Yeah, and if you read up on him, you'll find out that he made his contributions to the field in the 60's and 70's, and then shunned computers for the remainder of his life (he wouldn't let the University of Texas put one in his office, for example, and he never used email).
Dijkstra was a mathematician, not a programmer. His whole concept of "structured" programming was not designed to foster readability or stability in software, it was to make software "provable" like some sort of mathematical equation.
Dijkstra was brilliant, yes, but why on earth should people take as gospel what he or anyone else who hasn't written a practical, production-level piece of software in their entire lives have to say about good programming style?
I really wish people would quote someone like Steve McConnell or Andrew Hunt the next time someone talks about software design, instead of some eccentric mathematician who loved pen and paper and despised the keyboard and mouse.
This is real important.
on
WB Cancels Angel
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Gee, thanks Taco for taking a break from posting story after story mocking Microsoft and near-constant updates on SCO--no matter how minor--just to inform us all of the cancellation of your favorite television show.
Honestly, is Angel even popular amoungst geeks? Why is this on/., let alone on the front page?
People use "they" and "them" as singular pronouns knowingly; it's done because there's no real gender-neutral singular pronoun available to us. Saying "he or she" or "him or her" is pain in the ass, as is having to twist your sentences around to avoid using a pronoun so you can sidestep this problem altogether.
The "they/them" issue is a fine example of how language evolves over time to accommodate social change. In the last few decades, it's become less and less acceptable to use "he" and "him" as default pronouns because they denote the male gender, and since no real gender-neutral singular pronouns exist, "they/them" has stepped up to fill the void.
Though these types of laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, unless they were actually selling the product, it's doubtful it could be considered false advertising. While just making untrue, deceptive, or misleading statements isn't illegal, doing so to sell a product typically is.
From their (now defunct) website: "SpyBan is one of the most user friendly spyware protecting programs available on the market today and it is 100% FREE!"
From the sound of things, he just wants to pay his debt to society and put this behind him.
From the sound of things, Adrian didn't want to take the chance of having to spend five years in Danbury or Allenwood.
He didn't create the vulnerabilities in the Times' network, he merely exposed them in the same way he's been doing for years. Adrian hurt no one and owes nothing to society.
Wow. I never suggested that wolves were extremely dangerous, baby-eating monsters that needed to be eradicated. I used one word, "dangerous," to accurately describe an animal that can hurt humans, as opposed to, say, a Caribou or a Pronghorn or a Squirrel.
You suggest that a mad wolf disease would not really result in unusually violent behavior, but this is not the case in other animals. Animals suffering from some kind of spongiform encephalopathy often undergo dramatic changes in their personality and disposition, often before any other symptoms significantly manifest themselves. Animals may become withdrawn, frightened, depressed, violent, etc., etc.--no one knows for sure how wolves in general or how each individual one would, if at all, be affected by the disease. I only mentioned it because the article never addressed the possibility that wolves might be able to contract this infectious disease. In no way was I implying that that the wolf population needed further eradication.
I'm sorry Alaska is embarking on the program you described. I sometimes visit a house in an area populated by an abundance of whitetail deer and black bears and it always amazes me that many people here are terrified by wolves but aren't the least bit concerned about the black bears, which are much more likely to attack humans and much more likely to do much more damage; all because movies and TV portray them as harmless, gentle giants.
My point is that the above phrasing was incredibly sensational. It implies that suddenly we will have packs of "mad wolves" ravaging the countryside.
As you already stated wolves are no more "dangerous" than the black bears, mountain lions, and many other predators indigenous to this continent. What's your point?
That perhaps repopulating wolves for the sole purpose of exposing them to this neurodegenerative disease will have some unfortunate consequences. The article never addressed the possibility that wolves might be able to contract this infectious disease, so I thought it bared mentioning.
When did I say anything to the contrary? Did you actually read my synopsis?
Fact: Wolves are not particularly dangerous to humans.
And neither are black bears, mountain lions, and many other predators indigenous to this continent. What's your point? Would you walk up to them and pet them? They're still dangerous none the less.
Fact: Wolves have been exposed to more mind altering diseases than CWD, ie. Rabies for much longer than we have even known about CWD, much less tracked it.
How many of them invoke no immune system response whatsoever, can't be conclusively diagnosed without a post-mortem autopsy, have the apparent potential to jump from species to specious, and are transmitted in from animal-to-animal in ways still not entirely understood?
Fact: CWD does not cause the animals to go "MAD" or attack others
No, it causes a rapidly progressing dementia in many animals, robbing them of their cognitive function and often changing their personality and behavior drastically. Cats with feline spongiform encephalopathy (mad cat disease), for example, often become violent or withdrawn. No one knows for sure how wolves will be/are being (if at all) affected by prions.
