Wow, your children can watch commercials in homeroom at school.
Then when they come home and ask to see whatever movie they saw advertised, or to get whatever video game they saw advertised, you can say, "No."
Oh no, Channel One ran a story on how you can make fake tattoos by drawing on yourself with a pen. I bet none of them would have figured that out.
They advertised movies that include profanity? I bet you any odds that the actual commercials they showed didn't have any words worse than "hell" in them, and you can get a hold of those by reading the Bible (not to mention that almost every kid in America knows every profane word by 2nd grade, whether or not they watch tv; I know I did, and I was a 'good kid').
Frankly, the complaints on that website reflect value systems conservative enough to belong back in the early 1900's. Perhaps you should teach your children to think and consider the ideas they see for themselves, instead of just accepting beliefs verbatim, whether it's the beliefs of the people on channel one, or the extremely conservative values you yourself seem to hold.
I watched Channel One in high school, and while it's not the most enlightening show (as I recall, it was most interesting for the attractive hosts, not for the news), it certainly isn't taking away your right to choose what to buy for your children. The values expressed on the show aren't off-the-wall liberal/anarchistic/immoral or anything like that. If anything, they'll provide a nice not-ultra-conservative viewpoint to show your children that there is more than one way of looking at things in this world.
Actually, around here, for example, people have assumed that the (minority, perhaps) of Christians who always try to impose their beliefs upon others mean that anyone who is Christian is automatically the type that does so, whether or not that is the case.
Not to mention that there's probably also a significant population in Slashdot that is the ex-Christian-I've-Been-Oppressed-As-A-Child type who take other exceptions with Christianity in general. These generally have the above mindset.
Thus, in current 'geek culture' at least, saying you're Christian often has negative connotations.
Getting a disease and advertising aren't the same thing, though (although I'm sure someone clever will come up with an example that proves me wrong about that).
I recall talking about this in a class a few years ago (I can't remember which one), so these aren't my original ideas.
In general, the behavior of the #1 and #2 companies in an industry will be different. Take Coke and Pepsi as an example (back when Coke was #1. I'm not really sure which is #1 today). Pepsi was always saying, "Hey! Try Pepsi! We're better thank Coke!" and Coke gets free advertising as being 'the company that people are choosing.' "No publicity is bad publicity" and all that. Meanwhile, Coke just says, "Hey, we're the best and you know it," and don't mention Pepsi at all.
The idea is, I think, if you say, "I'm better than that guy," then you give "that guy" credibility and advertising, which isn't really a good idea if you're trying to beat him. It's similar to the reason some people get mad that Linux desktops seem to try and clone Microsoft. It may be a necessity to hook Windows users, but it makes you look like a knockoff. Instead of "Hey, we're doing stuff a little better than that guy" you need to be more like "Hey, look how great we are here."
There are a few exceptions. Duracel and Energizer both talk about each other all the time, and P&G market their soaps and stuff against each other. However, in general if you're #1 you say "we're the best" and if you're #2, you say "We're better than #1." Just like Burger King above, and all the cheapo ISPs saying "We're better than AOL," and AMD running ads about "We're faster than Intel" a few years back.
I'm not saying Linux has overtaken MS in marketshare or anything like that. And someone said that this was simply a release to stockholders, and not exactly an advertising campaign, so it's probably not as significant. However, if you ever see MS marketing a lot around "We're better than Linux," don't doubt that it's significant.
Bumper stickers are pretty lame anyway, except for the ones you stick on other people's SUVs that say things like, "I'm changing the environment! Ask me how!"
Here is a discussion of LSB compliance and Gentoo on the Gentoo forums. In short, Gentoo won't be LSB certified, but it will "likely maintain the 'spirit' of LSB standards."
I think the RPM requirement and probably the requirement to maintain two separate init-script implementations would be undesirable for most Gentoo users.
Geeze. I've had this on my Bitboys video card for years now. With this and the Xtreme Bandwith Architecture, it'll easily be the most powerful video card for years to come! Who needs nVidia and ATi, eh?
I did. I read about it a while ago here. Here is the article on the original warp drive which looks rather hard to build, because (as I recall) you need a large 'negative energy density' (or some such). And here is the article on the "Micro warp drive" that makes a spacial bubble around to you make you really small, so you don't need as large a negative energy density, and that you, apparently, can't see out of.:) Another interesting article there (of course, there all interesting), is about the Krasnikov Tube which lets you travel somewhere and back at relativistic speeds without having to worry about time dilation.
