Those sound more like divisions within the same religion over what God does, not if He exists.
Not really. The definition of "deist" includes the assumption that God hasn't been active ever since the creation of the world. That makes it incompatable with Christianity in that a deist would not believe in miracles -- For example, the central most important point of Christianty, that God miraculously impregnating Mary with the baby Jesus and so Jesus is God's son, is the sort of miracle that isn't comptable with Deism. Nor is the ressurection, nor the flood of Noah, and so on and so forth.
Deism is very close to atheism, with the only big exception being that Deists felt it was necessary for a god to have existed as an explaination for why the world exists, and why things seem so orderly with regards to science. But they didn't think this God had anything whatsoever to do with morality, or any other aspect of daily life for that matter. They envisioned a god that designed the rules under which the universe would operate (physics), seeded the world with life, and then set the world free to operate on it's own without further interferance. Kind of like a science experiment in a petri dish.
You don't see many Deists anymore today, because Deism existed primarily as a means to divorce ones' self from the religions of the day yet still retain a comfortable explanation for how we got here. At the time, people didn't have any inkling about the big bang, or how solar systems form, or how the earth formed, or how life evolved.
I never claimed that the few examples I threw out consitituted an exhaustive list. I just picked the ones that nobody would argue over, since even under the most strict definition of "god" they still qualify. I didn't want to open the can of worms that is the definition of the word "god". It's an ill-defined term that has been used to mean a great many completely different concepts at different times.
You *do* need land. Yes, you can stick the plants in water, but you still need to get nutrients from soil and introduce them to the water. Ocean life has a food chain that is dependant on the sedament, in just the same way land life depends on the minerals in soil. The Earth is not covered by only 4/5 land. It's covered by 100% land - it's just that most of it is flooded;-)
6.2 billion people can live there, with more comfort than they do in Tokyo.
Yes, and hitting your thumb with a hammer is more comfortable than being burned alive. Some of us might not consider Toyko to be a very good standard of comfort to measure by.
I'll give you a hint, they eat fish over there.
I'll give you a hint - they fish from all over the Pacific Ocean to do that. They have some amazing hydroponic farms, but to have enough food they still have to fish the old-fashioned way - by sending lots of boats out around the world picking up lots of fish. Again, it's sustainable for one nation to do that, but not for all of them to do that to the level Japan does.
The world is as densely populated as Japan is, however Tokyo is the most densly populated city in the world. Understand the difference between Country and City? It's a rather large one...
(This data is as of July 2001):
Total area of Japan: 377,835 sq km
Population of Japan: 126,771,662
So, average density = 335.5 people per sq km
Land area of the world (to be fair, I'll take just the land area and ignore the oceans, which works in your argument's favor): 148.94 million sq km
Population of the world: 6,157,400,560
So, average density = 41.3 people per sq km
Understand the difference between 41.3 and 335.5? It's a rather large one.
In America the earthquake of 1755 was widely ascribed, especially in Massachusetts, to Franklin's rod.
(Must...Get...Mind...Out...Of...Gutter...)
The Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of the Old South Church, published a sermon on the subject, and in the appendix expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of ``iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin.'' He goes on to argue that ``in Boston are more erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God.''
Three years later, John Adams, speaking of a conversation with Arbuthnot, a Boston physician, says: ``He began to prate upon the presumption of philosophy in erecting iron rods to draw the lightning from the clouds. He railed and foamed against the points and the presumption that erected them. He talked of presuming upon God, as Peter attempted to walk upon the water, and of attempting to control the artillery of heaven.''
As late as 1770 religious scruples regarding lightning-rods were still felt, the theory being that, as thunder and lightning were tokens of the Divine displeasure, it was impiety to prevent their doing their full work. Fortunately, Prof. John Winthrop, of Harvard, showed himself wise in this, as in so many other things: in a lecture on earthquakes he opposed the dominant theology; and as to arguments against Franklin's rods, he declared, ``It is as much our duty to secure ourselves against the effects of lightning as against those of rain, snow, and wind by the means God has put into our hands.''
In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.
In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.
In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.
In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."
It took many years for scientists to convince the priests to attach a lightning rod to the spire of St. Bride's Church in London, even though it had been destroyed by lightning several times.
