The GP might have been thinking about DarwinPorts (now called MacPorts), a different, ports-based package manager. I've found that Prefixed Portage works best on OS X. See http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/macos/
Fink is lame. MacPorts is okay, but it pulls vanilla source from the project site and tries to compile without any OS X specific patching. Depending on the application, this can work of fail miserably. I'm running Portage Prefix right now.
So why not give them tools to make the job easier? You can do OO in C, but it's much easier in a language designed to support objects. Similarly, while it's possible to do ad hoc DbC in most languages, it becomes much easier if you have tools and facilities in place to support it.
What's easier than typing '#' followed by a comment? I would honestly rather read English than any programming language I know of. Even if it doesn't buy me fancy run time checks.
And I'm not so sure those run time checks are really all that valuable (though I'll concede your point regarding application domains).
Do you document your code at all? Do you test your code at all? That's all DbC is doing, it is just doing both at once for any tests that can be written as constraints. And remember DbC is as much about other people knowing what a function does as about you knowing - it provides clear conditions for anyone calling your code as to what they must provide, and what they can expect of any returned results, information that, for any decent DbC system, is automatically included in API documentation.
Yes, I document my code. Very clearly, in fact. Usually by documenting the method's specification, including it's "intention" (computes sin x, for instance), what it expects as input, what it returns. I base my unit tests on that specification.
In some ways, I see DbC as a very good thing. And most competent developers do it anyway, in the way I've described. Similarly, competent developers know to not violate "the contract" and mess around with API internals. But formalizing these methods seem to required a big, upfront design. In my experience, upfront designs are counter-productive.
Type safety just isn't worth all this effort. Duck typing is fine by me.
I socialized with your mom last night. I was at the local dive. I saw her from across the room, and her brother talked me up to her (Thanks!). She came over, bumped into my shoulder when I wasn't looking, and introduced herself. We talked for a little bit, but nothing really came of it.
Later, when the bar closed, I went to a convenience store. As I was walking away, I heard someone call my name. I turned around, and it was your mom again! She was going to hang out with her brother, sister, and a few of the bar regulars, and asked me if I wanted to come. I got in the car and had a great time.
Yup, thanks for your and the GP's answer. Honestly, I've learned to not push my battery. This "safe sleep" thing would be nice -- it's certainly a feature I would like -- but it won't make me sleep any better.:-)
However; should a Mac stay in sleep until the battery dies, before the battery dies the OS will go into hibernation, writing the contents of RAM to the HDD, next time it powers up with electricity there will be a small progress bar at the bottom.
Not in my experience. When I've put my G4 PowerBook to sleep and drained the battery, it just cold booted when I turned it on. No resume from hibernation.
Then again, all this stuff is hardware dependent. I wouldn't mind or know of improvements.
I would imagine that the anti-matter ended up roughly on the other side of the universe as us. Imagine two equally sized spheres of matter and anti-matter. If they come in contact, there will be a massive explosion. But that obviously doesn't mean that all the matter and anti-matter were annihilated. The explosion would work to move the matter and anti-matter apart.
effect Function: transitive verb Date: 1533 1: to cause to come into being 2 a: to bring about often by surmounting obstacles : accomplish b: to put into operation
It's important to separate emotions with basal sanity. Godel despite his other admirable characteristics and outstanding work, was insane to starve himself to death. If you believe suicide to be morally wrong under his circumstances, then he was out of control. If an individual refuses medications that allow him to live civilly, then it's a choice, and a wrong one, morally. It's measuring ourselves against society civilly that can be used as a metric for behavior.
You were pretty clear there, so depsite trying to be charitable, I'll have to assume you mean that society is the final arbiter of moral right and wrong.
That is an absurd position.
Coming up with examples of societies that have done clear wrongs is trivial. I almost feel the need to pre-emptively invoke Godwin's Law here. Coming up with examples of societies that have tried to prevent members from doing clear good is trivial. Consider American Slavery. Consider the Civil Rights movement, especially in the 1950's and 60's.
You might as well let society do your thinking for you. It's always right, after all.
Last I heard, it takes 22.7 years for a major tragedy to become funny.
Then again, "JEWS DID 911 LOL!!!!!!!!" is pretty damn funny, specifically because it's inflammatory in at least four ways.
