It may not be ambiguous to you, maybe, but it is to me and to the rest of the people that live in the same continent. I'd say most of us do not mind your use of the word---which is regarded by pretty much everyone outside of the US in the same spirit that makes most of us outside of the US (as well as lots inside) not being able but to smile at names like `World Series'---but that does not mean that we should adapt to your usage, much as you do not have to adapt to ours.
You did say that Clinton did worse. You explicitely mentioned the fact that Clinton bombed Iraq without congressional approval (of course, it s quite clear that congress did not see it necessary to even start an investigation about this, while it almost impeach him for other reasons...) right after you said that Congress did authorize Bush's liberation war. You did not use the word `worse', but we are not 7 year olds.
PRECISELY MY POINT! Most Americans do NOT want an Empire around the world. Conservatives don't want it. Liberals don't want it. I don't know anyone that in their right mind as an American who wants US bases everywhere. So.... why does the USA keep doing this?
I am sorry but the support for the war was incredibly high in the US both before and after it happened---it has waned since, of course, but at a glacial pace which is itself a matter of wonder given the circumstances. Years after the war was launched and quite some time after the claims that `supported' it were (more) obviously proved unbased on anything real, the support for the leaders that drove the US into sucha situation was remarkably high, and the country reelected the team that came up with the whole idea.
I do not know what most USians want, and maybe they really do not want an Empire, but they should very carefully consider what it is they want and what consequences carrying out their wishes bring: whatever they wanted that resulted in such massive support for the `liberation' of Iraq, even if it was not the desire for an Empire, did very much have consequences for which they have to take responsability.
Why does having a better standard living for USian auto workers imply that USians have to cope with less nice cars? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with the US auto industry, or is that the result of policies? Whose policies, asked for by whome, which benefited which people?
My question is, why is the USA so bent on moving troops all over the world. I don't want this job for America any more. America was better off as a trading superpower that it was before it became a military superpower.
Isn't that a question that should be answered by you and your country men? It is not only you that do not want this `job': most of the rest of the world emphatically does not want it either. This last war of `liberation' was very loudly opposed by essentially everyone, remember?
Hurr hurr. The Microsoft implementation of Java wasn't buggy: far from it, it was actually superior to the Sun implementation. It was faster and integrated better with Windows.
If their `implementation' different from the specs, then it was not a correct implementation. If it was supposed to be a Java implementation, then by definition it was buggy. If wasn't suppose to be one, then it had no business being called Java. That is why Sun sued them.
Well, lacking google, you could have taken other measures to find out...
Why does CS theory and practical business technical knowledge have to be mutually exclusive?
They are not. But they are different things. A CS program should be no closer to ``using advanced IDEs efficiently'', say, than to ``using Word efficiently'', and it surely should be very distant from the latter...
Wikipedia quotes Parnas as saying "the principal focus of computer science is studying the properties of computation in general, while the principal focus of software engineering is the design of specific computations to achieve practical goals, making the two separate but complementary disciplines". That's a pretty good way to put it.
The alternative of having them believe 2GB and a last generation processor is the baseline to run what's 99% of the time a syntax highlighting text editor, really, does not sound a lot better
That will work until you need to use non-ascii content, to include the delimiter in the data itself (so that you need an escaping mechanism), you want to represent hierarchical data, you want to be able to compose data from different sources without semantic collisions, and what not.
So you solve these issues, turning for `simple delimited ascii text' format into something a bit more complicated, and next you will be wantint to interchange instances with others, so you will have to start coming to an agreement with others on how to do everything exactly.
Guess what: that's what the people who came up with XML did!
Unix is not the only thing that will be reinvented poorly many times...
I've never understood why people complain about XML as you do.
Are you generating XML by hand in your applications? Are you not parsing it using some standard library into an abstract tree or using a standard library to transform XML documents into sequences of events, in exactly the same way lex tokenizes a string of characters? Are you generating it by concatenating strings?
SOAP is complicated, but that has nothing to do with XML.
XML does exactly one thing: it allows you to pretend that data is provided to you in the form of an abstract data structure instead of as a sequence of bytes, taking care of encoding issues, namespacing, and what not---assuming, of course, that you are using proper tools. How is that bad?
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think I can put this in a softer way, so here it goes:
In the name of $HOLY_THING, please inform yourself before attemptying to participate in a discussion, for otherwise you are become line noise.
The difference you are seeing between `law' and `theory' only exists in your confused mind.
I've yet to see anyone refer to any of the other `United States' as `United Staes' without the extra qualification. So, no, `US' is not ambiguous IME.
`estadounidense' is an ugly word, but that's what I'm stuck with.
