You're the nitwit. The GP mentions the law, but the focus of the comment was on harm, which the GGP keeps insisting is what is relevant instead of the law.
What if I think I have some disorder, study the symptoms I'm "supposed" to have, report them to a doctor, and manage to get myself a prescription I shouldn't have?
Still, your point about incorrect assumptions vs. incorrect information is basically sound.
This is not some new internet-based phenomenon. 20 years ago, it was people hypochondriacs rifling through the DSM or the Physicians Desk Reference (big book of pills)
There's nothing contradictory about behaving as though one thing is useful and claiming that some other thing is not necessary. Indeed, there's nothing contradictory about using some device to talk to someone and saying to that person, by means of that very device, that you think such devices are not a necessity. You yourself put in the talk about "see[ing] absolutely no value in it," which is, again, completely different from (and completely logically compatible with) claiming something is not necessary.
That's just fine. However, the word "quantify" doesn't mean "give evidence sufficient for verification." This is the point that the GGGP (I think) was trying to get at with the line "is that quantitative enough for you?" or whatever it was.
I agree that giving numbers would be more precise, but "more" etc. just are expressions of quantity, i.e., of how-much-ness. It's true that in the GGP, they are being used to compare qualities, but the key word there is "compare," because precisely what is being compared in each case is those qualities' intensity, number, or ratio, that is, quantities of qualities.
'Most in search of malware for offensive use know the good stuff -- it ain't distributed through public Web... It's distributed through dark Web servers
Well, then, they should just block the ports typically associated with the DarkText Transfer Protocol.
"churning out" "popular" "a can of" "a few years back" "a language few people are willing to learn" "slowly" "makes it even harder" "reasonably fast (getting faster)" "plenty of mindshare" "most importantly" "isn't much" "simply an additional one"
You do realize those are all quantitative expressions, right?
From (my) snark to (your) informativeness in two posts. Bravo. Thanks for taking the time; I understand that this is something you are intimately involved with and in a position to speak about authoritatively.
The principle that a programming language should be designed in light of its function as a medium of communication between programmers seems like a very insightful one, and I can understand that with that goal in mind, study of human communication is probably more useful than study of algorithmic efficiency (or whatever computer scientists study, which I don't know). The correlative principle that "different things should look different" sounds good, too, though (as you're probably quite well aware) the important thing here is what the relevant differences are. What is unclear to me is just what branch of human sciences studies what kinds of similarities and differences programmers are looking for. Maybe it's the emerging science of Perl Apocalyptology!
In any case, thanks again for keeping me honest and schooling me.
OK, I'm not going to pretend I know more than you about developing Perl, for obvious reasons. And my ignorance about the training of the people developing it is showing. But since I have you on the line, so to speak, are you in fact asserting that Perl is like natural languages? I'm not sure either linguistics or computer-language development is well served by this comparison. Do you think it is? On a day-to-day basis, does it actually guide your choices about the language?
Only Perl programmers think Larry Wall is a trained linguist. It would be more accurate to say he remembered some terms from a few linguistics classes he took as an undergraduate (notably "topicalization") and used them as metaphors to describe the rationale behind some design choices he made in creating Perl. The explanations aren't terrible, and some things in Perl's syntax were indeed "intuitive" by comparison with C, but the notion that Perl "has a striking resemblance to natural language" is a dream of people who don't really know much about how "natural language" looks, i.e., non-linguists.
Actually, the audio hourglass cursor first created by the senior hourglass expert was green-lighted by the Senior VP for Cursors, but nixed by the Chief Audio Officer or CAO. External audio/cursor mediation consultants were brought in and a compromise was reached by which the same sound would be re-recorded, but this time under the auspices of the CAO's handpicked Special Cursor Liaison Officer to the office of the Senior VP for Cursors.
<caseykasem>and that boy grew up to be... Paul Allen.<caseykasem>
Re:What did you think of these "chemists"?
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 1
So one cannibal says to another, "Does this clown taste funny to you?"
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder how they socially engineer away the presence of a camera team in the air vents.
"We're filming here."
You're replying to the wrong person.
You're the nitwit. The GP mentions the law, but the focus of the comment was on harm, which the GGP keeps insisting is what is relevant instead of the law.
Yes, and breaking through someone's supposedly invulnerable security undetected is a pretty clever trick.
What if I think I have some disorder, study the symptoms I'm "supposed" to have, report them to a doctor, and manage to get myself a prescription I shouldn't have?
