As great as open source is that indeed is one of the two elephants in the room (the other being documentation*.) Bugs get completely ignored as new versions get rolled out and then later marked as "Won't Fix". Firefox fixing their memory leak "any day now" is the running joke.
The only other option is start publicizing the old (critical) bugs that the devs conveniently keep ignoring.
How about starting by listing the bugs?
* Obviously there are exceptions: FreeNAS has done a fantastic job with there 8.2 User Guide!
Human fallacy is think that something can't exist forever and that it has to have a beginning.
Your fallacy is thinking Time is linear. Time is non-linear. It does not exist at the meta-physical level. Time is a *dimension* of mind. After you die will finally grok these concepts, so don't worry about it if you don't "get it" while human - most people don't.
Either a) ignore the trolls & idiots, b) tell them to piss of, or c) shame them by writing a rebuttal that makes them looks like complete and total idiots.
You DO have choices. Giving up seems counter to everything/. was originally about -- having an intelligent and insightful commentary & debate./me *shrugs* At least the place hasn't degenerated into Reddit... yet
> Imagine that the first version of HTML been designed with a binary encoding with single-byte tags, and a new version introduced multibyte tags. Older programs would not understand the multibyte tags and would not be able to display a document containing them, not even in a graceful degradation mode.
There is no reason why we just couldn't of used multi-byte tags from the beginning IF they were really needed.
i.e. Bytes Meaning 0x00..0x1F single byte for all the _common_ tags: a, b, i, etc... (Huffman encoding) 0x20..0x7F standard ASCII 0x80 multi byte tag + Unicode(schema to be worked out)
Let's step back for a moment and look at the problem we are trying to solve:
How many tags do browsers _really_ need ? If we are using more then 256 tags then system is probably over-engineered.
Buts pretend we actually have a valid use for 256 tags. There is no reason that we couldn't just use 16-bits. Now if we really are going to need more then 65536 tags then we obviously are doing something _wrong_.
The better solution would of been to just use a 32-bit hash of the tag. That way the tag would simply be a hash value of the ASCII tag name. Much faster for browsers to parse, store, and render. When I wrote my mni HTML render last year internally that is what I did -- first thing was to get rid of all this stupid variable insensitive name tag crap and replace it with a constant unique id by generating a hash from the case insensitive tag. This way you will effectively "never" run out of tags.
Another optimization is that we can treat all the attributes as an array/vector of pairs, where the key is the same standard 32-bit hash value.:-)
HTML is a cluster fuck because it is over-engineered.
A minister, a priest and a rabbi went for a hike one very hot day. They were sweating profusely by the time they came upon a small lake with a sandy beach. Since it was a secluded spot, they left all their clothes on a big log, ran down the beach to the lake and jumped in the water for a long, refreshing swim.
Refreshed, they were halfway back up the beach to the spot they'd left their clothes, when a group of ladies from town came along. Unable to get to their clothes in time, the minister and the priest covered their privates and the rabbi covered his face while they ran for cover in the bushes.
After the ladies wandered on and the men got dressed again, the minister and the priest asked the rabbi why he covered his face rather than his privates.
The rabbi replied, "I don't know about you, but in MY congregation, it's my face they would recognize."
You seem to think Constant bit-rate is the only solution. Here's a hint for the solution: Variable bit-rate
> And the registry is still like HTML in that one has to parse an arbitrary-length string for keys. Depends on how it is implemented. Guess what, the OS guys have had to solve this _exact_ problem in File Systems. We've only had the concept & solution of B-Trees+ for "ages."
* Scientists will eventually discover the 6 fundamental forces * Scientists will also discover white holes are on the "opposite" side of the black holes (this is where all the "missing" energy is)
Check back in 20 years and we can see how much progress we've made;-)
> I can't really think of any benefit of having it over.ini files.
I hate the registry for all the reasons you list, but you are forgetting the *only* benefit:
A binary file is significantly faster to parse and search then a big-ass text file. HTML is a good example of an over-engineered solution. You have to parse an arbitrary length strength for tags, instead of just using a simple byte tag.
The registry also has a minor benefit that you can guarantee the syntax is valid.
Another reason I hate the registry is that it is retarded for doing backups. Over in the rational *nix land, we store our configs in.foo -- making it trivial to backup and put on another machine. Good luck copying the registry while logged in! Heck ever try to copy you whole Windows color settings, schemes, sounds, etc. from Windows machine to another? Just give me a dam text file already that I can update, copy, and take with me.
