The difference is in how you use the library card, since that is your example. Can you simply walk in and take books off the shelf to carry outside and read? No. He wasn't inside, remember?
Well then, your argument doesn't cut. There are many more wifi access points that are not free for use. Go with the statistics and friggin' find out first.
What if's do not count. What was is the only concern. Had he shown the cop he was not using the library's system, no thing.
One cannot just take a book out of the library without asking, I see no problem with having "patrons" use the wifi inside where the librarians can oversee as is their job.
Don't like the oversight? Don't use the free system.
"Ah, I must be wrong about the syntax and utility; so that's why COBOL is used everywhere else both for scripting and is eating up C++..."
Syntax and utility. Nice and vague. COBOL's syntax is just fine, point out a problem. Utility - COBOL can be used to perform whatever I want, you need to provide examples. Scripting can't do many things COBOL can, bad example. General use is not a factor in a language's "drawbacks", only popularity - nonexample. If you new kiddies are not taught COBOL, of course you wouldn't use it, no news there.
"You could get the same but without the uglyness."
Utterly meaningless statement (other than your personal opinion).
"If you're too close to see it, so be it."
Right. I think it's that you don't really know COBOL and are just trumpeting what you do.
"The book's thesis that COBOL would be best for this admin programming is obviously wrong."
Your opinion only, and since I don't find it obvious, not a good one (in my opinion).
"There would be a good language for the problem domain that didn't have the COBOL drawbacks."
You know, I've heard that "drawback" thing a number of times. Problem is, nobody backs it up with any real drawbacks. This is probably due to their just regurgitating previously heard opinions and not having any real experience with COBOL. Does this describe you, or can you give me some of those "drawbacks"?
As I've stated elsewhere, I've done lots of COBOL programming and have accomplished anything that needed doing.
P.S. Sigh yourself, expressing the problem domain is exactly what COBOL does. So using Perl to create a language that described the business domain means pretty much what I said.
"If you appear egoless and unashamed to draw from others' advice, you appear to be ignorant and unmotivated once you get to be a certain age or get a certain amount of experience."
UniqueGathering/filename, not both. The e-mail will tell me who got it. No redundancy.
I guess I just don't find the need for creating different sets from my file structure. My problem is being forced to add reams of now-unprovided (and therefore, probably some would have to be made up) meta-data to my current files just to migrate.
"A nice file system structure only gives you one heirarchy."
Actually, no. A NFS might give you only one type of hierarchy, but it allows you multiple points from which to depend multiple hierarchies. That's the way I organize my disc.
The list you enumerated is nice, but vague. Those attributes can be hancled by, say, a leger program. Don't see your point.
You will take your hundreds (maybe thousands) of current files and insert meta-data into each and every one so they fit the new "paradigm"? I won't, and my guess is that a whole butt-load of soccer moms won't either.
I personally don't understand the need for the concept. I do my development, writing, gaming, and keep my photography on one computer. I find the current file-system completely satisfactory and sufficient for the job.
The way I work in the physical world is the way I work on my system. I keep everything in organized stacks, in specific locations. "Emails to Bob" are kept, for instance, in MyName/Emails/Bob. Not hard at all.
I see all this meta-tagging as making everyone into data entry clerks, and, personally, I don't need that.
I would entertain someone coming up with really functional reasoning explaining the need for all this.
Unless you marched down and raised hell in her behalf (and in behalf of all your student peers), you're blowing pompous smoke out yer ass. I think I just lost all respect for you.
Actually, no. He didn't have a real objection to biological evolution and clearly differentiated it from what he called the "universal evolutionism of modern thought".
Slashdot Mirror
Libraries have rules on what their patrons can browse on the web, right? How can the ensure this if you roam around outside?
No, AM radio is a receive-only process. Straw argument.
The difference is in how you use the library card, since that is your example. Can you simply walk in and take books off the shelf to carry outside and read? No. He wasn't inside, remember?
Well then, your argument doesn't cut. There are many more wifi access points that are not free for use. Go with the statistics and friggin' find out first.
Bull. He's adding load to their service without recompense. They have to pay for that, not him. What do you call that?
What if's do not count. What was is the only concern. Had he shown the cop he was not using the library's system, no thing.
One cannot just take a book out of the library without asking, I see no problem with having "patrons" use the wifi inside where the librarians can oversee as is their job.
Don't like the oversight? Don't use the free system.
You don't even have the facts straight.
What the hell is "avid the party of the service"?
His records are available and show he was not unaccounted for.
