From the article: "Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials, and she was told it was not an urgent issue, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it."*
Later on: "Bratton, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, wrote on June 21 that the program, as envisioned by the Bush administration, is not an urgent need for local law enforcement."*
That would be fine if the context of my comment had anything to do with logic postulates; but as it stands, the word "beg" is used in its common dictionary definition of "to ask earnestly" or "to implore". The phrase, thus, is intended--and can easily be understood--to mean "the premise entreats us in earnest to raise the following question".
I'd say that Fowler's literal translation of "petitio principii" is the faulty one, and as such the "original meaning" that you contend is merely an accident of history.
Don't worry, you're in good company. There's plenty of pedants and pseudo-logicians that insist in debating linguistic prescription without regards toward semantics and historical context.
>> Quite true. We're still trying to get the county sheriff to take reports of some guy jacking off outside kids' bedroom windows seriously.
Would it bother the community less if the guy was doing it in a happy and light-hearted manner? I'm just saying. Perhaps you should post a sign on the street or something.
And don't forget the most important lesson: Do not be intimidated by (however many) guys coming at you with a laptop, especially if there's some sort of geeky toy convention nearby.
Actually, it is the reverse, in my experience. Most programmers I know started their craft with a Commodore 64, Apple II, or Atari computers; programming in BASIC. Only after realizing how limited and slow the language was were they even exposed to Assembly or Machine Language.
In my experience, then, programming in BASIC gave them the inspiration, the interest, and the impetus to learn the lower level languages, precisely because a good high-level language was not available. The fact that they knew BASIC, and could even exploit its intricacies, did not hinder their appreciation for other languages, nor their ability to learn or apply them.
Actually, most C=64 games were written in Assembly Language. The article doesn't make it clear, but it implies that the emulator will allow for absolutely full access to the C=64 capabilities, and this includes arbitrary 6510 (virtual) machine code execution.
Not that this necessarily opens up a vulnerability, but it clearly shows a difference between this emulator iPhone App and say, Sega's, who allows the execution of the ROMs included with the App only. This means that other arbitrary programs could be distributed outside the Apple App Store to run directly on the C=64 emulator, in essence bypassing the App Store and it's certification/acceptance process. I believe this is what Apple objects to, not the mere fact of running emulated code.
As for getting some sort of approval from Apple before development of the application, again the article offers very little detail on whether this was expressed or implied. It is not clear, for example, if the developer explained to Apple his intention to implement this external distribution model. It also is not specified if he received an actual binding acceptance from someone with authority, or a mere "Hey, that sounds cool!" from an Apple techie or marketroid.
Also, as others have pointed out (and the article seems to ignore), the Sega emulator is not open-ended, allowing the download and installation of any ROM image; it only runs the ROM images included with it.
The C=64 emulator, in contrast, not only allows you to run any old game made for the platform, but it contains a fully functional BASIC interpreter, allowing the emulator to execute any arbitrary code. It also provides a way for users to purchase other games directly from the emulator developer, bypassing Apple's App Store. This is clearly a violation of Apple's SDK, not to mention its interests.
>> There's a difficult position: that more is better, on the back of the free work of others.
I have no idea what you mean, nor what instigated your rant.
Are you implying that I am criticizing the "the free work of others" by expecting them to do more work than they were willing or able to do? If so, that's a pretty baseless accusation.
Lets get something clear: The authors of the test did not do me any favors; I did not ask them to do anything, and consequently did not expect them to do anything, free or otherwise. However, they did publish their test for the public to see, and it was submitted--whether by them or someone else--to Slashdot. It is therefore presented to our community as some sort of authoritative test, and therefore critique should not only be expected, it is warranted.
>> Maybe the point should be whether this test measured the most useful value given the amount of effort invested in the test, or whether they should have bothered at all, if this was the most they could manage.
