I was very skeptical of the whole indentation/whitespace thing in Python. I finally decided to learn the language to see what all the hype was about. I'm a C/C++ guy, and now I really really like Python too. Although it's not just the whilespace thing. Some of the language syntax is very compact while still readable, particualrly when working with strings and lists. The native string handling and url lib were fantastic for a (web scraper) test app I wrote, and I didn't even get to the xml library yet. In response to this:
"I just run it through Emacs' indent-region."
Why would you want to reformat code every time you check it out? And what about checking it back in? That only work if you're completely taking over a project, or mandating a particular style. Keep in mind that the fact that you're familiar with this issue indicates that there is a problem in your language. Someone who only ever learned python would not be familiar with this "different style" issue at all - it doesn't exist in python.
"Can anyone explain to me why this is not just as viable as mandating the indentation policy by embedding it in the language's syntax?"
It's not just a policy. It's an enforced policy - meaning code doesn't work correctly if it's not formatted correctly. That may sound like big restraints to a programmer, but haven't you ever tried to follow someone elses coding style? It's not the end of the world. The biggest arguements I've seen in C are when one guy puts { on a new line and someone else puts it at the end of a conditional or for(){. Or when someone indents 2 spaces for { and then another 2 spaces for the code (I hate that). In python these worst case differences of opinion can not happen because they are arguements over the placement of extra characters that don't exist in python syntax. We all indent the code anyway - in fact python doesn't care how far you indent, just that you do. Therefore, Pythons enfoced indentation style is not IMO objectionable, and you don't need to type the extra characters (and {} each require the shift key). That may seem lazy, but so is an unwillingness to use a defined indentation style.
Just commit to doing some of the tutorials and writting a simple application with it (or any language) before you pass judgement. That's all I can really say. If you still don't like it after actually using it, at least you'll have a proper feel for what it's like and why people may like it.
I agree with that. However, walking into a mall is like being a customer. Having a domain is like being a store owner (assuming you have any sort of public server). Now if I want to track down a store owner, I'm not sure if public records contain the information or not - I suspect they do but I've never tried. The problem then would be the classic - it's always been that way, but putting everything on the internet makes abuse much simpler.
My nephew was always given interesting building toys and computer games like Sim City/Sim this/Sim that. He was encouraged to tinker. He also took piano lessons. My neice is given Barbie dolls and Dora stuff. She loves to have the dolls engage each other in conversation. She takes dance class. One is very likely to become some form of computer geek or engineer. The other is very likely to do something a little more socially involved.
The stereotypes start with mom and dad the day they choose pink or blue.
I wanted to point that out: Just line your wallet and whatever you keep your passport in with alluminum foil. I agree that this is stupid too - you still need to take it out to use it, so why is RF needed at all? Swipe a card or scan a barcode instead. The only reason for RF that I can think of is to track people without them knowing.
I almost bought that arguement. The I realized that if someone bought my product from someone else who claimed it was theirs... The lost sale is independant of the claim to ownership. Yes, it's a verifiable case of the money going to the wrong person as you said. But that's independant of the false claim of ownership. Good point though on the "stolen" sale.
OTOH, I'd be happy to sell you some CDs that are legally mine to resell, but that I did not author.
Privacy is not the same as annonymity (see the recent Hibble case - which I was a bit disappointed with). Domains are used on the net - a very public place. Doesn't it make sense that someone should be able to see who a site is registered to? People want total annoymity and then bitch about spam.
" There is a difrence between copying a song by *band* and letting your mate hear it
and letting your mate hear a song by *band*, trying to sell it to him whilst saying you made it"
Not to the copyright holders. They don't get paid either way, and money was their motivation for selling the song to you. You may see it differently, but apparently a lot of copyright holders disagree with you on what's important. To be blunt, nobody - including the law - cares about your opinion. Or mine for that mater...
BTW, in your second case you might be dragged into court by the purchaser too. So I guess they are even more different than I first thought. It's what they have in common that's important to **AA.
Some sex linked diseases can be carried by both but only manifest themselves in one sex or the other. I hope they don't let these one select for sex - that's just spreading bad genes around. If they were are not selected, they produce diseased children which tend not to go on. If you want to play "god" with genetics, you have to consider the effects of evolution and also realize that we really don't know much at all about what's best.
