Common Lisp (and Scheme, even more so, although the community is more oriented toward impure functional style) enforces no fixed paradigm.
And if Common Lisp and Scheme are both too foreign, there's Dylan: best parts of all of them, more easily optimized and compilable, and syntax from the Algol/Pascal part of the world to boot.
Java in fact shares quite a few concepts with Ada. Packages, array validation, etc. Java has at least as good runtime checks as Ada. And there are Java static analysis tools.
Java shares a lot of concepts with everything. Or rather, Java is kinda like English: it waylays other languages in dark allies and rifles through their pockets for loose change.
But, look, runtime checks are easy. In fact, they are axiomatically complete: if you have a problem, but you can't see it at run-time, then you don't actually have a problem. Compile-time checks are what separates the men from the boys. Or, in the case of Ada, what separates the women from the little girlie princesses who like ponies. From what I've heard, the thoroughness of Ada's compile-time checking is unequalled. "If it compiles successfully, an Ada program is bug-free."
Well, tough luck, a high-school kid just cured it.
Back in my day, we had real diseases, germs that'd sink their teeth into ya and chow down! Walk into the wrong village and the next thing you know beak-faced enforcers were burning the town and you didn't leave 'til three-quarters of the village was dead and you had pox scars on your wing-wong and a pinky that dissolved away.
And we liked it that way! Because those scars showed you been there and done that, and God himself reached out his hand and saved your sorry ass. The survivors couldn't beat the chicks off with a stick! And with half the population dying from one damn thing or another, there was always a cheap farm job or an empty cottage to take her home to.
But nowadays, any snot-nosed punk with a gene sequencer and a little brother for a test subject can cure the Black Ebola Cancer Plague! You kids don't know how lucky you've got it. Asthma? Allergies?! Might as well have a splinter in your finger for all that diseases do these days!
Well, the automatic provisions in the debt reduction act made the spending cuts. So now that the cuts are assured, the Republicans will be willing to raise taxes to cover the rest, right?...right?
Just go single-payer like we do in Europe, you'll spend a lot less and could cover everybody.
In the early days of Obama's health-care reform campaign, a lot of people favored this. Unfortunately, those people didn't have lobbyists. And insurance companies did.
In other words: The US should switch to Socialism, because I want other peoples money without having to work for it.
Oh, working for it! Like all the CEOs who suck at their job but still get their dream exit packages? Or the fund managers who throw darts at a board and get six-figure bonuses?
No. You can't use "hey, they earned their money" as an excuse. Successful small businessmen, ones who worked hard to get where they are, aren't even close to the pinnacle.
I was not expecting the committee to do jack. I could see the writing on the wall and everyone else could, too. That was why I was so shocked when I heard those automatic cuts actually made it into the law.
I would have been shocked and pleased, except I figured that after the committee bombed, Congress would just amend the law to cancel out those automatic provisions.
But after Obama said that he'll veto any attempt by Congress to squirm out of this, now I'm all schadenfreudey. Those sons of bitches need to learn to take their lumps.
I agree with a lot of what you said. I have no information about some other stuff. But I take issue with the following:
2) Reformed Health Care to allow 30 million Americans access to it You mean the "no insurance company left behind" act? Touting the public option while cutting a deal with the insurance lobby?
It is called a fallback plan. His — and my — preference was for the public option, but that didn't fly. Would you rather he give up entirely if he could not get it perfect?
Remember, "the perfect is the enemy of the good."
7) Ended don't ask/don't tell (Important because 140ish? translators fired under that program could have prevented or mitigated 9/11. The backlog in translations led to the orders to execute 9/11 being translated 2 days after the attacks) After fighting for the policy for years, but OK.
That does not lessen the achievement. He gave the military time to finish their studies and get used to the idea, which is how he got them on board.
10) Ordered U.S. troops to prevent a Libyan genocide at that hands of Ghaddafi (who claimed he would make the streets run red with blood) without loosing a single American life Oh, you mean engaged in a war without even invoking the weak ass requirements of the war powers act further pushing us down the road to a Napoleonic presidency where the president all on his own can declare and fight wars all in violation of the separation of powers established in the US Constitution?
Look, there are wars, and there are authorizations to use force. In an actual war, an entire nation is facing off against another, and the President can dictate factory production and all sorts of stuff. He did not wage war in Libya, not a proper war.
