Re:From the people who brought you:
on
Effective Java
·
· Score: 2, Informative
...uh, quite the contrary.
I've been required to use Java non-stop from late 1995 until quite recently for school, internships, and then for my career. I've used every version of Java, and every API and just about every class available in the SDK. I've written applets, mathematical programs, games, medical database apps for the department of defense, class projects, enterprise-level call center applications, and just about anything else you could possibly conceive.
I've found in my experience that Java is good when it's highly specialized and kept very small and simple (yes, Java is good for APPLETS!). For enterprise applications, it _sucks_.
It's not that the language itself is bad (although it certainly has some gaping holes). It has more to do with the poor (buggy) implementation of the APIs and the real-time interpretation. Java isn't nearly as portable as they would have you believe (writing a 100-line applet and then running it on two different web browsers will tell you that.) Additionally, in my opinion, Java would have been much more useful if had been designed as a compiled (not interpreted) language.
In my current job, I use a lot more C++. I like it. It does what I tell it to do, and I don't have to second-guess the tools every time there's a problem.
Indiana has been doing this for several years now. You sign up on the internet, and it works! I haven't received a single telemarketer call since I've been on the list.
Of course, I still get calls from non-profit orgs asking for money, but it's much less common and it's easier to turn them down.
A company like Ford would do anything they could to develop a substantial innovation over GM and DB.
Right. That's why every year the best feature on the newest models is power windows and door locks. Ford (and GM) will do anything to stifle innovation in other competing companies, but it will not innovate unless forced to by the government.
What could be better than building a car that falls apart immediately after the three-year warranty and looks outdated as soon as next year's model comes out? If they were constantly innovating, then they'd just be wasting effort. Since every redneck goes out and buys a new Mustang each time he gets a raise, they don't need to innovate.
If you think your car is any better than a similarly-priced automobile built 20 years ago, you're a victim of auto industry marketing.
I guess everyone needs to find an identity. If this guy thinks that using a Mac somehow makes him intelligent, more power to him. After living in Texas (dealing with "Texas pride" bigots), I find this kind of sentiment really annoying and uncalled for. The article was good, but statements like "you shouldn't mess with Mac people" and "he must be a PC user" just amplify my suspicions of his ignorance.
Personally, I know several Mac users, and I'm surprised that a few of them are even intelligent enough to tie their shoes. My own experience tells me that the ratio of stupid people to intelligent people seems to be much smaller for PC users. Does that make a PC better than a Mac? Probably not, but it certainly doesn't make a Mac user better than a PC user.
After seeing the commercials, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. Is it just me, or is it true that "the little kid who knows everything" cliche is SO FREAKING OVERUSED by Spielberg (and other) films that it's almost embarrasing to watch??
Once a week, when I see a commercial for a new movie or show where "the little kid knows everything," I can't change the channel fast enough. And I don't tire of these kinds of things easily.
Wrong! Sound travels 741.1 mph at STP. I knew memorizing that value way back in 7th grade would pay off some day! I never imagined I'd be able to troll Slashdot with it, though...
Your ignorance proceeds you. I'm sorry you feel this way about the American public. I, like you, used to think that Americans must be the most sheltered, detached people in the world (and I am an American). However, after my travels I have realized that the rest of the world isn't really that different. That kind of anti-culture sentiment, however, is exactly what convinces people to fly airplanes into buildings.
Most Americans, just like most people in other countries, actually do have a sense of moral judgement, and don't believe that a corporation should be allowed to dismiss ethics for a profit. The fact that you would think any different shows me just how "American" (in your sense of the word) you are!
Whether or not it was a "good" show doesn't seem to matter to the networks. The problem with "intelligent" television is that it's hard to get good advertising revenue from it. Intelligent people are less susceptible to advertising than mindless meatheads. Advertisers know this.
Tell me, if you're selling your latest window treatment or body wash, who do you think is more likely to buy it--someone who watches "Farscape" or someone who watches "Will and Grace"??
TV shows don't want to entertain you if you're not going to buy their sponsors' products. If that means they need to put mediocre shows on the air in order to attract the lemmings, that's just the way it is. To the TV execs, it's just filler between the commercials.