Oh, I see; we should give them brownie points and recognition for the mere fact of having made any test at all. Should we give them a medal for effort too? I don't agree. As I and others have pointed out, the test is based on a flawed assumption: that memory usage is a valid or valuable performance metric. It's actually worse than that, as it fails to consider shared memory among multiple related processes. As such, it is worthless.
I certainly appreciate their hard work, as I appreciate the work of anybody who is willing to give their time and effort for the betterment of the community; but if the thesis of a particular project has no worth to the community then I say, thanks but don't bother.
Neither would be correct in this case, as they are only including a very small sub-set of the browsers out there and not offering enough context in the title. "Et al" (and others) and "et cetera" (and the rest) both imply the an entire set; the former for proper names, while the latter is for generic lists. The intention is to shorten the list, not create ambiguity.
It would have been more accurate to include the full list, or shorten it with "among others". If the full list of browsers was already understood by context, then using "et al" would have suffice. However, the title does not give enough context for this and therefore implies all browsers. It is the same as saying "Chrome, Firefox and the rest." The rest of what? of all browsers?
Technical topics require some level of technical detail, otherwise you'll only speak in limited metaphors which may muddle the understanding of the subject matter, and defeat your purpose. If the technical jargon was completely avoidable and unnecessary, it would not be there to begin with. It represents concepts that may not be communicated in any other way, or at least as a shorthand for more complex or extended expressions.
Therefore, in my opinion, laymen explanations of technical subjects should not necessarily avoid all jargon, but should include it in context, and explain it in plain terms. Remember, you are talking to a human being, and one intelligent enough to at least have the curiousity and interest to ask the question initially. Assuming that your listener is a complete moron that may never comprehend your topic at your level is not only unwarranted and condesending, it is insulting.
As such, I think the poster did an excellent job at explaning Process Architecture in general, and at introducing technical terms such as "process" and "thread" in a meaningful and concise way. This will allow the reader to recognize and understand the terms in the future, and not rely on the "housing development" analogy as a crutch.
The same applies doubly when communicating with children.
I disagree. Only memory consumption was measured in this test, not efficiency or actual practical usability.
The test results doesn't tell you, for example, if Chrome just allocates memory aggressively in contemplation of its usage, and therefor opening more than 30 tabs will not make it consume more or run slower. It also doesn't tell you if, in order to avoid memory pre-allocation and remain "lean", Firefox has to re-generate object graphs on the fly for every few tabs, or constantly hit disk cache, making it run considerably slower when many more tabs are opened (for the sake of avoiding a memory hogging caching system).
Of course, all of the above is pure fantasy in an effort to illustrate a point. I make no such claims on any of the browsers, though they certainly are plausible. The point is that the single metric of this test, though in a way useful, is not the best way to measure performance.
I see weird-ass icons and bars on Slashdot comments in Firefox, on Mac OS X 10.5.7 and Windows XP SP2. I don't get those artifacts in any other well constructed site; only on Slashdot.
What's more, they occurred right after they fixed the white-on-white-comment-title CSS bug. Although it could certainly be a Firefox rendering issue, it seems to me more of a broken CSS issue from Slashdot web developers.
Just as that other annoying bug, I can work around it by clicking the "CHANGE" button without making any threading changes. Which offers another suspicious clue: why is the page rendered differently at that point?
>> The author wants to a priori assume that everyone will love math if only the beauty of it is shown to them. This is mistaken.
Mistaken? Perhaps. But his point is that the student should be exposed to its beauty to at least have a chance of it sparking his interest. He contends, and quite eloquently in my opinion, that the current curriculum precludes this beauty and prevents the student from even considering the notion that there could ever be beauty and elegance, or any interesting things at all, in Mathematics.
If you think about it a little bit more, you'll realize that it's the other way around. Throughout centuries we've learned to deal with the various patterns and concepts in mathematics by creating shorthand symbols and methods that expressed them. It is therefore no wonder when people educated in such mechanims create computer languages similar in expression and syntax.
