Thanks for the ad, and all that insightful commentary about this important (and not at all incremental) development. Your creative (ab)use of the English language was also particularly entertaining this morning.
Yes, but Magrathea being the object of Zaphod's desire because of Deep Thought being there? Nope. I liked the movie, independently from the books. And, if we believe what we've heard from those who made the movie, the serious difference in the plot was Adams' own design. If I hadn't read the books, I would have liked the movie. I have read the books, and I liked it, too.
The only joke that they tried to include but destroyed was the leopard joke at the beginning. I can't think of any others that got swallowed like that.
It takes a lot less work to amend it later on to change it to include consensual sex with a 17-year-old, indecent exposure, and so on than it did to get this part passed in the first place. I'm not comforted by the limitations the law has for now.
It's especially bad when you consider that "sex offender" is an easily-redefined term. Possession of pornography in a school zone could be a sex crime that would get you this nice little setup.
I just don't see how you can accidentally make a show as bad as Voyager. And even if it was just a mistake, I can't figure out why Enterprise was less successful, when it comes to ratings. Maybe I just don't know enough about marketing and TV.
Sorry, but I think it still fell short of the definition of compete: "to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (as position, profit, or a prize) : be in a state of rivalry"
It's hard to say that one Star Trek series is in a state of rivalry with another, so it would have to be striving for an objective. What objective was Enterprise striving for, other than certain doom?;)
If Voyager competing with DS9 is the logic you want to go with, and you think that Voyager was successful, then I think what you've just proven is that Enterprise was too good to succeed. Voyager sucked the goat-ass, man.
They have it wrong. The ratings didn't drop because Enterprise was competing with Trek reruns. They dropped because it couldn't compete with Trek reruns.
Tell me why you RTFA, please. It doesn't make sense. The submitter didn't read it, the editors didn't read it, and nobody else here is going to read it. Why did you? At least post a comment or two before reading it, and then come back.
Java has the distinct advantage of being available everywhere, largely because of the convenience that a.jar will run more or less the same on Windows, Mac, Solaris, and Linux. Lisp suffers from the variety of interpreters/compilers/"engines"/whatever-else that is available. You can't write code to SBCL and expect it to run on CLISP on Windows or OpenMCL on MacOS X. If that hurdle had been overcome by 1997, Lisp might very well have become the dominant platform instead of Java.
You are technically correct ("the best kind of correct"), and I will have to read that one sometime. Thanks for the pointer. (It looks a little bit "Welcome to Computer Science 373: Basic Compilers", but I'll check it out anyhow.)
Yeah, there have been a few legitimate arcs, I guess. But when you show the same episode every Saturday for a month, it's called "reruns," not an "arc.";-D
Nope, years ago. Good try, though. There's nothing that I learned in any programming book that comes close to what I learned from On Lisp (with the possible exception of a GW-BASIC book I started programming with in the first place). Maybe it's just the preexisting experience I had with the topics of other books before reading them, but I didn't really find anything earth-shattering in other books. (Not that On Lisp was really that earth-shattering, but it at least showed me things I hadn't seen before.)
No, "belies" also means "disguises." I should have said his "assertion" rather than "assumption" does this, but the meaning is the same: he is covering up the fact that he's never actually learned it.
I have personally been bit in the ass very hard by my variable names being too similar. I don't accuse anyone of being an idiot unless it's something I've done myself.;)
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it's a good introduction to the language. You need to know Lisp first, but if you know it then On Lisp is, as I said (at least from my subjective standpoint), the best book on programming I've ever read.
Lisp in Small Pieces is on my list for the next time I have time for that kind of reading. This week it's Constitutional Law in a Nutshell.;)
Your assumption that all self-modifying and/or recursive code is spaghetti code belies the fact that you've never actually learned Lisp.
I have always found that spelling and grammar skills are very important to good coding, as well. After all, it helps immensely to be able to spell your variable names correctly. Even if you spell them incorrectly consistently, someone else who is looking for the bugs in your code will probably decide that one of the bugs is your spelling, and will break more things than he fixes, particularly if you used the correct spelling for another variable.
Paul Graham's book, On Lisp, is the single best book on programming I have ever read. You can get it as a PDF from his website, for free.
You will also want to read his essay, Revenge of the Nerds, for some serious insight into why Lisp is just so darn good.
If you're just starting on Lisp, the best place to start is with GNU CLISP, although you will find yourself wanting to use Emacs with SLIME to interact with your Common Lisp environment. I use SBCL, but CMUCL and CLISP are also acceptable. On my Powerbook, I use SLIME with OpenMCL.
That's bullshit, and you know it. Slashdot has plenty of cash flow and, given how long it takes them to get a story to the front page, it's just idiotic to think that they don't have time to actually read the shit they put up and check it for spelling, grammar, sensationalism, and duplication.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the ad, and all that insightful commentary about this important (and not at all incremental) development. Your creative (ab)use of the English language was also particularly entertaining this morning.
I still refer to Star Wars as a bi-trilogy.
Well, it damn well wasn't a sexology!
