Awesome. The "true Scotsman" arguement. No, the only basis for morality is the basic edict that you should do nothing to anyone that interferes with their ability to do the same without consent. Basically, leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. If you want to deal with me, trade value for value.
We are also hardwired to kill, rape, and steal. Doesn't mean we should do those other things either.
And atheists outnumber the Jewish population in America.
Have fun with your delusions. I won't participate.
That makes sense. Sort of like a CVS model applied to an email server. Track who "owns" it and for forwarding, replying, etc. just track the changes made to the original email, rather than a full copy. Actually, that would've been quite clever of them and they could effectively offer more disk space per user as the userbase increases since more users would be cross-sending emails through GMail.
3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.
Most of the drugs you listed here are addictive. By legalizing them, you are legalizing the creation of even more junkies. Junkies will rob and harm to get their fix. And note, I said most, not all.
5. Pirated Web Videos. Supply and demand here. The supply of digitally transmitted products is nearly infinite, therefore the price falls to the floor. Then again, I am I am against copyright.
Ah, my favorite fallacy: The price of distribution is all that matters. If you can't see that it costs more to produce intangibles like videos, music, and software than the actual cost of distribution, then you have the problem, not the industry. Your arguement is only a justification of piracy. Due to the "instant gratification" culture, it is no longer viable to work like Mozart or Beethoven, where you get paid in advance to create a work. No, now the cost of production has been shifted to the artists themselves. And then you just want to take the results of that production for free because it is trivial to copy. Bad form.
Counterfeits. Companies have a reputation to protect in the form of their brand. Crappy knock-offs destroy that reputation. These companies selling counterfeits are being sued under trademark law.
It looks like you've given very little thought to any of these issues. You propose certain things without wondering about the larger effects of your propositions. Manifestos are great and all, but no one likes a mail bomber.
"Voting for [a good] candidate is only a good idea if he stands a chance of winning."
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Not only are there innumerable benefits for voting even for a "hopeless" candidate, but perpetuating the myth that voting for less popular candidates is wasteful just ensures that those candidates remain unpopular.
Plus it assumes that you know what a good candidate is and others don't. Maybe everyone who voted for Bush honestly thought he was a good candidate. Hell, maybe they're right. Who knows? We've dropped into the fuzzy area of "What is good?".
However, if everyone who voted for Bush, voted for Bush because Buchanan (closest I could think of) didn't stand a chance of winning, then everyone who voted for Bush wasted their votes. Why? Because they let speculative groupthink choose something that was popular rather than something they thought was right.
So I would have to agree with the GP (even though he was probably cracking wise) that our elected officials represent our collective intelligence. So as sad and horrible as it may seem to some, Bush does represent the (for the reactionaries: United States of) American people.
Very Insightful. I'm giving you virtual mod points in the upward direction.
I've never thought about it that way and it has made some current happenings very clear to me. While you do say that it is a generalization, it is a generalization of extremes. Most people will fall somewhere in between, and will fall differently based on the subject as well. And it has made me look at one of my personal creeds in a new light ("Data doesn't lie"). Now, I'm more cognizant of how and why I come to that point and why I am interested in rules systems.
When taken into context with the rest of my post and noting the questioning nature of the sentence, one could come to the conclusion that it was a rhetorical question based on the lengths this one guy had to go through to find those 700 offenders _after_ his script gave him a list of potentials. I don't plan to do anything, I'm not saying that Myspace should be required to either.
I was more along the lines of trying to point out that what the guy did wasn't as easy as writing a perl script and confirming what Myspace was saying that it is practically impossible for them to verify.
I don't thing they should be required either and if this guy had to manually check every name his script returned then I don't see how it is possible either.
That he manually confirmed 700 of the results. That doesn't say how many false positives he sifted through to get to those. Should Myspace be required to have people who manually confirm all users aren't sex offenders?
If I write a book about how cars suck and that the people manufacturing cars in the factories should just make better cars because that is what people want. And then start waxing rhapsodic about how the public needs to come up with a standard for cars and put those damn manufacturers in their place.
I hope to that I get called on it.