Of course, these aren't particularly detailed on how the math/physics works (warp drives for dummies:)), but they're entertaining to read and give you at least a general overview of how they work. Chef recommends.
By the way: Many thanks to Sarah Flannery, the author of In Code, whose book I paraphrased the algorithm/proof above from (luckily it was sitting on the table in front of me).
I probably really shouldn't be replying, because it's been a while since I read how it works, but I can copy the algorithm and tell you where I think it would break (if at all). Please correct me where I'm wrong.
Generate two random primes p and q
Calculate n = pq and phi(n) = (p - 1)(q - 1) = n - (p + q) + 1 (Note: phi(n) is the number of primes less than n (Euler's totient function, I believe). phi(p) = p - 1 for prime p, and phi(pq) = phi(p)phi(q) for p relatively prime to q (note, this step breaks if p or q aren't prime))
Generate e
Calculate d, the inverse of e (mod phi(n)) (i.e. d*e = 1 (mod phi(n)))
is the enciphering key, is the deciphering key
For plaintext P, you get ciphertext C by doing: C = P^e mod n, and get P back by doing P = C^d mod n
So, now there's the matter of why it works. Here we go:
Because of Fermat's Little Theorem, we know that a^(phi(n)) = 1 (mod n)
Since ed = 1 (mod phi(n)) we have: ed = 1 + k*phi(n) for some integer k
So, if we encipher and decypher, we have: (P^e)^d = P^(ed) (mod n)
Which also means we have: P^(1 + k*phi(n)) = P*(P^(k*phi(n))) = P*((P^phi(n))^k) = P*(1^k) = P (mod n)
So when p or q are not prime, phi(n) != (p - 1)(q - 1), so when you calculate d, you'll get something that doesn't negate the encrypting process (because its not a multiplicative inverse mod the real phi(n)), so you'll probably get junk when you decipher.
I don't really feel like doing a detailed analysis of the algorithm, but I imagine that this isn't used as a primality test because it's running time probably isn't polynomial time.
I'm never certain how to begin my posts, so I often start with a sentence just like this, hoping that the momentum of typing will somehow lead me into the points I wish to make (anyone see Finding Forrester?).
Anyhow, now I'm ready. I'm a big fan of Java. It's certainly the programming language I know best, and I have tried others. I learned C/C++, and though I like C for the way it feels, I can't say the same for C++. I haven't used it in a while, so I'm not too familiar with all the STL stuff and all that, which may make things better than I remember, but it always seems to me that in some cases, Java does the things that C++ does in a better way. Plus I could list all the great things that Java can do that are hard to do in C++. Java, is indeed a very nice language/platform/etc.
However, for all the work that's been put into Java, I have to say that it really isn't wonderful for all occasions. As a simple, concrete statement of one of the things that can bug me in Java on occasion: sometimes it's nice to be able to pass around methods/functions. C++ can do this directly with function pointers, of course, and Ruby can do this because, well, everything's an object in Ruby (a very nice feature). Because of the way it was designed, though, I can't do this in Java, other than going through reflection, which is poor form.
Now, there are ways to do this in Java. Basically, you have to create your own class to do it. Let me explore some possibilities. Let's say I have two different methods with signatures as follows:
String foo(String s, Object o)
Integer bar(Double d)
Now, I can create my own Method class that has a method
Object invoke(Object[]);
But this doesn't look nice, does it? There's lots of ugly casting involved because you can't make any assumptions about what it can return or how many and what type of arguments it can use.
Another solution is to declare a specific class for each dynamically defined method that I want to have, but then I end up adding tens of classes to my project.
All of this work because I want to have a few methods of, say, my MUD able to be plugged in by extentions that are loaded at runtime (which, incidentally, are very easy to allow for using Java).
With Ruby, I'd just declare a variable, fill it with a default function, and then if anyone wanted to change it, they'd stick a new function in there with the same signature, and all would be well. All because methods/functions are objects in Ruby and not in Java.
