That's probably true once they get past the initial hurdles. But for newbies who don't even understand the most basic concepts, trying to explain the difference between 123, 12.3, and "123", or why 12 / 5 is different from 12.0 / 5.0 is confusing.
Javascriupt's primary benefit is letting the newbs discover for themselves whether they like programming. I used to tell people, way back in the day, to take any community college beginning programming course; if they couldn't wait to get to the class and stayed late at the lab using the class computers, they liked programming and would make excellent programmers. If they had to force themselves to keep going to class and ducked out of labs as soon as possible, they hated it and would make terrible programmers.
Programming is like hot rodding up to the 1970s or so. You don't need a degree, you don't need classes, you can pick most of the basics up from books, friends, and experimentation. What counts is whether you like it.
* Small edits to said source pages show instantaneous results and are painless.
* No need for a comand line, which scares some people.
* The GUI changes, like changes ol to ul, or adding table cell padding, or changing styles, or easy and fun.
* Adding loops and conditionals are not very complicated, since most web pages with javascript provide sme examples.
Overall, for someone curious about programming, it's about the best self-taught intro I can think of. Anyone who wants to learn mroe can find out if the like the concept, the puzzles, and the headscratchers with just as much time and thought as they want.
The balancing act is almost exactly the same at the last moment of forward flight as it is at the first moment of retro burn, just in a different direction.
Aerodynamics matter very little at high altitude. They matter some at lower altitude, but I doubt they make much difference when the engine is burning.
At 14 stories tall and traveling upwards of 1300 m/s (nearly 1 mi/s), stabilizing the Falcon 9 first stage for reentry is like trying to balance a rubber broomstick on your hand in the middle of a wind storm.
He's complaining that the money he spent to defeat the influence of money in politics didn't have any influence.
The proper lesson is that his basic thesis is wrong, that money doesn't always win elections. Meg Whitman was another example (if you have to ask who she? and what election? then you prove my point -- google "meg whitman election").
But being a statist fuck, that won't be the lesson he sees. Lessig's done a lot of nice work otherwise, but he's off the rails on this.
What galls me the most is the panty-wetting over a government-granted monopoly trying to maintain its government granted monopoly when that very same government tries to compete using taxpayer dollars as a subsidy.
The outrage should be against government involvement period. If governments didn't grant local monopolies, there would be real competition among the real companies, and no perceived need for the government competition which is only competitive because it has the taxpayer subsidy.
How can anyone pay lip service to free markets by regulating them?
The problem is that government regulates them as monopolies. They create the problem in the first lace by creating the monopoly, then offer to fix the problem by adding regulation. If it were a truly free market, without government sponsored monopolies, regulation wouldn't be nessary.
Look up the history of AT&T, how they were acting like a bully, but when the lawsuits began to have an effect and counter their actions, they begged the government to regulate them as a monopoly. If the government had just said no, they would have been brought to heel within a few years; the market would have worked.
It never ceases to amaze me how often I am amazed at people who cannot grasp this simple concept, that government specialized in correcting problems it created. Even that great social experiment, US alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933, was not ended by repealing the prohibition, but by changing outright prohibition to regulation.
I repeat, legal oppression only exists because of government. If you cannot see that simple truth, you are wilfully blind.
Primogeniture and entailment were government laws which enforced class distinctions and warfare -- withotu government creation and enforcement of classes, there would be no class oppression and warfare.
Government laws prevented women from owning property, voting, or having much freedom at all, and made marriage rape legal.
Slavery and segregation were the direct result of government laws. Society was integrating on its own until government stopped it and reversed course.
It's very simple: government creates laws to justify its oppression. You claim to get your history from the People's History. It's not much of a history if that single lesson doesn't come through loud and clear.
People care about people. Governments do not. Any one who thinks the government is his friend is either a crony or a fool, possibly both. Governments' mission is to compel or prohibit; their core competence is coercion in the name of the status quo.
