We use graphical interfaces for a lot of things, we should use them for programming.
SCREW the text editor based programming.
What is this bracket crap to seperate codes?
You want to seperate code? draw a circle around it. Variables that are in the circle can be accesed by code in the circle. Want to reference a variable outside the circle? Draw a line from it into the circle. And guess what - you can tell from the color of the variable name that it is not from that same object.
I am trying to design such a language, but realize it is a big project. In fact it is two projects: 1) Designing the language (mostly done) and 2) Writing an open source graphical editor/compiler program that will allow you to write/code the program, save it, edit it, debug, and compile.
My law firm offers free routers (with firewalls), but does not pay for any broadband.
They pay for pagers, blackberrys for important lawyers, and occasionally have us tech people "test" things like new blackberries, which we do not have to return.
It is not that hard to become part of the Oligarchy.
All you have to do is win a small series of local elections and then in 5 years go for congressman. 10 years after that you will be part of the oligarchy and can run for president.
The main thing is you have to REALLY want it and work hard for 15 years. Lazy people need not apply.
I like in a major city, so we have indepenedent bookstores. I have shoped in them.
When I was in college, they also had independent bookstores. I shoped their.
I love books. I read probably a book a week. Good ones, I re-read multiple times.
I have heard a lot of people complain about the walmartization effect. They complain about it re drug stores, book stores, even coffee stores.
They always sound like fools to me.
First of all, I have found that GOOD independent stores stick around. It has been YEARS since Barnes And Nobles took over New York City. Many small indpenedendt book stores went under. But otheres continue to thrive. In other words, competion did it's job. The poorly run stores fell apart, the better ones survived, the onslaught of the chain stores, because the chain stores by DEFINITION can not be excellent. They are too big to be excellent. They can and often are "good", so they put the bad independent stores out of business, but they can do nothign against the Excellent stores.
There is NOTHING that spectacular about an independent book store, or any other "independent" type of store that means they should thrive even when they offer bad service. Yes it is a pity that some people used to be able to make a living owning there own buisness now find that someone else does it better. I am sorry, but hey, I personally live with the risk of being fired by my boss if I do a poor job, and so should these buisness owners. If they do a poor job, they lose their business, just like if I do a poor job, I get fired.
2) Choose not to pursue a specific remedy and then make NO attempt for a series remedy = drop the case.
2A) The political system is NOT the legal system. It is ILLEGAL for politician to attempt to manipulate court cases. That is the entire reason Supreme court judges have life terms. Yes, Microsoft was carefull to make sure that there actual illegal action was solely in their brain, a place where we can not investigate. But if they had foolishly written an email that said "We have to make sure Bush gets elected because he will appoint friendly Prosecutors that will not push the case against us.", then they would go to jail. Yes, anyone with an ounce of intelligence will at least suspect that is why they paid the republican party so much money, but we can not proove it. That is NOT part of our legal system, it is part of our POLITICAL system. If you can't tell the difference then I will not reply because you would not understand anything.
3) Then prove it. You repeatedly claim that it is provable, but make no attempt to do so. All talk, no action.
4A)60 years => 20 years. I 60 years people that had those jobs are not only retired, they are DEAD. AND the people at Volkswagon admitted they did wrong. In 2040, THEN your arguement might make sense, but not in 2004. Right now, the majority of people that did that evil work still work there. And Bill Gates is Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation. So they changed the title. MAYBE he has a tiny, minute amount of less powerf. When he is no longer paid by Microsoft, (Besides his stock and dividends), THEN your argument might make sense.
Settling is a slight argument to mayube let it go, but not convincing. People settle for tons of reasons, not always because of getting a fair settlemetn.
4C) Crimes are crimes. Period. The fact that they changed their MO is irrelevant, the other crimes ARE releveant. A man that commits one poisoning and 10 strangualations does not have the right to have his poisioning refferred to as "unique" incident, unless he SPECIFICALLY mentions and reminds us of the other crimes he committed. You did not do this. Unique is NOT acceptable unless you specifically explain why the other crimes were not relevant.
5)
Because I am NOT defending the moron that brought it up. I am attacking you for telling him to Let it GO.
When you tell people to "let it go", here is what is actually happening:
Someone is really upset about something that you admit is a crime. Your arguments above prove this point.