1) Anti-semitism. In itself, anti-semitism isn't funny. But absurd anti-semetic trolls are. Sorry, Jewish people, there's a lot of unfunny history of undeserved anti-Semitism. I don't disagree with that assessment of history. But it has probably affected you, a 20-30 something white male, a lot less than racism has affected 20-30 something black males. Or me, a 20-something male of unknown ethnic origin with a southern accent. And yet, anti-semitism is such an easy way to rile you up.
2) Conspiracy theories are funny. Sure, the claim that the Jewish people is responsible for 9/11 is absurd, but there are plenty of theories that include at least a couple of Jewish people. Making them representatives of a whole people, without that people's consent, is funny. Especially since the Jewish people presumably responsible are unspecified.
3) The "LOL!!!!!!!!!!" is funny, specifically because it makes the troll ambiguous. Was the troll acting in good faith and actually think the Jewish people were responsible? Or (4) was it just a brazen, juvenile troll?
Ah, I'm sure I'll be modded down for this. That's not even a plea for karma. I see trolls as a kind of litmus test for people. The best ones are open ended, in the sense that they bring out many differing opposing opinions. "JEWS DID 911 LOL!!!!!!!" has a lot of potential in that regard.
Since you're so in control of your emotions, turn on your empathy unit. He wasn't asking for approval.
Here's a little story for you. Kurt Godel, the famous logician, starved himself to death because he though his caretaker was poisoning him. He wasn't in a position to do anything else about it. That's a perfectly rational thing to do, too. Would you be able to "control your emotions" and eat food you thought was poisoned? Sometimes you can't tell truth from fiction.
So what do you say to someone who refuses to take his medication precisely because the condition it's required for is influencing his choice? Even if the "real world" consequences prove to be bad, was their choice morally bad?
Depending on your answer, you've either contradicted yourself or need to read about epistemology and ethics.
We're in control of our emotions in the same way we can control our sense of smell. Sure, you can try to make your house smell better. But if your wife lets out a nasty fart, no amount of will power will let you ignore it. If it's particularly sulfurous, you might even act in ways some might call irrational.
Substitute "sense of pain" for "sense of smell" if you didn't get the essential idea.
There are some respects in which the BSD licenses are more free than the GPL. But both grant additional freedoms above and beyond the fair use guaranteed by copyright law. If you don't like it, you don't have to play.
And of course, you're wrong. Radio spectrum is a limited resource. The FCC leases it out to businesses under the condition that it will be used in ways to benefit the public interest. If it isn't, the license gets pulled.
And please don't tell me about LaTeX -- if I have to force naive users to generate well-structured docs, LaTeX isn't an option... I'd rather give them something like Word 2003+ (which can enforce schemas)
The LaTeX macros are schemas. This is why you have to declare what kind of document you're making up front. It's possible to redefine the LaTeX macros within a document, but your hypothetical naive users won't know the TeX code necessary to make anything like that happen. This alone eliminates the unfortunate tendency to treat a word processor as a desktop publishing package, even though TeX is a full featured desktop publishing package.
If there are good reasons why LaTeX isn't suitable, this isn't one of them. Indeed, if there is a good reason, it's that modifying macros is actually kind of hard. If the LaTeX macros don't fit your house style, you'll have to hack around and define your own document classes, which can then be shared with the naive users.
Here's some background information. TeX is a Turing complete (well, as much as, say, C is) domain specific programming language. The LaTeX macros are basically libraries for this language. There are others, and you can make your own. When you say \documentclass{article}, you're importing the article.cls file, which contains TeX code implementing functions (like \section{}) that you can then use in your program/document.
A simple LaTeX document might look like this: \documentclass{article} \author{poopdeville} \title{A Simple Document}
\begin{document} \maketitle
\section{The Section Name} A bunch of text. Blah blah.
\section{Another Section} More text, and so on.
\end{document}
Parallels can be drawn between the relationship between LaTeX and LaTeX documents and the relationship between CSS and HTML. But TeX is far more powerful than CSS, which lets the macros deal with a lot of boring details (automatic section numbering and the like) while maintaining a consistent appearance. This idea is very powerful, since if you maintain a consistent API to your macros, you can change the layout of all your documents with a simple recompilation. The 'amsarticle' class is an example of this. It re-implements the LaTeX API (though it extends it a bit), turning a standard LaTeX document into one that fits the AMS journals house style.
