Well I'm certainly not going to argue with that. When I started C, there was a hell of a lot of faffing with bits of syntax that clearly weren't designed with beginners in mind. Simple stuff like printing and gettin user input took an inordinately long time to pick up.
Not exactly -- you can acknowledge that an activity is risky, but you cannot sign away the right to sue for injury or death due to negligence or malpractice. If the other party doesn't take reasonable steps to keep you safe, there's still a case to answer for. The legal argument would be that the whole endeavour was negligent, as the risks are too high.
Exactly. And we wouldn't know about the beneficial properties of snake oil today, if it wasn't for the hard work of the not-scamming-at-all pioneers of the miracle cure.
Yes, the Republicans hate you Ferengi. Not surprising after the way you scammed them on the hanging chads for the sake of a couple of bars of gold-pressed latinum.
I think the opposite. It's the absolute certainty of death that makes the mission unsponsorable. No matter what happens in the meantime, having your name attached to four funerals is never good for the brand. Hell, even Mars the chocolate people will have to give serious consideration to a change of name to avoid brand taint....
Well, it's a red planet, so the most obvious sponsor is Coke. Maybe if they peg out enough white sheets, they'll make a billboard that can be seen in powerful astronomers' telescopes. Future horoscope makers will be able to tell if things are bad or not by seeing if the interplay of light and shadows on the planet's surface highlights the letters OK or not.
Oblique calcium reference for anyone familiar with anatomy and physiology.
The problem, I suppose, was the headline, not the article. If there is no bone left to regrow from (bones are incredibly good at healing themselves, unlike many other parts of the body), you can be damn sure there won't be any soft-tissue worth talking about either, so there's no need for "a bone". Replacing joints, which is what the article seems to be pointing more towards, is a different matter entirely.
Yeah, because the oil barons and bankers are the nicest, most generous people on Earth, right? The truth is, we have a whole f*ckton of resources on this planet, and some people squander inordinate amounts of it as ivory ego-massagers. Interstellar mining company managers will be rolling in positronic quadra-platinum while their underlings will be suffering radiation burns because of undermaintained shielding on transports..
Are you judging her based on her appearance? That's superficial and sexist. It's the nails-on-a-blackboard voice that gets me, and irritating voices get worse as you drink more...
The fact that so much technology has been pursued or invented based on stuff seen in Star Trek means that it's the most SciFi of any other show. I'll give you a hint: Babylon 5 didn't inspire the creation of the space shuttle, cell phones, PDAs, tablet computers, voice recognition, computer language translators, etc., Star Trek did.
And Star Trek did? [Citation needed]. Noam Chomsky was building generative grammars in 1957 to try to solve the language translation problem, which time machine did he use to watch Star Trek? Walkie-talkies were in use during WWII, and communicators were just miniature walkie-talkies (notice how onboard the original Enterprise, they still used wall-units to communicate). In fact, while the premise of the original series was summarised as "Wagon Train in space", it was really "Wagon Train on a battleship in space". Star Trek was good entertainment in its day, but don't try to claim it's any kind of holy scripture for modern civilisation....
The problem with that reductionist "do nothing until they can read and write" is that it renders school deathly dull. A diverse, stimulating curriculum helps intellectual development in all ways, and this leads to better literacy. There are problems with literacy, yes, and we must act on that, but that doesn't mean keeping other things off the curriculum. Hell, computer use practices literacy as well, as you're forced into dealing with letter-meaning correspondences incidentally.
Why is it people think programming computers is so fucking important? It's just another skill/vocation.
Millions of man-hours are wasted every year by people doing manually what could and should be automated. Many ad hoc tasks come up that can't be anticipated, and you won't get far asked your manager to approve a PO for a programmer for a half-day to write a batch script that filters your data for you, at least not quick enough to get the job done in time. So instead you spend a week moving the mouse, and clicking, and moving the mouse, and typing, and clicking... ad nauseum.
Remember, there was a time when even "computer operator" was a specialist job title, but we're all computer operators now. And typing was once a specialist skill whereas everybody does it now (although a surprising number of people are still very bad at it.)
Code is essentially just instructions and logic. Every application will be based on this, in one way or another. Other techniques are just other languages represented in different ways.
I think what TFA is putting forward is the idea that most apps don't actually need to apply any logic, and it's just a matter of pumping data from one component to another, so that each does its own job.
It's a pretty shortsighted view (IMHO), because such apps would be pretty trivial, and not much more useful than a radical new skin for WinAmp.
Any app with any value is going to need a little bit of "glue logic" to allow it to do something that is specific to the task at hand, and therefore genuinely useful to the user.
Glue logic will always be "coding", so perhaps what he really should be advocating is a new programming paradigm -- "glue languages" that are purposefully weak to the point that you could not code a complete program in them from the ground up. After all, if you're not writing A) operating systems, B) drivers, C) compilers or D) embedded systems, you will probably never build a system of any real complexity without extensive use of library functions. But to be completely honest, I'm struggling to think of anything in feature-complete languages that wouldn't be needed in such a language anyway.
Everyone is at risk of sudden death, an unexpected fit or whatever. Some people are slightly more prone to it than others, some are extremely prone. Where do we draw the line?
Slashdot Mirror
foreign military bodies would have to agree to a set of "proper use" rules in order for the U.S. to go ahead with the sale
Those rules are as follows:
That is all.
What's that got to do with anything?
Well I'm certainly not going to argue with that. When I started C, there was a hell of a lot of faffing with bits of syntax that clearly weren't designed with beginners in mind. Simple stuff like printing and gettin user input took an inordinately long time to pick up.
Not exactly -- you can acknowledge that an activity is risky, but you cannot sign away the right to sue for injury or death due to negligence or malpractice. If the other party doesn't take reasonable steps to keep you safe, there's still a case to answer for. The legal argument would be that the whole endeavour was negligent, as the risks are too high.
