You might want to take a look at SML, a precursor to Haskell in functionnal programming languages, and it is type-safe and purely functionnal (even more than haskell I think, but I've only seen a couple of examples of haskell 2-3 years ago).
And I disagree with you, the statement did NOT make sense. Even though there's a lot of packages out there for functionnal languages (FL), which could cover all functionnalities for such a project, the article mentions speed. Unfortunately, even compiled FL cannot compete with structural ones, because FL are from a different class of languages by definition (see lambda calculus versus turing machines).
Willing to take risks? Microsoft didn't take much risks in their lives, btw. They took calculated steps (selling DOS to IBM, Windows 95, NT, Visual Basic), they always went into a single direction and they won because of that.
IMHO, Apple, Corel and Lotus were the ones who took the risks at that time. Not Microsoft.
And then when the next-gen consoles come over, you restore your last save point and try to make a better world by testing worlds without Revolution or PS3 or 360.
I was having this dream every night since the last E3.
Well, GMail is good on me for these, but what about legitimate emails getting into the spam folder. Never happened to me, but does anybody have infos/site with statistics on this situation?
Personally I believe in evolution and do not believe in a god, but I do think that people need to be willing to discuss all possible holes of both theories.
Though those holes won't be filled in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetime of humanity. Therefore, it is up to everyone of us to either accept the fact that we don't know (unfortunately impossible for many of us) or that it is a "leap of faith" to try to find an explanation [whatever it is], and thus we need to share our views on the matter instead of imposing them. Still, imposing stuff is somehow a human nature national sport, if you see what I mean.
I regarded both theories with a sceptic eye. Sorry if I didn't put the wording correctly toward the little amount of objectivity I can have. As one, I don't believe in God (or whatever supreme being), although I know we have no proof it doesn't exist (or may not be as we think... or even maybe the musulmans are right! even though we pray the same god, maybe christians don't act correctly towards it).
My point was that creationism cannot explain its own creation, falling in its own theory into the same category as science. If we take both theories in consideration, creationism MUST have gone through another theory (evolution or another creationism or something else?) thus making itself recursive, while evolution doesn't need such an explanation. Both being as valid, it comes down to faith. And thus I call Occam's Razor, because creationism is a multiple (see point above:P).
Remember for the sake of this discussion, that what we call reality is (philosophically) only a certain ammount of information shared between a mass of beings. Up to some centuries ago, what was reality is now believed as religion by the majority of human beings, although yet to be disproven. If we account that single fact, we are not even sure that what we believe is true now might not be disproven or regarded differently enough in the next centuries to be considered as religion (or an historical farce).
Beside, creationism is religion (I don't know how someone would consider that otherwise), being true or not, by definition. If the educational system wants not to teach religion, therefore it shouldn't permit to teach creationism as much as it shouldn't permit to teach christianism. Teaching the facts is another matter. See the teaching of religion history in French schools for examples of how this is permitted and should be done (theorically please, because French teachers are not yet able to be objective, but in the long term should tend to it).
Where does that god comes from then? Even in the possibility of a supreme being has created our race, that being are still submitted to the same laws (or different ones, but that doesn't disprove my point) than us, therefore must have evolved somehow, or created by an ever more supreme being, going through that same question. Whatever started it, it must have been started by something else, right? Can we say that God existed all the way and created the universe? If we can have faith in it, cannot we have faith that the universe existed all the way? Or that if the universe created itself from nothing, then God might also have been created from nothing?
The faith one put in this supreme being can be redirected to science. At this point in the questioning of the existance of life, I don't think we can really distinguish religion from science, for we don't have any answer to either questions, and both are as valuable because they are totally unknown. We have facts about the big bang, but what happened before is still faith.
Slashdot Mirror
And I disagree with you, the statement did NOT make sense. Even though there's a lot of packages out there for functionnal languages (FL), which could cover all functionnalities for such a project, the article mentions speed. Unfortunately, even compiled FL cannot compete with structural ones, because FL are from a different class of languages by definition (see lambda calculus versus turing machines).
Further, 2+2=5.
Only for really big values of 2...
... for now.
Willing to take risks? Microsoft didn't take much risks in their lives, btw. They took calculated steps (selling DOS to IBM, Windows 95, NT, Visual Basic), they always went into a single direction and they won because of that.
IMHO, Apple, Corel and Lotus were the ones who took the risks at that time. Not Microsoft.
We could do the 1 trillion $ web page, and pay for the petabyte array... business case here, gentlemen.
they were fact checking...
So didn't they in the Brothers Grimm. When fiction meets reality...
May God have mercy of you.
So that'd be Mac OS 0.6? Doubtful...
Just for the archives, what two?
And then when the next-gen consoles come over, you restore your last save point and try to make a better world by testing worlds without Revolution or PS3 or 360.
I was having this dream every night since the last E3.
Well, GMail is good on me for these, but what about legitimate emails getting into the spam folder. Never happened to me, but does anybody have infos/site with statistics on this situation?
I don't know, what about PowerPC in all this?
Book of Jobs, 01/10, 2006. Amen.
I'm putting my money on a 100$ iPod for children all around the world before they make a phone/PDA/iPod.
Here in Quebec we always need more heaters in the house, and if those can get some computing power then it's only better.
shut up.
That's nothing, I keep refreshing my user page.
Though those holes won't be filled in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetime of humanity. Therefore, it is up to everyone of us to either accept the fact that we don't know (unfortunately impossible for many of us) or that it is a "leap of faith" to try to find an explanation [whatever it is], and thus we need to share our views on the matter instead of imposing them. Still, imposing stuff is somehow a human nature national sport, if you see what I mean.
My point was that creationism cannot explain its own creation, falling in its own theory into the same category as science. If we take both theories in consideration, creationism MUST have gone through another theory (evolution or another creationism or something else?) thus making itself recursive, while evolution doesn't need such an explanation. Both being as valid, it comes down to faith. And thus I call Occam's Razor, because creationism is a multiple (see point above :P).
Remember for the sake of this discussion, that what we call reality is (philosophically) only a certain ammount of information shared between a mass of beings. Up to some centuries ago, what was reality is now believed as religion by the majority of human beings, although yet to be disproven. If we account that single fact, we are not even sure that what we believe is true now might not be disproven or regarded differently enough in the next centuries to be considered as religion (or an historical farce).
Beside, creationism is religion (I don't know how someone would consider that otherwise), being true or not, by definition. If the educational system wants not to teach religion, therefore it shouldn't permit to teach creationism as much as it shouldn't permit to teach christianism. Teaching the facts is another matter. See the teaching of religion history in French schools for examples of how this is permitted and should be done (theorically please, because French teachers are not yet able to be objective, but in the long term should tend to it).
Have I been clear enough? :)
The faith one put in this supreme being can be redirected to science. At this point in the questioning of the existance of life, I don't think we can really distinguish religion from science, for we don't have any answer to either questions, and both are as valuable because they are totally unknown. We have facts about the big bang, but what happened before is still faith.
You mean, they actually listened to good music. Don't mix up everything.
Are we talking about Firefox here? Because as far as I remember, Firefox was the one using 115Mb of memory while IE was more or less steady at 20-30.
I think he DID want to say ellt, in leet speech. Maybe I'm mistaken :P
302 comments, and you did...