A "function" in Perl (or C) is essentially the same as one in Algebra, compare: sub foo(bar) {
return (2 * bar) / 10; }
2x f(x) = ----
10
A set of parameters are transformed into an answer directly related to them. The concepts, terms and syntax were borrowed liberally because they were already there and it was convenient. This is not an accident.
He said: "And it showed me how arbitrary mathematical systems and their structures really are and they are built to suit particular kinds of minds or cultures." "Math is a very rich subject which unfortunately has a lot of cultish like people"
You said: >> so you want to teach math using base-1... that's... insane.
Well put. Although I agree with Lockhart's passionate desire for Maths to be understood in their proper context, I also felt he missed the biggest picture of it: that Mathematics can be beautiful, awe-inspiring, engaging, fun, and useful.
But his point is still well taken, that even if Mathematics--like many other art forms--do not directly offer utility to an individual, it still has so much more to offer when he or she is able to appreciates it for its very own sake. And that in itself has great value to a society.
>> Well if you're not asking for teachers needing to be professional published mathematicians, what was that paragraph about?
You missed the point. He wasn't talking about being professional or published; when he mentioned "who have never produced an original piece of mathematics," he meant in the same creative and engaging thought games he wishes they taught the students. He's point being that teachers are just regurgitating "facts" from a text-book, whose context and history they themselves never bothered to understand first hand.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
"Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials, and she was told it was not an urgent issue, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it."*
Later on:
"Bratton, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, wrote on June 21 that the program, as envisioned by the Bush administration, is not an urgent need for local law enforcement."*
*(Emphasis mine)
Anonymity. Yes, we've heard of it.
-dZ.
Oh! Another context-challenged logician splitting hairs, how nice.
Please, read my previous response:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1277369&cid=28427099
By the way, here are some rules on capitalization:
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp
Shall we call it a day now?
-dZ.
Point taken.
Now, shall we discuss grammar and the proper use of capitalization and punctuation? Linguistic prescription, indeed!
Regards,
-dZ.
That would be fine if the context of my comment had anything to do with logic postulates; but as it stands, the word "beg" is used in its common dictionary definition of "to ask earnestly" or "to implore". The phrase, thus, is intended--and can easily be understood--to mean "the premise entreats us in earnest to raise the following question".
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=beg&search=search
I'd say that Fowler's literal translation of "petitio principii" is the faulty one, and as such the "original meaning" that you contend is merely an accident of history.
Don't worry, you're in good company. There's plenty of pedants and pseudo-logicians that insist in debating linguistic prescription without regards toward semantics and historical context.
Cheers!
-dZ.
>> Quite true. We're still trying to get the county sheriff to take reports of some guy jacking off outside kids' bedroom windows seriously.
Would it bother the community less if the guy was doing it in a happy and light-hearted manner? I'm just saying. Perhaps you should post a sign on the street or something.
-dZ.
Do those signs include bad grammar and lame story telling?
-dZ.
If you had an Android phone, you could have used V-8 juice to power its browser, at least.
-dZ.
Which begs the question, if a dead man falls in the forest, does it really exist?
-dZ.
And don't forget the most important lesson: Do not be intimidated by (however many) guys coming at you with a laptop, especially if there's some sort of geeky toy convention nearby.
-dZ.
Actually, it is the reverse, in my experience. Most programmers I know started their craft with a Commodore 64, Apple II, or Atari computers; programming in BASIC. Only after realizing how limited and slow the language was were they even exposed to Assembly or Machine Language.
In my experience, then, programming in BASIC gave them the inspiration, the interest, and the impetus to learn the lower level languages, precisely because a good high-level language was not available. The fact that they knew BASIC, and could even exploit its intricacies, did not hinder their appreciation for other languages, nor their ability to learn or apply them.
-dZ.
Actually, most C=64 games were written in Assembly Language. The article doesn't make it clear, but it implies that the emulator will allow for absolutely full access to the C=64 capabilities, and this includes arbitrary 6510 (virtual) machine code execution.
