Why is it considered more morally justifiable for foreigners in American to seek to stay here for purely economic reasons but not morally justifiable for Americans to be economically opposed to migrants, H1B visas, etc? I think that thinking is totally unfair (and as unfair as the pejorative labels of "racist").
As far as I understand, it's not the economic objections that are considered morally questionable. Of course, it's kind of hard to claim real economic harm from the immigrants right now, the economy being how it is. Maybe in a few years.
The objections that often get labeled "racist" have to do with cultural differences, especially language. And you're right, it is unfair - it often has nothing to do with race. But when has political correctness been fair?
That said, there are dozens of cultures that are having similar problems - trying to defend against a cultural/language invasion. And in a lot of cases, the invaders are English language and American culture. Efforts to resist it are normally either ineffective (France, Quebec) or the cure is arguably worse than the disease (fundamentalist countries.)
Point is, the mapping between geographic location and language (and culture in general) is becoming more and more vague. In other words, it's just another effect of globalization. Cultural boundaries are being broken all over the place. I don't think there's much one can do about it.
If I'm not mistaken, the whole purpose of the student visa was give foreign students who couldn't attend college in their home country a place to learn. This equips them to return to their home, and build a better life, community, state, nation.
You are, indeed, mistaken. People who didn't have a chance to attend college in their home country comprise a tiny minority of student visa holders.
Undergraduate school requires that the students pay tuition. How many illiterate peasants from the middle of the jungle can afford to pay tuition in United States, plus travel expenses, etc?
Grad school, of course, requires prior undergrad education.
Far from being a form of charity, as you are trying to present it, it's a matter of - guess what? economics: supply and demand, in this case, for people and their brain power.
Which of course has to do with the fact that most Europeans are racist, too.
:) This sounds exactly like that old joke: "There are two things I really hate - racism and Negroes." Don't you think that by generalizing about Europeans like that you're exhibiting xenophobic behavior yourself?
The only problem with this is that unless the R2-D2 units are large distances away from eachother, its very unlikely that fog will merely be between two units. A unit stuck in the middle of the fog will be completely surrounded on all sides, so communication will be shot between whoever uses the particular node and the rest of the world.
Good point. According to the article though,
When fog suddenly descends on the city, R2-D2 senses the signal loss and adjusts the power of the laser signal--beefing it up to cut through the cold grayness.
Of course, there's limits to how strong they can make the beam without violating the international treaties on Star Wars... Hey, there's a thought - in case of a nuclear/alien attack your router can double as a surface-air defence station - ain't it cool?:)
uh, do you know how methods relate to objects in java?
Yes.
how do you disentangle "blocks of code" from methods and classes in java? please enlighten us.
By using the synchronized construct with a block of code, which will be inside some method or other:
void someUnsynchedMethod()
{
synchronized(foo) {
//This piece will be synchronized
bar();
}
}
Anyway, my point was that you can't talk about a "synchronized object". An object might have a bunch of synchronized methods, but some other methods of the same object might not be synchronized, and therefore they will not cause a performance hit.
When you enter Foo.bar.crap(crud), there isn't a genie in a bottle that comes out and figures out what you were trying to say - your statements get parsed with the presumption that you want all this object churn to happen.
...Unless, that is, all the "object churn" has been inlined by the VM - at runtime. For this exact reason, not much work is being done on the compiler optimization (I mean the compiler that produces byte-code from the source). All the optimization efforts are being concentrated on JITs/VM optimization. And, of course, at this level syntax is totally irrelevant - we're dealing with byte codes.
Java is dead on the client - deal with it - Sun has.
Is that why they bought NetBeans - a pure Java IDE development company? (And they're open sourcing it, BTW.) It feels like by the "client Java" you really mean applets - and then I agree heartily. But there's much more to the client side than that.
Plus, server side Java code has been shown to be, at times, faster than optimized C code
Oh be real - these benchmarks are all using in-memory operations on scaled data sets. Show me some real-world tests - graphics, user input
Graphics? User input? What part of "server-side" you don't understand?
As for Java performance - look at the language! All that threading, OO support, etc. that is built-in, and all that object churn you don't even know you're incurring - they're part of Java and result from the ridiculously verbose syntax.