Actually, the problem that's haunted the Square movies and games is the stories themselves. Final Fantasy VIII is the only one that has a story that the western hemisphere can easily relate to. The rest have a lot of the "life of the planet" Japanese mysticism that just sounds really stupid to the average American. Of course, to the Japanese, a lot of the more "honorable" American pursuits just seem stupid.
It's a clash of cultures. The poor success of the movie, I think, was due to the fact that they were trying to entertain two vastly different cultures with one story that ended up being somewhat unrenderable in both cultures. If you know both cultures well you can understand and appreciate what they were trying to do. But it just didn't work.
The games, on the other hand, have been quite successful simply because they're fun to play. You can hate the story and still enjoy the game.
Wow, this guy has probably always been one of society's bottom-feeders. It's very easy for him to dismiss the ethical aspects of what he's doing, because he threw his morals out the window long ago. Looking back on his financial history, I can tell you several things:
1. This guy is not rich! He's living paycheck to paycheck, he has several huge loans and he has a lot of credit card debt.
2. It doesn't matter that he doesn't own anything he has. He knows how to take advantage of the system. If his spam business starts to go sour, he just declares bankruptcy again and gets to keep all his stuff. Then he sells some of it and moves on to his next scam.
3. He's always made his money by stealing from other people. Look for words in the article like "bankruptcy", "insurance", "defrauded", and "marketing".
Why we allow people like this to live, I'll never know...
Exactly. Of all the reasons why I don't buy Microsoft (and there are a lot of them), this is what tops the list. Microsoft assumes that their customers are not only stupid and too incompetent to make their own decisions, but also that they are criminals.
If I switch out my hard drive and motherboard, I'm not going to want my operating system accusing me of being a criminal. That's just a bad idea. Obviously, the intelligent people at Microsoft (if there are any) aren't the ones that make the decisions.
Why is this guy giving new buzzwords to problems people have been causing and solving since the beginning of time? What he's talking about is just part of daily life. It's sacrificing flexibility and control for ease of use and simplicity. Sometimes abstractions should be used, and sometimes they should not. In many cases, they are incredibly useful.
Of course, when you've worked for a company like Microsoft, you've probably had to deal with so many extreme examples of his so-called "leaky abstractions". In this case, it's simply a buzzword phrase that dances around the more obvious and more appropriate term: bad design.
Please, no more articles from this guy. It's really insulting to the intelligence.
I don't believe it was "invented" by Paul Graham. Thoughts of separating spam from real email based on the statistical properties of its content is something that has come to my mind, as well as the minds of many people over the last few years. Just because Paul's page was the first one that you've seen explain it in detail doesn't mean he invented it.
BTW, there are ways of getting around Bayesian filtering. For instance, if you take random words from a large dictionary of long, normal conversational but not-often-used-in-spam words and splatter them throughout your spam, its easy to convince the bayesian filter that it's not spam. Not only will this decrease your false negatives, it has the capability of increasing your false positives. This is because your new spam will be training your bayesian filter, and putting lots of non-spam-like words into its vocabulary. If the spammers keep up with their dictionaries as well as the filters keep up with theirs (and I must assume this will happen), we've still got a big problem on our hands.
Don't get me wrong. I have bogofilter installed on my mail server at home, and it works great for now. But don't expect it to work forever.
Depending on what you're implying, I choose to either not agree or to propose that it simply doesn't matter...
Microsoft just doesn't get it. They've already got good developers (although their collective, relative developer talent is often overrated). The products that they make are always going to be fundamentally inferior to the open source projects because of other factors. As an evil capitalist monopoly that's interested in only money, they've figured out that the best way to get that money is to promise a lot, give very little, and screw their most loyal (and most likely, their most ignorant) customers.
This doesn't have anything to do with their development efforts. They don't seem to understand that they can't put the linux community "out of business" by driving down their "profits". See, they can't even speak the same language! Until something better comes along, Linux will always be a thorn in Microsoft's side.
