Healthcare is a personal utility, not public utility.
That is a valid opinion (although I definitely don't agree with it). But the GP stipulated that if something is paid for by taxes, it's communism, which is clearly incorrect.
That's some pretty grotesque McCarthyism right there. GPS, the USS Enterprise and the Interstates are all paid for by the federal government, straight out of your pockets. Are they cases of communism?
And I suppose if you obediently believe every line that Moore has to tell you about the matter is the whole and honest extent of the truth, then there is no possibility that anything could counter it.
It would not be difficult. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered.
Don't you think Biosphere 2 pretty much disproved that theory?
Because the 95% confidence level means you are allowing a 5% chance of finding a correlation where one doesn't actually exist. This is called a Type I error in hypothesis testing. If you do 20 tests, each with a 5% chance of a type I error, the expected number of times that you incorrectly reject the null hypothesis is 1.
Actually, it's not. It's 1-((1-0.05)^^20) ~=.64. The chance of not making a type I error decreases, but there always is a chance that no type I error will be made.
But you haven't explained why business logic, GUIs, etc. are more suited to imperative OO languages. Could you provide a pseudo-code example which you think would be difficult to emulate in a functional language?
In my first year of CompSci I had to program the game of Hangman in Miranda, which was considerably more difficult to do than the Java version, which had an actual GUI instead of a command line.
Functional programming languages describe how a certain problem is structured. Procedural languages describe the steps to solve that problem. For many things like validating forms, applying business rules, etc., that latter is a more straightforward approach.
Another difference is that the development environments for OO languages are very mature. Creating a GUI using Eclipse, VS.NET or Delphi is as easy as point-and-click. I know of no such environment for Haskell.
I am aware that the last argument has little to do with the language per se, but languages don't exist in a vacuum and when talking about productivity the tools are an important factor.
Of course. Although functional languages are great at specifying and evaluating algorithms which are at the heart of a program, these algorithms usually take up a small percentage of the total work on the program. The rest is business logic, a GUI, database connectivity, etc., which are most easily tackled by a procedural, object-oriented language.
Remember we are taliing parallel programming here. History and experience has shown that OOP/procedural are not the best way to write such applications. There are just to many ways to go wrong and when they do it is incredibly difficult to debug.
You do maintian state with functional programs, but instead of storing is in a variable you pass it between functions. This makes it thread and process safe.
You can do this with OO/Procedural programming as well you know. And a similar technique, immutable objects can go a long way to make a program thread-safe. The best way to prevent thread-related bugs is by having a design that is inherently resistant to these problems. That's a lesson that functional programming learned us. But although functional languages are good at representing algorithms and reasoning about them, they are horribly unproductive when it comes to most real-world applications (the ones with a GUI, for instance). So let's take the lessons from functional programming and apply them to a language that actually is productive and you've got yourself a ballgame.
who bought these? i don't know anyone in the uk who has a zune.. for that matter i don't know anyone who has even SEEN a zune. did ms employees buy these at a knock-down rate?
Nope, they are bundled with every new PC. It worked for Vista.
The author is an idiot. If he uses Kubuntu or even Windows on a daily basis, he should know that 64-bit is not quite there yet when it comes to proprietary stuff.
By your definition, 98% of all PC users are idiots. This explains quite nicely why Linux is not ready to take over Windows on the desktop and this was exactly the authors point.
Wow, an implied Godwin invocation, and so soon. I was responding to the grandparent post which stated that countries in Europe would not go to war with each other because they are important trading partners.
Care to explain how WW2 was in Germany's interests? I don't think they're about to repeat that particilar mistake in the next few centuries or so. That's what everyone thought after World War I. I'm not saying we are on the doorstep of a war in Europe. But assuming it's an impossibility because of trade is naive and historically incorrect.
By being an economic organization. It's not in any country's interest to wage war with its closest trade partners. Care to venture a guess who was Frances' largest trade partner in 1940?
Re:Anyone here have any experiances with Zimbra?
on
Comcast Goes to Zimbra
·
· Score: 5, Informative
We (a small IT company) have been using it for a couple of months now and my experiences are very good. Of course I don't know how well Zimbra will scale, but for us it works really wel. I do have some minor complaints (for instance, when creating a new mail filter I'd like to have the option to apply the filter to the existing e-mails), but on the whole I'm quite content.
There's a huge difference between mere fusion reactions and an actual fusion reactor that will sustainably produce power. From what I've read, this is about the former, so I'm not keeping my fingers crossed just yet. However, it's still good to see that fusion research is being carried out along several different approaches.
I would explain the 13.3% with the wide-spread use of Internet. Every noob I know surfs the Internet regularly, and hardly any of them care about technology.
I think this is a pretty plausible explanation. Broadband penetration in the Netherlands is very high, so a dispropotionally large part of the internet population is prone to have little IT experience.
I don't share your experiences regarding the microsoft-centered education. I was a Computer Science major at Twente Technical University and we were educated on microsoft and linux. The non-technical departemens are predominantly Microsoft though.
So scientists have been wrong before. They also have been right before. So all we can do is look at the research and let it speak for itself. I'm not saying that the research is unambiguous, but ignoring it altogether because of past mistakes (most likely made by other scientists) is not very productive.
For anyone that thinks Turkey is a non-western nation that doesn't belong in the EU, please goto Turkey, vacation there, you will come back with a much different prospective. The EU does not want Turkey to be a member and is just making demand after demand trying to stall the entrance talks. I have been to Turkey twice and I think it's a lovely country. Furthermore, in principle I'm in favor of Turkey joining the EU. However, there still are some human rights issues. Turkey is at best reluctant to acknowledge Cyprus (an EU member). The guy not being allowed to board the plane is downright stupid but it's nothing compared to people going to jail for being critical of Kemal Ataturk. Kurds are still being oppressed.
