WTF? One in four? are you insane? that would be 15 million people. Does that really seem likely? Anecdotally I know substantially more than four people and *none* of them have had their identity stolen.
What percentage of them have had false charge added to their credit card? What percentage have, but just don't know it?
They want to eliminate child abuse; a good concept.
No, it isn't. It's like trying to "eliminate" drug use, or terrorism. There's benefit, and there's cost. Cutting it down a little may be cheap. Cutting it down a lot may be more expensive and still worthwhile. Eliminating it is simply not possible as long as someone wants to do it. trying to eliminate the last few percentage points of drug use/child abuse/terrorism at any cost is not rational, in fact it's bat-shit insane.
Cost is not just money, this guy is paying part of the cost.
I agree. Humans can be sound, but still off by one. calaculators are either correct or broken.
However, the size of the discrepancy is 1/60 or so. That's 1.6%, which is enough to change the outcome of some recent US elections. So is it of a significant size? Yes, it is.
Is that a port of a Ruby web application framework to an open-source reimplementation of a (possibly patent-encumbered) proprietary common language runtime?
So instead of being able to see both the variable AND the range it is being tested against IN THE SAME LINE, I now have to go trawling back through the code looking for the place where you created the Range object to find the low and high boundaries of it.
By this logic, date objects are a bad idea, since instead of being able to see the day, month and year in the same line, now have to go trawling back through the code looking for the place where you created the date object. Absurd.
Abstraction is good, repetitive code is bad, you are wrong.
PS: Hover your mouse over a Date object. Or inspect it in the debugger. You get a String repeentation of it from the ToString() method showing the day, month and year. You can *gasp* overide ToString() in your own classes, and you know, show the details of the range without any trawling.
Given that there are only 8 million people in the whole of Greater London (which is the only city the oyster card exists) and only some of them (i've no idea how many but I'd guess about 50%) use public transport
I live in London and I'd guess that the number is far above 50%. Even those who don't use it on the daily commute do use it from time to time. If you think otherwise, you clearly have never tried to drive a car into central London.
Also, don't forget the millions of people who don't live in London but do work in it, and thus will use London public transport on the daily commute.
To be fair, a few years ago nobody could have seen the rise of p2p
They should have predicted that:
1) Existing users will over time use more bandwidth - new software will be made, get popular, and use up ever more bandwidth. That's the way the internet has worked as a platform for data transfer apps since it started.
2) This won't be a steady linear increase. There will be times when usage suddenly urges, and times when it doesn't.
Java is the new COBOL. And we will regret it in 20 years for much the same reasons.
I see what you're saying and I think that java will be a much better legacy to deal with than the creeping illogical horrors of COBOL.
I think the most frightening part was having to yell at one of the professors one day, because the basic data structures he was teaching were being done incorrectly. He was teaching people to leak memory. ("Let's allocate a huge linked list, and then just set the head pointer to NULL and consider it freed!"
Um, if he was teaching Java or C# best practice, then he was correct. That's what you should do, and then let the garbage collector pick it off at its leisure (or not bother if the program terminates just after). You don't make it clear if this was the case or not.
Now the _dumbest_ thing about java is that they were so set against multiple inheritance that they never bothered to ask themselves why _every_ OO language starts out life without multiple inheritance only to have to add it later. By making everything a proper linear subclass of Object, they left themselves with having to graft on "interfaces" which is just multiple inheritance with the "bonus" of completely preventing default implementations. (Which lead to delegation etc.)...And structured programming languages were so dumbly set against goto that that they start out life without goto only to have to add it later, grafting on continue, break statements to simulate proper goto..... no, actually structured languages avoid goto in favour of break, continue, while, etc. because they want to keep the good of it while losing the bad of it. Likewise, the people who designed interfaces into java and C# (not grafting them on later) wanted to keep certain aspects of Multiple Inheritance, while losing other, undesirable aspects.
The field of computer science has not yet come up with a "basic theory"... a starting place...
There are decent basic theories: Universal Turing machines, state machines, boolean algebra, lambda calculus, resolution with horne clauses, etc. They don't teach them in first year CS for good reason. You don;t want to start there.
I take your point, but I simply don't believe that previous administrations were "just as bad". They weren't; the trend has been downward for a while.
