If you want rapid application development for GUIs, there's several options which basically include an interpreted language (perl, python, tcl), and some GUI library ( gtk, qt/kde, tk). Since most of these languages are easy to learn and forgiving on the newbie programmer, it takes much less time than learning Java and all the special API codes for it.
Uh....Java is much easier to learn syntax-wise, especially if you're coming from a C world, than perl or python or tcl. And what makes learning the Java APIs so much harder than the vast amount of stuff available for Perl?
You might not necessarily advocate that point of view? You either do or don't. You're either honest or you're not. This is one of those cases where its completely black and white.
The comparison to a casino is completely non-sensical. When you go into a casino you go in with the idea that you're:
1:) playing a game
2:) taking a big chance you'll also lose big
When you are a consultant working for someone you aren't playing a game and unless you really screw up you get paid.
The fact that no company will be put out of business by an exorbitant consulting fee is irrelevant. If you're honest you'll do what you think is best for the client and will charge a fair rate to do so based on your experience.
I have no problems with advancing science in that field. Except for detonating atomic bombs in other people's backyards. Which has happened frequently throughout the cold war. I just have a problem with the "cheapness" and "safety" of nuclear power, and that so-called rational people seem to totally disregard other people's opinion on it.
You *have* to look at the cheapness and safety. Had the Soviet Union cared at all about safety Chernobyl wouldn't have happened at all or would have had a much smaller impact than it had. We're supposed to hide our heads in the sand and just forget about a clean source of power because the Soviets were dumbasses? Please. I don't disregard anything except people trying to use the fear factor instead of rational thought.
You may call it FUD if you like, but reading whitepapers won't teach you anything useful about the product. Try reading independent reviews, and you get another picture. I believe this is true both for software and nuclear power.
How about looking at a project like IFR here in the US by Argonne National Labs to see what *could* be out there if the fear factor of nuclear power weren't the deciding factor on whether funding is available (that and the probable problems with the coal industry for fear of losing money)? Here is the URL. That project should still be being funded but its not.
The Earthwatch Institute has a very good article about global warming in the newest issue of their magazine. It is worth buying. Unfortunately it doesn't look like they have any articles on their website (http://www.earthwatch.org).
I haven't looked at that page but I can tell you that the sort of attitude you display is precisely one of the problems. Heres what I mean:
I don't believe we know everything about nuclear fission, and that we will discover what really is going on when we split atoms.
This statement probably has some truth to it. However the lack of funding for scientific research for nuclear power is the result of FUD being spread about nuclear power. *I* care about the environment and the well being of others and know for a fact that with the proper research, funding, and support that nuclear power is the only current viable high-energy power source we have that is environmentally friendly. However people have an emotional reaction to incidents like Chernobyl before really considering all sides of the story.
Do you have any links to any of this info on the web? This is fascinating stuff to me and an great example of information that is being buried about nuclear power that, if people knew about it, they would be asking for more nukes to be built (in the US that is).
and the US starts to really work on reducing emissions. We need to really work on fuel efficiency and more importantly we need to start research again on nuclear power. The current attitude towards nuclear power is ridiculous. It is the only currently viable high-energy source we have that doesn't pollute as badly as alternatives like coal. We also need to start working on retrofitting all coal-fired power plants in order to reduce emissions there. These things are common sense. Lets hope the new US leadership understands.
iFS just finally became available recently. We just got our 8i R3 cds in yesterday for NT. Havent had a chance to fool with it as of yet.
Re:Online intellectual property piracy is a fallac
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
Apparently the person didnt mind paper enough to not buy book 4. Sorry but there still isnt any replacement in the electronic world for a book. Not even close.
This leather case claims to reflect all radiation back out the backside of the phone and cut down 99% of the radiation. They have all sorts of 'proof'. Any know if these things are bogus?
I read about the study that says that the hands-free kits are in fact dangerous but havent seen one that says that is false. Any pointers?
Re:Online intellectual property piracy is a fallac
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
I'd chalked up the whole "Harry Potter" thing to the "Latest cool thingine" style craze that brought us Pokemon. Then I stumbled across the first three books in text form on Usenet. Yes, I read the first three for free, but I got addicted to books I NEVER would have read otherwise. I bought the fourth book...
