Read David Braine's Language and Human Understanding: The Roots of Creativity in Speech and Thought[1]. Unless you think programming languages have anything to do with creativity and especially, in breaking wholes into parts (fun quotations of Bertrand Russell and Aristotle in the first two pages of de Koninck's "The Unity and Diversity of Natural Science"[2]), you need a whole different kind of language. The difference is between a structurally closed language which is 'dead' (Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look[3], 12; Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics[4], 79), and a structurally open language, which has that critical informality that allows one to explore new territory that the language was not 'designed' to address. Finally, from Jacques Ellul's The Humiliation of the Word[5]:
Meaning is uncertain; therefore I must constantly fine-tune my language and work at reinterpreting the words I hear. I try to understand what the other person says to me. All language is more or less a riddle to be figured out; it is like interpreting a text that has many possible meanings. In my effort at understanding and interpretation, I establish definitions, and finally, a meaning. The thick haze of discourse produces meaning.
All of intellectual life (and I use the word "all" advisedly), even that of specialists in the most exact sciences, is based on these instabilities, failures to understand, and errors in interpretation, which we must find a way to go beyond and overcome. Mistaking a person's language keeps me from "taking" the person—from taking him prisoner. (19)
Anyone who tries to circumvent the above (eliminating all ambiguity everywhere) is doing violence to creativity and humanity.
The current incarnation of the media might need this—especially if they rely on advertising instead of being paid by the people who consume what they produce. As it turns out, who pays determines what is made/said! This is merely capitalism at work, and here I mean 'capitalism' entirely neutrally—an emergent system based on many individuals voting on their conception of 'good' and 'bad'. Yeah I've been reading some F.A. Hayek recently.
I don't think all incarnations of the media require this. Some might need actual mature adults. You know, if they wanted to actually make the world a better place instead of spread inanity and mediocrity around like some cheap butter substitute. (Yeah, I'm a butter supremacist.)
Annotation is a pervasive activity when reading or otherwise engaging with publications. In the physical world, highlighting and sticky notes are common paradigms for marking up and associating one's own content with the work being read, and many digital solutions exist in the same space. These digital solutions are, however, not interoperable between systems, even when there is only one user with multiple devices.
This document lays out the use cases for annotations on digital publications, as envisioned by the W3C Digital Publishing Interest Group, the W3C Open Annotation Community Group and the International Digital Publishing Forum. The use cases are provided as a means to drive forwards the conversation about standards in this arena.
There's a San Francisco 501(c)(3) working on this stuff: hypothes.is
(1) The victims were 100% innocent.
(2) The murderer was 100% guilty.
Bang Bang You're Dead is a great way to explore the question, "What if this dichotomy were wrong?" Now, I don't mean to assert that victims always match the pattern in Bang Bang. Sometimes people lash out at folks who had nothing to do with their pain. But sometimes they do. And when we assert (1) and (2), we sometimes depart from a true description of the situation. Do we care about this?
The idea that merely removing guns from the populace will stop the 'badness' which leads to a good proportion of mass murder is delusional. It'll merely suppress visibility of the problem. Sadly, many are just fine with this. Treating the symptoms is easier than treating the cause. False dichotomies are easier than uncomfortable tensions.
Does RMS have plans for how developers will eat if e.g. steals their code and makes it cheaper? Does he have plans for companies which wish to contribute some of their developer time to open source, and some to heavily-invested-in trade secrets? I've been in situations where I wanted to use and contribute to OSS for part of what I did, but couldn't because of copyleft. I wonder if this is why the embedded systems space has such terrible OSS support: the lack of sufficient 'boundaries' between modules in embedded code forces one to be fully infected by the virus or clear of it entirely.
Twice in the last month, we have had to fix large holes in the side of aircraft due to trucks driving into the side of them. Solution: don't drive trucks into the sides of aircraft.
This opening of the front side bus also means that you'll be able to plug FPGAs into it, which could be very cool. One way to solve the gigahertz slowdown is to specialize hardware: think co-processor that can be reconfigured in seconds to fit the particular task at hand, like video encoding.
Why not adopt the principle of not having any URLs in the email, and instead having users copy & past an alphanumeric string into some box on the paypal website? Alternatively, they could use something akin to Bank of America's SiteKey method, where an image is presented to the user to verify that the site is the desired site. Unfortunately, at least one study (I couldn't find it quickly) has noted that a significant portion (at least 25% and perhaps > 50%) of those who use such systems still enter in their password if the image is incorrect or missing.
Actually, the number of writes on flash memory tends to be in the millions these days. Combine this with wear levelling and Windows should run just fine on it.
I'm not sure about Perl, but the developers (, developers, developers) at MSFT are doing really cool stuff with.NET, like LINQ. ASP.NET is going to support interpreted languages. Ability to integrate a functional language with languages like C# promises to be quite cool. Of course, who knows if you'll actually get to use any of this cool stuff.
If Jack Bauer's interrogations had been recorded and shown to the public, he'd have gotten away with preventing an assassination, but the US would have been nuked twice, gassed once, and infected once. If recordings occur, they will get out to the public.
