First of all, it's a strictly american view of the world (post 9/11 world etc - only the US connects with that), but as a show they took everything the original was fun about and turned it upside down.
The original Starbuck was one of the coolest characters around, mainly because the actor knew how to do it, the new Starbuck sucks big time.
The connection to ancient civilizations (Mayans, Azteks etc) was totally lost, and hence any 'real' connection to Earth whatsoever.
The settings in the new BSG are totally unbelievable as alien, because they are exactly the same as modern day Earth: people use shotguns, wear 3-piece suits and there is a 'president' that everyone (or almost everyone) looks upon as some kind of hero. In the original, the clothes were silly but at least were different, the guns were not something we can buy at shops and the social hierarchy could only be found in ancient societies, and the leader was a wise man that was respected by all because of his wisdom...
I know many, if not all, will disagree with this, but it's the truth. Sorry guys, in the history of television, the new BSG will go down the toilet as one example of not how to do sci-fi...
Yes, I like it very much. When programming, I have at least two word documents open, a dozen web pages pointing to documentation, and a dozen source files. I wouldn't like all those windows to have a separate entry in the task bar.
Thanks, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the Mac. Isn't the Mac supposed to be the best computing experience out of the box? Having to download add ons and tweak the environment just to get some basic functionality is just another proof that Macs are no better than Windows or Linux.
In my department, we recently purchased a Mac for testing our Java apps on it. I've been using various brands of computers for a long time, and I can safely say that Macs are very similar to PCs running either Windows or Linux. The differences are superficial, and the same problems can be found on all three environments; for example, we had some trouble configuring network printer access with Macs and we had to search on the web to find a solution, which is an action path most often taken for the other environments as well.
When we were waiting for the Mac to arrive, I was thinking that "if it's so superior than the others as they say, I'll get one for home"...well, it's not. And the interface is not that good (for example, the lack of MDI can be really confusing; another example: the dock makes me search all the time for the items I want).
Therefore I don't expect Macs ever getting really popular. Unless Apple does something vastly different and superior, The Mac is a Linux/Windows variant at heart, with a little polish on top.
The reason computers exist is because they automate tasks...therefore, I want my programming language to automate as many things as possible. If a thing can be automated and my language does not do it, then it's the language that's at fault, and not me.
C leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to automating tasks; its shortcomings are numerous and have nothing to do with system programming.
Can we please stop whining for such small issues? It's unbelievable...buddy, you should be happy you have a nice job and a laptop to write your code on. It's does not really matter if you can't see 40 instead of 30 lines of code!!!
The Windows code is a big pile of code that includes everything, and there no separation of concerns: An example: the Windows message queue is filled with all kinds of messages, some are related to the GUI, some are not. Another example: A C GUI toolkit is mixed with the Window Manager, making it very difficult to replace the GUI with something else. It's no wonder that with such a mess, it's very difficult to change things.
Unix is very nicely layered: the kernel, the file system and the GUI system are very lowly coupled, thus allowing for changing parts of the system and not affecting the rest of it.
What I would expect from Microsoft is to ditch the Windows code entirely and start from scratch, then provide a compatibility layer in the new O/S that emulates the old environment. The new code should be designed correctly, so as that future changes are easier.
Perhaps I am an idiot, but those people that deny the fact that C is one of the reasons that IT has huge problems today are also idiots. There are vastly safer programming languages than C that are equal to C when it comes to low-level programming. Microsoft has an entire operating system in works based entirely on software isolation with safety provable at compile-time, for crying out loud.
The reason we have such programs is that C allows for partial functions. For example, the type of malloc is:
malloc : int -> void* | int -> null
But the 2nd branch of the malloc's type is quietly suppressed, leading to the problems mentioned in the article.
You don't need a virtual machine to run safe code. Advanced type systems have been developed that do not allow you to screw things and be as good as C in performance and control.
You do understand that all those nasty loosely-typed pointer-based exploits you and others disdain in C, exist because C nicely mirrors how the actual hardware handles similar concepts?
ADA has pointers, but it does not let you screw things up like that. The idea that a language that allows control of the hardware should be unsafe is silly.
And if programmers would check that the allocation succeeded, we would also have no problem.
