Huh? why would it? Those newbies don't know C, does it mean that not knowing C makes it easier to learn Python?
No, Python is simply EXTREMELY easy to learn, with the right tutor.
As much as Americanization is a form of native-american-murder.
Zionism is a solution to a serious problem of a prosecuted people around the world.
The site is bringing one subjective side of the news, presenting that one side is doing illegitmate things. If you look at the other side, you see its MUCH MUCH worse.
Re:Just what Perl needs - more syntax
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 2
I use 's' instead of $_
For weaker similar code (that doesn't actually test for the character types being letters only, and does not convert age to integer).
firstname, lastname, age = s.split(' ')
For a real equivalent:
firstname, lastname, age = re.match(r"([A-Za-z]+) ([A-Za-z]+) (\d+)").groups()
And if you wish, add:
age = int(age) afterwards.
If you ask me, it beats the Perl code, because re.match... is probably more readable, and the lack of syntax noise ($'s) helps too.
I'd love a Regular expression class suite, replacing the annoying unreadable regexp syntax, and that's possible in Python, and would make this look like:
firstname, lastname, age = (re.Word() + re.Word() + re.Number()).match(s)
Certainly more readable, and you can easily extend the regexp classes to include your own specific behaviours.
Re:A rich vocabulary and sophisticated syntax is g
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A rich vocabulary increases compactness. A richer syntax increases compactness.
While Perl offers a rich vocabulary, how is its syntax any richer, than a language that would allow representing anything Perl does, but forcing some specific readable representation?
Example: Is a language supporting: if a b;
and if b a; as two ways of saying the SAME thing, is it any richer than a language that supports if a b; alone?
The so-called richness of Perl syntax is merely duplicated syntax, increasing parsers' complexity (including the human parser), and do not compact the code.
In fact, the much stricter Python language can usually represent Perl code with fewer characters/lines, and still remain a lot more readable, etc.
This is because Python has a very rich, yet small syntax (probably richer than Perl's, as shown by the fact its more compact, usually), and a very rich vocabulary (libraries/modules/etc).
Re:perl motto summararizes its fatal weakness
on
Perl6 for Mortals
·
· Score: 2
There's hardly any Perl code readable without commentary.
There's hardly any Python code unreadable without commentary.
Python code can usually be shorter than any Perl equivalent.
If you investigate the consequences of these sentences, you can produce the facts:
Perl is inefficient at representing code as a language (Getting the thing done)
Perl is ineffective at having working code convey the code's concepts to the next human reader (Getting the thing across to the next programmer)
This makes Python more efficient for thedevelopment process, and more effective for maintainability.
The fact Python is more easily learnt by newbies, and has strong typing and other more powerful semantics, is an added bonus.
That's kind of ridiculous. Not long after I learned Perl I got interested in learning Python. I guess in a way I expected that I'd pick it up quickly and it would be banging out code in a day or two. This wasn't the case. I gave up on it (at least for the time being) because I didn't want to spend the time to learn it.
That's extremely weird, as Python can be picked up in about 2 hours, by complete programming newbies, who know no language (unless you consider Visual Basic a language).
I found the Python tutorial to be quite awful at teaching Python, and maybe, when I have some time on my hands, I'll write a better one.
In any case, knowing quite a bit about Perl, and quite a lot about Python, its learning experience, and how it compares to other languages, I must recommend Python and recommend against any important usage of Perl.
Sure, if you somehow find it easy to use (all people I know, and myself can't even imagine how this is possible), use it for some simple text parsing scripts. But if you want anything you want to ever read again, use Python.
$ and _ are not merely syntax, they define weak semantics.
What about polymorphism? Building the type into every usage of an object is a polymorphism killer, disallowing OO-style. Thus Perl, with its TIMTOUWTDI motto, still cannot really use true OO style.
Besides, its basically agreed upon, that Hungarian notation is evil and unreadable (NounThe AdjectiveHungarian NounSentence NounExample), which is exactly what $ and _ are.
Two counter examples:
- Python's syntax is very small and elegant, and almost never gets in the way.
- LISP has virtually 0 syntax, and there's really almost nothing to learn in that aspect.
