Since the taxpayer took a large stake in RBS, it has been deliberately run into the ground to lower it's share price ready to be sold back into private ownership. It ends up looking like a windfall for the current chancellor, when in fact it's transferred a big pile of taxpayer's money into private hands while wrecking a financial institution.
Banksters.
Mr Stepanov, do you follow the ongoing efforts to standardise Concepts as a language feature in iso c++?
If so, how do you think it's going? Would you do anything differently? To what extent do you think the standard library should provide Concepts?
I recall learning about Concepts from the SGI STL doc many years ago and being very surprised to find that things like ForwardIterator weren't part of the iso spec.
If I fall for a phishing scam because I'm convinced the site I'm looking at is owned by my bank, isn't that the bank having it's ID stolen?
So if the phishers get me to give them money, the bank pays it back right?
Obviosuly not, that would be crazy. Just because it was done in the bank's name doesn't mean it's the bank's responsibility.
Surely then, it's just as crazy that private individuals have to pay back banks who get scammed, just becuase it's done in their name.
how about if he rejigged his crawler to get the data from the google cache instead? So he'd never get anything from facebook or enter into any implied agreement with them.
So I sent a link to article to my mum and girlfriend, both of who are with the ISP Tiscali.
It came back with "Unnacceptable Mail Content". Tinfoil hat engaged, I sent a few more variations to see exactly what they're blocking.
As far as I can tell, it's any link to a guardian.co.uk url.
Interesting, given there's an election coming up...
Try it for yourself if you know anyone on tiscali - send a mail with a guardian.co.uk URL in the body.
Your logic is flawed, sorry.
Obviously the weight of other evidence suggests that the holocaust happened. But unless you read the books you can't be sure it doesn't show some amazing new evidence. For the record I haven't read them either and would be incredibly surprised if they did hold amazing new evidence of any kind, but not having read them I can't be sure. Something being probably true doesn't make it so.
Not having read a book doesn't stop you from critisizing it's conclusions, but it does stop you from saying that the book doesn't prove those conclusions. How can you know?
Rampant egomania has nothing to do with accuracy. I don't care if the guy's an asshole - I want to know if he's saying something interesting.
Damn near impossible to finish? Well, I've never managed to finish the silmarillion, and therefore don't expect people to see my views on it as valid (apart from the view that it's almost unreadable!). Just because I haven't managed to read it all doesn't mean it sucks or that it's inaccurate.
My worry is that nobody able to esablish the validity of wolfram's book will ever actually read it all - theres no vested interest in proving your existing wisdom wrong (and certainly not when it means buying and reading a huge book by an asshole).
I've seen a few comments from people saying they flicked through, but not one person saying they read it all.
I have to say (not having read it) that when someone says they have written something that breaks conventional wisdom, and the only response is from people saying it's rubbish EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT READ THE ENTIRE BOOK, I begin to mistrust the views of anyone saying it's rubbish.
If you haven't read the thing, having any definitive view on it is bogus. Trying to convince others that your view is correct is even more bogus. The closest we've got to a review is "I read a review by someone else and...." WTF? What makes you think that reviewer read it either?
And these same people say this wolfram guy is a charlaton? His critics seem worse, somehow.
The "voice of the guide" narration in the bbc TV series worked pretty well - when the audience was confused as to what was happening in the main story, a calm voice would start to explain... and leave you even more confused but in fits of laughter.
"after disproving the existance of god, man goes on to prove 1=2, black=white, and gets run over on the next zebra crossing"
Wooo. Sarcasm. Well done.
I agree with your implication that old farmers are likely know a lot more about the natural world through day to day experience than scientists do by extrapolating from the works of other scientists, though.
If the UN starts arguing about the net, it'll be a good ten years before any one nation can do anything definite with the net. Hopefully by that time freenet will be fast and stable, and greedy politicians won't be a problem for the net anymore.
You're right, it worked. I bow to your superior marketting ability;)
I might bring ths up with my lecturers in the Human Computer Interfaces module I'm taking - doubt they'll agree, but then they're hopeless HCI nutters.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the taxpayer took a large stake in RBS, it has been deliberately run into the ground to lower it's share price ready to be sold back into private ownership. It ends up looking like a windfall for the current chancellor, when in fact it's transferred a big pile of taxpayer's money into private hands while wrecking a financial institution. Banksters.
es" Yeah, I'd been wondering why since last week around half my hundred or so albums on 7digital were suddenly unavailable for download.