Strawberry, neither of them gives a shit about you and your concerns, not really
I'd be surprised if they did really, since I live and vote in England. I am not now, never have been, and have no intention of becoming a citizen of the USA.
but the truth is that everyone reading that phrase knows the intention of the author, and therefore information is being conveyed.
It is possible to know what the author is trying to say, and at the same time to cringe at thier poor grammar and/or spelling. In cases like that they're conveying more information than they intended to.
I have long wondered at what point does a commonly misused word simply become redefined?
So, at what point does the apostrophe "'" start to officially mean "look out end of word, here comes an s"? At what point do "you're" and "your", "it's" and "its" become interchangable? At what point does "seemless" become correct spelling?
Oh, traditional media is lapping up images created by "citizen journalists" with tools like digital cameras and phonecams that ordinary people didn't have 20 years ago. That doesn't make it any less subversive.
Slashdot Mirror
Another one?
WTF? One in four? are you insane? that would be 15 million people. Does that really seem likely? Anecdotally I know substantially more than four people and *none* of them have had their identity stolen.
What percentage of them have had false charge added to their credit card? What percentage have, but just don't know it?
They want to eliminate child abuse; a good concept.
No, it isn't. It's like trying to "eliminate" drug use, or terrorism.
There's benefit, and there's cost. Cutting it down a little may be cheap. Cutting it down a lot may be more expensive and still worthwhile. Eliminating it is simply not possible as long as someone wants to do it. trying to eliminate the last few percentage points of drug use/child abuse/terrorism at any cost is not rational, in fact it's bat-shit insane.
Cost is not just money, this guy is paying part of the cost.
So when I open 30+ tabs I should be surprised that my CPU is chugging and firefox is sucking ram? And I'm supposed to blame javascript?
Well, yes you should. It doesn't take any CPU at all to not render the html on the 29+ tabs that aren't currently being shown.
I agree. Humans can be sound, but still off by one. calaculators are either correct or broken.
However, the size of the discrepancy is 1/60 or so. That's 1.6%, which is enough to change the outcome of some recent US elections. So is it of a significant size? Yes, it is.
"Song of Stone" reminds me so much of J.M Coetzee's "Waiting for the barbarians". Similar tone and use of generic setting.
Monorails?
Is that a port of a Ruby web application framework to an open-source reimplementation of a (possibly patent-encumbered) proprietary common language runtime?
Yes, but that's a rather negative way of looking at it'
What, you thought you were joking?
So instead of being able to see both the variable AND the range it is being tested against IN THE SAME LINE, I now have to go trawling back through the code looking for the place where you created the Range object to find the low and high boundaries of it.
By this logic, date objects are a bad idea, since instead of being able to see the day, month and year in the same line, now have to go trawling back through the code looking for the place where you created the date object. Absurd.
Abstraction is good, repetitive code is bad, you are wrong.
PS: Hover your mouse over a Date object. Or inspect it in the debugger. You get a String repeentation of it from the ToString() method showing the day, month and year.
You can *gasp* overide ToString() in your own classes, and you know, show the details of the range without any trawling.
Where do the other 12 million live? The home counties must be a wasteland on a weekday
Yes. Weekends, too.
Given that there are only 8 million people in the whole of Greater London (which is the only city the oyster card exists) and only some of them (i've no idea how many but I'd guess about 50%) use public transport
I live in London and I'd guess that the number is far above 50%. Even those who don't use it on the daily commute do use it from time to time. If you think otherwise, you clearly have never tried to drive a car into central London.
Also, don't forget the millions of people who don't live in London but do work in it, and thus will use London public transport on the daily commute.
this seems like a pretty clear case of "oh crap, I'm an idiot", rather than "mwuahahah, my plan for global domination proceeds apace!".
Come on; mailing other people's user name and password to yourself doesn't serve much purpose for debugging.
To be fair, a few years ago nobody could have seen the rise of p2p
They should have predicted that:
1) Existing users will over time use more bandwidth - new software will be made, get popular, and use up ever more bandwidth. That's the way the internet has worked as a platform for data transfer apps since it started.
2) This won't be a steady linear increase. There will be times when usage suddenly urges, and times when it doesn't.
Java is the new COBOL. And we will regret it in 20 years for much the same reasons.