That said, some genetic diseases are understood and could be screened out (this embryo will have xxx for sure - don't implant it). Its a very slippery slope though. Societys that don't play correctly will naturally die off, so perhaps letting the brits go first is OK since I'm not one of them;-)
"Based on orbital dynamics:
1. A single structure will orbit at the speed of it's center of mass.
2. Only thoes objects that orbit at geosync. orbit (about 23K KM on earth) will remain over the same spot.
3. Long object will orient in a radial manner through the center of mass of the parent object.
"
Orbital dynamics have little to do with a space elevator which is attached to the earth. The ribbon would stay tight even if there was no gravity. Think really hard about that for a moment. It works even without gravity. Centripetal force keeps it sticking out there perpendicular to the ground. Now add gravity back in. Gravity pulls straight down on the whole thing - there are no added forces sideways to the cable due to gravity. The extra downward pull only changes the tension in the cable, nothing else. And if the centripetal force is not enough to counter gravity, the whole thing falls down. The threshold for this is at what is normally a geostationary orbit.
Orbital dynamics only apply fully to a free body whose _only_ external force is gravity.
BTW, I am starting to think my belt idea may have some inertia issues...
"It is actually a 120,000 KM long satalite that is in orbit around the planet. It just happens to orbit once per day."
The cable is pulled tight by the satelite wanting to fly off into space. It's a bit beyond geostationary orbit, so it isn't actually orbiting in the conventional way.
"The only way it COULD work is if you had a double cable attached at the peak...so each cable is long enough to reach the ground by itself."
Running 2 cables up there would require each to carry half the load, and connecting them into a loop doesn't change that. I'm asking for a continuous loop of half the width (and twice the length) and a simple pully on the satelite and ground station. Just attach stuff to the belt and drive it from the ground pully. The only reason this might not work is problems with the 2 cables flopping around while moving past each other. Oh, and accelerating that long cable would take time but only once.
Instead of a mass on a string swinging around, it's a mass with a pully on a belt swinging around. The strength requirements don't really change, but the power source is no longer a science project.
25 years ago in middle school, my brother did a science project. He took a large umbrella and covered the inside with alluminum foil. He clamped a grate of some sort onto the handle near the focal point, set it out in the yard facing the sun, and cooked a hotdog on it. I don't think it took nearly the effort this "deathray" geek put into mounting all those mirrors....
I have wondered why the space elevator people want to use transmitted power. Why not just have your tether be a loop with a pully on the satellite? Then you just clamp a payload on and turn a crank on the ground. You get bi-directional delivery at the same time. Now there are potential issues with the 2 strands and associated payloads running into each other, but that seems like it should be easier to solve than all the issues with robotic climbers with beamed power.
Oops, I should have patented this variation of the Space Elevator before writing about it....
" All Media Player, the program, really is is a shell that calls the video and audio playback systems."
Great, if Media Player is just a program it can be deleted without removing the "guts of it". You then say MS competitors wanted the guts removed too - which may be true, I didn't read the settlement. Later you say:
"Windows is different and is like MacOS or Solaris in that it is more richly and tightly defined. The OS isn't just a kernel, it's a kernel, GUI, several APIs, a number of programs, services, etc, etc."
So now the media playing ability is part of this tightly integrated OS. If it's part of the OS it should not be removed just because you delete the media player.
This is exactly how MS operates. They choose architectural definitions that fit whatever arguement they are trying to make at the time. IE and Media player are part of the OS because people have tried to make MS remove them and MS wanted to have their removal affect other parts of the system. When you buy MS development tools, you are free to use the Word dll and distribute it with your application so long as you don't write a word processor. So the Word dlls are clearly not Word because you can install the dll without giving someone the front end (Word) and MS can still sell Word to that person. So most of the time everything is a part of the OS, but when someone wants a piece removed, a bunch of that OS has to go with it.
If you're a corporate purchaser of MS products, you'll also know how certain pieces of software really don't do everything you want unless you also buy some other packages too. They build certain functionalities that are commonly used together into different products so you have to buy them all. This is business working against software quality. But I digress....
If you want to control every aspect of the content, then make your own products that don't allow any use you don't like. DVD was an attempt at this, but had too many political goals and not enough protection to work. See locked down content for your own locked down devices and I'll think about it. Please do not come along and try to lock down my existing devices (PC and TV in particular) that are not primarily intended as media players. I could still rent DVDs even if the encryption wasn't broken. The only reason I sometimes *buy* DVD is because the encryption IS broken - some day the format will be replaced, but I can transfer my collection to whatever comes along. If you want to sell a black box, feel free. Just don't try to turn my existing devices into black boxes. Oh, and don't expect me to buy media that will become obsolete and require me to buy again. Work around these rules and we should be fine, if you don't like my resrtictions, why should I like yours?
