I was thinking that "staunchy" is a good word for "tending to staunch" -- for example, a bandage is staunchy when it staunches a wound.
But I was mistaking "staunch" for "stanch" -- ones stanches (not staunches) a wound.
So then I think, "staunchy", from "staunch" -- thus "tending to be loyal or devoted".
Now I find out that "staunchy" means "stinky".
Which kind of fits both ways... bloody wounds are stinky... tendencies to loyalty are stinky (by comparison with real, true, full loyalty, as opposed to mere tendencies)... it all fits together.
... really good developers are more a cross between engineers and artists.
Agreed.
When talking with non-developers about developers, I use the simile that developers are like novelists, who work out stories in their heads, and commit those stories to paper.
A novel contains a set of symbols which, taken collectively, and written correctly, form an impressive body of knowledge that can change the world. (Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is my usual example.)
But if the symbols are faulty -- if the book is badly written, if the grammar and spelling are faulty -- then the book will fail to sell, fail to make its point, fail to change the world.
The idea of a back-talking robot cigar reminds me of this passage from Ubik:
Back in the kitchen he fished in his various pockets for a dime, and with it started up the coffeepot. Sniffing the—to him—very unusual smell, he again consulted his watch, saw that fifteen minutes had passed; he therefore vigorously strode to the apt door, turned the knob and pulled on the release bolt. The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.”
He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.”
“I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.”
In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
“You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug.
From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless-steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door.
“I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out.
Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”
Agreed, "cycle of poverty" is a descriptive phrase, not a metaphor. Poor writing on my part; thank you for calling me out.
I like the excited electron model of entrepreneurship, because electron-entrepreneur commonly de-excite and fall back to lower orbital shells.
By the same token, I can see how many restaurateur-entrepreneurs achieve creamy Alfredo-sauceness with just a hint of garlic, yet some revert to bread and water.
While it's entirely possible to create trustworthy hardware, I don't know how it's possible to convey the trustworthiness. What you can do, which is probably as good as can be done, is to create things such that individually subverted instances of the hardware could be trivially distinguished from the standard issue hardware.
Yes. I think you have nailed it, right on the head.
The Long Now Foundation was established in 01996* to develop the Clock and Library projects, as well as to become the seed of a very long-term cultural institution. The Long Now Foundation hopes to provide a counterpoint to today's accelerating culture and help make long-term thinking more common. We hope to creatively foster responsibility in the framework of the next 10,000 years.
Who cares? What harm is done? It's not like these noobies are going to be our new co-workers, now or ever. It's not like they are taking bread from our mouths.
We should be happy that beginners take an interest in coding, not surly over some imagined insult to the collective intelligence of coders.
Galileo and other early inventors were bitter rivals for the secrets of optics. Lots of deception, aggrandizement, hard feelings and litigation.
Ancient tales of magical mirrors play a part in the tale of telescopy. We have numerous accounts of, say, a man atop the highest tower in Alexandria, who, with the aid of a magical glass, can see all that happens in London. These tall tales go on and on -- magical mirrors and lenses which see distant sights, peers around corners, see through walls... mostly far-fetched, yet meaningful in an age of discovery.
I read a book on the topic -- the title escapes me, sorry -- thin, scholarly study. Good stuff, recommended.
I am aware of the difference between CO2 and CO, and considered toning down my inflammatory (asphyxiatory?) rhetoric.
But in the end (motived by +funny karma whoring) I chose polemic black humor over rational scientific discourse, hoping that no one would call me out for bad science.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking that "staunchy" is a good word for "tending to staunch" -- for example, a bandage is staunchy when it staunches a wound.
But I was mistaking "staunch" for "stanch" -- ones stanches (not staunches) a wound.
So then I think, "staunchy", from "staunch" -- thus "tending to be loyal or devoted".
Now I find out that "staunchy" means "stinky".
