I don't think a very intelligent programmer shouldn't be asking questions around. I think it is quite the opposite: an intelligent programmer does not mean he has to be experienced in a specific language. An intelligent programmer should be able to pick-up any language because he has the intelligence to learn them very quickly. Which includes asking a lot of questions.
Perhaps instead of employing 500-600 hackers to deter a threat that they create
I guess you could say exactly the same thing about the US. Just replace 'employing 500-600 hackers' by 'spending a few hundred billions'.
So because.NET is stable (though I do not know what this means, I assume you mean the API), apps developped for it are stable
First, when I talk about.NET i'm talking about the framework (object librairies) + the CLR.
The only nonsense comes from the false implications you draw from my post. I didn't said that stable.NET implied stable applications. I did said though that if Microsoft applications written in C/C++ were rewritten in.NET, they would be more stable (assuming they use approx. the same code logic). Not messing with memory and pointers DO make your applications more stable (arguably at the expense of control and speed). Did not mention Java here.
Worse, you are being dishonest, if not a shill, for comparing it to Java.
Nobody did that. We compared JRE to.NET. How is that dishonest?
And no, Mono (which is cross platform) is far from being.NET.
And how is Mono far from being.NET? You might say that it's "not quite yet" because it's still under development, but Mono is a cross-platform implementation of.NET (framework + CLR). Someone prove me wrong.
A perceivable advantage of.NET over Java (apart from speed) is that not-onlt it's cross-platform, it's also cross-language. That is a huge advantage that large development projects may want to consider. (Team A works on core algorithms using Unmanaged C++, Team B works on boiler-plate classes using C#, Team C works on GUI using VB.NET, etc)
And I guess a competent Java developer will still be way faster in Java than in.NET, specially if he does not code in Windows environment (VStudio).
And your point is?
Have you ever tried.NET? This is not VB..NET is very stable, in fact if all Microsoft applications were written in.NET they would be a lot more stable and secure. I'm really starting to get pissed off about people who haven't even used.NET and talk crap about it.
Remove your tin foil hat and get the facts. I'm not pro-Microsoft, i'm happy not to use their products when I can. However,.NET is pretty rock-solid. I've used it for dozens of projects and I've had a better overall experience than Java (faster, more coherent, less bloat).
You feel good for choosing GWB as a president? Feeling good in what way? In the way that closing your eyes makes you feel better than looking at the cold, naked truth? In some ways, ignorances feels really good when you a look at the world now.
> Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.
What terrorists? The terrorists you sold weapons to before giving them ALL reasons to hate you? The terrorists whose anger was motivated by decades of humanless oil money-centric foreign policies? When you screw people so much that they have nothing more to lose, that's when they do things that may seem to lack any rational. Open your eyes.
> The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
Seriously, what is the source of all the conflicts in the Middle East? Isrealo-Palestinian conflict. Americans are sending billions of dollars per year so Isreal can buy weapons and such, and for no other reason than faith in the Bible. Here again, lack of rational. Plus, your attitude is what I hate the most in American people: you think you're going to show the "uncivilized" world how "freedom" works. So you bomb Afghanistan for no good reason than for setting up "democracy", then you place on top of the country a man who's been a former Unocal advisor. Great for defending american oil business. Bad for Afghan people. Democracy is good when it represents people, not the interests of the foreign nation that just bombed the people. And, I prefer not talking about Iraq, because you also invaded this country for NOTHING and brought nothing but death and cruelty.
>Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when
>they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).
As I am not American I can't really judge that one, however when a president says he's willing to amend to constitution to make gay marriages illegal, that sounds scary. Plus, looking at:
* the laws you recently passed (1984^d^d^d^d Patriot Act, anyone?) , the ways you act:
* with your own people (America is still part of a little group of barbarians countries that have death sentences)
* with other people (bombing foreign countries for no good reasons except than for Halliburton stock holders, Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib prison),
i just wonder that the President is doing with the constitution and human rights when he goes to toilet.
> I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.
Scary. If the rest of the world (except Russia) would have voted 80%+ for Kerry, then the rest of the world is wrong. Let me turn it the other way: what IF the American people is wrong this time? Countries who have stand-up against the USA where countries are friends (France, who helped you gain independance, Canada, Germany, etc). They did stand up for a good reason, not for anti-american bashing. The least you could do is at least consider them. If you don't use the world to judge your actions, why do you want to impose your judgments to the world (Iraq, you went against UN). That's the problem with America: total lack of respect for the world (whoever is not american). Like it or not, the actions you do have an impact on the world. And the world is not yours (that's what you think though).
Honestly, your counter-arguments makes me feel rather good about what I stand for. I had a few doubts before, but it seems likes GWB's fanboys really are largely full of dogmas and are faith-driven. At least on slashdot.
There are microwaves everywhere aldready. Consider AM/FM/HF radio, UHF/VHF signals, cordless phones (that operate at the same frequency that 802.11), wireless phones, satellite signals, WAN internet dishes, and all other equipments that emits such waves.
The fact is that's it's there aldready and the debate about whether they may be harmful should have happenned long ago. A few extra mW of 802.11 added to aldready crowded air waves won't change much, CMIAMW.
Yeah you're right for this summer blackout: Hydro-Quebec has a firewall-like system that detected the power loss and blocked the chain reaction. I believe only Quebec and California have these kinds of systems.
Hydro-Quebec has a world-famous expertise in long-run power transmission lines because Quebec gets his power from hydroelectricity and the dams are really, really far from the big cities (The Baie James dam is 1000km from Montreal)
So, if some power company has to offer internet access, is has to be them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think a very intelligent programmer shouldn't be asking questions around. I think it is quite the opposite: an intelligent programmer does not mean he has to be experienced in a specific language. An intelligent programmer should be able to pick-up any language because he has the intelligence to learn them very quickly. Which includes asking a lot of questions.