" It would still be agent provocatuer to hire a hit man.
You're right, they wait for some non-cop to do the hiring and then arrest them both. They also wait for the hookers to solicit the cops, not the other way around. I think.... Anyway, the scenario in the original story wouldn't fly here.
I just want my linux system to have fewer libraries, languages, and other dependancies. These would best be written in C or C++ for speed (common libraries, not necessarily apps). We don't need no stinkin' new languages - especially interpreted - to add to the bloat. Languages are like assholes - everybodys got one and thinks it's *the shit*. Now why should anyone jump on yet another bandwagon? Add to that even the most remote possibility that MS will try to stir the pot as a result and ask again. Why couldn't we just build nice libraries for C,C++,Python,(Java?) that are already popular instead of cloning MS and asking everyone to switch? We just saw a lot of ranting about how slow and bloated gnome is getting, so why is it imperative that everyone jump into a new language? I know why HE likes it, it's his job. But please stop bothering me about it.
No, I'm not flaming - even Paul Grapham doesn't push Lisp as much as this mono geek. Get over it man, we don't all HAVE to use mono.
"Law enforcement has been "hiring" hitmen in order to find and arrest them for decades."
Law enforcement hires a hitman and then arrests him before he does the job - like right after he accepts some money. They do not commit murders themselves to become part of a group that does such (that we know of). They can pretend to be drug buyers in order to catch dealers, but it's not OK to become a low level dealer (selling to the public anyway) in order to move up the food chain to reach the source - or does this happen?
This case mentions that any work incorporated into law by reference can not maintain its copyright. It's happened before (the building code case mentioned) where an existing work became law, so the original authors could not charge others or claim infringement for printing (what was previously) their material. Now shouldn't the same logic apply to patents? If someone patents some algorithm that is incorporated into MPEG, and MPEG is legislated as the standard for HDTV, shouldn't that invalidate any patent claims over the algorithm the same way copyright is over-ridden? Or is this another way patents are different from copyrights?
So the rich kids who all get computers will be dumber than the poor ones where they don't have access to them. This is negative feedback on the system that created the so called "digital divide" and will actually work to close the gap. Unfortunately it does this by making kids in rich areas dumber.
"They can focus like a laser on what they want to develop"
Actually, the free developers are the one who focus like a laser on what they want to develop. At a Big Dumb Company(tm) the developers may not focus as sharply as the "decision makers". Here, the decisions are made by the developers and hence there is better focus on the goals. If it were universally agreed what the goal should be, everyone would focus. Since it's not a given, people will latch onto things others may think are unnecessary. My own experience shows that most people will not be convinced that an alternative is better until you show them. That means those interested in the Hurd must build it and show the rest of you. Only then should we decide.
The people who "get chicks" are the ones who approach them. Losers don't have the confidence to ask out hot chicks, so they don't get them. It's really that simple. Confidence and arrogance are not the same thing but often go together - this explains the assholes with hot chicks.
If you try, you *might* get lucky. If you don't try, I promise you will get nothing. Most things in life work like this.
The black hole would not behave as a pendulum for long. As it takes in new matter the system must conserve momentum. So if it fell half way to the center of the earth and then gained some mass, it would lose velocity, and hence not have enough speed to make it back to the surface on the next oscillation. The resulting black hole floating around the earths core would be very interesting. Just think of all the earthquakes we'd have as the planet slowly shrank - or not so slowly...
Vehicle wheels only appear to be going backwards in 2 cases: 1) they're on film/tv where aliasing happens due to the "sampling" with each frame. 2) for it to happen live you need a strobe light - i.e. driving at night under bright non-incandecent lights (quite common). There is no "frame rate" for the eye, so this normally doesn't happen with real observed objects. You may also notice some intereting things when parts of the wheel shadow other parts - the large lugnuts on big trucks sometimes do this in the right light.
Slashdot Mirror
"I just run it through Emacs' indent-region."
Why would you want to reformat code every time you check it out? And what about checking it back in? That only work if you're completely taking over a project, or mandating a particular style. Keep in mind that the fact that you're familiar with this issue indicates that there is a problem in your language. Someone who only ever learned python would not be familiar with this "different style" issue at all - it doesn't exist in python.
"Can anyone explain to me why this is not just as viable as mandating the indentation policy by embedding it in the language's syntax?"