Before government made black self-defense illegal and enforced bigotry with government guns, blacks at least had a chance. Society was at least slowly intergrating even in the face of government sanctioned lynching, before government stepped in officially and made it illegal, backed by government guns and jails. The US Post office and military were more integrated than most people realize, until Woodrow Wilson came along and enforced segregation. That Louisian railroad was just one of many companies who integrated in pursuit of the amlighty dollar, until governments came along and stopped them with government guns and jail.
Progressives are an ignorant whiny lot, like all statists. All power to the government! The people, not so much.
Civil rights for Black People in the Southern American States only happened because the Federal Government stepped in with the National Guard.
BULLSHIT. Slavery and Jim Crow were both the RESULT of government laws. Neither can exist in the absence of government. Jim Crow in particular owes its existence to a Louiana law requiring a railroad to segregate its railroad cars against its own wishes, said law being approved by the US Supreme Court.
You need to learn a lot of history before opening your yap next time.
I wrote a file deduplicator. Build a table of file size ---> name. If two files have the same size, run md5sum on them or just use cmp -s. It's a trivial program.
But if you have photos which you consider duplicates but which have different sizes or checksums, then it's a visual gig and lots of boring tedious work,
Anytime coercion enters the picture, along come its sibling corruption in every sense of the word.
If your scheme is not popular enough to stand on its own two legs -- if your arguments are not enough to win the day -- propping it up with compulsion is the only recourse left, and it reaps what it's worth.
I signed up with Wild Blue about ten years ago; they were bought out a year or two ago (by Exide?) but I haven't noticed any change in service. I am very happy with them as far as doing the best any sat connection can do. So here are the caveats:
1. Ping time is routinely 1.5 seconds, sometimes as fast as 1.3. Don't think I've ever seen faster.
2. Speed of light time is 1/2 second; up, down, up, down; 4 x 36K km = 144 kn = 1/2 second. Whoever said.27 forgot about the round trip. I assume the sats and ground stations buffer like crazy to maximize bandwidth usage.
3. The ONLY time I have problems is when snow piles up on the dish. Gusts of 60 mph (100 kph) or so have never bothered it, but it's on a good solid tower. Snowstorms themselves are no problem, not the heaviest (4 feet in a day several times). There's an electrical heater on the back side of the dish made up of that tape you wrap around pipes; when power goes out and it's running without that, I have to brush the snow off every few hours, but that is the ONLY time I have had problems. They are rock solid otherwise.
4. Power outage is a nuisance. I have a standby generator but it takes 30 seconds to kick in, and I ought to have the modem and dish on a UPS, but I don't so sometimes I have to manually kick power to get reconnected.
5. Speed is 512Kbps up, 3Mbps down. Bandwidth isn't the killer, it's the latency. Ask the com root server who ibm.com is. Ask ibm.com who www.ibm.com is. Ask www.ibm.com for index.html. Find the css, ask ibm.com who css.ibm.com is. And so on, all at 1.5 seconds each. It's pretty frustrating sometimes. Some web sites are very unfriendly for slow latency connections.
I wish it were cheaper ($80 / month), but it's that or unreliable AT&T dialup.
Their elitiest arrogance shows in many ways. Two which particularly annoy me and come to mind at the moment are there position that they get to decide when pages are vanity pages or otherwise trivial and irrelevant, and the really frustrating cookies which expire too soon. Usually my only edits are typoes and afew obvious errors, but it requires a fresh login too often, especially since I browse wikipedia from several different computers, so the likelihood of a cookie expiring increases all that much more.
The editors should stick to resolving head bashing disputes and reversion battles, not substituting their elitist expertise against crowd sourced opinionson what articles are worth chucking out for having no links or for not following some arbitrary standard format.
It's the clueless marketing and product spec types who don't have a clue how computers work, don't have even the most superficial knowledge of how the current systems work, can't decipher what customers say they want, and write product specs which are so devoid of reality as to soak up more time straightening out than everything else combined.
