the EPA chief rejected any obligation to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide under existing law, saying that to do so would involve an 'unprecedented expansion' of the agency's authority that would have 'a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy,' touching 'every household in the land.'
Well, yeah. If you have the power to declare any substance whatsoever to be a pollutant, and then to heavily regulate its release, you could ruin any industry you wanted in a heartbeat.
The idea the carbon dioxide should be strictly controlled is novel, and it isn't up to the EPA - staffed by nonelected officials - to decide out of the blue to do so.
People have written essays and even books on how they were given rides by little gray aliens.
Who are you to decide what's "appropriate"? Wow, people buying fruits they enjoy annoys you? Maybe you should mind your own business. It isn't "interesting"?! WTF? Who modded this tripe up?
Me, I typically shop at farmer's markets, but that doesn't preclude me from noticing that the increasing reliance by the general public on cheap third-world produce (Walmart for the dinner table!) can and does have unfortunate side effects.
You mean like creating additional markets for those third-world growers to sell their goods in? God forbid they should try to increase their standards of living!
I'm pretty okay chalking it up to differences in taste.
If you're comfortable with your language, there's no need to address my comment. My post was competitive - coming from the viewpoint that it is possible for some languages to better or worse than others - and furthermore, that it's worth the effort to compare them and select the best.
I mean, what a penalty, I can't use 'int' as an identifier.
The penalty for using global functions, like other less-than-ideal features, has mostly disappeared once you've memorized the language's idiosyncrasies and resolved to work around them. For newcomers it costs more.
In this case, it means that if you want to provide your own way of transforming an object from a new class to an integer, you have to use some rather special syntax:
class Myclass:
def ___int___(self):
return self.data.length() # Or something
The difference between the calling syntax - int(foo) and the method declaration - "__int__" - seems trivial. But it's a relic of an awkward beginning on Python's part. And you had to learn extra to do this seemingly simple operation.
Sure, you could declare a method called "to_int" which would work like any other Python function. But other Pythonistas would wonder why you didn't just do it the regular way.
Java is a fraction the complexity of C++. I understand that was one of its main missions - to be as powerful as, but easier to use, than C++.
Ruby is an order of magnitude lower in complexity compared to C++. Whereas Java continues to mix objects and immediate values (e.g., int and Integer types), Ruby has only objects. Java's mixed model has a cost when programming. You may reply that the immediate int gives you a speed and optimization advantage, and that is true, but it misses the point. Java gave up speed compared to C++ to make things easier on programmers, and Ruby simply continues in that vein. You can't criticize Ruby for continuing what Java accomplished to a much lesser degree.
There are numerous other examples - Ruby's iterators, for example, are a generation past what Java has to offer. You can find plenty to appreciate in Ruby vs. Java before you even start to talk about advanced language concepts like closures.
Does anyone else get the impression that a lot of these newer languages are simply solutions that are looking for problems?
I hear only complacency in the above comment. You've learned a language well, and find it hard to imagine a better way. Well, your lack of imagination does not equal evidence.
Seriously, I don't see a problem with this. As long as they aren't inhibiting desktop development, what's there to complain about? We happen to have a bunch of self-interested parties doing things that are in their interest. Not much of a story.
So the solution is to shutdown the machine and THEN put your coat on and pack your bag.
You're going to turn it on later, right?
Let's say you've taken your disk-encrypted laptop home and you're doing work on it. Thugs break in, throw flash grenades, yell, etc. You cut power to your laptop just before they grab it... they rip it open, freeze the contents, then pop out the drams. They put the drams in another machine and read your key, and thus have access to your hard drive. Damn. And you thought turning it off would help.
If you say you wouldn't take your sensitive data home this way, then what was the point of encrypting your hard disk in the first place?
That's because during installation, the initial user account is made a member of the admin group. Presumably, you wouldn't give everyone on the machine that kind of access (and yes, you have to do so explicitly).
Check out/etc/sudoers:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
It means that folks in the admin group can do anything using sudo.
It isn't a "bandwidth cap". It isn't even about bandwidth. It's about usage (at least they used the term "usage" in the title).
It isn't a "usage cap". It's tiered pricing. Your basic subscription covers a certain amount, and then you pay more. A "cap" would mean you got cut off, which you aren't.
And it isn't even the end of the world! People who use more resources pay more. Sounds pretty efficient. Now you may quibble that the specific prices they set are high due to low competition, and that's one area where Ars may have a point. But god you have to wade through a lot of crap to get there.