This is a little late, but most browsers keep the current state of all form elements cached so that the back button will repopulate text boxes and whatnot. This means you can store state in hidden input elements and have a restore function that runs from the body's onload event. The onload event fires when the page is loaded from cache, as well as loaded from the web server.
There's so much crap spewing about this tiered internet stuff when it really should be fairly simple. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that GDP = C + I + G + NX. I'm guessing that ISPs plan to get almost all of this potential "tiered income" from C, or Consumer. In particular, they want to charge the consumer without the consumer having any choice; isn't this along the same lines of a monopoly? Microsoft is disliked because it effectively denies many people a choice in what software they use.
Since I am paying for bandwidth (the company pays for it because I pay them), I want to choose how it's used. Isn't this economics 101?
Regarding 911 calls to VOIP -- isn't the problem here that the ISPs don't guarantee any sort of minimum bandwidth/latency combination to the ordinary home?
Number of entries: 849 Maximum storage size: 56320 KiB Storage in use: 62042 KiB Inactive storage: 0 KiB
Am I missing something, or should current <= maximum?
My solution was to get 4GB for reasons other than browsing; I'm only going to worry if Firefox starts using over 1GB. Now I just need to figure out how to get a faster disk subsystem without paying > $5,000.
Some engineers are really good at grammar and spelling, and consider computer languages to be fundamentally the same processes of clear and beautiful thought as human languages. Others handle them as entirely different things - can't spell worth beenz and don't grammar thier English, even though they spend all day producing flawless syntax in artificial languages. Those of us in the former group don't really understand the latter, and find their behaviour annoying, but it's such a common pattern that it's obviously a different set of mental structures approaches to information processing or something, on the level of spoken-vs-written-vs-visual focus, as opposed to laziness and stupidity
It'd be interesting to see an actual breakdown of the coders who can write well in terms of what languages they use. I wonder if Perl programmers write sloppier code than C++ programmers. Or, perhaps grammar/clear writing correlates to understandable code.
I see both programs and natural language as means to communicate information. I can write code that communicates the proper information to the parser, but not to any sane person (without a good deal of deciphering); people can do the same with natural language. Perhaps it's a matter of respect to the recipient: are you going to put yourself in the other person's shoes during composition?
It'd probably be asking too much, but/. could require that the bookmarks be of slightly higher quality than the typical del.icio.us (yuck) bookmark, unless we want to rely on the popularity measure as the ultimate measure of relevance, which works really well when over 90% of people don't know what they're doing...
It really isn't that hard to avoid getting hit by viruses when running Windows if you're knowledgable about exploit types, attack vectors, and so forth. I don't run antivirus software; I did for a short period of time and that was it. I have never gotten a virus on any of machines that I use exclusively. If I can manage that, I think BG can; I would be interested to know how long he has run antispyware/antivirus.
In case anyone doesn't bother to read the parent or didn't get it, here's the deal: MIT just helped a little less than 6/7 of caltech undergrads get back at a little less than 1/7 of caltech undergrads, employing a method that's an expellable offense. Being a member of the house that perhaps dislikes Fleming the most, I, a Page Boy, salute MIT!
Slashdot Mirror
Read David Braine's Language and Human Understanding: The Roots of Creativity in Speech and Thought[1]. Unless you think programming languages have anything to do with creativity and especially, in breaking wholes into parts (fun quotations of Bertrand Russell and Aristotle in the first two pages of de Koninck's "The Unity and Diversity of Natural Science"[2]), you need a whole different kind of language. The difference is between a structurally closed language which is 'dead' (Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look[3], 12; Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics[4], 79), and a structurally open language, which has that critical informality that allows one to explore new territory that the language was not 'designed' to address. Finally, from Jacques Ellul's The Humiliation of the Word[5]:
Anyone who tries to circumvent the above (eliminating all ambiguity everywhere) is doing violence to creativity and humanity.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Language...
[2] http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aver...
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Interpre...
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Interpre...
[5] http://www.amazon.com/The-Humi...
The current incarnation of the media might need this—especially if they rely on advertising instead of being paid by the people who consume what they produce. As it turns out, who pays determines what is made/said! This is merely capitalism at work, and here I mean 'capitalism' entirely neutrally—an emergent system based on many individuals voting on their conception of 'good' and 'bad'. Yeah I've been reading some F.A. Hayek recently. I don't think all incarnations of the media require this. Some might need actual mature adults. You know, if they wanted to actually make the world a better place instead of spread inanity and mediocrity around like some cheap butter substitute. (Yeah, I'm a butter supremacist.)
There's a San Francisco 501(c)(3) working on this stuff: hypothes.is
I just came across Canada stabbing victims identified as students: ‘They were all good kids’. The dichotomy is intriguing:
(1) The victims were 100% innocent. (2) The murderer was 100% guilty.Bang Bang You're Dead is a great way to explore the question, "What if this dichotomy were wrong?" Now, I don't mean to assert that victims always match the pattern in Bang Bang. Sometimes people lash out at folks who had nothing to do with their pain. But sometimes they do. And when we assert (1) and (2), we sometimes depart from a true description of the situation. Do we care about this?
