The Taliban pushes opiates, and some of that ends up in Russia. That's where the relation ends -- the Taliban aren't related to Krokodil.
In recent years, Russia has been more successful in limiting drug trafficking, which resulted in dwindling supply and soaring costs. Pair that up with addicts, and you get the perfect target audience for this terrible homebrew drug.
For those prescribing to the libertarian view on this subject -- consider what would happen if there were to be a sudden drop in supply due to, say, natural disaster... addicts will do everything to get their fix.
+1 on A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula LeGuin. It is truly profound as a children's book. I assume OP wasn't looking for recommendations for his own sake, so SPOILERS BELOW (also: it's been years since I've read it, I'm sure there are inaccuracies).
One of the first things LeGuin tells us on the world of Earthsea, is that everything has a true name. Being able to name something by it's true name would give you power over it. Magic is not without checks and balances, though -- if a wizard were to bring in rains over the island where he resides, the neighboring island might experience a drought.
As an ambitious student of wizardry, Ged, the hero of the book, overreaches and summons a shadow from the netherworld. In the chaos that ensues, the shadow is banished from the academy, at the cost of the headmaster's life. The hero of the story spends his early youth in the academy, atoning for his hubris, haunted by the evil he unleashed into the world, knowing that the shadow lies waiting outside its walls. When he graduates, he goes to a remote island. Not long after, the shadow (describes as a dark headless figure with the vague physic of a bear. I remember being scared shitless of it when I was 10) catches up with him, and he is forced to flee.
After migrating from island to island several times, trying to keep ahead of the shadow, Ged arrives at a realization (but LeGuin doesn't share that realization with us yet), and turns the tables on the shadow, chasing it instead (I remember asking myself if he'd gone insane). Surprisingly, the shadow flees, drifting over water towards the horizon.
Ged gives pursuit, and sails after him towards the horizon -- going far far away from land, until he finally catches up with the shadow at edge of the world, where the sky and the ocean finally meet, and the shadow can run no further.
Ged then addresses the shadow by it's true name -- Ged, his own name -- and he and the shadow merge together.
The moral of the story is: don't be afraid of your own shadow, don't run away from dealing with your problems -- especially those that come from within, and that coming to terms with your "shadow" is part of growing up. I was only able to have an intelligent discussion about the book after reading it as an adult, but I remember that reading it as a child was able to reach me through my guts, rather than my head -- the message came across without any need to verbalize it.
I remember when Harry Potter was at the peak of its hype, people mentioning Harry Potter to me would send me into sputtering tirades, comparing and contrasting with my reading experience of A Wizard of Earthsea as a kid. I think Harry Potter is a decent book series with an immense marketing machine -- I've got nothing against it, but I think it's not an exemplary children's literature. I think A Wizard of Earthsea is. They don't make 'em like that no more.
The protesters in Wall Street have the right idea. A year ago, there was very little chance for such a protest to get momentum. So, what changed?
This year, people living in western democracies were vividly reminded how much power the people hold when governments in Tunisia and Egypt were toppled by protesters.
In Israel, for example, what started up as a few students striking up tents in protest against skyrocketing housing costs quickly evolved into thousands of tents around the country and massive protests. From a few tents, in one month, the protest movement went to this. (and this wasn't even the largest protest).
The protests weren't affiliated with a political party or a labor union -- there were no "marching orders" -- but now politicians are lining up to garner votes, and party platforms are being rewritten to cater to the newly sounded demands of the people. This wouldn't have been possible in Israel before the Arab Spring -- Israelis just had no idea they were capable of any political action other than voting every few years and complaining the rest of the time. The projected impact of the protests is increased taxing of the rich for funding social plans, and increased regulation.
If the "Occupy Wallstreet" protest manages to strike a nerve in the American public, it can grow very fast, and media outlets ignoring them now will not be able to continue doing so. There is place in the American political system for a counterbalance to the Tea Party movement.
I can second parent post. As an Israeli atheist I can tell you that most Israelis range from non-practicing to non-religious. I have no compunctions about voicing my convictions in public, and generally find echos in mainstream society.
Actually, Nokia Internet Tablet (runs Linux) has a PowerVR chip, and guess what? no 3D acceleration. You do, however, get XWindows at 800x480 to work just fine, thank you.
Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo. Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes. HTML4 browsers eat it all.
So, what you're saying is that the computer works for people instead of the other way around?
The computer working for the people would be a fine concept if all you have to maintain is a single implementation of a browser.
Since we have so many browsers in the market and we want them to compete, the standard damn better leave no ambiguity if you ever wish to have simple cross-browser compatibility in web sites -- that's why strictness is important.