Perhaps instead of employing 500-600 hackers to deter a threat that they create I guess you could say exactly the same thing about the US. Just replace 'employing 500-600 hackers' by 'spending a few hundred billions'.
So because .NET is stable (though I do not know what this means, I assume you mean the API), apps developped for it are stable
.NET i'm talking about the framework (object librairies) + the CLR.
.NET implied stable applications. I did said though that if Microsoft applications written in C/C++ were rewritten in .NET, they would be more stable (assuming they use approx. the same code logic). Not messing with memory and pointers DO make your applications more stable (arguably at the expense of control and speed). Did not mention Java here.
.NET. How is that dishonest?
.NET. .NET? You might say that it's "not quite yet" because it's still under development, but Mono is a cross-platform implementation of .NET (framework + CLR). Someone prove me wrong.
.NET over Java (apart from speed) is that not-onlt it's cross-platform, it's also cross-language. That is a huge advantage that large development projects may want to consider. (Team A works on core algorithms using Unmanaged C++, Team B works on boiler-plate classes using C#, Team C works on GUI using VB.NET, etc)
.NET, specially if he does not code in Windows environment (VStudio).
First, when I talk about
The only nonsense comes from the false implications you draw from my post. I didn't said that stable
Worse, you are being dishonest, if not a shill, for comparing it to Java. Nobody did that. We compared JRE to
And no, Mono (which is cross platform) is far from being
And how is Mono far from being
A perceivable advantage of
And I guess a competent Java developer will still be way faster in Java than in
And your point is?
Ignorance must not be modded as interesting.
.NET? This is not VB. .NET is very stable, in fact if all Microsoft applications were written in .NET they would be a lot more stable and secure. I'm really starting to get pissed off about people who haven't even used .NET and talk crap about it.
.NET is pretty rock-solid. I've used it for dozens of projects and I've had a better overall experience than Java (faster, more coherent, less bloat).
Have you ever tried
Remove your tin foil hat and get the facts. I'm not pro-Microsoft, i'm happy not to use their products when I can. However,
Please give some examples to support your claims.
You feel good for choosing GWB as a president? Feeling good in what way? In the way that closing your eyes makes you feel better than looking at the cold, naked truth? In some ways, ignorances feels really good when you a look at the world now.
> Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.
What terrorists? The terrorists you sold weapons to before giving them ALL reasons to hate you? The terrorists whose anger was motivated by decades of humanless oil money-centric foreign policies? When you screw people so much that they have nothing more to lose, that's when they do things that may seem to lack any rational. Open your eyes.
> The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
Seriously, what is the source of all the conflicts in the Middle East? Isrealo-Palestinian conflict. Americans are sending billions of dollars per year so Isreal can buy weapons and such, and for no other reason than faith in the Bible. Here again, lack of rational. Plus, your attitude is what I hate the most in American people: you think you're going to show the "uncivilized" world how "freedom" works. So you bomb Afghanistan for no good reason than for setting up "democracy", then you place on top of the country a man who's been a former Unocal advisor. Great for defending american oil business. Bad for Afghan people. Democracy is good when it represents people, not the interests of the foreign nation that just bombed the people. And, I prefer not talking about Iraq, because you also invaded this country for NOTHING and brought nothing but death and cruelty.
>Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when
>they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).
As I am not American I can't really judge that one, however when a president says he's willing to amend to constitution to make gay marriages illegal, that sounds scary. Plus, looking at:
* the laws you recently passed (1984^d^d^d^d Patriot Act, anyone?) , the ways you act:
* with your own people (America is still part of a little group of barbarians countries that have death sentences)
* with other people (bombing foreign countries for no good reasons except than for Halliburton stock holders, Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib prison),
i just wonder that the President is doing with the constitution and human rights when he goes to toilet.
> I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.
Scary. If the rest of the world (except Russia) would have voted 80%+ for Kerry, then the rest of the world is wrong. Let me turn it the other way: what IF the American people is wrong this time? Countries who have stand-up against the USA where countries are friends (France, who helped you gain independance, Canada, Germany, etc). They did stand up for a good reason, not for anti-american bashing. The least you could do is at least consider them. If you don't use the world to judge your actions, why do you want to impose your judgments to the world (Iraq, you went against UN). That's the problem with America: total lack of respect for the world (whoever is not american). Like it or not, the actions you do have an impact on the world. And the world is not yours (that's what you think though).
Honestly, your counter-arguments makes me feel rather good about what I stand for. I had a few doubts before, but it seems likes GWB's fanboys really are largely full of dogmas and are faith-driven. At least on slashdot.
In case you ever leave America one day, you'll notice that almost all countries in the world except USA use the metric system
There are microwaves everywhere aldready. Consider AM/FM/HF radio, UHF/VHF signals, cordless phones (that operate at the same frequency that 802.11), wireless phones, satellite signals, WAN internet dishes, and all other equipments that emits such waves. The fact is that's it's there aldready and the debate about whether they may be harmful should have happenned long ago. A few extra mW of 802.11 added to aldready crowded air waves won't change much, CMIAMW.
DON'T post a link to a gigapixel pic
Yeah you're right for this summer blackout: Hydro-Quebec has a firewall-like system that detected the power loss and blocked the chain reaction. I believe only Quebec and California have these kinds of systems. Hydro-Quebec has a world-famous expertise in long-run power transmission lines because Quebec gets his power from hydroelectricity and the dams are really, really far from the big cities (The Baie James dam is 1000km from Montreal) So, if some power company has to offer internet access, is has to be them.