Re:You're bitter and hateful
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 2
I think your have some definitions wrong. "Kosher" refers to the practice in Judiaism of not eating pork, not eating shell fish, and not mixing meat and dairy. As far as I know, it is not related to the Hindu practice of not eating and giving special status to cows.
I was raised Jewish. The rationale I've gotten is that at the time, pork and shell fish were more likely to kill you. Not mixing meat and dairy was more abstract, something about not cooking a kid in its mother's milk.
The pork and shell fish restrictions are irrelevant. We have the technology to cook them properly. Not mixing meat and dairy is a moral argument, and can't be made irrelevant, only decided by an individual that they don't care.
But as someone else pointed out, Jews don't keep kosher because it had practical reasons in the past. Jews who keep kosher do so because it is part of Jewish law. Same with Hindus.
For the record, I am a vegetarian, so I don't eat any meat at all.
World Forge doesn't look to be very far along. I haven't looked at Cube 3D yet. But I was impressed with Crystal Space. From the cursory look I gave it, I'd say it's between Quake and Quake 2 in terms of technology (but I might be horribley wrong). There are different types of renderers (playing a game in ASCII mode would be fun), and quite a list of features. Take a look at the screenshots to see what it's capable of - impressive, I thought.
It's LGPL, which if I understand correctly means that it can be used in proprietary commercial products. That, I think, is intriguing. That could enable very small-time developers to make simple games and sell them for cheap. (If my understanding of the LGPL is wrong, someone correct me.)
"Crime goes up"? I've seen the numbers for that increase, and it's not very much. It is in percentages, but not in actual numbers. There's no reason to assume it's the outlaw of guns versus the other multitude of factors that contribute to crime.
Some people found it interesting, it got posted. Nearly every news item has to have the thread "Is this really news for nerds?" I'm curious, why don't you just ignore it and read the next news item? You're not going to be interested in every one.
Just this semester, for my compilers design course, we wrote a compiler for a watered down Pascal-like language. Lexically scoped, nested procedures, arrays, but no functions, parameters to procedures, records or pointers. It basically has the functionality of the early versions of FORTRAN.
It's not a full compiler, though - we generated 3-address code which was then given to an assembler our professor and TA wrote. This way, we didn't have to generate code to manipulate the run-time environment, or deal with the OS at all.
However, given what I've learned in that course, I would know how to approach those things now.
Your analogy of using the speed limit is broken because there are no limitations to going beyond the speed limit - you're just doing something illegal. You used an inappropriate analogy, I only commented on that.
No, the point the poster made was "I don't have a need for a high-end CPU, so do most people need one?" It was a statement of how it applies to him, then a question of how it applies to everyone else. I don't know where you got the absolute "no one" from.
It's a misnomer, and most people understand that. If you seriously have issues with it and want to call it something else, I think "Moore's Observation" is the most accurate.
The existance of something better often makes the inferior item less expensive. So I'm curious to hear your explanation for why this situation is different.
I had to use it last year in one of my courses. I understand that I don't have a full appreciation of what it takes to coordinate the development of a massive application, but Rational Rose was just plain buggy. It didn't work correctly a quarter of the time.
I don't think I need to have a few years of industry experience to have an opinion of software that doesn't work.
See, I think that's his point. Universities don't "teach programming languages." They explicity teach you what you need to know to start off, but then they start teaching you CS and software engineering ideas that get implemented in the language you know. Along the way you end up learning more and more about the programming language you are using, but that's different than explicity being taught a particular language.
Don't get me wrong, if you know ahead of time that what you want to do is make video games, then DigiPen seems to be a great place to learn how. I've looked at the semester projects you guys make, and I'm thorougly impressed. But I don't know how well prepared a DigiPen graduate is for jobs outside of the videogame industry - but if you don't want to work outside of the videogame industry, that doesn't matter. (Unless, of course, you can't find a job inside the videogame industry, at which point you'd have a problem.)