"Verbose syntax" doesn't cause performance problems, just like abundance of consonants in a human language won't cause a drop in IQ of people who speak it. Get a clue.
You don't like Java - fine. I, personally, hate Perl, but I still admit it has its uses. Fact is, although it might not be ideal for all purposes, Java is an excellent language and platform, and Sun did a superb job creating and promoting it.
It's right for the reason you do it, but it's wrong because it can offend someone whose father was shot in the back of the neck by an SS man, while laying on the ground of a pit he was forced to dig.
>Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews.
This is something I've never heard of. Could you provide a source for this information? Not only was one of the NAACP's founders Jewish, but the organization was one of the few American groups that spoke out against the Nazi treatment of Jews during the early years of their persecution.
It wasn't NAACP as a group, it was one of their officials. And he subsequently quit. Here's a link.
As much as I like it here, I often wonder about the overall sanity of a country where the shooter has a right to carry his gun, but the shootee does not have a right to hospital treatment.
Well, if you're just carrying a gun, you're not really affecting anyone (unless you start shooting people.) Whereas when you get "free" hospital treatment, somebody has to pay for it - everyone, in fact. See the difference?
Sorry for my ranting, but at the end of the day evolution is nothing more than a myth with only circumstantial "facts" to back it up, and it doesn't deserve to be taught to children who are blinded to this important difference. There are plenty more worthwhile projects we can do in space, ones with real scientific value.
Thank God I come from somewhere where they value the difference between a theory and the Truth.
The very first thing that came to my mind when I saw the article was helium is probably on the Moon for a reason. Just because it isn't serving a direct purpose that satisifies us doesn't mean it's uselessly squandered on the Moon.
Gimme a break. Sure helium is on the Moon for a reason, and this reason is - so that we could get it and use it to the benefit of humanity.
I can understand when people are worried about ecology here on Earth. Life is precious, if only because we people like to have it around, and want our children to have it around as well.
But the Moon is dead, and fairly boring. If there is any beauty out there for us to screw up, it is well hidden. As far as we know, there's just nothing there to conservate!
Every major advance in human history (starting with farming) brought major ecological changes. If people thought about ecological consequences every time they did anything, they would still live "in harmony with nature" - a.k.a. in caves, hunting and gathering.
I should imagine these quoted lifetimes are for active pixels, otherwise they might die in the warehouse before they ever get to you.
The pixels only oxidize when exposed to light, so no, they shouldn't die in the warehouse... And normal screensavers probably wouldn't help, but screen covers might.
No one said anything about creating a display on a sheet of paper, or even if the substrate was flexible (which would be a most iteresting feature).
The article says:
"But perhaps the most tantalising development on the horizon for LEP technology, says Burroughes, is the possibility of creating video displays for, say, wireless Internet access, that can be rolled up."
This appears to indicate that the substrate at least can be flexible.
What makes you think a Java app can't use Aqua? Methinks you ought to do some investigating. Of course, a Java app that does use Aqua won't run on anything but MacOS X, but it can be done. In fact, Apple's pushing it pretty hard.
From what I heard at JavaOne this week, the Aqua look and feel for Java is in the works for JDK 1.4. When it's out, Java apps should be able to use Aqua on all (supported) platforms - write once, run anywhere, remember?
I test software for Visor Insider. I loaded dreadling up this morning on my Visor Deluxe and haven't had any trouble. admittedly I've only played for a few minutes, but it works.
It says at the web site that the shareware version works fine, but the registered version needs hardware ID which the Visor doesn't have.
It states: "Please review this Specification copy only if you licensed and downloaded it from Microsoft Corporation's website; if you did not, please destroy this copy,... You are obliged to destory it if you did not license it.
Doesn't look like that to me. Sure, they want you to destroy it, doesn't mean you have to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it considered more morally justifiable for foreigners in American to seek to stay here for purely economic reasons but not morally justifiable for Americans to be economically opposed to migrants, H1B visas, etc? I think that thinking is totally unfair (and as unfair as the pejorative labels of "racist").