Gah. Who modded this insightful? The French are not saying "we do not want you in our country". They are applying this law to Amazon.com just as they apply it to other companies who do business in France.
The response here is not about France being unfair to Amazon.com specifically. It's about the law being dumb.
As to Amazon's decision to continue breaking the law - there comes a point at which laws are so stupid and destructive, that if you can break them, it is morally acceptable to do so. It's called civil disobedience. Different people will judge this situation differently, but it seems that the Slashdot consensus is that this is a good move by Amazon. This law, like nearly all price control laws, is bad. It causes more harm than good. A few independent booksellers benefit, while the rest of France is harmed by the higher cost of books. I applaud Amazon for their actions, even more so because it appears that they can continue to make a profit even though their prices are low and they're paying fines! Amazing.
I have long thought that the core problem with US culture, beyond even the diminishing influence of science, is that the ideal of the Rule of Law got lost at some point. While the evidence is indirect, this may be the starkest example I have seen in a long time.
Please get a sense of perspective. Don't you think the unlawful holding of American citizens by the federal government without habeus corpus is a little more "stark"? How about torture? How about congress's use of the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause to control anything and everything they want to? Amazon's selling a few books for low prices doesn't even register next to these blatantly lawless (and destructive) actions.
What nonsense. If they could be "verified" by machine, they wouldn't need to stand in line in the first place. Travelers stand in line for physical inspection and crowd control, and the card can't help with that process. Unless it can count the books of matches in my backpack and measure my lithium battery, all it will do is save a few seconds of pulling out my wallet. Sounds neat, I guess.
Not true. Hash#clear and Hash#delete modify the object, but contain no suffix. I hate this about Ruby: you can't skim the method list for methods ending in "!". You have to also know if there exists a nondestructive version of it, and if you knew that, you'd already know its name.
You've got me there. Ruby could stand to clean up its act and be more consistent here. It still has quite an advantage, though.
Python: list(foo) Ruby: Array(foo) The real difference is that Rubyists will say "oh, but Array here is a method on Kernel, and methods with no explicit object get sent to Kernel". How this is different from global functions is beyond me.
As a Rubyist, I find the important question to be "is there a method to do this". In Ruby, if something can be made into an array, you use the to_a method. In Python, you won't be using a method. Ruby's Kernel.Array is an interesting bit of syntactic sugar (granted, Ruby has a bit much of that), but it isn't particularly relevant here.
Ruby also has << and %w (for multiple strings). While Ruby may have slightly fewer quote characters to learn, every one of them does something very different. In Python, IIRC, there's really only "single line" and "multi line".
The question, however, is why? Why do you need to learn more syntax to enter multiline strings?
I like Ruby, but you picked some of the weirdest (or falsest) reasons I could have imagined. How about symbols? How about blocks? How about everything being an expression? Open classes, method_missing, operators as simply syntactic sugar? Let's try to sell people on the *good* parts of Ruby.:-)
I've focused on my pet peeves: arbitrary syntax and broken paradigms. These things require a programmer to work harder. A language shouldn't do that. I believe that the power of open classes is important too, but I can't write everything.
Ruby has some differences that are important to some people.
* The built-in classes support functional-style programming. That is, the default action is generally to return a modified copy of the object being acted upon, so you can chain method calls together. This doesn't work well in Python, because methods frequently act like "procedures", modifying the object and returning nothing. Sometimes, Python programmers work around this by explicitly copying objects and then calling such methods. Other times, modifying the persistent object is just what they wanted; in Ruby, you would use a method which ends in "?", which is how Ruby identifies (by convention) methods that modify the object.
Thus, to combine two dictionaries in Python, without modifying either of them:
dcombined = d1.copy()
dcombined.update(d2)
In Ruby:
dcombined = d1.merge(d2)
Obviously the Python code is fine, but from a functional programming viewpoint, it looks awkward.
* It's entirely predictable whether a built-in class's method will modify the object, because of the "?" suffix convention. In Python, you don't have such an explicit convention, which can sometimes make more work for the programmer. * Ruby doesn't rely on global functions as much, or "builtins" as they're called in Python. If you want to know the length of something, or convert a string into a list of characters, you call a method of the object rather than a global function. Some people find this to be easier, given that you only need to focus on one paradigm (object-oriented) and not two (e.g., object-oriented and imperative). * The print statement in Ruby prints only what you tell it to, rather than adding whitespace in various cases. Since this is the behavior of print or printf in most languages, this is nice. Ruby offers the puts method for those times you want whitespace helpfully added (like Perl 5.10's say). * regular expressions are more tightly integrated. Some people consider this a disadvantage of Ruby though, because you can write less explicit code. * Ruby gives you fewer types of quotes to learn, because ' and " are multiline.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yeah. If you have the power to declare any substance whatsoever to be a pollutant, and then to heavily regulate its release, you could ruin any industry you wanted in a heartbeat.
