hkmaly

Being legible to people who don't understand programming is nice but unobtainable goal. Computers are not able to understand natural language, so any similarity between COBOL and natural language was just apparent. Even today, FORTRAN compiler is most free regarding how much aggressive can optimize the code. No other compiler can switch order of dimension when going through two-dimensional array ... and that's BY DEFAULT, with standard "for". In usable OS, application programmer is not supposed to deal with microkernel directly. Which is not really anything new: even in linux, you don't call syscalls, you call library functions. Of course, writing this main library for microkernel IS non-trivial task ... That's not exactly strong argument to continue using it NOW. LISP was ahead of times in lot of areas. It's only real disadvantage is how much parenthesis is using. It's true that today every serious language implements lot of LISP features and have the rest on TODO list ... Most book paper is not good for that sort of thing. Among other issues, like being very rough on the butt, it will jam up your pipes. Don't ask why I know this. Also, remember that some sorts of inks are poisonous enough to affect you through the butt. (No, I don't know it from personal experience.)

Compare the two bodies - Susan, as seen above, and Tifa as seen here. This is an official picture of Tifa as redesigned for the FF7 Remake. Susan has more hair and less clothes.

I dunno, maybe, but I get the feeling that if she found out like that, and then told Sam that she knows, it might make for an awkward night. Even if Sarah didn't mention to Sam that she knows, she might have felt the need to tread lightly which also might have affected how that last date went. Well, yes, it does seem more likely it wouldn't end well in such case. But on the other hand Sam telling her didn't look that much likely either ... I'm fairly sure that Grace heard the whole thing and is, in fact triggering on the "isn't". I suspect that Friday's comic will expand on this. I'm not so sure about that. It's not like Grace can react on it immediately ... And yes, I don't think Grace missed anything important. If there will be misunderstanding, it's because Sarah used incorrect tense by mistake. Well Tedd has never been her boyfriend, so we can rule that out. As to Elliot vs Sam, my money is on Sam. Sam sounds most likely, but Freudian slips may not be entirely direct ...

Have you ever actually used COBOL? It's archaic, but it is a procedural language, hence does pretty much what any other procedural language does. The main problem with it is that it is built around stuff that no one does any more. It can handle punchcard-centric I/O like nobody's business. No, I need my mind working. Although, considering Dijkstra was mainly complaining about GO TO and I'm fine despite using assembler ... I did read the wikipedia page though. It mentions that while COBOL has something which was possible to use as subroutines, it lacked parameters passing and due to how perverse the return was implemented didn't allowed recursion. Sounds horrible enough. Yes, we need Visual COBOL ++. No. We also don't need Borland COBOL ++ Builder.

I didn't even caught it until you mentioned it. Although now it explains why Dan needed to repeat it in commentary. I wonder if she found by mistake. Like, with her spell. But not sure how exactly.

And I hope she wakes up and goes "It was all a dream..." While this definitely IS all a dream - and possibly GRACE's - I expect that there would be some conclusion before that happens. And I hope that there would be some fun before (or IN) that conclusion.

There are $ome good counterargument$ to that. Well, sure. It's just that whores only sell their body. ... and a day without sunshine isn't 'day'. ... is this about freedom of information? RATFOR, or Rational Fortran isn't that bad. Of course it's not normal Fortran, it is like the early version of C++ which "compiled" to normal ANSI C code, which was then compiled to machine code. Ratfor compilers generate FORTRAN which is then compiled to machine code. I suppose that Fortran 2003+ is not that bad either, it's just niche language. The quote was presumably about Fortran 66. Even COBOL has newer version actually ... problem is that the majority of COBOL code is still written either in the old version, or AS if it was written in the old version.

Basically everyone? ... I'm also feeling little like the confortation with the Shadowy Figure stopped the fun and now I wait if it starts again ... ... and I sort of hope it starts when Susan finally levels to second level again.

Yes. However, note that average software can easily have more parts than Boeing 787 if you don't count the software used ON the Boeing. Hell, some states needed COBOL programmers this year to fix their unemployment systems when the system got stressed. Yup. It's hard to find them, as the use of COBOL cripples the mind. Also, remember that computer without COBOL and FORTRAN is like a chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard. I'm not sure I follow this. GNU tends to be slow to roll out, and I'd blame delays and half baked releases before I'd blame 'superior design' as a flaw. OTOH, if you're right, and 'superior design' is truly a cause of GNU non-acceptance, is the design actually superior? Maybe the theory is flawed. I'm specifically talking about kernel. GNU kernel is a microkernel: theoretically superior concept, but not really practical when it was first proposed as it brings overhead. Of course, we are getting close to point where the overhead might be worth it ... that's why microkernels are appearing in real (as opposed to "hobby") systems now (iOS, for example, is said to be using microkernel, although modified for better performance in way which may make it not really microkernel anymore). I suppose in normal circumstances when one quits something it is assumed that one will move on and do something else instead (or if circumstances permit and one is stubborn, one might try again). However, I don't see how the definition requires this. If that's not what you're getting at, I'm even more confused. Just because someone is dead does not mean we can't use verbs when talking about what they did in the past, and we can also use verbs to refer to the actions of someone who is about to die, so why would this be any different? "Using verbs" when talking about what a dead person is doing AFTER death is mysticism. But, yes, the "quit" in the original statement MIGHT be understood in way which makes it possible, if undesirable.