I think they want to prevent people from making additions to the code base, compiling binaries, and distributing those. Forking, in other words. If they explicitly say you can't even do it for yourself, it might be easier to enforce. (But maybe not. That gets into legal stuff in which I am uninformed.)
Further, those who download the source code may not "use executable code versions of PGP software programs created by compiling these source code files for any purpose or reason other than verifying that there are no unknown vulnerabilities or the like or otherwise making your own assessment of the integrity of the source code and the security features of the PGP software."
My interpretation of that is you can compile the source code, and you can use the executable generated from your compile, but only for evaluation means. You can't compile their code and then use that executable as your copy of PGP. But you can still use your compiled binary for verification.
Also, they never claimed this is GPLed code. What's with the animosity? I think this is a good thing - a for profit company showing all of their proprietary source code to their customers.
Corporations exist because the government that granted them the charter allows them to exist. In this sense, a corporation is accountable to the people who are represented by that government.
If a corporation is acting in a manner that harms the interests of the people represented by that government, there is good reason to take back that charter. (Although I have never heard of this happening, it is possible, just not likely when the same corporations have extreme influence on the representatives in that government.) In this way, I think that corproations have a responbility to the people represented by the government that allows them to exist.
And the company not existing would sure be a hinder to making profits, you need a profit-based reason.
You're at a Community College, so sit in on some of the Astronomy, Astrophysics, or just plain ol' physics classes when you have the time. There are oodles we don't know, but there is also quite a lot we do.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your have some definitions wrong. "Kosher" refers to the practice in Judiaism of not eating pork, not eating shell fish, and not mixing meat and dairy. As far as I know, it is not related to the Hindu practice of not eating and giving special status to cows.
I was raised Jewish. The rationale I've gotten is that at the time, pork and shell fish were more likely to kill you. Not mixing meat and dairy was more abstract, something about not cooking a kid in its mother's milk.
The pork and shell fish restrictions are irrelevant. We have the technology to cook them properly. Not mixing meat and dairy is a moral argument, and can't be made irrelevant, only decided by an individual that they don't care.
But as someone else pointed out, Jews don't keep kosher because it had practical reasons in the past. Jews who keep kosher do so because it is part of Jewish law. Same with Hindus.
For the record, I am a vegetarian, so I don't eat any meat at all.
Can you even simulate the natural world using only mathematics etc?
Um, that's called physics.
That makes the assumption that "innovative and new ideas" can not be found in sequels.
The article mentions three: Crystal Space, World Forge and Cube 3D.
World Forge doesn't look to be very far along. I haven't looked at Cube 3D yet. But I was impressed with Crystal Space. From the cursory look I gave it, I'd say it's between Quake and Quake 2 in terms of technology (but I might be horribley wrong). There are different types of renderers (playing a game in ASCII mode would be fun), and quite a list of features. Take a look at the screenshots to see what it's capable of - impressive, I thought.
It's LGPL, which if I understand correctly means that it can be used in proprietary commercial products. That, I think, is intriguing. That could enable very small-time developers to make simple games and sell them for cheap. (If my understanding of the LGPL is wrong, someone correct me.)
Uh, YES, very perceptive of you... you figured it out? Sarcasm, folly, and exaggerated examples are clearly not lost on you, now are they?
When done poorly, they are completely lost on me, yes.
Let me make sure I understand you: you were trying to point out how stereotyping people is bad by doing it?
"Crime goes up"? I've seen the numbers for that increase, and it's not very much. It is in percentages, but not in actual numbers. There's no reason to assume it's the outlaw of guns versus the other multitude of factors that contribute to crime.
The property that any particular piece of information being immutable has nothing to do with other people needing to know it.
Some people found it interesting, it got posted. Nearly every news item has to have the thread "Is this really news for nerds?" I'm curious, why don't you just ignore it and read the next news item? You're not going to be interested in every one.
But I never said I wanted to live there. It's fantasy, it's escapism, it doesn't mean we're ignoring the rest of the world.
Oh, and for some people, this modern world isn't so hunky-dory.