The idea the carbon dioxide should be strictly controlled is novel, and it isn't up to the EPA - staffed by nonelected officials - to decide out of the blue to do so.
You used a standard PC peripheral with a Mac, and you're surprised that they keys aren't the same as a Mac keyboard? Brilliant!
The selling points of Das Keyboard are its differences from OTHER STANDARD KEYBOARDS. It has nothing to do with your Mac.
The ones we'd be observing with the telescope. I wouldn't call that "interference" - it's the signal.
Can we stop using the term "brick" in reference to something that merely makes a system unbootable?
No.
What a time to be stuck without mod points. I hope whoever modded you troll gets raped in metamoderation.
Let me repeat: "Troll" is NOT a valid substitute for "I disagree".
Who are you to decide what's "appropriate"? Wow, people buying fruits they enjoy annoys you? Maybe you should mind your own business. It isn't "interesting"?! WTF? Who modded this tripe up?
You mean like creating additional markets for those third-world growers to sell their goods in? God forbid they should try to increase their standards of living!
In other words, raise their standard of living, but not enough to suit you.
If you're comfortable with your language, there's no need to address my comment. My post was competitive - coming from the viewpoint that it is possible for some languages to better or worse than others - and furthermore, that it's worth the effort to compare them and select the best.
The penalty for using global functions, like other less-than-ideal features, has mostly disappeared once you've memorized the language's idiosyncrasies and resolved to work around them. For newcomers it costs more.
In this case, it means that if you want to provide your own way of transforming an object from a new class to an integer, you have to use some rather special syntax:
class Myclass:
def ___int___(self):
return self.data.length() # Or something
The difference between the calling syntax - int(foo) and the method declaration - "__int__" - seems trivial. But it's a relic of an awkward beginning on Python's part. And you had to learn extra to do this seemingly simple operation.
Sure, you could declare a method called "to_int" which would work like any other Python function. But other Pythonistas would wonder why you didn't just do it the regular way.
I hope this doesn't come across as too much of a snipe... well, it is, but I want to point out one of the reasons I prefer Ruby over Python.
Your above code is concise, but you used:
* Global functions (int)
* Language keywords (for, in)
* Object methods (split)
In Ruby, you'd use only methods:
nums = l.split(',').map {|word| word.to_i}
I believe this makes me a lazier programmer.
Ruby is an order of magnitude lower in complexity compared to C++. Whereas Java continues to mix objects and immediate values (e.g., int and Integer types), Ruby has only objects. Java's mixed model has a cost when programming. You may reply that the immediate int gives you a speed and optimization advantage, and that is true, but it misses the point. Java gave up speed compared to C++ to make things easier on programmers, and Ruby simply continues in that vein. You can't criticize Ruby for continuing what Java accomplished to a much lesser degree.
There are numerous other examples - Ruby's iterators, for example, are a generation past what Java has to offer. You can find plenty to appreciate in Ruby vs. Java before you even start to talk about advanced language concepts like closures.
I hear only complacency in the above comment. You've learned a language well, and find it hard to imagine a better way. Well, your lack of imagination does not equal evidence.
Yes, bug report here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssh/+bug/230003/
Seriously, I don't see a problem with this. As long as they aren't inhibiting desktop development, what's there to complain about? We happen to have a bunch of self-interested parties doing things that are in their interest. Not much of a story.
Umm, because "property" has several meanings. You've used a different meaning in each instance of "property" in your dumb question.
Also because not everything under the sun needs to be taxed. Jerk.
Don't be too gleeful. Remember that the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Where was common sense then?
So the solution is to shutdown the machine and THEN put your coat on and pack your bag.
You're going to turn it on later, right?
Let's say you've taken your disk-encrypted laptop home and you're doing work on it. Thugs break in, throw flash grenades, yell, etc. You cut power to your laptop just before they grab it... they rip it open, freeze the contents, then pop out the drams. They put the drams in another machine and read your key, and thus have access to your hard drive. Damn. And you thought turning it off would help.
If you say you wouldn't take your sensitive data home this way, then what was the point of encrypting your hard disk in the first place?
