There is a substantial debate reguarding the causes of that & the influence that humanity is having on the trend, but not on the existance of the trend.
In the media, perhaps. Not among the scientists who actually study the stuff.
None. It is not my area of expertise. I am not qualified to know definitively what is going on either way, based on the information available to me.
Yet you still seem to think you are justified in calling the entire field of climatology "sheep"? Because they pretty much all believe you are wrong, and that global warming is real and man-made. As I'm told, the only real debates are about whether or not it's too late to do anything about it.
However they expect (and with good cause) that if a feature is in the product but not turned on that Apple should supply the update to allow that feature to be used.
Said feature was never announced or advertised, so nobody would expect anything of the kind.
I must honestly admit that I can't quite tell if you are misunderstanding sarcasm here or not, so I'll just assume you did get the sarcasm, and proceed on that assumption.
The sheep, I would think, is the person who goes out to read only texts that agree with his pre-conceived notions, written by people pushing an agenda, and taking them at face value, and then claiming himself educated and superior.
It appears libertarians and objectivists like the grandparent poster for some reason find global warming inconsistent with their religion - er, sorry, politics - and feel the need to mouth off against it at any given opportunity, whether or not they get paid for it.
I guess you can't expect much from a mind that actually thinks Ayn Rand is insightful.
If I explained to every person mouthing off on Slashdot why they are wrong, I'd never have time to leave the house. Sometimes, you have to keep it short.
In short: He's confusing string theory and old-fashioned quantum mechanics, while understanding neither. Schrödinger's cat predates string theory several decades, and it is actually meant as a criticism of early quantum theories.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
I notice that a most of the languages you mention are descendants/dialects of C.
Yes, this is because most major languages today borrow heavily from C. This is expected. Not doing so is surprising.
Requiring boolean expression to be explicitly boolean would be understandable. But allowing some values to evaluate to false, but not including 0 among these, is very, very surprising.
Thus it does not follow any kind of principle of least surprise.
Doctors have an excuse. Their entire lives are spent dealing with nothing but tragedy. If they didn't grow a pretty thick skin, they'd go crazy pretty quick.
And I laugh at people who are so affected by tunnel-vision that they think the only alternative to competing, incompatible APIs is design-by-committee. You correctly claim the Win32 API is horrid, but completely ignore that there are any number of other APIs that are not horrible but were developed in exactly the same way. Nextstep which later turned into Apple's Cocoa is a very good example.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Which "most languages" are those? For reference, here is a list of popular languages:
* C * C++ * Java * Perl * Python * PHP * Javascript * Visual Basic * C#
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
In the Ruby community there's a phrase for it -- "the principle of least surprise" -- things just work.
And 0 being true is the least surprising behaviour, now?
The thing is, the vast majority of PHP users don't even understand that there is a problem. PHP is a language used mainly by beginners, and actively aimed at beginners, but it is not designed to be used by beginners. It's a landmine-filled sandbox.
Thus, the internet is full of SQL injection vulnerabilities.
Blaming every PHP programmer for not being a security expert is idiotic. Most programmers aren't, and they wouldn't need to be, if the language was designed properly.
Why does SQL injection work? Because of improper validation.
No, SQL injection works because PHP forces you to do validation. Hardly any other language than C forces you to do that. Perl, Python and the others have sane database interfaces that BY DEFAULT let you get away with no validation or escaping. Leaving it up to every single developer to properly handle this on their own is madness.
It would just be a minor config change to "the registry".
That's strictly for power users. Normal users won't do that to install some random app or game. If it's not in the official repository, it may as well not exist. Furthermore, suggesting that every hobbyist developer set up their own repositories for every distro is patently absurd.
Additionally, builiding isn't the only task. You have to somehow make the program accessible to the user, too. And that's distro-dependent, too.
There is basically no viable method of software distribution for Linux other than getting added to multiple repositories. And that's not going to happen for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a substantial debate reguarding the causes of that & the influence that humanity is having on the trend, but not on the existance of the trend.
In the media, perhaps. Not among the scientists who actually study the stuff.
So relying on experts in a field you are not yourself an expert in makes you a sheep?
None. It is not my area of expertise. I am not qualified to know definitively what is going on either way, based on the information available to me.