Which kind of fits both ways ... bloody wounds are stinky ... tendencies to loyalty are stinky (by comparison with real, true, full loyalty, as opposed to mere tendencies) ... it all fits together.
"Staunchy" should be a word. I like the sound of it.
Agreed.
When talking with non-developers about developers, I use the simile that developers are like novelists, who work out stories in their heads, and commit those stories to paper.
A novel contains a set of symbols which, taken collectively, and written correctly, form an impressive body of knowledge that can change the world. (Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is my usual example.)
But if the symbols are faulty -- if the book is badly written, if the grammar and spelling are faulty -- then the book will fail to sell, fail to make its point, fail to change the world.
Thank you.
The idea of a back-talking robot cigar reminds me of this passage from Ubik:
Back in the kitchen he fished in his various pockets for a dime, and with it started up the coffeepot. Sniffing the—to him—very unusual smell, he again consulted his watch, saw that fifteen minutes had passed; he therefore vigorously strode to the apt door, turned the knob and pulled on the release bolt. The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.”
He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.”
“I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.”
In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
“You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug.
From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless-steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door.
“I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out.
Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”
-- Ubik by Philip K. Dick
"Rectum" and "detonate on contact" ... your answer may serve Justice -- but who will clean up the mess?
"Customers who suffered this disease also purchased diagnostic tests for ..."
Made me smile, to see the Rifleman's Creed adapted for new purposes.
This is my good code / This is my bug
One is for running / One makes me shrug.
Agreed, "cycle of poverty" is a descriptive phrase, not a metaphor. Poor writing on my part; thank you for calling me out.
I like the excited electron model of entrepreneurship, because electron-entrepreneur commonly de-excite and fall back to lower orbital shells.
By the same token, I can see how many restaurateur-entrepreneurs achieve creamy Alfredo-sauceness with just a hint of garlic, yet some revert to bread and water.
The phrase "cycle of poverty" -- while meaningful, and sad -- is a tired metaphor.
Successful entrepreneurs are more like excited electrons, jumping to a higher orbital shell.
More like this, please.
3-D Movies at Home + Nuclear Power = Entertainment Too Cheap to Meter!
Yes. I think you have nailed it, right on the head.
About
Censor them all, and let the NSA sort them out.
Well said. I would mod you up if I had mod points.
Let's be honest: we men want a sensor that will detect how badly a woman needs sex.
A horrible thing to say about a possible suicide.
But it made me laugh.
We are not perfect.
Second question: how evil is this practice?
I withdraw the word "surly" -- it's not appropriate here, and I apologize. Your phrase "The only exception I take ..." is not surly.
Also, I am pleased that you concluded your post with a sentiment that matches my own:
Who cares? What harm is done? It's not like these noobies are going to be our new co-workers, now or ever. It's not like they are taking bread from our mouths.
We should be happy that beginners take an interest in coding, not surly over some imagined insult to the collective intelligence of coders.
Galileo and other early inventors were bitter rivals for the secrets of optics. Lots of deception, aggrandizement, hard feelings and litigation.
Ancient tales of magical mirrors play a part in the tale of telescopy. We have numerous accounts of, say, a man atop the highest tower in Alexandria, who, with the aid of a magical glass, can see all that happens in London. These tall tales go on and on -- magical mirrors and lenses which see distant sights, peers around corners, see through walls ... mostly far-fetched, yet meaningful in an age of discovery.
I read a book on the topic -- the title escapes me, sorry -- thin, scholarly study. Good stuff, recommended.
You are right, of course.
I am aware of the difference between CO2 and CO, and considered toning down my inflammatory (asphyxiatory?) rhetoric.
But in the end (motived by +funny karma whoring) I chose polemic black humor over rational scientific discourse, hoping that no one would call me out for bad science.
Life is not fair, my dears. Do the best you can under the circumstances.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm busy exhaling deadly carbon dioxide into the air you breath.
Introducing non-coders to coding ... it feels good ... it just does.