One of the reasons anonymous posting hasn't taken off in the west yet (unlike in, say, Japan, where the biggest message board in the world is anonymous) might just be because people think anonymity is only good for hiding from some sort of super-powerful government persectution. Which is not the case. Besides just hiding from friends and bosses and such, it's also good for a number of other things.
Your statement is nothing but intellectual laziness. Having to trust your senses, and that the laws of nature will still hold tomorrow, is nowhere near "believing what you want to believe". Claiming otherwise just sounds like a weak effort to justify mysticism against all common sense.
Yes, yes, very clever. Also completely irrelevant to any rational being, who will quickly conclude that, if analyzed far enough, nothing can ever be proven in any way as you can't trust your own senses in the first place, and thus you just have to go with it.
If you think there is a problem with justifying this belief, then the problem is not with the rationality of the concept, but with your own rationality.
If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement?
Me, I believe I shall have a sandwich. Is that not a theological statement? I also have quite a bit of faith in the fact that the sun will, once again, rise tomorrow. Is that not also a theological statement?
For a less flippant example, many people believe that poverty is a large source of the world's problems, and they work to eliminate it. Is this a theological statement, and action?
Except of course you should have been using strict in Perl, which would have made it a moot point. Neither Python nor Ruby have an equivalent, however.
The old saw is to not optimize until you have to....Is total bullshit. Or rather, severely misunderstood. If you're not taking speed into account whenever you write code, you're going to writing shitty code.
What it really means is that you should not disruptively optimize until you have to. Don't hand-unroll loops or re-write in assembly until you have to, because it turns the code into a maintenance nightmare. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't write efficient code whereever you can.
Have you ever noticed that it's easier to assume the higher moral ground when your job is no longer riding on your views & political statements?
No, I had actually never noticed that before! Thank you, Mr. +1 Insightful, for pointing this out to me! The wool has literally been lifted from my eyes!
I don't want an operating system with bells & whistles. I don't want an operating system that looks like it has a glass face or real marble or the most incredible anti-aliased font you've ever seen. What I want is an operating system that works and works efficiently.
It's cute how you justify Linux' lack of features by convincing yourself you didn't want them in the first place.
How about you try writing a decent one that compiles?
Singly-linked lists do not make for efficient algorithms, no matter how mathematically beautiful the language. The lack of side-effects renders a large amount of algorithms unimplementable in an efficient manner.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the reasons anonymous posting hasn't taken off in the west yet (unlike in, say, Japan, where the biggest message board in the world is anonymous) might just be because people think anonymity is only good for hiding from some sort of super-powerful government persectution. Which is not the case. Besides just hiding from friends and bosses and such, it's also good for a number of other things.
Your statement is nothing but intellectual laziness. Having to trust your senses, and that the laws of nature will still hold tomorrow, is nowhere near "believing what you want to believe". Claiming otherwise just sounds like a weak effort to justify mysticism against all common sense.
Yes, yes, very clever. Also completely irrelevant to any rational being, who will quickly conclude that, if analyzed far enough, nothing can ever be proven in any way as you can't trust your own senses in the first place, and thus you just have to go with it.
If you think there is a problem with justifying this belief, then the problem is not with the rationality of the concept, but with your own rationality.
If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement?
Me, I believe I shall have a sandwich. Is that not a theological statement? I also have quite a bit of faith in the fact that the sun will, once again, rise tomorrow. Is that not also a theological statement?
For a less flippant example, many people believe that poverty is a large source of the world's problems, and they work to eliminate it. Is this a theological statement, and action?
Except of course you should have been using strict in Perl, which would have made it a moot point. Neither Python nor Ruby have an equivalent, however.
And 2chan.net != "2chan", it's "Futaba Channel".
The vast majority of people who recognize the name "2chan" would assume you are talking about 2ch.net.
Not only arrogance, but also completely failed attempt to use logic in arguing.
Christ, I need to get off this sinking ship.
Oh, was I wrong in assuming you just said that people do not think outside Slashdot?
The amount of utter arrogance on Slashdot never ceases to amaze. Well played!
Or, hey, maybe people realize that while it's not a problem for grociery stores, maybe it is with ATMs! Maybe people actually think outside Slashdot!
Yes, because obviously criminals are going to chop off people's fingers and carry them into stores completely undetected, to buy grocieries.
Real men program in PerlHP!
"More" importantly?
proactive or pro-active (pr-k'tv)
adj.
Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory: proactive steps to prevent terrorism.
Exactly! Linus is the tyrannical God-King of the open source community, so why would they need to talk to anyone else?
Ah yes, the mating call of the Slashdot Luddite: "I just want a phone that makes calls!"
If you think you can write that in 100 lines, it is painfully obvious you have no idea what the program even does.
The old saw is to not optimize until you have to. ...Is total bullshit. Or rather, severely misunderstood. If you're not taking speed into account whenever you write code, you're going to writing shitty code.
What it really means is that you should not disruptively optimize until you have to. Don't hand-unroll loops or re-write in assembly until you have to, because it turns the code into a maintenance nightmare. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't write efficient code whereever you can.
Good job going for the obvious bait dangled in front of you by the article writer.
You are quite correct. It's about as funny as User Friendly.
Have you ever noticed that it's easier to assume the higher moral ground when your job is no longer riding on your views & political statements?
No, I had actually never noticed that before! Thank you, Mr. +1 Insightful, for pointing this out to me! The wool has literally been lifted from my eyes!
Here's a cookie, kid. Now run along!
I don't want an operating system with bells & whistles. I don't want an operating system that looks like it has a glass face or real marble or the most incredible anti-aliased font you've ever seen. What I want is an operating system that works and works efficiently.
It's cute how you justify Linux' lack of features by convincing yourself you didn't want them in the first place.
How about you try writing a decent one that compiles?
Singly-linked lists do not make for efficient algorithms, no matter how mathematically beautiful the language. The lack of side-effects renders a large amount of algorithms unimplementable in an efficient manner.