Because the fault of shoddy software is not all from programmers, much like shoddy cars aren't the fault of the people actually building them. He sees a supposed problem (and ignores the wealth of great software out there, a lot which he probably didn't ever realize he was using) and then makes the mental leap that software has to be created by programmers at some level. They are the fundamental part of the chain. So it must be their fault. He ignores all of the other factors that contribute to software development and starts beating his chest at programmers like some goddamned ape.
Software does not drop out of the sky in its final form. They are products developed at companies wishing to make a net profit from them in a fiercely competitive software market.
And secondly, hyping up pre-conceived stereotypes and stroking a reader's ego does no one any favors. Not the audience or those the author is mocking.
Anyway, his review wasn't for people who agreed with the book, so you really shouldn't be commenting on it according to your logic. After all, you aren't the target audience, you couldn't possibly appreciate his arguements.
So your only defense is that it is a fragment. By that logic, since it is a fragment, you can't assume that b and c won't be used after the loop either. You are reading outside the code fragment if you assume they won't be used. And if you want us to assume anything about the code that isn't explicit, make it explicit. If your code fragment was instead wrapped around this:
void function(int n) { //Your fragment }
Then your arguement would hold water, but as it is hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
Also, I like how you say that even if they are used outside the loop, they could be used in "the proper context".
In this instance I would have to say that the verifier would be correct, this is code that is highly suspicious and that relying on proper execution of conditionals and magic numbers aren't good substitutes for defensive programming.
What if n is less than 0? You say that by looking at the code that n must be greater than 0, but that is nowhere in there. There is no check on the value of n so you can't assume the value. Then c and b will both be uninitialized.
You can't trust initialization in conditional statements unless you cover all conditions or if you declare your variables within the conditional code block.
And I'm sure that I will be able to get one of the 1 million coming to NA, leaving the rest of the continent to fight over the other 999,999. I really don't care about how they are distributed, as long as one gets distributed my way.
Really though, way to kill a lame joke with accusations of nationalism.
Well, technically, the PS2 was just a supercharged PS1 with a faster CPU and new GPU since they were both based off of MIPS processors.
And you could almost consider the XBox 360 a supercharged Gamecube as well, since they moved to PowerPC architechture and ATI graphics. Which is kind of funny considering that Apple just made a significant move away from PowerPC.
But that's all really semantics. I for one am glad that consoles are starting to actually take real advantage of Moore's Law, rather than reinventing the wheel everytime. For example: Sega could've taken steps to make the Dreamcast backwards compatible with the Saturn (Saturn used dual SH2's while the Dreamcast used a single SH4), but decided to make other changes as well that altered the underlying hardware to the point where the processor's instruction set was the least of the concerns.
I'm buying a Wii at launch. There is no reason for me not to. It'll play all of my Gamecube games, I'll be able to download and play classics, SD cards are a really sweet move (sharing saves and other storage), and I'll have a selection of awesome new games when I'm ready.
Something similar happened here at work. (Don't remind me >_) We had received a phishy email from "Dell" with a zip attachment containing a virus. We found the presence of the virus by the fact that we weren't able to use Remote Desktop to connect to the computer anymore. A virus scan revealed nothing. Process Explorer wouldn't even start. Task Manager revealed nothing. I had to run tasklist on the command line from another (non-infected) computer to actually see it. I Googled(tm) the name and found out what it was. To remove it, I had to remote kill the process and then delete it by opening the proper folder from the non-infected machine.
I could beat the person who opened the attachment though. That's just asking for trouble.
And while filtering the email would help the overall situation, I am in a bad predicament in regards to actually setting policy, etc.
Maybe I'm not the one missing something. *ahem* So the mentioning of Godwin's Law is relevant as they used the tired cliche of "Nazis R teh ev1l" to get their point across.
Read Matthew Woodring Stover. His love of Heinlen aside, it is much more deep and meaningful than the shlock that is Starship Troopers. (Not to mention that the gratuitous tits do nothing to either advance the plot or make the point so what are they exactly doing there.)
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome. The "true Scotsman" arguement.
No, the only basis for morality is the basic edict that you should do nothing to anyone that interferes with their ability to do the same without consent. Basically, leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. If you want to deal with me, trade value for value.
We are also hardwired to kill, rape, and steal. Doesn't mean we should do those other things either.
