You're suffering from confirmation bias. You dislike Gore, possibly because of his politics, and thus will tend to believe the worst of him in any situation, regardless of the evidence.
Guido made 1 major mistake. It actually wasn't using whitespacing- it was in not forcing a specific amount of whitespace. If the language had enforced that every indent must be exactly 4 spaces, it wouldn't be an issue. The fact that 4 spaces or 3 spaces or a tab all work is what causes it to break horribly
Funny- I've lost weeks of my life tracking down python indentation errors, and I've only used it sporadically.
What's your problem? Are you perhaps trying to use a text editor that doesn't understand python for editing python code?
Whereas spacing issues happen whenever you copy paste from a website.
No it doesn't. Look at stack overflow for example. Any code there will copy'n'paste to a text editor with the indents intact. Any properly written website will be the same. And any website that specializes in coding should work properly in this respect. It's scandalous that slashdot still doesn't.
Note Slashdot breaks HTML code even worse than it does Python. (In both cases unless you make efforts to stop it from doing so.)
The fault here is the misuse of HTML, not the language with significant whitespace. After all, any other language would also lose it's indentation in such a situation, which is still not an acceptable representation of the code, regardless of whether it will compile. Code put on web pages are normally snippets used for learning from, not compiling from, and therefore loss of readability is the major problem, and affects all languages.
Note that Slashdot is also horrendously broken in many other formatting respects. It breaks HTML code far more than it does Python (in both cases, unless one takes significant effort and care to deal with the issue.)
Actually, if other language designers were smarter, other languages would use indenting for blocks.* Eliminating redundancy is a general aim in computing. Languages that use curly brackets or other delimiters for blocks are unreadable unless they also use indenting. And once you have the redundancy of both delimiters AND whitespace you have the danger that the two may not be in agreement. Which is compounded by the one that the compiler relies on (delimiters) not being the same as the one that stands out most to the human (indenting.)
Using indents for blocks has a drawback in that standard text editors aren't good at matching the indent level when cutting and pasting. But that simply means that only Python aware editors should be used for python code. Not difficult when most programmers use IDEs.
* (Which is what you actually mean. Scope relies on more than whitespace.)
It's possible they are using an arbitrary points system such as you describe. It's more likely that they are using statistical analysis to actually measure the extent to which various variables affect people's credit worthiness. That still might not be accurate. But as long as the credit score is slightly better on average is enough to make it worth their while.
Not that I'm defending it. I hate profiling and snooping. But there's no point in pretending it is completely ineffectual when it's probably not.
But you cannot imagine that might be because it is not always worth using?
This is not a question of opinion, nor emotion. I don't have to imagine. For sure there are buildings such as barns that might have no use for loft insulation. But I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about domestic properties.
Which indicates quite simply that it is not efficient in their case.
No it doesn't. You are making 2 mistakes.
1) That people always (or even mostly) act rationally. 2) That money is the way of deciding whether something is worth doing. (As I pointed out in my last post.
But this is not a spiritual matter, it's entirely an economic one.
It's neither spiritual nor entirely economic. Contributing to global warming and wasting finite fossil fuels are bad things regardless of whether some people find it profitable to do so.
Money is only one of many considerations. Don't understand that, and you can't understand green issues.
Some people think that's an excuse for having an appalling UI. "Hey, it might be a pile of shit, but you can choose the details of which bits of shit are displayed."
You seem not to realize that 'green technology' which actually works in a cost effective manner is adopted naturally in the marketplace without any coercion.
On the contrary, I know loft insulation was available for many years with many properties still not using it. The payback times were too long for most people to care. In theUK, it was government intervention (subsidy) that got it universally adopted.
Note long payback times has nothing to do with whether it "works". "Works" is not a synonym for profitable. And that applies to all green technology, not just insulation. Your mistake is to equate greed with "works" as far as green technology is concerned. There are other concerns besides money.
Money isn't the universal scale of worth that you think it is. For example, as the Beatles said: "Money can't buy me love". And money is not more important than the environment.
You're neither equipped nor qualified to say what the average speed in the UK is though "life experience". It requires statistics, nor picking random numbers out of your arse.
Which bears out EXACTLY what I said. Driving around cities is HORRIBLY SLOW.
No, what you said exactly was 5mph on average. Without even qualifying it by peak and urban.
So you were horrendously wrong. And I'm bored with people saying this stupid thing. So I corrected you.
Microsoft still has 90% of the desktop operating system market share in one form or another. It can afford to make a lot more mistakes yet, desktop machines aren't going anywhere.
Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean that you can speak for "the people playing the stock market". All of which have their own set of opinions that are not the same as yours.
