So we should go back and rewrite/censor every book that contains words that we no longer accept?
Happens all the time to make things more readable. Here is Hebrews 1:1-4 in the Wyclif version of the bible from 1382:
Manifold and many manners sometime God speaking to fathers in prophets, at the last in these days spake to us in the Son, whom he ordained heir of all things, by whom he made and the worlds. The which one he is the shining of glory and figure of his substance, and bearing all things by word of his virtue, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the righthalf of Majesty in high things; so much made better than angels, by how much he hath inherited a more different, or excellent, name before them.
Wesley 1790:
1 God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake of old to the fathers by the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son; whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds: 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and sustaining all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 Being so much higher than the angels, as he hath by inheritance a more excellent name than they.
English Standard 2001:
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Do you think rewriting it to make it more acceptable to the readers was not a good thing? I think it was and I dont see any difference for Hick Finn
You don't see it as censorship when people want to remove the word simply because some people find it offensive?
Yes if it was a simple matter of finding something offensive I would say it was censorship to remove it. But this is different - todays meaning of the word has changed and it is not conveying a meaning that was never intended by the author.
I agree. But what you are talking about is the difference im meaning as the reader becomes more aware and has different life experiences. This is completely different than the meaning of the story changing because the meaning of the words used has changed.
When a child picks up the text of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and reads the word "nigger" I want them to take offense. Not to take offense at Mark Twain but more so to take offense to and own up to this great country's tortured past and to vow that this will never happen again. This use of a word as a marker of hate and denigration simply because of the color of a person's skin -- and the widespread cultural acceptance of it! If your child never learns the horrible results of that scenario than your child may one day find themselves as a part of that scenario.
But that was not the intent of the author. That word in that book was never meant to incite offence to the degree that it does today. The word is so offensive today that it detracts from the story the book was intended to tell.
If the intent of the word was to offend, or it was an integral part of the story and the meaning of that word was also integral, then I would defend having it stay. But meanings change and *in this case* there is no valid reason to have that word a part of the story. It adds nothing and only detracts from the real message. I see nothing wrong with removing it, and no I don't see that as censorship.
Personally, I agree that NASA should take the proactive approach on this one. It shouldn't be part of their job to educate the public like this but it has proven necessary.
It's only necessary because of the complete dumbing down of the science curriculum in schools. That's what happens when you let a bunch of religious nutbars dictate what kind of science is taught to children.
It's time to ignore the religious crackpots and start teaching real science without fear of backlash.
because none of you are qualified to match me, and if you were, you'd be challenging me right now
I think everyone is just trying to understand what the hell you are talking about. And it's not because you appear so smart, it's because you appear so crazy. Scary crazy. Seriously - go take some meds...
I think the real problem is that in the US teachers are paid horribly. Really REALLY low compared to other countries. That tends to limit the amount of talent the schools can attract. If a potential teacher is good and smart he/she can probably easily get a much better paying job outside the teaching field.
My public school had an accelerated option in some subjects (math, physics, english) for those kids that were getting really high grades. If they wanted they could stream into the advanced option which basically let them take the next grade up in that subject. Was great since otherwise they would be bored waiting for the slower kids to get the subject. Wasn't a separate school and wasn't any cost to this.
If the kid thought it was too hard they could drop down to the regular class without a penalty. I thought this was a great system and am surprised when I hear of schools that don't have a streaming option.
Well depends what it is. Drivers licences, sales tax, schools and whatnot are regional and under control of the local governments and provinces.
Laws are federal - if something is illegal where I live it should be illegal everywhere. I don't see a reason to have that varying. Lots of things like heath care are paid for federally but administered locally to take advantage of local demographic variations.
A central government doesn't have to be large. I'd prefer that than paying for duplication of services at multiple levels. Even the US elections are a ridiculous waste of money - the last election in the US cost 5.3 billion, compare that to the $300 million (a record) for the election in Canada.
I'm Canadian. I believe in a minimalist government, and I'd hope that the laws apply equally to everyone throughout the country regardless of where they lived. I don't believe in duplication of services and I believe in true democracy with personal liberty.
Yes, the US is structured strangely - proof is the 'mid-west' is actually in the eastern timezone.
So what you are saying is because the founders didn't trust themselves or their citizens apparently, they didn't set up a true democracy. So really you think the country should be like the old Roman way of ruling or the Republic of Iran, where the democratic majority rule is ignored and instead ruled by the rich or elite. Is that what you really want?
The US is a FEDERATION. That means a union of PARTIALLY self-governing states united by a central government. Look it up.
If you don't like your state laws and are forced to move, what the difference between that and moving to another country?.
I fail to see why I have to pay for 50 copies of the federal government at the state level. Do we really need 50 slightly different versions of every law for each and every state because everyone wants to feel special? Think of how much smaller and more streamlines the government would be if this duplication at the state level didn't exist.
These lawsuits are no more or less credible than the one suggesting (rightfully) that the Federal govt has no authority to force any private citizen to purchase any good or service from the private sector.