The idea that merely removing guns from the populace will stop the 'badness' which leads to a good proportion of mass murder is delusional. It'll merely suppress visibility of the problem. Sadly, many are just fine with this. Treating the symptoms is easier than treating the cause. False dichotomies are easier than uncomfortable tensions.
Does RMS have plans for how developers will eat if e.g. steals their code and makes it cheaper? Does he have plans for companies which wish to contribute some of their developer time to open source, and some to heavily-invested-in trade secrets? I've been in situations where I wanted to use and contribute to OSS for part of what I did, but couldn't because of copyleft. I wonder if this is why the embedded systems space has such terrible OSS support: the lack of sufficient 'boundaries' between modules in embedded code forces one to be fully infected by the virus or clear of it entirely.
I hear that it's never a good idea to let the rich dump the first chunk of money into something.
Games are one of the few things that would work well in VMs. Raymond Chen explains why VMs aren't a simple cure-all.
This opening of the front side bus also means that you'll be able to plug FPGAs into it, which could be very cool. One way to solve the gigahertz slowdown is to specialize hardware: think co-processor that can be reconfigured in seconds to fit the particular task at hand, like video encoding.
Why not adopt the principle of not having any URLs in the email, and instead having users copy & past an alphanumeric string into some box on the paypal website? Alternatively, they could use something akin to Bank of America's SiteKey method, where an image is presented to the user to verify that the site is the desired site. Unfortunately, at least one study (I couldn't find it quickly) has noted that a significant portion (at least 25% and perhaps > 50%) of those who use such systems still enter in their password if the image is incorrect or missing.
Yes: Bounty Source.
Actually, the number of writes on flash memory tends to be in the millions these days. Combine this with wear levelling and Windows should run just fine on it.
I'm not sure about Perl, but the developers (, developers, developers) at MSFT are doing really cool stuff with .NET, like LINQ. ASP.NET is going to support interpreted languages. Ability to integrate a functional language with languages like C# promises to be quite cool. Of course, who knows if you'll actually get to use any of this cool stuff.
This can be changed.
If Jack Bauer's interrogations had been recorded and shown to the public, he'd have gotten away with preventing an assassination, but the US would have been nuked twice, gassed once, and infected once. If recordings occur, they will get out to the public.
This is a little late, but most browsers keep the current state of all form elements cached so that the back button will repopulate text boxes and whatnot. This means you can store state in hidden input elements and have a restore function that runs from the body's onload event. The onload event fires when the page is loaded from cache, as well as loaded from the web server.
[citation needed]
If you're a Linux developer you don't change the name, you just create a new distribution!
*ducks*
The police watch TV too! Do you think they're going to cut off a major supply of TV shows during the on-season? ;-P
There's so much crap spewing about this tiered internet stuff when it really should be fairly simple. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that GDP = C + I + G + NX. I'm guessing that ISPs plan to get almost all of this potential "tiered income" from C, or Consumer. In particular, they want to charge the consumer without the consumer having any choice; isn't this along the same lines of a monopoly? Microsoft is disliked because it effectively denies many people a choice in what software they use.
Since I am paying for bandwidth (the company pays for it because I pay them), I want to choose how it's used. Isn't this economics 101?
Regarding 911 calls to VOIP -- isn't the problem here that the ISPs don't guarantee any sort of minimum bandwidth/latency combination to the ordinary home?
My solution was to get 4GB for reasons other than browsing; I'm only going to worry if Firefox starts using over 1GB. Now I just need to figure out how to get a faster disk subsystem without paying > $5,000.
It'd be interesting to see an actual breakdown of the coders who can write well in terms of what languages they use. I wonder if Perl programmers write sloppier code than C++ programmers. Or, perhaps grammar/clear writing correlates to understandable code.
I see both programs and natural language as means to communicate information. I can write code that communicates the proper information to the parser, but not to any sane person (without a good deal of deciphering); people can do the same with natural language. Perhaps it's a matter of respect to the recipient: are you going to put yourself in the other person's shoes during composition?
It'd probably be asking too much, but /. could require that the bookmarks be of slightly higher quality than the typical del.icio.us (yuck) bookmark, unless we want to rely on the popularity measure as the ultimate measure of relevance, which works really well when over 90% of people don't know what they're doing...
It really isn't that hard to avoid getting hit by viruses when running Windows if you're knowledgable about exploit types, attack vectors, and so forth. I don't run antivirus software; I did for a short period of time and that was it. I have never gotten a virus on any of machines that I use exclusively. If I can manage that, I think BG can; I would be interested to know how long he has run antispyware/antivirus.
In case anyone doesn't bother to read the parent or didn't get it, here's the deal: MIT just helped a little less than 6/7 of caltech undergrads get back at a little less than 1/7 of caltech undergrads, employing a method that's an expellable offense. Being a member of the house that perhaps dislikes Fleming the most, I, a Page Boy, salute MIT!