Not that the web should downgraded to support inferior systems, but mobile does have full web support these days, and there is such a thing as MMS these days.
My point is that BOTH of these links are broken. They're supposed to be descriptive human-readable text that go to a url when clicked. You're not supposed to actually see the link at all. Whether people lie in their descriptions is another matter.
Proof please? (And not anything based on a fairytale book from 2000 years ago).
Proof of what you ate for breakfast yesterday please? (And not anything from yesterday that may have been written in yesterday's style or that might in any way seem dated, or otherwise unlike today's material).
However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it. So that there's a deity is up to the church to prove, and not for the science to disprove.
Indeed. Yet this in no way excuses any human being from the personal study of spirituality. It behooves each and every one of us to explore our own minds, our own hearts, and to find the deepest connection and respect we can for ourselves, our lives, and with those around us. Some call this weird religion. Others call it maturing into a grown-up.
These private URL shortening sites shouldn't exist anyway. They're just a hack to support long urls on mediums that can't handle proper html-style linked text (aka hypertext). Those mediums are buggy should be upgraded (if only by footnote style guidelines).
The bigger issue is private databases, and that all these sites are independent, with separate domains and slightly different urls. The proper solution to that is probably to replace shortlinks with URNs, some DNS/directory/mirror protocol extension that allows browsers to find the nearest server that handles SHORTNAME://MYURN style links, and to essentially query it for "whatever webserver(s) can provide the file referred to by MYURN".
Twitter et al are generally of the "look at the cool article/video clip
Seriously? You've NEVER looked at someone's post from 2--5 years ago, saw a link about something happening at the time, and wanted to follow it to see more? History should still be preserved for others, even if you think it's only of passing interest to you. In fact, most things are more interesting much later as culture changes and new facts are revealed than they are at the time, when the details of most things could be guessed at from the immediate context that everyone is immersed in just then.
because the only reason to use an URL shortener is to conceal what you're actually linking to.
No, the only reason to use them is on systems that can't handle an html anchor tag or similar, because any decent web-enabled system can handle <a href="somelonglink">a short description</a>.
And all [religions] are held to be absolutely, 100% true and most often, entirely exclusionary.
That's a pretty ignorant repetition of popular myth. You might want to actually study a few religions before criticising them. I'd recommend looking at the respected teachers of different traditions, rather than the laypeople. You might even find it eye-opening.
Not sure why imaginging God would be the simplest answer to Mankind's questions about themselves.
Imagine harder. You're a caveman. You have no idea about the low-level mechanisms behind life (including your own body). You have no idea how fire works, how trees grow, etc. You do know that you can carve objects that are more than they were before you started carving. You know that you can make fire, that you can make babies (with help) and maybe that you can make trees by planting seeds. You know that the smart guy in your group can make some stuff that you're not really capable of making. You don't really need to know how he made it; just that it works. You know that you can throw spears and it'll hit a deer and kill it, even if the deer doesn't really get that you threw it.
Now. Lighting shoots from the sky. What do you assume made that? Some magic? Or someone you can't see?
It's not really that much of a stretch, for primitive people. Quite logical, actually.
The hypothesis that no deity of any kind exists solves the problem in an unbeatably elegant fashion.
Actually, no, that would fly in the face of thousands of years of majority opinion. Now, if you want to hypothesise that spirituality is an aspect the human mind (be it for good or bad), then you might be on to something.
This, to me, sounds like an excellent way to design a programming language
The problem is that they've released it, so design-time has passed. This should have been discussed and resolved in a working group before the release. Now, instead, everyone will evaluate the language for what it currently is, develop techniques for what's currently there, and generally establish poor practices because the language google released was inadequate.
I suspect that the only reason MS choose.NET was to make a lot of noobs (and managers) think that all the something.net sites were using their technology, and so it must be good..GET doesn't have that (arguably highly unethical) advantage.
Yeah, that's the best I've come up with. It would be nice if Google could detect the conceptual link between things like weiqi and Go, and return results for either, a bit like how it does word stemming (although I hate it when google does that by default).
No, that doesn't work. To google, you use the words people mention when talking about something. When people say, "here's how to do code exceptions in Go", they're not going to tack on "(meaning Go, the programming language)" every time, so your method filters out lots of valid results.
Found confirmation of this in Go's "Language Design FAQ":
Why does Go not have exceptions?
Exceptions are a similar story. A number of designs for exceptions have been proposed but each adds significant complexity to the language and run-time. By their very nature, exceptions span functions and perhaps even goroutines; they have wide-ranging implications. There is also concern about the effect they would have on the libraries. They are, by definition, exceptional yet experience with other languages that support them show they have profound effect on library and interface specification. It would be nice to find a design that allows them to be truly exceptional without encouraging common errors to turn into special control flow that requires every programmer to compensate.
Like generics, exceptions remain an open issue.
So in other words, they left every single user of the language to do it, over and over again, because it seemed like a lot of work for the team to do well, once. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.
As for exceptions increasing control flow compensation... Java had this right; if a function's interface specifies what it throws, then you by definition save yourself a lot of control flow headaches, as you know exactly what calling a function can result in.