Not that this necessarily opens up a vulnerability, but it clearly shows a difference between this emulator iPhone App and say, Sega's, who allows the execution of the ROMs included with the App only. This means that other arbitrary programs could be distributed outside the Apple App Store to run directly on the C=64 emulator, in essence bypassing the App Store and it's certification/acceptance process. I believe this is what Apple objects to, not the mere fact of running emulated code.
As for getting some sort of approval from Apple before development of the application, again the article offers very little detail on whether this was expressed or implied. It is not clear, for example, if the developer explained to Apple his intention to implement this external distribution model. It also is not specified if he received an actual binding acceptance from someone with authority, or a mere "Hey, that sounds cool!" from an Apple techie or marketroid.
-dZ.
Also, as others have pointed out (and the article seems to ignore), the Sega emulator is not open-ended, allowing the download and installation of any ROM image; it only runs the ROM images included with it.
The C=64 emulator, in contrast, not only allows you to run any old game made for the platform, but it contains a fully functional BASIC interpreter, allowing the emulator to execute any arbitrary code. It also provides a way for users to purchase other games directly from the emulator developer, bypassing Apple's App Store. This is clearly a violation of Apple's SDK, not to mention its interests.
-dZ.
>> There's a difficult position: that more is better, on the back of the free work of others.
I have no idea what you mean, nor what instigated your rant.
Are you implying that I am criticizing the "the free work of others" by expecting them to do more work than they were willing or able to do? If so, that's a pretty baseless accusation.
Lets get something clear: The authors of the test did not do me any favors; I did not ask them to do anything, and consequently did not expect them to do anything, free or otherwise. However, they did publish their test for the public to see, and it was submitted--whether by them or someone else--to Slashdot. It is therefore presented to our community as some sort of authoritative test, and therefore critique should not only be expected, it is warranted.
>> Maybe the point should be whether this test measured the most useful value given the amount of effort invested in the test, or whether they should have bothered at all, if this was the most they could manage.
Oh, I see; we should give them brownie points and recognition for the mere fact of having made any test at all. Should we give them a medal for effort too? I don't agree. As I and others have pointed out, the test is based on a flawed assumption: that memory usage is a valid or valuable performance metric. It's actually worse than that, as it fails to consider shared memory among multiple related processes. As such, it is worthless.
I certainly appreciate their hard work, as I appreciate the work of anybody who is willing to give their time and effort for the betterment of the community; but if the thesis of a particular project has no worth to the community then I say, thanks but don't bother.
-dZ.
Neither would be correct in this case, as they are only including a very small sub-set of the browsers out there and not offering enough context in the title. "Et al" (and others) and "et cetera" (and the rest) both imply the an entire set; the former for proper names, while the latter is for generic lists. The intention is to shorten the list, not create ambiguity.
It would have been more accurate to include the full list, or shorten it with "among others". If the full list of browsers was already understood by context, then using "et al" would have suffice. However, the title does not give enough context for this and therefore implies all browsers. It is the same as saying "Chrome, Firefox and the rest." The rest of what? of all browsers?
-dZ.
Yes. I see them too. They arrived right after they fixed the white-on-white comment titles.
You can work around the issue in the same way as with the previous bug: click the "Change" button on top of the comments.
-dZ.
Technical topics require some level of technical detail, otherwise you'll only speak in limited metaphors which may muddle the understanding of the subject matter, and defeat your purpose. If the technical jargon was completely avoidable and unnecessary, it would not be there to begin with. It represents concepts that may not be communicated in any other way, or at least as a shorthand for more complex or extended expressions.
Therefore, in my opinion, laymen explanations of technical subjects should not necessarily avoid all jargon, but should include it in context, and explain it in plain terms. Remember, you are talking to a human being, and one intelligent enough to at least have the curiousity and interest to ask the question initially. Assuming that your listener is a complete moron that may never comprehend your topic at your level is not only unwarranted and condesending, it is insulting.
