Labour got more expensive and land got more scarce.
You claim the industrial revolution widened the gap between the haves and the havenots. This gap might have been widening in some countries (like some in South America) but it definitely is not the case anywhere. The gap between poor and rich is way smaller now in manu European countries than before the industrial revolution and more importantly, the poor are infinitely more wealthy. I'm talking health care, proper housing and education.
Of course not. **AA would be crazy to try to take on Google. Their case would be much weaker for two reasons. First of all, Google has the cash to put together a stellar legal team. They would do so, because linking to stuff is pretty much at the center of the business model. Second of all, Google links to all kinds of content, of which infringing content is just one, while ShowStash and Cinematube primarily linked to infringing content.
Seasteading would be a very complex endeavour but the bases you are referring to are more or less covered. A pretty detailed description can be found at the SeaSteading book.
Seasteading could be a very interesting social experiment, especially to anyone with libertarian leanings.
1) Do you really think I am going to take your word on if it's productive or not?
Okay, I'll bite.
Of course productivity is a good argument. In fact, it is *the* most important argument. A platform is a tool, enabling a programmer to develop solutions to a specific problem. If anything it should be productive because that's it's main purpose.
What you probably meant is that I did not support the productivity argument with examples, which is a valid point. Therefore some examples:
* The Form designer works beautifully. I have developed GUI applications in Eclipse and Visual Studio is by far more productive. * Linq is a nice addition to.NET 3. Separating the query language from the data provider is a solid idea. The Linq implementation works very well. * I like C# as a language because it is possible to write clean code that also is productive.
To be fair, there are some drawbacks as well.
*.NET is not free, either as in beer or as in speech. That is not a problem for our customers but there are many scenarioÂs where.NETÂs closed nature is a serious drawback. *.NET is not truly multiplatform. Mono is useful in some situations but.NET is far from write once, run everywhere. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying.
2) So the only reason you think.NET is a better solution is because you like the text editor?
An IDE is more than a text editor. Software Development is a vast field of work with many different tasks. The idea that plain text files are the most optimal way to accomplish all these tasks is quite frankly ludicrous.
The GP post named a reason why.NET is widely used: productivity. You do not respond to this argument but assert that anyone who like.NET must have been swayed by marketing. Admittedly, the GP post was sparse on argumentation but it was pretty informative compared to your rant.
I've been developing in C#/.NET for the past four years and I really like.NET (and I do have some experience with Java). There are three arguments why I like.NET:
- For many design scenario's, developing in.NET is incredibly productive.
- In C#, it's possible to write code that's both conceptually nice and productive. I am aware that I'm begging for a flamewar here but in my opinion, Java's 'everything is an object' approach sounds clean at first but makes for some really clunky code.
- Personally I prefer the look and feel of Visual Studio.
I am aware that the last argument is entirely depending on taste and the second to last argument is at least partially a matter of taste. But the main reason why.NET is used quite widely is because of productivity.
That's an interesting approach... Arguing something is NOT a memory leak by comparing it to FireFox.
But seriously, the behaviour described in the article is a memory leak during program operation. Although the resources might be released when the program exits, before that point memory can be exhausted by this behaviour. This *is* a valid critique of the notion that GCs never leak memory. GCs basically abstract away resource management. For many scenarios this is perfectly acceptable behaviour and a great way to avoid bugs. But this convenience comes at a price. In some cases it is unwise to rely on the garbage collector to manage resources. Frankly, I think the C#/Java/C++/C and GC wars are pointless (although they are fun). It's important to understand the advantages and limitations to each of the technologies and make an informed decision based on tkat knowledge.
Because you can choose the businesses you are dealing with to a large extent, while you can't choose another government. Theoretically, in a liberal democracy you have some influence over your government but this is not true in China. And even in the west, there often is very little to choose. That's why the guys who wrote the US constitution were pretty smart when they wrote down a list of subjects the government should not govern.
I bet all the money in my pocket (admittedly not a lot) that this finding is a result of an overzealous data analysis.
The basic idea behind using statistical methods to test hypotheses is to compute the chance that the resulting data is oriented the way is is by coincidence. If this chance is exceedingly small, the variance in the data can't be explained by coincidence and must be due to some systematic effect. Depending on the type of research, probabilities between 5% and.01% are considered low and statistically significant. So basically, a hypothesis is accepted if the chance that it's false (this type of error is called a Type 1 error) is pretty small.
However, thanks to the advent of statistical data packages like SPSS, it's easy to check large numbers of variables. If there are tens or even hundreds of dependent variables in a study, all of these can be checked against the dependent variable (in this case, incidence of heart disease) with the push of the button. But the chance that at least one of these checks yields a false positive is pretty large. If the tests are performed at a 1% significance level for 50 variables, the chance is about 40%!
Unfortunately, there is no link to the actual paper. But if pet ownership is one of the variables included, chances are there were many variables that were included in the study.
