What does any of that have to do with running different versions of Windows?
I don't need to bundle it, Microsoft's updater includes the.NET framework as a recommended update that most people go ahead and put on their computer because they're not a total idiot. I don't need to have runtimes on every platform, because Windows is my platform of choice. I don't need someone to buy a new computer, because if they're encountering my.NET code they're usually on Windows. And I don't care about your platform choice, because I made mine when I chose.NET.
Not to say Mono is nothing, of course, but I would bet it wasn't a core part of the ecosystem being referenced. There is more than enough.NET software in the original environment to keep anyone happy.
The article writer frets that there's an "undertow" to return to C++ and COM (I'd love to know where that undertow resides, because it ain't on these shores, let me tell you), but his original article was about how Microsoft is abandoning.NET for Javascript and HTML5. It's as if there is no possibility that these four could coexist and even *gasp* compliment one another. One begins to wonder what you whippersnappers are smoking.
You're going to have to go over that one in more detail, Sparky. I can share my 500,000 LOC document control system between users with Windows XP 32 and 64 bit and Windows 7 32 and 64 bit. There's no reason not to expect Vista would work as well, although there's also no real reason to try.
You forget those who moved to rural places to conduct activities that more or less require the internet. You know. Raising a militia. Burying bodies. Honest, clean living folks.
He was an asshole of epic (not to mention criminal) proportions and his choice of tools ironically fits the punishment. I'm not sure I'd expect the judgement to stand up on appeal, but all the same it seems to fit his crimes. But nothing given indicates that he is a pedophile. That's the point I was responding to. I grew up in a small town, and we could count on our neighbours to be affectionate and careful around us, and while not everyone behaves that way in larger centres I'm not sure it's healthy to automatically assign pedophile status to anyone who does.
Four year old. A four year old boy wandered into his yard and he carried the boy home and gave him a kiss. It may not be your particular comfort zone, but it's pretty fucking far from what we normally term pedophilia.
Layered classification nets have always struck me as the right approach, particularly as we learn more about how human senses work - it seems like a lot of our "thinking" is done much closer to our sense organce than we might have once imagined. Interesting that the less "organic" type, decision trees, were used rather than neural nets. One wonders if maybe it was more a matter of ease of phrasing/training/debugging than of classification itself that decided which type to use.
What if it's a straight loss? What if the net change is a downward one? That is, after all, the basic equation...Guy A being paid a salary of X loses job to Girl B paid a salary of (Small Fraction) * X. The net benefit goes to the corporation and thence to shareholders. The possibility is that each of those shares is then wasted on truly trivial things rather than on the net societal goods (home, family) that Guy A would have spent that money on. There is the possibility it will go the other way, but it pays to keep both scenarios in mind, because a net benefit to everyone is not a guaranteed outcome.
The last two hundred years of economic growth worldwide proves it's not a zero sum game. To argue otherwise is nonsense. The pot can grow even as percent shares shrink; we've seen it happen and there's no reason to believe that we've reached anything close to the limits of growth; indeed, the amount of untapped potential worldwide combined with the economic growth in some of the biggest, least-utilized labour forces in the world would indicate that we are on the cusp of a revolution in human productivity.
Just to put in a bit of devil's advocate, there is the question of whether maintaining high levels of wealth in leading economies will eventually benefit all societies. It is possible that if in the process of "flattening" the world's economy that the leading economies fall too far then the eventual flattened world economy will be the worse for it. It could be the case that while it is relatively easy to move a few points one way or another in a national economy when there are significant differences in economic strength worldwide, moving the entire economy upwards is next to impossible.
Also, why are publishers still getting most of the money for ebook sales? There's nothing to publish. You still need an editor and a marketer, but there's no text to lay out, no pages to print, no bindings to make, and no boxes of books to distribute[...]But with the Internet, ebooks, and electronic publishing, you could do it all yourself if you wanted.
You always could do all of that by yourself. And you'd then be a publisher and not a writer. Guess what most writers like to do? It ain't the things publishers do.
