2) Since your original statement suggested that JSP was *more* shitty, I was merely pointing out a possible explanation that you weren't taking into account. That is to say, your observations are not causally linked to any inherent shitti-ness in the language.
3) Exactly. So don't forget to factor in the rash of morons who slapped "Web Developer" on their resume straight out of high school. Sure the downturn has eliminated many of them from the geek-pool but their legacy remains. Besides - it's hard to live in a vacuum. *gasp* Need Air! *gasp*
4) Oh - don't get me wrong.. JSP *is* shitty. But it's just your argument that wasn't convincing.:)
The point of a phone handset is that it is easy to cradle in one hand and hold to one ear. There is a difference between the design of a handset and the design of an earpiece/headset, and there are good reasons for it. You can do exactly what you propose right now, with PDAs with call capablities and bluetooth. It's not coming in the future - it's already here. The problem is that you still have two devices - one of which is small and easily lost. Furthermore, not everyone wants or needs the functions of a PDA, so there's really no need for them to lug around a large hand device at all. They're quite content with their handset phone.
I don't think your convergence prediction will come true. I predict more variety in the options of handset/headset/PDA rather than less.
1/ Are you sure you know the difference between Javascript and JSP ? (just checking, you never know) 2/ Is that representative of the number of webpages using JSP vs VBScript vs PHP, rather than representative of the capabilities of the language ? 3/ So you're factoring in the ability of programmers when assessing the usefulness of the language. That's like saying the number 5 brush is useless because all the paintings I produce with it are crap. Might it be because I'm a sucky artiste ? 4/ Anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing.
eg. 100% of the errors I see are JSP errors (because I'm a JSP developer and I don't surf the web outside work)... Not exactly a great argument.
Sure - I wasn't saying that the science in the book was good. I just thought it was interesting, and vaguely plausible. It was, after, a work of science *fiction*. I haven't done any work in the field, nor computed any models - I wonder if you could point me to the study that showed punctuated equilibrium always happens in evolution models : that sounds interesting.
4. Specifications will be rushed or unclear from the start. This means you will constantly be fixing "Bugs" that are really feature enhancements. 5. There will be no design phase. Due to internal and external pressure, you will have to start coding immediately. Of course, we all know that works *just fine*.
When I first got to the US (I'm Australian, so don't be too worried about me. I'm quite happy to go home if I have to:) ), I worked upwards of 80-100 hours a week for over 2 months. One week I did 120 hours of work. I had to *schedule* the time to wash my clothes one day in the week, because it was cutting into coding time. I sat in a small room with one other Aussie programmer and we banged code till our fingers bled. And it was almost *all* work. Not even much in the way of goofing off. After 2 months, I think we were promised a $1000 bonus, which we didn't see.
3 years later and I was coming in at noon, having lunch with my coworkers for an hour or two, checking my email and leaving by four.
Strangely enough, I think I managed to enjoy my life equally under both work conditions, but since I now have friends in this country, I'm pretty sure I'd resent work cutting into my social time like that.
Why did I do it? Because I thought the pre-IPO company might go places, and they were offering me stock options.
is a sci-fi book that deals with an interesting possibile use for "Junk" DNA. I highly recommend it (even if it does feel like a preface to the real story , presumably to be found in the sequel "Darwins Children")
For a slight spoiler _______________________
- Ever wondered why Gradualism in Evolutionarey theory is becoming less popular than Punctuated Equilibrium ? It's because we haven't found any "missing links" in the fossil record... Well this book contains an interesting speculation about why that might be...
I would suggest that the technology of the automotive vehicle actually evolved from other social needs.
It's not like the society collectively thought "Gee, I've just invented this car, lets go build a road so I can drive it around."
The roads were already there.
The car was invented to be a more efficient use of the time already spent in travel. Gas Stations ? how about Bales of Hay ? Parking Garages ? Stables...
I don't know what the parent post was arguing, but I'd say that, provided the "solution" is a useful one, then does it matter how it came about (biologically, or technologically) ?
IIRC (IANAB), DNA "unravels" in order to create the amino acids and other bits and pieces, so the actual encoding is only along one side at a time. So you have to take into account which side each base is on. So it's not just which pair is present in a given position, but also it's orientation which is important.
