US copyright law provides for both civil remedies, such as a copyright holder suing infringers, and criminal remedies, where the government can fine or imprison an infringer. I don't remember in my lifetime watching a video tape that didn't include the FBI copyright warning about this, so it's definitely not a new thing. Whether right or wrong to do so, it has long been the case that federal law can lock you up for copyright infringement.
That's quite true. However, the analogy holds. Most good programmers will have a go-to language in which they are most adept, for similar but not identical reasons.
I agree. This question has been asked on Slashdot more than once. Probably more than once in the past week. Every time, it's someone thinking that becoming adept at one language is the path to zen. Here are a couple of analogies to the question presented here:
I want to learn how to build houses. Should I learn how to use a screwdriver or should I go with the hammer?
I want to learn how to fix cars. Should I learn all about the carburetor* or should I focus more on the brake pads?
I want to be a linguist. Should I become fluent in Latin or Japanese? Why does this accredited linguistics department insist on me taking all sorts of philosophy and linguistics classes, when I should be learning a language?
* - For the benefit of the people who consistently reply to my analogies involving carburetors that carburetors are obsolete and not in common use, please note that that is the damn point of my using them in this analogy.
After going through several wireless mice around 2002-2003, I gave up for a while. There was enough latency between moving the mouse and the computer reacting to the event that it drove me entirely mad. In early 2007, I finally found a wireless mouse without that problem. It's a Microsoft Wireless Laser Mouse 8000. I love the mouse as it works perfectly and its laser isn't even in the visible spectrum, another advantage. However, it has two problems: (1) Putting it on the recharging stand works about 1 out of 1000 times (bad enough that I just use alkaline AA batteries in it); and more annoying, (2) It takes up to 5 minutes to wake up from being inactive for a period of time, no matter the procedure I attempt to use for it. There are several false starts where it works for up to a full second or so before falling back asleep for another minute, which is just plain obnoxious. It's good enough for gaming, as long as you never want to start using your computer immediately when you wake up or get home from work.
Nah, I didn't take it that way. This is the internet - tone is lost and almost anything you say can be read with anywhere from 0% to 100% snark. Since I am often a victim of people taking things I say the wrong way, I try to give the benefit of the doubt. No worries here. =)
I certainly didn't mean to imply that messing with games is not an option. The whole point I was trying to drive at is to find something you think would be fun (to you), useful (to you), or both. Try different things until you find one that really gets you excited to work on, and then work on it for a while. It's a completely subjective thing and nobody can easily guess what would get another person's creative juices flowing.
Porting isn't nearly as much fun as it used to be. The closest I've found was porting Warzone 2100 to the Mac back in 2006, which taught me Xcode but was almost entirely an exercise in fixing endianness issues when reading and writing data files. It's more tedium than education anymore, it seems. But maybe it's in line for what other people need to learn. Want to learn a GUI toolkit? Find a program written for some other GUI and port it, you'll learn a lot and you'll learn the pros and cons of your selected GUI toolkit.
Incidentally, I initially got started programming by hacking an existing Lunar Lander clone written in GW-BASIC and provided with the family computer. An EE uncle encouraged me to learn how to make it display more data on screen to aid in perfect landings. Hacking on existing code is a great place to start, because the total investment between sitting down and having code that does something is much lower than if you start a new program from scratch.
Eventually I got a book on C++ and a copy of Turbo C++ and learned the language. Around that time I discovered Minix and did a ton of programming on a 286 laptop running it, all in C. The big accomplishment was probably a set of several Tic Tac Toe playing programs with different AI strategies. Then I bought a used Sun workstation and learned more languages, probably Perl but it's hard to say anymore.
But where I got the single largest segment of experience programming was hacking at PennMUSH, the online text-based role-playing game server software. It's good for this purpose because it is (even more so now than it was a decade ago) reasonably well-designed and well-documented, and because it is roughly the maximum size and complexity for single-programmer comprehension without investing years in the learning curve.
Really what you need to do is find something that you want to do. Don't just try to join a project to learn - you and they will both end up frustrated. Add a feature to a program you use regularly (an IM program, for instance), write a program that would make your life easier, or fix a random bug from some project's bug tracker. If you get really desperate, watch the changelog for a program you use and try to implement equivalent changes without reading the code that was committed in the project's main repository first.
This is slashdot. We only link to blogs. Preferably blogs that only link to other blogs. Sometimes we link to digg or fark.