It took reading 3 out of 4 books for you to determine that the series is good??? I'm glad you bought the fourth book but if you enjoyed the first three why not go out and buy those as well as you liked them and give the author what she is due?
Nope. That definitely isnt what I meant. Rereading what I wrote I can see how it could have been misinterpreted though. That is one of the other reasons why I posted that I probably didnt agree with what he said (re guns) but that it was nice to see someone actually say there might be another viewpoint other than his own;)
My point was simply this: that someone who might be anti-gun is being rational enough to see there might be another valid viewpoint (and can happen in the reverse case). I hate to say this but that guy saying that was the first time I've come across someone who's not American saying that. It is rational thought regardless.
As to my views not being relevant they're completely relevant to the situation. You shouldnt jump to conclusions as you did without knowing what my view is. OTOH regardless of my personal viewpoint on the situation I think the person was being rational because while he doesn't seem to agree with the American view on guns (meaning the freedom to have them...not individual viewpoints) he doesn't dismiss it either. Get it?
So now I'm curious. Rational thought is now defined as anyone who shares the same belief as you? Thinking requires that they think like you and share your opinions? My aren't we self confident.
Yes...and my arent we a being just a tad uppity now? Instead of attacking first why not ask me exactly what my views are first before assuming you know what they are?
Since we've degenerated to this point why don't I do a little of my own assuming about you? You're a gun freak who is scared to death of anyone who might have a view different than yours about guns...regardless of how little that difference might be. Furthermore you're just as self-confident as I am because you deem to know what my views are before even asking. And even furthermore youre terrified of anyone who might think differently than you also...correct?
See how completely stupid that sounds? Look before you leap please. As it stands you did a nice job of sticking your foot in your mouth.
Anyways...I dont happen to agree with the poster re guns or healthcare (based on what he wrote). However I get sick and tired of Europeans who pounce on the American gun issue without understanding it in any way because they either dont live here or weren't born here (for those who are have issues with this no I am not talking about *all* Europeans). This person said he didn't necessarily agree with it but that that was OK. That *is* refreshing sir.
While I generally agree with your posting I do have to point out that nobody gets free healthcare. Europeans pay dearly in taxes for national health care.
Aside from people who work out of doors I have yet to see an office environment that doesnt have a microwave and coffee machine (and refrigerator). No of course I haven't been everywhere but as I said I have yet to see an office that doesnt have a refridgerator and microwave. Hell...I've even gone to training sessions at various places that had refrigerators and microwaves available for students.
I have to completely disagree that eating out fast food is the cheapest option even when including time involved. Unless you work in a building that happens to have a fast food place in it you have to go somewhere. Where I work it is going to take you 10-15 minutes minimum to go out, get something, and then come back. I'm also not quite sure how it would take anyone 15 minutes to prepare a lunch at home. With a little foresight while shopping you buy things that you only have to throw in a bag. 15 minutes is ludicrous. If you have a frozen meal available I'm even more dubious that it takes you 15 minutes to prepare a lunch. What is there to prepare that it takes 15 minutes??? You throw the damn thing in your bag and leave. And I have yet to run across a frozen meal that takes more than 5-6 minutes to heat up. Where is the time and money savings?
You accuse me of ignoring all sorts of things while also doing the same yourself. Sit down and really think it out. You can get healthier food for either the same or cheaper price (and time cost) as eating fast food. If you choose to still eat fast food then fine. I dont have a problem with it per se but its ludicrous to say that it saves you all that much time and money all the time.
Always wanting it? No. Always eating it? Probably.;) The body needs complete protein in whatever form you choose be it chicken, beef, soy, whatever.
I think what the other poster was trying to get across is that consumption like we practice here in the US is not sustainable. There is an environmental cost to having cows graze land in large numbers required to sustain the rising desire for beef (or pork,etc). Not only that but we set a bad standard for the world in our consumption. It is simply not possible for the world to sustain countries the size of China or India consuming like we do here. IMHO its a crime the way the US treats things like the Kyoto summit. We expect others to lower their emissions before we do when we're one of the major producers! Its shameful.
Actually being thin has nothing to do with it. If you are in shape (which you implied you werent...at least to me) it really doesnt make any diff whether you have extra weight or not. Thats what mostly everything seems to be saying these days. People who are rail thin and who dont get any exercise are just as unhealthy as the person who is overweight who doesnt get any exercise.
