You gain knowledge itself. There are those of us who revere that. I personally revere knowledge, even though I KNOW that it's not absolutely good and that this revered status is unwarranted. Still, I'd rather know than not, about everything.
Then you should make a killing making 'optical occlusion' interconnects for processors. Think how you could dominate those silly optical interconnects:) Freaking lowly 'c' speed...
I think, realistically, if a merit-based search engine existed then the same number of resources would be spent trying and failing. Did you have marked improvement for the effort spent on SEO?
At my old company I gave them two weeks notice and then served as a contract employee for around four months just to help them close out the projects I was working on. I think anything else would have been kind of ass-ish of me. My goal is to avoid losing money for my employer, though it's not the primary goal. If they haven't been asses to you, don't be an ass to them. It's almost like it's as simple as living life.
Capitalists cannot destroy the market. The market is primarily consumer desires. If AT&T turns their product into something undesirable, they will lose customers to someone offering something better. I hate hate hate the idea of a tiered internet, but I fear federal intervention far more. Specifically, I hate the idea of a tiered internet because the only reason I buy access to the interwebs is to get to my various services. If they charge google more for access, they hurt me as a consumer. But more importantly, they double charge for a service. I think that the net should be neutral, but I think we should maintain this via consumer demand. Letting idiots in Congress that have no grokkable concept of the internet start dictating how that happens, either way, is begging for disaster.
I think Congress should hire a bunch of geeks to call bullshit when people start talking about things they don't understand, and I think they should pay them to publicly ask the talking heads questions until said heads' ignorance dominates the conversation. But whatev.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
touché
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, except I have better things to do than argue about how I might not yet have articulated my deeply held belief yet. It goes something like this, see if you can keep up:
1) I have an opinion. I'm of an extremely strong mind that it's right, and I have gobs of experience with the language. 2) I'd like to get that opinion out there because agreeing with me will save the world, solve world hunger, get rid of toejam ALTOGETHER, etc. VB poisons minds, as far as I can tell. 3) If no one else comes down on my side of the fence, then fine. The world's worse off on the whole, but I'll continue getting demonstrably better at what I do in solitude. Screw you guys, I'll try to hold off on the advice and let you waste four years in one of those shops like me, right?
Anyway, the point is every moment of life isn't supposed to be a challenge-response scenario. I'm right, and fuck all if you can't catch it because I'm not your daddy:)
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
I think for the same reasons it sucks for most people that code in it today. I think it's a capable language. I also think it's a terrible language. And who was expecting anything more than my opinion? Did I have a standard definition of suckitude to connect my argument to or something? I've got some experience though, and want to dissuade others from thinking that it's a good language to spend time learning. I think it'll help the world if I'm able.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Alright, some context. I was a VB developer for three years, developed big(ish) apps in it, we rewrote a state department's main application in it and C#, etc. I actually hate VB because it lacks a coherent structure. I'm an MCP (was on the MCSD track before I ran kicking and screaming from the building).
So the reasons I like Ruby (because no, the gripe was not a missing feature. The gripe was a failing abstraction. If OO can't be OO, then OO is a stupid idea. OO.) First, off the fact that it is pretty much (lisp - macros) means I like it quite a bit. For lofty mathematical reasons. Any Lisp with a grokkable syntax is a-ok with me. And libraries.
But I'm not claiming Ruby's the awesome. I was responding to a guy saying that VB deserved respect, and I was asserting that it did not, in fact. Sure you can do lots of stuff with it, but whatever. I'm not interested in how much stuff someone can do in something - that's a pragmatic approach. But I should only be concerned with my own actions. Using VB in my own life would be knowingly limiting myself. So I cannot. Therefore VB sucks.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
(Java sucks) !=> (VB doesn't)
Anyway, long live Ruby:)
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
I think it's funny - it was just a question. As it turns out the answer is you can't, and yes there are loads of projects that that makes an enormous difference on. I think it's absurd that you can't do it in VB and they call it OO. But anyway, it was just a question - I was hoping someone would come back and say 'you fool, you've been able to do that since.net 2.0' or something like that.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
My solution in situations like this is to build custom Stylish rules for sites like that. Even if they change the id a whole bunch, they're pretty much constrained to a certain number of xhtml structures, and I doubt they'll be changing that a lot. So do something like: #ad_space div>div{display: none;} (replacing the selectors with an actual path to the frustrating elements). There are also lots of scripts for stylish at http://www.userstyles.org/
As it is now, evenh if one company raised thier prices, the others would do the same just to colect the extra profits. Why don't you think the other companies would slightly undersell to get the extra profit that volume would bring?