Why let the programmers do it and risk failure, when the machine can do it better?
In your hypothetical "safe" language (C#, for example), I can't count how many times I've seen system calls wrapped in a try/catch to hide the exception, then carry on pretending the call worked just fine. Guess what? SAME DAMNED PROBLEM!
Precision and control of the underlying hardware has nothing to do with the safety of a programming language. They could have used ADA, for example, or Erlang, which is used in embedded devices.
I think it's telling that in general, almost nobody wants to secede from the United States. If the country were to go downhill to enough of an extent that this changed, I'd support secession as a remedy if enough people in a given state or area wanted it (and if it wasn't just so they could continue slavery or something like that).
Recently, an ad depicted USA without California. Guess what? there was a public outcry from US citizens, because you don't want a piece of your land to be taken from your country!!! same goes for Serbia/Kosovo, but for Serbia/Kosovo you support the opposite view.
I don't entirely disagree with you on this point. But you must realize that, to a Muslim, politics is part of religion.
They are not after USA for religious reasons, but for political reasons.
Hey, the problems of the world are myriad, and we're never going to solve them all to anyone's satisfaction. I just brought up some examples that seemed relevant to our discussion here.
The world's serious political problems are less than your fingers, as we speak. Yet you only try to solve some of them.
A bunch of people believed that garbage a hundred years ago, and it never led to anything good. Markets are, so far, the best economic system we have. Failing to recognize that marks you as a pseudointellectual.
The better societies of Sweden, Germany, Switcherland etc (where social democracy is applied) strongly disagree with you. You failed to justify how the "best" system, as you claim, produces 50 million poor people (that's 1/6 of the US population), tent cities etc.
We don't have tent cities in my country, and we are one of the worst economies of Europe...
If the majority of Californians wanted to secede from the US and join Mexico, I would hope for their self-determination to be respected as well. As it turns out, the majority of Californians want it the other way around, which is why California seceded from Mexico and joined the US. Same for Texas.
It was a hypothetical question. It seems you agree with the map of US changing...is this true? or you are just saying that because it's not going to happen in reality?
Wrong. You don't get to attack the United States and then hide in the middle of nowhere. We will hunt you down and kill you all.
But you don't have proof that those who attacked the United States are hiding in the middle of nowhere. And you are not going against the terrorists...Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the continued presence of US forces in Afghanistan is not because you are hunting the terrorists. If you wanted, you could have eliminated Al Qaeda a long time ago, but it serves you to have a ghost enemy, because you can interfere with anything you like.
What you've read is wrong. If anything, the dependence on drugs to be happy can be laid at the feet of pharmaceuticals more than anyone else.
The capitalistic society oppresses its members by putting them in a constant hunt for profit. This creates the need for escapism, which drugs offer.
I do think things should be different.
You don't. Your previous posts make it obvious...you even say so.
I just think they should be different in different ways than you do.
There is only one way to have peace and justice on Earth.
For instance, it would be great if, instead of trying to blow up the civilized world, more Muslims participated in it.
But you are not examining the cause of the problem! the problem is political, not religious, and your country is in the middle of it. If it was religious, Muslims would put bombs in the Vatican. That's what you don't realize.
It would be great if governments stopped throwing people in prison for putting the wrong substances into their bodies.
It would be great if governments went after those substances and destroyed them.
It would be wonderful if Koreans and Chinese gave up their racial hatred of the Japanese, and if the North Korean government collapsed this afternoon, so we could get our troops out of East Asia. It would be great if the Serbs recognized the self-determination of the ethnic groups they tried to exterminate in the 90's.
So that's all for you? all the problems of the world are just that? your myopia is obvious: you don't care for what happens to the rest of the world, you only care for serving your interests.
And it would be wonderful if European countries embraced markets more and welfare less. The problem is that you want to take us backwards, not forwards.
That's a major mistake of yours. Economic liberalism is destroying capitalism for the masses, because it favors capitalism for the elite. All the major players in the world (the president of the World Bank, the EU etc) have started talking about governments regulating markets more, because the extreme liberalism and the lack of any control puts all the wealth in the hands of the few.