Now, I'm not bashing Java because I understand that all languages make certain tradeoffs. My point is that there are many different languages because they all address slightly different needs. Even if they appear to address the same need, they may do it in a different way that makes them better in certain situations. I'm learning Python now and I just don't like the way it feels as much as Ruby (although it could be the book I'm using (Core Python Programming or something like that) because the author explains in great detail some things that appear stupid to me, like the method used to determine which of two hash tables is numerically greater...). So, anyway, there's almost always room for new languages with slightly different feature sets that will conform more to certain people's personal style, and the more you take the time to learn, the more chance you have of finding your dream languages.
But, I'm talking too much on your first point. On to the second. You compare learning new languages to buying lottery tickets, which, in my ever so humble opinion, is ridiculous. Such a comparison, of course, assumes that we're learning the languages solely so that they'd have some kind of huge payoff in the future, which, of course, often isn't the case. Dalroth gave other reasons for learning them, though.
The thing that caught my eye the most in his reasons was keeping yourself sharp. I don't see how stimulating your mind could ever be a waste of time. The more you have to think and work with the concepts of programming, the better you'll inevitably become at them, and that can help you whether or not the language becomes wildly popular. Why should I study anything but computer science and the math and science courses that it depends on in college? Because it gives me a more rounded education and knowledge base, and can help me to have better quality of thought in general. Why should I read any books for pleasure, or, for that matter, anything but what will have a direct and forseeable payoff in the future? I think you get the point.
Finally, this forum is populated, theoretically, by people who enjoy learning about and using computers. If one does something for enjoyment, why should he then complain when more of that activity is available to be done, or at least, more varieties of that activity. Complaining about how many programming languages there are on this forum is like complaining about how many new science fiction books are written. "Don't we already have enough of those?" How about: "Do we really need new issues of Playboy? We already have lots of pictures of nude women." I hope I don't learn too much stuff. It might not be good for me.
Anyhow, that's my take on the subject. I apologize for the length of this post, but I'm tired and my writing tends to get extra wordy when that happens (it's always wordy, unfortunately). I would advise you to have a nice day. I hope this day (as it's 2:37 AM right now) is better than yesterday in my case.:)
Cheers,
Dan
Here's what I got from one run with the "PROPAGANDA Closes Its Doors" article:
Original:
Bowie J. Poag writes "I'll keep this short and sweet-- Due to the lack of upkeep on the site (read: The guy I gave control of the site to didn't do anything to keep it going like he promised..) I've decided its time for Propaganda to close its doors for good.. I'm not going to pursue the idea of finding a replacement, or going back to doing it solo. For now, the site will remain up for those who still care to visit. I've finally managed to locate a site where I can move my work to, in order to cut any remaining ties with VA Linux Systems. The work will remain publically available elsewhere, but no further additions will be made to the collection. The last two less-than-stellar volumes will also be removed. Myself, the people I worked with, and my project have been through a great number of ups and downs in the last year or so..Some of which I really enjoyed, but most of which i'd honestly like to forget. To me, I'd rather see the project come to a respectful end than to see it continue to languish. I accomplished what I originally set out to do in '98, so, I guess we won in the end. (A note to the Slashdot staff: Just to repeat, this isn't an April Fools joke. My decision was made a few days ago. Sorry for the bad timing.) " I'm sorry to see the Project go - but you can be sure I'll treasure the Volumes that remain.
Katzed
Bowie J. Poag writes "I'll keep this short and sweet-- Due to the lack of upkeep on the site (read: The guy I gave control of the site to didn't do anything to keep it going like he promised..) I've decided its time for Propaganda geek close its doors geek good.. I'm not going to pursue the idea geek finding a replacement, or going back to doing it solo. Geek now, the site will remain up for those who still care geek visit. I've finally geeked to locate geek site where I can move my work to, geek order geek geek any remaining ties with VA Linux Systems. Geek work will remain publically available elsewhere, geek no further additions geek geek made to geek collection. Geek last geek less-than-stellar geeks will geek be geeked. Myself, geek geek Geek worked geek, geek my project have geek through geek geek number geek geeks geek downs in geek last geek geek so..Some geek which Geek really enjoyed, but geek geek which geek geek geek to geek. Geek geek, Geek geek geek geek project come to geek geek geek geek to geek geek continue geek languish. Geek accomplished what Geek originally set geek geek do in '98, geek, Geek guess we geek in geek geek. (Geek geek geek geek Geek staff: Just geek geek, geeks geek geek April Geeks geek. My decision was geek geek few days geek. Sorry for geek geek timing.) " Geek geek to geek geek Geek geek - geek geek geek geek geek Geek treasure geek Volumes that remain.