Re:Hooray fileinfo is standard!
on
PHP 5.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
It's sad that Slashdot doesn't have an "accomplishment" for the +5 Flamebait. Everyone should strive for one. Oh, and you should get bonus points if it is not a politics or religion article.
You forget the nature of powerful hypocrites: The second that she is diagnosed with AIDS or cancer, whichever one it is, she'll stop worrying about ethical treatment of animals and worry a lot more about ethical treatment of herself. It's simple human nature. We are the only species that is capable of having a message, and therefore the only species capable of being hypocritical whenever our message runs counter to our own selfish needs.
So proud, indeed, that you are posting as an anonymous coward. The simple fact is that you are too one-minded to see a reference to sheep without assuming it's an Orwell reference and diving in to correct the injustice of people referring to an author you hold so dear that you can't see a reference to his work without correcting it. You never once responded to either of the things I did say, yet you feel you've logically proven me wrong: Your argument is entirely non sequitur. However, these will be my last words on the subject. The only thing that's really been demonstrated to me is a fact I already knew: Arguing with anonymous cowards on Slashdot is a fool's errand.
Again, and I don't know how to make this more clear: I was not making an Orwell reference. Furthermore, I have no idea what you are talking about with getting news and world history from the sources you described. That you wrote a diatribe about Orwell and concluded with "Face it: Orwell is ours" in response to what I wrote clearly demonstrates that your own world view is too narrow to even have an intelligent conversation, much less to permit you to engage in any kind of rational discourse.
"I will not discuss American history on Slashdot again, because if I do the government will probably come and inter me for being a member of a dangerous group of seditious people."
It's not an Orwell reference. It rather comes from the same source as Orwell likely considered: The common perception that sheep as a species will blindly follow things. Moreover, Orwell's politics only undermine references to his work if you are willing to accept that ad hominem arguments are not fallacious.
Slashdot Mirror
US copyright law provides for both civil remedies, such as a copyright holder suing infringers, and criminal remedies, where the government can fine or imprison an infringer. I don't remember in my lifetime watching a video tape that didn't include the FBI copyright warning about this, so it's definitely not a new thing. Whether right or wrong to do so, it has long been the case that federal law can lock you up for copyright infringement.
You'd have to hedge your bets. Have celebrities plead for money to avoid a fiery death, and then broadcast their fiery death on pay-per-view.
Don't worry, I would never deprive Slashdot of a car analogy. That'd be like having a car without a windshield.
P.S. Best. Sig. Evar.
I have a strict rule against ever making car analogies on Slashdot.
Nicely done.
I wonder how few will get your joke.
That's quite true. However, the analogy holds. Most good programmers will have a go-to language in which they are most adept, for similar but not identical reasons.
I agree. This question has been asked on Slashdot more than once. Probably more than once in the past week. Every time, it's someone thinking that becoming adept at one language is the path to zen. Here are a couple of analogies to the question presented here:
I want to learn how to build houses. Should I learn how to use a screwdriver or should I go with the hammer?
I want to learn how to fix cars. Should I learn all about the carburetor* or should I focus more on the brake pads?
I want to be a linguist. Should I become fluent in Latin or Japanese? Why does this accredited linguistics department insist on me taking all sorts of philosophy and linguistics classes, when I should be learning a language?
* - For the benefit of the people who consistently reply to my analogies involving carburetors that carburetors are obsolete and not in common use, please note that that is the damn point of my using them in this analogy.
After going through several wireless mice around 2002-2003, I gave up for a while. There was enough latency between moving the mouse and the computer reacting to the event that it drove me entirely mad. In early 2007, I finally found a wireless mouse without that problem. It's a Microsoft Wireless Laser Mouse 8000. I love the mouse as it works perfectly and its laser isn't even in the visible spectrum, another advantage. However, it has two problems: (1) Putting it on the recharging stand works about 1 out of 1000 times (bad enough that I just use alkaline AA batteries in it); and more annoying, (2) It takes up to 5 minutes to wake up from being inactive for a period of time, no matter the procedure I attempt to use for it. There are several false starts where it works for up to a full second or so before falling back asleep for another minute, which is just plain obnoxious. It's good enough for gaming, as long as you never want to start using your computer immediately when you wake up or get home from work.
"Good non-car analogy" is to "Slashdot" as "Programming" is to "battered deep-fried origami"
Yeah, but they won't let me deep-fry a real whooping crane.
