As to the moronic comment about the car thief, learn the difference between civil and criminal law and then come back, OK?
The car thief could be prosecuted by the state and sent to jail (criminal law). You could also sue him for the damages he caused to your car (civil). Both, neither or only one could happen. OJ Simpson was aquitted on criminal charges, but lost a civil suit, having to pay restitution to the families for causing the deaths. No days in jail.
The judge might read a fact that is disputed, wrong, or even untrue, without knowing that it's untrue. But again, in an adversarial system, the parties are entitled to know what evidence is presented to the trier of fact, and are obligated to make their own cases.
Well, a Supreme Court justice making a ruling on a Wikipedia entry would be bad. But SCOTUS examines the lawers. I believe that during motions, so do regular justices. So, the judge can bring in whatever outside information he wants without any negative effects, because the other side can still respond to it.
In English, "should" can be used to express the subjunctive mood. As such, no citation is needed.
And it makes perfect sense to expect the government to extend the same curtesy to citizens regardless of whether it owns or leases the land. After all, I can invite friends over to an apartment I rent. If the landlord tried to put in my lease that I could not, I would walk out. If a landlord tries to keep citizens away from government, the government should leave.
The thing that I see wrong with your argument is that your acting like each Linux distro is hugely diffrent.
I claimed it was a choice. If it was a meaningless choice between close replacement, that's worse! People have to figure out what the difference is (as you admitted, hard), choose arbitrarily (making them feel dumb) or give up (easy, OS X/Windows already work).
The thing that I see wrong with your argument is that your acting like each Linux distro is hugely diffrent.
Leaving aside all the apps that require one library or the other, Gnome and KDE feel different. My point isn't that apps don't run, it's that my brain has to think more.
yes there is a bit of a chilling effect due to this variation but not nearly to the degree that you seem to be implying.
It keeps me from having a Linux installation. Too many choices, and I have other things to spend brainpower on. If it was a matter of hard-drive space (got plenty), or installation time (where I can read while occassionally pusing a button) I would be done by now.
You can use C++! The user-interface must be programmed with Objective C.
That's a pretty big hurdle... but not insurmountable
Assuming that you just want an OpenGL view where you can throw in your game graphics, you just need to set up an App delegate, a view controller and a view. One of the standard templates gives you everything you need on the objective C side.
Argh, why do I have to look at a templatein Objective C. Presumably, "fill a window with OpenGL" ought to just be a single call to a library written in Objective C.
First, separate your game into model, view, and controller components
It's not that simple. The view is pretty complex in games. The controller has to include networking, file i/o, actually controller input and mapping to a unique internal method.
Physics, AI, and map decoding go in the model so that they're identical across platforms
Nice if true, but it's not. Different chipsets (x64, x86 and PowerPC) all require tweaks to the underlying math libraries to optimize performance. Sometimes those tweaks propogate up.
only part of the view and controller need to be written in Objective-C.
Without knowing exactly the dividing line, I can say that those components are pretty complicated. So why should we have to use Objective-C at all? Why should I have to have some other language anywhere in my build?
XNA on Xbox 360, on the other hand, needs games to be ported to the CLR.
Well, I'm not discrediting things they say based on my statements... I'm saying that they are quite similar. Not all derogatory statements are ad hominems. Saying that you don't have to address a point, or that an arguement is invalid because of the presenter, is a ad hominem.
What I said was a characterization of the two, and how they are the same in most significant ways. This is pertinent, because you claimed to like one and not the other for indeterminable reasons.
Both Reagan and W saw the world in black-and-white, good-vs-evil mentality. They never considered secondary effects. They lacked nuance.
Both Reagan and W wracked up huge debt (see next paragraph), relaxed regulation, and lowered the top tax bracket, giving the rich an incentive to take stupidly risky (one aspect of risk is legality) moves. The result, a stock market collapse near the end of their second term, driven by banks/S+L's.
Reagan and W wracked up huge national debts. From the end of WWII until Reagan, national debt (all numbers in terms of a percentage of GDP) fell under each president. Reagan increased the national debt by 50%. Each Bush increased it by 20%. All other presidents reduced it. I'm sure the bond market loved that.
