Thank you for admitting you were incorrect.
on
The Future of Emacs
·
· Score: 0
Java is an inferior language to LISP. It's no wonder that Sun was unable to create hardware-based implementations with any degree of success.
Nevertheless, you were incorrect with regards to your previous statements. Most LISP programmers were developing solutions on what would today be equivalent, hardware-wise, to "embedded systems" before you were even an embryo.
You don't necessarily need the source code to a piece of software to scrutinize it. One thing you can do is, you know, run it. If it crashes, then it's quite possible that it's poor quality software. Even if you can't determine the exact reason why the piece of software failed, the fact remains that it did fail, and was thus faulty in some way.
Microsoft's software has been "peer reviewed" by almost everyone here, for instance. And that's why there's often a very negative attitude towards it. People have found it to be lacking in the past.
Does anyone know the explanation for cancer offered by the Intelligent Design proponents? Why would an intelligent designer create something that was so susceptible? Also, why would an intelligent designer create materials that proved to be carcinogenic? After all, an intelligent designer could just as well design such substances to not have such harmful properties.
But would printing the qualifications really matter? Newspapers and news programmes will only hire journalists from the institutions which produce journalists that are deemed suitable by the news producers.
You end up with a cycle where certain institutions are billed as being the best at producing journalists, just because their journalists are later hired by the big media conglomerates. Of course, that does nothing to deal with the issue that the journalists being produced are still lacking in the most basic of journalistic qualifications.
Many Microsoft developers develop software for a living. Yet look at the crap that came out of there until fairly recently.
Just because somebody does something for a living, even if they have numerous qualifications and credentials, does not mean that they are actually any good at it.
It's just as easy for a trained scientist or doctor to overlook a flaw in their data or findings as it is for a programmer to dereference a NULL pointer.
Chase thought Wikipedia was a joke site and he made the edit to amuse a colleague. From which we conclude that the spoof site Uncyclopedia, which consists entirely of fictional entries, is doing far better than expected, and that Wikipedia has a long way to go to rid itself of the image that it's a massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game, or MMORPG.
They're obviously not referring to MMORPGs as shoot-em-ups. They're saying it's not a "massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game" nor is it a "MMORPG". It's neither one of two separate styles of games that involve large numbers of participants, that is.
Some of the data reportedly goes back to the 1950s. Medical technology was quite different back then. I know a number of people who died around that time from what we now would refer to as some form of cancer, but at the time the doctors weren't sure what the ailment was.
That said, what is the quality of the data from forty or fifty years ago? Are there misdiagnoses mixed in, for instance?
Reliability and quality come from accountability, be it an encyclopedia or a complex engineering project.
An engineer who makes one mistake, even if it is not fatal, will lose his license. Why is that? Because said mistakes cannot be tolerated.
The same goes for an encyclopedia. If a high degree of quality is wanted, then people will have to pay severely when they make a mistake. Of course, that's very difficult to accomplish in an online setting, especially one like Wikipedia.
Please do not make such ad hominem attacks in the future. They're not good discussion style.
That said, the point the original poster may be trying to make is that making the correction may not do any good. Sure, he or she could fix the number, setting it to the correct value. But that does not stop somebody else from coming along and changing it back.
Of course, the best compromise would be for both values to be listed, with an explanation as to why each is considered "correct" by different parties.
Please do not go referring to people who pose a different opinion than yours as "trolls". "Troll" has become the Internet equivalent of "terrorism", as used by American and British politicians. The word "troll" has been misused so many times that it means nothing any more. If anything, it just makes the person who uses it against another look bad. It shows a lack of proper debating style.
That said, the Register reporters are pointing out serious problems with the structure and functionality of Wikipedia. It's better for these issues to be addressed in public, with proceedings that we can all see and participate in. In the end the community as a whole will be better off if all media is held to very high standards.
So instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and throwing out buzzwords like "troll", let's put our heads together and come up with a way that we can fix the problems with Wikipedia. At least then we're doing something productive, and we will benefit in the end.