As such, I think the poster did an excellent job at explaning Process Architecture in general, and at introducing technical terms such as "process" and "thread" in a meaningful and concise way. This will allow the reader to recognize and understand the terms in the future, and not rely on the "housing development" analogy as a crutch.
The same applies doubly when communicating with children.
-dZ.
Great explanation! I tip my metaphorical hat to you, sir!
+1 Informative
+50 Avoiding use of car analogy
-dZ.
I disagree. Only memory consumption was measured in this test, not efficiency or actual practical usability.
The test results doesn't tell you, for example, if Chrome just allocates memory aggressively in contemplation of its usage, and therefor opening more than 30 tabs will not make it consume more or run slower. It also doesn't tell you if, in order to avoid memory pre-allocation and remain "lean", Firefox has to re-generate object graphs on the fly for every few tabs, or constantly hit disk cache, making it run considerably slower when many more tabs are opened (for the sake of avoiding a memory hogging caching system).
Of course, all of the above is pure fantasy in an effort to illustrate a point. I make no such claims on any of the browsers, though they certainly are plausible. The point is that the single metric of this test, though in a way useful, is not the best way to measure performance.
-dZ.
Not only that, but they are weird ass icons!
-dZ.
I see weird-ass icons and bars on Slashdot comments in Firefox, on Mac OS X 10.5.7 and Windows XP SP2. I don't get those artifacts in any other well constructed site; only on Slashdot.
What's more, they occurred right after they fixed the white-on-white-comment-title CSS bug. Although it could certainly be a Firefox rendering issue, it seems to me more of a broken CSS issue from Slashdot web developers.
Just as that other annoying bug, I can work around it by clicking the "CHANGE" button without making any threading changes. Which offers another suspicious clue: why is the page rendered differently at that point?
-dZ.
>> The author wants to a priori assume that everyone will love math if only the beauty of it is shown to them. This is mistaken.
Mistaken? Perhaps. But his point is that the student should be exposed to its beauty to at least have a chance of it sparking his interest. He contends, and quite eloquently in my opinion, that the current curriculum precludes this beauty and prevents the student from even considering the notion that there could ever be beauty and elegance, or any interesting things at all, in Mathematics.
-dZ.
If you think about it a little bit more, you'll realize that it's the other way around. Throughout centuries we've learned to deal with the various patterns and concepts in mathematics by creating shorthand symbols and methods that expressed them. It is therefore no wonder when people educated in such mechanims create computer languages similar in expression and syntax.
A "function" in Perl (or C) is essentially the same as one in Algebra, compare:
sub foo(bar) {
return (2 * bar) / 10;
}
2x
f(x) = ----
10
A set of parameters are transformed into an answer directly related to them. The concepts, terms and syntax were borrowed liberally because they were already there and it was convenient. This is not an accident.
-dZ.
He said:
"And it showed me how arbitrary mathematical systems and their structures really are and they are built to suit particular kinds of minds or cultures."
"Math is a very rich subject which unfortunately has a lot of cultish like people"
You said: ... that's... insane.
>> so you want to teach math using base-1
Boy, what a way to miss and prove his point.
-dZ.
Well put. Although I agree with Lockhart's passionate desire for Maths to be understood in their proper context, I also felt he missed the biggest picture of it: that Mathematics can be beautiful, awe-inspiring, engaging, fun, and useful.
But his point is still well taken, that even if Mathematics--like many other art forms--do not directly offer utility to an individual, it still has so much more to offer when he or she is able to appreciates it for its very own sake. And that in itself has great value to a society.
-dZ.
>> Well if you're not asking for teachers needing to be professional published mathematicians, what was that paragraph about?
You missed the point. He wasn't talking about being professional or published; when he mentioned "who have never produced an original piece of mathematics," he meant in the same creative and engaging thought games he wishes they taught the students. He's point being that teachers are just regurgitating "facts" from a text-book, whose context and history they themselves never bothered to understand first hand.
-dZ.