I see what you're saying and I think that java will be a much better legacy to deal with than the creeping illogical horrors of COBOL.
I think the most frightening part was having to yell at one of the professors one day, because the basic data structures he was teaching were being done incorrectly. He was teaching people to leak memory. ("Let's allocate a huge linked list, and then just set the head pointer to NULL and consider it freed!"
Um, if he was teaching Java or C# best practice, then he was correct. That's what you should do, and then let the garbage collector pick it off at its leisure (or not bother if the program terminates just after). You don't make it clear if this was the case or not.
Now the _dumbest_ thing about java is that they were so set against multiple inheritance that they never bothered to ask themselves why _every_ OO language starts out life without multiple inheritance only to have to add it later. By making everything a proper linear subclass of Object, they left themselves with having to graft on "interfaces" which is just multiple inheritance with the "bonus" of completely preventing default implementations. (Which lead to delegation etc.) ...And structured programming languages were so dumbly set against goto that that they start out life without goto only to have to add it later, grafting on continue, break statements to simulate proper goto. .... no, actually structured languages avoid goto in favour of break, continue, while, etc. because they want to keep the good of it while losing the bad of it. Likewise, the people who designed interfaces into java and C# (not grafting them on later) wanted to keep certain aspects of Multiple Inheritance, while losing other, undesirable aspects.
The field of computer science has not yet come up with a "basic theory"... a starting place...
There are decent basic theories: Universal Turing machines, state machines, boolean algebra, lambda calculus, resolution with horne clauses, etc. They don't teach them in first year CS for good reason. You don;t want to start there.
This is more properly called sousveillance, not surveillance.
Surveillance = watching people from over
Sousveillance = people watching from under
Nobody would like it if a person came into their workplace and recorded them all day. Privacy is a right
Nobody would like it, but if it's public-facing work, the it's... you know, public. Not private.
Nowdays everybody can have an offspring
... Darwinian: The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving-
In your and my areas, maybe. In other places, it's still quite
I take your point, but I simply don't believe that previous administrations were "just as bad". They weren't; the trend has been downward for a while.
Strawberry, neither of them gives a shit about you and your concerns, not really
I'd be surprised if they did really, since I live and vote in England. I am not now, never have been, and have no intention of becoming a citizen of the USA.
Assuming that this guy is automatically completely Guilty (well, the magical word "Rove" was invoked, so he must be
Um, he's "The head of the federal agency investigating Karl Rove's White House political operation" (first line of TFA).
So the message is: In Bush's America, if you investigate the administration, and someone will investigate YOU.
Almost, it should be: "Emerald Cockroach Wasps Create Zombie Cockroaches, Scientists Imitate".
From the blurb above:
Researchers were also able to create their own zombies by injecting unstung cockroaches with a compound
No it hasn't. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! IT'S JUST VAPORWARE
if you can buy or otherwise get a phone running Android, and the phone can make calls, then it's not vapour. Do we have that?
C#, VB.NET, J#. Whatever. Microsoft wants a .NET runtime in the browser. Probably a sandboxed one that can only access the DOM and browser.
.NET benefits, like multithreading and bytecode compilation.
Correct, silverlight is sandboxed.
But you still get all the
Also correct.
you can't implement it outside of IE
Incorrect. Silverlight is currently targeted at IE, firefox, Safari, with plans for Opera and Konqueror. Did you miss the articles about moonlight
Open your eyes, people. This is Microsoft.
Yeah, open your eyes. Discuss how Microsoft has adapted to the events of the last decade.
That's like saying "I smoke 20 a day, and I don't have cancer" ... yet. But you have increased your risk of getting it. A lot.
but the truth is that everyone reading that phrase knows the intention of the author, and therefore information is being conveyed.
/or spelling. In cases like that they're conveying more information than they intended to.
It is possible to know what the author is trying to say, and at the same time to cringe at thier poor grammar and
I have long wondered at what point does a commonly misused word simply become redefined?
So, at what point does the apostrophe "'" start to officially mean "look out end of word, here comes an s"? At what point do "you're" and "your", "it's" and "its" become interchangable? At what point does "seemless" become correct spelling?
Oh, traditional media is lapping up images created by "citizen journalists" with tools like digital cameras and phonecams that ordinary people didn't have 20 years ago. That doesn't make it any less subversive.