Comment Re:TFA is worthless (Score 1) 231
Maybe it's something like:
while (1) {
sleep;
}
Maybe it's something like:
while (1) {
sleep;
}
"This old saw?" That predates the Jargon File!
from the jargon file:
hacker: n.
[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]
1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
4. A person who is good at programming quickly.
5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in ‘a Unix hacker’. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence password hacker, network hacker. The correct term for this sense is cracker.
The term ‘hacker’ also tends to connote membership in the global community defined by the net (see the network. For discussion of some of the basics of this culture, see the How To Become A Hacker FAQ. It also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some version of the hacker ethic (see hacker ethic).
It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also geek, wannabee.
This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a report that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage radio hams and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.
Note that the perjorative use has been deprecated.
[...] without wasting money on all the unnecessary parts [...]
Now that's a matter of perspective.
How something like about this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
($murderer1, $murderer2) = ('Wolfgang Werlé' , 'Manfred Lauber');
($guy1, $guy2) = (\$murderer1, \$murderer2);
print WIKIPEDIA "$guy1 and $guy2 killed a German actor in 1990";
I just finished watching the second season premiere episode of Fringe. This sounds completely plausible. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't expect this result.
How is this notable, again?
The Mac Box Set, available from the Apple store, costs $169. But keep in mind that for that price you're also getting iWork and iLife, which together cost $158. That's a pretty good deal.
I think a better requirement would be to prominently display the amount of their and others' money the Scientologists have siphoned off them.
Your argument is flawed. See the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches
There are many more examples of the successful employment of satyagraha to effect change.
I don't have to defend satyagraha. It played a historically accepted, defining role both in the liberation of India and in the US Civil Rights movement under Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Your straw man attack on Gandhi is irrelevant to the discussion, but you may certainly be right about the world being a darker place had the Allies not fought violently against the Axis in the Second World War.
However, my point in my original post stands: violence is not the only means by which one people may impose its will on another, and the very idea of effecting such an imposition can be considered offensive to a reasonable person.
If you're referring to the United States government, then it may be more correct to say "a set of people forcing its will on itself." That's how our republic works.
And that system is user-configurable.
The aggrieved in such a conflict has more than one option, at least one of which--satyagraha--is both effective and nonviolent. In that light I agree with you that force must be met with a counter-force. But if you mean that the only way to resist violence is with more violence, I strongly disagree.
War is ultimately the only way to inflict a nations will upon another.
The notion that it's a good idea or even possible for one set of people to force its will on another is what leads to war, and it's one we might do well to change.
"Very well. You may expect to be the first to be sucked into our singularity. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!"
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
