you do realize that for most people, non-OO vs. OO largely boils down to replace(mystring, "foo", "bar") vs. mystring.replace("foo", "bar"). (Whether that's actually correct syntax in any language is another discussion.) You don't have to program in an OO manner just because you're using an OO-capable language.
I forgot about that. Maybe it's good for small things like that, but with web sites (unless you decide to use Javascript and make it interactive) you generally don't have the need for objects (i.e., people, cars, etc.). You're more or less just spitting out content, and then you're done. And you also have no event handling going on which requires the use of objects.
I'm curious though. Besides working with strings, can you give me example of some objects (OO objects, that is) you might have in a normal web page?
One of the things I really don't like about Microsoft is that they're way of doing things is not following standards (i.e., not ones set by them). What Microsoft likes to do is corrupt good things by permeating them with their own extensions, then people get used to them and it corrupts the original way of doing things. For example, I heard that Microsoft is going to be providing MySQL functionality in the future (in Office or Visual Studio).
I may be flaming here...but IMHO ASP/C# (i.e., Microsoft) is not the way to go for developing web sites - same thing with JSP. Object-oriented is just not necessary for most things on the web. Especially when you use a front-end to develop your HTML/XHTML...that produces some real crappy HTML - and it relies on Javascript/JScript for functionality, which is BAD.
And the Microsoft stuff is not made to be portable. Of course you have things like Mono, but PHP, Perl, and Python are designed with portability.
This 'network' looks cool, but is really crap compaired to brain wiring. Like comparing a silicone molecule to an 11/780.
I was kind of wondering about the pictures because the article says, "A typical cortical neuron receives 1,000 to 10,000 contacts from other neurons and contacts 100 to 1,000 additional neurons."
In the picture it really doesn't look like there are any more than a few connections between the neurons pictured. Do you know if it's more dense than that in reality, or did the article mean indirect connections?
This seems pretty cool. So does this allow you to "install" programs into the ISO file (i.e., not install it in your current Windows installation)? If so, I guess this is better than imaging your harddrive, eh?
Nope, I wasn't the one that was claiming that about platypi - I don't know what platypi are.
> You need to learn a lot more about how fossilization works.
True. I am realizing that I've been arrogant. I think I am searching for answers in the wrong place - I'll inevitably come up with more and more questions and never come to a real conclusion.
Thanks everyone for putting up with my posts on Slashdot.
Actually I don't believe everything creationists teach today. I think for myself. What I posted was derived from my own thoughts. I am seeking the truth just as much as you are.
Thanks. Don't take me wrong - I don't mean to be an ass or to flame. I posted like that not really to debate; rather, I want to learn and gather knowledge of both sides of the argument so I can make a choice myself.
Let me ask you a question that is kind of OT. The link you sent is interesting - maybe you know of another that could provide a plausible answer to the following: have scientists observed genetic mutations (which is a foundation of evolution) that have produced positive outcomes? Every time I've seen a person or a creature of any kind with such a genetic defect, the defect has been an inhibitor to the person or creature's functioning. Has it ever been witnessed otherwise?
> What is the probability that an organism will become fossilized, survive erosion and other hazards for > > millions of years, and then actually be found by someone? I.e., how good a sample do you think the fossil > record is.
What about dinosaur fossils? What about this fossil they found in this article?
For me personally, there are just too many gaps. To convince me at least, one fossil/species is not enough - this species they found could be similar in nature to the duckbill platypus. And where is the fossil evidence that the duckbill platypus evolved from another species? If macroevolution were true, then I would think there would be numerous fossils comparable to this one all over the place, but I do not see evidence of this. True there are numerous species in existence today, but we cannot identify DIRECT parent and child species of any particular species, respectively. If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are.
These translators are not going to ever produce translations at quality anywhere human translations until they can properly account for context. The best way to do this as I see it is through knowledge representation via a neural network (i.e., adaptive resonance theory).