I have no idea what this means, but it certainly sounds like Crysis has left its mark somewhere or other.
That's because during installation, the initial user account is made a member of the admin group. Presumably, you wouldn't give everyone on the machine that kind of access (and yes, you have to do so explicitly).
/etc/sudoers:
Check out
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
It means that folks in the admin group can do anything using sudo.
What a rubbish article.
It isn't a "bandwidth cap". It isn't even about bandwidth. It's about usage (at least they used the term "usage" in the title).
It isn't a "usage cap". It's tiered pricing. Your basic subscription covers a certain amount, and then you pay more. A "cap" would mean you got cut off, which you aren't.
And it isn't even the end of the world! People who use more resources pay more. Sounds pretty efficient. Now you may quibble that the specific prices they set are high due to low competition, and that's one area where Ars may have a point. But god you have to wade through a lot of crap to get there.
The response here is not about France being unfair to Amazon.com specifically. It's about the law being dumb.
As to Amazon's decision to continue breaking the law - there comes a point at which laws are so stupid and destructive, that if you can break them, it is morally acceptable to do so. It's called civil disobedience. Different people will judge this situation differently, but it seems that the Slashdot consensus is that this is a good move by Amazon. This law, like nearly all price control laws, is bad. It causes more harm than good. A few independent booksellers benefit, while the rest of France is harmed by the higher cost of books. I applaud Amazon for their actions, even more so because it appears that they can continue to make a profit even though their prices are low and they're paying fines! Amazing.
Please get a sense of perspective. Don't you think the unlawful holding of American citizens by the federal government without habeus corpus is a little more "stark"? How about torture? How about congress's use of the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause to control anything and everything they want to? Amazon's selling a few books for low prices doesn't even register next to these blatantly lawless (and destructive) actions.
Cute pic, but the fox is doing it right.
What nonsense. If they could be "verified" by machine, they wouldn't need to stand in line in the first place. Travelers stand in line for physical inspection and crowd control, and the card can't help with that process. Unless it can count the books of matches in my backpack and measure my lithium battery, all it will do is save a few seconds of pulling out my wallet. Sounds neat, I guess.
You've got me there. Ruby could stand to clean up its act and be more consistent here. It still has quite an advantage, though.
As a Rubyist, I find the important question to be "is there a method to do this". In Ruby, if something can be made into an array, you use the to_a method. In Python, you won't be using a method. Ruby's Kernel.Array is an interesting bit of syntactic sugar (granted, Ruby has a bit much of that), but it isn't particularly relevant here.
The question, however, is why? Why do you need to learn more syntax to enter multiline strings?
I've focused on my pet peeves: arbitrary syntax and broken paradigms. These things require a programmer to work harder. A language shouldn't do that. I believe that the power of open classes is important too, but I can't write everything.
Oops, you're right. Thanks for the correction.
Ruby has some differences that are important to some people.
* The built-in classes support functional-style programming. That is, the default action is generally to return a modified copy of the object being acted upon, so you can chain method calls together. This doesn't work well in Python, because methods frequently act like "procedures", modifying the object and returning nothing. Sometimes, Python programmers work around this by explicitly copying objects and then calling such methods. Other times, modifying the persistent object is just what they wanted; in Ruby, you would use a method which ends in "?", which is how Ruby identifies (by convention) methods that modify the object.
Thus, to combine two dictionaries in Python, without modifying either of them:
dcombined = d1.copy()
dcombined.update(d2)
In Ruby:
dcombined = d1.merge(d2)
Obviously the Python code is fine, but from a functional programming viewpoint, it looks awkward.
* It's entirely predictable whether a built-in class's method will modify the object, because of the "?" suffix convention. In Python, you don't have such an explicit convention, which can sometimes make more work for the programmer.
* Ruby doesn't rely on global functions as much, or "builtins" as they're called in Python. If you want to know the length of something, or convert a string into a list of characters, you call a method of the object rather than a global function. Some people find this to be easier, given that you only need to focus on one paradigm (object-oriented) and not two (e.g., object-oriented and imperative).
* The print statement in Ruby prints only what you tell it to, rather than adding whitespace in various cases. Since this is the behavior of print or printf in most languages, this is nice. Ruby offers the puts method for those times you want whitespace helpfully added (like Perl 5.10's say).
* regular expressions are more tightly integrated. Some people consider this a disadvantage of Ruby though, because you can write less explicit code.
* Ruby gives you fewer types of quotes to learn, because ' and " are multiline.