But he did exceed his authority under the War Powers Act. Every president has considered that act to be unconstitutional, and Obama is no different. For some reason, the Supreme Court has stayed out of that debate.
But the truth is, Congress is fundamentally okay with his actions. If they weren't, they could have cut funding. They did not, ergo he had tacit, if not official, approval.
11) Ordered the capture/elimination of Osama bin Laden (successfully) OK, but there are issues regarding Pakistani sovereignty that will likely bite us in the ass for a person who had become ineffectual.
We gave them a long time to get their shit together. We knew he was there, somewhere. At this point, it is safe to say that parts of the government of Pakistan are and have been abetting terrorists.
However, it is their right to do so. I do not think we are morally correct to act in another country without their say-so. If we could not get Pakistan's co-operation, we should have just sucked it up and officially shifted our stance towards Pakistan accordingly.
But keep in mind, the only way a jerk would face death is if someone else hated what they did enough so that they would themselves risk death in challenging them to a duel. With that in mind, you can see how it wouldn't be the wholesale culling that fiction would lead you to believe.
This is why duels were mostly resolved with a settlement rather that going to trial, so to speak.
Still, it makes a person have second thoughts before taking some action that might push someone else over that edge.
So what you do is calibrate the model on past data, then test it by generating some predictions and seeing if the predictions are accurate. Better still, use a number of different parameters all of which calibrate the model and then before actually using the model, wait and see which set of parameters generates the most accurate predictions. Only then use the model for actually predicting future events.
Did you seriously just type that? Because the article was all about how if you do exactly that, you still end up with a bogus calibration, because there are any number of solutions that can accurately reproduce the past, and yet their futures all turn out differently.
Are you talking about TARP, that was signed into law by George W. Bush a full month prior to the elections?
And drafted largely by the Democrats who controlled both houses.
Much like the failed economic measures of this year that were proposed by Obama but gutted by the Republicans. But of course they call that "Obama's failed policies," not "the Republicans' failed policies."
I've heard this schtick about "job creators" before, referring to the rich as people who "produce things and improve society" as you put it. It is bullshit.
Larry Ellison and Charles Koch are not out in their garages building things. They are not personally hiring 20,000 people. Corporations are doing these things. Corporations are the job creators and thing producers.
The rich are just people like any other. Except that they have more money, which they often invest into companies in order to sustain their personal fortune. But that makes them merely investors. Their ranks are easily replaceable by a middle class that can afford to do the same and whose smaller but far more numerous investments would make up for the few-but-large investments of the rich.
Investments help companies create jobs and produce goods, so long as those companies are sensibly run, but you do not have to be rich to invest. So there is no reason for the rich to get special income tax breaks. All this talk of "stimulating the economy" through high-bracket tax breaks is based on trickle-down economics. And trickle-down economics is a superstition which has proven to be bunk.
If you want change, make it so that corporations are not people and cannot petition the government.... Obviously this isn't the only change we should be looking for, but it is one of them.
This may well be the only change we need. Without the corporations' lobbying arms, politicians will relearn how to be responsive to the will of the people in maybe two election cycles, and corporations will be brought to heel in another election cycle past that, if not sooner due to direct citizen lobbying.
We need a nice, clean, well designed, strongly typed scalable language designed in the XXI century. Something like Scala. I don't understand why we have to do with shit languages and suffer through hell just to get a decent web application working.
Dylan is an example of a practical, approachable, well-designed, strongly typed language that compiles well and scales well. It took Lisp and Scheme concepts, added a few of its own, and employs a nice, traditional Algol-ish syntax. It works well with C code. It was designed by Apple around the time that Java was developed. Unfortunately, this was during Apple's stupid ages, so they didn't do anything with it.
Dylan is still actively developed on an open-source basis. Most recently, it is being ported to LLVM. It does not have the breadth of the.NET or Java libraries, but it has some handy ones, including a web server library. Why not use it?
I will tell you why not. It is not established. You say "we need," but there are plenty of good languages out there; they are just fringe languages. You will not get a good language to use unless it has a corporate sponsor. That means you will only get languages with an agenda behind them. Of course, you can go your own way. In a small company that is not answerable to clients, you can say "we'll use X for our development." If you are lucky, the company will grow powerful yet stick with that language, making it established.
I, for one, plan to use Dylan if I ever start my own little company.
Or maybe they are paid well enough that one hour of work is more than sufficient to support their lifestyle? There is no law that says you have to work eight hours per day.