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot about that. Maybe it's good for small things like that, but with web sites (unless you decide to use Javascript and make it interactive) you generally don't have the need for objects (i.e., people, cars, etc.). You're more or less just spitting out content, and then you're done. And you also have no event handling going on which requires the use of objects.
I'm curious though. Besides working with strings, can you give me example of some objects (OO objects, that is) you might have in a normal web page?
One of the things I really don't like about Microsoft is that they're way of doing things is not following standards (i.e., not ones set by them). What Microsoft likes to do is corrupt good things by permeating them with their own extensions, then people get used to them and it corrupts the original way of doing things. For example, I heard that Microsoft is going to be providing MySQL functionality in the future (in Office or Visual Studio).
I may be flaming here...but IMHO ASP/C# (i.e., Microsoft) is not the way to go for developing web sites - same thing with JSP. Object-oriented is just not necessary for most things on the web. Especially when you use a front-end to develop your HTML/XHTML...that produces some real crappy HTML - and it relies on Javascript/JScript for functionality, which is BAD.
And the Microsoft stuff is not made to be portable. Of course you have things like Mono, but PHP, Perl, and Python are designed with portability.
No, UDP.
...or even a fruit fly.
What about reconnecting all the nerves properly? Would they be able to reconnect themselves if the ends were in close proximity?
Why are you even spending time reading and posting on Slashdot at all if you're so worried about the middle east and the end times being near, hmmm??
This is found in Psalm 95:11 (see this site). But it's actually not showing in any of the translations I've looking in...
I was going to say the same thing. Half the technology we hear about never reaches us...
This seems pretty cool. So does this allow you to "install" programs into the ISO file (i.e., not install it in your current Windows installation)? If so, I guess this is better than imaging your harddrive, eh?
What program do you use or how do you integrate them into the XP SP2 iso image?
Or if the only thing that's changed is the CSS, then Slashdot could just put an "alternate stylesheet" link tag in the header.
The last post was from April 6th, but oh well.
The matter for the big bang had to have come from somewhere, so I don't see how the 1st law could be misused in that respect.
Nope, I wasn't the one that was claiming that about platypi - I don't know what platypi are.
> You need to learn a lot more about how fossilization works.
True. I am realizing that I've been arrogant. I think I am searching for answers in the wrong place - I'll inevitably come up with more and more questions and never come to a real conclusion.
Thanks everyone for putting up with my posts on Slashdot.
Actually I don't believe everything creationists teach today. I think for myself. What I posted was derived from my own thoughts. I am seeking the truth just as much as you are.
Thanks. Don't take me wrong - I don't mean to be an ass or to flame. I posted like that not really to debate; rather, I want to learn and gather knowledge of both sides of the argument so I can make a choice myself.
Let me ask you a question that is kind of OT. The link you sent is interesting - maybe you know of another that could provide a plausible answer to the following: have scientists observed genetic mutations (which is a foundation of evolution) that have produced positive outcomes? Every time I've seen a person or a creature of any kind with such a genetic defect, the defect has been an inhibitor to the person or creature's functioning. Has it ever been witnessed otherwise?
> What is the probability that an organism will become fossilized, survive erosion and other hazards for > > millions of years, and then actually be found by someone? I.e., how good a sample do you think the fossil > record is. What about dinosaur fossils? What about this fossil they found in this article?
For me personally, there are just too many gaps. To convince me at least, one fossil/species is not enough - this species they found could be similar in nature to the duckbill platypus. And where is the fossil evidence that the duckbill platypus evolved from another species? If macroevolution were true, then I would think there would be numerous fossils comparable to this one all over the place, but I do not see evidence of this. True there are numerous species in existence today, but we cannot identify DIRECT parent and child species of any particular species, respectively. If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are.
Slashdot should have 1 or 2 articles that are real on April 1.
Seriously, who cares? Nobody really watches those screens anyway.
Protestants do not follow the Pope. Maybe some do, but at least most do not.
These translators are not going to ever produce translations at quality anywhere human translations until they can properly account for context. The best way to do this as I see it is through knowledge representation via a neural network (i.e., adaptive resonance theory).