Free will is bound by the physical conditions at the point of decision...I have the free will to take route A or route B, but when it's time to decide, I'll choose route A, due to what I have in my brain at the time. If the sequence of events is different, then I might choose route B, and all this does not violate the concept of free will.
Even if it takes 10000 years to achieve space travel (assuming it's possible) that will allows us to colonize the galaxy, it's insignificant compared to the benefits. Imagine you are in 1000000 years from now and looking back at the start of space travel history...10000 years is nothing. And 50 years is less than nothing. Too bad we live at this era and can't enjoy space travel...
But not all black people identify with Africa...for an American that has never been there, does not have anything to do with Africa, why should he/she be called African-American? If Malcolm X wanted to refer to himself and his partners like that, he has every right to. But not all people identify themselves as such...
And then there is the issue of while people coming from Africa. Are they African Americans, as well?
The US did no such thing, either in Bosnia or in Kosovo. The only thing NATO did was protect the peaceful self-determination of the majority populations of Bosnia and Kosovo.
Now you've passed a limit where an opinion becomes a lie. Kosovo is part of Serbia. How would you feel if the UN came and took California out of the US, and attached it to Mexico?
Supporting democracy is just as unethical as quashing it?
You did not support democracy. You paid people so as that those elected are your puppets.
Let me ask you: which country trains the most doctors, invents the most medicine, and so forth?
The Taliban were primarily interested in controlling Afghanistan. It's the people who the Taliban were harboring who were the problem. They aren't the threat the Soviets were, but they're still killers and we still have every right to slay them.
You don't have any rights to slay them. The only right you have is to defend your country, within your country's limits.
Alcohol causes brain damage, too. And in my experience, the marijuana culture is very much separate from the hard drug culture.
Perhaps, I am not a drugs specialist or user. But from what I've read, soft drugs usually lead to hard drugs. In either case, though, a society which depends on drugs to be happy has serious problems.
You still haven't figured out how the world works, if you think redistributing wealth is worthwhile.
I surely have figured how the world works, that's why I am not happy with it. And if it was on my hands, I'd change it. You, on the other hand, thinks that things are what they are because they are, without having given any thought to it. They have brainwashed you to believe that things should not be different...and that's the most dangerous thing!
Yes, Kosovo has Serbs, just as Czechoslovakia had Germans. But the Serbs of Kosovo are a minority population who used the military force of greater Serbia to oppress the majority of Kosovars, just as they did in Bosnia.
Not currently...perhaps 15 years ago. And you, me and anyone else does not have the right to take one piece of land from one country and make it another country.
That's what every human organization and every nation in history has ever done.
That's the first sincere word coming out of your mouth in our discussion. But it does not fix things, does it? And it's not an excuse, especially for the superpower that USA is.
Of those hundreds of nations, only a dozen or so respect human rights any more than the United States does. The UN lacks moral authority because the majority of UN members are violent, murderous governments with little pretense of being anything more.
They are in their right to not respect human rights. Who are you to judge? the UN was created to avoid future wars, not to invade other countries.
Even among the security council, Russia has proven increasingly prone to use assassination and political violence, and China has, within the past 20 years, used tanks and machine guns to murder peaceful protesters in their own streets. Any organization that can be even remotely influenced by such governments is not to be trusted.
The Russian government is no more unethical than the US government that supported the "orange revolution" in Georgia and Ukraine in order to encircle Russia, using money through CIA, the George Soros foundation etc.
"Poverty" in America often involves having cable TV and being overweight. I'd rather be poor by American standards than rich by the standards of half the countries on the map.
That you restrict poverty in possession of material goods is indicative of your mentality. We are talking social welfare here...to be able to go the doctor, to afford a serious operation or medicine, etc. In the US poorer people die like dogs because they can not afford hospitals or doctors. And if you don't have to pay, they will kick you out of hospitals, even if you are dying. So much for your humanitarianism. By the way, the living standards of the countries I mentioned not only provide having cable TV, but much more than you can ever have.
There are a considerable number of people in Afghanistan who are willing to kill people in order to bring much of the world under the control of a medieval religious dictatorship.