As for 'nothing can touch Perl', I've yet to see a single Perl script that is not better done with Python.
I totally agree with your criticism.
However, I've tried the *sh languages, and I have to recommend Python. Its not like Perl.
Its very very elegant, and I can almost guarantee you, that you will love it, at least if you try to be openminded about syntatic indentation, which is something everyone grows to love over time:)
All Perl (<= 5) scripts I've seen, *including* ones for text processing, and heavy regular expression usage, were smaller to MUCH smaller as Python scripts, which were a lot more elegant and easily readable. Is there a reason to use Perl (6), other than Turing completeness that I find in Turing machines as well, over Python?
The Turing-Compeleteness argument is a very silly irrelevant one. FUD, so-to-speak.
Turing-completeness has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, of creating a language serving ease of development, eliminating error-proneness to shorten the development cycle, etc.
Almost all languages out there are Turing complete. The most obvious example is a Turing Machine.
To say "Perl5 didn't give us anything that Turing Machines didn't" is basically saying Perl's features do not exceed a Turing Machine's in terms of getting things done.
Actually, the US itself also drops food in Afghinstan.
As for hitting the same target by accident, I wouldn't judge it as 'bastard stupidity' before studying the facts.
For example, how often do Taliban forces travel around it, how difficult is it to have near-100% hit rate on quickly moving targets?
If you study the facts, you can get to the conclusion, that either the US bombs red-cross institutions, which serves none of its interests, or that it has a non-100% hit rate, meaning that inevitably the wrong targets will be hit, and inevitably, over time, the same wrong target will be hit twice.
Its simple statistics.
That's the most illegitmate way I can think of to attack AMERICA. Who is America? The government? The people?
Who are they attacking? Is there any actual connection between the attacked ones and the ones you claim are doing injustice?
Because of the way the world works, it is impossible to target the US with a military attack. So the terrorists used the American system to hurt itself (Large airliners)
Not that it is legitimate, but it is far more legitimate, they can attack the US army, and declare war. There is nothing preventing this, except the knowledge that attacking defenseless civilians is safer.
This meant civilians being killed, the same as the American campaign is.... ie: One red cross building has been hit twice already!!
It didn't just mean civilians are going to get killed, the whole purpose IS to kill civilians. Whereas with American stirkes, civilian casualities are an unwanted side-effect.
You seem to be ignoring the same idea of the targeting/goals of the sides. The American strike's goal of harming HARMFUL, EVIL people. And the terrorists' goal of harming innocent people. This is the first thing to review when determining how legitimate some operation is.
Not those people. USA! Hard to understand? How many millions have died by USA's hand these last decades? Can anyone even count? Time to realise that you've been very lucky the people of the world have been som patioen up until now.
Whether or not the USA is doing legitimate or illegitimate things is out of the scope of this discussion. The discussion is about what to do to terrorists. You want to call the US a terrorist country? FINE: Then target the US, not the civilians.
You are trying to make it sound, as though killing US civilians is a proper and legimiate response to whatever it is, or is not, the US is doing.
That is utter bull: The US's actions, regardless of their size, intensity, or evil, can serve as no justification to any action against US citizens, and until you realize that you are just one of Bin Laden's pawns.
Oh.. that must be like when US wasn't killing civilians in Vietnam, Laos, Kambodja, almost all of Latin America etc etc..:P
Was the US ever claiming not to have heavy civilian casualities in Vietnam, etc?
As someone pointed out, this is ont of the first wars where there's a serious attempt to not harm civilians.
Sheesh.. don't you learn? Talk about propaganda.
Well, I learn from facts, not made-up propoganda stories about how Vietnam was said to have very little civilian casualities.
How is this relevant to the question whether or not to bomb terrorist support centers?
If the US does wrong, and it does, its a completely different issue, and in any case, targeting civilians is not a legitimate answer. The US may inevitably harm civilians, but it does not target them.
When you bomb, its fight against terrorism. When they bomb, its terrorism.
It is all a matter of who is the target. The US is dropping humantiarian aid in Afghanistan, while bombinb military posts of an organization that actively supports targeting of civilians. Those military posts are right next to civilian centers, but those are clearly not the target.
