Now we have a good guess on how KDE 5.0 could look by default. KDE's configurability means you can customize its looks quite a lot. Hopefully Longhorn's too, but in my experience Microsoft is not very fond of configurability.
This proposal reminds me of Asimov's short story Sha Guido G in which the main character "saves humanity from oppression by overtaxing the generators of the flying capital city, crashing it to the ground and killing everyone on board".
Seriously, it looks like the incentives to a potential terrorist of a successful attack on a worldwide power grid would be tremendous, so the security should be the very first priority. Which never is, of course.
That's what says in the link to the Python tutorial. It's quite good to get you to know the language and does not require a lot of previous programming experience. Then, the library reference can come very handy too.
Somebody should implement a webserver using trained monkeys with abacuses. That should put an end to these "duct-tape and hamster webserver" boring stories.
SCO, which stands for "Satanic Cultists' Operation," changed its name from Caldera in 2002, when it was acquired by an obscure organization which exclusively employs 1200-year-old undead trial lawyers. They are now embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with IBM [...]
One must wonder how they've got to be 1200-year-old with the lack of survival instincts demonstrated by engaging IBM in legal battle.
You can't rule out the possibility that he's working for Al Qaeda. Think of it: if we hang him, it's one dead hacker. If we don't, he could continue working with international terrorism and kill us all! I know which option I would choose.
The page on Occam's Razor misses the point completely. Occam's Razor is not about provable falseness -- that only involves logic and experiments. It's about reasonable falseness.
Inevitably, there will always be many theories about reality that can't be disproved because they are compatible with logic and experiments; for example, the standard one involving a supernatural pink unicorn, called Bob, who created the world five minutes ago and impressed our minds with false memories of the time before that. You can't disprove the Bob theory any more than you can disprove any religion (in fact, less so, because it's not self-contradictory while many religions are).
Therefore, most people, scientists included, will find useful a rule that can be used to select a theory among the multiple ones that are compatible with logic and experiments. Occam's Razor is such a rule, and experience has shown that it works well and produces useful results -- the same reason that scientific method is used, after all.
First, an affirmation like this has only got any value (even for yourself) if you have some kind of formation about the fields you're talking about. Science has found many results that will seem thoroughly counterintuitive if you lack the proper training; that's why people spend many years studying these subjects and don't simply rely on their common sense. In the case of astronomy the sheer numbers involved are enough to render common sense totally misleading.
Second, even if we accepted that "something guided the formation of life" and call that someting "God", you've covered just a tiny part of what constitutes most religious peoples' beliefs. There's still a huge hole of reasoning in front of you, namely how to connect that "something that guided the formation of life" to the Bible and, say, a specific position on the marriage of homosexual people.
I don't understand why people get so obsessed with features they don't like that they always want those features removed. It's like they can't bear that those features even exist.
So maybe you don't like templates, operator overloading or something else. Who's forcing you to use them? If you don't like them, don't use them in your code. If you direct a group of programmers, warn them whoever uses those features will be fired, and use grep to be sure they comply. Just forget those features exist and let them stay for the rest of us.
Perhaps the "let's remove features" crowd should spend some time with the Ada programming language. Its extreme inflexibility by design (which is supposed to provide safety, though I don't buy it) gets constantly in the way of good, elegant, efficient implementations. I'm always angry that some perfectly sane and useful language feature that would be very handy in implementing my code doesn't exist simply because the language designers didn't deign to deem it worthy.
Different programming problems and styles need different language features. C++ can be applied to a much broader problem scope than Java thanks to its greater featurefulness. C++'s complexity shouldn't bother you unless you are in the business of developing C++ compilers.
Somebody should post a comment about how the most usable desktop ever was some punched card contraption for the PDP-10. That'd learn the vintage snobs.
I very seriously doubt any human would survive a hundred thousand volts DC at practically any current.
That's like saying "I doubt any human would survive the impact of a hundred thousand kilos at practically any speed". Yet I manage to survive somehow as the earth hits my feet when I walk.
Obviously the modern definition of "right" is being used. The one with the implicit "until the U.S. government disagrees". U.S. corporations are safe from the Estonians.
What do you mean, where your mouth is? Should Slashdot refrain from publishing any article about IPv6 until they set up a IPv6-enabled web server that all of eight people will use? What would be the purpose of that?
You, like Open_The_Box, are failing to make the distinction between mass (m) and rest mass (m_0). In my book, the equation you mentioned is written with m_0 instead of m. m can be derived from E^2 = m^2 c^2, it is finite and non-zero for photons, and it is useful in some cases.
I'm a file sharer, so I'm going to send all my possessions to RIAA right now! Imagine their expression when they realize they can't take my money because they already have it!! I'm so brilliant!!!
I mean, how many apps really critically need that 2% parformance increase, but do not benefit from a dual or quad-cpu machine, a cluster, or a big non-x86 Unix machine?
I fail to see the motivation in some of these cease and desist actions by large companies; Blizzard recent shutdown of Freecraft is another example. What's the point? Simply showing they can?
Computers, at least in their present form, and biology are very fundamentally different. That long-term biological information is stored "digitally" in DNA is hardly enough to draw a parallel between computers and biology. Computers process information in digital form using very fast simple operations. In live beings information is processed by means of much more complex slower, chemical reactions, and I'd bet 99% of the time information is stored in more analogic ways such as energy levels, mollecular "shapes", etc. No foreseeable convergence between computers and biology by the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we have a good guess on how KDE 5.0 could look by default. KDE's configurability means you can customize its looks quite a lot. Hopefully Longhorn's too, but in my experience Microsoft is not very fond of configurability.
That's not really funny.