Can't think fourth dimensionally? That's very easy. If you use time as the fourth dimension, it's extremely simple to think of a 4th dimensional line, "sphere", or any other 4th dimensional object. Thinking fifth dimensionally, however? I haven't tried that yet.
The difference between human intelligence and computer "intelligence" is much more subtle and obvious than what you're looking for. It has more to do with concepts, linguistics, how we define intelligence, and perhaps even conciousness. Then again, who says intelligence is not a fundamentally irreducible concept? I've never heard a satisfactory definition of "intelligence" (most failed attempts actually use "intelligence" in the definition, or simply state a tautology).
Machines are not getting smarter. While I was doing my graduate work in AI at UIUC, I slowly started to realize that AI is nothing but a farce, which is why I eventually switched my studies over to comp architecture. Sure, there are "good" algorithms written by intelligent people, but we've only shown (through Deep Blue and similar projects) that computers seem intelligent when we pair these algorithms with brute force methods, and come up with a satisfactory result. Is this intelligence?
There are many examples of complex processes performed in nature that seem to be the result of intelligence, but when they're dissected further, only result in being simple tasks that are performed over and over again, perhaps millions of times, with an impressive outcome. Is this the way that the human brain works? Probably. But the difference between our brains and my computer is so severe that at the current rate of "progress," artificial intelligence is perhaps millions of years away, if it ever happens at all. There just isn't very much to work with, and we don't even know what we're looking for.
I once heard it said, "If the human brain were simple enough for us to understand, we would be so simple that we couldn't."
I ordered Ameritech DSL (my only option). They finally showed up about a month later to install it. I had recently upped my machine's RAM to 768MB, and I hadn't booted to Windows since then. Despite trying for 3 hours, the guy couldn't install the software because 'doze 98 can't deal with more than 512MB of RAM (without a little hack I had to use later). Since I had no intention of using the DSL modem on a windows machine, I told him to leave and I would take care of it. An hour later, I had PPPOE running on my linux server. He never did install any software.
...all communication between people and devices will be wireless.
I don't buy that at all. Although it would be nice, it will always be cheaper and more practical to, say, run a wire from your computer to your monitor than to have wireless hubs in each device.
It is certainly cheaper to go wireless than it used to be, and I think technology will help us get rid of some of the more restrictive and inconvenient wiring, but your prediction sounds a lot like the empty promises of old...like "someday everyone will drive a flying car", or "in the future, everyone will use conveyor belts instead of walking to their destination."
Technology obviously helps us in many circumstances, but much of the time it's just too expensive to be convenient.
There's a fine line between Windows "features" and the most malicious viruses. My wife's computer locks up almost every time she opens Outlook Express. She asked me if it was a virus. I honestly said "I don't know!"
Exactly! During my previous employ, all developers were *given* top-of-the-line laptop machines and all accessories needed, as well as cell phones, pda's, etc. Most of the guys thought this was really cool. I saw it as a way for the company to make sure we were working even while brushing our teeth at 11:00 PM. It was a ball and chain, and for me, it didn't take. Blurring the lines between office and home isn't necessarily a good thing.
This may surprise you, but most of the population in every state is stupid enough to fall for these kinds of scams. Spam wouldn't be so prevalent (and so successful) if this was not true.
"...they should find some actor who isn't known to the public."
Agreed! I believe that's one of the things that made Spider-man so successful. They didn't take a teen heartthrob or some singer/actor or even some already well-known and loved actor. Becoming familiar with the new actor was part of the fun of the movie. You didn't know what to expect. Now if they could have just gotten someone besides Kirsten Dunst...
Slashdot Mirror
I've been required to use Java non-stop from late 1995 until quite recently for school, internships, and then for my career. I've used every version of Java, and every API and just about every class available in the SDK. I've written applets, mathematical programs, games, medical database apps for the department of defense, class projects, enterprise-level call center applications, and just about anything else you could possibly conceive.
I've found in my experience that Java is good when it's highly specialized and kept very small and simple (yes, Java is good for APPLETS!). For enterprise applications, it _sucks_.