"Theist" is merely a generic vague term refering to anyone who believes a god exists ("Atheist" = "not theist". "Theist" = "not( not( theist) )" = "not athiest".) The term is so generic that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all fall under the heading of "theist".
You're operating on the false notion that it would be a sustainable situation for the whole world to be as crowded as the most densely populated parts are today. Japan NEEDS that less populous portion of the world to help support it's population. The only reason the crowded nation of Japan doesn't have starvation is because there exist OTHER nations that have more than enough land to grow food on, and Japan has the ability to trade with them, and it is a wealthy enough nation that it can easily buy as much as it needs. If the rest of the world were as crowded as Japan, Japan wouldn't have anyone to trade with for food.
No, you can't have the entire world as densely populated as Japan is - as long as people still need to eat food grown on farms.
Much of the time we have no freaking clue what the real impact of our actions will be on the environment.
Yes - and the green lobby keeps forgetting to apply Occams' Razor to that ignorance. No - I take that back, most are too dumb to know what it means in the first place. And it's a crying shame, because unlike most who ridicule the greenies, I recognize that there really ARE environmental issues that are important, and SOME of what they say is valid - but only SOME of it. A lot is pure speculation disguised as science. Why oh why do I live in a world where the only real political choices are: support the lying extremists who make the environmental situation look worse than it is, or support the lying extremists who won't even acknowlege the obvious environmental problems that have already been proven?
If the usual suspects were "sinners", then Franklin also being a suspect really isn't all that unusual. He was not well liked by many church leaders, who already considered him heretical because of his tendency to spread inventions to the public that helped them evade "god's wrath". He was already disliked by some for the lightning rod because lightning was viewed as God's rightful wrath, and if it hits your house God must have had a good reason for doing so. Trying to evade the wrath of God via an invention was seen as excessive hubris. (That argument ended when it became apparent that churches also benefitted from having lightning rods installed. It looks bad to keep claiming lightning rods are sinful when churches that install them get destroyed from lightning much less often than churches that don't.)
A little ice age would not destroy all farmable land. It would just destroy a large amount of it, leaving only the areas nearer to the equator as usable farmland. It would also reduce rainfall, as more of the earth's water is locked up in ice instead of circulating in the rain cycle (or whatever that cycle is called where it rains, runs off to the ocean, evaporates into clouds, rains again. etc)
An full (not "little) ice age would certainly mess up most of Canada, except for thin strips of land right near the oceans (Vancouver wouldn't be covered, Nova Scotia wouldn't be covered, but everything in-between would be.) Further south, the last ice-ages had glaciers reaching down into northern Michigan and Minnesota, and the southernmost point being an elongated lobe covering most of Wisconsin. Where I live (Madison, WI) was just barely inside the southernmost extent of that lobe, and the effect on the geography was drastic. What was under the glacier got sanded down into smooth gently rolling terrain. What was not under the glacier still looks like it did before - rocky outcroppings, hills with cliffs, rugged and pretty terrain. The difference is drastic. Those things must have been very thick.
I'm aware that if you have the same atoms, put them together the same way, that you have the same exact thing and it's no different than in the naturally occuring form. But this isn't like that.
It's actually a different molecule. It just happens to be similar to the one found in willow bark - in just the right way that it has the same pain-dampening effect when it comes in concact with our bodies' nervous systems. Most medicines made to mimic what is found in nature are like that. The molecules found in nature are way too complex to be easy to mancufacture an exact replica. It's not simple to derive a formula that will result in some exact molecule with almost a hundred different atoms in it.
For example, the insulin diabetics take is not precisely the same as the insulin a human body manufactures, but it's close enough to function the same.
In a biological molecule, often the precise make-up of the molecule isn't the relevant part of how it operates - it's the manner in which it flexes, and the points at which it tends to bond to other molecules that matters. As long as those points are the same, it has about the same shape and size, some of the other atoms in the body of the molecule aren't that relevant to its function.
You cannot patent something that exists in nature already
True. Now next time try replying to what was actually said instead of inventing a strawman. They patented their synthetic imitation - which is NOT identical to what is found in nature.
Specifically, Willow tree bark. But what comes in asprin pills is a synthetic imitation of the active ingredient in the tree bark, and that synthetic imitation can be patented. That doesn't stop someone from making natural cures out of Willow tree bark, or studying it to derive a different way of mimicing the active ingredient.