Bullshit. There is no such thing. It's only Bush and his cronies that says that. Talibans are not interested in bringing the world to the control of a medieval religious dictatorship, they are only interested in their areas being so. You are not very serious if you thing that they have the means to conquer the world, do you?
In case you forgot, they killed some of us awhile back.
Ha ha ha!!! it was a coup!!! you are so naive!!! the largest attack ever done from Al Qaeda is on the range of 200 people in Indonesia...except for 9/11!!!
And if we didn't go over there to kill some of them, we'd be at greater risk. I have lots of problem with how this war on terrorism has been executed, but going into Afghanistan and slaying the al-Qaeda and Taliban we found there was absolutely the right call. Our only mistake is that we failed to slay any more of them.
All I can say is : bouahahahahahahaahah!!! you are not serious are you? how old are you, 16? I am sorry to revert to such comments, but your comment above is ludicrous, to say the least. I am not gonna explain it to you though. Do it yourself, you might learn something in the process.
Compared to alcohol and tobacco, it's as safe as apple pie: it's non-addictive, non-lethal, doesn't lead to violent
Maybe it should be, but it's not. And in practice, it would still be our obligation because every time the UN wants to go to war (Korea 1950, Iraq 1991), it uses the American military to do so.
It's not because you don't let it happen, that's why it's not.
It's the people of Kosovo who wanted to leave Serbia.
No, it is the Albanians of Kosovo that wanted to leave Serbia. Kosovo has Serbs, but of course you don't know that, because your media does not tell you such "details".
All the US government did was try to protect them from Milosevic's genocide.
There never was a genocide. More media brainwashing...
"Macedonia" is a stupid pissing match not worth discussing
Why is it stupid? there are lots of things in stake there. It's not only the name, its the cultural inheritance and all the things that depend on it, in tourism and economy.
and it's hypocritical of you to criticize American interventionism on the one hand while also criticizing the US government for failing to intervene in Cyprus.
The hypocrisy is from your part. You either protect all or none. You can't just protect some, because it serves your interests.
As for the Palestinians, we're in the right. Democratically elected governments that shoot rockets into residential neighborhoods are still guilty of shooting rockets into residential neighborhoods and deserve to be slain to the last man.
And organized armies killing unarmed 5 year olds are not?
The UN does everything they can to undermine the American government. They have their role to play but the US provides an important counterbalance to the UN's power. A critical American principle that foreigners never understand is that we understand, and stridently fight against, the dangers of centralized power.
What you say is illogical. The UN is composed of 100s of nations. How come all these nations are trying to undermine the American government? what is more probable, that 100s of nations are against Americans or that the imperial superpower that is the USA wants to get its things done without ever paying attention to what others need?
Indeed: charity is better than welfare, as are all the things America has historically done to relieve poverty by creating wealth
No, charity is much worse than welfare. USA creates wealth for the rich: 10% of the population owns 90% of wealth. 50 million people are under poverty in the USA, as we speak.
(instead of merely redistributing it).
Another logical fallacy. You can't redistribute what you don't have, so obviously countries with good social welfare systems have produced wealth.
It's not perfect but neither are your welfare states.
The standard of living in countries with social welfare is much higher than that of USA.
I'm going to have to see some solid evidence that we're doing a damn thing about Venezuela other than buying their oil.
It's in the news.
What makes you think I voted for this government anyway, or for any government?
I wasn't speaking about you in particular.
No one is going to invade Washington precisely because of our military power.
No, even if you had 1/20 of the military power you have, no one was going to invade Washington. There is simply no reason for doing so. USA does not have the natural resources which are usually the motivation for such a move.
In any case, it's vitally necessary for the security of the world that America maintains its military: even if the UN takes over our foreign obligations, the US is the only country left that can afford the military force necessary to meet all those obligations, which is why
Slashdot Mirror
But what about those 1 billion people (ok, number out of ass, but you get the point) that are starving to death and live in horrible conditions?
The new BSG sucks big time.
First of all, it's a strictly american view of the world (post 9/11 world etc - only the US connects with that), but as a show they took everything the original was fun about and turned it upside down.
The original Starbuck was one of the coolest characters around, mainly because the actor knew how to do it, the new Starbuck sucks big time.