Also, you're wrong. Every electronic reader has a different set of widgets and funky behaviours when it comes to ebooks. Making sure that your text looks good in all of the good ones is a huge job, so there's layout back into the equation. Still got to worry about getting a number for the book. Still got to worry about getting the book uploaded and tagged in all of the major book markets (marketers don't do that, in case you're wondering). Still got to worry about getting your take on a regular basis and still got to ensure that the distributor - who now acts a little more like a publisher - isn't fudging the numbers. All of that stuff has to be taken care of by someone, and most writers can pump out words at a much better profit margin than they can deal with all that other shit. Read a few professional writers' blogs about the whole Macmillan/Amazon fight a while back to get a clearer picture of why publishers still have LOTS of work in the age of the electronic edition.
Nobody's ever shown you a mobius strip? One of the effects of those extra dimensions in some theories of space-time is to allow convolutions in extra dimensions which lead to physical effects which are higher-order analogs of that strip.
Not true. Many physicists use Universe to refer to an infinite domain. That domain may be identical to what other physicists call the multiverse or brane-space, or M-space, or whatever other fun term they like, but there are plenty of scientists who speak of an infinite universe and don't differentiate between theories of what that universe might contain.
Who said anything about Dr Who? But, hell, I'll bite: Dr Who is not for all intents and purposes a crime procedural, it is a fantastical adventure story. You can see how the difference in using magic in one versus the other might be more jarring, I hope. Same reason X-Files was better: They were far more immersed in the weirdness and far less of a gimmick-per-episode bullshitfest.
If you don't like my opinion, STFU, you don't have to read it - see how that works both ways? Yeah. The fact that your brain came with an off switch doesn't make it mandatory for anyone else to suffer in silence.
One wonders if the guy knows something about the trends in that one data set that make him confident enough to make this wager. It'd be much more interesting to see him suggest a statistical analysis of multiple lines of evidence, the way the real scientists (and, to their credit, the reputable skeptics) have been doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt you've reviewed the system in detail and have any fucking idea what you're talking about, which is why it worries me so much.
Yeah, I wipe my tears away with my super absorbent paycheque.
What are you writing on the server side that's running native JavaScript, pray tell?
What does any of that have to do with running different versions of Windows? I don't need to bundle it, Microsoft's updater includes the .NET framework as a recommended update that most people go ahead and put on their computer because they're not a total idiot. I don't need to have runtimes on every platform, because Windows is my platform of choice. I don't need someone to buy a new computer, because if they're encountering my .NET code they're usually on Windows. And I don't care about your platform choice, because I made mine when I chose .NET.
Not to say Mono is nothing, of course, but I would bet it wasn't a core part of the ecosystem being referenced. There is more than enough .NET software in the original environment to keep anyone happy.
The article writer frets that there's an "undertow" to return to C++ and COM (I'd love to know where that undertow resides, because it ain't on these shores, let me tell you), but his original article was about how Microsoft is abandoning .NET for Javascript and HTML5. It's as if there is no possibility that these four could coexist and even *gasp* compliment one another. One begins to wonder what you whippersnappers are smoking.
You're going to have to go over that one in more detail, Sparky. I can share my 500,000 LOC document control system between users with Windows XP 32 and 64 bit and Windows 7 32 and 64 bit. There's no reason not to expect Vista would work as well, although there's also no real reason to try.
Not to mention in Canada the library is so limited you can watch all the good content in a couple of months and then discontinue your subscription.
You forget those who moved to rural places to conduct activities that more or less require the internet. You know. Raising a militia. Burying bodies. Honest, clean living folks.
He was an asshole of epic (not to mention criminal) proportions and his choice of tools ironically fits the punishment. I'm not sure I'd expect the judgement to stand up on appeal, but all the same it seems to fit his crimes. But nothing given indicates that he is a pedophile. That's the point I was responding to. I grew up in a small town, and we could count on our neighbours to be affectionate and careful around us, and while not everyone behaves that way in larger centres I'm not sure it's healthy to automatically assign pedophile status to anyone who does.
Congratulations, by way of that rant you just BECAME the creepy neighbour. Holy fuck, psychos abound today.
Four year old. A four year old boy wandered into his yard and he carried the boy home and gave him a kiss. It may not be your particular comfort zone, but it's pretty fucking far from what we normally term pedophilia.
The dude kissed a little boy who wandered over to his house while he was bringing said little boy home. Murder is not the appropriate response.
Speak for yourself!