Reagan and W both, by lacking nuance, tried to bludgeon other countries into doing what they wanted. Surely you have no bone to pick with that.
Reagan and W both ignored vital problems (e.g. AIDS/Katrina) because they predominately affected lower class people.
And finally Reagan and W were both fake cowboys. Reagan played them in movies, and tried to play up that side of his persona. W was born to Northeastern aristocrats, went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, was a member of a secret society, owned a baseball team, and then decided to get a ranch and play dress up.
The CRA had nothing to do with affordable housing. It simply stated that banks could do business in an area or not. If they wanted to accept deposits, they also had to write loans.
Seems like a good plan, aimed at either making big banks be part of a community, or getting out of the way so that another bank could fill that gap.
i prefer to be able to choose default or non-default, i can use anybody else kde without any trouble though.
I work with people... other than some purely cosmetic issues (colors and background images), no one customizes. So I don't have to think to use their computers, or they use mine. At home, I share the computer as well.
What? I've used windows 98 & XP heavily, but sit me in front of a vista machine and I have NO idea which control panel option does what.
That's nice. Alt-F4 still closes windows, clicking on the thin border lets you resize a window, right clicking does X.... etc. Customizing control panel settings takes up less than one hundredth of one percent of my time. That can be hard, as long as the rest is easy.
But with linux almost everything important (network/kernel/daemons) is configured in text files that are the same across most distros, if you don't like that then there are the GUI tools (which do vary by DE/distro).
Opening a website is important. Not having security holes is important. Running some word processing software is important. Those "important" config files are obstacles I have to overcome to do important things.
Is it a bad thing that we have both Gnome and KDE?
Yes.
Freedom is great. However, freedom requires choices. Choices impede adoption. Imagine there was one Linux distro. Well, now to convince people to try it out, they have to partition their drive and set up a dual-boot. Icky, but a well-written setup program can accomidate this. So, let's say you can make a Windows installer that re-partitions the drive, and installs Linux, sets up the dual-boot properly. Now, you can convince people to download and try Linux.
Now, every choice you make means I have to try to research what I want, and every bit of extra time you ask for me to make a choice between two things, I have three options. A, B or screw it.
I don't mind reparitioning and installing a new OS... I did that so I could dualboot 2000 and XP. But I really don't want to have to make tons of little choices. I don't give a shit, but my pride doesn't let me choose arbitarily. Give me one thing that works. I don't want to tinker with the OS.
So, KDE + Gnome slows adoption by quite a bit, which means that fewer people write apps, which has a chilling effect, etc.
I'd further argue that the MS platform is, as the GP said, filled with a ton of little issues that can make working with it not as much as a 'finite learning curve' as you think. Digging to see why some API call is not working correctly because MS wants to obscure it for whatever reason is no fun.
Sure. And as a developer I have to do dig through a heap of inaccurate documentation. I hate it. But my customers (for the reasons I outlined above and many others) use Windows. I create software to make money, so I create software for Windows.
And yes, we try to abstract out the OS, so that we can port it later. But it's never been worth our while to actually do so.
Morphing Linux into a Windows software platform would be a major mistake. You'd still be locking users into one way of doing things. I'm sitting here looking at our developers, all working on Linux. One uses pico, one a text editor another uses Eclipse. We all work differently, even different distros, and all manage to get our work done.
Lokcing users into one way of doing things is a Good Thing(tm). With Windows or OS X, there's a finite learning curve. With Linux, skills are far less portable. In Windows, you can customize it quite a bit, drop in a different shell or what-have-you. But no one does it because an inferior, but uniform, UI is better (I have to use at least 5 computer on any given day, so I would have to customize all of them. But then other people also use 3 of them.)
You're misquoting. It's not a counterexample, it's an exception. And then you're misinterperting. If you see a sign saying parking in lot X is free on Sunday, that exception proves there's a charge the rest of the week. It's not saying you need more than one counter-example. But, if you must have more, George Washington voluntarily stepped down, as did Teddy Roosevelt (also the result of a campaign promise.)