There are so many laws on the books precisely because police and prosecutors want to be able to charge anybody with some crime if they feel the need, usually for disrespect of cop, but any perceived need will do.
Since everybody can be charged with a crime at almost any time, police HAVE to exercise discretion about what they charge and whether they charge.
This cop chose to be a dick, and he deserves to be recognized and treated like a dick.
If you still think he had no choice, then let me ask you why no other cop in the entire state is doing the same thing. Could it be that they chose to not be as dickish as this dick?
IIRC, the Spitfire and ME-109 were 20-30 mph faster, primarily because they had such short range. They probably had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but I don't know. They did have better guns. As far as maneuverability, I'd guess the Zero was better at medium speeds simply from being lighter.
I've tried comparing them with Wikipedia stats and other web sites, but planes (other than the Japanese) were progressing so fast that it's hard to get data for simultaneous versions.
Investments don't mean squat. Until there is verifiable proof that they have created wonder weapons that other nations haven't, then their imaginary results are just that.
I can't make it any simpler: unless they have magic technology with better engines, fuels, explosives, guidance systems, stealth technology, and everything else it would take for their cruise missiles to be do deadly, then they have nothing that other nations don't also have. They are not supermen or magicians. They are just humans with secrets.
As Khrushchev supposedly said to his son, "We have nothing to hide. We have nothing, and we must hide it."
Slashdot Mirror
Programming and life in general always come with puzzles and headscratchers.
The trick to being a good programmer is liking programming puzzles. That's the most important thing for a beginner to understand.
That's probably true once they get past the initial hurdles. But for newbies who don't even understand the most basic concepts, trying to explain the difference between 123, 12.3, and "123", or why 12 / 5 is different from 12.0 / 5.0 is confusing.
Javascriupt's primary benefit is letting the newbs discover for themselves whether they like programming. I used to tell people, way back in the day, to take any community college beginning programming course; if they couldn't wait to get to the class and stayed late at the lab using the class computers, they liked programming and would make excellent programmers. If they had to force themselves to keep going to class and ducked out of labs as soon as possible, they hated it and would make terrible programmers.
Programming is like hot rodding up to the 1970s or so. You don't need a degree, you don't need classes, you can pick most of the basics up from books, friends, and experimentation. What counts is whether you like it.
I tell friends to play with javascript.
* Any web page has source code to learn from.
* Small edits to said source pages show instantaneous results and are painless.
* No need for a comand line, which scares some people.
* The GUI changes, like changes ol to ul, or adding table cell padding, or changing styles, or easy and fun.
* Adding loops and conditionals are not very complicated, since most web pages with javascript provide sme examples.
Overall, for someone curious about programming, it's about the best self-taught intro I can think of. Anyone who wants to learn mroe can find out if the like the concept, the puzzles, and the headscratchers with just as much time and thought as they want.
The balancing act is almost exactly the same at the last moment of forward flight as it is at the first moment of retro burn, just in a different direction.
Aerodynamics matter very little at high altitude. They matter some at lower altitude, but I doubt they make much difference when the engine is burning.
The mass is less, and presumably easier to control, but yes, that is a difference.
The relative speeds are the same. Launch starts at 0 and increases to 1300. Landing starts at 1300 and ends at 0.
Actually, that is a small difference. Launch starts at 0, but landing ends at 2 m/s, leaving shock absorbers to reduce it to the final 0.
The tower drops away BEFORE liftoff.
And I don't mean the speed of light kind.
EXACTLY the same as takeoff. NO difference.
He's complaining that the money he spent to defeat the influence of money in politics didn't have any influence.
The proper lesson is that his basic thesis is wrong, that money doesn't always win elections. Meg Whitman was another example (if you have to ask who she? and what election? then you prove my point -- google "meg whitman election").
