That sounds like a great way to continue to sell hardware at a premium, and allow vendors to keep making money off of moore's law.
It doesn't sound like a very good way to allow end users to make efficent use of their hardware.
If users want a cost effective piece of hardware that's good for a lot of things, I don't see how generic hardware that can be load balanced isn't a win.
It was probably against your university's terms of service for network access, because they wanted to have a rule to point at when banning you for chewing up the entire university's bandwidth. So in that case, it was against the rules for you, but not generally illegal.
In my limited observation of the phenomenon, the consensus has generally been reached among mathematical WP editors that the proofs do not belong in the main article about the "Foo function", and they are often not notable as articles themselves (i.e. "Proof of the foo function" pages). As a result, attaching relevant proofs to an article as a subpage has become something of a pattern. I've seen it well done in some of the General Relativity articles (it functions nicely as a sort of appendix for the article where all of the relevant proofs are collected). Anyways, this problem has been solved before with dictionary definitions. (i.e. moved to http://wiktionary.org/) It seems to me like a similar solution would work here. In fact now that I look, it seems that someone has proposed such a project, although not targeted at solving this particular issue. It seems to have not gotten very far though.
I didn't interpret it as a complaint about the article or about Obama's suggestion. It was a complaint about how people from a technical community such as slashdot should know better than to submit or approve an article summary that is so useless to leave out the only actual detail of this story that was actually important: whether or not the debate content would be freely redistributable. Fine, complaining about the editors is redundant. Sue me.
For once, that sentiment was actually expressed in TFA:
Each of these approaches has its flaws. The first kind of correlational study can never prove that video-game playing causes physical aggression. Maybe aggressive people are simply more apt to play violent games in the first place. Meanwhile, the randomized trials, like Anderson and Dill's, which do imply causation, necessarily depend on lab-based measures of aggression, such as whether subjects blast each other with noise. This is a respected measure, but obviously not the same as seeing whether real people hit or shoot each other.
Well, sure it's not ideal, but since I was the first to call 'dibs', then you're sure gonna be disappointed when I get my shiny new as-habitable-as-Nevada planet.
Clearly bugs originate with devs, the same way typos and spelling errors originate with authors. The occurrence of such errors is inevitable. The process as a whole is what is responsible for eliminating them. To the extent that the devs failed to contribute to that process then yes, they also deserve blame.
While the GNU project and the FSF certainly aren't shy about their licensing opinions, they are also extraordinarily noisy about the reasons for their opinions as well. Judge for yourself whether or not you agree with those opinions.
Given that I've missed 3 classes in the last week because I didn't want to get out of bed.. I'd say I'm an idea candidate for one of these, though I feel like it'd get lost enough in the mess of my dorm room that I'd never find it. Another trick that works though, is to get a LOUD alarm clock and put it across the room from you. This works especially well if you have a bunked bed, and FORCES you to get out of bed to shut the damn thing off. Putting your alarm within reach of your sleeping body is a good way to ensure a late morning.
Funny and insightful, unfortunately, no karma for you. In today's common programming languages, you're definitely right. For multi-threaded software to really take off, there need to be popular programming languages that make it idiot proof.
While I understand the importance of web searches, would it be so hard to change the nature of web crawlers so that they didn't spider a site unless they were specifically allowed?
Yes, it would be hard. However the technical problems would certainly be solvable for a company like google. The real problem is that this would serve to further entrench google's monopoly on search. I love google as much as the next guy, but I certainly don't want to start introducing measures that will make it more difficult for a google-killer to arise.
You know, like you don't generally walk into somebody's house or cube at work and start rummaging through their stuff just because the door is open.
That's the worst analogy I've ever heard that didn't fulfill Godwin's Law. The web was designed to be a public place for the sharing of information. Trying to think of it like the inside of someone's house is just going to lead you in the wrong direction. A much better analogy would be that information posted on the web is like a campaign poster or some other notice posted on someone's lawn. Yes, it's hosted on private property and the information posted there belongs to the person posting it, but it is displayed publicly and acting as if it weren't is just silly.
It skips over a lot of the hand holding that a "Learn Foo in X Days" book will give you but goes in to great detail about how the language is implemented, often giving examples of how C# code is compiled to IL assembly language and sometimes further giving examples of how it will be compiled by the JIT compiler into x86 assembly language.
If you're good and an asshole, you're still an asshole.
In order for you to consider negative use of "elitist" equivalent to "terrified of excellence", you must consider "elitism" and "excellence" as equivalent. They are not!
Elitism is a mix of self-righteousness, self-aggrandizement, contempt for others, and closed-mindedness. None of these things are "excellent" or even "close to optimal", let alone "optimal". Elitism is a social entity, not an analytical one. It is abhorrent precisely because it disregards analysis and merit.
There is no innate utility to recommend elitism. Every time (typically that is) I hear someone use "elitist" negatively, I hear someone being called out for their unnecessary and counterproductive assholery.