And atheists outnumber the Jewish population in America.
Have fun with your delusions. I won't participate.
I'm a Rational Atheist and I will not submit to _ANY_ religious law. Not those imposed by the Koran, the Torah, or the Bible.
If it doesn't have a nervous system, scoop it out. You don't feel bad when you swat a mosquito, do you?
You are aware that Caml is implemented in C, a language that has most of C++'s problems with a lot of the safety bits removed.
That makes sense. Sort of like a CVS model applied to an email server. Track who "owns" it and for forwarding, replying, etc. just track the changes made to the original email, rather than a full copy.
Actually, that would've been quite clever of them and they could effectively offer more disk space per user as the userbase increases since more users would be cross-sending emails through GMail.
Most of the drugs you listed here are addictive. By legalizing them, you are legalizing the creation of even more junkies. Junkies will rob and harm to get their fix. And note, I said most, not all.
Ah, my favorite fallacy: The price of distribution is all that matters. If you can't see that it costs more to produce intangibles like videos, music, and software than the actual cost of distribution, then you have the problem, not the industry. Your arguement is only a justification of piracy. Due to the "instant gratification" culture, it is no longer viable to work like Mozart or Beethoven, where you get paid in advance to create a work. No, now the cost of production has been shifted to the artists themselves. And then you just want to take the results of that production for free because it is trivial to copy. Bad form.
Counterfeits. Companies have a reputation to protect in the form of their brand. Crappy knock-offs destroy that reputation. These companies selling counterfeits are being sued under trademark law.
It looks like you've given very little thought to any of these issues. You propose certain things without wondering about the larger effects of your propositions. Manifestos are great and all, but no one likes a mail bomber.
Do you know what partisan means?
Look it up, it'll help.
"Voting for [a good] candidate is only a good idea if he stands a chance of winning."
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Not only are there innumerable benefits for voting even for a "hopeless" candidate, but perpetuating the myth that voting for less popular candidates is wasteful just ensures that those candidates remain unpopular.
Plus it assumes that you know what a good candidate is and others don't. Maybe everyone who voted for Bush honestly thought he was a good candidate. Hell, maybe they're right. Who knows? We've dropped into the fuzzy area of "What is good?".
However, if everyone who voted for Bush, voted for Bush because Buchanan (closest I could think of) didn't stand a chance of winning, then everyone who voted for Bush wasted their votes. Why? Because they let speculative groupthink choose something that was popular rather than something they thought was right.
So I would have to agree with the GP (even though he was probably cracking wise) that our elected officials represent our collective intelligence. So as sad and horrible as it may seem to some, Bush does represent the (for the reactionaries: United States of) American people.
Very Insightful. I'm giving you virtual mod points in the upward direction.
I've never thought about it that way and it has made some current happenings very clear to me. While you do say that it is a generalization, it is a generalization of extremes. Most people will fall somewhere in between, and will fall differently based on the subject as well.
And it has made me look at one of my personal creeds in a new light ("Data doesn't lie"). Now, I'm more cognizant of how and why I come to that point and why I am interested in rules systems.
When taken into context with the rest of my post and noting the questioning nature of the sentence, one could come to the conclusion that it was a rhetorical question based on the lengths this one guy had to go through to find those 700 offenders _after_ his script gave him a list of potentials.
I don't plan to do anything, I'm not saying that Myspace should be required to either.
I was more along the lines of trying to point out that what the guy did wasn't as easy as writing a perl script and confirming what Myspace was saying that it is practically impossible for them to verify.
I don't thing they should be required either and if this guy had to manually check every name his script returned then I don't see how it is possible either.
Design is law? Where have I heard that before?
John Romero.
Daikatana.
That he manually confirmed 700 of the results.
That doesn't say how many false positives he sifted through to get to those.
Should Myspace be required to have people who manually confirm all users aren't sex offenders?
I just can't escape you.
If I write a book about how cars suck and that the people manufacturing cars in the factories should just make better cars because that is what people want. And then start waxing rhapsodic about how the public needs to come up with a standard for cars and put those damn manufacturers in their place.
I hope to that I get called on it.