Nah, I didn't take it that way. This is the internet - tone is lost and almost anything you say can be read with anywhere from 0% to 100% snark. Since I am often a victim of people taking things I say the wrong way, I try to give the benefit of the doubt. No worries here. =)
I certainly didn't mean to imply that messing with games is not an option. The whole point I was trying to drive at is to find something you think would be fun (to you), useful (to you), or both. Try different things until you find one that really gets you excited to work on, and then work on it for a while. It's a completely subjective thing and nobody can easily guess what would get another person's creative juices flowing.
Porting isn't nearly as much fun as it used to be. The closest I've found was porting Warzone 2100 to the Mac back in 2006, which taught me Xcode but was almost entirely an exercise in fixing endianness issues when reading and writing data files. It's more tedium than education anymore, it seems. But maybe it's in line for what other people need to learn. Want to learn a GUI toolkit? Find a program written for some other GUI and port it, you'll learn a lot and you'll learn the pros and cons of your selected GUI toolkit.
Incidentally, I initially got started programming by hacking an existing Lunar Lander clone written in GW-BASIC and provided with the family computer. An EE uncle encouraged me to learn how to make it display more data on screen to aid in perfect landings. Hacking on existing code is a great place to start, because the total investment between sitting down and having code that does something is much lower than if you start a new program from scratch.
Eventually I got a book on C++ and a copy of Turbo C++ and learned the language. Around that time I discovered Minix and did a ton of programming on a 286 laptop running it, all in C. The big accomplishment was probably a set of several Tic Tac Toe playing programs with different AI strategies. Then I bought a used Sun workstation and learned more languages, probably Perl but it's hard to say anymore.
But where I got the single largest segment of experience programming was hacking at PennMUSH, the online text-based role-playing game server software. It's good for this purpose because it is (even more so now than it was a decade ago) reasonably well-designed and well-documented, and because it is roughly the maximum size and complexity for single-programmer comprehension without investing years in the learning curve.
Really what you need to do is find something that you want to do. Don't just try to join a project to learn - you and they will both end up frustrated. Add a feature to a program you use regularly (an IM program, for instance), write a program that would make your life easier, or fix a random bug from some project's bug tracker. If you get really desperate, watch the changelog for a program you use and try to implement equivalent changes without reading the code that was committed in the project's main repository first.
I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with.
She killed Michael Jackson.
I get the feeling moderators don't read articles either.
Just for some clarity she was accused of cyber-bullying that lead to a 13 year old girl to commit suicide.
A 13-year-old girl named Michael Jackson.
You're wrong. After the fire, after all the rain, I will be the flame.
This is slashdot. We only link to blogs. Preferably blogs that only link to other blogs. Sometimes we link to digg or fark.
It's sad that Slashdot doesn't have an "accomplishment" for the +5 Flamebait. Everyone should strive for one. Oh, and you should get bonus points if it is not a politics or religion article.
You forget the nature of powerful hypocrites: The second that she is diagnosed with AIDS or cancer, whichever one it is, she'll stop worrying about ethical treatment of animals and worry a lot more about ethical treatment of herself. It's simple human nature. We are the only species that is capable of having a message, and therefore the only species capable of being hypocritical whenever our message runs counter to our own selfish needs.
So proud, indeed, that you are posting as an anonymous coward. The simple fact is that you are too one-minded to see a reference to sheep without assuming it's an Orwell reference and diving in to correct the injustice of people referring to an author you hold so dear that you can't see a reference to his work without correcting it. You never once responded to either of the things I did say, yet you feel you've logically proven me wrong: Your argument is entirely non sequitur. However, these will be my last words on the subject. The only thing that's really been demonstrated to me is a fact I already knew: Arguing with anonymous cowards on Slashdot is a fool's errand.
Again, and I don't know how to make this more clear: I was not making an Orwell reference. Furthermore, I have no idea what you are talking about with getting news and world history from the sources you described. That you wrote a diatribe about Orwell and concluded with "Face it: Orwell is ours" in response to what I wrote clearly demonstrates that your own world view is too narrow to even have an intelligent conversation, much less to permit you to engage in any kind of rational discourse.
"I will not discuss American history on Slashdot again, because if I do the government will probably come and inter me for being a member of a dangerous group of seditious people."
It's not an Orwell reference. It rather comes from the same source as Orwell likely considered: The common perception that sheep as a species will blindly follow things. Moreover, Orwell's politics only undermine references to his work if you are willing to accept that ad hominem arguments are not fallacious.
I think that the greatest danger to human civilization comes not from volcanoes or meteorites, but from people thinking that ect stands for et cetera.
Just because you put a blanket over your one basket doesn't mean that not all of your eggs are in it.