The problem here is that the Government does not see the need to roll out new infrastructure.
On the contrary, the Government does see the need to roll out new infrastructure. What they don't see is the need to pay for new infrastructure or to protect new infrastructure from becoming yet another monopoly.
Look, the problem here seems to be that the guy wants an e-mail company to do his (the parents' job).
And the problem with that is... what, exactly?
When you send my kids to school, to child care, or hire a babysitter, this is exactly what you're doing. So long as you don't offload too much responsibility, don't impose your system on anyone other than your kids, and are willing to pay for it, there's no problem here.
I still have to wonder how much of the "mess" was simply due to inexperience.
My first large undergrad project in C++ was a mess. I thought the language was bloated and useless. Then I came back a couple of years later and wrote another large project, this time after reading a few books and understanding what "good C++" was supposed to look like. The difference was remarkable, and I'm now sold on it.
Let me put it this way. If someone was to look at your code and say "your algorithm doesn't terminate", ask yourself if it would be a correct reply to say "But all programs terminate!"
"Unbounded" is an entirely correct sense of the word "infinite".
I have yet to find something that's not generalizable in Haskell,
I have. Data structures which are both pure/persistent and state-monad-based can't be expressed with the same interface cleanly. For example, you can't use the same interface for both Array and STArray.
Not that this is a show-stopper; you tend to use arrays far less in most languages (even C++) than you do in C.
Plus, you don't optimize by adding another abstraction layer [...]
No, but you enable optimisation thereby.
In system design, abstraction is one of the best things you can do for performance, because it forces you to insulate your components from each other, and forces you to think about the interfaces through which they interact.
In an appropriately abstracted system, if you find a performance problem, you can then swap out a piece and swap in a new one, and everything should still work. Or you can move a virtual server onto a new physical server, and everything should still work.
Public agencies can't be bothered to make this information available. It would cost them $$$, which they would rather use for their pet projects.
In the case of Federal agencies, they are legally required to make it available, electronically, via Z39.50. (Remember Z39.50?) Very few agencies actually comply with this.
The thing is, they don't need to. All they need to do is not claim copyright (as they are not legally allowed to do), then Carl can buy a copy and put it online himself.
Where are we headed with this exploration of space thing?We study all the planets in the solar system, and we find empty barren pieces of rock. Or maybe a few microbes.
Or, perhaps, the well-behaved plasmas that Voyager found while travelling through the magnetospheres of the outer planets, which gives us another direction to look in the development of practical fusion power.
That's the thing about exploration: If we knew what we were going to find, it wouldn't be "exploration".
(For those not so familiar with the game, this position is essentially the same as the classic Kolmogorov Gambit (see, for example, Stovold vol CCCLXIV (ii), pp 697-702), except that all hexes are now wild and aquatic crossings will force a transverse shunt. Knip in two.)
People who study this sort of thing note that there's a generational thing. Generally speaking, the younger you are, the less likely you are to use a male-default pronoun.
I'm not that young, but I noticed the fact that you used "he" to refer to an anonymous coward. You're probably right, but the point is, I noticed. Your use of the generic "he" stood out to me.
Note: I haven't trained myself to notice, my parents and teachers weren't especially PC, and I wasn't looking for it specifically as far as I know. It's just the language that I happen to speak.
Being serious for a moment, it is possible to overdo a parody to the point where it's no longer as good. If you add too much, it starts to look like a parody of what you think content-free managers say, rather than a parody of what they actually say.
Having said that, you have a point. There is a kind of Poe's Law when it comes to managerial weasel words.
References to persons of generic or indeterminate gender are properly phrased 'he'.
This was true once. It was also once true that the second person singular pronoun was "thou". Neither is true any more.
If you don't like it, complain to your local linguist, who will be very happy to point out that languages are defined by usage, and language change is inevitable and unstoppable.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider that kind of precedent worth at least $20 of my money. Just to be sure, though, I won't pay up until after the precedent is set.
On the contrary, the Government does see the need to roll out new infrastructure. What they don't see is the need to pay for new infrastructure or to protect new infrastructure from becoming yet another monopoly.