Actually, the idea was to amuse myself, writing it did, and so did reading his response.
Then here's a hint cubby....why not make that obvious for Gentle Reader? Ever notice that it's quite hard to discern 'amusement' from text that shows no intent of 'the idea was to amuse myself'?
But, amusement aside, his point really only becomes valid if we have wishy-washy rules about 'too much' and 'not enough'.
No. His point is valid regardless. 'Wishy-washy' or any other type of rules are not necessary with a little bit of empathy and thought. If you choose not to act that way fine but dont try to play it off like you're not. It's funny that you keep trying to assert your rights to do what you wish and try at the same time to make it seem like I don't have the right to argue with you if I think its wrong. Doesn't that seem sort of strange to you?
And in future, please attempt to be more funny when replying to stuff like the above. I laughed at the other reply to my response. Now it was funny.
Hows about I reply the way I wish and you do the same? Incidentally I didn't find anything amusing in your post or the follow-up that you're referring to.
It's not that I don't see anything beyond my own existance, it's all about my pleasure vs. someone else's survival. Quite frankly, that doesn't do it for me. I'm sorry. I really am. I wish I could be like you, taking a vow of poverty for the common good.
So on the one hand you say youre morally grounded and then you say that quite frankly you dont give a shit about someone elses survival if it comes up against your pleasure? Please dont mind if I don't believe you when you say you're morally grounded.
Funny enough I don't ever remember saying anything about taking a vow of poverty being necessary for the common good. Again you're showing the limits of your thought. Hint: there are many ways to help the 'common good' without taking a 'vow of poverty'.
Oh... What's that you say, you havn't? So it's the thought that counts? You don't subsist on the bare minimum, enabling you to maximize the number of poor you can feed? Oh. In that case, get off your high horse!
Yes...actually it *is* the thought that counts. However you have to have the thought first before it does count. No. I dont subsist on the bare minimum. However I put a lot more thought into my purchases besides how much its gonna cost me. Get it? Didn't think so.
You digress? You just proved the guy's point in a nutshell. The fact that you can't seem to see anything beyond your own existence is pretty pathetic but hardly surprising. At the very least I hope you have the excuse of extreme youth.
Funny enough I dont have time for a four hour workout each day either, am 'getting my ass out of debt after college' and am losing weight at the same time (and no I dont have some super-human metabolism...that ended in college). Its about making a choice to do something about it (in my case eating a little less without depriving myself of anything and eating healthier). Its fine that you dont want to do anything to improve your health....just dont complain too loudly when people call you on it.
I could have a plate full of lettuce, which tastes, well, like nothing, or I could have a burger. The burger will cost less, taste better and fill me up more.
Maybe not discussing things which you admittedly have no clue about might be in order. It is very easy to cook up a quick, healthy, filling meal that won't clog up the arteries or involve ingesting hormone-ridden beef....and that tastes great. It *does* take the time to pick up some cookbooks. Hell, it doesn't even take that. There are boatloads of microwaveable healthy frozen dinners out there now.
As to costing less is it really costing less? Have you even thought about the implications of fast food beyond your pocket book? Funny enough I don't know anybody who thinks eating out every day for most meals (fast food or not) is cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you actually read the posting? The poster said 'I think'. They werent making any grand pronouncements for everyone.
mysql isn't an RDBMS to being with. Maybe someday it will be but it certainly isn't in its current incarnation.
Uh....Java is much easier to learn syntax-wise, especially if you're coming from a C world, than perl or python or tcl. And what makes learning the Java APIs so much harder than the vast amount of stuff available for Perl?
You might not necessarily advocate that point of view? You either do or don't. You're either honest or you're not. This is one of those cases where its completely black and white.
The comparison to a casino is completely non-sensical. When you go into a casino you go in with the idea that you're:
1:) playing a game
2:) taking a big chance you'll also lose big
When you are a consultant working for someone you aren't playing a game and unless you really screw up you get paid.
The fact that no company will be put out of business by an exorbitant consulting fee is irrelevant. If you're honest you'll do what you think is best for the client and will charge a fair rate to do so based on your experience.
You *have* to look at the cheapness and safety. Had the Soviet Union cared at all about safety Chernobyl wouldn't have happened at all or would have had a much smaller impact than it had. We're supposed to hide our heads in the sand and just forget about a clean source of power because the Soviets were dumbasses? Please. I don't disregard anything except people trying to use the fear factor instead of rational thought.