So the following laws are also unconstitutional? Forcing me to buy auto insurance, forcing me to undergo security checks at the airport (my plane ticket pays for this 'service), forcing me to have a baby seat when I leave the hospital with a newborn, forcing me to licence my car, forcing me to licence my dog, forcing me to register my marriage...
I could go on, but these are all 'good and services' required by law.
Yes and for those the digital solution is better. Just pointing out that it isn't so 'amazing' to have an analog controller. All of the Mercury, Apollo and Gemini controllers were analog. The guidance computer was digital on Apollo but it was pretty state of the art and had only 4k ram.
Filters are actually far easier to design as an analog circuit than a digital one (a low pass is just one resistor and one capacitor). And there is no lag that you would get with a digital filter either.
It's not harder if you know electronics. A PID op amp needs only 4 op amps, 9 resistors and 2 capacitors. No need to debug, no electrical noise to worry about no need for state machines and no need for a delay (why would you even want a delay in a PID controller?) Building a microcontroller based PID with A/D in and D/A out is actually a lot harder than that, plus you then have to program it.
Passive components have always been shown to last longer than active ones, therefore the analog controller will last longer. There's nothing much to break unless you burn it out.
Completely agree. Either a massive overhaul or throw out the entire patent system or at least the software part. It does no one any good except for lawyers.
At the very least, implement something like if a patent has not been actively developed into a product within two years, and/or if that product is not available to the public from five years of patent issue, then the patent becomes invalid and is automatically released into the public domain. This would keep patents to their true purpose - idea sharing, not padding lawyers pockets.
Open or closed source is not a programming decision, its a business decision. If input validations was parameter checking, then sure. Most of the volume of the code does not concern user usability, only the GUI part.
If you get a software lead that is a primadonna, thinking he knows absolutely everything without listening to anyone including the project lead, customers or his own developers (I've been there), the project is doomed to fail. Doesn't matter what it is, when the team works poorly, the output is crap.
My advice to everyone is if you have a team member that is more of an obstacle than an asset, and everything turns into an argument, then get rid of him as fast as you can.
This is often true. If you send out a proposal for quotes and you receive a bunch back, they will mostly be all around the same value. If you get one oddball that is really low, then very likely they either do not understand all the requirements, or are bidding low to get the job and will screw you over later for more money. Speaking from experience.
Slashdot Mirror
So we should go back and rewrite/censor every book that contains words that we no longer accept?
Happens all the time to make things more readable. Here is Hebrews 1:1-4 in the Wyclif version of the bible from 1382:
Manifold and many manners sometime God speaking to fathers in prophets, at the last in these days spake to us in the Son, whom he ordained heir of all things, by whom he made and the worlds. The which one he is the shining of glory and figure of his substance, and bearing all things by word of his virtue, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the righthalf of Majesty in high things; so much made better than angels, by how much he hath inherited a more different, or excellent, name before them.
Wesley 1790:
1 God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake of old to the fathers by the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son; whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds: 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and sustaining all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 Being so much higher than the angels, as he hath by inheritance a more excellent name than they.
English Standard 2001:
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Do you think rewriting it to make it more acceptable to the readers was not a good thing? I think it was and I dont see any difference for Hick Finn
You don't see it as censorship when people want to remove the word simply because some people find it offensive?
Yes if it was a simple matter of finding something offensive I would say it was censorship to remove it. But this is different - todays meaning of the word has changed and it is not conveying a meaning that was never intended by the author.
I agree. But what you are talking about is the difference im meaning as the reader becomes more aware and has different life experiences. This is completely different than the meaning of the story changing because the meaning of the words used has changed.
When a child picks up the text of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and reads the word "nigger" I want them to take offense. Not to take offense at Mark Twain but more so to take offense to and own up to this great country's tortured past and to vow that this will never happen again. This use of a word as a marker of hate and denigration simply because of the color of a person's skin -- and the widespread cultural acceptance of it! If your child never learns the horrible results of that scenario than your child may one day find themselves as a part of that scenario.
But that was not the intent of the author. That word in that book was never meant to incite offence to the degree that it does today. The word is so offensive today that it detracts from the story the book was intended to tell.
If the intent of the word was to offend, or it was an integral part of the story and the meaning of that word was also integral, then I would defend having it stay. But meanings change and *in this case* there is no valid reason to have that word a part of the story. It adds nothing and only detracts from the real message. I see nothing wrong with removing it, and no I don't see that as censorship.
Personally, I agree that NASA should take the proactive approach on this one. It shouldn't be part of their job to educate the public like this but it has proven necessary.
It's only necessary because of the complete dumbing down of the science curriculum in schools. That's what happens when you let a bunch of religious nutbars dictate what kind of science is taught to children.
It's time to ignore the religious crackpots and start teaching real science without fear of backlash.
because none of you are qualified to match me, and if you were, you'd be challenging me right now
I think everyone is just trying to understand what the hell you are talking about. And it's not because you appear so smart, it's because you appear so crazy. Scary crazy. Seriously - go take some meds...
There are no more than TWO other people of my intelligence level, able to grow crops without light.