Some Native Americans used to make a pain relieving tea for headaches by boiling the willow bark. It tasted terrible, but it worked. Others just chewed gnawed on the bark directly for a while and then spit it out, like a stick of gum.
It was from studying this phenomenon that scientists at Bayer eventually figured out their formula for asprin.
Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 2
Anyone who actually believes the conservatives and liberals are split on the issue of states rights is gullable. Consider the debates leading up to the Civil War. The Republicans were all about federal authority and the southern Democrats touted states' rights all the time. Then it reversed. Now both favor federal power. Why the flip-flopping? Because their calls for state's rights or federal power were always just a cover for whatever agenda they really wanted to push. When the local governments are mostly controlled by party A and the central one is mostly controlled by party B, people who like party A's agenda will want more localized control and people who like party B's agenda will want more centralized control. When the control of these strata of government changes, so do the stances on local vs central control.
The vehicle of communication is the internet. The hyperlink in a web page is nothing more than an address telling you one possible place you could drive that vehicle. If putting such a link up is illegal, than so is publishing a phone number in the phone book, or publishing a map that has all the roads marked on it, including the ones that lead into FARC territory.
I'm trying to figure out if this affects any games I'd be interested in. What exactly is "Rare" - or, I mean, what games do they make. What games did they make?
I've actually heard it called a "personal PIN number". Why anyone thinks they need a personal personal identification number number I'm not sure.
(Actually, calling it a personal identification number was an incorrect move on the part of the banking industry anyway. It is not an identification number. It's a verification number, a "password", which isn't the same thing. With a slew of 4 digit numbers out there there have to be a lot of duplicate people with the same PIN as me, so it fails to be an identifying number.)
Although both linux and freeBSD have developers from around the world, Linux seems to have a greater geographical distribution of developers from different countries creating it than freeBSD does. That alone could be a reason for a company outside the US to find it a bit more desirable. It's a bit more "international". Then when you add on the distribution stuff (everything not in the kernel) you find even more evidence of internationality. You can get a distro built by Europeans for Europeans.
The fact that Linux distros come from so many different countires maes them more desirable for people who want to buy from out of their own local economy.
You are saying yourself that g_foo is good and then say that Hungarian should not be used. That doesn't make much sense:)
It does when you consider that I used "g_" before I'd ever heard of Hungarian notation. The fact that a system has ONE thing I agree with doesn't mean I have to agree with the rest of it. Just because I like the ham doesn't mean I also have to like the green eggs.
The only time I ever imbed the type into the name of a variable is in cases where the same information is copied between different types, where if it wasn't for their difference in type, there wouldn't even have been two different variables.
for example:
int intAverageAge;
char strAverageAge[20]; ...
sprintf( strAverageAge, "%d", intAverageAge );
I don't agree with making up one-character abbreviations for the types (i = int, sz = zero char terminated string, etc), because that just encourages people to add TOO MUCH type information into the variable name. (that "too much of a good thing" you meantioned in your post). If you are adding more than one or two type-specifying terms to the name, you're overdoing it, in my opinion. If you add types to every variable, even the ones that don't need it, that's overdoing it, in my opinion. In other words, if you do what Hungarian notation suggests, that's overdoing it.
If you use the metric that everyone who dispenses with most of Hungarian notation is still using Hungarian notation because it's defined to be fuzzy and optional, then ALL programs use hungarian notation - even the ones that don't have any in them at all. And that's clearly insane.
Of course people can't find OBJECTIVE evidence that OOP is "better". There's no such thing as "objectively" proving something is simply "better" (without qualifiers, that is. If you add further qualifiers than just saying "better", then it can become objective.).
I can't even OBJECTIVELY show that taking a nice warm bath is "better" than being burned with a hot branding iron - after all, one could be a masochist and derive pleasure from the hot iron, so it's all subjective.
Hungarian notation isn't about just the scope. putting g_ for globals is a good thing because it tells you where to look for the declaration. But Hungarian Notation also tries to imbed everything about the variable into the name. g_foo is fine, gppdw_foo for global pointer to pointer to double-word score is not. Just look at the Windows API library to see why NOT to use Hungarian notation.
