That approach doesn't scale. You need admins who will read every comment and apply a little thought, making reasonably consistent judgments. Without explicit rules (that can be gamed), in a sufficiently active forum the admins will start ticking people off with inconsistent and unappealable rulings, and by rejecting posts that have genuine thought behind potentially controversial points.
Why do you have arcane syntax? Why are there no tools to check and automatically correct simple syntax errors?
What do you mean by arcane syntax? Some of it gets rather out there for various reasons, but mostly it's fairly easy to learn. There are tools to check simple syntax errors, but automatic correction is more difficult. The compiler knows something's wrong with the code, and probably what, but not necessarily what.
Why are there 50+ different programming languages (I get why there should be more than one, but I can't envision a need for more than maybe 10-12)?
There's FAR more than 50 different programming languages, and there's a lot of different reasons for them. C++ is known for arcane syntax, and D was an attempt to make a better C++. Forth was based on threaded execution to save space. PL/I was an attempt to take the then-popular computer languages and come up with a language with all the best features of them. Simula, Lisp, Trac, and some other languages were developed to use new models of computation. Java was an attempt to take the best features of object-oriented languages without the tricky bits. Erlang was developed to suit one company's special needs. Perl was an attempt to make a useful easy-to-use language for text processing. (So was Snobol, for that matter, but Perl was a lot more successful.) Whitespace and Intercal are, explicitly, jokes. Dylan was intended as a Lisp with more common syntax. I can go on and on. Languages are developed because people see uses for them.
Much of the pain and obscene complexity and continual churn of new languages could be dealt with if software engineers formed a professional organization with the basic charter of approving new languages before they could be put into use. After all, a language is useless unless people use it.
In the first place, there isn't a mindless churn. People come up with improvements. There's better languages to program with today than there were fifteen years ago.
In the second place, what do we need the professional organization for? People can come up with the languages they like, and other people can decide whether or not to use them. We get essentially the same effect without the bureaucracy.
In the third place, such an institution would stifle creativity. If it wanted standard syntax, we wouldn't have gotten Perl or Haskell or Prolog. People develop new languages that do all sorts of strange things, and some are useful.
In the fourth place, why the hell should I be restricted in programming languages I personally use because of some formal group?
IIRC, there's a chapter in the Kama Sutra about seducing other men's wives, but not one about seducing other women's husbands. Ethical issues right there.
Computers can be programmed to adjust for mistakes. Humans often can't adjust for their mistakes. There's not as much of a difference here as you claim.
"Socially positive" is often difficult to determine. That doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to try to reason about, and it's a useful concept in ethical discussions.
Someone could use this data to devise a new super-weapon.
I don't see that as a significant ethical issue.
First, almost any research could go to create a new super-weapon. It's ridiculous to stop research because something might become useful for a super-weapon. In almost all cases, research will bring benefits outweighing super-weapon potential.
Second, that a particular super-weapon is possible doesn't mean anyone's going to actually build one.
Third, the mere existence of a super-weapon is ethically neutral. Weapons are tools to an end, and a sufficiently powerful weapon can be useful to deter aggression and doesn't need to be used in any unethical manner.
Fourth, the decision to use weapons does not require consensus. One country can start waging war for its own purposes, and defending against that is usually considered ethical. That means that, under some circumstances, it's ethical to use weapons. The premier super-weapon of our time was used to end WWII, likely reduced overall Japanese suffering, and almost certainly reduced suffering overall.
I find it fun in general to take on arbitrary challenges, which includes making software work the way other people like. I was feeling positively guilty one day when everybody was held up and waiting while I worked out a really fun debugging problem.
Marx was correct about some things. Some of the demands in the Communist Manifesto look pretty mainstream nowadays. His ideas on how to set up a socialist state could be excellent, should we ever find another intelligent species they're suited for. They sure don't work for humans.
Thank you very much. This is what I was asking for.
It looks to me like fuelTankStores could be done fairly easily in C++ with a copy_if referencing an any_of with a lambda saying whether an upgrade was a fuel tank. I'd have to do a little work to confirm this and write up a solution, which isn't going to be done at my desk at work. copy_if with a lambda is one way to filter a map to pick elements satisfying a given predicate. There are others. I'm not sure what the problem with all_of is, as it returns a bool, which appears to me to be what you want. If you want the first element satisfying a predicate, that's what find_if is for.
Nested for loops can be become a C++ function returning bool or whatever that is you need that will fit into a library algorithm because lambdas are cool. Lambdas add a lot of functional programming capability to C++, and make it possible to do a lot of things that would be much more hassle in C++03.
Now, the MaxFPAvailableForMP function looks a lot more difficult to do that way in C++. I'd have to do some serious putzing around to see if I could do it readably.
Of course Haskell syntax is much better than C++ syntax. That sentence remains true if you substitute almost any other mainstream or semi-mainstream language for "Haskell".