While you think admit that what happened was bad, you personally are not upset about it. You don't think it was "that bad". Your arguments above prove this point.
You don't care about their feelings at all, you are just acting like a spoiled child, annoyed that this person is so upset about something that you don't think is that important.
So you tell them to Let it go
You don't try to explain that it is not bad (At least not untill I called you on it), because you are NOT being a fair, intelligent person. You are just being a SHMUCK who is annoyed that some one is ANGRY. How dare they be angry. They should just shut up (Let it go....)
You are definitely complacent about the crime (You don't think it was so bad.) You are definitely Unfeeling. Maybe you are not ignorant and stupid, but that is debatable. The comments about the Political system being part of the legal system do a lot to confirm your ignorance.(If you had by the way said the legal system is part of the political system, that might have been closer to the truth, but it would not have helped your argument.)
1) Microsoft has pleaded guilty in the past for multiple crimes. If you don't count that as "proven" then it is impossible to prove anything at all. Good luck with that theory, you are going to need it.
2) They do more than use the legal system. They also use the political system to weasel their way out of things (Oops they lost a case, but it is an election year, they pump money into a politician, who barely makes it in, who then appoints people to try the case, who decide NOT to pursue the case. The fact that AMONG their many attempts to get out of the crime, they also pursued the legal system is meaningles - I do not claim that everything they do is illegal.
3) Your arguement is totally lacking in sense. I do not say MS does not make superior software, I said it only makes superior software when they sabotage their competition. To make logical sense you must at least CLAIM that MS has competed in a where they do not sabotage their competition.
4A) Your arguments are Time, which I already pretty thoroughly trashed. Time does NOT absolve you of crimes you committed. Simply repeating a bad argument does not make it become correct.
4B)Settling is a good excuse. If you had just mentioned this one, you might make sense.
4C) You have to be a TOTAL moron to think that "The act was unique." is both true and valid. Microsoft has lost multiple legal cases. You are either claiming that each incident is "unique" from the other because they used a different illegal method, or stupidly not being aware of the multiple other legal cases. They are a repeate offender, so this crime is NOT unique.
5) Your last point is somewhat true. It is irrelevant when discussing MS current engineering practices, as long as you accept that the same guiding principles that created the illegal actions before are not working now, with a bit of camoflage
In conclusion, the statement "Let it go" demonstrates ignorance, complacency and stupidty, even if it was on the correct side of the argument. You are basically saying it is OK to commit crimes. A better statement would have been.
"That crime has been paid for and irrelevant to this discussion".
Would you tell that to a holocust survivor? Someone that lost a spouse in the twin towers?
Yes, these Micorsoft's crimes are less important than that.
But that does not change the fact that they did it.
Look, every unrepentent criminal that gets caught goes through the following stages:
1. Denial - (I didn't do anything wrong)
2. Deprecation - (It was just a little thing)
3. Amnesia - (Forget about it, didn't I apologize... just let it go.)
SOME criminals have a 4th stage... admittance, repentence. Microsoft has NEVER done this. They repeatedly commit multiple crimes and when judges try and punish them for it, they complain and show their cash and expect to be given minor punishments to keep their employees working. Microsoft has repeatedly used illegal methods to put more people out of business then they employ. They weasel there way out stuff. Their products are not superior except where they sabotage other people's products.
If they were 1/2 as good as they think they were they would not need to do the sabotage. Why should anyone let it go? That is stupid. We should never forget, so that when they try to commit more crimes we will be for-warned and pre-pared for their attempts.
I disagree entirely with 3. You can NOT test a device's accuracy by comparing it's previous output to future output, even if you also backcheck possible errors using third machines. It is just BAD science and you should graded F- for even attempting to do it.
You ignore the change in relative accuracy.
Assume for example that Spam Assasin is in fact the best around, but it has a 10% false spam rate. Every other program is slightly worse with an 11% false spam rate, always making the same mistake that Spam Assasin does, but also making a few more. At NO point does anything the original study did catch the error. You come away thinking SPam Assasin is the best in the world, it is 99.9% accurate, and everyone else is 99.5% accurate, a big relative difference.
But the truth is Spam Assasin is only 90.9%, you are miscategorizing a ton of real mail as spam and never finding it out.