Re: Actually...
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 3, Informative
What we must do, is:
Pull out of the UN. Create a new world-organization that does not include nations who support terrorism. All member-states have to have a minimum standard of identifying citizens who want to cross borders, and serious laws against money laundering that are strictly enforced. Security is what people want. Security is the best way to ensure peace, and prosperity.
What makes you think the rest of the world will follow and dismantle the UN? The rest of the world wants oil, and has other connections with arab nations.
Pull out of Saudi Arabia. Pull out of Israel (since the Israeli government clearly is not interested in peace).
The Israeli government, including Nobel peace prize holder Shimon Peres, is clearly interested in peace. Albeit being under fire, Peres negotiated terms to cease fire. Those terms were all violated, mostly by the Palestinian side, that refused to constrain the terrorists. Seeing those attempts failed, the Israeli government cannot negotitate under fire any longer.
Develop alternative energy sources to power the Western economies of the 21st century.
Easier said than done. On the bright side, oil seems to will have run out in a couple of decades.
Stop all foreign aid and erect trade interdiction to all non-member states.
Let the Arabs starve. Let them know that it's their extremists and their pandering to the extremists that got them into this position, the only way to ensure their own survival and prosperity is to become democratic nations,
Arabs, in Arab countries, are already starving. The living conditions in most Arab countries are horrible. This does NOT generate Democracy. Democracies do NOT arise from such conditions. On the contrary, experience teaches that almost all totalitarian regimes initiated with starvation.
and join the coalition, and find and eliminate their extremists, and stop sponsoring their propaganda in their schools.
What makes you think they (The people) conclude that their regime, Propoganda, or extremists are responsible for this? The people are receptors of propoganda. Leaders control this propoganda.
If they want to farm dust, and play in their oil, and lead mideval lives, they're free to do so. But we should completely cease all contact with those societies, and prevent those people from entering Western society so they can no longer terrorize us.
This is a broad generalization. What will you do about the arabs already in Western countries? How will you prevent the enterance of Arabs into Western civilization through third-party countries, such as "neutral" European countries (France, for instance)?
And Israel's problems should be Israel's alone. I, for one, am sick of taking it in the nuts for them. If they want peace, then they have to get rid of their own extremists.
Makes me wonder what you possibly mean by "get rid of". Israel has constantly been the compromising side in the conflict. And the Palestinian side has constantly been the major source of violence. Yes, it is wrong to let settlers form new settlement, and give rough time to the arabs around, but its far more wrong to allow militant organizations roam the area freely, striking civilians with guns and bombs.
Note that all this recent Palestinian violence started when Ariel Sharon came to power.
As someone else pointed out, this is a blatant lie, as Sharon was elected after the recent violence was initiated, which happened after the Palestinians refused a huge compromise of the Israeli side with no compromise of their own.
He and his extremist regime are just as nasty as the Jerry Falwells and the Mulluh Omars of the world.
Especially the extremist Nobel Peace prize holders, who keep pressing towards a non-violent solution?
If OBL wants to create a "pure islamist state" and use oil as a weapon to topple the West, I say, let him try, and let him fail on his own.
OBL's state is not the primary issue. The deaths of more thousands he might bring is.
The muslims of the world will soon find out that 90% of them don't want a pure islamist state, and when the west finds alternative energy sources, then they'll be crying like the oil industry did in the 80's - remember? OPEC cut back on supply, and demand dropped, and they went hungry.
Hopefully the influence of arab countries will drop as oil runs out. However, this is not sure to bring down the politic power of arab countries, as they still pose the most major threat of instability, that the rest of the world fears so badly.
In the end, what we'll have is a bunch of counter-revolutions in the middle east, Arabs who will overthrow these religious regimes, and they'll be much more strongly committed to democracy, because they had to fight to get it, instead of having "the man" impose it on them "against allah's will".
This is one of the most rediculous claims I've heard. The worse you make these people's lives, the more totalitarian their regimes will look like. Its a fact of history. Nobody will try to implement Democracy where hardly anybody appriciates, or even knows what Democracy is. If you hope of an objective understanding from the "Arab People", you will be highly disappointed.