Microsoft has consistently failed to learn the lesson "Those who fail to embrace *nix are doomed to re-invent and re-implement it poorly." which is a paraphrase of Henry Spencer "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
C doesn't allow nested functions so it wouldn't have of been an issue.
I've worked on professional C++ compiler. A few notes:
1. The C++ grammar is _already_ over-engineered. Having to extend the syntax will not add to that complexity. 2. The front-end parsing is separate from code generation. This has zero impact on compile time. The majority of a compiler's time is spent in: a) IO (this is why you can compile MILLIONS of lines of code in under a few minutes with a Bulk or Unity Build) b) Templates c) Optimizing
Compilers were specifically _designed_ to minimize the tediousness of programming so I no, I don't buy your excuse that "relatively minor gain" is not worth it.
> If you accelerate in space, you slow down in time. Yes, I agree, time and space seems to be inversely related.
> You cannot change your velocity through spacetime, you can only alter your direction. Hmm, that's not quite right as that doesn't explain Time Travel.
Looks like we have a paradox... now the _really_ interesting question is how the hell do we resolved these 2 (contradictory) truths ! Now one possible solution would be that vel > c = -time !? Definitely need to explore this!
You can sue a doctor for malpractice, not a schoolteacher. Every homebuilder is accountable to customers years after the home is built; not schoolteachers, though. You can't sue a priest, minister, or rabbi either; that should be a clue."
" by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent, wherever such a thing mattered. Yet compulsory schooling existed nowhere."
* Here's what schools don't teach kids: 1. Anything about money. 2. How businesses work, so that they enter the game with no knowledge of how it's played. 3. Basic psychology, so that even if they understand the game, they can be effectively gamed. Obviously, psychology would be very useful in raising kids. 4. Parenting, other than what they learned by living (courtesy of parents, teachers, ministers, coaches, police..) so they repeat all prior mistakes. 5. Collaboration and team effort.
Here's what they learn. 1. There is only one right answer to each question. 2. Your success is entirely based on your grades and obedience/attendance. 3. There are no new ideas. Everything you know is in books, according to a curriculum approved by committee. 4. Creativity, taking your time and questioning authority and status quo are punishable offenses. 5. Sharing information with others is punishable by expulsion. 6. Ethics are OK to talk about, but in real life, everything's fair; just don't get caught.
You can see the result. Roughly 10% of people are "successful" and innovation comes from roughly 1%. 90% of work is meant to make the boss happy, and 10% towards customers, teamwork is unheard of and requires expensive consultants to achieve at a minimal level, and you're paid almost entirely for your paper certificates and longevity.
Reference: From the book "Children Learn What They Live" by Dorothy Law Nolte.
Conversely, for those interested in the other half of the equation -- namely understanding the spatial dimension -- a new paradigm such as bivectors, trivectors, antiscalar, wedge product is necessary.
> The future can't be predicted with any certainty beyond only the smallest of timeframes False.
Counter-Examples: * Within 20 years everyone will _know_ that we are not alone. * Within 100 years Judaism, Christianity, and Islam will be united (finally!) * Within 200 years both South America and Africa will have their own global currencies. I could go on, but there would be no point.
That said, the future is indeed dynamic. The further you go out from the present the more potentials there are. Regardless there is a galactic time-frame for everything, whether we are conscious of it (or not.)
> The future can't be predicted by most people [as there is no need to.] FTFY.
> What kind of life would it be if we knew what would happen tomorrow? There would be numerous benefits. One that life would be a-hell-of lot more efficient, to start with.
Counter-example: Parents realize that one day they will die and their children will survive them. That doesn't stop them from enjoying their children every day.
The point isn't about the destination (fate) but about the enjoying the journey (free will) along the way.
> Your arrogance certainty knows no bounds. If you'll indulge me for a moment, How do you even _measure_ that in the first place? (Yes, I'm being serious.)
> If there *did* turn out to be an afterlife I bet you'd be well punished for that. Well the Deists and Gnostics would argue that we _already_ are being punished and I find I must reluctantly agree with them some-what.:-/
The Buddhist's philosophy is "Life is Suffering" but I would argue that is incomplete as that is only _one_ _perspective_. The actual truth is "One only suffers if they _choose_ it" but this thread is quickly becoming OT...
You keep using this word 'threat' but I don't think it means what you think it means. If you perceive of something as a threat that means you are afraid. Now if you want to live in fear that is your choice but you _do_ have a choice on how to view things.
i.e. It is a _fact_ that everyone will die. That is not a threat, nor an empty promise. It just is what it is
If you are unable to use _every_ opportunity (including death itself!) as a learning experience then the fault lies in your own inability to learn about the true nature of reality. A wise man would explore all opportunities as they are presented; not only while alive but also after in the death-review-state as well.