The connection to ancient civilizations (Mayans, Azteks etc) was totally lost, and hence any 'real' connection to Earth whatsoever.
The settings in the new BSG are totally unbelievable as alien, because they are exactly the same as modern day Earth: people use shotguns, wear 3-piece suits and there is a 'president' that everyone (or almost everyone) looks upon as some kind of hero. In the original, the clothes were silly but at least were different, the guns were not something we can buy at shops and the social hierarchy could only be found in ancient societies, and the leader was a wise man that was respected by all because of his wisdom...
I know many, if not all, will disagree with this, but it's the truth. Sorry guys, in the history of television, the new BSG will go down the toilet as one example of not how to do sci-fi...
Yes, I like it very much. When programming, I have at least two word documents open, a dozen web pages pointing to documentation, and a dozen source files. I wouldn't like all those windows to have a separate entry in the task bar.
Thanks, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the Mac. Isn't the Mac supposed to be the best computing experience out of the box? Having to download add ons and tweak the environment just to get some basic functionality is just another proof that Macs are no better than Windows or Linux.
In my department, we recently purchased a Mac for testing our Java apps on it. I've been using various brands of computers for a long time, and I can safely say that Macs are very similar to PCs running either Windows or Linux. The differences are superficial, and the same problems can be found on all three environments; for example, we had some trouble configuring network printer access with Macs and we had to search on the web to find a solution, which is an action path most often taken for the other environments as well.
When we were waiting for the Mac to arrive, I was thinking that "if it's so superior than the others as they say, I'll get one for home"...well, it's not. And the interface is not that good (for example, the lack of MDI can be really confusing; another example: the dock makes me search all the time for the items I want).
Therefore I don't expect Macs ever getting really popular. Unless Apple does something vastly different and superior, The Mac is a Linux/Windows variant at heart, with a little polish on top.
The reason computers exist is because they automate tasks...therefore, I want my programming language to automate as many things as possible. If a thing can be automated and my language does not do it, then it's the language that's at fault, and not me.
C leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to automating tasks; its shortcomings are numerous and have nothing to do with system programming.
Can we please stop whining for such small issues? It's unbelievable...buddy, you should be happy you have a nice job and a laptop to write your code on. It's does not really matter if you can't see 40 instead of 30 lines of code!!!
The Windows code is a big pile of code that includes everything, and there no separation of concerns:
An example: the Windows message queue is filled with all kinds of messages, some are related to the GUI, some are not.
Another example: A C GUI toolkit is mixed with the Window Manager, making it very difficult to replace the GUI with something else.
It's no wonder that with such a mess, it's very difficult to change things.
Unix is very nicely layered: the kernel, the file system and the GUI system are very lowly coupled, thus allowing for changing parts of the system and not affecting the rest of it.
What I would expect from Microsoft is to ditch the Windows code entirely and start from scratch, then provide a compatibility layer in the new O/S that emulates the old environment. The new code should be designed correctly, so as that future changes are easier.
Perhaps I am an idiot, but those people that deny the fact that C is one of the reasons that IT has huge problems today are also idiots. There are vastly safer programming languages than C that are equal to C when it comes to low-level programming. Microsoft has an entire operating system in works based entirely on software isolation with safety provable at compile-time, for crying out loud.
The reason we have such programs is that C allows for partial functions. For example, the type of malloc is:
malloc : int -> void* | int -> null
But the 2nd branch of the malloc's type is quietly suppressed, leading to the problems mentioned in the article.
You don't need a virtual machine to run safe code. Advanced type systems have been developed that do not allow you to screw things and be as good as C in performance and control.
Thank you. These little details seem very unimportant at first, but they are the basis for the huge problems IT is facing...
The article says they used malloc to allocate memory, but don't let your ignorance of the article stop you from decrying my comment.
Precision and control of the underlying hardware has nothing to do with the safety of a programming language. They could have used ADA, for example, or Erlang, which is used in embedded devices.
Thanks a lot.
Assuming that Flash is made in C or C++, here is another very vivid example of why these languages should be banned.
If failure of allocation threw an exception, instead of just returning null, there would be no problem.