Yes, but Magrathea being the object of Zaphod's desire because of Deep Thought being there? Nope. I liked the movie, independently from the books. And, if we believe what we've heard from those who made the movie, the serious difference in the plot was Adams' own design. If I hadn't read the books, I would have liked the movie. I have read the books, and I liked it, too.
The only joke that they tried to include but destroyed was the leopard joke at the beginning. I can't think of any others that got swallowed like that.
It takes a lot less work to amend it later on to change it to include consensual sex with a 17-year-old, indecent exposure, and so on than it did to get this part passed in the first place. I'm not comforted by the limitations the law has for now.
If the state legislature decided to pass a law saying so, driving over the speed limit could make you a "sex offender."
It's especially bad when you consider that "sex offender" is an easily-redefined term. Possession of pornography in a school zone could be a sex crime that would get you this nice little setup.
See, I just thought he looked at the wrong numbers.
I just don't see how you can accidentally make a show as bad as Voyager. And even if it was just a mistake, I can't figure out why Enterprise was less successful, when it comes to ratings. Maybe I just don't know enough about marketing and TV.
Sorry, but I think it still fell short of the definition of compete: "to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (as position, profit, or a prize) : be in a state of rivalry"
;)
It's hard to say that one Star Trek series is in a state of rivalry with another, so it would have to be striving for an objective. What objective was Enterprise striving for, other than certain doom?
If Voyager competing with DS9 is the logic you want to go with, and you think that Voyager was successful, then I think what you've just proven is that Enterprise was too good to succeed. Voyager sucked the goat-ass, man.
They have it wrong. The ratings didn't drop because Enterprise was competing with Trek reruns. They dropped because it couldn't compete with Trek reruns.
Toques are good, eh?
Tell me why you RTFA, please. It doesn't make sense. The submitter didn't read it, the editors didn't read it, and nobody else here is going to read it. Why did you? At least post a comment or two before reading it, and then come back.
Java has the distinct advantage of being available everywhere, largely because of the convenience that a .jar will run more or less the same on Windows, Mac, Solaris, and Linux. Lisp suffers from the variety of interpreters/compilers/"engines"/whatever-else that is available. You can't write code to SBCL and expect it to run on CLISP on Windows or OpenMCL on MacOS X. If that hurdle had been overcome by 1997, Lisp might very well have become the dominant platform instead of Java.
If it doesn't make sense, then you're the one with a language deficiency. Of course, I admit who I am, you anonymous chickenshit.
You are technically correct ("the best kind of correct"), and I will have to read that one sometime. Thanks for the pointer. (It looks a little bit "Welcome to Computer Science 373: Basic Compilers", but I'll check it out anyhow.)
Yeah, there have been a few legitimate arcs, I guess. But when you show the same episode every Saturday for a month, it's called "reruns," not an "arc." ;-D
Nope, years ago. Good try, though. There's nothing that I learned in any programming book that comes close to what I learned from On Lisp (with the possible exception of a GW-BASIC book I started programming with in the first place). Maybe it's just the preexisting experience I had with the topics of other books before reading them, but I didn't really find anything earth-shattering in other books. (Not that On Lisp was really that earth-shattering, but it at least showed me things I hadn't seen before.)
No, "belies" also means "disguises." I should have said his "assertion" rather than "assumption" does this, but the meaning is the same: he is covering up the fact that he's never actually learned it.
I have personally been bit in the ass very hard by my variable names being too similar. I don't accuse anyone of being an idiot unless it's something I've done myself. ;)
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it's a good introduction to the language. You need to know Lisp first, but if you know it then On Lisp is, as I said (at least from my subjective standpoint), the best book on programming I've ever read.
;)
Lisp in Small Pieces is on my list for the next time I have time for that kind of reading. This week it's Constitutional Law in a Nutshell.
Your assumption that all self-modifying and/or recursive code is spaghetti code belies the fact that you've never actually learned Lisp.
I have always found that spelling and grammar skills are very important to good coding, as well. After all, it helps immensely to be able to spell your variable names correctly. Even if you spell them incorrectly consistently, someone else who is looking for the bugs in your code will probably decide that one of the bugs is your spelling, and will break more things than he fixes, particularly if you used the correct spelling for another variable.
Paul Graham's book, On Lisp, is the single best book on programming I have ever read. You can get it as a PDF from his website, for free.
You will also want to read his essay, Revenge of the Nerds, for some serious insight into why Lisp is just so darn good.
If you're just starting on Lisp, the best place to start is with GNU CLISP, although you will find yourself wanting to use Emacs with SLIME to interact with your Common Lisp environment. I use SBCL, but CMUCL and CLISP are also acceptable. On my Powerbook, I use SLIME with OpenMCL.
That's bullshit, and you know it. Slashdot has plenty of cash flow and, given how long it takes them to get a story to the front page, it's just idiotic to think that they don't have time to actually read the shit they put up and check it for spelling, grammar, sensationalism, and duplication.
People who can't spell "practical" can't be expected to appreciate the finer things in life.