Yes, the other services would be only 90.5% accurate, but now the difference is imperceptible and irrelevant.
Your explanation is a lie told to you by the book stores.
Maintaining a supply of books on low profit topics is NOT dependent on book stores making profits.
You can buy the books from internet companies, who if they are smart, set up warehouse in each country.
If you want to acutally maintain a supply on low profit books, you have to affect PUBLSIHING costs, not SELLING costs.
But no one is doing that. Why? Because publishing costs have dropped so much that you definitely do NOT need to protect them. Currently, for less than US $20,000 you can publish a mass market book. That cost used to be over $100,000, and that was back when $100,000 meant something.
And that ignores the cheaper regular publishing, which can be done for under $5,000. And also it ignores the new mass market, e-books, which get published for less than $100.
This law, like the one in Norway, does nothign to maintain a supply of books, it maintains a supply of bookSTORES.
Personally, I find that in any city, there is never a shortage of bookstores.
2) Basically you are putting in an auto-destruct program, even further complicating the nanobot. It should STILL be easier cure than create. Your harmful nanobots must 1) accomplish their mission, 2) fight my attackers, 3) self-destruct messily. All my Good bots need to do is accomplish their mission. If they have a 99% success rate, with a 1% self-desruct activated, the human patient should survive reasonably well.
1) By Holographic memory I am refering to storage organization, not physical storage. When you take a piece of holographic film cut it in 1/2 and try to view it, you do NOT get 1/2 a good picture. Instead you get a whole picture that is slightly more blurry. Similarly, human memory is not stored all together in one cell, or even in a single cell, it is stored over the entire brain's memory storage area. If you remove a chunk of cells from that area, you do not remove x memories, you make ALL memories X blurrier. So you can't edit memories.
Other stuff. You are missing the point. If we stop living entirely, we can solve all of mankinds problems.
We need to live moderately, and also find solutions to help cure the lessened problems that moderate living cause (I personally never tan, and am forced to restrain my protein intake to prevent kidney damage.)
What they are really saying is that they want to protect the inefficient companies that have handling costs of $10, at the expense of the effecient internet sales companies with $1 handling costs.
Because if the free market was to rule, the idiots that can't sell it for less than cover price would be forced to either go out of business, offer service WORTH the over-charging they ofer, or learn how to be more effecient.
This ruling prevents the growth of the companies that could sell the books for $1 handling instead of $10, thereby artifically propping up the ridiculous over-priced book stores.
I read a lot. I buy my books from Barnes and Nobles. I get paper back, not hard cover because of the huge number of books that I buy. I do not use internet services because I like the speed of going in to a book store, picking one I did not know I wanted and begin reading it right away.
Metals have different bond types, that is what really makes them a metal. Basically they share all their electrons freely, so they are always "bonded" to the other nereby atoms.
Congress has no military ranks so it is definitely Terrorism.
The President is however technically a member of the military, the "Commander in Chief". They can get buried in Arlington Cemetary for example.
Furthermore, while it is generally considered "bad form" it is acceptable to try and assasinate the Head of the military in a declared war (I.E. You are allowed to try and kill Hitler, but that would be stupid because Hitler was militarily less competent than his advisers were)
As such, I would have to say that killing the President would techincally not be a terrorist action, But killing the Vice-President is a terorist action, because he is not a serving military officer of any kind.
I got my official definition from an international law book, translated by google and cleaned up by me. Someone else posted a CIA definition that was almost identical elsewhere on this thread.
I agree with your logic, but not too deflate your buble, your larger explanation reveals your prejudice.
A murderer that robs a bank is still a murderer
A Tango Dancer that programs computers is still a Tango Dancer.
But when we are talking about the 2nd thing the first thing is irrelevant.
Do you bring up tango dancing when hiring a computer programmer? No. It is irrelevant.
Accusing the Pro-Iraq Soldiers of being terrrorist in their spare time is not relevant to any part of the discussion. It is sort of similar to calling me a nitwit when arguing with me. Whether or not I am a nitwit is not relevant to the discussion, but IS a handy bit of prejudical wording you can throw around to make it sound like you are making sense.
Slashdot Mirror
We use graphical interfaces for a lot of things, we should use them for programming.
SCREW the text editor based programming.