And the world will be a better place, not only because of the better political climate in the mideast,
How will all of your restrictions, separations, starvations, and other means will make the political climate any better?
but because the western economies will be using less oil, and the environment may actually allow human life to exist on this planet.
This, assuming your new source of energy doesn't contaminate the Earth far worse.
1) What difference does it make? Bombing civilians and Red-cross buildings has no effect on the terrorists, apart from possibly gaining them more support.
That's not what they're doing. You're listening to Taliban's propoganda. The US is bombing Taliban targets in Afghanistan.
2) Have you ever considered that the people behind the WTC destruction weren't actually in Afghanistan when they plotted/carries out the attacks?
A) The US has concrete evidence for this.
B) Does it matter? Afghanistan is known to be holding terrorists' camps, and support terrorists. Whether those terrorists are the ones to commit the Sept. 11'th acts, or not is irrelevant. Their goal is what's relevant, and the terrorists' goal is to destroy America.
Firstly, why do you use assume processes cannot be restarted if necessary, in an orthogonally persistent system?
Secondly, I was not aware long-uptime Linuxes required restarting their processes due to leaks over time.
If this is the case, process restart support may truly be necessary in an orthogonal persistent system, but its still not relevant to the original dilemma of explicit versus orthogonal persistency.
The implications of what you are saying, is that all systems must be rebooted every once in a while, because they will leak too heavily.
As far as I know, Linux can have uptimes of years, without any memory leaks. This is to show that memory does not necessarily leak throughout time, and an 'infinite uptime' achieved with orthogonal persistence should be possible, as Linux achieves it.
An orthogonally persistent system should actually gain simplicity in many aspects, probably resulting in more stability, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? why would it? Those newbies don't know C, does it mean that not knowing C makes it easier to learn Python?
No, Python is simply EXTREMELY easy to learn, with the right tutor.
Zionism IS a form of Racism [indymedia.org.il]
As much as Americanization is a form of native-american-murder.
Zionism is a solution to a serious problem of a prosecuted people around the world.
The site is bringing one subjective side of the news, presenting that one side is doing illegitmate things. If you look at the other side, you see its MUCH MUCH worse.
I use 's' instead of $_
For weaker similar code (that doesn't actually test for the character types being letters only, and does not convert age to integer).
firstname, lastname, age = s.split(' ')
For a real equivalent:
firstname, lastname, age = re.match(r"([A-Za-z]+) ([A-Za-z]+) (\d+)").groups()
And if you wish, add:
age = int(age) afterwards.
If you ask me, it beats the Perl code, because re.match... is probably more readable, and the lack of syntax noise ($'s) helps too.
I'd love a Regular expression class suite, replacing the annoying unreadable regexp syntax, and that's possible in Python, and would make this look like:
firstname, lastname, age = (re.Word() + re.Word() + re.Number()).match(s)
Certainly more readable, and you can easily extend the regexp classes to include your own specific behaviours.
A rich vocabulary increases compactness. A richer syntax increases compactness.
While Perl offers a rich vocabulary, how is its syntax any richer, than a language that would allow representing anything Perl does, but forcing some specific readable representation?
Example: Is a language supporting: if a b;
and if b a; as two ways of saying the SAME thing, is it any richer than a language that supports if a b; alone?
The so-called richness of Perl syntax is merely duplicated syntax, increasing parsers' complexity (including the human parser), and do not compact the code.
In fact, the much stricter Python language can usually represent Perl code with fewer characters/lines, and still remain a lot more readable, etc.
This is because Python has a very rich, yet small syntax (probably richer than Perl's, as shown by the fact its more compact, usually), and a very rich vocabulary (libraries/modules/etc).
There's hardly any Perl code readable without commentary.
There's hardly any Python code unreadable without commentary.
Python code can usually be shorter than any Perl equivalent.
If you investigate the consequences of these sentences, you can produce the facts:
Perl is inefficient at representing code as a language (Getting the thing done)
Perl is ineffective at having working code convey the code's concepts to the next human reader (Getting the thing across to the next programmer)
This makes Python more efficient for thedevelopment process, and more effective for maintainability.
The fact Python is more easily learnt by newbies, and has strong typing and other more powerful semantics, is an added bonus.