Instead of shooting the messenger it would be more prudent to listen to the message even if you disagree with it. Who knows, you might even learn a different perspective.;-)
> You can't prove life is important. That is _your_ _assumption_.
> Have you ever died? How did that go? No? Then what the hell are you talking about?? Again, it is foolish to make assumptions you know _nothing_ about.
> How moral is it to bring that same human being into a life of neglect and dysfunction? Those are _human_ judgments. By judging any actions as moral (or immoral) you've already limited yourself and your understanding. If you are unable to see BOTH the positive and negative in EVERY act then you will NEVER understand life to any significant depth.
Will that said, that doesn't negate the fact that there are always consequences, and obviously that doesn't mean I embrace every act; I will neither praise nor condone other people's choices. Free-Will is the greatest gift (and curse) this planet has.
> It's not a black and white issue. Only those without knowledge and facts say that.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the classic armchair expert. Someone with no experience is suddenly an "expert." Uhm, no.
Somebody who has never (consciously) experienced god is a tool / fool proclaiming he knows more then someone who directly has.
Actually I was thinking the submitter must be Californian .... /valley-girl "Prof. Moglen is, like, one of the most polished speakers anywhere, EVAR!"
As great as open source is that indeed is one of the two elephants in the room (the other being documentation*.) Bugs get completely ignored as new versions get rolled out and then later marked as "Won't Fix". Firefox fixing their memory leak "any day now" is the running joke.
The only other option is start publicizing the old (critical) bugs that the devs conveniently keep ignoring.
How about starting by listing the bugs?
* Obviously there are exceptions: FreeNAS has done a fantastic job with there 8.2 User Guide!
on a subject when you don't have any beliefs in it?
I don't ask a blind person for for knowledge on color, because they don't have any beliefs on color.
What makes you qualified to present knowledge about Theism when you don't even have beliefs in that area?
Let me introduce you to this two little concepts called
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity
Human fallacy is think that something can't exist forever and that it has to have a beginning.
Your fallacy is thinking Time is linear. Time is non-linear. It does not exist at the meta-physical level. Time is a *dimension* of mind. After you die will finally grok these concepts, so don't worry about it if you don't "get it" while human - most people don't.
So basically you let them win?!?!
Pardon my French, but Man, what a pussy.
Either a) ignore the trolls & idiots, b) tell them to piss of, or c) shame them by writing a rebuttal that makes them looks like complete and total idiots.
You DO have choices. Giving up seems counter to everything /. was originally about -- having an intelligent and insightful commentary & debate. /me *shrugs* At least the place hasn't degenerated into Reddit ... yet
> Imagine that the first version of HTML been designed with a binary encoding with single-byte tags, and a new version introduced multibyte tags. Older programs would not understand the multibyte tags and would not be able to display a document containing them, not even in a graceful degradation mode.
There is no reason why we just couldn't of used multi-byte tags from the beginning IF they were really needed.
i.e.
Bytes Meaning
0x00..0x1F single byte for all the _common_ tags: a, b, i, etc... (Huffman encoding)
0x20..0x7F standard ASCII
0x80 multi byte tag + Unicode(schema to be worked out)
Let's step back for a moment and look at the problem we are trying to solve:
How many tags do browsers _really_ need ? If we are using more then 256 tags then system is probably over-engineered.
HTML5 currently has ~ 114 tags with around ~25 obsolete so 256 tags looks like it it would be more then enough.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/
Buts pretend we actually have a valid use for 256 tags. There is no reason that we couldn't just use 16-bits. Now if we really are going to need more then 65536 tags then we obviously are doing something _wrong_.
The better solution would of been to just use a 32-bit hash of the tag. That way the tag would simply be a hash value of the ASCII tag name. Much faster for browsers to parse, store, and render. When I wrote my mni HTML render last year internally that is what I did -- first thing was to get rid of all this stupid variable insensitive name tag crap and replace it with a constant unique id by generating a hash from the case insensitive tag. This way you will effectively "never" run out of tags.
Another optimization is that we can treat all the attributes as an array/vector of pairs, where the key is the same standard 32-bit hash value. :-)
HTML is a cluster fuck because it is over-engineered.
A minister, a priest and a rabbi went for a hike one very hot day. They were sweating profusely by the time they came upon a small lake with a sandy beach. Since it was a secluded spot, they left all their clothes on a big log, ran down the beach to the lake and jumped in the water for a long, refreshing swim.