It may not be ambiguous to you, maybe, but it is to me and to the rest of the people that live in the same continent. I'd say most of us do not mind your use of the word---which is regarded by pretty much everyone outside of the US in the same spirit that makes most of us outside of the US (as well as lots inside) not being able but to smile at names like `World Series'---but that does not mean that we should adapt to your usage, much as you do not have to adapt to ours.
You did say that Clinton did worse. You explicitely mentioned the fact that Clinton bombed Iraq without congressional approval (of course, it s quite clear that congress did not see it necessary to even start an investigation about this, while it almost impeach him for other reasons...) right after you said that Congress did authorize Bush's liberation war. You did not use the word `worse', but we are not 7 year olds.
I am sorry but the support for the war was incredibly high in the US both before and after it happened---it has waned since, of course, but at a glacial pace which is itself a matter of wonder given the circumstances. Years after the war was launched and quite some time after the claims that `supported' it were (more) obviously proved unbased on anything real, the support for the leaders that drove the US into sucha situation was remarkably high, and the country reelected the team that came up with the whole idea.
I do not know what most USians want, and maybe they really do not want an Empire, but they should very carefully consider what it is they want and what consequences carrying out their wishes bring: whatever they wanted that resulted in such massive support for the `liberation' of Iraq, even if it was not the desire for an Empire, did very much have consequences for which they have to take responsability.
Why does having a better standard living for USian auto workers imply that USians have to cope with less nice cars? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with the US auto industry, or is that the result of policies? Whose policies, asked for by whome, which benefited which people?
The `but Clinton did worse...' line reminds me of Pavlov's dogs...
Isn't that a question that should be answered by you and your country men? It is not only you that do not want this `job': most of the rest of the world emphatically does not want it either. This last war of `liberation' was very loudly opposed by essentially everyone, remember?
If their `implementation' different from the specs, then it was not a correct implementation. If it was supposed to be a Java implementation, then by definition it was buggy. If wasn't suppose to be one, then it had no business being called Java. That is why Sun sued them.
Well, lacking google, you could have taken other measures to find out...
Why does CS theory and practical business technical knowledge have to be mutually exclusive?They are not. But they are different things. A CS program should be no closer to ``using advanced IDEs efficiently'', say, than to ``using Word efficiently'', and it surely should be very distant from the latter...
Wikipedia quotes Parnas as saying "the principal focus of computer science is studying the properties of computation in general, while the principal focus of software engineering is the design of specific computations to achieve practical goals, making the two separate but complementary disciplines". That's a pretty good way to put it.
The alternative of having them believe 2GB and a last generation processor is the baseline to run what's 99% of the time a syntax highlighting text editor, really, does not sound a lot better
If you wanted that, maybe CS was not what you should have picked... Did you even google what CS was before signing up?
You can imagine anything. Do you have any actual evidence?
That being proposed as an alternative in the context of a XML sucks thread is... hmmm... sad.
And what if you are not dealing with a table with record and fields but with a tree?
So you do not see the use of empty fields?
Anyone wanting to combine different markups, like html+mathml+svg+rdf+etc.
That will work until you need to use non-ascii content, to include the delimiter in the data itself (so that you need an escaping mechanism), you want to represent hierarchical data, you want to be able to compose data from different sources without semantic collisions, and what not.
So you solve these issues, turning for `simple delimited ascii text' format into something a bit more complicated, and next you will be wantint to interchange instances with others, so you will have to start coming to an agreement with others on how to do everything exactly.
Guess what: that's what the people who came up with XML did!
Unix is not the only thing that will be reinvented poorly many times...
You cannot use regular expressions to decide whether a string is
an instance of the following DTD or not:
<!ELEMENT a (a | b) >
<!ELEMENT b EMPTY >
This is quite basic language theory.
I've never understood why people complain about XML as you do.
Are you generating XML by hand in your applications? Are you not parsing it using some standard library into an abstract tree or using a standard library to transform XML documents into sequences of events, in exactly the same way lex tokenizes a string of characters? Are you generating it by concatenating strings?
SOAP is complicated, but that has nothing to do with XML.
XML does exactly one thing: it allows you to pretend that data is provided to you in the form of an abstract data structure instead of as a sequence of bytes, taking care of encoding issues, namespacing, and what not---assuming, of course, that you are using proper tools. How is that bad?
That's not funny. It's just a typo.
What will $CURRENT_SCARY_SMALL_TERRORIST_GROUP possibly do with this information, prey tell?
If a surface does not reflect, it absorbs. Does it strike you as a sensible plan, to absorb sun's radiation?
From that to tracking and even identifying them, well, there is a distance...