What threats and violent actions are you talking about, specifically? What I said was really a restating of the "Don't tread on me" idea (ie the Gasden flag which the Tea Party uses as one of their symbols). The idea is that you have nothing to fear from them as long as you don't attack them. If you have facts that show that they, as a group, don't actually espouse that philosophy then sharing them would actually add something useful to the conversation.
This kind of statement drives me crazy. Do you really think that the fact that people were allowed to SAY those things caused the holocaust and thus freedom somehow caused the holocaust? The problem, from what I've read, was that the general public in Germany at the time was on board with blaming their problems on the Jews, confiscating their property, placing specific restrictions on them, etc.
A common misconception is that freedom means "I can do whatever I want". That's anarchy, not freedom. Real freedom means being able to do pretty much what you want *as long as you aren't hurting or interfering with anyone else*. That last part is very important. Pre-war germany may have been a very free place for anti-semites but it wasn't a free place for Jews. If they had actually had protections for everyone then it wouldn't have made any difference how much some people spouted off about the Jews. Not that I think that people screaming hatred is a good thing (and you could certainly make the argument that this is a form of harm) but the question that matters is why people didn't reject that crap outright instead of getting on board with it.
Tea party activists showing up armed to political rallies, though, threatening others because it's their 'constitutional right'. Yeah, they are extreme.
I think this is a serious and common misunderstanding of the intentions of those who chose to be armed in public. In my experience with far-right types the gun isn't meant as a threat to anyone. It's more of a statement that they will not submit and be victims if their lives are threatened. The only reason to see that as a threat is if you plan on pulling a gun on them. Others are simply following their belief that the only way to keep our rights is to exercise them.
Is there a single constituent of any of these politicians pushing this Internet Tax bill, in fucking FAVOR of said bill?
There certainly are SOME constituents in favor of it. I've heard support for this kind of thing from brick and mortar store owners/employees who feel like they are at an unfair advantage since they not only have the overhead of a physical storefront but also have to charge sales tax. If people had to pay sales tax either way then they may be more likely to buy locally to avoid shipping charges.
Also, a lot of people in local/state governments probably think it's a good idea as they would ostensibly be getting a lot of the proceeds.
Some countries have/had laws about which drinks can be caffeinated. I think Canada only started allowing non-cola drinks to be caffeinated a few years ago so Canadian Mtn. Dew was non-caffeinated. Not sure if the reason was the same in Australia or not.
Homer Simpson: Now, what do you have to wash that awful taste out of my mouth?
Khlav Kalesh Guy: Mountain Dew or Crab Juice.
Homer Simpson: Blecch! Ew! Sheesh! I'll take a crab juice.
You freedom-loving libertarians need to understand this concept. It really is a flaw among you libertarians to think that you somehow live in a "free" country. No, you do NOT live in a free country. You never have. Try breaking a law, and see how much freedom you have.
This just shows that you don't know what "libertarian" means. It's not the same as anarchist. Libertarians believe in being restrained by laws. The difference between libertarianism and more intrusive governmental philosophies is the KIND of laws it prefers. The kind of laws generally supported by libertarians are ones that protect people from coercion and harm.
You might think that it couldn't happen here but all militaries do their best to cultivate obedience in their troops, not compassion. They used the National Guard to illegally confiscate guns from people after hurricane Katrina. Until that happened I would have said that our troops would never agree to do such a thing on our soil. Forcibly entering peoples' homes without a warrant and illegally confiscating their property is already an act of violence. It's not much of a leap to imagine them doing worse given the right circumstances.
In a home invasion situation, if you need more than 7 shots to take someone down either: A) you are a terrible shot
When people are under intense stress they tend to become far less accurate in their shooting. 7 shots is a lot if you're at a range shooting at paper but it's not that much if you're scared to death and just trying to stay alive. That goes double if you're also being shot at.
more bullets would result in more property damage than safety
Kind of a silly thing to say. The safety of my family is way more important than any property damage to my home.
I have lived and worked in some of the most horrible, manky, poor, deprived, crime-ridden areas of my country. I have had people try to walk into my house past me, and have had physical threats against my person. And not once did I ever think "What this situation really needs is another gun".
You might be surprised to know that most people who own guns don't think of them as the answer to every confrontation, in my experience. In fact, in all of the training I've received has emphasized that bringing a gun into the equation should be the last resort and should only happen if you fear for your life or for the safety of others. Some dude threatening to pummel me wouldn't do it. Some dude trying to rob me wouldn't do it. Even some guy in my house stealing my TV wouldn't make me shoot as long as he didn't look threatening (although I'd certainly keep my gun handy and my family behind me while we wait for the cops). I can't see myself pulling the trigger or even aiming a gun at somebody unless they clearly pose a serious threat.
I can't emphasise it enough, if you point a gun in my direction, accidentally or not, I will do anything up to and including killing you to stop that situation occurring or continuing.
Luckily for the other party, you wouldn't be armed so there's not much chance of you being able to do anything about it if they were pointing a gun at you.
But owning a gun expressly for that purpose will only cause the same reaction from the other party.