As far as I understand, it's not the economic objections that are considered morally questionable. Of course, it's kind of hard to claim real economic harm from the immigrants right now, the economy being how it is. Maybe in a few years.
The objections that often get labeled "racist" have to do with cultural differences, especially language. And you're right, it is unfair - it often has nothing to do with race. But when has political correctness been fair?
That said, there are dozens of cultures that are having similar problems - trying to defend against a cultural/language invasion. And in a lot of cases, the invaders are English language and American culture. Efforts to resist it are normally either ineffective (France, Quebec) or the cure is arguably worse than the disease (fundamentalist countries.)
Point is, the mapping between geographic location and language (and culture in general) is becoming more and more vague. In other words, it's just another effect of globalization. Cultural boundaries are being broken all over the place. I don't think there's much one can do about it.
If I'm not mistaken, the whole purpose of the student visa was give foreign students who couldn't attend college in their home country a place to learn. This equips them to return to their home, and build a better life, community, state, nation.
You are, indeed, mistaken. People who didn't have a chance to attend college in their home country comprise a tiny minority of student visa holders.
Undergraduate school requires that the students pay tuition. How many illiterate peasants from the middle of the jungle can afford to pay tuition in United States, plus travel expenses, etc?
Grad school, of course, requires prior undergrad education.
Far from being a form of charity, as you are trying to present it, it's a matter of - guess what? economics: supply and demand, in this case, for people and their brain power.
Which of course has to do with the fact that most Europeans are racist, too.
:) This sounds exactly like that old joke: "There are two things I really hate - racism and Negroes." Don't you think that by generalizing about Europeans like that you're exhibiting xenophobic behavior yourself?
The only problem with this is that unless the R2-D2 units are large distances away from eachother, its very unlikely that fog will merely be between two units. A unit stuck in the middle of the fog will be completely surrounded on all sides, so communication will be shot between whoever uses the particular node and the rest of the world.
:)
Good point. According to the article though,
When fog suddenly descends on the city, R2-D2 senses the signal loss and adjusts the power of the laser signal--beefing it up to cut through the cold grayness.
Of course, there's limits to how strong they can make the beam without violating the international treaties on Star Wars... Hey, there's a thought - in case of a nuclear/alien attack your router can double as a surface-air defence station - ain't it cool?
uh, do you know how methods relate to objects in java?
//This piece will be synchronized
Yes.
how do you disentangle "blocks of code" from methods and classes in java? please enlighten us.
By using the synchronized construct with a block of code, which will be inside some method or other:
void someUnsynchedMethod()
{
synchronized(foo) {
bar();
}
}
Anyway, my point was that you can't talk about a "synchronized object". An object might have a bunch of synchronized methods, but some other methods of the same object might not be synchronized, and therefore they will not cause a performance hit.
Find me ten average Java programmers who can point out the synchronized objects and the non-synchronized objects they are instantiating
Synchronization applies to methods, and more generally, blocks of code, not objects. It would appear that your Java experience is somewhat limited.
When you enter Foo.bar.crap(crud), there isn't a genie in a bottle that comes out and figures out what you were trying to say - your statements get parsed with the presumption that you want all this object churn to happen.
...Unless, that is, all the "object churn" has been inlined by the VM - at runtime. For this exact reason, not much work is being done on the compiler optimization (I mean the compiler that produces byte-code from the source). All the optimization efforts are being concentrated on JITs/VM optimization. And, of course, at this level syntax is totally irrelevant - we're dealing with byte codes.
Java is dead on the client - deal with it - Sun has.
Is that why they bought NetBeans - a pure Java IDE development company? (And they're open sourcing it, BTW.) It feels like by the "client Java" you really mean applets - and then I agree heartily. But there's much more to the client side than that.
Plus, server side Java code has been shown to be, at times, faster than optimized C code
Oh be real - these benchmarks are all using in-memory operations on scaled data sets. Show me some real-world tests - graphics, user input
Graphics? User input? What part of "server-side" you don't understand?
As for Java performance - look at the language! All that threading, OO support, etc. that is built-in, and all that object churn you don't even know you're incurring - they're part of Java and result from the ridiculously verbose syntax.