OK. I wonder then, what are your criteria for excellence ? What consitutes talent ? What makes art 'Art' ? I challenge your assertion that no great artist in history produced their great works out of a desire to earn a living. Mozart and Da Vinci were both court-sponsored. They lived pretty well for their times, and made certainly enough money to put "artist" as their primary income on their tax returns (as it were).
Just because some of famous artists (Van Gogh, Seurat etc) died penniless doesn't mean that others didn't gain economic rewards. Nor does it mean that the ones who failed to make money weren't trying to.
I guess one might argue, "if they were so good why didn't they just produce something that was popular in order to make that money".. and this is where your argument picks up speed. Why didn't they ? Was it because they also felt that their "art" was more important than its contemporary acceptance? But how many other people have felt that same thing about their products, and have been completely wrong ?
I guess what I'm saying is - it is the judgement of the culture, throughout history, which gives importance to an artists works.. the effect that the artist has on future artists. If someone dies penniless, having never sold a single painting or song, and derided by his peers.. if he remains languishing in obscurity for eternity, were his works of equal, greater, or lesser artistic worth than those whose works were recognized as influential on other artists, either contemporary or future? Is there some universal, absolute standard by which "Art" is measured ? Is it mere execution of form ? Mastery of skill with pen or brush? Would it help if he gave up his day job to pursue his dream ? Even if he sucked at it ?
I would argue that it has nothing to do with the artists intention to be either economically viable or self-aggrandizing. Instead, the worth of art is based on what *others* get out of it. If someone's body of works has influenced others, then it is art. But that's just my feelings on the matter. It means that beauty is still in the eye of the beholder, and not in the desire of the painter, nor the pocket of the buyer.
And on an off-topic aside - if one takes the DMCA to it's logical conclusion, and there can be no more art under this definition:)
OR he knew that he would, in fact save Trinity. He was just working on Neos hatred of authority and determinism to spur him to *actually* save trinity, instead of just *trying* and failing to. I'm not sure for what purpose though. After all, if what the Architect said was actually true, then it's *not* within the Machines interests to completely eradicate Zion.
But then, I might be mis-remembering the conversation where the Architect explained things.
Or alternatively, his "save the princess" mentality was easily predictable and predicted by the Architect. After all, didn't he say "Ahh yes, the emotional response. Eminently predictable" (or something like that) just as Neo walked out the door ? Now either he really has predicted this reaction, or he's bluffing. What does he get by bluffing ? The possibility that Neo will listen to him and go save humanity at the last moment ? Perhaps. On the other hand, what happens if he really can predict that Neo will choose the way he did ? Surely something with this computational capacity would have prepared something for the eventuality that the ONE they have created would go with this choice ? Hmm. I'm actually vaguely interested in what they'll do with this in the next movie. Unlke some others, however, I don't believe that I can easily predict what the filmmakers will do.
Free Will *or* Determinism be damned - I have no foreknowledge.
The problem with this argument is that it *is* completely subjective. You are setting yourself up as a guardian of art - complete with your own definition of what is "good" and what isn't.
Van Gogh ? Or Warhol ? What gives you the right to decide ? Your position is bastion art-wankery at its best. It astounds me that you use posthumous fame as an argument *for* your position. By protecting the ivory tower of your conservative view, you perpetuate the attitude that locked these artists out of popular acceptance in their own times.
Seurats contemporaries panned his pointilism as being too "scientific", lacking in "soul" and he died without selling a single painting. They were protecting their view of what art was, just as you are. Warhol, on the other hand, pushed back against the accepted view of what "art" was, thumbed his nose at the establishment and sold much of his works. Does his success make him less of an artist than Seurat ? He made screen prints of soup cans. Why is his stuff art, and that produced by Campbells merely advertising ? Or don't you think Warhol contributed anything to our culture ?
Perhaps you cleave to the notion that it is the *intentions* of the artist which catapult some form of expression into the realm of art and relegates others to the bargain bin.
As you say - a middle ground is preferable. As for myself - I don't like riding. I'm not particularly overweight, but I'm far from fit. I don't have any inner ear problems, but I don't have a great sense of balance. In any case, I just don't feel comfortable on a bike. I also appreciate the freedom to go places fairly quickly and cheaply that a car gives me. Should I be *forced* to give that up and start riding ? Or am I allowed to choose ?