For those people who don't want to use Perl, I've written a Java version, the JKatzalator. To use, download, compile, and then do:
java JKatzalator <inputFile> <outputFile>
No need to thank me.:) I think it's quite readable. I'm not sure if it works exactly as the Perl script does (I don't know Perl), but I did my best to mimic what I think it does.
I agree with you. I see people talking about how they didn't like American Beauty because, 'why should I care about American suburban life?' I really didn't get that out of the movie. I mean, I live in the American suburbs, and my life isn't remotely like that movie, so that can't be it. I'd say that the movie (without going into in-depth analysis of the theme) is about what makes life worth living, or it's at least more about that than it is about "American suburban life."
If I compare it to The Sixth Sense, I find American Beauty to be the clear winner, at least in my opinion. The Sixth Sense was a very enjoyable movie, entertainment wise. I wasn't really thinking about the ending, so it did come as something of a surprise for me, and it's very good as a "scary" movie. I did get a little startled when all of a sudden there's a little girl puking (spelled right?) in my face. In those respects, it was good; it was entertaining.
However, it didn't give me the same 'feeling' as American Beauty did. When I came out of American Beauty, I was thinking, "Wow, that was a great movie." Usually, when I say something is "great", I mean it made me think. American Beauty (in my opinion) brings about questions and thought. When I read The Fountainhead, it made me think; it's a great book. I get the same feeling from American Beauty. The Sixth Sense is more like the books I read in my spare time (stuff like _The Black Gryphon_ by Mercedes Lackey); they're very entertaining, but not very significant.
To summarize, I'd say American Beauty is better because it evokes a, "Wow, I've never thought of things that way before," reaction rather than a "Woah! Look at those dead people hanging from the gallows in the stairwell," reaction. They were both enjoyable, but American Beauty was 'greater' by my definition.
I'll sign off now. I hope you haven't been bored by the mindless ramblings of an old decrepit high school student. Agree with me; disagree with me; flame me; I don't care.
Pssst. You might want to try: y = sqrt(r^2 - x^2) for your semi-circle equation. Square both sides and move it around and you get x^2 + y^2 = r^2, which is the formula for a circle, but since you use sqrt() y can only be positive.
Yes, thank you very much. Your post was obviously much more productive than mine. Moderate the above comment up, because it's obvious that this man is the oasis of knowledge in the vast wasteland that our modern world is! I'm a deluded fool who believes that all people aren't racist bigots, or at least that there are enough people whose interests would be served by equal rights for people to attain them. Thank you for seeing the err in my ways.
It's good to see that people like you have enough free time away from your jobs saving the world to correct terribly innocent people like me whose cynicism doesn't rule their lives yet. With enough work, maybe the entire American population can become people who spend their time flaming for absolutely no reason other than to increase their own pathetic self-worth. Good work; I admire you.
By the way, please comment on my spelling and grammar next time, it's a big help when people do that.
Actually, unless my history teacher lied to me, the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the confederacy, which, at the time, didn't give a crap about what Lincoln or any other northern leader thought. So effectively, the emancipation proclamation didn't free any slaves. The 13th - 15th amendments had a lot more to do with the freeing of and giving rights to slaves, and they had to be approved by people other than, say, the president. Now their passage wasn't exactly brought about by "a vote by the general population," but it's fun to play devil's advocate.
I'm curious. Could you give me an example of a project that isn't "well suited" for "an OO framework"? I hear the argument a lot that "there are lots of problems that don't have to do with objects and can't be represented by objects," but truth be told, the people giving these arguments never give examples, and I can't think of any on my own. Perhaps if you give me an example, you'll convince me, or I or someone else can convince you. Many thanks.
The page looks fine to me. I'm using Netscape 4.5. Perhaps it doesn't look like it does in IE, but I wouldn't know, because IE won't recognise my DSL connection. I don't see anything wierd though.
But if Sun turns Java over to a standards committee, it's the job of the committee to protect the standard. MS wouldn't be held accountable to Sun, they would be held accountable to the standards body, and I feel more confident in Sun's ability to protect Java than I do some standards body who doesn't care as much. It's in Sun's best interest to keep Java as cross platform as possible, so they'll fight for it. I don't know if you can say the same for the ECMA and friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, your children can watch commercials in homeroom at school.