No, it isn't. It would be ironic if Perl itself, the interpreter, was full of memory leaks and buffer overflows or if the language forced you to do your own error-prone memory management, but neither of which is the case.
Perl, the interpreter, is one of the most stable pieces of software I've ever used, virtually devoid of buffer overflows and memory leaks, and it takes care of all of the memory management for you.
I guess there's nothing left to comment on, since the story was more of a long editorial rant than a newspiece.
At least it could have been a factual rant. For example:
Most states have laws requiring the pledge to be recited every day as a class activity, and these are the laws in question.
No Michael, these are NOT the laws in question.
First and foremost at issue is whether or not a noncustodial parent has Article III standing to bring an action on behalf of a child they don't have custody over. While parents typically can litigate on behalf of their children, this matter is complicated in this case because: 1) Newdow did not have ANY custody over the child when he brought the action; and 2) the girl claims she suffered no injury at all, which means she fails the first prong of the three-pronged standing test. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
More troubling still are the procedural problems with the complaint. Newdow sued the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States, and the United States of America itself in addition too the school districts. The first two were obviously improper defendants, and the third can't be sued at all without its consent because of sovereign immunity. See, e.g.: United States Department of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 615 (1992); United States v. Nordic Village, inc., 503 U.S. 130, 33 (1992); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 150 (1908). This is why the entire complaint was originally thrown out on a motion to dismiss and why the dismissal was only partly reversed by the court of appeals.
Even if it survives these procedural defects on review by the high Court, the only laws in question are those the girl is subject to since they were the ones complained of. That our courts are courts of limited, enumerated jurisdiction is one of most fundamental principals of the federal judiciary. See Charles Alan Wright & Mary Kay Kane, Law of Federal Courts, section 7 et seq. (6th ed. 2002).
This has nothing to do with the NY Times. All of the Times' articles in their database are copyrighted; you can't reproduce them without consent.
This bill is intended to protect compilations of non-copyrightable material such as, oh say, court opinions and statutes, like Westlaw and LexisNexis.
Interestingly enough, Thompson-West--though they can't copyright the opinions themselves--claims copyright on the page numbers of their bound volumes of the Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and other series of publications which all contain court opinions from various jurisdictions (they're typically the only place in which hard copies of opinions are actually published), thus stopping competitors from digitizing these books (with internal, citable page numbers in them) and creating their own databases. SeeWho owns the Law?
Slashdot Mirror
Violent prison rape is *funny*?
Yeah, and if you read up on him, you'll find out that he made his contributions to the field in the 60's and 70's, and then shunned computers for the remainder of his life (he wouldn't let the University of Texas put one in his office, for example, and he never used email).
Dijkstra was a mathematician, not a programmer. His whole concept of "structured" programming was not designed to foster readability or stability in software, it was to make software "provable" like some sort of mathematical equation.
Dijkstra was brilliant, yes, but why on earth should people take as gospel what he or anyone else who hasn't written a practical, production-level piece of software in their entire lives have to say about good programming style?
I really wish people would quote someone like Steve McConnell or Andrew Hunt the next time someone talks about software design, instead of some eccentric mathematician who loved pen and paper and despised the keyboard and mouse.
Gee, thanks Taco for taking a break from posting story after story mocking Microsoft and near-constant updates on SCO--no matter how minor--just to inform us all of the cancellation of your favorite television show.
/., let alone on the front page?
Honestly, is Angel even popular amoungst geeks? Why is this on
People use "they" and "them" as singular pronouns knowingly; it's done because there's no real gender-neutral singular pronoun available to us. Saying "he or she" or "him or her" is pain in the ass, as is having to twist your sentences around to avoid using a pronoun so you can sidestep this problem altogether.
The "they/them" issue is a fine example of how language evolves over time to accommodate social change. In the last few decades, it's become less and less acceptable to use "he" and "him" as default pronouns because they denote the male gender, and since no real gender-neutral singular pronouns exist, "they/them" has stepped up to fill the void.
Though these types of laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, unless they were actually selling the product, it's doubtful it could be considered false advertising. While just making untrue, deceptive, or misleading statements isn't illegal, doing so to sell a product typically is.
From their (now defunct) website: "SpyBan is one of the most user friendly spyware protecting programs available on the market today and it is 100% FREE!"
From the sound of things, Adrian didn't want to take the chance of having to spend five years in Danbury or Allenwood.
He didn't create the vulnerabilities in the Times' network, he merely exposed them in the same way he's been doing for years. Adrian hurt no one and owes nothing to society.
Apparently you're not alone. Take a look at this: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=683260 .
Wow. I never suggested that wolves were extremely dangerous, baby-eating monsters that needed to be eradicated. I used one word, "dangerous," to accurately describe an animal that can hurt humans, as opposed to, say, a Caribou or a Pronghorn or a Squirrel.