The only people I know who can do this are independent consultants or contractors, where they set their own hours. You may not need an 8 hour per day job at market rate to support your lifestyle, but no one offers 2 hour per day jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
If we defeat religion, what will we believe in afterwards? Ourselves?
Sure, works for me. Though I am not sure we have to believe in anything at all.
Do you get off on being offensive, stupid or wrong? Since your post is all three, it's hard to tell.
Glass houses, man.
And if Common Lisp and Scheme are both too foreign, there's Dylan: best parts of all of them, more easily optimized and compilable, and syntax from the Algol/Pascal part of the world to boot.
Java in fact shares quite a few concepts with Ada. Packages, array validation, etc. Java has at least as good runtime checks as Ada. And there are Java static analysis tools.
Java shares a lot of concepts with everything. Or rather, Java is kinda like English: it waylays other languages in dark allies and rifles through their pockets for loose change.
But, look, runtime checks are easy. In fact, they are axiomatically complete: if you have a problem, but you can't see it at run-time, then you don't actually have a problem. Compile-time checks are what separates the men from the boys. Or, in the case of Ada, what separates the women from the little girlie princesses who like ponies. From what I've heard, the thoroughness of Ada's compile-time checking is unequalled. "If it compiles successfully, an Ada program is bug-free."
yeah, what he said... Now I wish I had cancer.
Well, tough luck, a high-school kid just cured it.
Back in my day, we had real diseases, germs that'd sink their teeth into ya and chow down! Walk into the wrong village and the next thing you know beak-faced enforcers were burning the town and you didn't leave 'til three-quarters of the village was dead and you had pox scars on your wing-wong and a pinky that dissolved away.
And we liked it that way! Because those scars showed you been there and done that, and God himself reached out his hand and saved your sorry ass. The survivors couldn't beat the chicks off with a stick! And with half the population dying from one damn thing or another, there was always a cheap farm job or an empty cottage to take her home to.
But nowadays, any snot-nosed punk with a gene sequencer and a little brother for a test subject can cure the Black Ebola Cancer Plague! You kids don't know how lucky you've got it. Asthma? Allergies?! Might as well have a splinter in your finger for all that diseases do these days!
Now get off my lawn!
Beer is already a mild toxin. We use these yeasts, bam!, kick it up a notch!
I read that as "the girl always gets mad," which I thought was hilarious.
Let's see what they look like after all the "John Galts" have their way with it for another decade.
Who is John Galt?
*ba-da-dum*
This is why the spending cuts must be made first.
Well, the automatic provisions in the debt reduction act made the spending cuts. So now that the cuts are assured, the Republicans will be willing to raise taxes to cover the rest, right? ...right?
Just go single-payer like we do in Europe, you'll spend a lot less and could cover everybody.
In the early days of Obama's health-care reform campaign, a lot of people favored this. Unfortunately, those people didn't have lobbyists. And insurance companies did.
In other words: The US should switch to Socialism, because I want other peoples money without having to work for it.
Oh, working for it! Like all the CEOs who suck at their job but still get their dream exit packages? Or the fund managers who throw darts at a board and get six-figure bonuses?
No. You can't use "hey, they earned their money" as an excuse. Successful small businessmen, ones who worked hard to get where they are, aren't even close to the pinnacle.
Personally, I believe the proposals the Dems have put forward are an absolute joke.
If you think the Dem proposals are a joke, the Rep ones must have you rolling on the ground, tears streaming.
Unlike you, who will probably die in the gutter asking someone for a dime bag of crack.
If he gets that dime bag and sells it for a quarter, why then he's got the makings of a self-made man and deserves his success!
Oh, wait, no, Republicans don't believe in the self-made man any more. Never mind.
I was not expecting the committee to do jack. I could see the writing on the wall and everyone else could, too. That was why I was so shocked when I heard those automatic cuts actually made it into the law.
I would have been shocked and pleased, except I figured that after the committee bombed, Congress would just amend the law to cancel out those automatic provisions.
But after Obama said that he'll veto any attempt by Congress to squirm out of this, now I'm all schadenfreudey. Those sons of bitches need to learn to take their lumps.
I agree with a lot of what you said. I have no information about some other stuff. But I take issue with the following:
It is called a fallback plan. His — and my — preference was for the public option, but that didn't fly. Would you rather he give up entirely if he could not get it perfect?
Remember, "the perfect is the enemy of the good."