I'm slowly learning Haskell myself, since it does look useful to know. Not necessarily to write programs in, but to know how to write a good Haskell program, to internalize the mindset.
I've seen people concerned that Trump is getting profits from foreigners, which is perfectly Constitutional. There may be other relevant laws that I don't know about.
Is Trump charging domestic governments for anything concerning security at Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That would be unconstitutional.
The US has some pretty extreme protections of free speech. While most other developed countries are strongly for free speech, they have a lot more exceptions than the US does. Hate speech laws here would be clearly against the First Amendment. I'm not worried.
The left also has absolutely no problem generalizing the evils of "white people," "men," Christians, etc.
is a clear overgeneralization, although there are leftist idiots that are as you describe. You were responding to what I perceive as a common left-wing view, and arguing that it was wrong because of the lunatic fringe.
Side note: It is funny (in a sad way) the way in which Trump and his supporters are more than happy to dish it out, but oh, so sensitive when someone dishes back. There is a word for this. Trump and his supporters are hypocrites.
I prefer to call them special snowflakes that appear to need safe places. It seems more appropriate.
One of the basic principles in The Bell Curve was that IQ tests are reliable indicators of intelligence and not based on environment. Unless people's genes have been changed somehow to increase their intelligence over the past century, which seems incredible, we know from the Flynn Effect that something else, which has to be environmental, is increasing IQ scores. Since there are environmental disparities between whites and blacks in the US, on the average, a measured difference of 10 IQ points means nothing. If there's other research that shows inherent racial differences in intelligence, I haven't seen it.
So, I have seen no good evidence that there is such a disparity. IQ is partly genetic, but it's complex. The study in question found lots of genes that have something to do with intelligence, but none of them had a large effect. I'm not aware of complicated genetic phenomena that vary a lot racially. I'm sticking with the null hypothesis, that there is no significant racial difference in genetic factors for intelligence, until somebody provides me with evidence to the contrary.
And Bush used that as an excuse to run onerous security theater at airports, Obama (to my disappointment) worsened it, and Trump has increased doubt about whether people with visas will be let in.
It's possible that no crime was committed, and it's definitely possible that there will not be enough evidence to convict. Russia was probably meddling in the election, and there were a lot of contacts with Trump officials and Russians. What makes me more suspicious is the cover-up: given an appearance of impropriety, an attempt to cover it up and impede an investigation suggests there is something to it.
You don't know that there's no smoking gun. The investigation is continuing, and there has been no final report. There's good reasons why investigators don't reveal all the evidence they find when they find it.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep up those 360-degree turns and you'll get precisely nowhere. Try going in one direction rather than all of them.
Look, you won. Get over it.
I don't know about that. Some trolling is pretty funny to bystanders.
That approach doesn't scale. You need admins who will read every comment and apply a little thought, making reasonably consistent judgments. Without explicit rules (that can be gamed), in a sufficiently active forum the admins will start ticking people off with inconsistent and unappealable rulings, and by rejecting posts that have genuine thought behind potentially controversial points.
What do you mean by arcane syntax? Some of it gets rather out there for various reasons, but mostly it's fairly easy to learn. There are tools to check simple syntax errors, but automatic correction is more difficult. The compiler knows something's wrong with the code, and probably what, but not necessarily what.
There's FAR more than 50 different programming languages, and there's a lot of different reasons for them. C++ is known for arcane syntax, and D was an attempt to make a better C++. Forth was based on threaded execution to save space. PL/I was an attempt to take the then-popular computer languages and come up with a language with all the best features of them. Simula, Lisp, Trac, and some other languages were developed to use new models of computation. Java was an attempt to take the best features of object-oriented languages without the tricky bits. Erlang was developed to suit one company's special needs. Perl was an attempt to make a useful easy-to-use language for text processing. (So was Snobol, for that matter, but Perl was a lot more successful.) Whitespace and Intercal are, explicitly, jokes. Dylan was intended as a Lisp with more common syntax. I can go on and on. Languages are developed because people see uses for them.
In the first place, there isn't a mindless churn. People come up with improvements. There's better languages to program with today than there were fifteen years ago.
In the second place, what do we need the professional organization for? People can come up with the languages they like, and other people can decide whether or not to use them. We get essentially the same effect without the bureaucracy.
In the third place, such an institution would stifle creativity. If it wanted standard syntax, we wouldn't have gotten Perl or Haskell or Prolog. People develop new languages that do all sorts of strange things, and some are useful.
In the fourth place, why the hell should I be restricted in programming languages I personally use because of some formal group?
Testers who break things are both the best and most useful and the most annoying.
IIRC, there's a chapter in the Kama Sutra about seducing other men's wives, but not one about seducing other women's husbands. Ethical issues right there.
I did a week of data entry once, because I was the best person for the job. I didn't reduce my rates, though.
Are you saying that it's untrue that women make approximately 70% of what men do? That there are a lot of male engineers who make women uncomfortable?