What has this to do with Tifa? You are not alone in your confusion. I'm thirding that.

Gary Kildall. I don't think it is a fair criticism. What made sense years earlier for nascent 8 bit systems with limited memory was not intended to be ported to larger systems. It didn't make sense when it happened, other than from a marketing P.o.V. CP/M was perceived to be the professional microcomputer system at the time, so to market micros to businesses, IBM wanted something close to being CP/M. They basically did not understand their market. There is no way that their system should have won out. The Atari ST was a much better architecture, but it was built like crap. The Amiga was years ahead of the competition. So was the Mac. "Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" comes to mind. It was actually first from long line of victories of compatibility over quality. Paterson decided to implement CP/M clone instead of clean design, including compatibility on unhealthy level. Market proved it was good decision. Some of that compatibility remains in Windows even today, and Windows Me was compatible with DOS so much it was seriously impacted by it ... and every decision to keep compatibility was good for market and every case where some part of compatibility was dropped was bad for product doing that. Similarly, Intel tried to develop new architecture, IA-64, because they didn't believed that the i386 architecture, which at that point was superscalar emulation of 32bit extension of 16bit extension of 8bit processor, is too messy to extend. AMD developed their 64bit extension to that mess and market rejoiced, and Intel was forced to buy this extension and work on compatible processors ... and IA-64 remained obscure. Although, based on what I read about the architecture (I mean, the actual documentation of architecture), it was disaster anyway. It was impossible to program without complicated compiler. The inertia of software is enormous. It shouldn't be. Properly written program should be easy to port to new system. But between the fact lot of programs are not written properly and that lot of companies keep their source code and are neither willing to do the port nor allow anyone else to do it, there is huge advantage of any new system if it can run already existing programs. The price we pay for it is much messier design of basically everything - except, of course, niche projects who decided for clean design ... and remain obscure. It's not just Microsoft: The GNU kernel is still not in shape to compete with Linux, BECAUSE it was programmed based on theoretically good design theories, while Linux is mostly monolithic.

To be fair, they did a good job porting BASIC to micros, and deserve some legitimate credit for that. Their extensions for graphics and such were phenomenally useful. Had the Microsofties given credit where credit was due, I wouldn't have a complaint. Their reasoning was probably, "If we admit they had something to do with our product we may end up owing them money." Well, they probably would. Also, I don't have personal experience with how that BASIC worked. I know that there isn't much credit to be given for DOS, with possible exception of marketing. It's not good code - it has low maintainability and hardcoded assumptions, which was later proved when IBM was forced to do a hardware workaround for software problem when 80286 started appearing, not speaking about lot of less visible cases. ... hmmm ... although, reading the details, probably the authors of CP/M are to blame ... Freeman's Commentary adds: Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s theorem. To wit: Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game. If you can quit the game and keep knowing that you have quit the game, then Mysticism is true. Exactly. If Mysticism is not true, they you can't quit the game, because there wouldn't be any "you" after you quit. Which also explains why most people consider it a tragedy.

I see your point there, but she does seem like she is feeling more guilty than she needs to and both Elliot and Tedd are trying to make her see that. I know this could be a hard row to hoe, but hopefully Sarah isn't going to be stuck in a guilt trip of her own making. The point is that logical arguments may not work. Maybe. ... that's probably not going to be THAT soon.

It's not about wanting. She just feels that way. Remember Love? It's a feeling you get, not conscious decision.

What he did with QDOS also wasn't nice, and Tim Paterson didn't exactly became famous ... however, he himself used CP/M-80 manual ... (I would believe Wikipedia when it says that Kemény is dead.) Yes, that's the question. Kurtz and Kemény helped our civilization. Bill Gates only helped himself, to gigantic amount of money. But which one played Life the way they should?