Yet you still seem to think you are justified in calling the entire field of climatology "sheep"? Because they pretty much all believe you are wrong, and that global warming is real and man-made. As I'm told, the only real debates are about whether or not it's too late to do anything about it.
However they expect (and with good cause) that if a feature is in the product but not turned on that Apple should supply the update to allow that feature to be used.
Said feature was never announced or advertised, so nobody would expect anything of the kind.
So how many climatology classes have you taken, then?
I must honestly admit that I can't quite tell if you are misunderstanding sarcasm here or not, so I'll just assume you did get the sarcasm, and proceed on that assumption.
The sheep, I would think, is the person who goes out to read only texts that agree with his pre-conceived notions, written by people pushing an agenda, and taking them at face value, and then claiming himself educated and superior.
Yes, yes, you are so much smarter than all the sheep, I know.
It appears libertarians and objectivists like the grandparent poster for some reason find global warming inconsistent with their religion - er, sorry, politics - and feel the need to mouth off against it at any given opportunity, whether or not they get paid for it.
I guess you can't expect much from a mind that actually thinks Ayn Rand is insightful.
I think before you try to learn about string theory, maybe you should learn about sentences and paragraphs.
If I explained to every person mouthing off on Slashdot why they are wrong, I'd never have time to leave the house. Sometimes, you have to keep it short.
a t
In short: He's confusing string theory and old-fashioned quantum mechanics, while understanding neither. Schrödinger's cat predates string theory several decades, and it is actually meant as a criticism of early quantum theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
And most monitors will fail to display unambiguously, in any straightforward and reliable way.
You may not have noticed, but cutting-edge monitors nowadays are capable of displaying graphics, and not just text.
You have no idea what string theory is, and you have no idea what Schrödinger's cat is.
"Ugh, stupid!" indeed.
No, really. How?
And that argument doesn't apply to win32, why?
I notice that a most of the languages you mention are descendants/dialects of C.
Yes, this is because most major languages today borrow heavily from C. This is expected. Not doing so is surprising.
Requiring boolean expression to be explicitly boolean would be understandable. But allowing some values to evaluate to false, but not including 0 among these, is very, very surprising.
Thus it does not follow any kind of principle of least surprise.
Doctors have an excuse. Their entire lives are spent dealing with nothing but tragedy. If they didn't grow a pretty thick skin, they'd go crazy pretty quick.
IT people don't exaxctly have the same excuse.
You understand Slashdot better than any person should have to.
And I laugh at people who are so affected by tunnel-vision that they think the only alternative to competing, incompatible APIs is design-by-committee. You correctly claim the Win32 API is horrid, but completely ignore that there are any number of other APIs that are not horrible but were developed in exactly the same way. Nextstep which later turned into Apple's Cocoa is a very good example.
Which "most languages" are those? For reference, here is a list of popular languages:
* C
* C++
* Java
* Perl
* Python
* PHP
* Javascript
* Visual Basic
* C#
In the Ruby community there's a phrase for it -- "the principle of least surprise" -- things just work.
And 0 being true is the least surprising behaviour, now?
http://4-ch.net/code/kareha.pl/1120533289/9
I don't use PHP, for exactly that reason.
The thing is, the vast majority of PHP users don't even understand that there is a problem. PHP is a language used mainly by beginners, and actively aimed at beginners, but it is not designed to be used by beginners. It's a landmine-filled sandbox.
Thus, the internet is full of SQL injection vulnerabilities.
Blaming every PHP programmer for not being a security expert is idiotic. Most programmers aren't, and they wouldn't need to be, if the language was designed properly.
Why does SQL injection work? Because of improper validation.
No, SQL injection works because PHP forces you to do validation. Hardly any other language than C forces you to do that. Perl, Python and the others have sane database interfaces that BY DEFAULT let you get away with no validation or escaping. Leaving it up to every single developer to properly handle this on their own is madness.
Here, have a cookie.
It would just be a minor config change to "the registry".
That's strictly for power users. Normal users won't do that to install some random app or game. If it's not in the official repository, it may as well not exist. Furthermore, suggesting that every hobbyist developer set up their own repositories for every distro is patently absurd.
Additionally, builiding isn't the only task. You have to somehow make the program accessible to the user, too. And that's distro-dependent, too.
There is basically no viable method of software distribution for Linux other than getting added to multiple repositories. And that's not going to happen for everyone.