Enter Scala: Scala achieves a brevity of syntax you see in Groovy and Ruby without sacrificing the static type system (it uses type inference).
While, certainly, Scala code is less verbose than Java, it is noticeably more verbose, in most cases, than Python, Ruby, or Groovy.
Marginally so, and mostly where type inference breaks down (e.g. public api's, but that's a Good Thing). If you code in Scala against standard Java libraries you will get verbose code same as you will with Groovy and Ruby. To properly judge Scala, look at samples coded against 'native' Scala libraries. And don't forget all the code you won't be writing for runtime type checking with Ruby or Python.
A very trivial comparison between Groovy and Scala can be seen here. A comparison of BDD-style tests between Scala, Java, and Ruby can be seen here.
Since Groovy and Ruby are dynamically typed, they are inherently slower than Scala.
Groovy, as I understand, supports but does not require static typing.
Not quite. From my understanding, if you declare an identifier to be of a certain type in Groovy and then go ahead and treat as something else, a type error would still only occur at runtime -- no type-related compilation errors! That's called strong typing, not dynamic typing. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong about Groovy on this. Also, using strongly typed variables in Groovy seems to be slower (as per the previous link, may have changed since).
The nieche Scala fits into is actually a testament that developers want the power and benefits of Ruby's syntax,
Scala's syntax, which is almost completely unlike Ruby's.
Agreed, but Scala and Ruby are both very malleable and share some very attractive features. To clarify my point: Java developers want some features popularized by Ruby (closures!), which Scala delivers.
A JVM language occupying a similar nieche is Fan, with a growing community and tool support coming right up.
Fan seems to fit much better into Groovy's niche (the almost-Ruby-but-intimately-tied-to-the-JVM niche, such as it is) than Scala's. Scala's real niche, it seems to me, is closer to Java's own niche.
Agreed about Scala's nieche being closer to Java's. I think we can fit Fan somewhere between Scala and Groovy: Fan's type system actually does support both static&dynamic (unlike Groovy, which is dynamic with support for strong&weak typing).
Right, let's start with the perceived problem: Java's syntax. What's the problem with Java's syntax? have a look at Steve Yegge's "Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns". While I can't wholeheartedly agree with many of the points, the gist of it is right on spot -- in Java there's a strong emphasis on nouns and very little is left for the verbs, but verbs are important for overall legibility. Having good (conceptual) support for verbs means that your Runnables and Callables are implied and the code becomes more fluent.
"Good support for verbs" translates to computerese as "functional programming". Ruby and Groovy owe much of their power to features associated with functional programming, such as lambda expressions.
Enter Scala: Scala achieves a brevity of syntax you see in Groovy and Ruby without sacrificing the static type system (it uses type inference). Since Groovy and Ruby are dynamically typed, they are inherently slower than Scala. Scala's performance characteristics on the JVM are similar to those of Java itself.
Without starting a flame war, let's accept that some jobs are better fitted for statically typed languages (e.g. a rapidly evolving project that is prone to regressions). The nieche Scala fits into is actually a testament that developers want the power and benefits of Ruby's syntax, in situations where Ruby (and Groovy, Ioke, BeanShell, etc...) *will* *never* *ever* *be* *used* (e.g. when maintaining performance and type checking are absolute requirements). Scala does its best to do just that.
A JVM language occupying a similar nieche is Fan, with a growing community and tool support coming right up.
Oddly enough, JavaFX (the language) has a syntax that is somewhat similar to Scala, and also some of the language features lacking in Java.
btw: the Scala wiki hosts a piece of sample code by Warren Henning. Never mind the sample, the main comment reads: "THIS. IS. SCALAAAA!!!"
This regex matches a number: interger or float, scientific notation or plain, plus or minus...
[-+]?(?:\b[0-9]+(?:\.[0-9]*)?|\.[0-9]+\b)(?:[eE][-+]?[0-9]+\b)?
I played a demo of Spore yesterday. It's promoted with Cedega, so if you want a trial with Cedega you can also readily install and play a demo of Spore -- works great (the demo).
I wouldn't buy the game, though -- not for me.
Slashdot Mirror
The Taliban pushes opiates, and some of that ends up in Russia. That's where the relation ends -- the Taliban aren't related to Krokodil.
In recent years, Russia has been more successful in limiting drug trafficking, which resulted in dwindling supply and soaring costs. Pair that up with addicts, and you get the perfect target audience for this terrible homebrew drug.