Refreshed, they were halfway back up the beach to the spot they'd left their clothes, when a group of ladies from town came along. Unable to get to their clothes in time, the minister and the priest covered their privates and the rabbi covered his face while they ran for cover in the bushes.
After the ladies wandered on and the men got dressed again, the minister and the priest asked the rabbi why he covered his face rather than his privates.
The rabbi replied, "I don't know about you, but in MY congregation, it's my face they would recognize."
> Which breaks once the 257th distinct element or the 257th distinct attribute is added.
You DO know how UTF-8 works, right?
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html
You seem to think Constant bit-rate is the only solution. Here's a hint for the solution: Variable bit-rate
> And the registry is still like HTML in that one has to parse an arbitrary-length string for keys.
Depends on how it is implemented. Guess what, the OS guys have had to solve this _exact_ problem in File Systems. We've only had the concept & solution of B-Trees+ for "ages."
Even though it is about ZFS, it shows some of the B-Tree concepts.
i.e.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43973847/How-Zfs-Works#page=10
> And math is really hard.
If math is hard, you're doing it wrong, and/or have a really shitty teacher.
i.e.
A Mathematician's Lament
www.maa.org/devlin/lockhartslament.pdf
Here are a few more:
* Scientists will eventually discover the 6 fundamental forces
* Scientists will also discover white holes are on the "opposite" side of the black holes (this is where all the "missing" energy is)
Check back in 20 years and we can see how much progress we've made ;-)
> I can't really think of any benefit of having it over .ini files.
I hate the registry for all the reasons you list, but you are forgetting the *only* benefit:
A binary file is significantly faster to parse and search then a big-ass text file. HTML is a good example of an over-engineered solution. You have to parse an arbitrary length strength for tags, instead of just using a simple byte tag.
The registry also has a minor benefit that you can guarantee the syntax is valid.
Another reason I hate the registry is that it is retarded for doing backups. Over in the rational *nix land, we store our configs in .foo -- making it trivial to backup and put on another machine. Good luck copying the registry while logged in! Heck ever try to copy you whole Windows color settings, schemes, sounds, etc. from Windows machine to another? Just give me a dam text file already that I can update, copy, and take with me.
Microsoft has consistently failed to learn the lesson "Those who fail to embrace *nix are doomed to re-invent and re-implement it poorly." which is a paraphrase of Henry Spencer "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Quotes
C doesn't allow nested functions so it wouldn't have of been an issue.
I've worked on professional C++ compiler. A few notes:
1. The C++ grammar is _already_ over-engineered. Having to extend the syntax will not add to that complexity.
2. The front-end parsing is separate from code generation. This has zero impact on compile time. The majority of a compiler's time is spent in:
a) IO (this is why you can compile MILLIONS of lines of code in under a few minutes with a Bulk or Unity Build)
b) Templates
c) Optimizing
Compilers were specifically _designed_ to minimize the tediousness of programming so I no, I don't buy your excuse that "relatively minor gain" is not worth it.
> If you accelerate in space, you slow down in time.
Yes, I agree, time and space seems to be inversely related.
> You cannot change your velocity through spacetime, you can only alter your direction.
Hmm, that's not quite right as that doesn't explain Time Travel.
Looks like we have a paradox ... now the _really_ interesting question is how the hell do we resolved these 2 (contradictory) truths ! Now one possible solution would be that vel > c = -time !? Definitely need to explore this!
Thanks for the explanation of Codimension BTW !
> Schools are at least as much about social engineering as they are about indoctrination
FTFY. Specifically, numerous people have pointed out the problems of a public indoctrination system:
* The Underground History of American Education
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
You can sue a doctor for malpractice, not a schoolteacher. Every homebuilder is accountable to customers years after the home is built; not schoolteachers, though. You can't sue a priest, minister, or rabbi either; that should be a clue."
" by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent, wherever such a thing mattered. Yet compulsory schooling existed nowhere."
* A Mathematician's Lament
http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
* Here's what schools don't teach kids: ..) so they repeat all prior mistakes.
1. Anything about money.
2. How businesses work, so that they enter the game with no knowledge of how it's played.
3. Basic psychology, so that even if they understand the game, they can be effectively gamed. Obviously, psychology would be very useful in raising kids.
4. Parenting, other than what they learned by living (courtesy of parents, teachers, ministers, coaches, police
5. Collaboration and team effort.
Here's what they learn.
