Meh. Cranking out spreadsheet macros for arbs and margin traders doesn't count as programming. And I'm not certain what metric anyone is using here.
Plus, Java sucks.
GUI is slow, and the only way to get the code to run reasonably fast is to compile it, which kind of misses the point.
It puts an added burden on all the users, and can be a headache to anyone in charge of wide scale deployment in an organization.
It's a blight, and we would be better off with out it. Everything done in Java would ahve been done in another language.
I must commend you on defending your biases and prejudices so long and so well in the face of concerted attack from objective reality. Keep up the good work!
obDisclaimer: by temperment, I'm an assembler programmer, so I consider all y'all wimps. I don't waste any emotion on disliking java, C#, or even Haskell or Smalltalk.
By many common definitions, calling someone an "evil single minded idiot" is pretty evil. Or at least needlessly uncivil, a form of verbal violence related to physical violence the same way that a "fib" is related to blood libel or grand jury perjury.
Really, for a self-sacrificing pacifist, that's pretty hypocritical.
On the other hand, even if the mugger didn't think you had a gun, he may shoot you just to be safe. Then take your wallet and run.
If the mugger is armed, you're screwed either way. (Assuming he's a decent shot.) But if you're armed, (A) you might be able to frighten off the attacker, even if he were armed (cuz he knows he's a bad shot), or (B) you might take the bastard down, saving yourself, or (C) you might take the bastard with you, even if he got ya.
So explain to me again why unarmed is better?
Now, to weaken my argument: a gun is an awful responsibility. One wild round or accidental discharge and you may have killed an innocent bystander. So, for a lot of people, that's too much of a risk. Me, for instance. I may not have any compunction about defending myself with lethal force, if I could assure myself to nearly 100% certainty that only my attacker and possibly myself will suffer. But bullets don't stop when you miss your target, and that's why I won't risk 'em.
That's just me, though. YMMV. FWIW, I think the Supremes got it right.
In my experience, somewhere between "craptacular" and "OMG I WANNA GOUGE MY OWN EYES OUT WITH UNSHARPENED PENCILS!"
In particular, adding Outlook's casual disdain for open standards to Courier IMAP's "Ve vill do zis IN ORDNUNG und ve vill LIKE IT!" attitude towards standards compliance yields an almost unresolvable mess. In the end, I just abandoned trying to get Outlook to play nice and deployed Thunderbird or Evolution (depending on need) instead.
As you point out, Google's profit interest is in more migrations from Outlook. That means that anyone offering a Outloog migration tool is to Google's good. However, someone offering a converter for $$$ raises a barrier: some people won't pay for a converter; if they can't migrate for free they won't use Gmail. How do you overcome that barrier? Offer a converter for free. Yeah, the guys trying to sell their converter get shafted. But Google wins by getting more users who migrate off of Outlook.
That's the motivation point you seem to be neglecting. That's the ??? before "Profit!". In your words, that's WTF.
And yeah, I know, that's the story according to the plaintiff's legal team. We've unofficially heard one side of the story. (Yeah, unofficially. As you point out, it's a press release, not the actual filings.) So, there's obviously a lot more story to come. I hope Groklaw follows this one.
You're a big boy, you can be trusted not to eat the resistors.
Awww, the carbon-films are SOOO tasty! Especially if you chew a small electrolytic cap (2.2uf or less) with them; the piquancy of the 'lyte perfectly emphasizes the smooth activated-charcoal taste of the resistors.
Just dont't swallow the cap; the aluminum casing'll give you the runs for sure.
Well then thank $DIETY that business conversations never occur outside the secure premises of a place of business. Certainly, what manager, executive, or board member* would use a home phone line to conduct confidential business.
Dang, I left my sarcasm tags at home this morning.
*Yes, the link is not about phone tapping, it's about pretexting. But note that some of the target phone numbers were home phone lines. If someone can be troubled to illegally access your home phone records for a business investigation, it's only a difference of degree, not kind, to tapping that same home phone.
Damn. That's the exact phrase I've been looking for. I don't know how many times I've seen hard truths and unpleasant realities float up the organization and stop dead about 3 management levels below where someone could do something about it. Just like sonar, the people "listening" above the thermocline will never hear anything occurring below it.
I may be predictable, but I'm not predictable enough for a spam robot to guess the email address and phone numbers of my friends.
Maybe spitbot doesn't have to predict anything. Maybe, like any modern bot, it just has to infect your friend's VoIP PC and lift his phonebook. Trusted call source, probably already in your whitelist... delicious.
Look for worm-based or trojan-based VoIP spitbots. Enough compromise penetration, and that's a lot of potential phone number targets.
I dunno; that building looks like something out of Tron to me. Every time I look at the renderings I wonder where they're hiding the recognizers and why they're not showing the solar sailer dock.
the rockets are causing the damage, so the damage occurs while the rockets are nearby, right?
Well, the rocket exhaust isn't the only high-pressure fluid rushing out through the flame trench in the launch process.
The Sound Suppression Water System dumps about 300,000 gallons of water into the launchpad base and exhaust flame ports in the first 20 seconds after engine ignition, so that flow can't be good for the stability of the flame trench insulating blocks as they start to work loose.
SpaceShipOne cost $25 million to develop; how much do you think NASA would have spent to develop a manned sub-orbital plane from scratch?
Did spend to develop a manned sub-orbital plane from scratch. The X-15 program, from full R&D to a 199-mission flight program, cost $300 million 1969 dollars. Taking away the operating costs of the actual flights (199 x $600k each), that leaves the development part of the program at approximately $180 million. 1969 dollars. Adjusted for inflation in 2007 dollars, that's about $1.1 billion.
Of course, the X-15 program wasn't primarily about manned sub-orbital space flight. It was primarily high-altitude hypersonic aircraft research. Think "manned hypersonic strategic bombers". Not everyone in the US's strategic planning cabal was fond of unmanned intercontinental missiles being the fastest way to deliver nukes to the Russkies, since that denied rated aircrews perfectly good mission slots (and, more practically, also has the tactical shortfall of not being retargetable or recallable.)
But yeah, I've never heard of a government space program going small the way commercial ones tend to. The profit motive is powerful, and it can cut both ways depending on whether you profit more by going big (North American Aviation, X-15 program) or by going small and pocketing the difference (current commercial development programs, a la X-Prize).
"WARNING: Severe misuse may cause injury or death." I guess they meant stabbing someone with it,
I doubt that, personally. Imagine, instead, using that logic probe on a high-voltage test point. I'm guessing a couple of kilovolts would overcome the dielectric protection of the probe's case and zap the user.
Of course, I can't think of any electrical logic or signaling protocol with signal voltages that high, but I could almost imagine some moron going "I wonder if color CRT electron gun voltage is "1" or "0"?
Just keep 'em away from the authentic longboat re-creations.
Otherwise, we know from good sources that their only goal will be the western shore. And that means either the British Isles or, if they're lucky (and bad navigators), North America.
I'm certainly not taking your word for it, although I applaud your honesty in admitting your ignorance.
I think the point, lost among your off-topic borderline ad-hominem, is "Make up your own mind." You know, "critical thinking"? (I assume you've heard of it.)
Delegating the individual's inalienable decision process to a self-proclaimed expert has been the source of innumerable persistent fallacies, errors, and even terrible evils.
But that's stretching the principle a bit further than called for, in context. Let's just leave it at De gustibus non est disputandum.
Slashdot Mirror
I think VBA is in wider use then Java.
Meh. Cranking out spreadsheet macros for arbs and margin traders doesn't count as programming. And I'm not certain what metric anyone is using here.
I must commend you on defending your biases and prejudices so long and so well in the face of concerted attack from objective reality. Keep up the good work!
obDisclaimer: by temperment, I'm an assembler programmer, so I consider all y'all wimps. I don't waste any emotion on disliking java, C#, or even Haskell or Smalltalk.