Layered classification nets have always struck me as the right approach, particularly as we learn more about how human senses work - it seems like a lot of our "thinking" is done much closer to our sense organce than we might have once imagined. Interesting that the less "organic" type, decision trees, were used rather than neural nets. One wonders if maybe it was more a matter of ease of phrasing/training/debugging than of classification itself that decided which type to use.
I'll give you a radical change, but your assumptions about material science are very suspect indeed.
What if it's a straight loss? What if the net change is a downward one? That is, after all, the basic equation...Guy A being paid a salary of X loses job to Girl B paid a salary of (Small Fraction) * X. The net benefit goes to the corporation and thence to shareholders. The possibility is that each of those shares is then wasted on truly trivial things rather than on the net societal goods (home, family) that Guy A would have spent that money on. There is the possibility it will go the other way, but it pays to keep both scenarios in mind, because a net benefit to everyone is not a guaranteed outcome.
The last two hundred years of economic growth worldwide proves it's not a zero sum game. To argue otherwise is nonsense. The pot can grow even as percent shares shrink; we've seen it happen and there's no reason to believe that we've reached anything close to the limits of growth; indeed, the amount of untapped potential worldwide combined with the economic growth in some of the biggest, least-utilized labour forces in the world would indicate that we are on the cusp of a revolution in human productivity.
Just to put in a bit of devil's advocate, there is the question of whether maintaining high levels of wealth in leading economies will eventually benefit all societies. It is possible that if in the process of "flattening" the world's economy that the leading economies fall too far then the eventual flattened world economy will be the worse for it. It could be the case that while it is relatively easy to move a few points one way or another in a national economy when there are significant differences in economic strength worldwide, moving the entire economy upwards is next to impossible.
Also, why are publishers still getting most of the money for ebook sales? There's nothing to publish. You still need an editor and a marketer, but there's no text to lay out, no pages to print, no bindings to make, and no boxes of books to distribute[...]But with the Internet, ebooks, and electronic publishing, you could do it all yourself if you wanted.
You always could do all of that by yourself. And you'd then be a publisher and not a writer. Guess what most writers like to do? It ain't the things publishers do.
Also, you're wrong. Every electronic reader has a different set of widgets and funky behaviours when it comes to ebooks. Making sure that your text looks good in all of the good ones is a huge job, so there's layout back into the equation. Still got to worry about getting a number for the book. Still got to worry about getting the book uploaded and tagged in all of the major book markets (marketers don't do that, in case you're wondering). Still got to worry about getting your take on a regular basis and still got to ensure that the distributor - who now acts a little more like a publisher - isn't fudging the numbers. All of that stuff has to be taken care of by someone, and most writers can pump out words at a much better profit margin than they can deal with all that other shit. Read a few professional writers' blogs about the whole Macmillan/Amazon fight a while back to get a clearer picture of why publishers still have LOTS of work in the age of the electronic edition.
Nobody's ever shown you a mobius strip? One of the effects of those extra dimensions in some theories of space-time is to allow convolutions in extra dimensions which lead to physical effects which are higher-order analogs of that strip.
Not true. Many physicists use Universe to refer to an infinite domain. That domain may be identical to what other physicists call the multiverse or brane-space, or M-space, or whatever other fun term they like, but there are plenty of scientists who speak of an infinite universe and don't differentiate between theories of what that universe might contain.
Who said anything about Dr Who? But, hell, I'll bite: Dr Who is not for all intents and purposes a crime procedural, it is a fantastical adventure story. You can see how the difference in using magic in one versus the other might be more jarring, I hope. Same reason X-Files was better: They were far more immersed in the weirdness and far less of a gimmick-per-episode bullshitfest.
If you don't like my opinion, STFU, you don't have to read it - see how that works both ways? Yeah. The fact that your brain came with an off switch doesn't make it mandatory for anyone else to suffer in silence.
Fringe isn't science based. Fringe is pseudoscientific bullshit based, with a light sprinkling of scientific words to try to fool...someone.
One wonders if the guy knows something about the trends in that one data set that make him confident enough to make this wager. It'd be much more interesting to see him suggest a statistical analysis of multiple lines of evidence, the way the real scientists (and, to their credit, the reputable skeptics) have been doing it.