That's all I'm saying. Most of the people I work with are bike nuts. They love it. I don't begrudge them this - and I would hope that there will be better infrastructure to support their choice. But I'd rather ride a bus/train/taxi than a bike, if I had to give up my car.
Recommended is not the same as "optional". So therefore my original intent - to show that there were greater implications to the word "SHOULD" than the parent poster was allowing - still stands.
So its like this:
MUST > Should > optional.
It's not a simple binary between Obligatory and Optional - there is also the middle ground of Recommended.
This is all I was trying to say. (albeit very poorly)
If they were in the last 2 seasons, then you I'd have to agree - you probably caught some bad episodes.. The last 2 seasons didn't seem to match up with the first 5. I would suggest that you might start at the beginning in season 1 and see if it grabs you before the established storylines lock you out.
One thing that prevented me from getting into some of the "best" TV was trying to get into it halfway through the story. 24 was supposed to be great, but I never got into it. Same for West Wing and Alias. Each of these have some sort of running thread throughout the seasons which make it difficult to pick it up midway. Its worse when that thread goes over the entire series. Babylon 5 was the same. I kept asking myself "What was the relevance of that?"
To me, it's this development which separates a decent show from "story of the week" shows. That's not to say that soaps (which share this attribute) are great TV - the key difference is the underlying direction and meaning of the character/story development.
If you can also add individual episodes which break out of the standard, then you have something fairly remarkable. Buffy did this. (see "The Body", "Hush" and "Once more with Feeling" for examples of the risks the show took with breaking the mold for television)
Fandom aside - you may not like the show, you might think it's completely pointless as I did to start with. Of course, there's no way anyone can convince you to give it another try - after all, not everyone likes the same things. Not everyone is open to new ideas either.
You are limiting your interpretation of SHOULD to the probabilistic rather than the obligatory.
In the English language, "should" can be synonymous with "must". This is the unfortunate problem with specifications - English isn't rigid enough that interpretation cannot introduce errors.
What you read as "ought to" I read as "obliged to"
The problem is that not everyone is physically able to ride a bike. And not just extremely obese people (it's amazing that bike-nuts everywhere jump on this bandwagon.. "Oh you just need some healthy exercise and you'll lose those excess 450lbs real quick".. like that can happen.) There are people confined to wheelchairs, the elderly walking with a cane, etc.
Plus the chronically lazy or those with inner ear problems (try riding a bike when you have no sense of balance.. or walking properly for that matter)
Besides - one of the problems is the nature of the infrastructure. You've got all this unsightly tarmac everywhere and it breaks the Feng Shui:)
Besides, if you dedicate land area to roads wide enough for cars, then you'll get cars. You'd have to block every entrance with some sort of staggered fencing which only bikes could negotiate in order to prevent cars using the roads. And if you've *got* the roads, then why not buses for those of us who can't or won't ride ? But then you've got to have Bus only entrances etc.
Actually, to me the reason for a car-free city is not to promote a cleaner environment. As you point out, clean automotive alternatives are on the horizon... On the other hand, the social impact of a high population combined with cars is to alienate and isolate. If you step out your door and get into your car, when do you get to meet your neighbours ?
Of course, the thing CARFREE misses is that Venice wasn't designed as a car-free utopia. It's just that it's hard to have a lot of cars when all your streets are beneath 20 feet of water. Furthermore, people have to have the desire to congregate and feel apart of the community. If you tried to "import" that culture to southern California, it would fail. Just look at LA. There is no central place people want to be, it's all spread out. There is segregation and stratification. Is this because there are cars ?
I don't know. Does the author think that a carfree city will instantly guarantee a sense of community in its population ?
I don't buy that either.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Touchy aren't we ? I was just checking.
.. JSP *is* shitty. But it's just your argument that wasn't convincing. :)
2) Since your original statement suggested that JSP was *more* shitty, I was merely pointing out a possible explanation that you weren't taking into account. That is to say, your observations are not causally linked to any inherent shitti-ness in the language.
