|
It's a well-known fact that the vast majority of people can't stand being alone, and need to be in some kind of communication with other people at all times -- hence the overwhelming popularity of mobile phones and social media, and even fora like this one (although I think people come here when they don't want to work, rather than to not be alone).
People generally are a pack of bluddy idiots who don't have enough ideas in their heads to keep them busy for five minutes.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: It's a well-known fact that the vast majority of people can't stand being alone, and need to be in some kind of communication with other people at all times -- hence the overwhelming popularity of mobile phones and social media
Indeed. I don't own a cell phone, I don't have a twitter or facebook account, and I actually prefer being left the f*ck alone for extended periods of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Now the real question is:
What would it look like if more than one person was in the room, and pushing the button would shock at least one of them.
Now is it going to be boredom to drive those people to push the button?!
... probably not!
|
|
|
|
|
That seems like a fun experiment 
|
|
|
|
|
They should have one of those epic trailer soundtracks playing too.
Dundundundun... Two buttons... Dundundundun... Two people... Dundundundun... Will they do the unthinkable?... DUNDUNDUNDUNDUN... Will they survive!? DUUUUUUUUN...
And all the while these people will be staring at each other, sweating like pigs, keeping one eye on the other's button, hands above their own... 
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
LOL.
And that's the thing with psychology experiments anything goes... you tell them the button zaps the other person, but it zaps themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Better yet, keep it to one person in the room, but tell them it would shock the observers 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I did not read the article. But I'm pretty sure that button was red. Interesting buttons usually are. And now, I ask, who in this whole wide world (www) would NOT press a red button????
(Especially if it has some text like: "don't press the button" or "launch" on it).
I'm done here. I'm going to find buttons to press. And I hope I did not push somebody's buttons here.
I won’t not use no double negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
A combination of simple cost benefit analysis and curiosity. Clearly, the shock wouldn't be strong enough to kill you, so why not?
|
|
|
|
|
i will press it, just for curiousing, but not 190 times 
In code we trust !
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you would if they told you the one pressing it most would win? 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
no no, i dont like to give myself an electric shock
In code we trust !
|
|
|
|
|
Nguyen.H.H.Dang wrote: but not 190 times
He was trying to activate Hulk mode. Or kept trying his skills as a electrokinetic. (cue Dilbert comic)
|
|
|
|
|
lol
In code we trust !
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the first button press send him into an muscle spasm leading to the subsequent presses. He just couldn't get the finger away from the damn button earlier. 
The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if in the experiment, the participants had the opportunity before starting the 6 to 15 minutes of "thinking" to press the button to know for themselves that the shock would be administered, or if they were simply told that it would be and they had to take that on faith. I would think the conclusions could be very different depending on the answer.
If participants were simply told, their choice to press the button may be more rooted in a desire to explore the environment and learn for themselves what happens. One could conclude that the experiment results indicate more a repudiation of blind faith in what they've been told than an unwillingness to spend 15 minutes thinking.
On the other hand, if this was accounted for -- say, if the participants could test the button for themselves before beginning the experiment, and knew first-hand the shock that would occur -- then the results are much more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I just started my Open University course on Functional Programming (actually not my first time using a functional language, I looked at some F# about two years ago, but only a little little  ).
The course uses Haskell and the OU provided me with the book Programming in Haskell by Graham Hutton[^].
One of my first throughts when starting: "No wonder functional programming is consise... C# could be a lot more consise too if every function and variable was abbreviated to one to three letters only!"
For example, there's the function 'fst'. What is fst? Had I named my function fst in C# it probably would've been Hall of Shame material.
fst is First and takes the first value of a tuple with two values.
Some function definitions:
fst :: (a, b) -> a
head :: [a] -> a
take :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
zip :: [a] -> [b] -> [(a, b)] Riiiiiiiiight...
That's not to say I'm lookinf forward to learning more about Haskell and functional programming in general
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
My favourite functions are words and unwords.
Not only are they stupid names for functions, they're awfully specific functions that have no business being built-in.
|
|
|
|
|
They aren't even discussed in my course, so I had to look them up (those names aren't very intuitive indeed).
From Hoogle: words breaks a string up into a list of words, which were delimited by white space.
Sounds like myString.Split(' ');
And unwords does the opposite... Nice name for creating one string from a list of strings
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I hate it.
And the widespread adoption of the approach in C# make me cringle. Why write a simple loop when you can litter the code with a load of Funcs in some bloody great 'fluent' expression all over the place. For me, it goes against the golden rule of KISS.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're referring to LINQ I have to disagree. LINQ certainly made life easier for me
And when you're using LINQ to Objects you still just have a load of loops, except they're abstracted away in functions. And they're lazy evaluated, which can be good for performance.
In Haskell everything is lazy evaluated, making it possible to work with infinite lists (something that's not possible in C# I think).
Anyway, I'm willing to give it a chance (despite the weird naming conventions )
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
My programming's always been functional (usually after extensive debugging), so I'll give that one a miss.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Wishing you a belated Happy Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Establishment Day! 香港特別行政區成立紀念日[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Five people are being monitored at a Hungarian hospital after the discovery of the deadly anthrax disease in samples of beef, reports say.
Mmm, illegally slaughtered cows...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