Well, if global warming is caused primarily by solar heating (in the relevant sense), there's probably not much we can do about it. Instead of diverting our resources on a lost cause, we can invest those resources to deal with other environmental issues we can do something about.
Indeed. But it's good to have actual evidence that global warming isn't primarily caused by humans instead of weak arguments to that effect. Instead of wasting money investigating how to inhibit global warming, we can invest it in research to solve actual environmental problems.
I still think more research needs to be done, but this is a great step in the right -- empirically tested -- direction. And I might suggest that this discovery opens up many new avenues of research for the hungry environmental researcher. A Kuhnian paradigm shift in many fields might occur if someone bright works at it. Assuming the sun is the primary contributor (and it swamps our contribution) to global warming, why -- in a mathematical or physical sense -- have all the current models failed?
I can think of many possible reasons. Some trivial, some deep. The models are either mathematically "stable" in a sense to be defined later, or they aren't. If they are stable, they have failed to take some causally efficatious physical phenomena into account. But note that global warming has followed trends predicted by the models. Very mysterious.
Here's the promised definition of stability: consider a continuous real function f. By the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, we can approximate f as a series of orthonormal continuous functions on any compact set A. Let epsilon > 0. We say that an approximation is epsilon-stable if the chosen orthnormal basis approximates the function closely on the interval [min A - epsilon, max A + epsilon]. I happened to just make this definition up, but it does contain actual mathematical content. An approximation is, intuitively, epsilon-stable if it can make predictions epsilon time into the future. Stability in this sense is a metric of how well the experimental variables we have chosen to base our model on reflect the real world.
You don't need to touch anything in/etc to turn telnet on in OS X. All you have to do is run "launchctl start telnet" as root. (x)inetd has been depecated in favor of launchd.
Slashdot Mirror
The GP might have been thinking about DarwinPorts (now called MacPorts), a different, ports-based package manager. I've found that Prefixed Portage works best on OS X. See http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/macos/
Fink is lame. MacPorts is okay, but it pulls vanilla source from the project site and tries to compile without any OS X specific patching. Depending on the application, this can work of fail miserably. I'm running Portage Prefix right now.
I prefer TeXShop for TeX documents, but Textmate is surely a better all around editor.
So why not give them tools to make the job easier? You can do OO in C, but it's much easier in a language designed to support objects. Similarly, while it's possible to do ad hoc DbC in most languages, it becomes much easier if you have tools and facilities in place to support it.
What's easier than typing '#' followed by a comment? I would honestly rather read English than any programming language I know of. Even if it doesn't buy me fancy run time checks.
And I'm not so sure those run time checks are really all that valuable (though I'll concede your point regarding application domains).
Do you document your code at all? Do you test your code at all? That's all DbC is doing, it is just doing both at once for any tests that can be written as constraints. And remember DbC is as much about other people knowing what a function does as about you knowing - it provides clear conditions for anyone calling your code as to what they must provide, and what they can expect of any returned results, information that, for any decent DbC system, is automatically included in API documentation.
Yes, I document my code. Very clearly, in fact. Usually by documenting the method's specification, including it's "intention" (computes sin x, for instance), what it expects as input, what it returns. I base my unit tests on that specification.
In some ways, I see DbC as a very good thing. And most competent developers do it anyway, in the way I've described. Similarly, competent developers know to not violate "the contract" and mess around with API internals. But formalizing these methods seem to required a big, upfront design. In my experience, upfront designs are counter-productive.
Type safety just isn't worth all this effort. Duck typing is fine by me.
I socialized with your mom last night. I was at the local dive. I saw her from across the room, and her brother talked me up to her (Thanks!). She came over, bumped into my shoulder when I wasn't looking, and introduced herself. We talked for a little bit, but nothing really came of it.
Later, when the bar closed, I went to a convenience store. As I was walking away, I heard someone call my name. I turned around, and it was your mom again! She was going to hang out with her brother, sister, and a few of the bar regulars, and asked me if I wanted to come. I got in the car and had a great time.
Your mom is nice, and I want to see more of her.
Yup, thanks for your and the GP's answer. Honestly, I've learned to not push my battery. This "safe sleep" thing would be nice -- it's certainly a feature I would like -- but it won't make me sleep any better. :-)
Thanks for that. Unfortunately, I wasn't referring to TFA. I was correcting my GP, when he said:
"The journalist clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Lossless compression doesn't effect image quality at all."