That's kind of ridiculous. Not long after I learned Perl I got interested in learning Python. I guess in a way I expected that I'd pick it up quickly and it would be banging out code in a day or two. This wasn't the case. I gave up on it (at least for the time being) because I didn't want to spend the time to learn it.
That's extremely weird, as Python can be picked up in about 2 hours, by complete programming newbies, who know no language (unless you consider Visual Basic a language).
I found the Python tutorial to be quite awful at teaching Python, and maybe, when I have some time on my hands, I'll write a better one.
In any case, knowing quite a bit about Perl, and quite a lot about Python, its learning experience, and how it compares to other languages, I must recommend Python and recommend against any important usage of Perl.
Sure, if you somehow find it easy to use (all people I know, and myself can't even imagine how this is possible), use it for some simple text parsing scripts. But if you want anything you want to ever read again, use Python.
$ and _ are not merely syntax, they define weak semantics.
:)
What about polymorphism? Building the type into every usage of an object is a polymorphism killer, disallowing OO-style. Thus Perl, with its TIMTOUWTDI motto, still cannot really use true OO style.
Besides, its basically agreed upon, that Hungarian notation is evil and unreadable (NounThe AdjectiveHungarian NounSentence NounExample), which is exactly what $ and _ are.
More than one way? Yes, Python is the other way
Two counter examples:
- Python's syntax is very small and elegant, and almost never gets in the way.
- LISP has virtually 0 syntax, and there's really almost nothing to learn in that aspect.
As for 'nothing can touch Perl', I've yet to see a single Perl script that is not better done with Python.
Because expressing legitimate criticism is valid, and part of a constructive improvement process.
I personally think Perl is a dead end, but if it weren't criticism could have helped it.
I totally agree with your criticism. :)
However, I've tried the *sh languages, and I have to recommend Python. Its not like Perl.
Its very very elegant, and I can almost guarantee you, that you will love it, at least if you try to be openminded about syntatic indentation, which is something everyone grows to love over time
All Perl (<= 5) scripts I've seen, *including* ones for text processing, and heavy regular expression usage, were smaller to MUCH smaller as Python scripts, which were a lot more elegant and easily readable. Is there a reason to use Perl (6), other than Turing completeness that I find in Turing machines as well, over Python?
The Turing-Compeleteness argument is a very silly irrelevant one. FUD, so-to-speak.
Turing-completeness has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, of creating a language serving ease of development, eliminating error-proneness to shorten the development cycle, etc.
Almost all languages out there are Turing complete. The most obvious example is a Turing Machine.
To say "Perl5 didn't give us anything that Turing Machines didn't" is basically saying Perl's features do not exceed a Turing Machine's in terms of getting things done.
From what I've seen, Ruby is sort of a cross between Perl syntax and Python semantics, ofcourse it'll be better than Perl :)
:)
Call me crazy, but I prefer Python syntax and Python semantics, and getting rid of all the damn syntax noise
#!/usr/local/bin/perl7
# grab a line from STDIN, without the EOL
input = raw_input()
# change first letter to uppercase
input = input[0].upper() + input[1:]
# output it
print input
OR:
input = raw_input()
print input[0].upper() + input[1:]
</HUMOR>
I think most mortals will prefer Perl 7, despite its revolutionary syntatic/semantic changes
Actually, the US itself also drops food in Afghinstan.
As for hitting the same target by accident, I wouldn't judge it as 'bastard stupidity' before studying the facts.
For example, how often do Taliban forces travel around it, how difficult is it to have near-100% hit rate on quickly moving targets?
If you study the facts, you can get to the conclusion, that either the US bombs red-cross institutions, which serves none of its interests, or that it has a non-100% hit rate, meaning that inevitably the wrong targets will be hit, and inevitably, over time, the same wrong target will be hit twice.
Its simple statistics.
That's the most illegitmate way I can think of to attack AMERICA. Who is America? The government? The people?
Who are they attacking? Is there any actual connection between the attacked ones and the ones you claim are doing injustice?