This kind of conflict is excellent. It keeps everybody honest, or at least brings flaws out in the open, so as to lead to potential resolutions to such problems.
Of course, the world will never see NBC Dateline truly questioning what is said on FOX News, nor will the New York Times truly question the reporting of the Washington Post.
But then again, many "American" innovators weren't even American in the first place.
Dr. von Braun is a good example, for instance. As I would hope you're aware, he was German. If it were not for him, America and the Soviet Union would not have had space programs.
William Shockley, who was involved with the development of the bipolar transistor, was from London, England.
Guglielmo Marconi was Italian.
The list goes on and on. Yes, they may have done their work in America, for American institutions or companies. But they weren't American themselves.
You obviously have never used any sort of a Lisp machine, have you? If you had you wouldn't be making such moronic statements. Back in the mid 1990s there was even talk from Sun about creating similar machines, except involving Java.
What you'll end up finding is that most Lisp coders often have years of low-level programming experience. Often times it is on architectures that would make a young person like yourself cry. Many of the earlier Lisp implementations were built and used on systems that were far less powerful than the systems you'd find in a DVD player today. The programming you're talking about is nowhere near as difficult as that which faced many Lisp users and implementation developers.
Most Lisp users realize that productivity is the key. There's no need to write low-level code when high-level code will suffice, and the project can be finished five or six times as fast, and with a far greater degree of stability.
I know a number of developers who develop on older hardware. They do that in order to produce software that runs very well on more modern hardware.
Now, they're not using hardware that's all that outdated. We're talking 400-500 MHz Intel or AMD based systems. They're still quite usable as development systems. That is, of course, unless you want to use Eclipse.
I was talking to one such developer who said he used EMACS for his Java development just because it ran far better on his system than Eclipse did. While Eclipse may be a good platform for some, it still does lack in the area of performance and the efficient use of resources.
Those who claim LISP is inferior are often those who have never used it. By never using it, you never truly grasp the true power it offers.
It's only now that major development environments like Visual Studio and Eclipse are offering the features that EMACS had over a decade ago. That is most likely because they are written in lower-level languages, relative to LISP. Programming in an extremely high-level language like LISP often offers numerous benefits, one of which is faster application development time.
You can't judge a people by their govt and their ideology, especially such an oppresive one. It's like judging America by Bush.
Under a democracy or republic it is often more than suitable to judge a people by their government. After all, the government was selected by them!
Assuming voting fraud did not take place (which is quite an assumption to make) during the past two American elections, the Bush government would apparently represent the views of the majority of Americans. And since no significant portion of the American populace has shown any degree of opposition to him and his administration, it is quite possible that many are in complete agreement. As such, it is quite correct to judge Americans by their government.
The only reason America was better off the latter half of the 20th century was because it wasn't devastated by severe war during the first half.
Remember, significant portions (including the populations) of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium was destroyed twice during the first two world wars. The western Soviet Union took quite a beating, too. Of course, Greece, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, North Africa, Japan, China, Korea, and many Pacific islands were also quite devastated by conflict.
It's no wonder that those who were able to progress, rather than rebuild, took the lead.
Ford and GM have had plants in Canada for decades. In fact, Ford is even closing some of their plants in Ontario. I have relatives over there who fear the effect that will have, considering the plants employ many people in their communities.
Not everyone is as into optics and cameras as you are. Sometimes people just want something that will take pictures or video, even if the quality isn't completely perfect. Not only that, they don't want to spend many pence on it.
Do you know what people do? They go down to their local electronics retailer, and buy cameras from Sony. They may not be the top of the line, but they'll work, and they may offer the best return for what is spent on them.
Yes, people will still buy from Sony. Why is that? Because, like it or not, they do offer products that some people will want, even if they also offer products that others despise.
I have talked to a number of people here in Britain about the rootkit incident. Basically nobody knows about it. I had my cousins in North America ask people there, and it was the same. The vast majority of people they talked to do not have a clue as to what had happened.