Wow, that was kinda... amazing.
By many common definitions, calling someone an "evil single minded idiot" is pretty evil. Or at least needlessly uncivil, a form of verbal violence related to physical violence the same way that a "fib" is related to blood libel or grand jury perjury.
Really, for a self-sacrificing pacifist, that's pretty hypocritical.
On the other hand, even if the mugger didn't think you had a gun, he may shoot you just to be safe. Then take your wallet and run.
If the mugger is armed, you're screwed either way. (Assuming he's a decent shot.) But if you're armed, (A) you might be able to frighten off the attacker, even if he were armed (cuz he knows he's a bad shot), or (B) you might take the bastard down, saving yourself, or (C) you might take the bastard with you, even if he got ya.
So explain to me again why unarmed is better?
Now, to weaken my argument: a gun is an awful responsibility. One wild round or accidental discharge and you may have killed an innocent bystander. So, for a lot of people, that's too much of a risk. Me, for instance. I may not have any compunction about defending myself with lethal force, if I could assure myself to nearly 100% certainty that only my attacker and possibly myself will suffer. But bullets don't stop when you miss your target, and that's why I won't risk 'em.
That's just me, though. YMMV. FWIW, I think the Supremes got it right.
At least in this case, AC was right.
Whereas Taco, in this case... not so much.
How awful is Outlook's IMAP support???
In my experience, somewhere between "craptacular" and "OMG I WANNA GOUGE MY OWN EYES OUT WITH UNSHARPENED PENCILS!"
In particular, adding Outlook's casual disdain for open standards to Courier IMAP's "Ve vill do zis IN ORDNUNG und ve vill LIKE IT!" attitude towards standards compliance yields an almost unresolvable mess. In the end, I just abandoned trying to get Outlook to play nice and deployed Thunderbird or Evolution (depending on need) instead.
As you point out, Google's profit interest is in more migrations from Outlook. That means that anyone offering a Outloog migration tool is to Google's good. However, someone offering a converter for $$$ raises a barrier: some people won't pay for a converter; if they can't migrate for free they won't use Gmail. How do you overcome that barrier? Offer a converter for free. Yeah, the guys trying to sell their converter get shafted. But Google wins by getting more users who migrate off of Outlook.
That's the motivation point you seem to be neglecting. That's the ??? before "Profit!". In your words, that's WTF.
And yeah, I know, that's the story according to the plaintiff's legal team. We've unofficially heard one side of the story. (Yeah, unofficially. As you point out, it's a press release, not the actual filings.) So, there's obviously a lot more story to come. I hope Groklaw follows this one.
Those are gods tears in the sky,
And why is God crying?
Probably because of something you did.
Thanks, Jack Handey.For those of you too young to remember or too old to have noticed, linky.
RIP George. I'll cuss up a storm today at work in your memory.
You're a big boy, you can be trusted not to eat the resistors.
Awww, the carbon-films are SOOO tasty! Especially if you chew a small electrolytic cap (2.2uf or less) with them; the piquancy of the 'lyte perfectly emphasizes the smooth activated-charcoal taste of the resistors.
Just dont't swallow the cap; the aluminum casing'll give you the runs for sure.
Well then thank $DIETY that business conversations never occur outside the secure premises of a place of business. Certainly, what manager, executive, or board member* would use a home phone line to conduct confidential business.
Dang, I left my sarcasm tags at home this morning.
*Yes, the link is not about phone tapping, it's about pretexting. But note that some of the target phone numbers were home phone lines. If someone can be troubled to illegally access your home phone records for a business investigation, it's only a difference of degree, not kind, to tapping that same home phone.
Robert E. Lee
Well, Java has Duke already. So we're at least 1/3 way there.