What is this bracket crap to seperate codes?
You want to seperate code? draw a circle around it. Variables that are in the circle can be accesed by code in the circle. Want to reference a variable outside the circle? Draw a line from it into the circle. And guess what - you can tell from the color of the variable name that it is not from that same object.
I am trying to design such a language, but realize it is a big project. In fact it is two projects: 1) Designing the language (mostly done) and 2) Writing an open source graphical editor/compiler program that will allow you to write/code the program, save it, edit it, debug, and compile.
reply to this post if you want more information
They do not pay for phones.
Everything else I get from Slashdot (Well, ok, everything else I get online.)
I think he is just too lazy/incompetent to re-ip the software that he has written.
All you have to do is win a small series of local elections and then in 5 years go for congressman. 10 years after that you will be part of the oligarchy and can run for president.
The main thing is you have to REALLY want it and work hard for 15 years. Lazy people need not apply.
2) If they did NOT patent them, someone else could try to patent them and we would have to try and proove Disney's "Prior art".
I think Disney did a good thing here, not a greedy one.
When I was in college, they also had independent bookstores. I shoped their.
I love books. I read probably a book a week. Good ones, I re-read multiple times.
I have heard a lot of people complain about the walmartization effect. They complain about it re drug stores, book stores, even coffee stores.
They always sound like fools to me.
First of all, I have found that GOOD independent stores stick around. It has been YEARS since Barnes And Nobles took over New York City. Many small indpenedendt book stores went under. But otheres continue to thrive. In other words, competion did it's job. The poorly run stores fell apart, the better ones survived, the onslaught of the chain stores, because the chain stores by DEFINITION can not be excellent. They are too big to be excellent. They can and often are "good", so they put the bad independent stores out of business, but they can do nothign against the Excellent stores.
There is NOTHING that spectacular about an independent book store, or any other "independent" type of store that means they should thrive even when they offer bad service. Yes it is a pity that some people used to be able to make a living owning there own buisness now find that someone else does it better. I am sorry, but hey, I personally live with the risk of being fired by my boss if I do a poor job, and so should these buisness owners. If they do a poor job, they lose their business, just like if I do a poor job, I get fired.
2) Choose not to pursue a specific remedy and then make NO attempt for a series remedy = drop the case.
2A) The political system is NOT the legal system. It is ILLEGAL for politician to attempt to manipulate court cases. That is the entire reason Supreme court judges have life terms. Yes, Microsoft was carefull to make sure that there actual illegal action was solely in their brain, a place where we can not investigate. But if they had foolishly written an email that said "We have to make sure Bush gets elected because he will appoint friendly Prosecutors that will not push the case against us.", then they would go to jail. Yes, anyone with an ounce of intelligence will at least suspect that is why they paid the republican party so much money, but we can not proove it. That is NOT part of our legal system, it is part of our POLITICAL system. If you can't tell the difference then I will not reply because you would not understand anything.
3) Then prove it. You repeatedly claim that it is provable, but make no attempt to do so. All talk, no action.
4A)60 years => 20 years. I 60 years people that had those jobs are not only retired, they are DEAD. AND the people at Volkswagon admitted they did wrong. In 2040, THEN your arguement might make sense, but not in 2004. Right now, the majority of people that did that evil work still work there. And Bill Gates is Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation. So they changed the title. MAYBE he has a tiny, minute amount of less powerf. When he is no longer paid by Microsoft, (Besides his stock and dividends), THEN your argument might make sense.
Settling is a slight argument to mayube let it go, but not convincing. People settle for tons of reasons, not always because of getting a fair settlemetn.
4C) Crimes are crimes. Period. The fact that they changed their MO is irrelevant, the other crimes ARE releveant. A man that commits one poisoning and 10 strangualations does not have the right to have his poisioning refferred to as "unique" incident, unless he SPECIFICALLY mentions and reminds us of the other crimes he committed. You did not do this. Unique is NOT acceptable unless you specifically explain why the other crimes were not relevant. 5)
Because I am NOT defending the moron that brought it up. I am attacking you for telling him to Let it GO.
When you tell people to "let it go", here is what is actually happening:
Someone is really upset about something that you admit is a crime. Your arguments above prove this point.