"Verbose syntax" doesn't cause performance problems, just like abundance of consonants in a human language won't cause a drop in IQ of people who speak it. Get a clue.
You don't like Java - fine. I, personally, hate Perl, but I still admit it has its uses. Fact is, although it might not be ideal for all purposes, Java is an excellent language and platform, and Sun did a superb job creating and promoting it.
It's right for the reason you do it, but it's wrong because it can offend someone whose father was shot in the back of the neck by an SS man, while laying on the ground of a pit he was forced to dig.
Offensive != wrong.
>Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews.
This is something I've never heard of. Could you provide a source for this information? Not only was one of the NAACP's founders Jewish, but the organization was one of the few American groups that spoke out against the Nazi treatment of Jews during the early years of their persecution.
It wasn't NAACP as a group, it was one of their officials. And he subsequently quit. Here's a link.
As much as I like it here, I often wonder about the overall sanity of a country where the shooter has a right to carry his gun, but the shootee does not have a right to hospital treatment.
Well, if you're just carrying a gun, you're not really affecting anyone (unless you start shooting people.) Whereas when you get "free" hospital treatment, somebody has to pay for it - everyone, in fact. See the difference?
Also, there was this business with bacteria surviving three years on the Moon... here's the link:
http://www.microbewo rld.org/mlc/pages/contents/22.htm#marooned
Sorry for my ranting, but at the end of the day evolution is nothing more than a myth with only circumstantial "facts" to back it up, and it doesn't deserve to be taught to children who are blinded to this important difference. There are plenty more worthwhile projects we can do in space, ones with real scientific value.
Thank God I come from somewhere where they value the difference between a theory and the Truth.
Kansas?
The very first thing that came to my mind when I saw the article was helium is probably on the Moon for a reason. Just because it isn't serving a direct purpose that satisifies us doesn't mean it's uselessly squandered on the Moon.
Gimme a break. Sure helium is on the Moon for a reason, and this reason is - so that we could get it and use it to the benefit of humanity.
I can understand when people are worried about ecology here on Earth. Life is precious, if only because we people like to have it around, and want our children to have it around as well.
But the Moon is dead, and fairly boring. If there is any beauty out there for us to screw up, it is well hidden. As far as we know, there's just nothing there to conservate!
Every major advance in human history (starting with farming) brought major ecological changes. If people thought about ecological consequences every time they did anything, they would still live "in harmony with nature" - a.k.a. in caves, hunting and gathering.
So don't give me this New Age crap.
I should imagine these quoted lifetimes are for active pixels, otherwise they might die in the warehouse before they ever get to you.
The pixels only oxidize when exposed to light, so no, they shouldn't die in the warehouse... And normal screensavers probably wouldn't help, but screen covers might.
No one said anything about creating a display on a sheet of paper, or even if the substrate was flexible (which would be a most iteresting feature).
The article says:
"But perhaps the most tantalising development on the horizon for LEP technology, says Burroughes, is the possibility of creating video displays for, say, wireless Internet access, that can be rolled up."
This appears to indicate that the substrate at least can be flexible.
What makes you think a Java app can't use Aqua? Methinks you ought to do some investigating. Of course, a Java app that does use Aqua won't run on anything but MacOS X, but it can be done. In fact, Apple's pushing it pretty hard.
From what I heard at JavaOne this week, the Aqua look and feel for Java is in the works for JDK 1.4. When it's out, Java apps should be able to use Aqua on all (supported) platforms - write once, run anywhere, remember?
What will be the first species to inhabit the new island? ($50 says its spiders!)
I don't think so: spiders are predators (they eat insects), their food has to inhabit the island before them.
I test software for Visor Insider. I loaded dreadling up this morning on my Visor Deluxe and haven't had any trouble. admittedly I've only played for a few minutes, but it works.
It says at the web site that the shareware version works fine, but the registered version needs hardware ID which the Visor doesn't have.
An alternative download place: PalmGear (the site in the aticle is slashdotted.)
a thousand tiny robots = a thousand points of failure.
Not really. In fact, if they're interchangeable, a thousand tiny robots = 999 replacements if one fails.
Doesn't look like that to me. Sure, they want you to destroy it, doesn't mean you have to do it.