Pretty much anyone can grow mushrooms in the dark
I think the real problem is that in the US teachers are paid horribly. Really REALLY low compared to other countries. That tends to limit the amount of talent the schools can attract. If a potential teacher is good and smart he/she can probably easily get a much better paying job outside the teaching field.
My public school had an accelerated option in some subjects (math, physics, english) for those kids that were getting really high grades. If they wanted they could stream into the advanced option which basically let them take the next grade up in that subject. Was great since otherwise they would be bored waiting for the slower kids to get the subject. Wasn't a separate school and wasn't any cost to this.
If the kid thought it was too hard they could drop down to the regular class without a penalty. I thought this was a great system and am surprised when I hear of schools that don't have a streaming option.
Well depends what it is. Drivers licences, sales tax, schools and whatnot are regional and under control of the local governments and provinces.
Laws are federal - if something is illegal where I live it should be illegal everywhere. I don't see a reason to have that varying. Lots of things like heath care are paid for federally but administered locally to take advantage of local demographic variations.
A central government doesn't have to be large. I'd prefer that than paying for duplication of services at multiple levels. Even the US elections are a ridiculous waste of money - the last election in the US cost 5.3 billion, compare that to the $300 million (a record) for the election in Canada.
I'm Canadian. I believe in a minimalist government, and I'd hope that the laws apply equally to everyone throughout the country regardless of where they lived. I don't believe in duplication of services and I believe in true democracy with personal liberty.
Yes, the US is structured strangely - proof is the 'mid-west' is actually in the eastern timezone.
Because he's a twisted perverted egomaniac.
So what you are saying is because the founders didn't trust themselves or their citizens apparently, they didn't set up a true democracy. So really you think the country should be like the old Roman way of ruling or the Republic of Iran, where the democratic majority rule is ignored and instead ruled by the rich or elite. Is that what you really want?
The US is a FEDERATION. That means a union of PARTIALLY self-governing states united by a central government. Look it up.
If you don't like your state laws and are forced to move, what the difference between that and moving to another country?.
I fail to see why I have to pay for 50 copies of the federal government at the state level. Do we really need 50 slightly different versions of every law for each and every state because everyone wants to feel special? Think of how much smaller and more streamlines the government would be if this duplication at the state level didn't exist.
those are all STATE, not Federal laws
What's the real difference? It's still government, who cares where it comes from?
You do realize it is called the UNITED States of America, not the INDEPENDENT States of America.
These lawsuits are no more or less credible than the one suggesting (rightfully) that the Federal govt has no authority to force any private citizen to purchase any good or service from the private sector.
So the following laws are also unconstitutional? Forcing me to buy auto insurance, forcing me to undergo security checks at the airport (my plane ticket pays for this 'service), forcing me to have a baby seat when I leave the hospital with a newborn, forcing me to licence my car, forcing me to licence my dog, forcing me to register my marriage...
I could go on, but these are all 'good and services' required by law.
Yes sorry. More correctly I was thinking programmable / fixed, but analog digital is ok for this discussion too.
Yes and for those the digital solution is better. Just pointing out that it isn't so 'amazing' to have an analog controller. All of the Mercury, Apollo and Gemini controllers were analog. The guidance computer was digital on Apollo but it was pretty state of the art and had only 4k ram.
Filters are actually far easier to design as an analog circuit than a digital one (a low pass is just one resistor and one capacitor). And there is no lag that you would get with a digital filter either.
It's not harder if you know electronics. A PID op amp needs only 4 op amps, 9 resistors and 2 capacitors. No need to debug, no electrical noise to worry about no need for state machines and no need for a delay (why would you even want a delay in a PID controller?) Building a microcontroller based PID with A/D in and D/A out is actually a lot harder than that, plus you then have to program it.
Passive components have always been shown to last longer than active ones, therefore the analog controller will last longer. There's nothing much to break unless you burn it out.
Single-Player-Game-Model-Finished-Says-EA-Exec
Actually I'm glad it's finished. Finally. I've been waiting for a good single player game to be released for a while now. I just hope it's bug free.
Completely agree. Either a massive overhaul or throw out the entire patent system or at least the software part. It does no one any good except for lawyers.
At the very least, implement something like if a patent has not been actively developed into a product within two years, and/or if that product is not available to the public from five years of patent issue, then the patent becomes invalid and is automatically released into the public domain. This would keep patents to their true purpose - idea sharing, not padding lawyers pockets.
Open or closed source is not a programming decision, its a business decision. If input validations was parameter checking, then sure. Most of the volume of the code does not concern user usability, only the GUI part.
Ignoring team dynamics
If you get a software lead that is a primadonna, thinking he knows absolutely everything without listening to anyone including the project lead, customers or his own developers (I've been there), the project is doomed to fail. Doesn't matter what it is, when the team works poorly, the output is crap.
My advice to everyone is if you have a team member that is more of an obstacle than an asset, and everything turns into an argument, then get rid of him as fast as you can.
No, its basically all about web programming.
This is often true. If you send out a proposal for quotes and you receive a bunch back, they will mostly be all around the same value. If you get one oddball that is really low, then very likely they either do not understand all the requirements, or are bidding low to get the job and will screw you over later for more money. Speaking from experience.