This holds true for most stretches of Autobahn without a speed limit. But these have only six lanes. If there were, say 10 or even 12 lanes (which is pretty common in the states, at least in the places where I've driven). Not being able to overtake on the right would mean that each lane would have to have a higher speed than the lane to the right of it. For a 12 lane highway this would mean something like: 80mph, 75mph, 70mph, 65mph, 60mph, 55mph. This would never work in reality.
The reason negative campaigning is used so much is basically because it works, no matter how much people hate it. Negative emotions tend to be more salient than positive emotions. In Dutch there is a saying 'Vertrouwen komt te voet en gaat te paard', which can be roughly translated as 'Trust arrives in little steps but leaves with large strides'. Politicians have to make a lot of good impressions to counteract a single bad impression.
I agree with your assessment that the Democrats will have a real challenge, regardless of the candidate they choose. McCain does not really suffer from the huge impopularity of president Bush as much as the other republican candidates (bar Ron Paul) would have. He's got some character, everyone from left to right has to respect a guy who survived five years of torture. And the republicans can start organizing while the Democrats are in disarray. I'm really rooting for Obama but it looks like there will be no Democratic candidate until the convention.
This is exactly what I initially thought when I visited the US. On 4 and 6-lane roads, being able to overtake on the right does nothing to alleviate congestion, except when there's an actual traffic jam, in which case you'd be allowed to overtake on the right anyway. However, on larger roads not being able to overtake on the right would be a royal pain in the ass.
It doesn't matter if the belongs to someone else, even if you can prove it. You are responsible for the luggage you are carrying, regardless of the owner. There are quite some naive people ending up in jail because they were following your line of reasoning.
Amsterdam Schiphol airport has security facilities at some intercontinental gates. I think it's only for US-bound flights but I might be mistaken. Probably they do this because security procedures for US-bound flights are ridiculously inefficient. I had to answer some pretty personal questions to get onboard.
Plus you get to walk down the stairs like the President.
Like the president? The only times I walk down stair when exiting a plane is when I'm going on vacation to some mediterranean beach/booze community, just after the passengers applauded the pilot for landing the bloody airplane (nobody applaudes a bus driver for stopping, do we?). I'd prefer a jetway over flight stairs any day.
Slashdot Mirror
That's hemorrhoids, not asteroids, you insensitive clod!
The kiloclit
Labour got more expensive and land got more scarce.
You claim the industrial revolution widened the gap between the haves and the havenots. This gap might have been widening in some countries (like some in South America) but it definitely is not the case anywhere. The gap between poor and rich is way smaller now in manu European countries than before the industrial revolution and more importantly, the poor are infinitely more wealthy. I'm talking health care, proper housing and education.
Bill... Is that you???
Why do you think **AA have settled most cases out of court in their favor?
Was it because of the legal merits of their case, or because of the effective tactics of their legal team. I know where my money is.
Of course not. **AA would be crazy to try to take on Google. Their case would be much weaker for two reasons. First of all, Google has the cash to put together a stellar legal team. They would do so, because linking to stuff is pretty much at the center of the business model. Second of all, Google links to all kinds of content, of which infringing content is just one, while ShowStash and Cinematube primarily linked to infringing content.
Tentacle 1: I don't think you should drink that, it looks bad for you!
Tentacle 2: Nonsense! It makes me feel great! Smarter... it makes me feel like I could... like I could... TAKE ON THE WORLD! (cue ominous organ music)
Then again, I wouldn't have a clue who were the voice actors.
Thank you!!!
The new Dilbert site has been annoying me since its inception. It looks way to cromulent for my taste.
Seasteading would be a very complex endeavour but the bases you are referring to are more or less covered. A pretty detailed description can be found at the SeaSteading book.
Seasteading could be a very interesting social experiment, especially to anyone with libertarian leanings.
1) Do you really think I am going to take your word on if it's productive or not?
Okay, I'll bite.
Of course productivity is a good argument. In fact, it is *the* most important argument. A platform is a tool, enabling a programmer to develop solutions to a specific problem. If anything it should be productive because that's it's main purpose.
What you probably meant is that I did not support the productivity argument with examples, which is a valid point. Therefore some examples:
* The Form designer works beautifully. I have developed GUI applications in Eclipse and Visual Studio is by far more productive.
* Linq is a nice addition to
* I like C# as a language because it is possible to write clean code that also is productive.
To be fair, there are some drawbacks as well.
*
*
2) So the only reason you think
An IDE is more than a text editor. Software Development is a vast field of work with many different tasks. The idea that plain text files are the most optimal way to accomplish all these tasks is quite frankly ludicrous.
The GP post named a reason why .NET is widely used: productivity. You do not respond to this argument but assert that anyone who like .NET must have been swayed by marketing. Admittedly, the GP post was sparse on argumentation but it was pretty informative compared to your rant.