Still, your point about incorrect assumptions vs. incorrect information is basically sound.
This is not some new internet-based phenomenon. 20 years ago, it was people hypochondriacs rifling through the DSM or the Physicians Desk Reference (big book of pills)
There's nothing contradictory about behaving as though one thing is useful and claiming that some other thing is not necessary. Indeed, there's nothing contradictory about using some device to talk to someone and saying to that person, by means of that very device, that you think such devices are not a necessity. You yourself put in the talk about "see[ing] absolutely no value in it," which is, again, completely different from (and completely logically compatible with) claiming something is not necessary.
Is that something about which you think you're right? Do you see the problem?
I think we should all be glad that TimeCube took much longer to arrive.
Four times longer? You only think that because you've been educated stupid.
That's just fine. However, the word "quantify" doesn't mean "give evidence sufficient for verification." This is the point that the GGGP (I think) was trying to get at with the line "is that quantitative enough for you?" or whatever it was.
Or they could look for the directives commonly associated with DTTP and not found among HTTP's GET and POST, namely, PURLOIN and FOIST.
I agree that giving numbers would be more precise, but "more" etc. just are expressions of quantity, i.e., of how-much-ness. It's true that in the GGP, they are being used to compare qualities, but the key word there is "compare," because precisely what is being compared in each case is those qualities' intensity, number, or ratio, that is, quantities of qualities.
You shouldn't complain about something that pushes your chances of getting laid up into the single digits. :-o
'Most in search of malware for offensive use know the good stuff -- it ain't distributed through public Web ... It's distributed through dark Web servers
Well, then, they should just block the ports typically associated with the DarkText Transfer Protocol.
Do you even know what "quantification" means?
"churning out" "popular" "a can of" "a few years back" "a language few people are willing to learn" "slowly" "makes it even harder" "reasonably fast (getting faster)" "plenty of mindshare" "most importantly" "isn't much" "simply an additional one"
You do realize those are all quantitative expressions, right?
Chromatic,
From (my) snark to (your) informativeness in two posts. Bravo. Thanks for taking the time; I understand that this is something you are intimately involved with and in a position to speak about authoritatively.
The principle that a programming language should be designed in light of its function as a medium of communication between programmers seems like a very insightful one, and I can understand that with that goal in mind, study of human communication is probably more useful than study of algorithmic efficiency (or whatever computer scientists study, which I don't know). The correlative principle that "different things should look different" sounds good, too, though (as you're probably quite well aware) the important thing here is what the relevant differences are. What is unclear to me is just what branch of human sciences studies what kinds of similarities and differences programmers are looking for. Maybe it's the emerging science of Perl Apocalyptology!
In any case, thanks again for keeping me honest and schooling me.
OK, I'm not going to pretend I know more than you about developing Perl, for obvious reasons. And my ignorance about the training of the people developing it is showing. But since I have you on the line, so to speak, are you in fact asserting that Perl is like natural languages? I'm not sure either linguistics or computer-language development is well served by this comparison. Do you think it is? On a day-to-day basis, does it actually guide your choices about the language?
Only Perl programmers think Larry Wall is a trained linguist. It would be more accurate to say he remembered some terms from a few linguistics classes he took as an undergraduate (notably "topicalization") and used them as metaphors to describe the rationale behind some design choices he made in creating Perl. The explanations aren't terrible, and some things in Perl's syntax were indeed "intuitive" by comparison with C, but the notion that Perl "has a striking resemblance to natural language" is a dream of people who don't really know much about how "natural language" looks, i.e., non-linguists.
No shit, Sherlock.
What does it mean that I read the title as "Scientists Crap a Rainbow ... in your mind!"?
Or none, if you've got a Mac.
Programs running on humans = religion. Hackers = L. Ron Hubbard, whoever wrote the Bible, the Torah, etc.
My inner swarm is whispering to me that 1992 called and wants its mass-market paperback scifi novel premise back.
Let a thousand tags bloom!
Actually, the audio hourglass cursor first created by the senior hourglass expert was green-lighted by the Senior VP for Cursors, but nixed by the Chief Audio Officer or CAO. External audio/cursor mediation consultants were brought in and a compromise was reached by which the same sound would be re-recorded, but this time under the auspices of the CAO's handpicked Special Cursor Liaison Officer to the office of the Senior VP for Cursors.
<caseykasem>and that boy grew up to be ... Paul Allen.<caseykasem>
So one cannibal says to another, "Does this clown taste funny to you?"