For those prescribing to the libertarian view on this subject -- consider what would happen if there were to be a sudden drop in supply due to, say, natural disaster... addicts will do everything to get their fix.
converged timeline diagram from popular TV series and films: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/timelines/
Enjoy!
Hell, you could even send through avians carrying optical media. Justifies the "series of tubes" title.
Irrelevant.
Small nuclear bombs generally impact part of a city -- no need for that city to be Jersualem. Tel Aviv would be just as bad.
That being said -- I think mutually assured destruction is what the next few decades have in store for both countries.
Right, because you would stake your national security on software that was never used in production.
+1 on A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula LeGuin. It is truly profound as a children's book. I assume OP wasn't looking for recommendations for his own sake, so SPOILERS BELOW (also: it's been years since I've read it, I'm sure there are inaccuracies).
One of the first things LeGuin tells us on the world of Earthsea, is that everything has a true name. Being able to name something by it's true name would give you power over it. Magic is not without checks and balances, though -- if a wizard were to bring in rains over the island where he resides, the neighboring island might experience a drought.
As an ambitious student of wizardry, Ged, the hero of the book, overreaches and summons a shadow from the netherworld. In the chaos that ensues, the shadow is banished from the academy, at the cost of the headmaster's life.
The hero of the story spends his early youth in the academy, atoning for his hubris, haunted by the evil he unleashed into the world, knowing that the shadow lies waiting outside its walls. When he graduates, he goes to a remote island. Not long after, the shadow (describes as a dark headless figure with the vague physic of a bear. I remember being scared shitless of it when I was 10) catches up with him, and he is forced to flee.
After migrating from island to island several times, trying to keep ahead of the shadow, Ged arrives at a realization (but LeGuin doesn't share that realization with us yet), and turns the tables on the shadow, chasing it instead (I remember asking myself if he'd gone insane). Surprisingly, the shadow flees, drifting over water towards the horizon.
Ged gives pursuit, and sails after him towards the horizon -- going far far away from land, until he finally catches up with the shadow at edge of the world, where the sky and the ocean finally meet, and the shadow can run no further.
Ged then addresses the shadow by it's true name -- Ged, his own name -- and he and the shadow merge together.
The moral of the story is: don't be afraid of your own shadow, don't run away from dealing with your problems -- especially those that come from within, and that coming to terms with your "shadow" is part of growing up. I was only able to have an intelligent discussion about the book after reading it as an adult, but I remember that reading it as a child was able to reach me through my guts, rather than my head -- the message came across without any need to verbalize it.
I remember when Harry Potter was at the peak of its hype, people mentioning Harry Potter to me would send me into sputtering tirades, comparing and contrasting with my reading experience of A Wizard of Earthsea as a kid. I think Harry Potter is a decent book series with an immense marketing machine -- I've got nothing against it, but I think it's not an exemplary children's literature. I think A Wizard of Earthsea is.
They don't make 'em like that no more.
The protesters in Wall Street have the right idea.
A year ago, there was very little chance for such a protest to get momentum. So, what changed?
This year, people living in western democracies were vividly reminded how much power the people hold when governments in Tunisia and Egypt were toppled by protesters.
In Israel, for example, what started up as a few students striking up tents in protest against skyrocketing housing costs quickly evolved into thousands of tents around the country and massive protests. From a few tents, in one month, the protest movement went to this. (and this wasn't even the largest protest).
The protests weren't affiliated with a political party or a labor union -- there were no "marching orders" -- but now politicians are lining up to garner votes, and party platforms are being rewritten to cater to the newly sounded demands of the people. This wouldn't have been possible in Israel before the Arab Spring -- Israelis just had no idea they were capable of any political action other than voting every few years and complaining the rest of the time. The projected impact of the protests is increased taxing of the rich for funding social plans, and increased regulation.
If the "Occupy Wallstreet" protest manages to strike a nerve in the American public, it can grow very fast, and media outlets ignoring them now will not be able to continue doing so. There is place in the American political system for a counterbalance to the Tea Party movement.
Globes is owned by Haaretz
MS Windows has been "only" a windowing system long before it became an operating system.
If the original trademark applied to "the windowing system called Windows" then the situation would be comparable to app store.
I'm very interested in Clutter. Wish I had the mod points :)
I can second parent post. As an Israeli atheist I can tell you that most Israelis range from non-practicing to non-religious.
I have no compunctions about voicing my convictions in public, and generally find echos in mainstream society.
s/"Why"/"How"/
It's always day somewhere
Actually, Nokia Internet Tablet (runs Linux) has a PowerVR chip, and guess what? no 3D acceleration. You do, however, get XWindows at 800x480 to work just fine, thank you.