I suggest that far more investors than you imagine know who the CEO of Microsoft is, and blame him in particular for it's disappointing performance. But that's just my opinion.
Nature is entirely monopolistic. If one organism is superior in an ecosystem, it will completely crowd out all competition until all resources are consumed and it dies due to starvation.
Entirely? What you describe is a rare thing in nature.
For example, do you know the penalty for passing a school bus with it's flashers on?
Not being American I don't have to know. But there doesn't seem anything wrong with the question per se. If objective is to stop cars from passing a school bus with flashing lights, the penalty is a proxy for how important a rule it is.
It might not be one of the 25 most important questions about driving, but as you said, it's randomly picked from a larger pool.
Actually a human is faster. It's just that most humans are dumber. Auto-braking systems kick in when you're about to hit something, a human can pick up on something they could potentially hit and avoid it completely
So you have it the wrong way around. The computer is faster. The human is smarter.
People who feel they need systems to compensate for their lack of driving ability need to go hand in their license.
Your dumb arrogance is shared by many other drivers. The same types that thought they didn't need seat belts or air bags. These automatic emergency braking systems are in the exact same category.
Also this system does not account for what is behind you. If you're being tailgated but a 2 tonne mum-tank and the auto-braking system kicks in, that mum tank is still going to plow you into the pedestrian and you'll have a far worse injury from the impact to your car.
You seem to not realise that green technology is about getting more use out of energy as well as reducing it.
For example, if you insulate a house, you use less fuel AND are more comfortable than in an uninsulated house. Or take newer more energy efficient fridges and washing machines. They use less energy for the exact same result.
Take more energy efficient cars... etc. ad infinitum.
Slashdot Mirror
You're suffering from confirmation bias. You dislike Gore, possibly because of his politics, and thus will tend to believe the worst of him in any situation, regardless of the evidence.
Indeed. It's a bit like the same as people starting iPhone articles with a complaint about the supposed patenting of rounded corners.
Guido made 1 major mistake. It actually wasn't using whitespacing- it was in not forcing a specific amount of whitespace. If the language had enforced that every indent must be exactly 4 spaces, it wouldn't be an issue. The fact that 4 spaces or 3 spaces or a tab all work is what causes it to break horribly
That part I agree with.
Funny- I've lost weeks of my life tracking down python indentation errors, and I've only used it sporadically.
What's your problem? Are you perhaps trying to use a text editor that doesn't understand python for editing python code?
Whereas spacing issues happen whenever you copy paste from a website.
No it doesn't. Look at stack overflow for example. Any code there will copy'n'paste to a text editor with the indents intact. Any properly written website will be the same. And any website that specializes in coding should work properly in this respect. It's scandalous that slashdot still doesn't.
Note Slashdot breaks HTML code even worse than it does Python. (In both cases unless you make efforts to stop it from doing so.)
The fault here is the misuse of HTML, not the language with significant whitespace. After all, any other language would also lose it's indentation in such a situation, which is still not an acceptable representation of the code, regardless of whether it will compile. Code put on web pages are normally snippets used for learning from, not compiling from, and therefore loss of readability is the major problem, and affects all languages.
Note that Slashdot is also horrendously broken in many other formatting respects. It breaks HTML code far more than it does Python (in both cases, unless one takes significant effort and care to deal with the issue.)
Actually, if other language designers were smarter, other languages would use indenting for blocks.* Eliminating redundancy is a general aim in computing. Languages that use curly brackets or other delimiters for blocks are unreadable unless they also use indenting. And once you have the redundancy of both delimiters AND whitespace you have the danger that the two may not be in agreement. Which is compounded by the one that the compiler relies on (delimiters) not being the same as the one that stands out most to the human (indenting.)
Using indents for blocks has a drawback in that standard text editors aren't good at matching the indent level when cutting and pasting. But that simply means that only Python aware editors should be used for python code. Not difficult when most programmers use IDEs.
* (Which is what you actually mean. Scope relies on more than whitespace.)
It's possible they are using an arbitrary points system such as you describe. It's more likely that they are using statistical analysis to actually measure the extent to which various variables affect people's credit worthiness. That still might not be accurate. But as long as the credit score is slightly better on average is enough to make it worth their while.
Not that I'm defending it. I hate profiling and snooping. But there's no point in pretending it is completely ineffectual when it's probably not.
But you cannot imagine that might be because it is not always worth using?
This is not a question of opinion, nor emotion. I don't have to imagine. For sure there are buildings such as barns that might have no use for loft insulation. But I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about domestic properties.
Which indicates quite simply that it is not efficient in their case.
No it doesn't. You are making 2 mistakes.
1) That people always (or even mostly) act rationally.