Then when they come home and ask to see whatever movie they saw advertised, or to get whatever video game they saw advertised, you can say, "No."
Oh no, Channel One ran a story on how you can make fake tattoos by drawing on yourself with a pen. I bet none of them would have figured that out.
They advertised movies that include profanity? I bet you any odds that the actual commercials they showed didn't have any words worse than "hell" in them, and you can get a hold of those by reading the Bible (not to mention that almost every kid in America knows every profane word by 2nd grade, whether or not they watch tv; I know I did, and I was a 'good kid').
Frankly, the complaints on that website reflect value systems conservative enough to belong back in the early 1900's. Perhaps you should teach your children to think and consider the ideas they see for themselves, instead of just accepting beliefs verbatim, whether it's the beliefs of the people on channel one, or the extremely conservative values you yourself seem to hold.
I watched Channel One in high school, and while it's not the most enlightening show (as I recall, it was most interesting for the attractive hosts, not for the news), it certainly isn't taking away your right to choose what to buy for your children. The values expressed on the show aren't off-the-wall liberal/anarchistic/immoral or anything like that. If anything, they'll provide a nice not-ultra-conservative viewpoint to show your children that there is more than one way of looking at things in this world.
Actually, around here, for example, people have assumed that the (minority, perhaps) of Christians who always try to impose their beliefs upon others mean that anyone who is Christian is automatically the type that does so, whether or not that is the case.
Not to mention that there's probably also a significant population in Slashdot that is the ex-Christian-I've-Been-Oppressed-As-A-Child type who take other exceptions with Christianity in general. These generally have the above mindset.
Thus, in current 'geek culture' at least, saying you're Christian often has negative connotations.
I'm so mad I'm going to go off and dwonload a pirated copy of Daredevil and NEVER WATCH IT!
You're not missing all that much.
"Bullseye! Mnah! Ehhhh!"
--Colin Farrell, Daredevil
Getting a disease and advertising aren't the same thing, though (although I'm sure someone clever will come up with an example that proves me wrong about that).
I recall talking about this in a class a few years ago (I can't remember which one), so these aren't my original ideas.
In general, the behavior of the #1 and #2 companies in an industry will be different. Take Coke and Pepsi as an example (back when Coke was #1. I'm not really sure which is #1 today). Pepsi was always saying, "Hey! Try Pepsi! We're better thank Coke!" and Coke gets free advertising as being 'the company that people are choosing.' "No publicity is bad publicity" and all that. Meanwhile, Coke just says, "Hey, we're the best and you know it," and don't mention Pepsi at all.
The idea is, I think, if you say, "I'm better than that guy," then you give "that guy" credibility and advertising, which isn't really a good idea if you're trying to beat him. It's similar to the reason some people get mad that Linux desktops seem to try and clone Microsoft. It may be a necessity to hook Windows users, but it makes you look like a knockoff. Instead of "Hey, we're doing stuff a little better than that guy" you need to be more like "Hey, look how great we are here."
There are a few exceptions. Duracel and Energizer both talk about each other all the time, and P&G market their soaps and stuff against each other. However, in general if you're #1 you say "we're the best" and if you're #2, you say "We're better than #1." Just like Burger King above, and all the cheapo ISPs saying "We're better than AOL," and AMD running ads about "We're faster than Intel" a few years back.
I'm not saying Linux has overtaken MS in marketshare or anything like that. And someone said that this was simply a release to stockholders, and not exactly an advertising campaign, so it's probably not as significant. However, if you ever see MS marketing a lot around "We're better than Linux," don't doubt that it's significant.
Bumper stickers are pretty lame anyway, except for the ones you stick on other people's SUVs that say things like, "I'm changing the environment! Ask me how!"
Like on this site.
Here is a discussion of LSB compliance and Gentoo on the Gentoo forums. In short, Gentoo won't be LSB certified, but it will "likely maintain the 'spirit' of LSB standards."
I think the RPM requirement and probably the requirement to maintain two separate init-script implementations would be undesirable for most Gentoo users.
I was beginning to think we wouldn't have any stories that invited obligatory porn comments today! :)
The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England?
Geeze. I've had this on my Bitboys video card for years now. With this and the Xtreme Bandwith Architecture, it'll easily be the most powerful video card for years to come! Who needs nVidia and ATi, eh?