But being a statist fuck, that won't be the lesson he sees. Lessig's done a lot of nice work otherwise, but he's off the rails on this.
What galls me the most is the panty-wetting over a government-granted monopoly trying to maintain its government granted monopoly when that very same government tries to compete using taxpayer dollars as a subsidy.
The outrage should be against government involvement period. If governments didn't grant local monopolies, there would be real competition among the real companies, and no perceived need for the government competition which is only competitive because it has the taxpayer subsidy.
How can anyone pay lip service to free markets by regulating them?
The problem is that government regulates them as monopolies. They create the problem in the first lace by creating the monopoly, then offer to fix the problem by adding regulation. If it were a truly free market, without government sponsored monopolies, regulation wouldn't be nessary.
Look up the history of AT&T, how they were acting like a bully, but when the lawsuits began to have an effect and counter their actions, they begged the government to regulate them as a monopoly. If the government had just said no, they would have been brought to heel within a few years; the market would have worked.
It never ceases to amaze me how often I am amazed at people who cannot grasp this simple concept, that government specialized in correcting problems it created. Even that great social experiment, US alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933, was not ended by repealing the prohibition, but by changing outright prohibition to regulation.
I repeat, legal oppression only exists because of government. If you cannot see that simple truth, you are wilfully blind.
Primogeniture and entailment were government laws which enforced class distinctions and warfare -- withotu government creation and enforcement of classes, there would be no class oppression and warfare.
Government laws prevented women from owning property, voting, or having much freedom at all, and made marriage rape legal.
Slavery and segregation were the direct result of government laws. Society was integrating on its own until government stopped it and reversed course.
It's very simple: government creates laws to justify its oppression. You claim to get your history from the People's History. It's not much of a history if that single lesson doesn't come through loud and clear.
People care about people. Governments do not. Any one who thinks the government is his friend is either a crony or a fool, possibly both. Governments' mission is to compel or prohibit; their core competence is coercion in the name of the status quo.
Before government made black self-defense illegal and enforced bigotry with government guns, blacks at least had a chance. Society was at least slowly intergrating even in the face of government sanctioned lynching, before government stepped in officially and made it illegal, backed by government guns and jails. The US Post office and military were more integrated than most people realize, until Woodrow Wilson came along and enforced segregation. That Louisian railroad was just one of many companies who integrated in pursuit of the amlighty dollar, until governments came along and stopped them with government guns and jail.
Progressives are an ignorant whiny lot, like all statists. All power to the government! The people, not so much.
Civil rights for Black People in the Southern American States only happened because the Federal Government stepped in with the National Guard.
BULLSHIT. Slavery and Jim Crow were both the RESULT of government laws. Neither can exist in the absence of government. Jim Crow in particular owes its existence to a Louiana law requiring a railroad to segregate its railroad cars against its own wishes, said law being approved by the US Supreme Court.
You need to learn a lot of history before opening your yap next time.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
What a blissful world you live in!
And that theoretical speed is with minimal fuel, no weapons, no armor, no maneuverability, no military radios. In short,
Right.
Then there's that crap about being a jet fighter.
two eight-cylinder 4.9 litre race car engines producing 450 horsepower each
which is only half the horsepower available in real fighter airplanes 5 years later which could only manage 450 mph.
This is one of the more idiotic articles to come down the pike in quite a while.
I wrote a file deduplicator. Build a table of file size ---> name. If two files have the same size, run md5sum on them or just use cmp -s. It's a trivial program.
But if you have photos which you consider duplicates but which have different sizes or checksums, then it's a visual gig and lots of boring tedious work,
Anytime coercion enters the picture, along come its sibling corruption in every sense of the word.
If your scheme is not popular enough to stand on its own two legs -- if your arguments are not enough to win the day -- propping it up with compulsion is the only recourse left, and it reaps what it's worth.
Yes, but it's amazing how many uncached sites show up.