Most geeks don't like it because it prevents thinking in a data amorphic way. If I want to think of my "int foo" as "some sort of number, but I don't care excatly what kind most of the time", that's hard to do propy when the name includes the type embedded in it. It also makes data type hiding difficult. If I have "pointer to something" returned by one routine that is meant to be passed to another routine, I shouldn't care what kind of thing it points at. That's inside a black box where I'm not supposed to depend on the particular implementation it happens to be using in this version. I shouldn't care that the device context handle returned to me by some Windows graphics routine was an unsigned-double-word or whatever the heck it was (It's been a while since I did that kind of code, so I'm a bit rusty.) It should just be "A thingy I pass back to the other routines to let them know which one I'm talking about" and I shouldn't know any more than that about it.
Hypocracy noted. It's okay for you to belittle others' knowlege based on one passing comment that could have multiple explantions (where you chose to pretend it has the least flattering of those explanations as the only possiblity).
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. The definition of "deist" includes the assumption that God hasn't been active ever since the creation of the world. That makes it incompatable with Christianity in that a deist would not believe in miracles -- For example, the central most important point of Christianty, that God miraculously impregnating Mary with the baby Jesus and so Jesus is God's son, is the sort of miracle that isn't comptable with Deism. Nor is the ressurection, nor the flood of Noah, and so on and so forth.
Deism is very close to atheism, with the only big exception being that Deists felt it was necessary for a god to have existed as an explaination for why the world exists, and why things seem so orderly with regards to science. But they didn't think this God had anything whatsoever to do with morality, or any other aspect of daily life for that matter. They envisioned a god that designed the rules under which the universe would operate (physics), seeded the world with life, and then set the world free to operate on it's own without further interferance. Kind of like a science experiment in a petri dish.
You don't see many Deists anymore today, because Deism existed primarily as a means to divorce ones' self from the religions of the day yet still retain a comfortable explanation for how we got here. At the time, people didn't have any inkling about the big bang, or how solar systems form, or how the earth formed, or how life evolved.
I never claimed that the few examples I threw out consitituted an exhaustive list. I just picked the ones that nobody would argue over, since even under the most strict definition of "god" they still qualify. I didn't want to open the can of worms that is the definition of the word "god". It's an ill-defined term that has been used to mean a great many completely different concepts at different times.
You *do* need land. Yes, you can stick the plants in water, but you still need to get nutrients from soil and introduce them to the water. Ocean life has a food chain that is dependant on the sedament, in just the same way land life depends on the minerals in soil. The Earth is not covered by only 4/5 land. It's covered by 100% land - it's just that most of it is flooded ;-)
Yes, and hitting your thumb with a hammer is more comfortable than being burned alive. Some of us might not consider Toyko to be a very good standard of comfort to measure by.
I'll give you a hint - they fish from all over the Pacific Ocean to do that. They have some amazing hydroponic farms, but to have enough food they still have to fish the old-fashioned way - by sending lots of boats out around the world picking up lots of fish. Again, it's sustainable for one nation to do that, but not for all of them to do that to the level Japan does.
(This data is as of July 2001):
Total area of Japan: 377,835 sq km
Population of Japan: 126,771,662
So, average density = 335.5 people per sq km
Land area of the world (to be fair, I'll take just the land area and ignore the oceans, which works in your argument's favor): 148.94 million sq km
Population of the world: 6,157,400,560
So, average density = 41.3 people per sq km
Understand the difference between 41.3 and 335.5? It's a rather large one.
"Theist" is merely a generic vague term refering to anyone who believes a god exists ("Atheist" = "not theist". "Theist" = "not( not( theist) )" = "not athiest".) The term is so generic that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all fall under the heading of "theist".
You're operating on the false notion that it would be a sustainable situation for the whole world to be as crowded as the most densely populated parts are today. Japan NEEDS that less populous portion of the world to help support it's population. The only reason the crowded nation of Japan doesn't have starvation is because there exist OTHER nations that have more than enough land to grow food on, and Japan has the ability to trade with them, and it is a wealthy enough nation that it can easily buy as much as it needs. If the rest of the world were as crowded as Japan, Japan wouldn't have anyone to trade with for food.
No, you can't have the entire world as densely populated as Japan is - as long as people still need to eat food grown on farms.