3) Exactly. So don't forget to factor in the rash of morons who slapped "Web Developer" on their resume straight out of high school. Sure the downturn has eliminated many of them from the geek-pool but their legacy remains. Besides - it's hard to live in a vacuum. *gasp* Need Air! *gasp*
4) Oh - don't get me wrong
The point of a phone handset is that it is easy to cradle in one hand and hold to one ear. There is a difference between the design of a handset and the design of an earpiece/headset, and there are good reasons for it.
You can do exactly what you propose right now, with PDAs with call capablities and bluetooth. It's not coming in the future - it's already here.
The problem is that you still have two devices - one of which is small and easily lost. Furthermore, not everyone wants or needs the functions of a PDA, so there's really no need for them to lug around a large hand device at all. They're quite content with their handset phone.
I don't think your convergence prediction will come true. I predict more variety in the options of handset/headset/PDA rather than less.
I hate those creepy features too. Like when you're about to call someone on your IDEO designed phone and then SUDDENLY, they call you.
Really creepy.
1/ Are you sure you know the difference between Javascript and JSP ? (just checking, you never know) ... Not exactly a great argument.
2/ Is that representative of the number of webpages using JSP vs VBScript vs PHP, rather than representative of the capabilities of the language ?
3/ So you're factoring in the ability of programmers when assessing the usefulness of the language. That's like saying the number 5 brush is useless because all the paintings I produce with it are crap. Might it be because I'm a sucky artiste ?
4/ Anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing.
eg. 100% of the errors I see are JSP errors (because I'm a JSP developer and I don't surf the web outside work)
Thanks for playing.
Sure - I wasn't saying that the science in the book was good. I just thought it was interesting, and vaguely plausible. It was, after, a work of science *fiction*.
I haven't done any work in the field, nor computed any models - I wonder if you could point me to the study that showed punctuated equilibrium always happens in evolution models : that sounds interesting.
4. Specifications will be rushed or unclear from the start. This means you will constantly be fixing "Bugs" that are really feature enhancements.
:) ), I worked upwards of 80-100 hours a week for over 2 months. One week I did 120 hours of work. I had to *schedule* the time to wash my clothes one day in the week, because it was cutting into coding time.
:)
5. There will be no design phase. Due to internal and external pressure, you will have to start coding immediately. Of course, we all know that works *just fine*.
When I first got to the US (I'm Australian, so don't be too worried about me. I'm quite happy to go home if I have to
I sat in a small room with one other Aussie programmer and we banged code till our fingers bled. And it was almost *all* work. Not even much in the way of goofing off.
After 2 months, I think we were promised a $1000 bonus, which we didn't see.
3 years later and I was coming in at noon, having lunch with my coworkers for an hour or two, checking my email and leaving by four.
Strangely enough, I think I managed to enjoy my life equally under both work conditions, but since I now have friends in this country, I'm pretty sure I'd resent work cutting into my social time like that.
Why did I do it?
Because I thought the pre-IPO company might go places, and they were offering me stock options.
I'm not making that mistake again
is a sci-fi book that deals with an interesting possibile use for "Junk" DNA.
I highly recommend it (even if it does feel like a preface to the real story , presumably to be found in the sequel "Darwins Children")
For a slight spoiler _______________________
- Ever wondered why Gradualism in Evolutionarey theory is becoming less popular than Punctuated Equilibrium ? It's because we haven't found any "missing links" in the fossil record... Well this book contains an interesting speculation about why that might be...
I would suggest that the technology of the automotive vehicle actually evolved from other social needs.
It's not like the society collectively thought "Gee, I've just invented this car, lets go build a road so I can drive it around."
The roads were already there.
The car was invented to be a more efficient use of the time already spent in travel. Gas Stations ? how about Bales of Hay ? Parking Garages ? Stables...
Your causal assumption is flawed.
I don't know what the parent post was arguing, but I'd say that, provided the "solution" is a useful one, then does it matter how it came about (biologically, or technologically) ?
there are random mutations every time a cell divides, it's called evolution.
:)
Nope - that's cancer
or a C:G pair, or a T:A pair...
IIRC (IANAB), DNA "unravels" in order to create the amino acids and other bits and pieces, so the actual encoding is only along one side at a time. So you have to take into account which side each base is on. So it's not just which pair is present in a given position, but also it's orientation which is important.
Or maybe 2069, a sex odyssey ?
OK.
:)
I wonder then, what are your criteria for excellence ? What consitutes talent ? What makes art 'Art' ?