.NET (and I do have some experience with Java). There are three arguments why I like .NET: .NET is incredibly productive.
.NET is used quite widely is because of productivity.
I've been developing in C#/.NET for the past four years and I really like
- For many design scenario's, developing in
- In C#, it's possible to write code that's both conceptually nice and productive. I am aware that I'm begging for a flamewar here but in my opinion, Java's 'everything is an object' approach sounds clean at first but makes for some really clunky code.
- Personally I prefer the look and feel of Visual Studio.
I am aware that the last argument is entirely depending on taste and the second to last argument is at least partially a matter of taste. But the main reason why
Storing energy is considerably more difficult than storing water.
Yes but you have to go to eleven.
That's an interesting approach... Arguing something is NOT a memory leak by comparing it to FireFox.
But seriously, the behaviour described in the article is a memory leak during program operation. Although the resources might be released when the program exits, before that point memory can be exhausted by this behaviour. This *is* a valid critique of the notion that GCs never leak memory. GCs basically abstract away resource management. For many scenarios this is perfectly acceptable behaviour and a great way to avoid bugs. But this convenience comes at a price. In some cases it is unwise to rely on the garbage collector to manage resources. Frankly, I think the C#/Java/C++/C and GC wars are pointless (although they are fun). It's important to understand the advantages and limitations to each of the technologies and make an informed decision based on tkat knowledge.
Because you can choose the businesses you are dealing with to a large extent, while you can't choose another government. Theoretically, in a liberal democracy you have some influence over your government but this is not true in China. And even in the west, there often is very little to choose. That's why the guys who wrote the US constitution were pretty smart when they wrote down a list of subjects the government should not govern.
Bravo, I couldn't have said it better myself.
I bet all the money in my pocket (admittedly not a lot) that this finding is a result of an overzealous data analysis.
The basic idea behind using statistical methods to test hypotheses is to compute the chance that the resulting data is oriented the way is is by coincidence. If this chance is exceedingly small, the variance in the data can't be explained by coincidence and must be due to some systematic effect. Depending on the type of research, probabilities between 5% and .01% are considered low and statistically significant. So basically, a hypothesis is accepted if the chance that it's false (this type of error is called a Type 1 error) is pretty small.
However, thanks to the advent of statistical data packages like SPSS, it's easy to check large numbers of variables. If there are tens or even hundreds of dependent variables in a study, all of these can be checked against the dependent variable (in this case, incidence of heart disease) with the push of the button. But the chance that at least one of these checks yields a false positive is pretty large. If the tests are performed at a 1% significance level for 50 variables, the chance is about 40%!
Unfortunately, there is no link to the actual paper. But if pet ownership is one of the variables included, chances are there were many variables that were included in the study.
This holds true for most stretches of Autobahn without a speed limit. But these have only six lanes. If there were, say 10 or even 12 lanes (which is pretty common in the states, at least in the places where I've driven). Not being able to overtake on the right would mean that each lane would have to have a higher speed than the lane to the right of it. For a 12 lane highway this would mean something like: 80mph, 75mph, 70mph, 65mph, 60mph, 55mph. This would never work in reality.
I agree with your assessment that the Democrats will have a real challenge, regardless of the candidate they choose. McCain does not really suffer from the huge impopularity of president Bush as much as the other republican candidates (bar Ron Paul) would have. He's got some character, everyone from left to right has to respect a guy who survived five years of torture. And the republicans can start organizing while the Democrats are in disarray. I'm really rooting for Obama but it looks like there will be no Democratic candidate until the convention.
This is exactly what I initially thought when I visited the US. On 4 and 6-lane roads, being able to overtake on the right does nothing to alleviate congestion, except when there's an actual traffic jam, in which case you'd be allowed to overtake on the right anyway. However, on larger roads not being able to overtake on the right would be a royal pain in the ass.
It doesn't matter if the belongs to someone else, even if you can prove it. You are responsible for the luggage you are carrying, regardless of the owner. There are quite some naive people ending up in jail because they were following your line of reasoning.
Amsterdam Schiphol airport has security facilities at some intercontinental gates. I think it's only for US-bound flights but I might be mistaken. Probably they do this because security procedures for US-bound flights are ridiculously inefficient. I had to answer some pretty personal questions to get onboard.
Then sell your excess baggage capacity to some fat jerk who needs the extra space because his clothes are made by Omar the Tent-Maker.
I'll give you a call next time I need to smuggle some heroin.
Plus you get to walk down the stairs like the President.
Like the president? The only times I walk down stair when exiting a plane is when I'm going on vacation to some mediterranean beach/booze community, just after the passengers applauded the pilot for landing the bloody airplane (nobody applaudes a bus driver for stopping, do we?). I'd prefer a jetway over flight stairs any day.
Given the enormous prevalence of depressions in modern society, even a 1 in 3 effectiveness is a huge help to a lot of people.