I did. I read about it a while ago here. Here is the article on the original warp drive which looks rather hard to build, because (as I recall) you need a large 'negative energy density' (or some such). And here is the article on the "Micro warp drive" that makes a spacial bubble around to you make you really small, so you don't need as large a negative energy density, and that you, apparently, can't see out of. :) Another interesting article there (of course, there all interesting), is about the Krasnikov Tube which lets you travel somewhere and back at relativistic speeds without having to worry about time dilation.
:)), but they're entertaining to read and give you at least a general overview of how they work. Chef recommends.
Of course, these aren't particularly detailed on how the math/physics works (warp drives for dummies
Oh, yeah, thanks.
I probably should have caught that there aren't p - 1 primes less than a prime p. :)
By the way: Many thanks to Sarah Flannery, the author of In Code, whose book I paraphrased the algorithm/proof above from (luckily it was sitting on the table in front of me).
So, now there's the matter of why it works. Here we go:
So when p or q are not prime, phi(n) != (p - 1)(q - 1), so when you calculate d, you'll get something that doesn't negate the encrypting process (because its not a multiplicative inverse mod the real phi(n)), so you'll probably get junk when you decipher.
I don't really feel like doing a detailed analysis of the algorithm, but I imagine that this isn't used as a primality test because it's running time probably isn't polynomial time.
"Remember ascii art? It's still there, and Google is helping them out."
Remember Alf? He's back! In pog form!
I'm never certain how to begin my posts, so I often start with a sentence just like this, hoping that the momentum of typing will somehow lead me into the points I wish to make (anyone see Finding Forrester?). Anyhow, now I'm ready. I'm a big fan of Java. It's certainly the programming language I know best, and I have tried others. I learned C/C++, and though I like C for the way it feels, I can't say the same for C++. I haven't used it in a while, so I'm not too familiar with all the STL stuff and all that, which may make things better than I remember, but it always seems to me that in some cases, Java does the things that C++ does in a better way. Plus I could list all the great things that Java can do that are hard to do in C++. Java, is indeed a very nice language/platform/etc. However, for all the work that's been put into Java, I have to say that it really isn't wonderful for all occasions. As a simple, concrete statement of one of the things that can bug me in Java on occasion: sometimes it's nice to be able to pass around methods/functions. C++ can do this directly with function pointers, of course, and Ruby can do this because, well, everything's an object in Ruby (a very nice feature). Because of the way it was designed, though, I can't do this in Java, other than going through reflection, which is poor form. Now, there are ways to do this in Java. Basically, you have to create your own class to do it. Let me explore some possibilities. Let's say I have two different methods with signatures as follows: String foo(String s, Object o) Integer bar(Double d) Now, I can create my own Method class that has a method Object invoke(Object[]); But this doesn't look nice, does it? There's lots of ugly casting involved because you can't make any assumptions about what it can return or how many and what type of arguments it can use. Another solution is to declare a specific class for each dynamically defined method that I want to have, but then I end up adding tens of classes to my project. All of this work because I want to have a few methods of, say, my MUD able to be plugged in by extentions that are loaded at runtime (which, incidentally, are very easy to allow for using Java). With Ruby, I'd just declare a variable, fill it with a default function, and then if anyone wanted to change it, they'd stick a new function in there with the same signature, and all would be well. All because methods/functions are objects in Ruby and not in Java. Now, I'm not bashing Java because I understand that all languages make certain tradeoffs. My point is that there are many different languages because they all address slightly different needs. Even if they appear to address the same need, they may do it in a different way that makes them better in certain situations. I'm learning Python now and I just don't like the way it feels as much as Ruby (although it could be the book I'm using (Core Python Programming or something like that) because the author explains in great detail some things that appear stupid to me, like the method used to determine which of two hash tables is numerically greater...). So, anyway, there's almost always room for new languages with slightly different feature sets that will conform more to certain people's personal style, and the more you take the time to learn, the more chance you have of finding your dream languages. But, I'm talking too much on your first point. On to the second. You compare learning new languages to buying lottery tickets, which, in my ever so humble opinion, is ridiculous. Such a comparison, of course, assumes that we're learning the languages solely so that they'd have some kind of huge payoff in the future, which, of course, often isn't the case. Dalroth gave other reasons for learning them, though. The thing that caught my eye the most in his reasons was keeping yourself sharp. I don't see how stimulating your mind could ever be a waste of time. The more you have to think and work with the concepts of programming, the better you'll inevitably become at them, and that can help you whether or not the language becomes wildly popular. Why should I study anything but computer science and the math and science courses that it depends on in college? Because it gives me a more rounded education and knowledge base, and can help me to have better quality of thought in general. Why should I read any books for pleasure, or, for that matter, anything but what will have a direct and forseeable payoff in the future? I think you get the point. Finally, this forum is populated, theoretically, by people who enjoy learning about and using computers. If one does something for enjoyment, why should he then complain when more of that activity is available to be done, or at least, more varieties of that activity. Complaining about how many programming languages there are on this forum is like complaining about how many new science fiction books are written. "Don't we already have enough of those?" How about: "Do we really need new issues of Playboy? We already have lots of pictures of nude women." I hope I don't learn too much stuff. It might not be good for me. Anyhow, that's my take on the subject. I apologize for the length of this post, but I'm tired and my writing tends to get extra wordy when that happens (it's always wordy, unfortunately). I would advise you to have a nice day. I hope this day (as it's 2:37 AM right now) is better than yesterday in my case. :)
Cheers,
Dan
0.08206 Latm/Kn (liter-atmospheres per kelvin-mole)
Here's what I got from one run with the "PROPAGANDA Closes Its Doors" article:
Original:
Katzed
Enjoy.