I guess if a person owns a gun expressly for the purpose of pointing it at people then, yes, at some point one of those people might be inclined to aim a gun back at them and possibly pull the trigger. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "expressly for that purpose". The "purpose" of self-defense guns is to protect the innocent from serious harm. Like the concealed-carry permit holder in my area that drew his gun to stop a guy who was stabbing random people in the parking lot of a grocery store. The gun-owner held him at gun-point until the police arrived. Personally, I sure am glad he had a gun.
As part of your core library study be sure to get a solid grasp on the Collections framework. It makes dealing with common data structures much easier.
If you don't have a specific need for it I wouldn't put Swing very high on the list. If you do need it, be sure to include some related technologies that are making it easier to deal with. Probably the most frustrating part of Swing (at least with moderately complicated UIs) is dealing with the layout. MigLayout is a modern third-party layout manager that makes the process easier. The emerging JavaFX Script stuff takes a different approach by making all the UI code declarative.
JPA is really nice for setting up your data access layer. The latest versions of Hibernate allow you to use JPA annotations rather than xml config files.
Netbeans and Eclipse are both nice but Netbeans is easier to start with. Eclipse requires some extra steps that don't feel very intuitive at first.
Spring is very very cool.
JMS is very commonly used in projects where messaging is required so I'd probably include that.
I haven't primarily been a JEE developer so others can give better advice on some of those technologies.
The best way to increase your odds of being hired is to have practical experience in your chosen specialty. Degrees are nice but employers love to see proof that you know your stuff (and a college degree does not constitute proof). Choose a project that will showcase your skills and devote as much time to it as you can for a while. If you want a C++ job, write a cool C++ app.
Some people call it paranoia to assume that these kinds of systems will be hacked but I've received 3 notices this year from companies letting me know that my personal information may have been stolen from their system. The company handling the data only has to make one mistake (or the software only has to have one security flaw) for some clever, determined hacker to gain access.
They always talk about making these kinds of things voluntary but it could easily end up feeling compulsory. Primarily, this would appear to make things easier on health care providers. If they figure out that the new system it's cutting their costs they will do everything in their power to force you to use it. They may never be able to make it a requirement for care but they will find ways to apply pressure. It may eventually become the de facto way in which everyone's information is stored. Saying that something is voluntary and thus ok, is a huge cop-out.
I think the point about the general lack of quality in the music marketplace is right on. Most albums have one or two good songs, so you end up paying $7+ per song that you actually want. My urge to pirate music was drastically lessened when online stores (iTunes was the first one I came across but I don't know if they actually pioneered this or not) started allowing me to buy the specific songs I wanted by themselves. I'm happy to pay 99 cents for a good song. If all the songs on the albums were good then I would buy all the songs and they would make that much more money from me.
Slashdot Mirror
Harpoons in space
What threats and violent actions are you talking about, specifically? What I said was really a restating of the "Don't tread on me" idea (ie the Gasden flag which the Tea Party uses as one of their symbols). The idea is that you have nothing to fear from them as long as you don't attack them. If you have facts that show that they, as a group, don't actually espouse that philosophy then sharing them would actually add something useful to the conversation.
This kind of statement drives me crazy. Do you really think that the fact that people were allowed to SAY those things caused the holocaust and thus freedom somehow caused the holocaust? The problem, from what I've read, was that the general public in Germany at the time was on board with blaming their problems on the Jews, confiscating their property, placing specific restrictions on them, etc.
A common misconception is that freedom means "I can do whatever I want". That's anarchy, not freedom. Real freedom means being able to do pretty much what you want *as long as you aren't hurting or interfering with anyone else*. That last part is very important. Pre-war germany may have been a very free place for anti-semites but it wasn't a free place for Jews. If they had actually had protections for everyone then it wouldn't have made any difference how much some people spouted off about the Jews. Not that I think that people screaming hatred is a good thing (and you could certainly make the argument that this is a form of harm) but the question that matters is why people didn't reject that crap outright instead of getting on board with it.
Tea party activists showing up armed to political rallies, though, threatening others because it's their 'constitutional right'. Yeah, they are extreme.
I think this is a serious and common misunderstanding of the intentions of those who chose to be armed in public. In my experience with far-right types the gun isn't meant as a threat to anyone. It's more of a statement that they will not submit and be victims if their lives are threatened. The only reason to see that as a threat is if you plan on pulling a gun on them. Others are simply following their belief that the only way to keep our rights is to exercise them.
Is there a single constituent of any of these politicians pushing this Internet Tax bill, in fucking FAVOR of said bill?
There certainly are SOME constituents in favor of it. I've heard support for this kind of thing from brick and mortar store owners/employees who feel like they are at an unfair advantage since they not only have the overhead of a physical storefront but also have to charge sales tax. If people had to pay sales tax either way then they may be more likely to buy locally to avoid shipping charges.
Also, a lot of people in local/state governments probably think it's a good idea as they would ostensibly be getting a lot of the proceeds.
shows that you're quite pants on the head kind of special poster.
I don't understand this at all but I'm guessing it's a hilarious burn.
Some countries have/had laws about which drinks can be caffeinated. I think Canada only started allowing non-cola drinks to be caffeinated a few years ago so Canadian Mtn. Dew was non-caffeinated. Not sure if the reason was the same in Australia or not.
Homer Simpson: Now, what do you have to wash that awful taste out of my mouth?
Khlav Kalesh Guy: Mountain Dew or Crab Juice.
Homer Simpson: Blecch! Ew! Sheesh! I'll take a crab juice.
You freedom-loving libertarians need to understand this concept. It really is a flaw among you libertarians to think that you somehow live in a "free" country. No, you do NOT live in a free country. You never have. Try breaking a law, and see how much freedom you have.
This just shows that you don't know what "libertarian" means. It's not the same as anarchist. Libertarians believe in being restrained by laws. The difference between libertarianism and more intrusive governmental philosophies is the KIND of laws it prefers. The kind of laws generally supported by libertarians are ones that protect people from coercion and harm.
You might think that it couldn't happen here but all militaries do their best to cultivate obedience in their troops, not compassion. They used the National Guard to illegally confiscate guns from people after hurricane Katrina. Until that happened I would have said that our troops would never agree to do such a thing on our soil. Forcibly entering peoples' homes without a warrant and illegally confiscating their property is already an act of violence. It's not much of a leap to imagine them doing worse given the right circumstances.
In a home invasion situation, if you need more than 7 shots to take someone down either: A) you are a terrible shot
When people are under intense stress they tend to become far less accurate in their shooting. 7 shots is a lot if you're at a range shooting at paper but it's not that much if you're scared to death and just trying to stay alive. That goes double if you're also being shot at.
more bullets would result in more property damage than safety
Kind of a silly thing to say. The safety of my family is way more important than any property damage to my home.
I have lived and worked in some of the most horrible, manky, poor, deprived, crime-ridden areas of my country. I have had people try to walk into my house past me, and have had physical threats against my person. And not once did I ever think "What this situation really needs is another gun".
You might be surprised to know that most people who own guns don't think of them as the answer to every confrontation, in my experience. In fact, in all of the training I've received has emphasized that bringing a gun into the equation should be the last resort and should only happen if you fear for your life or for the safety of others. Some dude threatening to pummel me wouldn't do it. Some dude trying to rob me wouldn't do it. Even some guy in my house stealing my TV wouldn't make me shoot as long as he didn't look threatening (although I'd certainly keep my gun handy and my family behind me while we wait for the cops). I can't see myself pulling the trigger or even aiming a gun at somebody unless they clearly pose a serious threat.
I can't emphasise it enough, if you point a gun in my direction, accidentally or not, I will do anything up to and including killing you to stop that situation occurring or continuing.
Luckily for the other party, you wouldn't be armed so there's not much chance of you being able to do anything about it if they were pointing a gun at you.
But owning a gun expressly for that purpose will only cause the same reaction from the other party.
I guess if a person owns a gun expressly for the purpose of pointing it at people then, yes, at some point one of those people might be inclined to aim a gun back at them and possibly pull the trigger. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "expressly for that purpose". The "purpose" of self-defense guns is to protect the innocent from serious harm. Like the concealed-carry permit holder in my area that drew his gun to stop a guy who was stabbing random people in the parking lot of a grocery store. The gun-owner held him at gun-point until the police arrived. Personally, I sure am glad he had a gun.
er know NOT to eat...
I hope his friends know now to eat frozen foods at his house. "This ice pop has a flavor I can't put my finger on"
Non-violent protest actually relies on the brutality of governmental response to provoke sympathy and garner support for one's cause.
I would hope that a just cause is capable of getting a following by means other than sympathy.
I haven't primarily been a JEE developer so others can give better advice on some of those technologies.
The best way to increase your odds of being hired is to have practical experience in your chosen specialty. Degrees are nice but employers love to see proof that you know your stuff (and a college degree does not constitute proof). Choose a project that will showcase your skills and devote as much time to it as you can for a while. If you want a C++ job, write a cool C++ app.
Some people call it paranoia to assume that these kinds of systems will be hacked but I've received 3 notices this year from companies letting me know that my personal information may have been stolen from their system. The company handling the data only has to make one mistake (or the software only has to have one security flaw) for some clever, determined hacker to gain access. They always talk about making these kinds of things voluntary but it could easily end up feeling compulsory. Primarily, this would appear to make things easier on health care providers. If they figure out that the new system it's cutting their costs they will do everything in their power to force you to use it. They may never be able to make it a requirement for care but they will find ways to apply pressure. It may eventually become the de facto way in which everyone's information is stored. Saying that something is voluntary and thus ok, is a huge cop-out.
I think the point about the general lack of quality in the music marketplace is right on. Most albums have one or two good songs, so you end up paying $7+ per song that you actually want. My urge to pirate music was drastically lessened when online stores (iTunes was the first one I came across but I don't know if they actually pioneered this or not) started allowing me to buy the specific songs I wanted by themselves. I'm happy to pay 99 cents for a good song. If all the songs on the albums were good then I would buy all the songs and they would make that much more money from me.