It's not just a policy. It's an enforced policy - meaning code doesn't work correctly if it's not formatted correctly. That may sound like big restraints to a programmer, but haven't you ever tried to follow someone elses coding style? It's not the end of the world. The biggest arguements I've seen in C are when one guy puts { on a new line and someone else puts it at the end of a conditional or for(){. Or when someone indents 2 spaces for { and then another 2 spaces for the code (I hate that). In python these worst case differences of opinion can not happen because they are arguements over the placement of extra characters that don't exist in python syntax. We all indent the code anyway - in fact python doesn't care how far you indent, just that you do. Therefore, Pythons enfoced indentation style is not IMO objectionable, and you don't need to type the extra characters (and {} each require the shift key). That may seem lazy, but so is an unwillingness to use a defined indentation style.
Just commit to doing some of the tutorials and writting a simple application with it (or any language) before you pass judgement. That's all I can really say. If you still don't like it after actually using it, at least you'll have a proper feel for what it's like and why people may like it.
I agree with that. However, walking into a mall is like being a customer. Having a domain is like being a store owner (assuming you have any sort of public server). Now if I want to track down a store owner, I'm not sure if public records contain the information or not - I suspect they do but I've never tried. The problem then would be the classic - it's always been that way, but putting everything on the internet makes abuse much simpler.
The stereotypes start with mom and dad the day they choose pink or blue.
I wanted to point that out: Just line your wallet and whatever you keep your passport in with alluminum foil. I agree that this is stupid too - you still need to take it out to use it, so why is RF needed at all? Swipe a card or scan a barcode instead. The only reason for RF that I can think of is to track people without them knowing.
OTOH, I'd be happy to sell you some CDs that are legally mine to resell, but that I did not author.
Slashdot over reacts to some things...
Not to the copyright holders. They don't get paid either way, and money was their motivation for selling the song to you. You may see it differently, but apparently a lot of copyright holders disagree with you on what's important. To be blunt, nobody - including the law - cares about your opinion. Or mine for that mater...
BTW, in your second case you might be dragged into court by the purchaser too. So I guess they are even more different than I first thought. It's what they have in common that's important to **AA.
must attend high school somewhere. Right?
That said, some genetic diseases are understood and could be screened out (this embryo will have xxx for sure - don't implant it). Its a very slippery slope though. Societys that don't play correctly will naturally die off, so perhaps letting the brits go first is OK since I'm not one of them ;-)
Orbital dynamics have little to do with a space elevator which is attached to the earth. The ribbon would stay tight even if there was no gravity. Think really hard about that for a moment. It works even without gravity. Centripetal force keeps it sticking out there perpendicular to the ground. Now add gravity back in. Gravity pulls straight down on the whole thing - there are no added forces sideways to the cable due to gravity. The extra downward pull only changes the tension in the cable, nothing else. And if the centripetal force is not enough to counter gravity, the whole thing falls down. The threshold for this is at what is normally a geostationary orbit.
Orbital dynamics only apply fully to a free body whose _only_ external force is gravity.
BTW, I am starting to think my belt idea may have some inertia issues...
The cable is pulled tight by the satelite wanting to fly off into space. It's a bit beyond geostationary orbit, so it isn't actually orbiting in the conventional way.
"The only way it COULD work is if you had a double cable attached at the peak...so each cable is long enough to reach the ground by itself."
Running 2 cables up there would require each to carry half the load, and connecting them into a loop doesn't change that. I'm asking for a continuous loop of half the width (and twice the length) and a simple pully on the satelite and ground station. Just attach stuff to the belt and drive it from the ground pully. The only reason this might not work is problems with the 2 cables flopping around while moving past each other. Oh, and accelerating that long cable would take time but only once.
Instead of a mass on a string swinging around, it's a mass with a pully on a belt swinging around. The strength requirements don't really change, but the power source is no longer a science project.
Why am I even taking this seriously?
25 years ago in middle school, my brother did a science project. He took a large umbrella and covered the inside with alluminum foil. He clamped a grate of some sort onto the handle near the focal point, set it out in the yard facing the sun, and cooked a hotdog on it. I don't think it took nearly the effort this "deathray" geek put into mounting all those mirrors....
Oops, I should have patented this variation of the Space Elevator before writing about it....
Great, if Media Player is just a program it can be deleted without removing the "guts of it". You then say MS competitors wanted the guts removed too - which may be true, I didn't read the settlement. Later you say:
"Windows is different and is like MacOS or Solaris in that it is more richly and tightly defined. The OS isn't just a kernel, it's a kernel, GUI, several APIs, a number of programs, services, etc, etc."
So now the media playing ability is part of this tightly integrated OS. If it's part of the OS it should not be removed just because you delete the media player.