While the geek community may be horrified about what has happened, the general populace in both Britain and North America most likely does not give a damn at all. They are most likely not even aware of what had happened. Thus they will continue to support Sony.
As for Slashdot covering OpenServer, there's no reason for Slashdot not to. If some news item arises involving it, then Slashdot should post it. There are still many companies around who depend on UnixWare and OpenServer. It's still a very important product, even if the company which now owns them has done much to annoy the computing community.
If you were truly capable of understanding my stance, then you would not be calling it "stupid". Only a complete cock fool would fail to understand that it is 100% correct.
Now, I don't know why you want to rape your dog and kill your hampster, but it's none of my business. Please keep that kind of nonsense to yourself.
The fact remains that PHP has a terrible record. It's been shown time and time again to be insecure. That's a fact that you cannot dispute.
At least give downloading Linux distributions as an example.
Not necessarily. Recall, we're talking about the restricted distribution of copyrighted material. Most Linux distributions and open source software do not really fall under that classification, even if copyrighted.
You should specify commercial Linux distributions, if you're going to use that as an example.
But even then, that is not necessarily a very good example to use. A typical Linux distributions includes the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of different people. They want their work to be shared, and thus release it under a license that permits and encourages widespread distribution.
Thus a commercial Linux distribution may apply, but even then the only copyright that is really being used in a restrictive manner may be that of the CD layout, or that of a specific, value-adding piece of software (ie. a distribution-supplied package manager, for instance).
Oh, right! That is a laugh. A family sharing their home videos over bit torrent. Can you name ONE family doing that? Can you name ONE family even CAPABLE of doing that?
The Jenkins from Idaho, for instance. Then there are the Maxwells and the Crenshaws in Leeds. Don't forget the Ogdens in Oslo, and the Buzzonis in Turin.
Slashdot Mirror
Java is an inferior language to LISP. It's no wonder that Sun was unable to create hardware-based implementations with any degree of success.
Nevertheless, you were incorrect with regards to your previous statements. Most LISP programmers were developing solutions on what would today be equivalent, hardware-wise, to "embedded systems" before you were even an embryo.
You don't necessarily need the source code to a piece of software to scrutinize it. One thing you can do is, you know, run it. If it crashes, then it's quite possible that it's poor quality software. Even if you can't determine the exact reason why the piece of software failed, the fact remains that it did fail, and was thus faulty in some way.
Microsoft's software has been "peer reviewed" by almost everyone here, for instance. And that's why there's often a very negative attitude towards it. People have found it to be lacking in the past.
Does anyone know the explanation for cancer offered by the Intelligent Design proponents? Why would an intelligent designer create something that was so susceptible? Also, why would an intelligent designer create materials that proved to be carcinogenic? After all, an intelligent designer could just as well design such substances to not have such harmful properties.
But would printing the qualifications really matter? Newspapers and news programmes will only hire journalists from the institutions which produce journalists that are deemed suitable by the news producers.
You end up with a cycle where certain institutions are billed as being the best at producing journalists, just because their journalists are later hired by the big media conglomerates. Of course, that does nothing to deal with the issue that the journalists being produced are still lacking in the most basic of journalistic qualifications.
Many Microsoft developers develop software for a living. Yet look at the crap that came out of there until fairly recently.
Just because somebody does something for a living, even if they have numerous qualifications and credentials, does not mean that they are actually any good at it.
It's just as easy for a trained scientist or doctor to overlook a flaw in their data or findings as it is for a programmer to dereference a NULL pointer.
Are you serious? Everyone gets colds, including the rich and the poor. Colds are a part of life, just as much as shitting and pissing are.
Chase thought Wikipedia was a joke site and he made the edit to amuse a colleague. From which we conclude that the spoof site Uncyclopedia, which consists entirely of fictional entries, is doing far better than expected, and that Wikipedia has a long way to go to rid itself of the image that it's a massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game, or MMORPG.