Because of the way the world works, it is impossible to target the US with a military attack. So the terrorists used the American system to hurt itself (Large airliners)
Not that it is legitimate, but it is far more legitimate, they can attack the US army, and declare war. There is nothing preventing this, except the knowledge that attacking defenseless civilians is safer.
This meant civilians being killed, the same as the American campaign is.... ie: One red cross building has been hit twice already!!
It didn't just mean civilians are going to get killed, the whole purpose IS to kill civilians. Whereas with American stirkes, civilian casualities are an unwanted side-effect.
You seem to be ignoring the same idea of the targeting/goals of the sides. The American strike's goal of harming HARMFUL, EVIL people. And the terrorists' goal of harming innocent people. This is the first thing to review when determining how legitimate some operation is.
Not those people. USA! Hard to understand? How many millions have died by USA's hand these last decades? Can anyone even count? Time to realise that you've been very lucky the people of the world have been som patioen up until now.
Whether or not the USA is doing legitimate or illegitimate things is out of the scope of this discussion. The discussion is about what to do to terrorists. You want to call the US a terrorist country? FINE: Then target the US, not the civilians.
You are trying to make it sound, as though killing US civilians is a proper and legimiate response to whatever it is, or is not, the US is doing.
That is utter bull: The US's actions, regardless of their size, intensity, or evil, can serve as no justification to any action against US citizens, and until you realize that you are just one of Bin Laden's pawns.
Oh.. that must be like when US wasn't killing civilians in Vietnam, Laos, Kambodja, almost all of Latin America etc etc.. :P
Was the US ever claiming not to have heavy civilian casualities in Vietnam, etc?
As someone pointed out, this is ont of the first wars where there's a serious attempt to not harm civilians.
Sheesh.. don't you learn? Talk about propaganda.
Well, I learn from facts, not made-up propoganda stories about how Vietnam was said to have very little civilian casualities.
What about bombing of Sudan last year?
How is this relevant to the question whether or not to bomb terrorist support centers?
If the US does wrong, and it does, its a completely different issue, and in any case, targeting civilians is not a legitimate answer. The US may inevitably harm civilians, but it does not target them.
When you bomb, its fight against terrorism. When they bomb, its terrorism.
It is all a matter of who is the target. The US is dropping humantiarian aid in Afghanistan, while bombinb military posts of an organization that actively supports targeting of civilians. Those military posts are right next to civilian centers, but those are clearly not the target.
What we must do, is:
Pull out of the UN. Create a new world-organization that does not include nations who support terrorism. All member-states have to have a minimum standard of identifying citizens who want to cross borders, and serious laws against money laundering that are strictly enforced. Security is what people want. Security is the best way to ensure peace, and prosperity.
What makes you think the rest of the world will follow and dismantle the UN? The rest of the world wants oil, and has other connections with arab nations.
Pull out of Saudi Arabia. Pull out of Israel (since the Israeli government clearly is not interested in peace).
The Israeli government, including Nobel peace prize holder Shimon Peres, is clearly interested in peace. Albeit being under fire, Peres negotiated terms to cease fire. Those terms were all violated, mostly by the Palestinian side, that refused to constrain the terrorists. Seeing those attempts failed, the Israeli government cannot negotitate under fire any longer.
Develop alternative energy sources to power the Western economies of the 21st century.
Easier said than done. On the bright side, oil seems to will have run out in a couple of decades.
Stop all foreign aid and erect trade interdiction to all non-member states.
Let the Arabs starve. Let them know that it's their extremists and their pandering to the extremists that got them into this position, the only way to ensure their own survival and prosperity is to become democratic nations,
Arabs, in Arab countries, are already starving. The living conditions in most Arab countries are horrible. This does NOT generate Democracy. Democracies do NOT arise from such conditions. On the contrary, experience teaches that almost all totalitarian regimes initiated with starvation.
and join the coalition, and find and eliminate their extremists, and stop sponsoring their propaganda in their schools.
What makes you think they (The people) conclude that their regime, Propoganda, or extremists are responsible for this? The people are receptors of propoganda. Leaders control this propoganda.
If they want to farm dust, and play in their oil, and lead mideval lives, they're free to do so. But we should completely cease all contact with those societies, and prevent those people from entering Western society so they can no longer terrorize us.