This is exactly how MS operates. They choose architectural definitions that fit whatever arguement they are trying to make at the time. IE and Media player are part of the OS because people have tried to make MS remove them and MS wanted to have their removal affect other parts of the system. When you buy MS development tools, you are free to use the Word dll and distribute it with your application so long as you don't write a word processor. So the Word dlls are clearly not Word because you can install the dll without giving someone the front end (Word) and MS can still sell Word to that person. So most of the time everything is a part of the OS, but when someone wants a piece removed, a bunch of that OS has to go with it.
If you're a corporate purchaser of MS products, you'll also know how certain pieces of software really don't do everything you want unless you also buy some other packages too. They build certain functionalities that are commonly used together into different products so you have to buy them all. This is business working against software quality. But I digress....
If you want to control every aspect of the content, then make your own products that don't allow any use you don't like. DVD was an attempt at this, but had too many political goals and not enough protection to work. See locked down content for your own locked down devices and I'll think about it. Please do not come along and try to lock down my existing devices (PC and TV in particular) that are not primarily intended as media players. I could still rent DVDs even if the encryption wasn't broken. The only reason I sometimes *buy* DVD is because the encryption IS broken - some day the format will be replaced, but I can transfer my collection to whatever comes along. If you want to sell a black box, feel free. Just don't try to turn my existing devices into black boxes. Oh, and don't expect me to buy media that will become obsolete and require me to buy again. Work around these rules and we should be fine, if you don't like my resrtictions, why should I like yours?
You're right, they wait for some non-cop to do the hiring and then arrest them both. They also wait for the hookers to solicit the cops, not the other way around. I think.... Anyway, the scenario in the original story wouldn't fly here.
No, I'm not flaming - even Paul Grapham doesn't push Lisp as much as this mono geek. Get over it man, we don't all HAVE to use mono.
Law enforcement hires a hitman and then arrests him before he does the job - like right after he accepts some money. They do not commit murders themselves to become part of a group that does such (that we know of). They can pretend to be drug buyers in order to catch dealers, but it's not OK to become a low level dealer (selling to the public anyway) in order to move up the food chain to reach the source - or does this happen?
This case mentions that any work incorporated into law by reference can not maintain its copyright. It's happened before (the building code case mentioned) where an existing work became law, so the original authors could not charge others or claim infringement for printing (what was previously) their material. Now shouldn't the same logic apply to patents? If someone patents some algorithm that is incorporated into MPEG, and MPEG is legislated as the standard for HDTV, shouldn't that invalidate any patent claims over the algorithm the same way copyright is over-ridden? Or is this another way patents are different from copyrights?
So the rich kids who all get computers will be dumber than the poor ones where they don't have access to them. This is negative feedback on the system that created the so called "digital divide" and will actually work to close the gap. Unfortunately it does this by making kids in rich areas dumber.
Actually, the free developers are the one who focus like a laser on what they want to develop. At a Big Dumb Company(tm) the developers may not focus as sharply as the "decision makers". Here, the decisions are made by the developers and hence there is better focus on the goals. If it were universally agreed what the goal should be, everyone would focus. Since it's not a given, people will latch onto things others may think are unnecessary. My own experience shows that most people will not be convinced that an alternative is better until you show them. That means those interested in the Hurd must build it and show the rest of you. Only then should we decide.
The people who "get chicks" are the ones who approach them. Losers don't have the confidence to ask out hot chicks, so they don't get them. It's really that simple. Confidence and arrogance are not the same thing but often go together - this explains the assholes with hot chicks.
If you try, you *might* get lucky. If you don't try, I promise you will get nothing. Most things in life work like this.
If it really can make anything, one of the first things to make would be solar panels and wind machines.
The black hole would not behave as a pendulum for long. As it takes in new matter the system must conserve momentum. So if it fell half way to the center of the earth and then gained some mass, it would lose velocity, and hence not have enough speed to make it back to the surface on the next oscillation. The resulting black hole floating around the earths core would be very interesting. Just think of all the earthquakes we'd have as the planet slowly shrank - or not so slowly...
Vehicle wheels only appear to be going backwards in 2 cases: 1) they're on film/tv where aliasing happens due to the "sampling" with each frame. 2) for it to happen live you need a strobe light - i.e. driving at night under bright non-incandecent lights (quite common). There is no "frame rate" for the eye, so this normally doesn't happen with real observed objects. You may also notice some intereting things when parts of the wheel shadow other parts - the large lugnuts on big trucks sometimes do this in the right light.