Your non-quote is wrong and out of context.
Deserter is simply wrong. But, you knew that.
This forum ain't in Europe, son. It's international. Too bad.
"Ah, I must be wrong about the syntax and utility; so that's why COBOL is used everywhere else both for scripting and is eating up C++..."
Syntax and utility. Nice and vague. COBOL's syntax is just fine, point out a problem. Utility - COBOL can be used to perform whatever I want, you need to provide examples. Scripting can't do many things COBOL can, bad example. General use is not a factor in a language's "drawbacks", only popularity - nonexample. If you new kiddies are not taught COBOL, of course you wouldn't use it, no news there.
"You could get the same but without the uglyness."
Utterly meaningless statement (other than your personal opinion).
"If you're too close to see it, so be it."
Right. I think it's that you don't really know COBOL and are just trumpeting what you do.
"The book's thesis that COBOL would be best for this admin programming is obviously wrong."
Your opinion only, and since I don't find it obvious, not a good one (in my opinion).
"There would be a good language for the problem domain that didn't have the COBOL drawbacks."
You know, I've heard that "drawback" thing a number of times. Problem is, nobody backs it up with any real drawbacks. This is probably due to their just regurgitating previously heard opinions and not having any real experience with COBOL. Does this describe you, or can you give me some of those "drawbacks"?
As I've stated elsewhere, I've done lots of COBOL programming and have accomplished anything that needed doing.
P.S. Sigh yourself, expressing the problem domain is exactly what COBOL does. So using Perl to create a language that described the business domain means pretty much what I said.
As opposed to Japan, Italy, Korea, Germany, etc?
"If you appear egoless and unashamed to draw from others' advice, you appear to be ignorant and unmotivated once you get to be a certain age or get a certain amount of experience."
Only to a young, pompous jackass do you.
See those little green circles in the picture at the top of the page? Guess what's inside them. Algorithms
Since the post is so full of error, I'll assume you were being humerous.
And the point of using Lisp to create the sub-language COBOL would be what?
And should the people who drive locomotives quit calling themselves engineers as well? Pompous of you to try to corner that title.
Webster's:
1 en-gi-neer n
3 c: a person who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance.
So basically, according to Webster's, bite me.
It is the presumption on your part that you will or can catch the 90% that is the so what.
It is emperical that people tend to overlook errors in their own work. Hence, the reviewing by others.
I don't think he's talking about compilation errors, so the computer can't always find the (business logic) errors.
"let's say you send..."
UniqueGathering/filename, not both. The e-mail will tell me who got it. No redundancy.
I guess I just don't find the need for creating different sets from my file structure. My problem is being forced to add reams of now-unprovided (and therefore, probably some would have to be made up) meta-data to my current files just to migrate.
"A nice file system structure only gives you one heirarchy."
Actually, no. A NFS might give you only one type of hierarchy, but it allows you multiple points from which to depend multiple hierarchies. That's the way I organize my disc.
The list you enumerated is nice, but vague. Those attributes can be hancled by, say, a leger program. Don't see your point.
This is a push. An e-mail is just as good as a fax. Neither are, or were meant to be, secure.
So you'll convert?
You will take your hundreds (maybe thousands) of current files and insert meta-data into each and every one so they fit the new "paradigm"? I won't, and my guess is that a whole butt-load of soccer moms won't either.
I personally don't understand the need for the concept. I do my development, writing, gaming, and keep my photography on one computer. I find the current file-system completely satisfactory and sufficient for the job.
The way I work in the physical world is the way I work on my system. I keep everything in organized stacks, in specific locations. "Emails to Bob" are kept, for instance, in MyName/Emails/Bob. Not hard at all.
I see all this meta-tagging as making everyone into data entry clerks, and, personally, I don't need that.
I would entertain someone coming up with really functional reasoning explaining the need for all this.
"Occam's Razor suggests that the way that eyewitnesses report people dying, if sufficient, was the only way people died."
Good, glad you agree. Eyewitness reports state that people were shot, electocuted, gassed, and killed actively in other ways.
Glad you find eyewitness accounts acceptable.
Umm. All three are just cousins of a certain superstitious system. None are based on the world as it actually exists.
Unless you marched down and raised hell in her behalf (and in behalf of all your student peers), you're blowing pompous smoke out yer ass. I think I just lost all respect for you.
Too bad your list contains errors.
Actually, no. He didn't have a real objection to biological evolution and clearly differentiated it from what he called the "universal evolutionism of modern thought".