You may call it FUD if you like, but reading whitepapers won't teach you anything useful about the product. Try reading independent reviews, and you get another picture. I believe this is true both for software and nuclear power.
How about looking at a project like IFR here in the US by Argonne National Labs to see what *could* be out there if the fear factor of nuclear power weren't the deciding factor on whether funding is available (that and the probable problems with the coal industry for fear of losing money)? Here is the URL. That project should still be being funded but its not.
The Earthwatch Institute has a very good article about global warming in the newest issue of their magazine. It is worth buying. Unfortunately it doesn't look like they have any articles on their website (http://www.earthwatch.org).
I don't believe we know everything about nuclear fission, and that we will discover what really is going on when we split atoms.
This statement probably has some truth to it. However the lack of funding for scientific research for nuclear power is the result of FUD being spread about nuclear power. *I* care about the environment and the well being of others and know for a fact that with the proper research, funding, and support that nuclear power is the only current viable high-energy power source we have that is environmentally friendly. However people have an emotional reaction to incidents like Chernobyl before really considering all sides of the story.
Do you have any links to any of this info on the web? This is fascinating stuff to me and an great example of information that is being buried about nuclear power that, if people knew about it, they would be asking for more nukes to be built (in the US that is).
and the US starts to really work on reducing emissions. We need to really work on fuel efficiency and more importantly we need to start research again on nuclear power. The current attitude towards nuclear power is ridiculous. It is the only currently viable high-energy source we have that doesn't pollute as badly as alternatives like coal. We also need to start working on retrofitting all coal-fired power plants in order to reduce emissions there. These things are common sense. Lets hope the new US leadership understands.
iFS just finally became available recently. We just got our 8i R3 cds in yesterday for NT. Havent had a chance to fool with it as of yet.
Apparently the person didnt mind paper enough to not buy book 4. Sorry but there still isnt any replacement in the electronic world for a book. Not even close.
This leather case claims to reflect all radiation back out the backside of the phone and cut down 99% of the radiation. They have all sorts of 'proof'. Any know if these things are bogus?
I read about the study that says that the hands-free kits are in fact dangerous but havent seen one that says that is false. Any pointers?
Nope. That definitely isnt what I meant. Rereading what I wrote I can see how it could have been misinterpreted though. That is one of the other reasons why I posted that I probably didnt agree with what he said (re guns) but that it was nice to see someone actually say there might be another viewpoint other than his own ;)
As to my views not being relevant they're completely relevant to the situation. You shouldnt jump to conclusions as you did without knowing what my view is. OTOH regardless of my personal viewpoint on the situation I think the person was being rational because while he doesn't seem to agree with the American view on guns (meaning the freedom to have them...not individual viewpoints) he doesn't dismiss it either. Get it?
Yes...and my arent we a being just a tad uppity now? Instead of attacking first why not ask me exactly what my views are first before assuming you know what they are?
Since we've degenerated to this point why don't I do a little of my own assuming about you? You're a gun freak who is scared to death of anyone who might have a view different than yours about guns...regardless of how little that difference might be. Furthermore you're just as self-confident as I am because you deem to know what my views are before even asking. And even furthermore youre terrified of anyone who might think differently than you also...correct?
See how completely stupid that sounds? Look before you leap please. As it stands you did a nice job of sticking your foot in your mouth.
Anyways...I dont happen to agree with the poster re guns or healthcare (based on what he wrote). However I get sick and tired of Europeans who pounce on the American gun issue without understanding it in any way because they either dont live here or weren't born here (for those who are have issues with this no I am not talking about *all* Europeans). This person said he didn't necessarily agree with it but that that was OK. That *is* refreshing sir.
While I generally agree with your posting I do have to point out that nobody gets free healthcare. Europeans pay dearly in taxes for national health care.
I have to completely disagree that eating out fast food is the cheapest option even when including time involved. Unless you work in a building that happens to have a fast food place in it you have to go somewhere. Where I work it is going to take you 10-15 minutes minimum to go out, get something, and then come back. I'm also not quite sure how it would take anyone 15 minutes to prepare a lunch at home. With a little foresight while shopping you buy things that you only have to throw in a bag. 15 minutes is ludicrous. If you have a frozen meal available I'm even more dubious that it takes you 15 minutes to prepare a lunch. What is there to prepare that it takes 15 minutes??? You throw the damn thing in your bag and leave. And I have yet to run across a frozen meal that takes more than 5-6 minutes to heat up. Where is the time and money savings?
