To be a good sales droid you need either no sense of shame, or the ability to fake it convincingly. Still, I suspect a fair number of them bit their tongues and smiled along politely.
You need to look at the media coverage of all Republican candidates together to understand what happened. The candidates thought to be the strongest opponents against Hillary received the harshest treatment (Christy, Romney, Rubio, and Cruz). [...] The long knives didn't really come out until poll numbers showed Trump actually having a chance to win. Now that he's ahead you see the hysteria.
And similarly, if you look at the study, the strongest opponent (singular, since there was only one) against the Republican frontrunners received the harshest treatment. The situation is entirely symmetrical, except that none of the strong Republican candidates won.
What the study essentially showed was that the mainstream media treats what it perceives to be the frontrunners on both sides more harshly. Neither Trump nor Sanders were treated as harshly precisely because nobody thought they had a chance. They are now making up for lost time on Trump.
It is true that there was a large amount of coverage on Trump. The linked version of the study does not show the breakdown between "positive" and "neutral" coverage of Trump. Assuming it's almost all "neutral" (which seems likely), the amount of coverage of Trump is explainable by the fact that pretty much everything Trump does is a headline of one sort or other.
There's no evidence of a conspiracy here. (Like all conspiracies, perhaps lack of evidence is evidence of a cover-up?) It's just that the tactic which works for the news outlets (in the sense of maximising eyeballs) most of the time backfired spectacularly this time.
Sites that the US government really hates (thepiratebay for example) don't have a problem existing so long as their names and numbers aren't any of those delegated for use within the US.
That's only because it never occurred to the MAFIAA to take the case to a US court. "This court has jurisdiction because all the good movies are made here, so anyone pirating movies is doing business with California" or something.
Just a thought, but perhaps it's for the best that ICANN gets handed over before Sweden gets an investor-state arbitration treaty with the US.
You want to know what this D-Wave technology represents? A start.
Yes and no.
Yes, D-Wave technology represents the first practical step in one possible direction for building practical quantum computers.
No, in that it is an insane hype machine. How many pieces have you seen which claims that D-Wave is working on solving NP-complete problems efficiently, something which pretty much everyone believes quantum computers are incapable of doing? If D-Wave can't live up to the hype, it may ruin quantum computing for everyone, and that would be a bad thing.
My mother (who has spent a lot of her life on committees of various kinds) taught me from a young age that the problem isn't often what is done, but the way it's done. D-Wave embodies this principle.
No, Indonesian only resembles Latin because it uses the same character base.
Er... no. It also has similar pronunciation, similar word length, broadly similar word order rules, and even some cognates which Indonesian gained through Dutch. I picked that example very carefully. Someone who was not familiar with human writing systems could easily look at (say) Latin, Indonesian, and Romanian, and conclude based on alphabets alone that Indonesian is more closely related to Latin than Romanian is.
Makes sense. The underlying point that I was trying to make is not that machines over a certain size shouldn't have manual transmissions, but simply that automatic transmissions are not the right tool for the job all the time.
But I'm sure you know more and better than the designers of the C# and Java languages.
The term that Anders Hejlsberg used was "C-like", which is a much weaker claim than "C-based" or "C derivative". I don't know that James Gosling claimed any similarity to C except for syntax.
I'm sure C++ is also not C based by your definition.
Of course not. C++ and Objective-C are absolutely C-based, in that they share semantics and are even backwards compatible with C. It would be fair to place D and Rust in the C family, too, as well as more obscure languages like NXC, Cyclone and Lite-C. (And that's not counting C's ancestors and close cousins like BCPL and Bliss.)
C# superficially looks like C, in the same way that Indonesian superficially looks like Latin. But Rust is a closer relative to C in the same way that Russian is a closer relative to Latin.
I didn't imply it, I said it. Merely using curly braces does not make a language resemble C in any way but superficially. C# (like Java before it) owes far more to Modula-3 than it does to C.