But apparently not exceptions? It sounded good in theory. Lack of assertions was going to bug me. Lack of exceptions and try...finally blocks is most likely a deal-breaker. I'll read the thing in detail at some stage and see if they provide a decent alternative though.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll be the ones the navy feeds LSD to.
You would (and DO) call it a Uniform Resource Name, or URN.
No, I'm bitching about people trying to bitch about problems that aren't problems for anyone who uses the technology properly.
That was the initial idea, but unfortunately there were already numerous related trademarks held by the porn industry.
Not that the web should downgraded to support inferior systems, but mobile does have full web support these days, and there is such a thing as MMS these days.
C++ does have strings in the standard library, for what it's worth. I agree on most of your other points though :)
My point is that BOTH of these links are broken. They're supposed to be descriptive human-readable text that go to a url when clicked. You're not supposed to actually see the link at all. Whether people lie in their descriptions is another matter.
Proof of what you ate for breakfast yesterday please? (And not anything from yesterday that may have been written in yesterday's style or that might in any way seem dated, or otherwise unlike today's material).
Indeed. Yet this in no way excuses any human being from the personal study of spirituality. It behooves each and every one of us to explore our own minds, our own hearts, and to find the deepest connection and respect we can for ourselves, our lives, and with those around us. Some call this weird religion. Others call it maturing into a grown-up.
Actually, that's sartastical.
These private URL shortening sites shouldn't exist anyway. They're just a hack to support long urls on mediums that can't handle proper html-style linked text (aka hypertext). Those mediums are buggy should be upgraded (if only by footnote style guidelines).
The bigger issue is private databases, and that all these sites are independent, with separate domains and slightly different urls. The proper solution to that is probably to replace shortlinks with URNs, some DNS/directory/mirror protocol extension that allows browsers to find the nearest server that handles SHORTNAME://MYURN style links, and to essentially query it for "whatever webserver(s) can provide the file referred to by MYURN".
Seriously? You've NEVER looked at someone's post from 2--5 years ago, saw a link about something happening at the time, and wanted to follow it to see more? History should still be preserved for others, even if you think it's only of passing interest to you. In fact, most things are more interesting much later as culture changes and new facts are revealed than they are at the time, when the details of most things could be guessed at from the immediate context that everyone is immersed in just then.
No, the only reason to use them is on systems that can't handle an html anchor tag or similar, because any decent web-enabled system can handle <a href="somelonglink">a short description</a>.
That's a pretty ignorant repetition of popular myth. You might want to actually study a few religions before criticising them. I'd recommend looking at the respected teachers of different traditions, rather than the laypeople. You might even find it eye-opening.
Imagine harder. You're a caveman. You have no idea about the low-level mechanisms behind life (including your own body). You have no idea how fire works, how trees grow, etc. You do know that you can carve objects that are more than they were before you started carving. You know that you can make fire, that you can make babies (with help) and maybe that you can make trees by planting seeds. You know that the smart guy in your group can make some stuff that you're not really capable of making. You don't really need to know how he made it; just that it works. You know that you can throw spears and it'll hit a deer and kill it, even if the deer doesn't really get that you threw it.
Now. Lighting shoots from the sky. What do you assume made that? Some magic? Or someone you can't see?
It's not really that much of a stretch, for primitive people. Quite logical, actually.
Actually, no, that would fly in the face of thousands of years of majority opinion. Now, if you want to hypothesise that spirituality is an aspect the human mind (be it for good or bad), then you might be on to something.
The problem is that they've released it, so design-time has passed. This should have been discussed and resolved in a working group before the release. Now, instead, everyone will evaluate the language for what it currently is, develop techniques for what's currently there, and generally establish poor practices because the language google released was inadequate.
I think you're confusing earth with an overdramatic novel ;)
I suspect that the only reason MS choose .NET was to make a lot of noobs (and managers) think that all the something.net sites were using their technology, and so it must be good. .GET doesn't have that (arguably highly unethical) advantage.
Yeah, that's the best I've come up with. It would be nice if Google could detect the conceptual link between things like weiqi and Go, and return results for either, a bit like how it does word stemming (although I hate it when google does that by default).
No, that doesn't work. To google, you use the words people mention when talking about something. When people say, "here's how to do code exceptions in Go", they're not going to tack on "(meaning Go, the programming language)" every time, so your method filters out lots of valid results.
Luke? Is that you?
Found confirmation of this in Go's "Language Design FAQ":
So in other words, they left every single user of the language to do it, over and over again, because it seemed like a lot of work for the team to do well, once. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.
As for exceptions increasing control flow compensation... Java had this right; if a function's interface specifies what it throws, then you by definition save yourself a lot of control flow headaches, as you know exactly what calling a function can result in.
But apparently not exceptions? It sounded good in theory. Lack of assertions was going to bug me. Lack of exceptions and try...finally blocks is most likely a deal-breaker. I'll read the thing in detail at some stage and see if they provide a decent alternative though.
That's probably because the C++ standard library isn't so easy to remember.