They're obviously not referring to MMORPGs as shoot-em-ups. They're saying it's not a "massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game" nor is it a "MMORPG". It's neither one of two separate styles of games that involve large numbers of participants, that is.
Some of the data reportedly goes back to the 1950s. Medical technology was quite different back then. I know a number of people who died around that time from what we now would refer to as some form of cancer, but at the time the doctors weren't sure what the ailment was.
That said, what is the quality of the data from forty or fifty years ago? Are there misdiagnoses mixed in, for instance?
Reliability and quality come from accountability, be it an encyclopedia or a complex engineering project.
An engineer who makes one mistake, even if it is not fatal, will lose his license. Why is that? Because said mistakes cannot be tolerated.
The same goes for an encyclopedia. If a high degree of quality is wanted, then people will have to pay severely when they make a mistake. Of course, that's very difficult to accomplish in an online setting, especially one like Wikipedia.
Please do not make such ad hominem attacks in the future. They're not good discussion style.
That said, the point the original poster may be trying to make is that making the correction may not do any good. Sure, he or she could fix the number, setting it to the correct value. But that does not stop somebody else from coming along and changing it back.
Of course, the best compromise would be for both values to be listed, with an explanation as to why each is considered "correct" by different parties.
Please do not go referring to people who pose a different opinion than yours as "trolls". "Troll" has become the Internet equivalent of "terrorism", as used by American and British politicians. The word "troll" has been misused so many times that it means nothing any more. If anything, it just makes the person who uses it against another look bad. It shows a lack of proper debating style.
That said, the Register reporters are pointing out serious problems with the structure and functionality of Wikipedia. It's better for these issues to be addressed in public, with proceedings that we can all see and participate in. In the end the community as a whole will be better off if all media is held to very high standards.
So instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and throwing out buzzwords like "troll", let's put our heads together and come up with a way that we can fix the problems with Wikipedia. At least then we're doing something productive, and we will benefit in the end.
This kind of conflict is excellent. It keeps everybody honest, or at least brings flaws out in the open, so as to lead to potential resolutions to such problems.
Of course, the world will never see NBC Dateline truly questioning what is said on FOX News, nor will the New York Times truly question the reporting of the Washington Post.
But then again, many "American" innovators weren't even American in the first place.
Dr. von Braun is a good example, for instance. As I would hope you're aware, he was German. If it were not for him, America and the Soviet Union would not have had space programs.
William Shockley, who was involved with the development of the bipolar transistor, was from London, England.
Guglielmo Marconi was Italian.
The list goes on and on. Yes, they may have done their work in America, for American institutions or companies. But they weren't American themselves.
You obviously have never used any sort of a Lisp machine, have you? If you had you wouldn't be making such moronic statements. Back in the mid 1990s there was even talk from Sun about creating similar machines, except involving Java.
What you'll end up finding is that most Lisp coders often have years of low-level programming experience. Often times it is on architectures that would make a young person like yourself cry. Many of the earlier Lisp implementations were built and used on systems that were far less powerful than the systems you'd find in a DVD player today. The programming you're talking about is nowhere near as difficult as that which faced many Lisp users and implementation developers.
Most Lisp users realize that productivity is the key. There's no need to write low-level code when high-level code will suffice, and the project can be finished five or six times as fast, and with a far greater degree of stability.
I know a number of developers who develop on older hardware. They do that in order to produce software that runs very well on more modern hardware.
Now, they're not using hardware that's all that outdated. We're talking 400-500 MHz Intel or AMD based systems. They're still quite usable as development systems. That is, of course, unless you want to use Eclipse.
I was talking to one such developer who said he used EMACS for his Java development just because it ran far better on his system than Eclipse did. While Eclipse may be a good platform for some, it still does lack in the area of performance and the efficient use of resources.
Those who claim LISP is inferior are often those who have never used it. By never using it, you never truly grasp the true power it offers.