Yes - and the green lobby keeps forgetting to apply Occams' Razor to that ignorance. No - I take that back, most are too dumb to know what it means in the first place. And it's a crying shame, because unlike most who ridicule the greenies, I recognize that there really ARE environmental issues that are important, and SOME of what they say is valid - but only SOME of it. A lot is pure speculation disguised as science. Why oh why do I live in a world where the only real political choices are: support the lying extremists who make the environmental situation look worse than it is, or support the lying extremists who won't even acknowlege the obvious environmental problems that have already been proven?
If the usual suspects were "sinners", then Franklin also being a suspect really isn't all that unusual. He was not well liked by many church leaders, who already considered him heretical because of his tendency to spread inventions to the public that helped them evade "god's wrath". He was already disliked by some for the lightning rod because lightning was viewed as God's rightful wrath, and if it hits your house God must have had a good reason for doing so. Trying to evade the wrath of God via an invention was seen as excessive hubris. (That argument ended when it became apparent that churches also benefitted from having lightning rods installed. It looks bad to keep claiming lightning rods are sinful when churches that install them get destroyed from lightning much less often than churches that don't.)
A little ice age would not destroy all farmable land. It would just destroy a large amount of it, leaving only the areas nearer to the equator as usable farmland. It would also reduce rainfall, as more of the earth's water is locked up in ice instead of circulating in the rain cycle (or whatever that cycle is called where it rains, runs off to the ocean, evaporates into clouds, rains again. etc)
An full (not "little) ice age would certainly mess up most of Canada, except for thin strips of land right near the oceans (Vancouver wouldn't be covered, Nova Scotia wouldn't be covered, but everything in-between would be.) Further south, the last ice-ages had glaciers reaching down into northern Michigan and Minnesota, and the southernmost point being an elongated lobe covering most of Wisconsin. Where I live (Madison, WI) was just barely inside the southernmost extent of that lobe, and the effect on the geography was drastic. What was under the glacier got sanded down into smooth gently rolling terrain. What was not under the glacier still looks like it did before - rocky outcroppings, hills with cliffs, rugged and pretty terrain. The difference is drastic. Those things must have been very thick.
I'm aware that if you have the same atoms, put them together the same way, that you have the same exact thing and it's no different than in the naturally occuring form. But this isn't like that.
It's actually a different molecule. It just happens to be similar to the one found in willow bark - in just the right way that it has the same pain-dampening effect when it comes in concact with our bodies' nervous systems. Most medicines made to mimic what is found in nature are like that. The molecules found in nature are way too complex to be easy to mancufacture an exact replica. It's not simple to derive a formula that will result in some exact molecule with almost a hundred different atoms in it.
For example, the insulin diabetics take is not precisely the same as the insulin a human body manufactures, but it's close enough to function
the same.
In a biological molecule, often the precise make-up of the molecule isn't the relevant part of how it operates - it's the manner in which it flexes, and the points at which it tends to bond to other molecules that matters. As long as those points are the same, it has about the same shape and size, some of the other atoms in the body of the molecule aren't that relevant to its function.
You cannot patent something that exists in nature already
True. Now next time try replying to what was actually said instead of inventing a strawman.
They patented their synthetic imitation - which is NOT identical to what is found in nature.
80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
life.
That's funny coming from someone who apparently thinks a 63 character line would wrap on a 80 column screen.
Specifically, Willow tree bark. But what comes in asprin pills is a synthetic imitation of the active ingredient in the tree bark, and that synthetic imitation can be patented. That doesn't stop someone from making natural cures out of Willow tree bark, or studying it to derive a different way of mimicing the active ingredient.
Some Native Americans used to make a pain relieving tea for headaches by boiling the willow bark. It tasted terrible, but it worked. Others just chewed gnawed on the bark directly for a while and then spit it out, like a stick of gum.
It was from studying this phenomenon that scientists at Bayer eventually figured out their formula for asprin.
Anyone who actually believes the conservatives and liberals are split on the issue of states rights is gullable. Consider the debates leading up to the Civil War. The Republicans were all about federal authority and the southern Democrats touted states' rights all the time. Then it reversed. Now both favor federal power. Why the flip-flopping? Because their calls for state's rights or federal power were always just a cover for whatever agenda they really wanted to push. When the local governments are mostly controlled by party A and the central one is mostly controlled by party B, people who like party A's agenda will want more localized control and people who like party B's agenda will want more centralized control. When the control of these strata of government changes, so do the stances on local vs central control.
