Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. He talks about punctuationism, and explains why it's really not very different from the "standard" view of evolution.
And then read the rest, because it is an excellent book.
Yes, it dealt with artillery shells, but I think that a reasonable interpretation of the original post is that they were not talking about artillery shells.
My point is that you missed his point. I did read the article. And again with the insults. Can you not discuss things without insulting people, or do you just act this way on slashdot?
According to what I've read, the Japanese were willing to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just not unconditionaly. We wanted unconditional surrender. And we got it. But we ended up giving them what they wanted anyway (mainly, preserving their Emporer).
Artillery shells and rockets follow a parabolic path that takes them well above the horizon.
Exactly. Lasers don't. (Unless they're in very high graviational field, but the Earth's isn't enough to curve light back into it - which is a good thing.) Hence his comment about the mirrors.
This isn't just funny, I think it's a legitamite question.
If attempting to go get bandwidth you didn't pay for is a violation of the TOS, shouldn't it also be considered a violation of contract if they systematicaly don't get the bandwidth they paid for?
People don't seem to understand that if people are starving in a given area, that it isn't time to have kids.
In an industrialized nation, children are expensive. In a non-industrialized nation, children are often a necessity - another worker for the household.
What, you seriously think people are just going to up and stop having sex? The concept of "family planning" doesn't exist in third-world nations.
I'm a senior computer science major with a minor in math and minor in physics. I am going to grad school next year. I'm trying to do undergrad research that incorporates CS and physics, and that would be nice in grad school too.
I don't this stuff because it will get me a better job when I get out. I don't study this stuff because I want a career. I study this stuff because I like doing it.
I don't know if you're getting it: perl (the executable, not the language) was implemented using C. Hence, anything that is done in Perl (the languange) can be done in C. In this way, perl (the executable) can be seen as a very sophisticated set of C routines. (This doesn't gain you much insight, but it's an interesting concept, I think.)
Anyway, Perl is not a compiled languange. It's also not a purely interpreted langauge, it falls somewhere inbetween, leaning heavily on the interpreted side.
Come on now. I was thinking of fully-functional high level langauges. Assembley is not high level. Now Prolog... you'd be surprised what it can do. Often not very fast, but it can do some interesting stuff. There are obvious extremes - Brainfuck, for one, and I'd consider a logic language is close to the extreme. Logic langauges often weren't designed for convential use.
This, however, has little to do with my point. Few people are taught Prolog as their first language. But yes, some people are taught Scheme as their first language.
The contest was held by the International Conference on Functional Programming - don't you think this will have some effect on what languages people choose? I think it's reasonable to assume that in general, people who use/like funcitonal languages are more likely to follow what the ICFP is doing.
From "Concepts of Programming Languages," fifth edition, by Robert W. Sebesta:
"LISP began as a purely funcitonal language but soon aquired some important imperative features that increased its execution effeciency." A few pages later, "The original intent was to have a notation for LISP programs that would be as close to FORTRAN's as possible, with additions as necessary. This notation was called M-notation, for meta-notation."
LISP notation was meant to mimic the notation of FORTRAN, but that does not mean it was meant to be a replacement of FORTRAN. (Analagous, I believe, to when Stroustrup created an object-oriented language, he borrowed the syntax and semantics of an already popular language, C.)
Now, the first popular LISP interpreter probably had some imperative features, but the first one did not.
Or maybe they picked what they're comfortable with? And what language a programmer is comfortable with has more to do with the languages they've been taught in and exposed to than their skill as a programmer.
I am fully aware of this, but the first version of Lisp (way back in the '60s, I think) was a pure functional language. Common Lisp is not a pure functional language, but it's based on one.
Other highly dynamic features such as closures would be equally impossible to translate into C without a complete Perl interpreter.
So? It's still C. Perl was written in C. Whatever is done in Perl can be done in C. In fact, while it's a huge simplification of what's going on, it's still accurate to think of Perl as an interface to a bunch of C routines. (With it's own syntax, grammar and semantics, but I did say it was a huge simplification.)
Now, you'd gain nothing, really. You can do it, but there's no reason to. You can write object-oriented assembley code if you wanted to (what do you think C++ gets compiled to?), but it would be a waste of your time.
LISP is a functional language. It was the first, I believe. (Also the first language with recursion - recursion's needed for a functional language, so there ya go.)
Console games are more action driven and can be consumed in short sessions: such as racing, fighting, or platform games. PC games are geared towards longer sessions and complex interaction: such as simulation, strategy or online games.
Funny, it's the opposite for me. On my consoles (and to be honest, I'm mostly a console gamer) I play mainly RPGs, which are long games that can take several months to finish.
On the PC, I play mostly FPSes, sometimes just for ten minutes at a time. It all depends on the person and their preferences.
People can only file lawsuits if they have the money and time to do so. Not everyone does.
Lawsuits often are settled out of court, which enable the company responsible to keep the problem quiet and not make any changes.
Even if this method was effective in enforcing safety standards, there is still the issue of needing people to be injured before safety standards are changed. There is a reason there are safety standards for cars, airplanes and food.
Where do you live? My mother has a Masters in Special Education, and is a special education resource teacher in Fairfax County, Virginia, and she doesn't make that much.
It works both ways. Sometimes someone comes up with a theory, and experiment later agrees with it (relativity applies here), and sometimes a phenomenon is observed that no theory can explain, so one is proposed (quantum mechanics would apply here).
If we limited ourselves to theorizing only on observed phenomenon, we'd be seriously hindering ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. He talks about punctuationism, and explains why it's really not very different from the "standard" view of evolution.