It's not that the language itself is bad (although it certainly has some gaping holes). It has more to do with the poor (buggy) implementation of the APIs and the real-time interpretation. Java isn't nearly as portable as they would have you believe (writing a 100-line applet and then running it on two different web browsers will tell you that.) Additionally, in my opinion, Java would have been much more useful if had been designed as a compiled (not interpreted) language.
In my current job, I use a lot more C++. I like it. It does what I tell it to do, and I don't have to second-guess the tools every time there's a problem.
Oh, just like the automobile manufacturers! Electric cars, anyone? No, that's sooo 1890!
Of course, I still get calls from non-profit orgs asking for money, but it's much less common and it's easier to turn them down.
Right. That's why every year the best feature on the newest models is power windows and door locks. Ford (and GM) will do anything to stifle innovation in other competing companies, but it will not innovate unless forced to by the government.
What could be better than building a car that falls apart immediately after the three-year warranty and looks outdated as soon as next year's model comes out? If they were constantly innovating, then they'd just be wasting effort. Since every redneck goes out and buys a new Mustang each time he gets a raise, they don't need to innovate.
If you think your car is any better than a similarly-priced automobile built 20 years ago, you're a victim of auto industry marketing.
There was a girl in my high school named "Adelphia". We called her "Phil".
Personally, I know several Mac users, and I'm surprised that a few of them are even intelligent enough to tie their shoes. My own experience tells me that the ratio of stupid people to intelligent people seems to be much smaller for PC users. Does that make a PC better than a Mac? Probably not, but it certainly doesn't make a Mac user better than a PC user.
Dunno why I bother. This is Slashdot!
After seeing the commercials, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. Is it just me, or is it true that "the little kid who knows everything" cliche is SO FREAKING OVERUSED by Spielberg (and other) films that it's almost embarrasing to watch??
Once a week, when I see a commercial for a new movie or show where "the little kid knows everything," I can't change the channel fast enough. And I don't tire of these kinds of things easily.
Wrong! Sound travels 741.1 mph at STP. I knew memorizing that value way back in 7th grade would pay off some day! I never imagined I'd be able to troll Slashdot with it, though...
Most Americans, just like most people in other countries, actually do have a sense of moral judgement, and don't believe that a corporation should be allowed to dismiss ethics for a profit. The fact that you would think any different shows me just how "American" (in your sense of the word) you are!
Tell me, if you're selling your latest window treatment or body wash, who do you think is more likely to buy it--someone who watches "Farscape" or someone who watches "Will and Grace"??
TV shows don't want to entertain you if you're not going to buy their sponsors' products. If that means they need to put mediocre shows on the air in order to attract the lemmings, that's just the way it is. To the TV execs, it's just filler between the commercials.
It's a clash of cultures. The poor success of the movie, I think, was due to the fact that they were trying to entertain two vastly different cultures with one story that ended up being somewhat unrenderable in both cultures. If you know both cultures well you can understand and appreciate what they were trying to do. But it just didn't work.
The games, on the other hand, have been quite successful simply because they're fun to play. You can hate the story and still enjoy the game.
1. This guy is not rich! He's living paycheck to paycheck, he has several huge loans and he has a lot of credit card debt.
2. It doesn't matter that he doesn't own anything he has. He knows how to take advantage of the system. If his spam business starts to go sour, he just declares bankruptcy again and gets to keep all his stuff. Then he sells some of it and moves on to his next scam.
3. He's always made his money by stealing from other people. Look for words in the article like "bankruptcy", "insurance", "defrauded", and "marketing".
Why we allow people like this to live, I'll never know...
If I switch out my hard drive and motherboard, I'm not going to want my operating system accusing me of being a criminal. That's just a bad idea. Obviously, the intelligent people at Microsoft (if there are any) aren't the ones that make the decisions.
...Microsoft's "Smart Displays" are nothing more than "Dumb Terminals". I guess when you use Microsoft, you really lower your standards.
Of course, when you've worked for a company like Microsoft, you've probably had to deal with so many extreme examples of his so-called "leaky abstractions". In this case, it's simply a buzzword phrase that dances around the more obvious and more appropriate term: bad design .