Exactly. And we wouldn't know about the beneficial properties of snake oil today, if it wasn't for the hard work of the not-scamming-at-all pioneers of the miracle cure.
Yes, the Republicans hate you Ferengi. Not surprising after the way you scammed them on the hanging chads for the sake of a couple of bars of gold-pressed latinum.
I think the opposite. It's the absolute certainty of death that makes the mission unsponsorable. No matter what happens in the meantime, having your name attached to four funerals is never good for the brand. Hell, even Mars the chocolate people will have to give serious consideration to a change of name to avoid brand taint....
Well, it's a red planet, so the most obvious sponsor is Coke. Maybe if they peg out enough white sheets, they'll make a billboard that can be seen in powerful astronomers' telescopes. Future horoscope makers will be able to tell if things are bad or not by seeing if the interplay of light and shadows on the planet's surface highlights the letters OK or not.
The extra radiation should warm you up quiet nicely -- quit your moaning!
Oblique calcium reference for anyone familiar with anatomy and physiology.
The problem, I suppose, was the headline, not the article. If there is no bone left to regrow from (bones are incredibly good at healing themselves, unlike many other parts of the body), you can be damn sure there won't be any soft-tissue worth talking about either, so there's no need for "a bone". Replacing joints, which is what the article seems to be pointing more towards, is a different matter entirely.
And thus WWIII was lost due to a Hewlett Packard printer cartridge that reported itself empty when it was still half full....
What makes it retarded as opposed to an interesting direction given the present and improving ability to print replacement body parts?
The fact that a bone is a living organ, not a lump of cheese.
I expect nothing of substance when I see "3D printing". You should adjust your expectations likewise.
When I see 3D printing, I expect plenty of substance, just sadly in a globby mess splodged over the printer bed...
Or be faithful to the technology of the time and put the camera on a dolly. Even just glue three casters onto a cheap tripod....
I thought Heinlein is pretty compatible with the modern US view of the world.
But at least they wouldn't have so much lens flare.
Yeah, because the oil barons and bankers are the nicest, most generous people on Earth, right? The truth is, we have a whole f*ckton of resources on this planet, and some people squander inordinate amounts of it as ivory ego-massagers. Interstellar mining company managers will be rolling in positronic quadra-platinum while their underlings will be suffering radiation burns because of undermaintained shielding on transports..
Overplayed ham-acting; cheapy, crappy outfits, "lo-fi" locations and decorations... wait, am I talking about hipsters or STTOS...?
Are you judging her based on her appearance? That's superficial and sexist. It's the nails-on-a-blackboard voice that gets me, and irritating voices get worse as you drink more...
Old movies are simplistic crap with shit stories and shit acting.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose...
The fact that so much technology has been pursued or invented based on stuff seen in Star Trek means that it's the most SciFi of any other show. I'll give you a hint: Babylon 5 didn't inspire the creation of the space shuttle, cell phones, PDAs, tablet computers, voice recognition, computer language translators, etc., Star Trek did.
And Star Trek did? [Citation needed]. Noam Chomsky was building generative grammars in 1957 to try to solve the language translation problem, which time machine did he use to watch Star Trek? Walkie-talkies were in use during WWII, and communicators were just miniature walkie-talkies (notice how onboard the original Enterprise, they still used wall-units to communicate). In fact, while the premise of the original series was summarised as "Wagon Train in space", it was really "Wagon Train on a battleship in space". Star Trek was good entertainment in its day, but don't try to claim it's any kind of holy scripture for modern civilisation....
The problem with that reductionist "do nothing until they can read and write" is that it renders school deathly dull. A diverse, stimulating curriculum helps intellectual development in all ways, and this leads to better literacy. There are problems with literacy, yes, and we must act on that, but that doesn't mean keeping other things off the curriculum. Hell, computer use practices literacy as well, as you're forced into dealing with letter-meaning correspondences incidentally.
Why is it people think programming computers is so fucking important? It's just another skill/vocation.
Millions of man-hours are wasted every year by people doing manually what could and should be automated. Many ad hoc tasks come up that can't be anticipated, and you won't get far asked your manager to approve a PO for a programmer for a half-day to write a batch script that filters your data for you, at least not quick enough to get the job done in time. So instead you spend a week moving the mouse, and clicking, and moving the mouse, and typing, and clicking... ad nauseum.
Remember, there was a time when even "computer operator" was a specialist job title, but we're all computer operators now. And typing was once a specialist skill whereas everybody does it now (although a surprising number of people are still very bad at it.)
Code is essentially just instructions and logic. Every application will be based on this, in one way or another. Other techniques are just other languages represented in different ways.
I think what TFA is putting forward is the idea that most apps don't actually need to apply any logic, and it's just a matter of pumping data from one component to another, so that each does its own job.
It's a pretty shortsighted view (IMHO), because such apps would be pretty trivial, and not much more useful than a radical new skin for WinAmp.
Any app with any value is going to need a little bit of "glue logic" to allow it to do something that is specific to the task at hand, and therefore genuinely useful to the user.
Glue logic will always be "coding", so perhaps what he really should be advocating is a new programming paradigm -- "glue languages" that are purposefully weak to the point that you could not code a complete program in them from the ground up. After all, if you're not writing A) operating systems, B) drivers, C) compilers or D) embedded systems, you will probably never build a system of any real complexity without extensive use of library functions. But to be completely honest, I'm struggling to think of anything in feature-complete languages that wouldn't be needed in such a language anyway.
Everyone is at risk of sudden death, an unexpected fit or whatever. Some people are slightly more prone to it than others, some are extremely prone. Where do we draw the line?