This is PROBABLY not relevant to most users of this forum. While there are still people who hunt or work in agriculture, even they usually get most of their food the current standard way: by buying it in supermarket. And social interaction doesn't need to be cooperative. People who live self-sufficiently off-the-grid as hermits are rarely considered "winners". They might see it differently themselves, sure. The real example of PvP is not hermit. It's person who maximizes their profit, mostly at the expense of other people. Can be business owner, politician, but even actor ... important thing is they are rich. Lot of people consider them "winners", even if they also see it as a problem which needs to be solved. Meanwhile, the example of cooperative person is scientist who is making progress for our whole civilization. Lot of people also consider famous scientist "winners", although many of them didn't really get rich. Of course, it's not just scientists, but in science the progress is usually easiest to see. Now, obviously, what lot of people think is not really good measure ... but it IS measure. Maybe the real "winners" are people who are most popular. Genetically speaking, the winners are people with most descendants. This is rarely considered correct answer today ... possibly because it's hard to measure, as just having enough kids don't say much. Also, almost all people considers humans as species winners. That might not be correct by itself, there is definitely species with more members, species inhabiting more of earth ... but if we make the assumptions and look at that, we must note that it was not our genetic which got us that position. It was our technology, our civilization. Maybe the winners are not the ones who spread their genetic material most, maybe the winners are the ones who spread their IDEAS most. This is different from the popularity, as lot of popular people won't spread any ideas and lot of popular ideas don't have known author. But all of that might not be relevant. In lot of games, the real goal is not winning. It's to have fun. Even Life can be played that way. So, what it is? When can we say that we are playing Life well? When can we say we lost? Like, obviously, there is the death ... but, so far everyone died. Some died earlier, some later, but it's not obvious that the ones who lived longest played better. Practically NONE of mentioned criteria of winning consider length of life significant. Not only lot of most popular actors and musicians died young, it is often said that dying young is NECESSARY for actors and musicians to get real popularity. On the other hand, obviously, it's generally considered bad to leave unfinished work. And, well, some people are very unlikely to finish their work before death even if they would live forever. As I said, very complicated game.

I mean more along the lines of cheating for wealth and power. Which brings two important questions: First, is wealth and power really between the objectives of the game? Lot of famous people don't think so ... Second, is that really cheating or is the game supposed to be played like this? Remember that it's not cheating just because you don't like the way someone plays ... (There is related question: is Life supposed to be cooperative game or is it mostly PvP?) Note that Ginsberg's Theorem states: You can't win. You can't break even. You can't even quit the game. Freeman's Commentary adds: Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s theorem. To wit: Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.

The rules seem to keep changing as you level up, and there are a lot of cheaters too. Are they? Hard to say if you don't know what the rules are. (Funny how this answers BOTH your sentences. The gravity seems constant all the time, and there isn't that much people capable of cheating it, for example ... ) Oh, and another hard bit: It's not clear what is the main objective of the game. Granted, the same is true for Minecraft for example ... but lot of people don't like it there either.

My later post mentions that it's possible she said or thought something similar to what Elliot said when he first saw Tedd as a girl. Now that I think of it, I don't think Elliot's actually apologized to Tedd for that either, Grace brought it up in Sister 3 but Elliot's reaction to that was to show off the Mall form and ask Tedd to get it scanned. It's seems like Elliot's more of an "actions speak louder than words" type though which is evident by Tedd's reaction to Elliot transforming at the party, I imagine the talk Elliot had with Tedd at school helped a lot too. Well, extremely-after-the-fact-apologies are overrated. If something is fresh, it makes sense to apologize, but if it happened long ago then the harm of reminding it when trying to apologize might be worse than not talking about it at all, if you have some other way to show you don't feel that way anymore. It would be different if Tedd mentioned it to Elliot, but not when Grace did. Even Sarah is going the middle way of not apologizing for something specific but just for her attitude in general.

https://www.egscomics.com/comic/party-147 Come to the narration side, Dan, we have quicker transitions So THIS is what Sarah was regretting. I still thing that "having fun with transformation with Elliot" would work as well. And that first frame, I'm not sure what Grace OR Nanase are doing.

I attended a University, Penn State main campus, with as many students as there were people in the town. This is in a fairly isolated area in central Pennsylvania. There was much competition for jobs. The number of students played hell with local elections. Hmmm ... didn't take this into account. I'm not used to so big universities in so small towns.

I think he's playing Life. Oh. That's REALLY hard game. The main problem is you don't get manual for it, and it's not because it's self-explaining.

Well that would make Justin happy, in that it would increase the number of possible straight males he can get to give him the "your hot" look from. ... win/win.

... are you playing fable as a challenge without using the rent system?

Remember that there is overhead for every order and that too small order may not be enough to be safe. I think that dividing the order to more than five places wouldn't really raise her survival chance.