Turkey is not the only country which is being asked to reform to join the EU. The same was true for Greece and Spain and the changed for the better. Concerns about human rights violations are not ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Healthcare is a personal utility, not public utility.
That is a valid opinion (although I definitely don't agree with it). But the GP stipulated that if something is paid for by taxes, it's communism, which is clearly incorrect.
That's some pretty grotesque McCarthyism right there. GPS, the USS Enterprise and the Interstates are all paid for by the federal government, straight out of your pockets. Are they cases of communism?
And I suppose if you obediently believe every line that Moore has to tell you about the matter is the whole and honest extent of the truth, then there is no possibility that anything could counter it.
The point is, it's hard to dispute Moore's facts. Of course he presents those facts in a biased way. But he's making an argument, you can't blame him for that. The core facts he uses to make his case are true (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.c heck/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).
TomTom is much better for in car navigation than any cell phone could be.
You are aware that TomTom also uses GPS?
It would not be difficult. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered.
Don't you think Biosphere 2 pretty much disproved that theory?
You are right, I completely misread, my apologies.
Because the 95% confidence level means you are allowing a 5% chance of finding a correlation where one doesn't actually exist. This is called a Type I error in hypothesis testing. If you do 20 tests, each with a 5% chance of a type I error, the expected number of times that you incorrectly reject the null hypothesis is 1.
Actually, it's not. It's 1-((1-0.05)^^20) ~= .64. The chance of not making a type I error decreases, but there always is a chance that no type I error will be made.
But you haven't explained why business logic, GUIs, etc. are more suited to imperative OO languages. Could you provide a pseudo-code example which you think would be difficult to emulate in a functional language?
In my first year of CompSci I had to program the game of Hangman in Miranda, which was considerably more difficult to do than the Java version, which had an actual GUI instead of a command line.
Functional programming languages describe how a certain problem is structured. Procedural languages describe the steps to solve that problem. For many things like validating forms, applying business rules, etc., that latter is a more straightforward approach.
Another difference is that the development environments for OO languages are very mature. Creating a GUI using Eclipse, VS.NET or Delphi is as easy as point-and-click. I know of no such environment for Haskell.
I am aware that the last argument has little to do with the language per se, but languages don't exist in a vacuum and when talking about productivity the tools are an important factor.
Care to justify that statement?
Of course. Although functional languages are great at specifying and evaluating algorithms which are at the heart of a program, these algorithms usually take up a small percentage of the total work on the program. The rest is business logic, a GUI, database connectivity, etc., which are most easily tackled by a procedural, object-oriented language.
Remember we are taliing parallel programming here. History and experience has shown that OOP/procedural are not the best way to write such applications. There are just to many ways to go wrong and when they do it is incredibly difficult to debug.
You do maintian state with functional programs, but instead of storing is in a variable you pass it between functions. This makes it thread and process safe.
You can do this with OO/Procedural programming as well you know. And a similar technique, immutable objects can go a long way to make a program thread-safe. The best way to prevent thread-related bugs is by having a design that is inherently resistant to these problems. That's a lesson that functional programming learned us. But although functional languages are good at representing algorithms and reasoning about them, they are horribly unproductive when it comes to most real-world applications (the ones with a GUI, for instance). So let's take the lessons from functional programming and apply them to a language that actually is productive and you've got yourself a ballgame.
who bought these? i don't know anyone in the uk who has a zune.. for that matter i don't know anyone who has even SEEN a zune. did ms employees buy these at a knock-down rate?
Nope, they are bundled with every new PC. It worked for Vista.
Of course you are right. But frankly, I'd say it's harder to shape the future than to predict it.
The author is an idiot. If he uses Kubuntu or even Windows on a daily basis, he should know that 64-bit is not quite there yet when it comes to proprietary stuff.
By your definition, 98% of all PC users are idiots. This explains quite nicely why Linux is not ready to take over Windows on the desktop and this was exactly the authors point.
We (a small IT company) have been using it for a couple of months now and my experiences are very good. Of course I don't know how well Zimbra will scale, but for us it works really wel. I do have some minor complaints (for instance, when creating a new mail filter I'd like to have the option to apply the filter to the existing e-mails), but on the whole I'm quite content.
There's a huge difference between mere fusion reactions and an actual fusion reactor that will sustainably produce power. From what I've read, this is about the former, so I'm not keeping my fingers crossed just yet. However, it's still good to see that fusion research is being carried out along several different approaches.
The article summary, for instance:
Well put. Fortunately Steve Jobs doesn't take cues from crazy bloggers...
I would explain the 13.3% with the wide-spread use of Internet. Every noob I know surfs the Internet regularly, and hardly any of them care about technology.
I think this is a pretty plausible explanation. Broadband penetration in the Netherlands is very high, so a dispropotionally large part of the internet population is prone to have little IT experience.
I don't share your experiences regarding the microsoft-centered education. I was a Computer Science major at Twente Technical University and we were educated on microsoft and linux. The non-technical departemens are predominantly Microsoft though.
...it's the new France!
If only there was a way to stop these ads.
So scientists have been wrong before. They also have been right before. So all we can do is look at the research and let it speak for itself. I'm not saying that the research is unambiguous, but ignoring it altogether because of past mistakes (most likely made by other scientists) is not very productive.
Linus... is that you?
Turkey is not the only country which is being asked to reform to join the EU. The same was true for Greece and Spain and the changed for the better. Concerns about human rights violations are not ridiculous.