Yeah, but that's the problem, and it's not just cost. If the anti-oil crowd wins, we'll be half castrating ourselves by dropping the current most-efficient energy transfer mechanism. Of course, if I were to guess it's all just academic and we'll continue to use oil until we get a more efficient all purpose means of energy generation.
I've got this love affair going on with the market, see, so I know all about the way they'll pass on costs to consumers. I do disagree with the tone of the whole 'expensive gas during record breaking profits' mantra most of the time that I hear it. As a student of the market, I wasn't surprised that gasoline costs went up drastically short term when an oil refinery was taken out of commission.
Of course the frustrating thing is the whole monopoloy economy that we get in various small segments of life. It's still way preferable to the alternative (socialism, and all that that entails). And yes, I would call almost any monopoly breakups 'socialist'. Nothing about justice promises a static playing field for all time. The oil companies provide energy to the consumers at an excellent price and I thank them for it. I lived in Ireland for a bit, where petrol was 3.5-4.5 times as expensive as here. Yikes. THAT's price gouging.
I wish it were true that Exxon had little to worry about. It's true that they'll remain on top of whatever energy distribution scheme comes next as far as I can tell, but they have much to lose just as we do. It's just that we all have much to lose in abandoning oil. It's an extremely efficient energy transfer mechanism, and we just don't have a better one at present that satisfies all the needs that oil does.
Can you point to a single study that suggests that human-created pollution would account for those temperatures? The consensus is that global warming is occurring (agreed), man has an extremely limited impact on it (no paper suggests a 26 degree Celsius increase in temperature today. More like a degree or two over the next century).
Why am I an idiot when I don't believe this crap, but you folks aren't idiots for claiming SUVs caused a 26 degree increase in temperature this year? It's like you don't even read the papers you love that let you hate Big Oil (and yeah, don't let's talk about the hockey stick graph. I run away from areas where I know that evidence was tampered with to support a political agenda, and people are STILL referencing that damn graph).
Bah, I could see ncurses/Ruby as being efficient. I've written a brief proof of concept similar to what he describes, and it was extremely speedy and robust for a quickly thrown together curses app. ActiveRecord, any ORM, I don't care - they mesh well with ncurses.
Re:Joe McCarthy would be proud
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
The essence of communism as a political movement has to be violent taxation. If it were sharing, you wouldn't need to enforce it at the government level. You could just share stuff, and let the capitalist pigs do their thing too.
Aha, hadn't seen that. Still, there'd be porting issues for each driver used in windows, versus a simple recompile for linux users. Microsoft's got the manpower to handle something like that, but Vista's schedule seems to imply that they can't quite handle their manpower as well as they themselves think they can. I don't think it'd be as simple as you're suggesting.
(oh gawd emacs users stop reading, it's cool too but it wasn't my example).
vim in windows used to suck. It only JUST got acceptable, but it's still inferior to vim in a free OS.
I don't care if you don't think vim's a cool application. It's where I spend over 80% of my computer time, and it's a necessity that my editor be as powerful as possible.
Lowest != low. My mother's computer, used for bookkeeping, has a gig of RAM in it. She wishes it had more. The fact that she understands that she needs more RAM is on many levels frightening to me, but the point is that HP and Dell selling computers with too little RAM to even run XP acceptably these days is not the evidence you think you have.
Enter Linux with a wide variety of file systems that don't seem to slow down your machine just because you've created and deleted tons of files over time. And the Linux filesystems can handle MILLIONS of files. When you do that to NTFS, you're really just asking too much... One thing I'd change...NTFS has a problem with millions of files in a single directory, not millions of files on the filesystem, and that wasn't clear. NTFS does seem to slow down with time though, so that still stands.
