Thu 19 November 2009 4:44 AM
Understatement
http://www.enricozini.org/2009/debian/using-python-datetime/
"Python's datetime module is one of those bits of code that tends not to do what one would expect them to do."
Yeah.
"Python's datetime module is one of those bits of code that tends not to do what one would expect them to do."
Yeah.
Tue 17 November 2009 1:36 PM
Epicycles
"Long term leap year rules
The accumulated difference between the Gregorian calendar and the vernal equinoctial year amounts to 1 day in about 8,000 years. This suggests that the calendar needs to be improved by another refinement to the leap year rule: perhaps by avoiding leap days in years evenly divisible by 8,000."
No, what it suggests is that you all are trying to impose an order (i.e., a calendar) onto something that does not support your notions.
The accumulated difference between the Gregorian calendar and the vernal equinoctial year amounts to 1 day in about 8,000 years. This suggests that the calendar needs to be improved by another refinement to the leap year rule: perhaps by avoiding leap days in years evenly divisible by 8,000."
No, what it suggests is that you all are trying to impose an order (i.e., a calendar) onto something that does not support your notions.
Thu 12 November 2009 9:03 PM
Visual SourceSafe: error creating user - invalid DOS path
I, too, hate wrong erro messages. Full text of this very heplful blog is included below.
"I hate wrong error messages. I hate messages that lead me in wrong direction. Yesterday I've spend too much time on resolving problem with VSS. I had to add new user to VSS. Pretty simple task.
I've started and bang: "Invalid DOS PATH \\server\vss\project\users"
I've checked path - it's OK.
Double checked. Again the same error.
I've checked my privileges - Full access.
I've made local copy of VSS repository - still the same problem.
It's time to search for solution on Internet.
Few click, and I've got it: no template.ini file in \\server\vss\project\users catalog.
So, I've copied ss.ini of one user to template.ini, removed unneeded lines, and task completed.
Full description of solution
Whenever you are programming, please, make sure that error messages are meaningful to users. Try to give as many details as possible, it will help to solve problem. "
"I hate wrong error messages. I hate messages that lead me in wrong direction. Yesterday I've spend too much time on resolving problem with VSS. I had to add new user to VSS. Pretty simple task.
I've started and bang: "Invalid DOS PATH \\server\vss\project\users"
I've checked path - it's OK.
Double checked. Again the same error.
I've checked my privileges - Full access.
I've made local copy of VSS repository - still the same problem.
It's time to search for solution on Internet.
Few click, and I've got it: no template.ini file in \\server\vss\project\users catalog.
So, I've copied ss.ini of one user to template.ini, removed unneeded lines, and task completed.
Full description of solution
Whenever you are programming, please, make sure that error messages are meaningful to users. Try to give as many details as possible, it will help to solve problem. "
Sat 7 November 2009 5:49 AM
Humour
This comment from R was a reply to a facebook status update by D about how sick she is:
"I've been praying for you! What can I do to help?"
I had to laugh. No, really, I had to.
"I've been praying for you! What can I do to help?"
I had to laugh. No, really, I had to.
Tue 3 November 2009 4:23 AM
Philosophical Poop
I've started reading Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" and I'm having a hard time getting into it. The first several chapters are devoted to a discussion of determinism. He's started out "unpacking" the concept of determinism and how that relates to "inevitability", presumably so he can shoehorn in "free" will (scare quotes of disparagement are mine) at some point down the line.
The problem I'm having is that Dennett has defined determinism as "at any point in time there is one possible future". It's a well known fact (to anyone that has read a science book published after 1925) that this concept of determinism has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe we happen to be living in. As such, I don't see the point of discussing this determinism. I suspect that Dennett has done this on purpose so that he can construct a straw man that he can beat down and (as I mentioned above) shoehorn in "free" will at some point down the line. We know that at any given point in time on the quantum level there are any number of possible futures and that our familiar concept of cause-effect (much like our intuitive concept that matter is hard) is a statistical phenomenon that results from the averaging out of numerous indeterminate quantum events.
I still hold to the concept of determinism, but I view it slightly differently than Dennett. As I see it, determinism has nothing to do with the future and everything to do with the past. We can call a universe deterministic if all events at some time T are the result of naturally occurring, antecedent events at time T - 1. In other words, natural events have natural precursors - so god isn't coming down and sticking his fingers in shit between time frames. So, we can observe nature and see it behaving in reliable ways and consequently formulate theories even though at a quantum level the universe is "playing dice". However, it feels like there is a hole in my reasoning and I can't tell if my view of determinism is some wonky faith-based thing that I cling to because I don't like what mystics have to say about indeterminant systems.
The problem I'm having is that Dennett has defined determinism as "at any point in time there is one possible future". It's a well known fact (to anyone that has read a science book published after 1925) that this concept of determinism has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe we happen to be living in. As such, I don't see the point of discussing this determinism. I suspect that Dennett has done this on purpose so that he can construct a straw man that he can beat down and (as I mentioned above) shoehorn in "free" will at some point down the line. We know that at any given point in time on the quantum level there are any number of possible futures and that our familiar concept of cause-effect (much like our intuitive concept that matter is hard) is a statistical phenomenon that results from the averaging out of numerous indeterminate quantum events.
I still hold to the concept of determinism, but I view it slightly differently than Dennett. As I see it, determinism has nothing to do with the future and everything to do with the past. We can call a universe deterministic if all events at some time T are the result of naturally occurring, antecedent events at time T - 1. In other words, natural events have natural precursors - so god isn't coming down and sticking his fingers in shit between time frames. So, we can observe nature and see it behaving in reliable ways and consequently formulate theories even though at a quantum level the universe is "playing dice". However, it feels like there is a hole in my reasoning and I can't tell if my view of determinism is some wonky faith-based thing that I cling to because I don't like what mystics have to say about indeterminant systems.
Sidebar