While you think admit that what happened was bad, you personally are not upset about it. You don't think it was "that bad". Your arguments above prove this point.
You don't care about their feelings at all, you are just acting like a spoiled child, annoyed that this person is so upset about something that you don't think is that important.
So you tell them to Let it go
You don't try to explain that it is not bad (At least not untill I called you on it), because you are NOT being a fair, intelligent person. You are just being a SHMUCK who is annoyed that some one is ANGRY. How dare they be angry. They should just shut up (Let it go....)
You are definitely complacent about the crime (You don't think it was so bad.) You are definitely Unfeeling. Maybe you are not ignorant and stupid, but that is debatable. The comments about the Political system being part of the legal system do a lot to confirm your ignorance.(If you had by the way said the legal system is part of the political system, that might have been closer to the truth, but it would not have helped your argument.)
Do as he did, not as he said.
2) They do more than use the legal system. They also use the political system to weasel their way out of things (Oops they lost a case, but it is an election year, they pump money into a politician, who barely makes it in, who then appoints people to try the case, who decide NOT to pursue the case. The fact that AMONG their many attempts to get out of the crime, they also pursued the legal system is meaningles - I do not claim that everything they do is illegal.
3) Your arguement is totally lacking in sense. I do not say MS does not make superior software, I said it only makes superior software when they sabotage their competition. To make logical sense you must at least CLAIM that MS has competed in a where they do not sabotage their competition.
4A) Your arguments are Time, which I already pretty thoroughly trashed. Time does NOT absolve you of crimes you committed. Simply repeating a bad argument does not make it become correct.
4B)Settling is a good excuse. If you had just mentioned this one, you might make sense.
4C) You have to be a TOTAL moron to think that "The act was unique." is both true and valid. Microsoft has lost multiple legal cases. You are either claiming that each incident is "unique" from the other because they used a different illegal method, or stupidly not being aware of the multiple other legal cases. They are a repeate offender, so this crime is NOT unique.
5) Your last point is somewhat true. It is irrelevant when discussing MS current engineering practices, as long as you accept that the same guiding principles that created the illegal actions before are not working now, with a bit of camoflage
In conclusion, the statement "Let it go" demonstrates ignorance, complacency and stupidty, even if it was on the correct side of the argument. You are basically saying it is OK to commit crimes. A better statement would have been.
"That crime has been paid for and irrelevant to this discussion".
That would have been accurate, intelligent, fair.
Would you tell that to a holocust survivor? Someone that lost a spouse in the twin towers?
Yes, these Micorsoft's crimes are less important than that.
But that does not change the fact that they did it.
Look, every unrepentent criminal that gets caught goes through the following stages:
1. Denial - (I didn't do anything wrong)
2. Deprecation - (It was just a little thing)
3. Amnesia - (Forget about it, didn't I apologize... just let it go.)
SOME criminals have a 4th stage ... admittance, repentence. Microsoft has NEVER done this. They repeatedly commit multiple crimes and when judges try and punish them for it, they complain and show their cash and expect to be given minor punishments to keep their employees working. Microsoft has repeatedly used illegal methods to put more people out of business then they employ. They weasel there way out stuff. Their products are not superior except where they sabotage other people's products.
If they were 1/2 as good as they think they were they would not need to do the sabotage. Why should anyone let it go? That is stupid. We should never forget, so that when they try to commit more crimes we will be for-warned and pre-pared for their attempts.
You ignore the change in relative accuracy.
Assume for example that Spam Assasin is in fact the best around, but it has a 10% false spam rate. Every other program is slightly worse with an 11% false spam rate, always making the same mistake that Spam Assasin does, but also making a few more. At NO point does anything the original study did catch the error. You come away thinking SPam Assasin is the best in the world, it is 99.9% accurate, and everyone else is 99.5% accurate, a big relative difference.
But the truth is Spam Assasin is only 90.9%, you are miscategorizing a ton of real mail as spam and never finding it out. Yes, the other services would be only 90.5% accurate, but now the difference is imperceptible and irrelevant.
Maintaining a supply of books on low profit topics is NOT dependent on book stores making profits.
You can buy the books from internet companies, who if they are smart, set up warehouse in each country.
If you want to acutally maintain a supply on low profit books, you have to affect PUBLSIHING costs, not SELLING costs.