Because the fault of shoddy software is not all from programmers, much like shoddy cars aren't the fault of the people actually building them. He sees a supposed problem (and ignores the wealth of great software out there, a lot which he probably didn't ever realize he was using) and then makes the mental leap that software has to be created by programmers at some level. They are the fundamental part of the chain. So it must be their fault. He ignores all of the other factors that contribute to software development and starts beating his chest at programmers like some goddamned ape.
Software does not drop out of the sky in its final form. They are products developed at companies wishing to make a net profit from them in a fiercely competitive software market.
And secondly, hyping up pre-conceived stereotypes and stroking a reader's ego does no one any favors. Not the audience or those the author is mocking.
Anyway, his review wasn't for people who agreed with the book, so you really shouldn't be commenting on it according to your logic. After all, you aren't the target audience, you couldn't possibly appreciate his arguements.
Then your arguement would hold water, but as it is hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
Also, I like how you say that even if they are used outside the loop, they could be used in "the proper context".
In this instance I would have to say that the verifier would be correct, this is code that is highly suspicious and that relying on proper execution of conditionals and magic numbers aren't good substitutes for defensive programming.
What if n is less than 0? You say that by looking at the code that n must be greater than 0, but that is nowhere in there. There is no check on the value of n so you can't assume the value.
Then c and b will both be uninitialized.
You can't trust initialization in conditional statements unless you cover all conditions or if you declare your variables within the conditional code block.
And I'm sure that I will be able to get one of the 1 million coming to NA, leaving the rest of the continent to fight over the other 999,999.
I really don't care about how they are distributed, as long as one gets distributed my way.
Really though, way to kill a lame joke with accusations of nationalism.
Well, so far they get a potential "half a cool" then. :D
Depends on if I can save the game to an SD card or not. If I can "keep" the game and play it at someone else's house, then cool, if not, then eh.
So there should be one for me in there somewhere. You guys can fight over the other 999,999.
Son of a bitch. This is going to suck.
Well, technically, the PS2 was just a supercharged PS1 with a faster CPU and new GPU since they were both based off of MIPS processors.
And you could almost consider the XBox 360 a supercharged Gamecube as well, since they moved to PowerPC architechture and ATI graphics. Which is kind of funny considering that Apple just made a significant move away from PowerPC.
But that's all really semantics. I for one am glad that consoles are starting to actually take real advantage of Moore's Law, rather than reinventing the wheel everytime. For example: Sega could've taken steps to make the Dreamcast backwards compatible with the Saturn (Saturn used dual SH2's while the Dreamcast used a single SH4), but decided to make other changes as well that altered the underlying hardware to the point where the processor's instruction set was the least of the concerns.
I'm buying a Wii at launch. There is no reason for me not to. It'll play all of my Gamecube games, I'll be able to download and play classics, SD cards are a really sweet move (sharing saves and other storage), and I'll have a selection of awesome new games when I'm ready.
Something similar happened here at work. (Don't remind me >_)
We had received a phishy email from "Dell" with a zip attachment containing a virus. We found the presence of the virus by the fact that we weren't able to use Remote Desktop to connect to the computer anymore. A virus scan revealed nothing. Process Explorer wouldn't even start. Task Manager revealed nothing. I had to run tasklist on the command line from another (non-infected) computer to actually see it. I Googled(tm) the name and found out what it was.
To remove it, I had to remote kill the process and then delete it by opening the proper folder from the non-infected machine.
I could beat the person who opened the attachment though. That's just asking for trouble.
And while filtering the email would help the overall situation, I am in a bad predicament in regards to actually setting policy, etc.
"The film included visual allusions to propaganda films such as Triumph of the Will and wartime news broadcasts."l m_and_TV_adaptations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Fi
Maybe I'm not the one missing something. *ahem*
So the mentioning of Godwin's Law is relevant as they used the tired cliche of "Nazis R teh ev1l" to get their point across.
Read Matthew Woodring Stover. His love of Heinlen aside, it is much more deep and meaningful than the shlock that is Starship Troopers. (Not to mention that the gratuitous tits do nothing to either advance the plot or make the point so what are they exactly doing there.)
Way to once again not read to the end of the post.
It's not that it went unnoticed, it's just that it was executed for shit.