The better societies of Sweden, Germany, Switcherland etc (where social democracy is applied) strongly disagree with you. You failed to justify how the "best" system, as you claim, produces 50 million poor people (that's 1/6 of the US population), tent cities etc.
We don't have tent cities in my country, and we are one of the worst economies of Europe...
Free will is bound by the physical conditions at the point of decision...I have the free will to take route A or route B, but when it's time to decide, I'll choose route A, due to what I have in my brain at the time. If the sequence of events is different, then I might choose route B, and all this does not violate the concept of free will.
Even if it takes 10000 years to achieve space travel (assuming it's possible) that will allows us to colonize the galaxy, it's insignificant compared to the benefits. Imagine you are in 1000000 years from now and looking back at the start of space travel history...10000 years is nothing. And 50 years is less than nothing. Too bad we live at this era and can't enjoy space travel...
But not all black people identify with Africa...for an American that has never been there, does not have anything to do with Africa, why should he/she be called African-American? If Malcolm X wanted to refer to himself and his partners like that, he has every right to. But not all people identify themselves as such...
And then there is the issue of while people coming from Africa. Are they African Americans, as well?
Not currently...perhaps 15 years ago. And you, me and anyone else does not have the right to take one piece of land from one country and make it another country.
That's the first sincere word coming out of your mouth in our discussion. But it does not fix things, does it? And it's not an excuse, especially for the superpower that USA is.
They are in their right to not respect human rights. Who are you to judge? the UN was created to avoid future wars, not to invade other countries.
The Russian government is no more unethical than the US government that supported the "orange revolution" in Georgia and Ukraine in order to encircle Russia, using money through CIA, the George Soros foundation etc.
That you restrict poverty in possession of material goods is indicative of your mentality. We are talking social welfare here...to be able to go the doctor, to afford a serious operation or medicine, etc. In the US poorer people die like dogs because they can not afford hospitals or doctors. And if you don't have to pay, they will kick you out of hospitals, even if you are dying. So much for your humanitarianism. By the way, the living standards of the countries I mentioned not only provide having cable TV, but much more than you can ever have.
Bullshit. There is no such thing. It's only Bush and his cronies that says that. Talibans are not interested in bringing the world to the control of a medieval religious dictatorship, they are only interested in their areas being so. You are not very serious if you thing that they have the means to conquer the world, do you?
Ha ha ha!!! it was a coup!!! you are so naive!!! the largest attack ever done from Al Qaeda is on the range of 200 people in Indonesia...except for 9/11!!!
All I can say is : bouahahahahahahaahah!!! you are not serious are you? how old are you, 16? I am sorry to revert to such comments, but your comment above is ludicrous, to say the least. I am not gonna explain it to you though. Do it yourself, you might learn something in the process.
Invasion and military occupation are not good reasons for you? Well, don't be surprised if the rest of the world says you are hypocrites.
So where is the defense of Cyprus that was invaded by Turkey?
It's not because you don't let it happen, that's why it's not.
No, it is the Albanians of Kosovo that wanted to leave Serbia. Kosovo has Serbs, but of course you don't know that, because your media does not tell you such "details".
There never was a genocide. More media brainwashing...
Why is it stupid? there are lots of things in stake there. It's not only the name, its the cultural inheritance and all the things that depend on it, in tourism and economy.
The hypocrisy is from your part. You either protect all or none. You can't just protect some, because it serves your interests.
And organized armies killing unarmed 5 year olds are not?
What you say is illogical. The UN is composed of 100s of nations. How come all these nations are trying to undermine the American government? what is more probable, that 100s of nations are against Americans or that the imperial superpower that is the USA wants to get its things done without ever paying attention to what others need?
No, charity is much worse than welfare. USA creates wealth for the rich: 10% of the population owns 90% of wealth. 50 million people are under poverty in the USA, as we speak.
Another logical fallacy. You can't redistribute what you don't have, so obviously countries with good social welfare systems have produced wealth.
The standard of living in countries with social welfare is much higher than that of USA.
It's in the news.
I wasn't speaking about you in particular.
No, even if you had 1/20 of the military power you have, no one was going to invade Washington. There is simply no reason for doing so. USA does not have the natural resources which are usually the motivation for such a move.