You accuse me of ignoring all sorts of things while also doing the same yourself. Sit down and really think it out. You can get healthier food for either the same or cheaper price (and time cost) as eating fast food. If you choose to still eat fast food then fine. I dont have a problem with it per se but its ludicrous to say that it saves you all that much time and money all the time.
I think what the other poster was trying to get across is that consumption like we practice here in the US is not sustainable. There is an environmental cost to having cows graze land in large numbers required to sustain the rising desire for beef (or pork,etc). Not only that but we set a bad standard for the world in our consumption. It is simply not possible for the world to sustain countries the size of China or India consuming like we do here. IMHO its a crime the way the US treats things like the Kyoto summit. We expect others to lower their emissions before we do when we're one of the major producers! Its shameful.
Actually being thin has nothing to do with it. If you are in shape (which you implied you werent...at least to me) it really doesnt make any diff whether you have extra weight or not. Thats what mostly everything seems to be saying these days. People who are rail thin and who dont get any exercise are just as unhealthy as the person who is overweight who doesnt get any exercise.
Then here's a hint cubby....why not make that obvious for Gentle Reader? Ever notice that it's quite hard to discern 'amusement' from text that shows no intent of 'the idea was to amuse myself'?
But, amusement aside, his point really only becomes valid if we have wishy-washy rules about 'too much' and 'not enough'.
No. His point is valid regardless. 'Wishy-washy' or any other type of rules are not necessary with a little bit of empathy and thought. If you choose not to act that way fine but dont try to play it off like you're not. It's funny that you keep trying to assert your rights to do what you wish and try at the same time to make it seem like I don't have the right to argue with you if I think its wrong. Doesn't that seem sort of strange to you?
And in future, please attempt to be more funny when replying to stuff like the above. I laughed at the other reply to my response. Now it was funny.
Hows about I reply the way I wish and you do the same? Incidentally I didn't find anything amusing in your post or the follow-up that you're referring to.
It's not that I don't see anything beyond my own existance, it's all about my pleasure vs. someone else's survival. Quite frankly, that doesn't do it for me. I'm sorry. I really am. I wish I could be like you, taking a vow of poverty for the common good.
So on the one hand you say youre morally grounded and then you say that quite frankly you dont give a shit about someone elses survival if it comes up against your pleasure? Please dont mind if I don't believe you when you say you're morally grounded.
Funny enough I don't ever remember saying anything about taking a vow of poverty being necessary for the common good. Again you're showing the limits of your thought. Hint: there are many ways to help the 'common good' without taking a 'vow of poverty'.
Oh... What's that you say, you havn't? So it's the thought that counts? You don't subsist on the bare minimum, enabling you to maximize the number of poor you can feed? Oh. In that case, get off your high horse!
Yes...actually it *is* the thought that counts. However you have to have the thought first before it does count. No. I dont subsist on the bare minimum. However I put a lot more thought into my purchases besides how much its gonna cost me. Get it? Didn't think so.
You digress? You just proved the guy's point in a nutshell. The fact that you can't seem to see anything beyond your own existence is pretty pathetic but hardly surprising. At the very least I hope you have the excuse of extreme youth.
Funny enough I dont have time for a four hour workout each day either, am 'getting my ass out of debt after college' and am losing weight at the same time (and no I dont have some super-human metabolism...that ended in college). Its about making a choice to do something about it (in my case eating a little less without depriving myself of anything and eating healthier). Its fine that you dont want to do anything to improve your health....just dont complain too loudly when people call you on it.
Maybe not discussing things which you admittedly have no clue about might be in order. It is very easy to cook up a quick, healthy, filling meal that won't clog up the arteries or involve ingesting hormone-ridden beef....and that tastes great. It *does* take the time to pick up some cookbooks. Hell, it doesn't even take that. There are boatloads of microwaveable healthy frozen dinners out there now.
As to costing less is it really costing less? Have you even thought about the implications of fast food beyond your pocket book? Funny enough I don't know anybody who thinks eating out every day for most meals (fast food or not) is cheap.