Interesting points. I agree with you that excellence is not elitism. I disagree that the original post in this thread was elitist in the ways you list. Possibly it could be interpreted as a little self-aggrandizing, but that was sort of his point: that the slashdot community is one where the majority respect intellectualism rather than disdain it. I think that the post I originally replied to did not use the term in a manner anywhere close to the way you mean it. I don't mean that elitism is good, what I mean is that the things that are bad about elitism are better described by more specific terms which thinking people will naturally use alongside their usage of their usage of the term elitism. You have demonstrated yourself to be a thinking person, while kmac06 has not in this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like a great way to continue to sell hardware at a premium, and allow vendors to keep making money off of moore's law.
It doesn't sound like a very good way to allow end users to make efficent use of their hardware.
If users want a cost effective piece of hardware that's good for a lot of things, I don't see how generic hardware that can be load balanced isn't a win.
It was probably against your university's terms of service for network access, because they wanted to have a rule to point at when banning you for chewing up the entire university's bandwidth. So in that case, it was against the rules for you, but not generally illegal.
In my limited observation of the phenomenon, the consensus has generally been reached among mathematical WP editors that the proofs do not belong in the main article about the "Foo function", and they are often not notable as articles themselves (i.e. "Proof of the foo function" pages). As a result, attaching relevant proofs to an article as a subpage has become something of a pattern. I've seen it well done in some of the General Relativity articles (it functions nicely as a sort of appendix for the article where all of the relevant proofs are collected). Anyways, this problem has been solved before with dictionary definitions. (i.e. moved to http://wiktionary.org/) It seems to me like a similar solution would work here. In fact now that I look, it seems that someone has proposed such a project, although not targeted at solving this particular issue. It seems to have not gotten very far though.
Guh! Because he misspelled dishonest!
Why poison with polonium? So everyone knows you did it and won't be afraid to do it again.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it was intended to be funny.
That, and the fact that it would only buy us like 2 years. /me scuttles off to go find link.
Indeed you do not.
Not so! In return you are being given the glorious opportunity to lose karma to offtopic and troll mods!
I didn't interpret it as a complaint about the article or about Obama's suggestion. It was a complaint about how people from a technical community such as slashdot should know better than to submit or approve an article summary that is so useless to leave out the only actual detail of this story that was actually important: whether or not the debate content would be freely redistributable. Fine, complaining about the editors is redundant. Sue me.
whatever, just make him a foe so he's automatically modded down for you.
Excellent idea! Personally, I've gone back and tagged Decryption Keys For HD-DVD Found, Confirmed and AACS Cracked Again with the same tag for good measure.
Well, sure it's not ideal, but since I was the first to call 'dibs', then you're sure gonna be disappointed when I get my shiny new as-habitable-as-Nevada planet.
Clearly bugs originate with devs, the same way typos and spelling errors originate with authors. The occurrence of such errors is inevitable. The process as a whole is what is responsible for eliminating them. To the extent that the devs failed to contribute to that process then yes, they also deserve blame.
While the GNU project and the FSF certainly aren't shy about their licensing opinions, they are also extraordinarily noisy about the reasons for their opinions as well. Judge for yourself whether or not you agree with those opinions.
do what now?
I so thought that was going to be a link to http://www.willitblend.com/videos.aspx?type=unsafe &video=movie
wow, It's kind of sad, but I somehow feel like I know what you mean...
Funny and insightful, unfortunately, no karma for you. In today's common programming languages, you're definitely right. For multi-threaded software to really take off, there need to be popular programming languages that make it idiot proof.
So where's the little star next to his name?
Yes, it would be hard. However the technical problems would certainly be solvable for a company like google. The real problem is that this would serve to further entrench google's monopoly on search. I love google as much as the next guy, but I certainly don't want to start introducing measures that will make it more difficult for a google-killer to arise.
That's the worst analogy I've ever heard that didn't fulfill Godwin's Law. The web was designed to be a public place for the sharing of information. Trying to think of it like the inside of someone's house is just going to lead you in the wrong direction. A much better analogy would be that information posted on the web is like a campaign poster or some other notice posted on someone's lawn. Yes, it's hosted on private property and the information posted there belongs to the person posting it, but it is displayed publicly and acting as if it weren't is just silly.
CLR via C#
It skips over a lot of the hand holding that a "Learn Foo in X Days" book will give you but goes in to great detail about how the language is implemented, often giving examples of how C# code is compiled to IL assembly language and sometimes further giving examples of how it will be compiled by the JIT compiler into x86 assembly language.
Interesting points. I agree with you that excellence is not elitism. I disagree that the original post in this thread was elitist in the ways you list. Possibly it could be interpreted as a little self-aggrandizing, but that was sort of his point: that the slashdot community is one where the majority respect intellectualism rather than disdain it. I think that the post I originally replied to did not use the term in a manner anywhere close to the way you mean it. I don't mean that elitism is good, what I mean is that the things that are bad about elitism are better described by more specific terms which thinking people will naturally use alongside their usage of their usage of the term elitism. You have demonstrated yourself to be a thinking person, while kmac06 has not in this thread.