2) That money is the way of deciding whether something is worth doing. (As I pointed out in my last post.
But this is not a spiritual matter, it's entirely an economic one.
It's neither spiritual nor entirely economic. Contributing to global warming and wasting finite fossil fuels are bad things regardless of whether some people find it profitable to do so.
Money is only one of many considerations. Don't understand that, and you can't understand green issues.
Calibre is extremely configurable
Some people think that's an excuse for having an appalling UI. "Hey, it might be a pile of shit, but you can choose the details of which bits of shit are displayed."
It has one of the worst user interfaces I've ever seen.
There's nothing effective about Calibre, never mind it's model. It deserves prime position in the user interface hall of shame.
You seem not to realize that 'green technology' which actually works in a cost effective manner is adopted naturally in the marketplace without any coercion.
On the contrary, I know loft insulation was available for many years with many properties still not using it. The payback times were too long for most people to care. In theUK, it was government intervention (subsidy) that got it universally adopted.
Note long payback times has nothing to do with whether it "works". "Works" is not a synonym for profitable. And that applies to all green technology, not just insulation. Your mistake is to equate greed with "works" as far as green technology is concerned. There are other concerns besides money.
Money isn't the universal scale of worth that you think it is. For example, as the Beatles said: "Money can't buy me love". And money is not more important than the environment.
Look retard, YOU are the one who said what the average speed was, not me.
You twisting little turd. The thread history is there for anyone to read.
And with that I assign you your new title, Captain Literal Asshole.
Clearly you are angry that you were corrected in your false claim. Bad loser.
It's not a meme, it's life experience.
You're neither equipped nor qualified to say what the average speed in the UK is though "life experience". It requires statistics, nor picking random numbers out of your arse.
Which bears out EXACTLY what I said. Driving around cities is HORRIBLY SLOW.
No, what you said exactly was 5mph on average. Without even qualifying it by peak and urban.
So you were horrendously wrong. And I'm bored with people saying this stupid thing. So I corrected you.
Microsoft still has 90% of the desktop operating system market share in one form or another. It can afford to make a lot more mistakes yet, desktop machines aren't going anywhere.
Wrong on both counts.
Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean that you can speak for "the people playing the stock market". All of which have their own set of opinions that are not the same as yours.
I suggest that far more investors than you imagine know who the CEO of Microsoft is, and blame him in particular for it's disappointing performance. But that's just my opinion.
Nature is entirely monopolistic. If one organism is superior in an ecosystem, it will completely crowd out all competition until all resources are consumed and it dies due to starvation.
Entirely? What you describe is a rare thing in nature.
Just to point out one element of how your hysteria is making you see things incorrectly: I probably despise Fox News more than you do.
For example, do you know the penalty for passing a school bus with it's flashers on?
Not being American I don't have to know. But there doesn't seem anything wrong with the question per se. If objective is to stop cars from passing a school bus with flashing lights, the penalty is a proxy for how important a rule it is.
It might not be one of the 25 most important questions about driving, but as you said, it's randomly picked from a larger pool.
If you're only able to move at 5MPH on average it's not likely you will die in an accident.
When will this stupid meme die? Was it said on Top Gear or something, and repeated by people that don't know it's a comedy programme?
The average speed on UK urban roads at the peak is 13mph. Average speeds for other roads and other times are significantly higher.
The death rate on UK roads is low because road safety is taken relatively seriously compared to other countries.
You're getting even more hysterical.
Actually a human is faster.
It's just that most humans are dumber.
Auto-braking systems kick in when you're about to hit something, a human can pick up on something they could potentially hit and avoid it completely
So you have it the wrong way around. The computer is faster. The human is smarter.
People who feel they need systems to compensate for their lack of driving ability need to go hand in their license.
Your dumb arrogance is shared by many other drivers. The same types that thought they didn't need seat belts or air bags. These automatic emergency braking systems are in the exact same category.
Also this system does not account for what is behind you. If you're being tailgated but a 2 tonne mum-tank and the auto-braking system kicks in, that mum tank is still going to plow you into the pedestrian and you'll have a far worse injury from the impact to your car.
Illogical.
I really don't consider a simple hypothetical scenario that closely matches very recent events "hysterical".
Clearly you don't. You and the other teens and conspiracy theory types.
No, it would have to be a real time OS for actual driving tasks. Or no OS at all.
You seem to not realise that green technology is about getting more use out of energy as well as reducing it.
For example, if you insulate a house, you use less fuel AND are more comfortable than in an uninsulated house. Or take newer more energy efficient fridges and washing machines. They use less energy for the exact same result.
Take more energy efficient cars... etc. ad infinitum.