You suggest that a mad wolf disease would not really result in unusually violent behavior, but this is not the case in other animals. Animals suffering from some kind of spongiform encephalopathy often undergo dramatic changes in their personality and disposition, often before any other symptoms significantly manifest themselves. Animals may become withdrawn, frightened, depressed, violent, etc., etc.--no one knows for sure how wolves in general or how each individual one would, if at all, be affected by the disease. I only mentioned it because the article never addressed the possibility that wolves might be able to contract this infectious disease. In no way was I implying that that the wolf population needed further eradication.
I'm sorry Alaska is embarking on the program you described. I sometimes visit a house in an area populated by an abundance of whitetail deer and black bears and it always amazes me that many people here are terrified by wolves but aren't the least bit concerned about the black bears, which are much more likely to attack humans and much more likely to do much more damage; all because movies and TV portray them as harmless, gentle giants.
My point is that the above phrasing was incredibly sensational. It implies that suddenly we will have packs of "mad wolves" ravaging the countryside.
As you already stated wolves are no more "dangerous" than the black bears, mountain lions, and many other predators indigenous to this continent. What's your point?
That perhaps repopulating wolves for the sole purpose of exposing them to this neurodegenerative disease will have some unfortunate consequences. The article never addressed the possibility that wolves might be able to contract this infectious disease, so I thought it bared mentioning.
Should be "from species to species".
Fact: Any Predator will zero in on weak prey.
When did I say anything to the contrary? Did you actually read my synopsis?
Fact: Wolves are not particularly dangerous to humans.
And neither are black bears, mountain lions, and many other predators indigenous to this continent. What's your point? Would you walk up to them and pet them? They're still dangerous none the less.
Fact: Wolves have been exposed to more mind altering diseases than CWD, ie. Rabies for much longer than we have even known about CWD, much less tracked it.
How many of them invoke no immune system response whatsoever, can't be conclusively diagnosed without a post-mortem autopsy, have the apparent potential to jump from species to specious, and are transmitted in from animal-to-animal in ways still not entirely understood?
Fact: CWD does not cause the animals to go "MAD" or attack others
No, it causes a rapidly progressing dementia in many animals, robbing them of their cognitive function and often changing their personality and behavior drastically. Cats with feline spongiform encephalopathy (mad cat disease), for example, often become violent or withdrawn. No one knows for sure how wolves will be/are being (if at all) affected by prions.
Neither would I, but that still doesn't make it ironic.
$ make senseNo, it isn't. It would be ironic if Perl itself, the interpreter, was full of memory leaks and buffer overflows or if the language forced you to do your own error-prone memory management, but neither of which is the case.
Perl, the interpreter, is one of the most stable pieces of software I've ever used, virtually devoid of buffer overflows and memory leaks, and it takes care of all of the memory management for you.
Hackers and Painters.
Now you're actually trolling?
At least it could have been a factual rant. For example:
Most states have laws requiring the pledge to be recited every day as a class activity, and these are the laws in question.No Michael, these are NOT the laws in question.
First and foremost at issue is whether or not a noncustodial parent has Article III standing to bring an action on behalf of a child they don't have custody over. While parents typically can litigate on behalf of their children, this matter is complicated in this case because: 1) Newdow did not have ANY custody over the child when he brought the action; and 2) the girl claims she suffered no injury at all, which means she fails the first prong of the three-pronged standing test. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
More troubling still are the procedural problems with the complaint. Newdow sued the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States, and the United States of America itself in addition too the school districts. The first two were obviously improper defendants, and the third can't be sued at all without its consent because of sovereign immunity. See, e.g.: United States Department of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 615 (1992); United States v. Nordic Village, inc., 503 U.S. 130, 33 (1992); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 150 (1908). This is why the entire complaint was originally thrown out on a motion to dismiss and why the dismissal was only partly reversed by the court of appeals.
Even if it survives these procedural defects on review by the high Court, the only laws in question are those the girl is subject to since they were the ones complained of. That our courts are courts of limited, enumerated jurisdiction is one of most fundamental principals of the federal judiciary. See Charles Alan Wright & Mary Kay Kane, Law of Federal Courts, section 7 et seq. (6th ed. 2002).
Yeah, that or for the dead bodies burried under his house: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/ 0,9061,1016292,00.html.
This has nothing to do with the NY Times. All of the Times' articles in their database are copyrighted; you can't reproduce them without consent.
This bill is intended to protect compilations of non-copyrightable material such as, oh say, court opinions and statutes, like Westlaw and LexisNexis.
Interestingly enough, Thompson-West--though they can't copyright the opinions themselves--claims copyright on the page numbers of their bound volumes of the Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and other series of publications which all contain court opinions from various jurisdictions (they're typically the only place in which hard copies of opinions are actually published), thus stopping competitors from digitizing these books (with internal, citable page numbers in them) and creating their own databases. See Who owns the Law?