Anyway, fun anecdote time. We were doing a bit of machinemachine stuff and it involved in at least one step one of the systems dumping files into a directory and the other machine grabbing them. This all worked perfectly, and even scaled appropriately. One nasty, nasty NTFS-related consequence though - you can't query the directory containing the files about what files it contained. If you tried, it hung for just an awful long time - hours, I think, though I wasn't deeply enough involved to remember things like that:) At any rate, all other things being equal, you could have debugged the otherwise-undebuggable situation with no effort simply by running an ext3 filesystem. Not the kind of thing you can get across to the average user, but if the average user used ext3 or some other capable filesystem, their software would be cheaper because less programmer time would be spent on this particular section of bugs.
Mr Raymond quotes the advantage that Linux has in terms of drivers including their source code. Well, if Microsft needs they can distribute those too. They don't want to, but if there is an advantage, they will. Microsoft doesn't have the source code to the drivers used in Windows. How do you suppose they'll distribute what they don't have?
Slashdot Mirror
You gain knowledge itself. There are those of us who revere that. I personally revere knowledge, even though I KNOW that it's not absolutely good and that this revered status is unwarranted. Still, I'd rather know than not, about everything.
Then you should make a killing making 'optical occlusion' interconnects for processors. Think how you could dominate those silly optical interconnects :) Freaking lowly 'c' speed...
I think, realistically, if a merit-based search engine existed then the same number of resources would be spent trying and failing. Did you have marked improvement for the effort spent on SEO?
At my old company I gave them two weeks notice and then served as a contract employee for around four months just to help them close out the projects I was working on. I think anything else would have been kind of ass-ish of me. My goal is to avoid losing money for my employer, though it's not the primary goal. If they haven't been asses to you, don't be an ass to them. It's almost like it's as simple as living life.
Capitalists cannot destroy the market. The market is primarily consumer desires. If AT&T turns their product into something undesirable, they will lose customers to someone offering something better. I hate hate hate the idea of a tiered internet, but I fear federal intervention far more. Specifically, I hate the idea of a tiered internet because the only reason I buy access to the interwebs is to get to my various services. If they charge google more for access, they hurt me as a consumer. But more importantly, they double charge for a service. I think that the net should be neutral, but I think we should maintain this via consumer demand. Letting idiots in Congress that have no grokkable concept of the internet start dictating how that happens, either way, is begging for disaster.
I think Congress should hire a bunch of geeks to call bullshit when people start talking about things they don't understand, and I think they should pay them to publicly ask the talking heads questions until said heads' ignorance dominates the conversation. But whatev.
touché
Yeah, except I have better things to do than argue about how I might not yet have articulated my deeply held belief yet. It goes something like this, see if you can keep up:
:)
1) I have an opinion. I'm of an extremely strong mind that it's right, and I have gobs of experience with the language.
2) I'd like to get that opinion out there because agreeing with me will save the world, solve world hunger, get rid of toejam ALTOGETHER, etc. VB poisons minds, as far as I can tell.
3) If no one else comes down on my side of the fence, then fine. The world's worse off on the whole, but I'll continue getting demonstrably better at what I do in solitude. Screw you guys, I'll try to hold off on the advice and let you waste four years in one of those shops like me, right?
Anyway, the point is every moment of life isn't supposed to be a challenge-response scenario. I'm right, and fuck all if you can't catch it because I'm not your daddy
I think for the same reasons it sucks for most people that code in it today. I think it's a capable language. I also think it's a terrible language. And who was expecting anything more than my opinion? Did I have a standard definition of suckitude to connect my argument to or something? I've got some experience though, and want to dissuade others from thinking that it's a good language to spend time learning. I think it'll help the world if I'm able.
Alright, some context. I was a VB developer for three years, developed big(ish) apps in it, we rewrote a state department's main application in it and C#, etc. I actually hate VB because it lacks a coherent structure. I'm an MCP (was on the MCSD track before I ran kicking and screaming from the building).
So the reasons I like Ruby (because no, the gripe was not a missing feature. The gripe was a failing abstraction. If OO can't be OO, then OO is a stupid idea. OO.) First, off the fact that it is pretty much (lisp - macros) means I like it quite a bit. For lofty mathematical reasons. Any Lisp with a grokkable syntax is a-ok with me. And libraries.
But I'm not claiming Ruby's the awesome. I was responding to a guy saying that VB deserved respect, and I was asserting that it did not, in fact. Sure you can do lots of stuff with it, but whatever. I'm not interested in how much stuff someone can do in something - that's a pragmatic approach. But I should only be concerned with my own actions. Using VB in my own life would be knowingly limiting myself. So I cannot. Therefore VB sucks.