But no one is doing that. Why? Because publishing costs have dropped so much that you definitely do NOT need to protect them. Currently, for less than US $20,000 you can publish a mass market book. That cost used to be over $100,000, and that was back when $100,000 meant something.
And that ignores the cheaper regular publishing, which can be done for under $5,000. And also it ignores the new mass market, e-books, which get published for less than $100.
This law, like the one in Norway, does nothign to maintain a supply of books, it maintains a supply of bookSTORES.
Personally, I find that in any city, there is never a shortage of bookstores.
Alchol kills cells, probably better than the nanobots could.
I bet a person under nano-bot memory attack would act similar to being drunk all the time.
1) By Holographic memory I am refering to storage organization, not physical storage. When you take a piece of holographic film cut it in 1/2 and try to view it, you do NOT get 1/2 a good picture. Instead you get a whole picture that is slightly more blurry. Similarly, human memory is not stored all together in one cell, or even in a single cell, it is stored over the entire brain's memory storage area. If you remove a chunk of cells from that area, you do not remove x memories, you make ALL memories X blurrier. So you can't edit memories.
Other stuff. You are missing the point. If we stop living entirely, we can solve all of mankinds problems.
We need to live moderately, and also find solutions to help cure the lessened problems that moderate living cause (I personally never tan, and am forced to restrain my protein intake to prevent kidney damage.)
OBVIOUSLY, Spam Assasin is going to agree with Spam Assasin being the best.
What the test really did was determine how close to Spam Assasin the other spam detecters were, not how good they were at detecting spam.
What they are really saying is that they want to protect the inefficient companies that have handling costs of $10, at the expense of the effecient internet sales companies with $1 handling costs.
Because if the free market was to rule, the idiots that can't sell it for less than cover price would be forced to either go out of business, offer service WORTH the over-charging they ofer, or learn how to be more effecient.
This ruling prevents the growth of the companies that could sell the books for $1 handling instead of $10, thereby artifically propping up the ridiculous over-priced book stores.
I read a lot. I buy my books from Barnes and Nobles. I get paper back, not hard cover because of the huge number of books that I buy. I do not use internet services because I like the speed of going in to a book store, picking one I did not know I wanted and begin reading it right away.
Metals have different bond types, that is what really makes them a metal. Basically they share all their electrons freely, so they are always "bonded" to the other nereby atoms.
Both Plain and Pleasure cells would be difficult to hurt/remove, but easy to "activate" (Release cocaine molecule on top of receptor upon command).
But it would be FAR easier to remove dormant nano-bots than it would be to put them in.
And a nano-infected person under control should be easily detectable by human judgment (They would look like a drugged out man or an epileptic.)
Far easeier to use standard drugs to blackmail/control people.
I.E. They get a supplier to list their computer memory as:
Toilet seat, $400.
on a random other project.
Though it seems kind of foolish to do it with a school program.
They did, just lightly. OK, they should DARKEN the tree lines, so they are visible.
They should tree it out, showing how C+ came from C, etc, instead of just showing the languages "appearing".
The President is however technically a member of the military, the "Commander in Chief". They can get buried in Arlington Cemetary for example.
Furthermore, while it is generally considered "bad form" it is acceptable to try and assasinate the Head of the military in a declared war (I.E. You are allowed to try and kill Hitler, but that would be stupid because Hitler was militarily less competent than his advisers were)
As such, I would have to say that killing the President would techincally not be a terrorist action, But killing the Vice-President is a terorist action, because he is not a serving military officer of any kind.
I got my official definition from an international law book, translated by google and cleaned up by me. Someone else posted a CIA definition that was almost identical elsewhere on this thread.
A murderer that robs a bank is still a murderer
A Tango Dancer that programs computers is still a Tango Dancer.
But when we are talking about the 2nd thing the first thing is irrelevant. Do you bring up tango dancing when hiring a computer programmer? No. It is irrelevant.
Accusing the Pro-Iraq Soldiers of being terrrorist in their spare time is not relevant to any part of the discussion. It is sort of similar to calling me a nitwit when arguing with me. Whether or not I am a nitwit is not relevant to the discussion, but IS a handy bit of prejudical wording you can throw around to make it sound like you are making sense.