Just this semester, for my compilers design course, we wrote a compiler for a watered down Pascal-like language. Lexically scoped, nested procedures, arrays, but no functions, parameters to procedures, records or pointers. It basically has the functionality of the early versions of FORTRAN.
It's not a full compiler, though - we generated 3-address code which was then given to an assembler our professor and TA wrote. This way, we didn't have to generate code to manipulate the run-time environment, or deal with the OS at all.
However, given what I've learned in that course, I would know how to approach those things now.
I watched some of MS's propoganda for it, and seemed like they were selling it to office people, not Joe Sixpack.
(Their propoganda worked on me, by the way. Any university student can easily see the benefit of one of these things.)
What can a tablet PC for me do that a regular PC cannot?
For me, that's simple to answer: I can't take notes with a regular PC, desktop or notebook.
While I think it was implicit in your post, you still never said it: these scream to be a part of a wireless network.
Your analogy of using the speed limit is broken because there are no limitations to going beyond the speed limit - you're just doing something illegal. You used an inappropriate analogy, I only commented on that.
No, the point the poster made was "I don't have a need for a high-end CPU, so do most people need one?" It was a statement of how it applies to him, then a question of how it applies to everyone else. I don't know where you got the absolute "no one" from.
You're confusing legal laws and scientific laws. They are quite different.
It's a misnomer, and most people understand that. If you seriously have issues with it and want to call it something else, I think "Moore's Observation" is the most accurate.
The existance of something better often makes the inferior item less expensive. So I'm curious to hear your explanation for why this situation is different.
I had to use it last year in one of my courses. I understand that I don't have a full appreciation of what it takes to coordinate the development of a massive application, but Rational Rose was just plain buggy. It didn't work correctly a quarter of the time.
I don't think I need to have a few years of industry experience to have an opinion of software that doesn't work.
See, I think that's his point. Universities don't "teach programming languages." They explicity teach you what you need to know to start off, but then they start teaching you CS and software engineering ideas that get implemented in the language you know. Along the way you end up learning more and more about the programming language you are using, but that's different than explicity being taught a particular language.
Don't get me wrong, if you know ahead of time that what you want to do is make video games, then DigiPen seems to be a great place to learn how. I've looked at the semester projects you guys make, and I'm thorougly impressed. But I don't know how well prepared a DigiPen graduate is for jobs outside of the videogame industry - but if you don't want to work outside of the videogame industry, that doesn't matter. (Unless, of course, you can't find a job inside the videogame industry, at which point you'd have a problem.)
I think they want to prevent people from making additions to the code base, compiling binaries, and distributing those. Forking, in other words. If they explicitly say you can't even do it for yourself, it might be easier to enforce. (But maybe not. That gets into legal stuff in which I am uninformed.)
I don't think you read it correctly.
Further, those who download the source code may not "use executable code versions of PGP software programs created by compiling these source code files for any purpose or reason other than verifying that there are no unknown vulnerabilities or the like or otherwise making your own assessment of the integrity of the source code and the security features of the PGP software."
My interpretation of that is you can compile the source code, and you can use the executable generated from your compile, but only for evaluation means. You can't compile their code and then use that executable as your copy of PGP. But you can still use your compiled binary for verification.
Also, they never claimed this is GPLed code. What's with the animosity? I think this is a good thing - a for profit company showing all of their proprietary source code to their customers.
I looked, and I didn't see anyone else reccomend "Cheetah." Seems to be the obvious choice for me.
Corporations exist because the government that granted them the charter allows them to exist. In this sense, a corporation is accountable to the people who are represented by that government.
If a corporation is acting in a manner that harms the interests of the people represented by that government, there is good reason to take back that charter. (Although I have never heard of this happening, it is possible, just not likely when the same corporations have extreme influence on the representatives in that government.) In this way, I think that corproations have a responbility to the people represented by the government that allows them to exist.
And the company not existing would sure be a hinder to making profits, you need a profit-based reason.
You're at a Community College, so sit in on some of the Astronomy, Astrophysics, or just plain ol' physics classes when you have the time. There are oodles we don't know, but there is also quite a lot we do.