It's only now that major development environments like Visual Studio and Eclipse are offering the features that EMACS had over a decade ago. That is most likely because they are written in lower-level languages, relative to LISP. Programming in an extremely high-level language like LISP often offers numerous benefits, one of which is faster application development time.
You can't judge a people by their govt and their ideology, especially such an oppresive one. It's like judging America by Bush.
Under a democracy or republic it is often more than suitable to judge a people by their government. After all, the government was selected by them!
Assuming voting fraud did not take place (which is quite an assumption to make) during the past two American elections, the Bush government would apparently represent the views of the majority of Americans. And since no significant portion of the American populace has shown any degree of opposition to him and his administration, it is quite possible that many are in complete agreement. As such, it is quite correct to judge Americans by their government.
The only reason America was better off the latter half of the 20th century was because it wasn't devastated by severe war during the first half.
Remember, significant portions (including the populations) of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium was destroyed twice during the first two world wars. The western Soviet Union took quite a beating, too. Of course, Greece, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, North Africa, Japan, China, Korea, and many Pacific islands were also quite devastated by conflict.
It's no wonder that those who were able to progress, rather than rebuild, took the lead.
Ford and GM have had plants in Canada for decades. In fact, Ford is even closing some of their plants in Ontario. I have relatives over there who fear the effect that will have, considering the plants employ many people in their communities.
Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?
Not everyone is as into optics and cameras as you are. Sometimes people just want something that will take pictures or video, even if the quality isn't completely perfect. Not only that, they don't want to spend many pence on it.
Do you know what people do? They go down to their local electronics retailer, and buy cameras from Sony. They may not be the top of the line, but they'll work, and they may offer the best return for what is spent on them.
Yes, people will still buy from Sony. Why is that? Because, like it or not, they do offer products that some people will want, even if they also offer products that others despise.
I have talked to a number of people here in Britain about the rootkit incident. Basically nobody knows about it. I had my cousins in North America ask people there, and it was the same. The vast majority of people they talked to do not have a clue as to what had happened.
While the geek community may be horrified about what has happened, the general populace in both Britain and North America most likely does not give a damn at all. They are most likely not even aware of what had happened. Thus they will continue to support Sony.
As for Slashdot covering OpenServer, there's no reason for Slashdot not to. If some news item arises involving it, then Slashdot should post it. There are still many companies around who depend on UnixWare and OpenServer. It's still a very important product, even if the company which now owns them has done much to annoy the computing community.
So two out of three hundred million people aren't complete fucktards. That's not a good situation for a country to be in.
If you were truly capable of understanding my stance, then you would not be calling it "stupid". Only a complete cock fool would fail to understand that it is 100% correct.
Now, I don't know why you want to rape your dog and kill your hampster, but it's none of my business. Please keep that kind of nonsense to yourself.
The fact remains that PHP has a terrible record. It's been shown time and time again to be insecure. That's a fact that you cannot dispute.
At least give downloading Linux distributions as an example.
Not necessarily. Recall, we're talking about the restricted distribution of copyrighted material. Most Linux distributions and open source software do not really fall under that classification, even if copyrighted.
You should specify commercial Linux distributions, if you're going to use that as an example.
But even then, that is not necessarily a very good example to use. A typical Linux distributions includes the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of different people. They want their work to be shared, and thus release it under a license that permits and encourages widespread distribution.
Thus a commercial Linux distribution may apply, but even then the only copyright that is really being used in a restrictive manner may be that of the CD layout, or that of a specific, value-adding piece of software (ie. a distribution-supplied package manager, for instance).
Oh, right! That is a laugh. A family sharing their home videos over bit torrent. Can you name ONE family doing that? Can you name ONE family even CAPABLE of doing that?
The Jenkins from Idaho, for instance. Then there are the Maxwells and the Crenshaws in Leeds. Don't forget the Ogdens in Oslo, and the Buzzonis in Turin.
I'm sorry, that's more than one family!