Please, no more articles from this guy. It's really insulting to the intelligence.
BTW, there are ways of getting around Bayesian filtering. For instance, if you take random words from a large dictionary of long, normal conversational but not-often-used-in-spam words and splatter them throughout your spam, its easy to convince the bayesian filter that it's not spam. Not only will this decrease your false negatives, it has the capability of increasing your false positives. This is because your new spam will be training your bayesian filter, and putting lots of non-spam-like words into its vocabulary. If the spammers keep up with their dictionaries as well as the filters keep up with theirs (and I must assume this will happen), we've still got a big problem on our hands.
Don't get me wrong. I have bogofilter installed on my mail server at home, and it works great for now. But don't expect it to work forever.
Microsoft just doesn't get it. They've already got good developers (although their collective, relative developer talent is often overrated). The products that they make are always going to be fundamentally inferior to the open source projects because of other factors. As an evil capitalist monopoly that's interested in only money, they've figured out that the best way to get that money is to promise a lot, give very little, and screw their most loyal (and most likely, their most ignorant) customers.
This doesn't have anything to do with their development efforts. They don't seem to understand that they can't put the linux community "out of business" by driving down their "profits". See, they can't even speak the same language! Until something better comes along, Linux will always be a thorn in Microsoft's side.
The difference between human intelligence and computer "intelligence" is much more subtle and obvious than what you're looking for. It has more to do with concepts, linguistics, how we define intelligence, and perhaps even conciousness. Then again, who says intelligence is not a fundamentally irreducible concept? I've never heard a satisfactory definition of "intelligence" (most failed attempts actually use "intelligence" in the definition, or simply state a tautology).
Machines are not getting smarter. While I was doing my graduate work in AI at UIUC, I slowly started to realize that AI is nothing but a farce, which is why I eventually switched my studies over to comp architecture. Sure, there are "good" algorithms written by intelligent people, but we've only shown (through Deep Blue and similar projects) that computers seem intelligent when we pair these algorithms with brute force methods, and come up with a satisfactory result. Is this intelligence?
There are many examples of complex processes performed in nature that seem to be the result of intelligence, but when they're dissected further, only result in being simple tasks that are performed over and over again, perhaps millions of times, with an impressive outcome. Is this the way that the human brain works? Probably. But the difference between our brains and my computer is so severe that at the current rate of "progress," artificial intelligence is perhaps millions of years away, if it ever happens at all. There just isn't very much to work with, and we don't even know what we're looking for.
I once heard it said, "If the human brain were simple enough for us to understand, we would be so simple that we couldn't."
I ordered Ameritech DSL (my only option). They finally showed up about a month later to install it. I had recently upped my machine's RAM to 768MB, and I hadn't booted to Windows since then. Despite trying for 3 hours, the guy couldn't install the software because 'doze 98 can't deal with more than 512MB of RAM (without a little hack I had to use later). Since I had no intention of using the DSL modem on a windows machine, I told him to leave and I would take care of it. An hour later, I had PPPOE running on my linux server. He never did install any software.
I don't buy that at all. Although it would be nice, it will always be cheaper and more practical to, say, run a wire from your computer to your monitor than to have wireless hubs in each device.
It is certainly cheaper to go wireless than it used to be, and I think technology will help us get rid of some of the more restrictive and inconvenient wiring, but your prediction sounds a lot like the empty promises of old...like "someday everyone will drive a flying car", or "in the future, everyone will use conveyor belts instead of walking to their destination."
Technology obviously helps us in many circumstances, but much of the time it's just too expensive to be convenient.
This may surprise you, but most of the population in every state is stupid enough to fall for these kinds of scams. Spam wouldn't be so prevalent (and so successful) if this was not true.
Agreed! I believe that's one of the things that made Spider-man so successful. They didn't take a teen heartthrob or some singer/actor or even some already well-known and loved actor. Becoming familiar with the new actor was part of the fun of the movie. You didn't know what to expect. Now if they could have just gotten someone besides Kirsten Dunst...