Ad hominum because you cannot refute any of my points? That's pretty pathetic. You cannot even identify any difference, other than Reagan armed Muslim extremists to deal with Communism, and Bush armed a whole new group of people to deal with Reagan's Muslim extremists.
And with an inability to argue, you think your case is STRONGER because you resort to violence.
Let's not forget your assumption that my heros have been assasinated by the right. I'm not sure which one(s) you are refering to? You mean MLK, who used non-violent protest to end aparthid in this country in a relatively quick period of time?
So you routinely believe all Republicans just HAVE to love all Republican presidents? You truly are a dolt. I was registered (R) but voted for Harry Browne (L) in 2000. I haven't liked W since I first heard him open his mouth.
I believe anyone who likes Reagan but not W. is either a liar (Johnny-Come-Lately) or an idiot (15-year-old who only knows what Reagan did by listening to Fox News).
They're pretty much clones of one another, policy-wise. I suppose the one exception is that Reagan aided the Taliban et al. to fight Communists, and W. aided Pakistan et al. to fight the Taliban.
Oh, and Reagan was a more articulate mouthpiece.
But no matter which nuance-lacking, economy-wrecking, debt-racheting, foreign-policy bully, indifferent to the needy, fake cowboy you choose, they're the same fraking thing.
In another, they had a prop design guy use (extremely) cheap ingredients to create tantalizing foods. The waiter would convince diners that stale bread was an exotic french import, receiving rave reviews in the process.
They also had at least one customer call them on how horrible the food was. And let's forget that they shot a lot of footage and only showed you the parts they wanted to (like the various asking people on the street obvious trivia questions shows). Definately a biased sample. But mostly they could have been praying on the people's nature not to cause a fuss, and to agree with authority. After all, if I tell you that the bitterness in Merlot is a Good Thing, you might not like it, but want to appear sophisticated to me (the waiter), so you claim to. In other words, people lie, especially when they worry their fears aren't warrented.
And yes a boss ordering a secretary or intern, "Service me or get fired" IS a violation of the law. Even if that never happened, it still needed to be prosecuted to protect the rights of the victim(s).
First, it's not illegal in the sense of prosecutable. It's illegal in the sense of a tort, that is you can sue for damages, but not have the boss arrested. The special prosector had no juristiction to seek evidence for a civil matter, and it was a violation of ethics (and possibly the law) to do so.
Second, it's not inside the federal government... they granted themselves immunity from workplace laws.
Third, "sexual relations" was a fuzzy term. It was argued over by many lawyers, judges, etc.
Fourth, who gives a shit? There was no reason to ask those questions of him, so there was no reason to force, or even expect, him to be truthful. Perjury in a murder trial is serious business. Perjury in a divorce proceeding is very bad. Perjury in a case of jaywalking is hard to get worked up over. Perjury in this case is a non-issue, because this case was always a nonissue. Zero times anything is zero.
IANAL, so if you work for the federal government, molest your secretary, and get in trouble, don't blame me.
By the way I hate them all. I haven't liked any of our presidents since the Ronald Reagan/Bush Senior combo
So, you're a Republican who learned its politically incorrect to like W?
Bush inherited not only a dot-com crash from Clinton , but also the headache of Saddam...
I understand that Saddam was evil, but he wasn't a headache. He was a buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Kuiwet. He scared the Saudis into asking for us to store troops in their country, for which we got paid with low oil prices. He served as a reminder of the US doing things well (in 1991 I mean).
Bush may have inherited an overinflated stock market, but between screwing us again with Regeanomics, and driving up the price of oil by causing instability in, and less dependence on teh US from, oil-producing areas of the Middle East, he fubared the economy but good.
The implication that Clinton was drummed around because he was sleeping around is getting really old. The big issue wasn't the affair. The issue was that the POTUS committed perjury, a felony, in a case in which giving the correct testimony would have been relevant.