The vehicle of communication is the internet. The hyperlink in a web page is nothing more than an address telling you one possible place you could drive that vehicle. If putting such a link up is
illegal, than so is publishing a phone number in the
phone book, or publishing a map that has all the roads marked on it, including the ones that lead into FARC territory.
I'm trying to figure out if this affects any games I'd be interested in. What exactly is "Rare" - or, I mean, what games do they make. What games did they make?
I've actually heard it called a "personal PIN number". Why anyone thinks they need a personal personal identification number number I'm not sure.
(Actually, calling it a personal identification number was an incorrect move on the part of the banking industry anyway. It is not an identification number. It's a verification number, a "password", which isn't the same thing. With a slew of 4 digit numbers out there there have to be a lot of duplicate people with the same PIN as me, so it fails to be an identifying number.)
Although both linux and freeBSD have developers from around the world, Linux seems to have a greater geographical distribution of developers from different countries creating it than freeBSD does. That alone could be a reason for a company outside the US to find it a bit more desirable. It's a bit more "international". Then when you add on the distribution stuff (everything not in the kernel) you find even more evidence of internationality. You can get a distro built by Europeans for Europeans. The fact that Linux distros come from so many different countires maes them more desirable for people who want to buy from out of their own local economy.
It does when you consider that I used "g_" before I'd ever heard of Hungarian notation. The fact that a system has ONE thing I agree with doesn't mean I have to agree with the rest of it. Just because I like the ham doesn't mean I also have to like the green eggs.
The only time I ever imbed the type into the name of a variable is in cases where the same information is copied between different types, where if it wasn't for their difference in type, there wouldn't even have been two different variables.
for example:
int intAverageAge;
char strAverageAge[20];
sprintf( strAverageAge, "%d", intAverageAge );
I don't agree with making up one-character abbreviations for the types (i = int, sz = zero char terminated string, etc), because that just encourages people to add TOO MUCH type information into the variable name. (that "too much of a good thing" you meantioned in your post). If you are adding more than one or two type-specifying terms to the name, you're overdoing it, in my opinion. If you add types to every variable, even the ones that don't need it, that's overdoing it, in my opinion. In other words, if you do what Hungarian notation suggests, that's overdoing it.
If you use the metric that everyone who dispenses with most of Hungarian notation is still using Hungarian notation because it's defined to be fuzzy and optional, then ALL programs use hungarian notation - even the ones that don't have any in them at all. And that's clearly insane.
Your .sig:
Of course people can't find OBJECTIVE evidence that OOP is "better". There's no such thing as "objectively" proving something is simply "better" (without qualifiers, that is. If you add further qualifiers than just saying "better", then it can become objective.).
I can't even OBJECTIVELY show that taking a nice warm bath is "better" than being burned with a hot branding iron - after all, one could be a masochist and derive pleasure from the hot iron, so it's all subjective.
In a way, that seems to me like an even better spoof on what they were talking about. Sort of a meta-joke buried in there.
Hungarian notation isn't about just the scope. putting g_ for globals is a good thing because it tells you where to look for the declaration. But Hungarian Notation also tries to imbed everything about the variable into the name. g_foo is fine,
gppdw_foo for global pointer to pointer to double-word score is not. Just look at the Windows API library to see why NOT to use Hungarian notation.
Most geeks don't like it because it prevents thinking in a data amorphic way. If I want to think of my "int foo" as "some sort of number, but I don't care excatly what kind most of the time", that's hard to do propy when the name includes the type embedded in it. It also makes data type hiding difficult. If I have "pointer to something" returned by one routine that is meant to be passed to another routine, I shouldn't care what kind of thing it points at. That's inside a black box where I'm not supposed to depend on the particular implementation it happens to be using in this version. I shouldn't care that the device context handle returned to me by some Windows graphics routine was an unsigned-double-word or whatever the heck it was (It's been a while since I did that kind of code, so I'm a bit rusty.) It should just be "A thingy I pass back to the other routines to let them know which one I'm talking about" and I shouldn't know any more than that about it.
preprocessor #define Macros do this already in C.
It's nothing new.
Hypocracy noted. It's okay for you to belittle others' knowlege based on one passing comment that could have multiple explantions (where you chose to pretend it has the least flattering of those explanations as the only possiblity).