I challenge your assertion that no great artist in history produced their great works out of a desire to earn a living. Mozart and Da Vinci were both court-sponsored. They lived pretty well for their times, and made certainly enough money to put "artist" as their primary income on their tax returns (as it were).
Just because some of famous artists (Van Gogh, Seurat etc) died penniless doesn't mean that others didn't gain economic rewards. Nor does it mean that the ones who failed to make money weren't trying to.
I guess one might argue, "if they were so good why didn't they just produce something that was popular in order to make that money".. and this is where your argument picks up speed. Why didn't they ? Was it because they also felt that their "art" was more important than its contemporary acceptance?
But how many other people have felt that same thing about their products, and have been completely wrong ?
I guess what I'm saying is - it is the judgement of the culture, throughout history, which gives importance to an artists works.. the effect that the artist has on future artists.
If someone dies penniless, having never sold a single painting or song, and derided by his peers.. if he remains languishing in obscurity for eternity, were his works of equal, greater, or lesser artistic worth than those whose works were recognized as influential on other artists, either contemporary or future? Is there some universal, absolute standard by which "Art" is measured ? Is it mere execution of form ? Mastery of skill with pen or brush? Would it help if he gave up his day job to pursue his dream ? Even if he sucked at it ?
I would argue that it has nothing to do with the artists intention to be either economically viable or self-aggrandizing. Instead, the worth of art is based on what *others* get out of it. If someone's body of works has influenced others, then it is art. But that's just my feelings on the matter. It means that beauty is still in the eye of the beholder, and not in the desire of the painter, nor the pocket of the buyer.
And on an off-topic aside - if one takes the DMCA to it's logical conclusion, and there can be no more art under this definition
OR he knew that he would, in fact save Trinity. He was just working on Neos hatred of authority and determinism to spur him to *actually* save trinity, instead of just *trying* and failing to.
I'm not sure for what purpose though.
After all, if what the Architect said was actually true, then it's *not* within the Machines interests to completely eradicate Zion.
But then, I might be mis-remembering the conversation where the Architect explained things.
Or alternatively, his "save the princess" mentality was easily predictable and predicted by the Architect. After all, didn't he say "Ahh yes, the emotional response. Eminently predictable" (or something like that) just as Neo walked out the door ?
Now either he really has predicted this reaction, or he's bluffing. What does he get by bluffing ? The possibility that Neo will listen to him and go save humanity at the last moment ? Perhaps.
On the other hand, what happens if he really can predict that Neo will choose the way he did ? Surely something with this computational capacity would have prepared something for the eventuality that the ONE they have created would go with this choice ?
Hmm.
I'm actually vaguely interested in what they'll do with this in the next movie.
Unlke some others, however, I don't believe that I can easily predict what the filmmakers will do.
Free Will *or* Determinism be damned - I have no foreknowledge.
The problem with this argument is that it *is* completely subjective.
You are setting yourself up as a guardian of art - complete with your own definition of what is "good" and what isn't.
Van Gogh ? Or Warhol ? What gives you the right to decide ? Your position is bastion art-wankery at its best.
It astounds me that you use posthumous fame as an argument *for* your position. By protecting the ivory tower of your conservative view, you perpetuate the attitude that locked these artists out of popular acceptance in their own times.
Seurats contemporaries panned his pointilism as being too "scientific", lacking in "soul" and he died without selling a single painting. They were protecting their view of what art was, just as you are.
Warhol, on the other hand, pushed back against the accepted view of what "art" was, thumbed his nose at the establishment and sold much of his works.
Does his success make him less of an artist than Seurat ? He made screen prints of soup cans. Why is his stuff art, and that produced by Campbells merely advertising ? Or don't you think Warhol contributed anything to our culture ?
Perhaps you cleave to the notion that it is the *intentions* of the artist which catapult some form of expression into the realm of art and relegates others to the bargain bin.
So by my intention, this post is a work of art.
Please mod accordingly.
After accusations of "cheating" ran rife near the end of Seti@homes run, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't find a thing.
for example
or another one a little closer to home
All stories really belong in one of two categories.. one's I've heard before, and ones I haven't.
:
Or perhaps
good stories and bad stories.
As someone else mentioned - the point is whether those 5 groups are meaningful in any way. I gather you two disagree on this fundamental point.