For those people who don't want to use Perl, I've written a Java version, the JKatzalator. To use, download, compile, and then do:
No need to thank me. :) I think it's quite readable. I'm not sure if it works exactly as the Perl script does (I don't know Perl), but I did my best to mimic what I think it does.
If I compare it to The Sixth Sense, I find American Beauty to be the clear winner, at least in my opinion. The Sixth Sense was a very enjoyable movie, entertainment wise. I wasn't really thinking about the ending, so it did come as something of a surprise for me, and it's very good as a "scary" movie. I did get a little startled when all of a sudden there's a little girl puking (spelled right?) in my face. In those respects, it was good; it was entertaining.
However, it didn't give me the same 'feeling' as American Beauty did. When I came out of American Beauty, I was thinking, "Wow, that was a great movie." Usually, when I say something is "great", I mean it made me think. American Beauty (in my opinion) brings about questions and thought. When I read The Fountainhead, it made me think; it's a great book. I get the same feeling from American Beauty. The Sixth Sense is more like the books I read in my spare time (stuff like _The Black Gryphon_ by Mercedes Lackey); they're very entertaining, but not very significant.
To summarize, I'd say American Beauty is better because it evokes a, "Wow, I've never thought of things that way before," reaction rather than a "Woah! Look at those dead people hanging from the gallows in the stairwell," reaction. They were both enjoyable, but American Beauty was 'greater' by my definition.
I'll sign off now. I hope you haven't been bored by the mindless ramblings of an old decrepit high school student. Agree with me; disagree with me; flame me; I don't care.
Pssst. You might want to try: y = sqrt(r^2 - x^2) for your semi-circle equation. Square both sides and move it around and you get x^2 + y^2 = r^2, which is the formula for a circle, but since you use sqrt() y can only be positive.
It's good to see that people like you have enough free time away from your jobs saving the world to correct terribly innocent people like me whose cynicism doesn't rule their lives yet. With enough work, maybe the entire American population can become people who spend their time flaming for absolutely no reason other than to increase their own pathetic self-worth. Good work; I admire you.
By the way, please comment on my spelling and grammar next time, it's a big help when people do that.
Cheers,
Dan D
I'm curious. Could you give me an example of a project that isn't "well suited" for "an OO framework"? I hear the argument a lot that "there are lots of problems that don't have to do with objects and can't be represented by objects," but truth be told, the people giving these arguments never give examples, and I can't think of any on my own. Perhaps if you give me an example, you'll convince me, or I or someone else can convince you. Many thanks.
The page looks fine to me. I'm using Netscape 4.5. Perhaps it doesn't look like it does in IE, but I wouldn't know, because IE won't recognise my DSL connection. I don't see anything wierd though.
But if Sun turns Java over to a standards committee, it's the job of the committee to protect the standard. MS wouldn't be held accountable to Sun, they would be held accountable to the standards body, and I feel more confident in Sun's ability to protect Java than I do some standards body who doesn't care as much. It's in Sun's best interest to keep Java as cross platform as possible, so they'll fight for it. I don't know if you can say the same for the ECMA and friends.