This is a broad generalization. What will you do about the arabs already in Western countries? How will you prevent the enterance of Arabs into Western civilization through third-party countries, such as "neutral" European countries (France, for instance)?
And Israel's problems should be Israel's alone. I, for one, am sick of taking it in the nuts for them. If they want peace, then they have to get rid of their own extremists.
Makes me wonder what you possibly mean by "get rid of". Israel has constantly been the compromising side in the conflict. And the Palestinian side has constantly been the major source of violence. Yes, it is wrong to let settlers form new settlement, and give rough time to the arabs around, but its far more wrong to allow militant organizations roam the area freely, striking civilians with guns and bombs.
Note that all this recent Palestinian violence started when Ariel Sharon came to power.
As someone else pointed out, this is a blatant lie, as Sharon was elected after the recent violence was initiated, which happened after the Palestinians refused a huge compromise of the Israeli side with no compromise of their own.
He and his extremist regime are just as nasty as the Jerry Falwells and the Mulluh Omars of the world.
Especially the extremist Nobel Peace prize holders, who keep pressing towards a non-violent solution?
If OBL wants to create a "pure islamist state" and use oil as a weapon to topple the West, I say, let him try, and let him fail on his own.
OBL's state is not the primary issue. The deaths of more thousands he might bring is.
The muslims of the world will soon find out that 90% of them don't want a pure islamist state, and when the west finds alternative energy sources, then they'll be crying like the oil industry did in the 80's - remember? OPEC cut back on supply, and demand dropped, and they went hungry.
Hopefully the influence of arab countries will drop as oil runs out. However, this is not sure to bring down the politic power of arab countries, as they still pose the most major threat of instability, that the rest of the world fears so badly.
In the end, what we'll have is a bunch of counter-revolutions in the middle east, Arabs who will overthrow these religious regimes, and they'll be much more strongly committed to democracy, because they had to fight to get it, instead of having "the man" impose it on them "against allah's will".
This is one of the most rediculous claims I've heard. The worse you make these people's lives, the more totalitarian their regimes will look like. Its a fact of history. Nobody will try to implement Democracy where hardly anybody appriciates, or even knows what Democracy is. If you hope of an objective understanding from the "Arab People", you will be highly disappointed.
And the world will be a better place, not only because of the better political climate in the mideast,
How will all of your restrictions, separations, starvations, and other means will make the political climate any better?
but because the western economies will be using less oil, and the environment may actually allow human life to exist on this planet.
This, assuming your new source of energy doesn't contaminate the Earth far worse.
I'd say you should re-think through your ideas.
1) What difference does it make? Bombing civilians and Red-cross buildings has no effect on the terrorists, apart from possibly gaining them more support.
That's not what they're doing. You're listening to Taliban's propoganda. The US is bombing Taliban targets in Afghanistan.
2) Have you ever considered that the people behind the WTC destruction weren't actually in Afghanistan when they plotted/carries out the attacks?
A) The US has concrete evidence for this.
B) Does it matter? Afghanistan is known to be holding terrorists' camps, and support terrorists. Whether those terrorists are the ones to commit the Sept. 11'th acts, or not is irrelevant. Their goal is what's relevant, and the terrorists' goal is to destroy America.
Its Us or them.
You choose.
What the hell do you mean by 'had it coming'?
That those citizens deserved to die for US's activities, right or wrong?
No, you're not a troll, you're an idiot.
Firstly, why do you use assume processes cannot be restarted if necessary, in an orthogonally persistent system?
Secondly, I was not aware long-uptime Linuxes required restarting their processes due to leaks over time.
If this is the case, process restart support may truly be necessary in an orthogonal persistent system, but its still not relevant to the original dilemma of explicit versus orthogonal persistency.
The implications of what you are saying, is that all systems must be rebooted every once in a while, because they will leak too heavily.
As far as I know, Linux can have uptimes of years, without any memory leaks. This is to show that memory does not necessarily leak throughout time, and an 'infinite uptime' achieved with orthogonal persistence should be possible, as Linux achieves it.
An orthogonally persistent system should actually gain simplicity in many aspects, probably resulting in more stability, too.