And then read the rest, because it is an excellent book.
Yes, it dealt with artillery shells, but I think that a reasonable interpretation of the original post is that they were not talking about artillery shells.
My point is that you missed his point. I did read the article. And again with the insults. Can you not discuss things without insulting people, or do you just act this way on slashdot?
Are you always this hostile, or only on slashdot?
Your explanation is fine, but it has nothing to do with long range missiles.
According to what I've read, the Japanese were willing to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just not unconditionaly. We wanted unconditional surrender. And we got it. But we ended up giving them what they wanted anyway (mainly, preserving their Emporer).
Artillery shells and rockets follow a parabolic path that takes them well above the horizon.
Exactly. Lasers don't. (Unless they're in very high graviational field, but the Earth's isn't enough to curve light back into it - which is a good thing.) Hence his comment about the mirrors.
Troll? WTF?
This isn't just funny, I think it's a legitamite question.
If attempting to go get bandwidth you didn't pay for is a violation of the TOS, shouldn't it also be considered a violation of contract if they systematicaly don't get the bandwidth they paid for?
Hundreds of billions of people? How do you figure that?
There will be an equilibrium to everything humans do.
"Equilibrium" doesn't necessarily mean "nice place to live."
I'm a senior computer science major with a minor in math and minor in physics. I am going to grad school next year. I'm trying to do undergrad research that incorporates CS and physics, and that would be nice in grad school too.
I don't this stuff because it will get me a better job when I get out. I don't study this stuff because I want a career. I study this stuff because I like doing it.
I don't know if you're getting it: perl (the executable, not the language) was implemented using C. Hence, anything that is done in Perl (the languange) can be done in C. In this way, perl (the executable) can be seen as a very sophisticated set of C routines. (This doesn't gain you much insight, but it's an interesting concept, I think.)
Anyway, Perl is not a compiled languange. It's also not a purely interpreted langauge, it falls somewhere inbetween, leaning heavily on the interpreted side.
Come on now. I was thinking of fully-functional high level langauges. Assembley is not high level. Now Prolog... you'd be surprised what it can do. Often not very fast, but it can do some interesting stuff. There are obvious extremes - Brainfuck, for one, and I'd consider a logic language is close to the extreme. Logic langauges often weren't designed for convential use.
This, however, has little to do with my point. Few people are taught Prolog as their first language. But yes, some people are taught Scheme as their first language.
The contest was held by the International Conference on Functional Programming - don't you think this will have some effect on what languages people choose? I think it's reasonable to assume that in general, people who use/like funcitonal languages are more likely to follow what the ICFP is doing.
From "Concepts of Programming Languages," fifth edition, by Robert W. Sebesta:LISP notation was meant to mimic the notation of FORTRAN, but that does not mean it was meant to be a replacement of FORTRAN. (Analagous, I believe, to when Stroustrup created an object-oriented language, he borrowed the syntax and semantics of an already popular language, C.)
Now, the first popular LISP interpreter probably had some imperative features, but the first one did not.
Or maybe they picked what they're comfortable with? And what language a programmer is comfortable with has more to do with the languages they've been taught in and exposed to than their skill as a programmer.
I am fully aware of this, but the first version of Lisp (way back in the '60s, I think) was a pure functional language. Common Lisp is not a pure functional language, but it's based on one.
Other highly dynamic features such as closures would be equally impossible to translate into C without a complete Perl interpreter.
So? It's still C. Perl was written in C. Whatever is done in Perl can be done in C. In fact, while it's a huge simplification of what's going on, it's still accurate to think of Perl as an interface to a bunch of C routines. (With it's own syntax, grammar and semantics, but I did say it was a huge simplification.)
Now, you'd gain nothing, really. You can do it, but there's no reason to. You can write object-oriented assembley code if you wanted to (what do you think C++ gets compiled to?), but it would be a waste of your time.
LISP is a functional language. It was the first, I believe. (Also the first language with recursion - recursion's needed for a functional language, so there ya go.)
Console games are more action driven and can be consumed in short sessions: such as racing, fighting, or platform games.
PC games are geared towards longer sessions and complex interaction: such as simulation, strategy or online games.
Funny, it's the opposite for me. On my consoles (and to be honest, I'm mostly a console gamer) I play mainly RPGs, which are long games that can take several months to finish.
On the PC, I play mostly FPSes, sometimes just for ten minutes at a time. It all depends on the person and their preferences.
No.
People can only file lawsuits if they have the money and time to do so. Not everyone does.
Lawsuits often are settled out of court, which enable the company responsible to keep the problem quiet and not make any changes.
Even if this method was effective in enforcing safety standards, there is still the issue of needing people to be injured before safety standards are changed. There is a reason there are safety standards for cars, airplanes and food.
If the ride wasn't fun, we can let the "free market" run its course.
If the ride isn't safe, the "free market" is not good enough, and certainly has not proven to be such in the past.
Where do you live? My mother has a Masters in Special Education, and is a special education resource teacher in Fairfax County, Virginia, and she doesn't make that much.
We're people. We like watching people. Just because something is possible doesn't mean people will want it.
No one can accurately predict what the world is going to be like in 100 years, so it's silly to have a The Sky Is Falling attitude about it.
It works both ways. Sometimes someone comes up with a theory, and experiment later agrees with it (relativity applies here), and sometimes a phenomenon is observed that no theory can explain, so one is proposed (quantum mechanics would apply here).
If we limited ourselves to theorizing only on observed phenomenon, we'd be seriously hindering ourselves.