1. There is only one right answer to each question.
2. Your success is entirely based on your grades and obedience/attendance.
3. There are no new ideas. Everything you know is in books, according to a curriculum approved by committee.
4. Creativity, taking your time and questioning authority and status quo are punishable offenses.
5. Sharing information with others is punishable by expulsion.
6. Ethics are OK to talk about, but in real life, everything's fair; just don't get caught.
You can see the result. Roughly 10% of people are "successful" and innovation comes from roughly 1%. 90% of work is meant to make the boss happy, and 10% towards customers, teamwork is unheard of and requires expensive consultants to achieve at a minimal level, and you're paid almost entirely for your paper certificates and longevity.
Reference:
From the book "Children Learn What They Live" by Dorothy Law Nolte.
For Science of course ;-)
Links please!
Conversely, for those interested in the other half of the equation -- namely understanding the spatial dimension -- a new paradigm such as bivectors, trivectors, antiscalar, wedge product is necessary.
A Bigger Mathematical Picture for Computer Graphics (Eric Lengyel)
http://www.terathon.com/wscg12_lengyel.pdf
A Unified Language for Mathematics and Physics
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.6311&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Clifford Algebra and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/planet/planet/Numerical_Relativity/Geometric_Algebra/caiqm.pdf
The Unified Family of all physical quantities
http://www.naturics.eu/?page_id=1068
> The future can't be predicted with any certainty beyond only the smallest of timeframes
False.
Counter-Examples:
* Within 20 years everyone will _know_ that we are not alone.
* Within 100 years Judaism, Christianity, and Islam will be united (finally!)
* Within 200 years both South America and Africa will have their own global currencies.
I could go on, but there would be no point.
That said, the future is indeed dynamic. The further you go out from the present the more potentials there are. Regardless there is a galactic time-frame for everything, whether we are conscious of it (or not.)
> The future can't be predicted by most people [as there is no need to.]
FTFY.
> What kind of life would it be if we knew what would happen tomorrow?
There would be numerous benefits. One that life would be a-hell-of lot more efficient, to start with.
Counter-example: Parents realize that one day they will die and their children will survive them. That doesn't stop them from enjoying their children every day.
The point isn't about the destination (fate) but about the enjoying the journey (free will) along the way.
Well, when you phrase it like you make it sound like a bad thing. :-)
> or approved translations.
Uh, what do you think the word 'banned' means?
Please show me in _where_ in my post I mentioned anything about "imaginary friends". Thanks.
> Your arrogance certainty knows no bounds.
If you'll indulge me for a moment, How do you even _measure_ that in the first place? (Yes, I'm being serious.)
> If there *did* turn out to be an afterlife I bet you'd be well punished for that. :-/
Well the Deists and Gnostics would argue that we _already_ are being punished and I find I must reluctantly agree with them some-what.
The Buddhist's philosophy is "Life is Suffering" but I would argue that is incomplete as that is only _one_ _perspective_. The actual truth is "One only suffers if they _choose_ it" but this thread is quickly becoming OT ...
You keep using this word 'threat' but I don't think it means what you think it means. If you perceive of something as a threat that means you are afraid. Now if you want to live in fear that is your choice but you _do_ have a choice on how to view things.
i.e. It is a _fact_ that everyone will die. That is not a threat, nor an empty promise. It just is what it is
If you are unable to use _every_ opportunity (including death itself!) as a learning experience then the fault lies in your own inability to learn about the true nature of reality. A wise man would explore all opportunities as they are presented; not only while alive but also after in the death-review-state as well.
Instead of shooting the messenger it would be more prudent to listen to the message even if you disagree with it. Who knows, you might even learn a different perspective. ;-)
> You can't prove life is important.
That is _your_ _assumption_.
> Have you ever died? How did that go? No? Then what the hell are you talking about??
Again, it is foolish to make assumptions you know _nothing_ about.
> How moral is it to bring that same human being into a life of neglect and dysfunction?
Those are _human_ judgments. By judging any actions as moral (or immoral) you've already limited yourself and your understanding. If you are unable to see BOTH the positive and negative in EVERY act then you will NEVER understand life to any significant depth.
Will that said, that doesn't negate the fact that there are always consequences, and obviously that doesn't mean I embrace every act; I will neither praise nor condone other people's choices. Free-Will is the greatest gift (and curse) this planet has.
> It's not a black and white issue.
Only those without knowledge and facts say that.
> Banned Bibles? What in the world? No, you could read them and study them.
Uh, you might to read up on your history.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm