I think that we need to scrutinize election rules under the same constitutional lens we're using for gun laws.
The fundamental problem with that approach is that these aren't Constitutional rules. They're PARTY rules. And the parties can make damned near any rule they want, because it's their party. If you want to run under the banner of that party, then they call the shots.
George Washington warned about party shenanigans in his Second Farewell Address. Starting about where it says "[Page 11]".
Unusual weather in the Phillipines this year is generally due to El Nino, which is a weather phenomenon, not climate. However, tropical storms are an exception and are unpredictable any great time in advance.
The current status of the Phillipines, due to the El Nino, is drought, not wetness. Absent said tropical storm, that is.
"Begin...End" may be ancient, but a lot of languages, including new languages, still use it for good reasons.
If you want to make comparisons, a lot of people can't stand Python's "significant white space". And good reasons for that, too: why should the spacing of your code be important to the code? Using your own reasoning: that's ancient. It went out of style with FORTRAN.
The point made in the summary is stupid, so it is not effective shilling anyway.
Besides, OP is wrong anyway. It compares the "magic" of a BASIC print statement with two scripts that do something much more complex. That's dishonest.
In fact, the basic Ruby print statement is the simplest of all three:
Of course he cites GISTEMP. Never the satellite data or less-heavily-adjusted temperature series.
Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said:
I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself.
And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications.
You cited one person's opinion about that. But for the vast majority of papers on AGW which make use of Global Circulation Models, faster warming of the mid-to-upper troposphere is an implicit assumption because most GCMs make that assumption. You cite papers that made use of these GCMs all the time, yet now you claim they are based on false assumptions? Well, gee, there's a surprise: you contradicted yourself again.
As I have told you many times before, I will not discuss Twitter comments with you here on Slashdot. If you had something to say about it, you should have said it on Twitter.
The rest is more of the same. You are very tiresome and by now utterly boring.
People with dimensia normally dont have a lot of social interactions precisely because they are hard to communicate with. Does social interactions actually help, or do people not want to be around people who's faculties are going?
"Dimensia"? Is that someone who was hit over the head with a 2 x 4?
This experiment has been done a hundred different ways. I admit that I haven't read TFA yet, but I am interested to see how (or whether) it differs from those others.
In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?
You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers?
For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science?
You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get.
Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper
Good! If that's true, then we must both agree that vertical windshear will tend to hamper the formation and intensity of hurricanes, should CO2-based warming show to be strong. Because after all, that's what that opinion said.
Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."
Holy crap, you can be blind to your own hypocrisy sometimes. He ALSO says in the same few paragraphs that AGW models require faster warming of the troposphere than of the surface... which you admit is not happening, and which have tried to claim is not important.
You aren't going to get it both ways, man. On either point. Any of the 4 ways you go, you have contradicted yourself. As usual.
Can't and won't are indistinguishable, especially from a distance. Posterity will see a homophobe/transphobe who couldn't/wouldn't admit that comment seethed with hatred and fear of homosexuals.
Can't and won't are distinguishable by motivation. Your motivation, for example, for writing what people who know me know to be complete bullshit.
You won't goad me into making a statement by insulting me or even (as you did elsewhere) my family. You don't get to demand I make a statement, and claim I said, wrote, or meant something when in fact I did nothing of the sort.
Again, that's called libel.
I'm sure you're having fun right now. I am also sure you wouldn't think it's so funny to be served with a summons. No "threat". Just something to think about.
If you don't deny publicly saying your father was a "pretty serious bigot and gay-basher" then you might want to reconsider accusing others of defaming you using their impressions when they're actually quoting your impressions.
There you go again. Trying to insist that I say something (anything) upon demand.
Well guess what, asshole? I'm not your slave, and I am perfectly happy to neither confirm or deny. I wrote what I wrote when I wrote it. In context. I have no obligation to repeat it or affirm it or deny it on your schedule.
Get lost. You weren't quoting my impressions, you quoted your own old (even then out of context) comments about something I had stated at yet another time.
You are being completely unreasonable and ridiculous. I feel I have to say that because you seem to have a problem recognizing the bizarre outrageousness of your own actions.
Please also note that because it was low confidence doesn't mean they say it can't happen, retard.
I did not claim it did mean that, "retard". Talk about misinterpretation.
And as for Chris Landsea, he wrote this a year AFTER the citation given above:
Hurricanes are natural heat engines. They extract energy from the moist, warm air over the tropical and subtropical oceans, liberate this energy in the process of forming clouds and rainfall, but lose most of this energy in the cold exhaust of the cyclone in the upper part (~8 mi, or ~12 km) of the atmosphere. A very small percentage (less than 1%)5 of this released energy is used to warm the air within the hurricane, drop the air's density and pressure, and cause the swirling winds to spin faster and faster.
It's also important to point out that ocean temperatures are not the only factor that is crucial in knowing which disturbances will develop into a tropical storm and which systems will intensify to become extremely strong hurricanes. Other physical "ingredients" in the hurricane "recipe" include moist air and numerous thunderstorms, weak vertical wind shear (the difference in winds near the ocean versus the upper part of the atmosphere), and a triggering disturbance (in the Atlantic this is often from an African easterly wave in the atmosphere). Any manmade alterations to the air's moisture, thunderstorm activity, vertical shear, and originating disturbances may be as or even more important that changes to the ocean temperatures themselves. All climate models predict that for every degree of warming at the ocean that the air temperature aloft will warm around twice as much. This is important because if global warming only affected the earth's surface, then there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into. But, instead, warming the upper atmosphere more than the surface along with some additional moisture near the ocean means that the energy available for hurricanes to access increases by just a slight amount. Moreover, the vertical wind shear is also supposed to increase, making it more difficult (not easier) for hurricanes to form and intensify.
Give me a break, and stop talking out your ass. It gets really tiresome. Not just to me, but to others too.
The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?
How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same?
Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. And we know very well now that the models are severely flawed.
There are papers on both sides of the issue, but of course you only want to present those on your side, as always.
Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923:
No, he didn't. He estimated them using proxies. He didn't "measure" them at all.
I have no more to say about it to you. It isn't worth my time.
I just quoted your impressions. Do you deny publicly saying your father was a "pretty serious bigot and gay-basher"?
No, you did A LOT more than "just" that. As I wrote above: congratulations. I didn't think even you were capable of committing assholery as low as you have demonstrated today.
Maybe that's why Jane hears voices about sexual orientation. Or maybe Jane's father was a gay-bashing bigot, and Jane's apple just landed under the bigot tree.
Pure fantasy. You quote yourself as though it were something I wrote (it wasn't). But you sure go out of your way to make it look as though I did... knowing that most people will never follow your links.
And your attempts to further defame me using your impressions of dead members of my family you never knew, is a particularly low-life thing to do, even for you. Congratulations. You found the bottom, and just kept digging.
This one's going in my libel evidence file. Which is getting rather bulky by now.
And you still can't admit that comment seethed with hatred and fear of homosexuals.
It has nothing to do with "can't". It has to do with "won't". I WON'T be goaded or harassed by you into doing ANYTHING. Period. I will comment about things where and when *I* choose, and you have no say in the matter.
However, I will take this opportunity to mention that you have publicly misrepresented me and my motivations yet again.
I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.
Thanks for openly admitting (again) who you are. That helps.
But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.
Nothing of the sort happened, as you are actually fully aware, and your implication that it might have is a deliberate attempt at defamation. Again.
You really don't seem to know when to quit. You seem to have a very strange blind spot.
Did you even read the summary? It's clear that this is being asked as part of a severance contract, which they have no obligation to sign.
Indeed I did read it and understand it.
And yes, there are one sided contracts. That's perfectly legal. We can make a contract where you agree to do me something for nothing, for credit, for 10c, and all of that is legal as long as it isn't explicitly illegal. I really have no idea why you think a one sided contract, which is extremely common, is for some reason unenforceable.
They're not "extremely common", and they're unenforceable because unless there is consideration on both sides, it doesn't meet the legal definition of "contract". A contract is a voluntary agreement between two parties for their mutual benefit... not just the benefit of one party.
Here's an example: I agree to pay you $10 if you agree to not mow your lawn before 8:00 am on Sundays. There is consideration on both sides, because his NOT mowing his lawn at the agreed time is a benefit to you... which you negotiated. That's not a one-sided contract.
But now let's say we both sign a "contract" saying you will pay me $100. Period. Nothing else, no expected behavior from or by either party, except the handing over of the $100. That's not a "contract", and it's not enforceable, because there isn't consideration on both sides. If something (pretty much anything) is expected from me for that $100, then it's a contract. Otherwise not.
A contract selling me your house for $1.00 is technically legal... though a judge might well wonder if there was some coercion going on somewhere.
And to be clear: sure, a one-sided "contract" is perfectly legal. Just not enforceable. Again, technically it's not even a "contract" at all.
The only way a one sided contract is unenforceable is if it's an abuse of power. If someone holds all the cards and the other person has little choice but to accept a shitty deal...those types of contracts tend to be unenforceable.
No... that's a "contract of adhesion", as I mentioned earlier. They might be enforceable -- barely -- but a judge is compelled to look askance at them. A good example is your "contract" with your cable company. The cable company pretty much has all the power, and often, the terms are not negotiable by you. At best, that's really pushing the limits of what is meant by "contract".
If there is actual coercion, it's not voluntary and so is not an enforceable contract. If it's not negotiable, again in a sense it's not really "voluntary" and at best it's a contract of adhesion.
But a wholly one-sided "agreement"? Not only do they almost never exist (each party almost always expects something from the other), they really aren't enforceable. There must be consideration of some kind, no matter what kind, or how small. Again, that's the very definition of "contract".
But you need to do this in many situations just to reduce code size or efficiency. STL is bloatware, it won't fit on many embedded systems. Anyone can and should be able to write a simple linked list or doubly linked list.
I agree with you. But the point was: usually when using modern high-level languages (as opposed to embedded systems) you're wasting your time. Sure, you ought to know how.
But it's true, if your job is very high level code, such as some web app stuff, then don't write your own data structures without a good reason. But you should know what they do so that you know how to use them efficiently (ie, knowing when to use a list versus an high level array versus a primitive array, even though they're interchangeable in many cases).
Yes, unless I am mistaken this was the context of the original quote. But again I agree that you should have the theory and experience to do it if/when necessary.
Some people would think that comment seethed with fear and hatred of homosexuals. In fact, some people would think that comment was such a quintessential example of homophobia that it must be a deliberate troll. Not Jane, though. Jane didn't object to that comment, but did object to characterizing it as homophobia. What about you, SupplyMission? Do you also stand with the "gal" named "Jane Q. Public" regarding the "lack" of homophobia in that comment?
Once again, you make far too many assumptions about my motivations based on no evidence.
The fact that I did not comment abut what GP had said says nothing about whether I endorsed it or despised it. I simply chose -- for reasons wholly my own, which you have no clue about -- to not comment about it. Your presumptions about why are entirely your own... and from what you implied, they're quite wrong.
Once again: get stuffed and stop misrepresenting me in public. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and your personal attacks add nothing to the conversation.
Once again, your comment has been reported for harassment.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that we need to scrutinize election rules under the same constitutional lens we're using for gun laws.
The fundamental problem with that approach is that these aren't Constitutional rules. They're PARTY rules. And the parties can make damned near any rule they want, because it's their party. If you want to run under the banner of that party, then they call the shots.
George Washington warned about party shenanigans in his Second Farewell Address. Starting about where it says "[Page 11]".
Unusual weather in the Phillipines this year is generally due to El Nino, which is a weather phenomenon, not climate. However, tropical storms are an exception and are unpredictable any great time in advance.
The current status of the Phillipines, due to the El Nino, is drought, not wetness. Absent said tropical storm, that is.
Also, warmer weather is expected to weaken cyclonic activity, not make it stronger. Until about the end of the century, anyway.
The upshot is: you don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about.
Micro SD AND Truecrypt.
"Begin...End" may be ancient, but a lot of languages, including new languages, still use it for good reasons.
If you want to make comparisons, a lot of people can't stand Python's "significant white space". And good reasons for that, too: why should the spacing of your code be important to the code? Using your own reasoning: that's ancient. It went out of style with FORTRAN.
The point made in the summary is stupid, so it is not effective shilling anyway.
Besides, OP is wrong anyway. It compares the "magic" of a BASIC print statement with two scripts that do something much more complex. That's dishonest.
In fact, the basic Ruby print statement is the simplest of all three:
puts "Hello World!"
Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said:
I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself.
And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications.
You cited one person's opinion about that. But for the vast majority of papers on AGW which make use of Global Circulation Models, faster warming of the mid-to-upper troposphere is an implicit assumption because most GCMs make that assumption. You cite papers that made use of these GCMs all the time, yet now you claim they are based on false assumptions? Well, gee, there's a surprise: you contradicted yourself again.
As I have told you many times before, I will not discuss Twitter comments with you here on Slashdot. If you had something to say about it, you should have said it on Twitter.
The rest is more of the same. You are very tiresome and by now utterly boring.
Hahaha. You could always challenge me to an IQ contest. As long as you pay for it and it fits my schedule, I'm game.
A blimp is a powered craft. An aerostat is a tethered balloon.
If it were a blimp -- even an unmanned blimp -- and it had fuel, they could just drive it back home.
We've been doing maglev for quite a while now
We've been doing THIS for quite a while now. This thing was first announced and a demo video released months ago. It's old news.
People with dimensia normally dont have a lot of social interactions precisely because they are hard to communicate with. Does social interactions actually help, or do people not want to be around people who's faculties are going?
"Dimensia"? Is that someone who was hit over the head with a 2 x 4?
More seriously:
This experiment has been done a hundred different ways. I admit that I haven't read TFA yet, but I am interested to see how (or whether) it differs from those others.
In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?
You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers?
For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science?
You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get.
Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper
Good! If that's true, then we must both agree that vertical windshear will tend to hamper the formation and intensity of hurricanes, should CO2-based warming show to be strong. Because after all, that's what that opinion said.
Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."
Holy crap, you can be blind to your own hypocrisy sometimes. He ALSO says in the same few paragraphs that AGW models require faster warming of the troposphere than of the surface... which you admit is not happening, and which have tried to claim is not important.
You aren't going to get it both ways, man. On either point. Any of the 4 ways you go, you have contradicted yourself. As usual.
"What a maroon", as Bugs Bunny so famously said.
Can't and won't are indistinguishable, especially from a distance. Posterity will see a homophobe/transphobe who couldn't/wouldn't admit that comment seethed with hatred and fear of homosexuals.
Can't and won't are distinguishable by motivation. Your motivation, for example, for writing what people who know me know to be complete bullshit.
You won't goad me into making a statement by insulting me or even (as you did elsewhere) my family. You don't get to demand I make a statement, and claim I said, wrote, or meant something when in fact I did nothing of the sort.
Again, that's called libel.
I'm sure you're having fun right now. I am also sure you wouldn't think it's so funny to be served with a summons. No "threat". Just something to think about.
Only a homophobe/transphobe like Lonny's father would interpret an offer of support as a deliberate attempt at defamation.
Explain what reasonable motivation you could possibly have for writing this piece of fictional trash, if not defamation not just of me, but my family.
I am far from a stupid person, and the only rational explanations I see for your behavior all equate to maliciousness.
You continue to amaze me with your brazenness.
If you don't deny publicly saying your father was a "pretty serious bigot and gay-basher" then you might want to reconsider accusing others of defaming you using their impressions when they're actually quoting your impressions.
There you go again. Trying to insist that I say something (anything) upon demand.
Well guess what, asshole? I'm not your slave, and I am perfectly happy to neither confirm or deny. I wrote what I wrote when I wrote it. In context. I have no obligation to repeat it or affirm it or deny it on your schedule.
Get lost. You weren't quoting my impressions, you quoted your own old (even then out of context) comments about something I had stated at yet another time.
You are being completely unreasonable and ridiculous. I feel I have to say that because you seem to have a problem recognizing the bizarre outrageousness of your own actions.
Please also note that because it was low confidence doesn't mean they say it can't happen, retard.
I did not claim it did mean that, "retard". Talk about misinterpretation.
And as for Chris Landsea, he wrote this a year AFTER the citation given above:
Hurricanes are natural heat engines. They extract energy from the moist, warm air over the tropical and subtropical oceans, liberate this energy in the process of forming clouds and rainfall, but lose most of this energy in the cold exhaust of the cyclone in the upper part (~8 mi, or ~12 km) of the atmosphere. A very small percentage (less than 1%)5 of this released energy is used to warm the air within the hurricane, drop the air's density and pressure, and cause the swirling winds to spin faster and faster.
It's also important to point out that ocean temperatures are not the only factor that is crucial in knowing which disturbances will develop into a tropical storm and which systems will intensify to become extremely strong hurricanes. Other physical "ingredients" in the hurricane "recipe" include moist air and numerous thunderstorms, weak vertical wind shear (the difference in winds near the ocean versus the upper part of the atmosphere), and a triggering disturbance (in the Atlantic this is often from an African easterly wave in the atmosphere). Any manmade alterations to the air's moisture, thunderstorm activity, vertical shear, and originating disturbances may be as or even more important that changes to the ocean temperatures themselves. All climate models predict that for every degree of warming at the ocean that the air temperature aloft will warm around twice as much. This is important because if global warming only affected the earth's surface, then there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into. But, instead, warming the upper atmosphere more than the surface along with some additional moisture near the ocean means that the energy available for hurricanes to access increases by just a slight amount. Moreover, the vertical wind shear is also supposed to increase, making it more difficult (not easier) for hurricanes to form and intensify.
Give me a break, and stop talking out your ass. It gets really tiresome. Not just to me, but to others too.
So you deny publicly saying your father was a "pretty serious bigot and gay-basher".
Again, I wrote nothing of the sort. You just tried to put words in my mouth again. That's called "libel".
It is also evident that you did not understand why I wrote the comment above. You thought I meant it about something else. Talk about clueless.
The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?
How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same?
Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. And we know very well now that the models are severely flawed.
There are papers on both sides of the issue, but of course you only want to present those on your side, as always.
Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923:
No, he didn't. He estimated them using proxies. He didn't "measure" them at all.
I have no more to say about it to you. It isn't worth my time.
I just quoted your impressions. Do you deny publicly saying your father was a "pretty serious bigot and gay-basher"?
No, you did A LOT more than "just" that. As I wrote above: congratulations. I didn't think even you were capable of committing assholery as low as you have demonstrated today.
Maybe that's why Jane hears voices about sexual orientation. Or maybe Jane's father was a gay-bashing bigot, and Jane's apple just landed under the bigot tree.
Pure fantasy. You quote yourself as though it were something I wrote (it wasn't). But you sure go out of your way to make it look as though I did... knowing that most people will never follow your links.
And your attempts to further defame me using your impressions of dead members of my family you never knew, is a particularly low-life thing to do, even for you. Congratulations. You found the bottom, and just kept digging.
This one's going in my libel evidence file. Which is getting rather bulky by now.
And you still can't admit that comment seethed with hatred and fear of homosexuals.
It has nothing to do with "can't". It has to do with "won't". I WON'T be goaded or harassed by you into doing ANYTHING. Period. I will comment about things where and when *I* choose, and you have no say in the matter.
However, I will take this opportunity to mention that you have publicly misrepresented me and my motivations yet again.
What's your problem, man?
I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.
Thanks for openly admitting (again) who you are. That helps.
But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.
Nothing of the sort happened, as you are actually fully aware, and your implication that it might have is a deliberate attempt at defamation. Again.
You really don't seem to know when to quit. You seem to have a very strange blind spot.
You have been reported. Again.
Did you even read the summary? It's clear that this is being asked as part of a severance contract, which they have no obligation to sign.
Indeed I did read it and understand it.
And yes, there are one sided contracts. That's perfectly legal. We can make a contract where you agree to do me something for nothing, for credit, for 10c, and all of that is legal as long as it isn't explicitly illegal. I really have no idea why you think a one sided contract, which is extremely common, is for some reason unenforceable.
They're not "extremely common", and they're unenforceable because unless there is consideration on both sides, it doesn't meet the legal definition of "contract". A contract is a voluntary agreement between two parties for their mutual benefit... not just the benefit of one party.
Here's an example: I agree to pay you $10 if you agree to not mow your lawn before 8:00 am on Sundays. There is consideration on both sides, because his NOT mowing his lawn at the agreed time is a benefit to you... which you negotiated. That's not a one-sided contract.
But now let's say we both sign a "contract" saying you will pay me $100. Period. Nothing else, no expected behavior from or by either party, except the handing over of the $100. That's not a "contract", and it's not enforceable, because there isn't consideration on both sides. If something (pretty much anything) is expected from me for that $100, then it's a contract. Otherwise not.
A contract selling me your house for $1.00 is technically legal... though a judge might well wonder if there was some coercion going on somewhere.
And to be clear: sure, a one-sided "contract" is perfectly legal. Just not enforceable. Again, technically it's not even a "contract" at all.
The only way a one sided contract is unenforceable is if it's an abuse of power. If someone holds all the cards and the other person has little choice but to accept a shitty deal...those types of contracts tend to be unenforceable.
No... that's a "contract of adhesion", as I mentioned earlier. They might be enforceable -- barely -- but a judge is compelled to look askance at them. A good example is your "contract" with your cable company. The cable company pretty much has all the power, and often, the terms are not negotiable by you. At best, that's really pushing the limits of what is meant by "contract".
If there is actual coercion, it's not voluntary and so is not an enforceable contract. If it's not negotiable, again in a sense it's not really "voluntary" and at best it's a contract of adhesion.
But a wholly one-sided "agreement"? Not only do they almost never exist (each party almost always expects something from the other), they really aren't enforceable. There must be consideration of some kind, no matter what kind, or how small. Again, that's the very definition of "contract".
But you need to do this in many situations just to reduce code size or efficiency. STL is bloatware, it won't fit on many embedded systems. Anyone can and should be able to write a simple linked list or doubly linked list.
I agree with you. But the point was: usually when using modern high-level languages (as opposed to embedded systems) you're wasting your time. Sure, you ought to know how.
But it's true, if your job is very high level code, such as some web app stuff, then don't write your own data structures without a good reason. But you should know what they do so that you know how to use them efficiently (ie, knowing when to use a list versus an high level array versus a primitive array, even though they're interchangeable in many cases).
Yes, unless I am mistaken this was the context of the original quote. But again I agree that you should have the theory and experience to do it if/when necessary.
Some people would think that comment seethed with fear and hatred of homosexuals. In fact, some people would think that comment was such a quintessential example of homophobia that it must be a deliberate troll. Not Jane, though. Jane didn't object to that comment, but did object to characterizing it as homophobia. What about you, SupplyMission? Do you also stand with the "gal" named "Jane Q. Public" regarding the "lack" of homophobia in that comment?
Once again, you make far too many assumptions about my motivations based on no evidence.
The fact that I did not comment abut what GP had said says nothing about whether I endorsed it or despised it. I simply chose -- for reasons wholly my own, which you have no clue about -- to not comment about it. Your presumptions about why are entirely your own... and from what you implied, they're quite wrong.
Once again: get stuffed and stop misrepresenting me in public. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and your personal attacks add nothing to the conversation.
Once again, your comment has been reported for harassment.