Computers can be programmed to adjust for mistakes. Humans often can't adjust for their mistakes. There's not as much of a difference here as you claim.
"Socially positive" is often difficult to determine. That doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to try to reason about, and it's a useful concept in ethical discussions.
I don't see that as a significant ethical issue.
First, almost any research could go to create a new super-weapon. It's ridiculous to stop research because something might become useful for a super-weapon. In almost all cases, research will bring benefits outweighing super-weapon potential.
Second, that a particular super-weapon is possible doesn't mean anyone's going to actually build one.
Third, the mere existence of a super-weapon is ethically neutral. Weapons are tools to an end, and a sufficiently powerful weapon can be useful to deter aggression and doesn't need to be used in any unethical manner.
Fourth, the decision to use weapons does not require consensus. One country can start waging war for its own purposes, and defending against that is usually considered ethical. That means that, under some circumstances, it's ethical to use weapons. The premier super-weapon of our time was used to end WWII, likely reduced overall Japanese suffering, and almost certainly reduced suffering overall.
I find it fun in general to take on arbitrary challenges, which includes making software work the way other people like. I was feeling positively guilty one day when everybody was held up and waiting while I worked out a really fun debugging problem.
Marx was correct about some things. Some of the demands in the Communist Manifesto look pretty mainstream nowadays. His ideas on how to set up a socialist state could be excellent, should we ever find another intelligent species they're suited for. They sure don't work for humans.
Thank you very much. This is what I was asking for.
It looks to me like fuelTankStores could be done fairly easily in C++ with a copy_if referencing an any_of with a lambda saying whether an upgrade was a fuel tank. I'd have to do a little work to confirm this and write up a solution, which isn't going to be done at my desk at work. copy_if with a lambda is one way to filter a map to pick elements satisfying a given predicate. There are others. I'm not sure what the problem with all_of is, as it returns a bool, which appears to me to be what you want. If you want the first element satisfying a predicate, that's what find_if is for.
Nested for loops can be become a C++ function returning bool or whatever that is you need that will fit into a library algorithm because lambdas are cool. Lambdas add a lot of functional programming capability to C++, and make it possible to do a lot of things that would be much more hassle in C++03.
Now, the MaxFPAvailableForMP function looks a lot more difficult to do that way in C++. I'd have to do some serious putzing around to see if I could do it readably.
Of course Haskell syntax is much better than C++ syntax. That sentence remains true if you substitute almost any other mainstream or semi-mainstream language for "Haskell".
I'm slowly learning Haskell myself, since it does look useful to know. Not necessarily to write programs in, but to know how to write a good Haskell program, to internalize the mindset.
I've seen people concerned that Trump is getting profits from foreigners, which is perfectly Constitutional. There may be other relevant laws that I don't know about.
Is Trump charging domestic governments for anything concerning security at Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That would be unconstitutional.
The US has some pretty extreme protections of free speech. While most other developed countries are strongly for free speech, they have a lot more exceptions than the US does. Hate speech laws here would be clearly against the First Amendment. I'm not worried.
What you said:
is a clear overgeneralization, although there are leftist idiots that are as you describe. You were responding to what I perceive as a common left-wing view, and arguing that it was wrong because of the lunatic fringe.
I prefer to call them special snowflakes that appear to need safe places. It seems more appropriate.
I wasn't asked whether I was a native English speaker before the test.
One of the basic principles in The Bell Curve was that IQ tests are reliable indicators of intelligence and not based on environment. Unless people's genes have been changed somehow to increase their intelligence over the past century, which seems incredible, we know from the Flynn Effect that something else, which has to be environmental, is increasing IQ scores. Since there are environmental disparities between whites and blacks in the US, on the average, a measured difference of 10 IQ points means nothing. If there's other research that shows inherent racial differences in intelligence, I haven't seen it.
So, I have seen no good evidence that there is such a disparity. IQ is partly genetic, but it's complex. The study in question found lots of genes that have something to do with intelligence, but none of them had a large effect. I'm not aware of complicated genetic phenomena that vary a lot racially. I'm sticking with the null hypothesis, that there is no significant racial difference in genetic factors for intelligence, until somebody provides me with evidence to the contrary.
Modern Republicans have been doing a lot to suppress black voting, so you're wrong.
I have no idea why the number of counties voting one way or another should be significant.
Got any evidence of illegal alien voting? Thought not.
And Bush used that as an excuse to run onerous security theater at airports, Obama (to my disappointment) worsened it, and Trump has increased doubt about whether people with visas will be let in.
It's possible that no crime was committed, and it's definitely possible that there will not be enough evidence to convict. Russia was probably meddling in the election, and there were a lot of contacts with Trump officials and Russians. What makes me more suspicious is the cover-up: given an appearance of impropriety, an attempt to cover it up and impede an investigation suggests there is something to it.
You don't know that there's no smoking gun. The investigation is continuing, and there has been no final report. There's good reasons why investigators don't reveal all the evidence they find when they find it.