The world in which a language is said to be based on another if it shares a great deal of syntactic similarity.
Ah, I see. So C# is C-based in the same way that Farsi is Arabic-based, or Indonesian is Malagasy-based. Everything to do with superficial appearance and nothing at all to do with semantics.
The Caterpillar 797 400-ton mining truck (4000 hp) has an automatic transmission with 7 forward speeds and a torque converter.
That's a bit heavier than I was thinking of, but I have to say, that surprises me. Torque converters tend to slip under heavy loads. What am I missing?
My best advice to all of you engineers in the Class of 1890 is to bet your careers on coal-powered steam. Yes, we hear talk of internal-combustion this and electric-power that, but they are all just expensive novelties. Coal is efficient, it provides for many jobs among the lower classes in the mining industry, and is also unwasteful in that most of it literally disappears into the sky, far away from the refined mouths of gentlemen like yourselves.
Besides, the electric power proposals proposed rely on coal-powered steam, so why not just cut out the inefficient middle-man?
All of the great engines of our industry today are powered by coal-powered steam. Would you have us return to the days of the wind-mill or water-wheel? I think not.
Believe me, young engineer, you will never want for a well-paying career if you just stick with coal-powered steam.
I prefer driving an automatic over a manual transmission too.
Well, if you're driving a car, for sure. But it would be a serious mistake to install an automatic transmission in a freight locomotive or heavy truck.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see a question from you.
I hope he's paying Slashdot. It's not like he can't afford his own PR.
Also remember, this happened in the timeframe (mid 2015) that Apple was actively fighting the FBI to not build a software hack into iOS.
No, the Apple case started in February 2016.
To be a good sales droid you need either no sense of shame, or the ability to fake it convincingly. Still, I suspect a fair number of them bit their tongues and smiled along politely.
P.S. Made you watch it!
Yeah, pretty much.
You need to look at the media coverage of all Republican candidates together to understand what happened. The candidates thought to be the strongest opponents against Hillary received the harshest treatment (Christy, Romney, Rubio, and Cruz). [...] The long knives didn't really come out until poll numbers showed Trump actually having a chance to win. Now that he's ahead you see the hysteria.
And similarly, if you look at the study, the strongest opponent (singular, since there was only one) against the Republican frontrunners received the harshest treatment. The situation is entirely symmetrical, except that none of the strong Republican candidates won.
What the study essentially showed was that the mainstream media treats what it perceives to be the frontrunners on both sides more harshly. Neither Trump nor Sanders were treated as harshly precisely because nobody thought they had a chance. They are now making up for lost time on Trump.
It is true that there was a large amount of coverage on Trump. The linked version of the study does not show the breakdown between "positive" and "neutral" coverage of Trump. Assuming it's almost all "neutral" (which seems likely), the amount of coverage of Trump is explainable by the fact that pretty much everything Trump does is a headline of one sort or other.
There's no evidence of a conspiracy here. (Like all conspiracies, perhaps lack of evidence is evidence of a cover-up?) It's just that the tactic which works for the news outlets (in the sense of maximising eyeballs) most of the time backfired spectacularly this time.
Sites that the US government really hates (thepiratebay for example) don't have a problem existing so long as their names and numbers aren't any of those delegated for use within the US.
That's only because it never occurred to the MAFIAA to take the case to a US court. "This court has jurisdiction because all the good movies are made here, so anyone pirating movies is doing business with California" or something.
Just a thought, but perhaps it's for the best that ICANN gets handed over before Sweden gets an investor-state arbitration treaty with the US.
You want to know what this D-Wave technology represents? A start.
Yes and no.
Yes, D-Wave technology represents the first practical step in one possible direction for building practical quantum computers.
No, in that it is an insane hype machine. How many pieces have you seen which claims that D-Wave is working on solving NP-complete problems efficiently, something which pretty much everyone believes quantum computers are incapable of doing? If D-Wave can't live up to the hype, it may ruin quantum computing for everyone, and that would be a bad thing.
My mother (who has spent a lot of her life on committees of various kinds) taught me from a young age that the problem isn't often what is done, but the way it's done. D-Wave embodies this principle.
You can write a Hello, World! program that everyone can read in their own language.
Excellent! Being able to broadcast a greeting in all languages and on all channels brings us one step closer to the Star Trek utopia.
No, Indonesian only resembles Latin because it uses the same character base.
Er... no. It also has similar pronunciation, similar word length, broadly similar word order rules, and even some cognates which Indonesian gained through Dutch. I picked that example very carefully. Someone who was not familiar with human writing systems could easily look at (say) Latin, Indonesian, and Romanian, and conclude based on alphabets alone that Indonesian is more closely related to Latin than Romanian is.
Makes sense. The underlying point that I was trying to make is not that machines over a certain size shouldn't have manual transmissions, but simply that automatic transmissions are not the right tool for the job all the time.
Hipsters were doing scientific studies before it was cool.
But I'm sure you know more and better than the designers of the C# and Java languages.
The term that Anders Hejlsberg used was "C-like", which is a much weaker claim than "C-based" or "C derivative". I don't know that James Gosling claimed any similarity to C except for syntax.
I'm sure C++ is also not C based by your definition.
Of course not. C++ and Objective-C are absolutely C-based, in that they share semantics and are even backwards compatible with C. It would be fair to place D and Rust in the C family, too, as well as more obscure languages like NXC, Cyclone and Lite-C. (And that's not counting C's ancestors and close cousins like BCPL and Bliss.)
C# superficially looks like C, in the same way that Indonesian superficially looks like Latin. But Rust is a closer relative to C in the same way that Russian is a closer relative to Latin.
That would have been very good advice.
My point precisely. The best tool for the job is rarely the best-paying tool for the job.
I didn't imply it, I said it. Merely using curly braces does not make a language resemble C in any way but superficially. C# (like Java before it) owes far more to Modula-3 than it does to C.
The world in which a language is said to be based on another if it shares a great deal of syntactic similarity.
Ah, I see. So C# is C-based in the same way that Farsi is Arabic-based, or Indonesian is Malagasy-based. Everything to do with superficial appearance and nothing at all to do with semantics.
And, BTW, OOP did not originate in California.
Alan Kay, who coined the term, was working at Paolo Alto at the time.
The Caterpillar 797 400-ton mining truck (4000 hp) has an automatic transmission with 7 forward speeds and a torque converter.
That's a bit heavier than I was thinking of, but I have to say, that surprises me. Torque converters tend to slip under heavy loads. What am I missing?
I refer to any version since it was called LiveScript. Eich designed it to have the same scoping semantics as Scheme.
No, but you can run a Byrhtnoth cluster of them.
Still true of Python.
My best advice to all of you engineers in the Class of 1890 is to bet your careers on coal-powered steam. Yes, we hear talk of internal-combustion this and electric-power that, but they are all just expensive novelties. Coal is efficient, it provides for many jobs among the lower classes in the mining industry, and is also unwasteful in that most of it literally disappears into the sky, far away from the refined mouths of gentlemen like yourselves.
Besides, the electric power proposals proposed rely on coal-powered steam, so why not just cut out the inefficient middle-man?
All of the great engines of our industry today are powered by coal-powered steam. Would you have us return to the days of the wind-mill or water-wheel? I think not.
Believe me, young engineer, you will never want for a well-paying career if you just stick with coal-powered steam.
I prefer driving an automatic over a manual transmission too.
Well, if you're driving a car, for sure. But it would be a serious mistake to install an automatic transmission in a freight locomotive or heavy truck.
PHP is as much a "programming language" as BASIC is, by CS standards.
If that's your standard, Python would be in the same class of non-programming languages.
Hell, even JavaScript has lexically scoped variables.