Please try to keep up.
However; should a Mac stay in sleep until the battery dies, before the battery dies the OS will go into hibernation, writing the contents of RAM to the HDD, next time it powers up with electricity there will be a small progress bar at the bottom.
Not in my experience. When I've put my G4 PowerBook to sleep and drained the battery, it just cold booted when I turned it on. No resume from hibernation.
Then again, all this stuff is hardware dependent. I wouldn't mind or know of improvements.
I would imagine that the anti-matter ended up roughly on the other side of the universe as us. Imagine two equally sized spheres of matter and anti-matter. If they come in contact, there will be a massive explosion. But that obviously doesn't mean that all the matter and anti-matter were annihilated. The explosion would work to move the matter and anti-matter apart.
Of course it doesn't. Garbage in, garbage out.
from m-w.com:
effect
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1533
1: to cause to come into being
2 a: to bring about often by surmounting obstacles : accomplish b: to put into operation
It's important to separate emotions with basal sanity. Godel despite his other admirable characteristics and outstanding work, was insane to starve himself to death. If you believe suicide to be morally wrong under his circumstances, then he was out of control. If an individual refuses medications that allow him to live civilly, then it's a choice, and a wrong one, morally. It's measuring ourselves against society civilly that can be used as a metric for behavior.
You were pretty clear there, so depsite trying to be charitable, I'll have to assume you mean that society is the final arbiter of moral right and wrong.
That is an absurd position.
Coming up with examples of societies that have done clear wrongs is trivial. I almost feel the need to pre-emptively invoke Godwin's Law here. Coming up with examples of societies that have tried to prevent members from doing clear good is trivial. Consider American Slavery. Consider the Civil Rights movement, especially in the 1950's and 60's.
You might as well let society do your thinking for you. It's always right, after all.
Last I heard, it takes 22.7 years for a major tragedy to become funny.
:-(
Then again, "JEWS DID 911 LOL!!!!!!!!" is pretty damn funny, specifically because it's inflammatory in at least four ways.
1) Anti-semitism. In itself, anti-semitism isn't funny. But absurd anti-semetic trolls are. Sorry, Jewish people, there's a lot of unfunny history of undeserved anti-Semitism. I don't disagree with that assessment of history. But it has probably affected you, a 20-30 something white male, a lot less than racism has affected 20-30 something black males. Or me, a 20-something male of unknown ethnic origin with a southern accent. And yet, anti-semitism is such an easy way to rile you up.
2) Conspiracy theories are funny. Sure, the claim that the Jewish people is responsible for 9/11 is absurd, but there are plenty of theories that include at least a couple of Jewish people. Making them representatives of a whole people, without that people's consent, is funny. Especially since the Jewish people presumably responsible are unspecified.
3) The "LOL!!!!!!!!!!" is funny, specifically because it makes the troll ambiguous. Was the troll acting in good faith and actually think the Jewish people were responsible? Or (4) was it just a brazen, juvenile troll?
Ah, I'm sure I'll be modded down for this. That's not even a plea for karma. I see trolls as a kind of litmus test for people. The best ones are open ended, in the sense that they bring out many differing opposing opinions. "JEWS DID 911 LOL!!!!!!!" has a lot of potential in that regard.
This is how a troll thinks.
Since you're so in control of your emotions, turn on your empathy unit. He wasn't asking for approval.
Here's a little story for you. Kurt Godel, the famous logician, starved himself to death because he though his caretaker was poisoning him. He wasn't in a position to do anything else about it. That's a perfectly rational thing to do, too. Would you be able to "control your emotions" and eat food you thought was poisoned? Sometimes you can't tell truth from fiction.
So what do you say to someone who refuses to take his medication precisely because the condition it's required for is influencing his choice? Even if the "real world" consequences prove to be bad, was their choice morally bad?
Depending on your answer, you've either contradicted yourself or need to read about epistemology and ethics.
We're in control of our emotions in the same way we can control our sense of smell. Sure, you can try to make your house smell better. But if your wife lets out a nasty fart, no amount of will power will let you ignore it. If it's particularly sulfurous, you might even act in ways some might call irrational.