Yeah dude.. like I totally love computers.
'coz I like am *amazing* at UT - I just completely 0wz0r every1 at that game.
So like.. when do I start dude ?
As you say - a middle ground is preferable.
As for myself - I don't like riding. I'm not particularly overweight, but I'm far from fit. I don't have any inner ear problems, but I don't have a great sense of balance.
In any case, I just don't feel comfortable on a bike. I also appreciate the freedom to go places fairly quickly and cheaply that a car gives me.
Should I be *forced* to give that up and start riding ? Or am I allowed to choose ?
That's all I'm saying.
Most of the people I work with are bike nuts. They love it. I don't begrudge them this - and I would hope that there will be better infrastructure to support their choice.
But I'd rather ride a bus/train/taxi than a bike, if I had to give up my car.
Recommended is not the same as "optional". So therefore my original intent - to show that there were greater implications to the word "SHOULD" than the parent poster was allowing - still stands.
So its like this
MUST > Should > optional.
It's not a simple binary between Obligatory and Optional - there is also the middle ground of Recommended.
This is all I was trying to say. (albeit very poorly)
If they were in the last 2 seasons, then you I'd have to agree - you probably caught some bad episodes.. The last 2 seasons didn't seem to match up with the first 5.
I would suggest that you might start at the beginning in season 1 and see if it grabs you before the established storylines lock you out.
One thing that prevented me from getting into some of the "best" TV was trying to get into it halfway through the story. 24 was supposed to be great, but I never got into it. Same for West Wing and Alias. Each of these have some sort of running thread throughout the seasons which make it difficult to pick it up midway. Its worse when that thread goes over the entire series. Babylon 5 was the same. I kept asking myself "What was the relevance of that?"
To me, it's this development which separates a decent show from "story of the week" shows. That's not to say that soaps (which share this attribute) are great TV - the key difference is the underlying direction and meaning of the character/story development.
If you can also add individual episodes which break out of the standard, then you have something fairly remarkable.
Buffy did this. (see "The Body", "Hush" and "Once more with Feeling" for examples of the risks the show took with breaking the mold for television)
Fandom aside - you may not like the show, you might think it's completely pointless as I did to start with. Of course, there's no way anyone can convince you to give it another try - after all, not everyone likes the same things. Not everyone is open to new ideas either.
In the English language, "should" can be synonymous with "must". This is the unfortunate problem with specifications - English isn't rigid enough that interpretation cannot introduce errors. What you read as "ought to" I read as "obliged to"
For clarification, see the following entry : in the dictionary
The problem is that not everyone is physically able to ride a bike.
:)
And not just extremely obese people (it's amazing that bike-nuts everywhere jump on this bandwagon.. "Oh you just need some healthy exercise and you'll lose those excess 450lbs real quick".. like that can happen.)
There are people confined to wheelchairs, the elderly walking with a cane, etc.
Plus the chronically lazy or those with inner ear problems (try riding a bike when you have no sense of balance.. or walking properly for that matter)
Besides - one of the problems is the nature of the infrastructure. You've got all this unsightly tarmac everywhere and it breaks the Feng Shui
Besides, if you dedicate land area to roads wide enough for cars, then you'll get cars. You'd have to block every entrance with some sort of staggered fencing which only bikes could negotiate in order to prevent cars using the roads.
And if you've *got* the roads, then why not buses for those of us who can't or won't ride ? But then you've got to have Bus only entrances etc.
whatever
Actually, to me the reason for a car-free city is not to promote a cleaner environment. As you point out, clean automotive alternatives are on the horizon...
On the other hand, the social impact of a high population combined with cars is to alienate and isolate.
If you step out your door and get into your car, when do you get to meet your neighbours ?
Of course, the thing CARFREE misses is that Venice wasn't designed as a car-free utopia. It's just that it's hard to have a lot of cars when all your streets are beneath 20 feet of water. Furthermore, people have to have the desire to congregate and feel apart of the community. If you tried to "import" that culture to southern California, it would fail. Just look at LA. There is no central place people want to be, it's all spread out. There is segregation and stratification.
Is this because there are cars ?
I don't know.
Does the author think that a carfree city will instantly guarantee a sense of community in its population ?
I don't buy that either.