Mr Stepanov, do you follow the ongoing efforts to standardise Concepts as a language feature in iso c++? If so, how do you think it's going? Would you do anything differently? To what extent do you think the standard library should provide Concepts? I recall learning about Concepts from the SGI STL doc many years ago and being very surprised to find that things like ForwardIterator weren't part of the iso spec.
overlords
if Her Majesty's Government uses torrents, they must be OK, right?
If I fall for a phishing scam because I'm convinced the site I'm looking at is owned by my bank, isn't that the bank having it's ID stolen? So if the phishers get me to give them money, the bank pays it back right? Obviosuly not, that would be crazy. Just because it was done in the bank's name doesn't mean it's the bank's responsibility. Surely then, it's just as crazy that private individuals have to pay back banks who get scammed, just becuase it's done in their name.
It'd been a cesspool for years though. I check back every few days. I have a feeling I'll see MDC get the last laugh if I stick around long enough.
no moar k5s cts?
aha, thanks!
how about if he rejigged his crawler to get the data from the google cache instead? So he'd never get anything from facebook or enter into any implied agreement with them.
So I sent a link to article to my mum and girlfriend, both of who are with the ISP Tiscali. It came back with "Unnacceptable Mail Content". Tinfoil hat engaged, I sent a few more variations to see exactly what they're blocking. As far as I can tell, it's any link to a guardian.co.uk url. Interesting, given there's an election coming up... Try it for yourself if you know anyone on tiscali - send a mail with a guardian.co.uk URL in the body.
probably too late for anyone to see this, but look what I found: an open implementation hosted on sourceforge
And has some kind of linux support.
No, I've no idea why we don't all have one either...
Your logic is flawed, sorry. Obviously the weight of other evidence suggests that the holocaust happened. But unless you read the books you can't be sure it doesn't show some amazing new evidence. For the record I haven't read them either and would be incredibly surprised if they did hold amazing new evidence of any kind, but not having read them I can't be sure. Something being probably true doesn't make it so. Not having read a book doesn't stop you from critisizing it's conclusions, but it does stop you from saying that the book doesn't prove those conclusions. How can you know?
Rampant egomania has nothing to do with accuracy. I don't care if the guy's an asshole - I want to know if he's saying something interesting.
Damn near impossible to finish? Well, I've never managed to finish the silmarillion, and therefore don't expect people to see my views on it as valid (apart from the view that it's almost unreadable!). Just because I haven't managed to read it all doesn't mean it sucks or that it's inaccurate.
My worry is that nobody able to esablish the validity of wolfram's book will ever actually read it all - theres no vested interest in proving your existing wisdom wrong (and certainly not when it means buying and reading a huge book by an asshole).
I've seen a few comments from people saying they flicked through, but not one person saying they read it all.
I have to say (not having read it) that when someone says they have written something that breaks conventional wisdom, and the only response is from people saying it's rubbish EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT READ THE ENTIRE BOOK, I begin to mistrust the views of anyone saying it's rubbish.
If you haven't read the thing, having any definitive view on it is bogus. Trying to convince others that your view is correct is even more bogus. The closest we've got to a review is "I read a review by someone else and...." WTF? What makes you think that reviewer read it either?
And these same people say this wolfram guy is a charlaton? His critics seem worse, somehow.
The "voice of the guide" narration in the bbc TV series worked pretty well - when the audience was confused as to what was happening in the main story, a calm voice would start to explain... and leave you even more confused but in fits of laughter.
"after disproving the existance of god, man goes on to prove 1=2, black=white, and gets run over on the next zebra crossing"
Wooo. Sarcasm. Well done. I agree with your implication that old farmers are likely know a lot more about the natural world through day to day experience than scientists do by extrapolating from the works of other scientists, though.
Quite weird - there was an elderly farmer saying much the same thing this morning on my bus to work.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't a guardian reader, it's just something he'd noticed over the years.
At the time, I thought he was talking crazy talk...
If the UN starts arguing about the net, it'll be a good ten years before any one nation can do anything definite with the net. Hopefully by that time freenet will be fast and stable, and greedy politicians won't be a problem for the net anymore.
Old programmers don't die, they're just cast into the void.
This future's past it's sell by date. The white paper is dated 21/11/01...
You're right, it worked. I bow to your superior marketting ability ;)
I might bring ths up with my lecturers in the Human Computer Interfaces module I'm taking - doubt they'll agree, but then they're hopeless HCI nutters.
These are rules of UI design, not specific to the web... Bad headline ./
he'd better not fly over the UK then.. no sun here ;)