Substitute "sense of pain" for "sense of smell" if you didn't get the essential idea.
There are some respects in which the BSD licenses are more free than the GPL. But both grant additional freedoms above and beyond the fair use guaranteed by copyright law. If you don't like it, you don't have to play.
And of course, you're wrong. Radio spectrum is a limited resource. The FCC leases it out to businesses under the condition that it will be used in ways to benefit the public interest. If it isn't, the license gets pulled.
I don't know. Something in the western hemisphere would be nice, if only for the decreased load times.
Probably just after Oregon, and there's a local movement to that end here now.
And please don't tell me about LaTeX -- if I have to force naive users to generate well-structured docs, LaTeX isn't an option ... I'd rather give them something like Word 2003+ (which can enforce schemas)
The LaTeX macros are schemas. This is why you have to declare what kind of document you're making up front. It's possible to redefine the LaTeX macros within a document, but your hypothetical naive users won't know the TeX code necessary to make anything like that happen. This alone eliminates the unfortunate tendency to treat a word processor as a desktop publishing package, even though TeX is a full featured desktop publishing package.
If there are good reasons why LaTeX isn't suitable, this isn't one of them. Indeed, if there is a good reason, it's that modifying macros is actually kind of hard. If the LaTeX macros don't fit your house style, you'll have to hack around and define your own document classes, which can then be shared with the naive users.
Here's some background information. TeX is a Turing complete (well, as much as, say, C is) domain specific programming language. The LaTeX macros are basically libraries for this language. There are others, and you can make your own. When you say \documentclass{article}, you're importing the article.cls file, which contains TeX code implementing functions (like \section{}) that you can then use in your program/document.
A simple LaTeX document might look like this:
\documentclass{article}
\author{poopdeville}
\title{A Simple Document}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{The Section Name}
A bunch of text. Blah blah.
\section{Another Section}
More text, and so on.
\end{document}
Parallels can be drawn between the relationship between LaTeX and LaTeX documents and the relationship between CSS and HTML. But TeX is far more powerful than CSS, which lets the macros deal with a lot of boring details (automatic section numbering and the like) while maintaining a consistent appearance. This idea is very powerful, since if you maintain a consistent API to your macros, you can change the layout of all your documents with a simple recompilation. The 'amsarticle' class is an example of this. It re-implements the LaTeX API (though it extends it a bit), turning a standard LaTeX document into one that fits the AMS journals house style.
Well, if global warming is caused primarily by solar heating (in the relevant sense), there's probably not much we can do about it. Instead of diverting our resources on a lost cause, we can invest those resources to deal with other environmental issues we can do something about.
Indeed. But it's good to have actual evidence that global warming isn't primarily caused by humans instead of weak arguments to that effect. Instead of wasting money investigating how to inhibit global warming, we can invest it in research to solve actual environmental problems.
I still think more research needs to be done, but this is a great step in the right -- empirically tested -- direction. And I might suggest that this discovery opens up many new avenues of research for the hungry environmental researcher. A Kuhnian paradigm shift in many fields might occur if someone bright works at it. Assuming the sun is the primary contributor (and it swamps our contribution) to global warming, why -- in a mathematical or physical sense -- have all the current models failed?
I can think of many possible reasons. Some trivial, some deep. The models are either mathematically "stable" in a sense to be defined later, or they aren't. If they are stable, they have failed to take some causally efficatious physical phenomena into account. But note that global warming has followed trends predicted by the models. Very mysterious.
Here's the promised definition of stability: consider a continuous real function f. By the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, we can approximate f as a series of orthonormal continuous functions on any compact set A. Let epsilon > 0. We say that an approximation is epsilon-stable if the chosen orthnormal basis approximates the function closely on the interval [min A - epsilon, max A + epsilon]. I happened to just make this definition up, but it does contain actual mathematical content. An approximation is, intuitively, epsilon-stable if it can make predictions epsilon time into the future. Stability in this sense is a metric of how well the experimental variables we have chosen to base our model on reflect the real world.
You don't need to touch anything in /etc to turn telnet on in OS X. All you have to do is run "launchctl start telnet" as root. (x)inetd has been depecated in favor of launchd.
i am in ur memoriez, hacking all ur encryption.
Perhaps. But "hardware" is kind of a loaded term. A Java VM is just as much "hardware" in this context as a real life x86.