Damn. That's the exact phrase I've been looking for. I don't know how many times I've seen hard truths and unpleasant realities float up the organization and stop dead about 3 management levels below where someone could do something about it. Just like sonar, the people "listening" above the thermocline will never hear anything occurring below it.
Especially this bumper sticker.
I'm thinkin' that territoriality theory might explain a lot after all.
Line Printer Snoopy Calendar!
I may be predictable, but I'm not predictable enough for a spam robot to guess the email address and phone numbers of my friends.
Maybe spitbot doesn't have to predict anything. Maybe, like any modern bot, it just has to infect your friend's VoIP PC and lift his phonebook. Trusted call source, probably already in your whitelist... delicious.
Look for worm-based or trojan-based VoIP spitbots. Enough compromise penetration, and that's a lot of potential phone number targets.
Good point. A Slashdot Joe-job. A slashjob, as it were.
I like it. Too bad I didn't patent it.
I dunno; that building looks like something out of Tron to me. Every time I look at the renderings I wonder where they're hiding the recognizers and why they're not showing the solar sailer dock.
the rockets are causing the damage, so the damage occurs while the rockets are nearby, right?
Well, the rocket exhaust isn't the only high-pressure fluid rushing out through the flame trench in the launch process.
The Sound Suppression Water System dumps about 300,000 gallons of water into the launchpad base and exhaust flame ports in the first 20 seconds after engine ignition, so that flow can't be good for the stability of the flame trench insulating blocks as they start to work loose.
That whip-smart 6-year-old Calvin has something eerily wise to say about this phenomenon:
SpaceShipOne cost $25 million to develop; how much do you think NASA would have spent to develop a manned sub-orbital plane from scratch?
Did spend to develop a manned sub-orbital plane from scratch. The X-15 program, from full R&D to a 199-mission flight program, cost $300 million 1969 dollars. Taking away the operating costs of the actual flights (199 x $600k each), that leaves the development part of the program at approximately $180 million. 1969 dollars. Adjusted for inflation in 2007 dollars, that's about $1.1 billion.
Of course, the X-15 program wasn't primarily about manned sub-orbital space flight. It was primarily high-altitude hypersonic aircraft research. Think "manned hypersonic strategic bombers". Not everyone in the US's strategic planning cabal was fond of unmanned intercontinental missiles being the fastest way to deliver nukes to the Russkies, since that denied rated aircrews perfectly good mission slots (and, more practically, also has the tactical shortfall of not being retargetable or recallable.)
But yeah, I've never heard of a government space program going small the way commercial ones tend to. The profit motive is powerful, and it can cut both ways depending on whether you profit more by going big (North American Aviation, X-15 program) or by going small and pocketing the difference (current commercial development programs, a la X-Prize).
"WARNING: Severe misuse may cause injury or death." I guess they meant stabbing someone with it,
I doubt that, personally. Imagine, instead, using that logic probe on a high-voltage test point. I'm guessing a couple of kilovolts would overcome the dielectric protection of the probe's case and zap the user.
Of course, I can't think of any electrical logic or signaling protocol with signal voltages that high, but I could almost imagine some moron going "I wonder if color CRT electron gun voltage is "1" or "0"?
Just keep 'em away from the authentic longboat re-creations.
Otherwise, we know from good sources that their only goal will be the western shore. And that means either the British Isles or, if they're lucky (and bad navigators), North America.
about seeking the praise of others.
Getting public praise is like pissing your pants: everyone around you can see it happening, but only you can feel the warmth.
Something to consider when asking yourself how hard you want to press for this.
Well...
I'm certainly not taking your word for it, although I applaud your honesty in admitting your ignorance.
I think the point, lost among your off-topic borderline ad-hominem, is "Make up your own mind." You know, "critical thinking"? (I assume you've heard of it.)
Delegating the individual's inalienable decision process to a self-proclaimed expert has been the source of innumerable persistent fallacies, errors, and even terrible evils.
But that's stretching the principle a bit further than called for, in context. Let's just leave it at De gustibus non est disputandum.