(Java sucks) !=> (VB doesn't)
:)
Anyway, long live Ruby
I think it's funny - it was just a question. As it turns out the answer is you can't, and yes there are loads of projects that that makes an enormous difference on. I think it's absurd that you can't do it in VB and they call it OO. But anyway, it was just a question - I was hoping someone would come back and say 'you fool, you've been able to do that since .net 2.0' or something like that.
How do you create a class method in vb.net?
My solution in situations like this is to build custom Stylish rules for sites like that. Even if they change the id a whole bunch, they're pretty much constrained to a certain number of xhtml structures, and I doubt they'll be changing that a lot. So do something like: #ad_space div>div{display: none;} (replacing the selectors with an actual path to the frustrating elements). There are also lots of scripts for stylish at http://www.userstyles.org/
References?
Yeah, but that's the problem, and it's not just cost. If the anti-oil crowd wins, we'll be half castrating ourselves by dropping the current most-efficient energy transfer mechanism. Of course, if I were to guess it's all just academic and we'll continue to use oil until we get a more efficient all purpose means of energy generation.
I've got this love affair going on with the market, see, so I know all about the way they'll pass on costs to consumers. I do disagree with the tone of the whole 'expensive gas during record breaking profits' mantra most of the time that I hear it. As a student of the market, I wasn't surprised that gasoline costs went up drastically short term when an oil refinery was taken out of commission.
Of course the frustrating thing is the whole monopoloy economy that we get in various small segments of life. It's still way preferable to the alternative (socialism, and all that that entails). And yes, I would call almost any monopoly breakups 'socialist'. Nothing about justice promises a static playing field for all time. The oil companies provide energy to the consumers at an excellent price and I thank them for it. I lived in Ireland for a bit, where petrol was 3.5-4.5 times as expensive as here. Yikes. THAT's price gouging.
I wish it were true that Exxon had little to worry about. It's true that they'll remain on top of whatever energy distribution scheme comes next as far as I can tell, but they have much to lose just as we do. It's just that we all have much to lose in abandoning oil. It's an extremely efficient energy transfer mechanism, and we just don't have a better one at present that satisfies all the needs that oil does.
Can you point to a single study that suggests that human-created pollution would account for those temperatures? The consensus is that global warming is occurring (agreed), man has an extremely limited impact on it (no paper suggests a 26 degree Celsius increase in temperature today. More like a degree or two over the next century).
Why am I an idiot when I don't believe this crap, but you folks aren't idiots for claiming SUVs caused a 26 degree increase in temperature this year? It's like you don't even read the papers you love that let you hate Big Oil (and yeah, don't let's talk about the hockey stick graph. I run away from areas where I know that evidence was tampered with to support a political agenda, and people are STILL referencing that damn graph).
Bah, I could see ncurses/Ruby as being efficient. I've written a brief proof of concept similar to what he describes, and it was extremely speedy and robust for a quickly thrown together curses app. ActiveRecord, any ORM, I don't care - they mesh well with ncurses.
The essence of communism as a political movement has to be violent taxation. If it were sharing, you wouldn't need to enforce it at the government level. You could just share stuff, and let the capitalist pigs do their thing too.
We call that Open Source these days.
Aha, hadn't seen that. Still, there'd be porting issues for each driver used in windows, versus a simple recompile for linux users. Microsoft's got the manpower to handle something like that, but Vista's schedule seems to imply that they can't quite handle their manpower as well as they themselves think they can. I don't think it'd be as simple as you're suggesting.
(oh gawd emacs users stop reading, it's cool too but it wasn't my example).
vim in windows used to suck. It only JUST got acceptable, but it's still inferior to vim in a free OS.
I don't care if you don't think vim's a cool application. It's where I spend over 80% of my computer time, and it's a necessity that my editor be as powerful as possible.
Lowest != low. My mother's computer, used for bookkeeping, has a gig of RAM in it. She wishes it had more. The fact that she understands that she needs more RAM is on many levels frightening to me, but the point is that HP and Dell selling computers with too little RAM to even run XP acceptably these days is not the evidence you think you have.