This proposal reminds me of Asimov's short story Sha Guido G in which the main character "saves humanity from oppression by overtaxing the generators of the flying capital city, crashing it to the ground and killing everyone on board".
Seriously, it looks like the incentives to a potential terrorist of a successful attack on a worldwide power grid would be tremendous, so the security should be the very first priority. Which never is, of course.
That's what says in the link to the Python tutorial. It's quite good to get you to know the language and does not require a lot of previous programming experience. Then, the library reference can come very handy too.
Somebody should implement a webserver using trained monkeys with abacuses. That should put an end to these "duct-tape and hamster webserver" boring stories.
SCO, which stands for "Satanic Cultists' Operation," changed its name from Caldera in 2002, when it was acquired by an obscure organization which exclusively employs 1200-year-old undead trial lawyers. They are now embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with IBM [...]
One must wonder how they've got to be 1200-year-old with the lack of survival instincts demonstrated by engaging IBM in legal battle.
You can't rule out the possibility that he's working for Al Qaeda. Think of it: if we hang him, it's one dead hacker. If we don't, he could continue working with international terrorism and kill us all! I know which option I would choose.
The very first thing one should know about thermodynamics is that it only makes sense at macroscopic level. So please stop your nonsensical babbling.
The page on Occam's Razor misses the point completely. Occam's Razor is not about provable falseness -- that only involves logic and experiments. It's about reasonable falseness.
Inevitably, there will always be many theories about reality that can't be disproved because they are compatible with logic and experiments; for example, the standard one involving a supernatural pink unicorn, called Bob, who created the world five minutes ago and impressed our minds with false memories of the time before that. You can't disprove the Bob theory any more than you can disprove any religion (in fact, less so, because it's not self-contradictory while many religions are).
Therefore, most people, scientists included, will find useful a rule that can be used to select a theory among the multiple ones that are compatible with logic and experiments. Occam's Razor is such a rule, and experience has shown that it works well and produces useful results -- the same reason that scientific method is used, after all.
The reason that these things are getting ported is that no one is making adventure games anymore.
I think Old Man Murray explained it best.
First, an affirmation like this has only got any value (even for yourself) if you have some kind of formation about the fields you're talking about. Science has found many results that will seem thoroughly counterintuitive if you lack the proper training; that's why people spend many years studying these subjects and don't simply rely on their common sense. In the case of astronomy the sheer numbers involved are enough to render common sense totally misleading.
Second, even if we accepted that "something guided the formation of life" and call that someting "God", you've covered just a tiny part of what constitutes most religious peoples' beliefs. There's still a huge hole of reasoning in front of you, namely how to connect that "something that guided the formation of life" to the Bible and, say, a specific position on the marriage of homosexual people.
I don't understand why people get so obsessed with features they don't like that they always want those features removed. It's like they can't bear that those features even exist.
So maybe you don't like templates, operator overloading or something else. Who's forcing you to use them? If you don't like them, don't use them in your code. If you direct a group of programmers, warn them whoever uses those features will be fired, and use grep to be sure they comply. Just forget those features exist and let them stay for the rest of us.
Perhaps the "let's remove features" crowd should spend some time with the Ada programming language. Its extreme inflexibility by design (which is supposed to provide safety, though I don't buy it) gets constantly in the way of good, elegant, efficient implementations. I'm always angry that some perfectly sane and useful language feature that would be very handy in implementing my code doesn't exist simply because the language designers didn't deign to deem it worthy.
Different programming problems and styles need different language features. C++ can be applied to a much broader problem scope than Java thanks to its greater featurefulness. C++'s complexity shouldn't bother you unless you are in the business of developing C++ compilers.
Somebody should post a comment about how the most usable desktop ever was some punched card contraption for the PDP-10. That'd learn the vintage snobs.
I very seriously doubt any human would survive a hundred thousand volts DC at practically any current.
That's like saying "I doubt any human would survive the impact of a hundred thousand kilos at practically any speed". Yet I manage to survive somehow as the earth hits my feet when I walk.
Once again.
I suppose your post counts as the 60 trolls. But where's the summary?
Obviously the modern definition of "right" is being used. The one with the implicit "until the U.S. government disagrees". U.S. corporations are safe from the Estonians.
put your money where your mouth is
What do you mean, where your mouth is? Should Slashdot refrain from publishing any article about IPv6 until they set up a IPv6-enabled web server that all of eight people will use? What would be the purpose of that?
Not to get on the way of a Fish joke, but in all fairness, the translation was hindered by your misspelling of 'vacuum'.
You, like Open_The_Box, are failing to make the distinction between mass (m) and rest mass (m_0). In my book, the equation you mentioned is written with m_0 instead of m. m can be derived from E^2 = m^2 c^2, it is finite and non-zero for photons, and it is useful in some cases.
we must police ourselves.
I'm a file sharer, so I'm going to send all my possessions to RIAA right now! Imagine their expression when they realize they can't take my money because they already have it!! I'm so brilliant!!!
I mean, how many apps really critically need that 2% parformance increase, but do not benefit from a dual or quad-cpu machine, a cluster, or a big non-x86 Unix machine?
Seven.
Oh, was it a rhetorical question?
I fail to see the motivation in some of these cease and desist actions by large companies; Blizzard recent shutdown of Freecraft is another example. What's the point? Simply showing they can?
Computers, at least in their present form, and biology are very fundamentally different. That long-term biological information is stored "digitally" in DNA is hardly enough to draw a parallel between computers and biology. Computers process information in digital form using very fast simple operations. In live beings information is processed by means of much more complex slower, chemical reactions, and I'd bet 99% of the time information is stored in more analogic ways such as energy levels, mollecular "shapes", etc. No foreseeable convergence between computers and biology by the moment.
... it sounds to me like he is reinventing Lisp.