I signed up with Wild Blue about ten years ago; they were bought out a year or two ago (by Exide?) but I haven't noticed any change in service. I am very happy with them as far as doing the best any sat connection can do. So here are the caveats:
1. Ping time is routinely 1.5 seconds, sometimes as fast as 1.3. Don't think I've ever seen faster.
2. Speed of light time is 1/2 second; up, down, up, down; 4 x 36K km = 144 kn = 1/2 second. Whoever said .27 forgot about the round trip. I assume the sats and ground stations buffer like crazy to maximize bandwidth usage.
3. The ONLY time I have problems is when snow piles up on the dish. Gusts of 60 mph (100 kph) or so have never bothered it, but it's on a good solid tower. Snowstorms themselves are no problem, not the heaviest (4 feet in a day several times). There's an electrical heater on the back side of the dish made up of that tape you wrap around pipes; when power goes out and it's running without that, I have to brush the snow off every few hours, but that is the ONLY time I have had problems. They are rock solid otherwise.
4. Power outage is a nuisance. I have a standby generator but it takes 30 seconds to kick in, and I ought to have the modem and dish on a UPS, but I don't so sometimes I have to manually kick power to get reconnected.
5. Speed is 512Kbps up, 3Mbps down. Bandwidth isn't the killer, it's the latency. Ask the com root server who ibm.com is. Ask ibm.com who www.ibm.com is. Ask www.ibm.com for index.html. Find the css, ask ibm.com who css.ibm.com is. And so on, all at 1.5 seconds each. It's pretty frustrating sometimes. Some web sites are very unfriendly for slow latency connections.
I wish it were cheaper ($80 / month), but it's that or unreliable AT&T dialup.
Their elitiest arrogance shows in many ways. Two which particularly annoy me and come to mind at the moment are there position that they get to decide when pages are vanity pages or otherwise trivial and irrelevant, and the really frustrating cookies which expire too soon. Usually my only edits are typoes and afew obvious errors, but it requires a fresh login too often, especially since I browse wikipedia from several different computers, so the likelihood of a cookie expiring increases all that much more.
The editors should stick to resolving head bashing disputes and reversion battles, not substituting their elitist expertise against crowd sourced opinionson what articles are worth chucking out for having no links or for not following some arbitrary standard format.
It's the clueless marketing and product spec types who don't have a clue how computers work, don't have even the most superficial knowledge of how the current systems work, can't decipher what customers say they want, and write product specs which are so devoid of reality as to soak up more time straightening out than everything else combined.
There are so many laws on the books precisely because police and prosecutors want to be able to charge anybody with some crime if they feel the need, usually for disrespect of cop, but any perceived need will do.
Since everybody can be charged with a crime at almost any time, police HAVE to exercise discretion about what they charge and whether they charge.
This cop chose to be a dick, and he deserves to be recognized and treated like a dick.
If you still think he had no choice, then let me ask you why no other cop in the entire state is doing the same thing. Could it be that they chose to not be as dickish as this dick?
IIRC, the Spitfire and ME-109 were 20-30 mph faster, primarily because they had such short range. They probably had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but I don't know. They did have better guns. As far as maneuverability, I'd guess the Zero was better at medium speeds simply from being lighter.
I've tried comparing them with Wikipedia stats and other web sites, but planes (other than the Japanese) were progressing so fast that it's hard to get data for simultaneous versions.
Your context reading still sucks if you can't even read my handle correctly. Hint: there's a UID after it.
Investments don't mean squat. Until there is verifiable proof that they have created wonder weapons that other nations haven't, then their imaginary results are just that.
I can't make it any simpler: unless they have magic technology with better engines, fuels, explosives, guidance systems, stealth technology, and everything else it would take for their cruise missiles to be do deadly, then they have nothing that other nations don't also have. They are not supermen or magicians. They are just humans with secrets.
As Khrushchev supposedly said to his son, "We have nothing to hide. We have nothing, and we must hide it."