That does not lessen the achievement. He gave the military time to finish their studies and get used to the idea, which is how he got them on board.
Look, there are wars, and there are authorizations to use force. In an actual war, an entire nation is facing off against another, and the President can dictate factory production and all sorts of stuff. He did not wage war in Libya, not a proper war.
But he did exceed his authority under the War Powers Act. Every president has considered that act to be unconstitutional, and Obama is no different. For some reason, the Supreme Court has stayed out of that debate.
But the truth is, Congress is fundamentally okay with his actions. If they weren't, they could have cut funding. They did not, ergo he had tacit, if not official, approval.
Congress's research bureau prepared a good paper on this whole subject: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf
We gave them a long time to get their shit together. We knew he was there, somewhere. At this point, it is safe to say that parts of the government of Pakistan are and have been abetting terrorists.
However, it is their right to do so. I do not think we are morally correct to act in another country without their say-so. If we could not get Pakistan's co-operation, we should have just sucked it up and officially shifted our stance towards Pakistan accordingly.
I don't think jerks deserve death.
But keep in mind, the only way a jerk would face death is if someone else hated what they did enough so that they would themselves risk death in challenging them to a duel. With that in mind, you can see how it wouldn't be the wholesale culling that fiction would lead you to believe.
This is why duels were mostly resolved with a settlement rather that going to trial, so to speak.
Still, it makes a person have second thoughts before taking some action that might push someone else over that edge.
Did you seriously just type that? Because the article was all about how if you do exactly that, you still end up with a bogus calibration, because there are any number of solutions that can accurately reproduce the past, and yet their futures all turn out differently.
RTFA, my man. RTFA.
Conjoined twins. In this case, you start out with two heads which then merge into a single body.
Can you have conjoined twins in an egg situation? Aren't each of the fertilized eggs isolated from each other by a membrane or incipient shell?
You said it.
Much like the failed economic measures of this year that were proposed by Obama but gutted by the Republicans. But of course they call that "Obama's failed policies," not "the Republicans' failed policies."
I've heard this schtick about "job creators" before, referring to the rich as people who "produce things and improve society" as you put it. It is bullshit.
Larry Ellison and Charles Koch are not out in their garages building things. They are not personally hiring 20,000 people. Corporations are doing these things. Corporations are the job creators and thing producers.
The rich are just people like any other. Except that they have more money, which they often invest into companies in order to sustain their personal fortune. But that makes them merely investors. Their ranks are easily replaceable by a middle class that can afford to do the same and whose smaller but far more numerous investments would make up for the few-but-large investments of the rich.
Investments help companies create jobs and produce goods, so long as those companies are sensibly run, but you do not have to be rich to invest. So there is no reason for the rich to get special income tax breaks. All this talk of "stimulating the economy" through high-bracket tax breaks is based on trickle-down economics. And trickle-down economics is a superstition which has proven to be bunk.
This may well be the only change we need. Without the corporations' lobbying arms, politicians will relearn how to be responsive to the will of the people in maybe two election cycles, and corporations will be brought to heel in another election cycle past that, if not sooner due to direct citizen lobbying.
Dylan is an example of a practical, approachable, well-designed, strongly typed language that compiles well and scales well. It took Lisp and Scheme concepts, added a few of its own, and employs a nice, traditional Algol-ish syntax. It works well with C code. It was designed by Apple around the time that Java was developed. Unfortunately, this was during Apple's stupid ages, so they didn't do anything with it.
Dylan is still actively developed on an open-source basis. Most recently, it is being ported to LLVM. It does not have the breadth of the .NET or Java libraries, but it has some handy ones, including a web server library. Why not use it?
I will tell you why not. It is not established. You say "we need," but there are plenty of good languages out there; they are just fringe languages. You will not get a good language to use unless it has a corporate sponsor. That means you will only get languages with an agenda behind them. Of course, you can go your own way. In a small company that is not answerable to clients, you can say "we'll use X for our development." If you are lucky, the company will grow powerful yet stick with that language, making it established.
I, for one, plan to use Dylan if I ever start my own little company.
How to do it right:
"Yo dawg, I herd you like SW:TOR, so I put a Tor in your TOR so you can talk about TOR while you tour TOR!"
(I should probably use more "u" and "ur", but...I can't. I just can't.)
The only people I know who can do this are independent consultants or contractors, where they set their own hours. You may not need an 8 hour per day job at market rate to support your lifestyle, but no one offers 2 hour per day jobs.