So, what you're saying is that the computer works for people instead of the other way around?
The computer working for the people would be a fine concept if all you have to maintain is a single implementation of a browser.
Since we have so many browsers in the market and we want them to compete, the standard damn better leave no ambiguity if you ever wish to have simple cross-browser compatibility in web sites -- that's why strictness is important.
While, certainly, Scala code is less verbose than Java, it is noticeably more verbose, in most cases, than Python, Ruby, or Groovy.
Marginally so, and mostly where type inference breaks down (e.g. public api's, but that's a Good Thing). If you code in Scala against standard Java libraries you will get verbose code same as you will with Groovy and Ruby. To properly judge Scala, look at samples coded against 'native' Scala libraries. And don't forget all the code you won't be writing for runtime type checking with Ruby or Python.
A very trivial comparison between Groovy and Scala can be seen here. A comparison of BDD-style tests between Scala, Java, and Ruby can be seen here.
Groovy, as I understand, supports but does not require static typing.
Not quite. From my understanding, if you declare an identifier to be of a certain type in Groovy and then go ahead and treat as something else, a type error would still only occur at runtime -- no type-related compilation errors! That's called strong typing, not dynamic typing. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong about Groovy on this. Also, using strongly typed variables in Groovy seems to be slower (as per the previous link, may have changed since).
Scala's syntax, which is almost completely unlike Ruby's.
Agreed, but Scala and Ruby are both very malleable and share some very attractive features. To clarify my point: Java developers want some features popularized by Ruby (closures!), which Scala delivers.
Fan seems to fit much better into Groovy's niche (the almost-Ruby-but-intimately-tied-to-the-JVM niche, such as it is) than Scala's. Scala's real niche, it seems to me, is closer to Java's own niche.
Agreed about Scala's nieche being closer to Java's. I think we can fit Fan somewhere between Scala and Groovy: Fan's type system actually does support both static&dynamic (unlike Groovy, which is dynamic with support for strong&weak typing).
Right, let's start with the perceived problem: Java's syntax. What's the problem with Java's syntax? have a look at Steve Yegge's "Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns". While I can't wholeheartedly agree with many of the points, the gist of it is right on spot -- in Java there's a strong emphasis on nouns and very little is left for the verbs, but verbs are important for overall legibility. Having good (conceptual) support for verbs means that your Runnables and Callables are implied and the code becomes more fluent.
"Good support for verbs" translates to computerese as "functional programming". Ruby and Groovy owe much of their power to features associated with functional programming, such as lambda expressions.
Enter Scala: Scala achieves a brevity of syntax you see in Groovy and Ruby without sacrificing the static type system (it uses type inference). Since Groovy and Ruby are dynamically typed, they are inherently slower than Scala. Scala's performance characteristics on the JVM are similar to those of Java itself.
Without starting a flame war, let's accept that some jobs are better fitted for statically typed languages (e.g. a rapidly evolving project that is prone to regressions). The nieche Scala fits into is actually a testament that developers want the power and benefits of Ruby's syntax, in situations where Ruby (and Groovy, Ioke, BeanShell, etc...) *will* *never* *ever* *be* *used* (e.g. when maintaining performance and type checking are absolute requirements). Scala does its best to do just that.
A JVM language occupying a similar nieche is Fan, with a growing community and tool support coming right up.
Oddly enough, JavaFX (the language) has a syntax that is somewhat similar to Scala, and also some of the language features lacking in Java.
btw: the Scala wiki hosts a piece of sample code by Warren Henning. Never mind the sample, the main comment reads: "THIS. IS. SCALAAAA!!!"
Actually, C != C++ is undefined behavior.
Actually, C != C++ is false, C == C++ is true. Both have the sideeffect of incrementing C.
This obviously is a misrepresentation of reality.
Suggest renaming C++ to ++C, then:
/me confused, Can anybody enlighten us regarding C++ == C#?
I already have a patent on angry face shooting, please do something else. I might sue you.
Why sue when you can license?
This regex matches a number: interger or float, scientific notation or plain, plus or minus... [-+]?(?:\b[0-9]+(?:\.[0-9]*)?|\.[0-9]+\b)(?:[eE][-+]?[0-9]+\b)?
But does it run Linux?
I played a demo of Spore yesterday. It's promoted with Cedega, so if you want a trial with Cedega you can also readily install and play a demo of Spore -- works great (the demo). I wouldn't buy the game, though -- not for me.
Only so long as you don't use it to operate nuclear plants :)