The PC ASM I had done in college would lead me to believe that it wouldn't be too complicated for an expert. But boy, I really wouldn't know.
Even if there is not a law, the rating is supposed to be a guide in this case. That's why everyone gets so freaked out and wants a law when the ratings aren't perceived to be working--because they are supposed to both do the same thing.
It's not the watching or playing by minors, it's the selling to minors. You're right about the parents though. It pisses me off that parents who won't lift a finger to protect their childrens welfare, get cowtowed to for votes by politicians. Then we all get to pay for it. I wish they voted as lazily as they parented.
Junior, Twins, Jingle all the way and Kindergarten Cop aren't action movies (which is why I didn't include them), so what the hell is your point? If he made more successful films that are not action movies, that only helps prove the original post was completely wrong. I don't disagree with the OP point that he made his career on violent movies, but apparently you do? With Kindergarten Cop, he moved over to comedy/family friendly stuff, and I remember quite clearly at the time there was question as to whether he could do this successfully, since typically action to comedy star does not work.
I missed Batman & Robin, sorry. My brain repressed all memory of that horrible, horrible experience.
It's not illegal because it's not a problem. With video games it is. Hence legislation. It keeps coming back to the games industry, and how they operate. Anyway, I don't see the difference. Both are labelled not for under the age of X, that is their fig leaf, not a law.
Terminator 3: rated R
Collateral Damage: rated R
The 6th Day: rated PG-13
End of Days: rated R
Eraser: rated R
True Lies: rated R
Last Action Hero: PG-13
Terminator 2: rated R
Total Recall: rated R
Red Heat: rated R
Running Man: rated R
Predator: rated R
Raw Deal: rated R
Commando: rated R
Red Sonja: PG-13
Terminator: rated R
Conan the Destroyer: PG (this movie was practically a live-action cartoon, btw.)
Conan the Barbarian: rated R
So, there you have it, his history of action movies, spanning over 23 years. He's got one PG under his belt, and three PG-13s. I have seen every one of these movies, and the only one I might dispute the rating for is maybe Last Action Hero. "Appealing to adolescents" is so vague that I can't possibly hope to dispute it (porno appeals to adolescents too!), but clearly his movies were restricted from adolescents.
I don't think that's ironic at all. What's hypocritical to me is that he ran on a platform of being fiscally conservative and (fairly) socially liberal. He said on national TV that he didn't have a problem with homosexuals getting married, but when he had a chance to do something about it, he shitcanned it, and now this. Too rich to be bought, indeed.
It must be, so far I'm running Eclipse and/or Oracle JDeveloper on all the following platforms with no problems:
Dell P4 2Ghz 512MB RAM, Windows 2000
Toshiba P4 2Ghz laptop 512MB RAM, Gentoo Linux (2.6 kernel)
Athlon XP 1900, 1GB RAM, WinXP/Gentoo Linux dual boot
I will give you a caveat. JDeveloper was pretty crusty until version 10G came out. Runs pretty nice now. Eclipse is no problem on any of them. If you are doing Struts development, I can tell you that I was occasionally running out of RAM at 512MB. Of course, I'm running JDeveloper, a J2EE server, and my app all at the same time, so that's not too crazy.
I'm not saying they don't run like crap on your machine, I have no idea. All I know is that the company where I work, we have a few hundred people with the exact same machine specs that I do, and we don't have the problem that you are having.
All these things eat the shit out of resources, but they do not run slow, so I half agree with you, and I half don't. I don't know what the problem is that makes it take up all the resources, but java is not slow. I've been playing with JOGL, an OpenGL java wrapper library, and no one would mistake the results for slow. Maybe this is unfair, but rendering 2D OpenGL in Java is WAY faster than rendering native GDI in Windows.
Single inheritance solves the problem of inheritance ambiguity between parent classes, which in my experience has been a good thing. But yes, there have been times when it looked like I was going to be repeating a lot of code, because I needed a little of class X and a little of class y for class z. First of all, this is an indicator that you built your inheritance model wrong. However, there are circumstances where you have similar chunks of code that get used in disparate fashions in similarly related classes. I suggest checking out the builder pattern sometime, which solves this problem.
It is my opinion that it's very easy to see many of Java's language features as weaknesses, because one looking in on the outside a) is not an advanced level Java programmer, and b) are distracted by the similarities to C++, so they only see what the language doesn't have.
There are definitely things that Java doesn't have that it's the weaker for. I miss closures and other features of dynamic languages constantly. So do a lot of other people too, because you see hacks for it like reflection and bytecode injection. When I was at the last JavaONE convention, they claimed that they were developing dynamic language extensions for version 6. However, I don't miss multiple inheritance too much.
Gosling has talked about adding multiple inheritance to Java before, but I don't know if that was serious or just musing.
As far as I'm concerned, every country could have their own root servers, and all domains would have a TLD of the country extension. It's getting to the point that portal and search engine visibility is more important than domain name anyway. Search domains could be set for the TLD in each country, but that could open up phishing like crazy.
That's easy to solve.
"The web isn't DNS." DNS isn't a "DNS root server". DNS root servers can use whatever naming they want. No one is telling anyone they can't use the DNS protocol (which was invented in the US.) No one is telling anyone they can't USE an alternate root server. No one is telling anyone they cannot RUN an alternate root server. We simply are not ceding control of our root servers to another country because they are ours. I love how others want something we have, based on something we invented, because it's useful. And yet it's construed as about America's desire for power.
As a personal aside, I liked another poster's comment: that a distributed naming system of some kind that doesn't require a central authority would be much preferred. I don't particularly care about US "hegemony", but they are our damn root servers. It is very, very simple. No one has the right to tell us how to run our own root servers. If we can be convinced to share control of them, fine. If not, get your own. Which is what is being talked about.
You're comparing a hierarchical name resolution SERVICE with a content MEDIUM. One of them needs a regulatory body or it collapses, and one does not. The WWW does have a standards body (the W3C), which is not even remotely the same thing.
Paper doesn't have an international governing body, which is what this argument is about. You missed the point entirely.
I'm not a Windows admin, but I do have to mess with security settings on Windows sometime. It's not my job, but something I have to do frequently, nonetheless. I know where the tab is in 2000, but XP pro doesn't seem to have it, which threw me for a loop. Why would they move this? I guess too many people messed with it and screwed stuff up, so everyone was punished.
I'm sure you've heard the ubiquitous:
# unzip
# strip
# touch
# finger
# mount
# fsck
# more
# yes
# umount
# sleep
for the gamut of unix double entendres...
Junction lets you make symlinks in Windows without installing the entire Windows Resource Kit tools. Also, CACLS.EXE for changing ACLs in Windows via the command line, since I have no fucking clue where you do this in the GUI. Some of the more usefule CLI commands in Windows, IMO. I hope this discussion wasn't limited to Unix or anything.
For Linux? If I wanted to play with a program with 119,060,324 possible variations within six steps, I'd just go configure Sendmail.
Each state in the United States has a medical board that requires licensing to practice medicine in that state, and they are all members of the federation of state medical boards, right? While this sounds like a monopoly to me, it's a licensure monopoly by the state, which is a constitutionally defined government power. States have power to license professions that effect the public interest. You can't bring racketeering charges against the state even if you wanted to, the state is by definition a monopoly on legislative power.
Anyway, it doesn't matter because like you said, licensure of doctors clearly is a GOOD thing.