And the problem with that is... what, exactly?
When you send my kids to school, to child care, or hire a babysitter, this is exactly what you're doing. So long as you don't offload too much responsibility, don't impose your system on anyone other than your kids, and are willing to pay for it, there's no problem here.
Indeed. I don't buy this "peak demand" thing for a moment; surely it'll be cheaper to cool it down during Winter!
Well, there's the Identity monad, if that's what you meant.
I still have to wonder how much of the "mess" was simply due to inexperience.
My first large undergrad project in C++ was a mess. I thought the language was bloated and useless. Then I came back a couple of years later and wrote another large project, this time after reading a few books and understanding what "good C++" was supposed to look like. The difference was remarkable, and I'm now sold on it.
They all typecheck, so they must all work!
It's a pessimal case for Huffman codes.
Sadly, that rarely works in C++ due to the semantics of auto-variable destructors. Still, understanding recursion is vital for C++ programming, too.
There are several correct meanings of the word "infite". The one being used here is "unbounded".
Let me put it this way. If someone was to look at your code and say "your algorithm doesn't terminate", ask yourself if it would be a correct reply to say "But all programs terminate!" "Unbounded" is an entirely correct sense of the word "infinite".
Sure they do. They're just usually called "file descriptors", "iterators", "streams", "FIFO buffers" or something like that.
I have. Data structures which are both pure/persistent and state-monad-based can't be expressed with the same interface cleanly. For example, you can't use the same interface for both Array and STArray.
Not that this is a show-stopper; you tend to use arrays far less in most languages (even C++) than you do in C.
I'm still trying to work out how someone can go literally nuts.
No, but you enable optimisation thereby.
In system design, abstraction is one of the best things you can do for performance, because it forces you to insulate your components from each other, and forces you to think about the interfaces through which they interact.
In an appropriately abstracted system, if you find a performance problem, you can then swap out a piece and swap in a new one, and everything should still work. Or you can move a virtual server onto a new physical server, and everything should still work.
Congratulations, you've just been hired. Your job: Move something from A to B every four minutes. We agreed on 10 cents per hour, right?
In the case of Federal agencies, they are legally required to make it available, electronically, via Z39.50. (Remember Z39.50?) Very few agencies actually comply with this.
The thing is, they don't need to. All they need to do is not claim copyright (as they are not legally allowed to do), then Carl can buy a copy and put it online himself.
Or, perhaps, the well-behaved plasmas that Voyager found while travelling through the magnetospheres of the outer planets, which gives us another direction to look in the development of practical fusion power.
That's the thing about exploration: If we knew what we were going to find, it wouldn't be "exploration".
Bethnal Green
(For those not so familiar with the game, this position is essentially the same as the classic Kolmogorov Gambit (see, for example, Stovold vol CCCLXIV (ii), pp 697-702), except that all hexes are now wild and aquatic crossings will force a transverse shunt. Knip in two.)
Nonsense. A real nerd could play the party politics game to try to achieve a greater end.
Now that the specs have been published, the open source community can step up and make a clone.
Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Mohandas Gandhi and Mordechai Vanunu, are (or were) felons.
People who study this sort of thing note that there's a generational thing. Generally speaking, the younger you are, the less likely you are to use a male-default pronoun.
I'm not that young, but I noticed the fact that you used "he" to refer to an anonymous coward. You're probably right, but the point is, I noticed. Your use of the generic "he" stood out to me.
Note: I haven't trained myself to notice, my parents and teachers weren't especially PC, and I wasn't looking for it specifically as far as I know. It's just the language that I happen to speak.
Being serious for a moment, it is possible to overdo a parody to the point where it's no longer as good. If you add too much, it starts to look like a parody of what you think content-free managers say, rather than a parody of what they actually say.
Having said that, you have a point. There is a kind of Poe's Law when it comes to managerial weasel words.
This was true once. It was also once true that the second person singular pronoun was "thou". Neither is true any more.
If you don't like it, complain to your local linguist, who will be very happy to point out that languages are defined by usage, and language change is inevitable and unstoppable.