Why is committing perjury over getting a blowjob an issue? It's only an issue if you think he impeded some cause of justice, and that only happens if you think being deposed over giving a blowjob is something that is reasonable. The court overreached. The significancy of perjury is directly related to the significance of the issue the perjury occured in conjunction with.
Also, he was a lawyer. He parsed carefully. While it may have been misleading, he never actually lied. Because, as much as people unable to parse nuance may deride it, "is" is a legally dubious word. As such, he claimed to have never committed perjury.
All in all, show the harm of that perjury that in any way outweighted the costs of trying to rectify it?
Even a simple statement like "1+1" is not guaranteed to return an integer, only perhaps to return an object that has all of the methods of an integer (or a value that has all the properties thereof).
We're conflating "how it works" from "the exact representation in memory". In untyped languages, I don't care if it represents it under the hood as an int, a functor needing to be executed (LISP, Scheme, Haskell) or a double (Lua). I care that I can use it as an integer. That it will be outputted with no decimal portion, that it has descreate jumps in usage, etc.
So, you're right in that Hungarian doesn't reflect what's on the metal. But the whole point was to distinguish identical representations on the metal, like loop indicies and scalar multipliers in Lua, both of which have to be represented by a double.
you'll never, under any circumstance, be able to guarantee, in any provable way, that it will hold an integer
If it ever doesn't, the person who wrote that line of code is in trouble.
you have no guarantee that a function or any operation will return a value of any particular type.
Umm... again, Hungarian to the rescue.
Hungarian Notation to imply "type" on named variables in a weak-typed language just give you a false sense of security, because they imply a guarantee that the language is generally incapable of making
System Hungarian was originally used to allow programmers to make guarantees to each other the compiler couldn't (technically) enforce, although it would crash the program at run time. It's not "false" security... it's just not machine verified security.
Slashdot Mirror
The car thief could be prosecuted by the state and sent to jail (criminal law). You could also sue him for the damages he caused to your car (civil). Both, neither or only one could happen. OJ Simpson was aquitted on criminal charges, but lost a civil suit, having to pay restitution to the families for causing the deaths. No days in jail.
Close, but off. Windows uses UTF-16, so it would be 6 bytes. Plus two more for the period.
Pedantic man, away!
Well, a Supreme Court justice making a ruling on a Wikipedia entry would be bad. But SCOTUS examines the lawers. I believe that during motions, so do regular justices. So, the judge can bring in whatever outside information he wants without any negative effects, because the other side can still respond to it.
The lawyer is not getting paid $150/hour. The lawyer is on staff, which means they get a salary.
Hence, they have no financial incentive to do more work.
In English, "should" can be used to express the subjunctive mood. As such, no citation is needed.
And it makes perfect sense to expect the government to extend the same curtesy to citizens regardless of whether it owns or leases the land. After all, I can invite friends over to an apartment I rent. If the landlord tried to put in my lease that I could not, I would walk out. If a landlord tries to keep citizens away from government, the government should leave.
I claimed it was a choice. If it was a meaningless choice between close replacement, that's worse! People have to figure out what the difference is (as you admitted, hard), choose arbitrarily (making them feel dumb) or give up (easy, OS X/Windows already work).
Leaving aside all the apps that require one library or the other, Gnome and KDE feel different. My point isn't that apps don't run, it's that my brain has to think more.
It keeps me from having a Linux installation. Too many choices, and I have other things to spend brainpower on. If it was a matter of hard-drive space (got plenty), or installation time (where I can read while occassionally pusing a button) I would be done by now.
Correct.
That's a pretty big hurdle... but not insurmountable
Argh, why do I have to look at a templatein Objective C. Presumably, "fill a window with OpenGL" ought to just be a single call to a library written in Objective C.
It's not that simple. The view is pretty complex in games. The controller has to include networking, file i/o, actually controller input and mapping to a unique internal method.
Nice if true, but it's not. Different chipsets (x64, x86 and PowerPC) all require tweaks to the underlying math libraries to optimize performance. Sometimes those tweaks propogate up.
Without knowing exactly the dividing line, I can say that those components are pretty complicated. So why should we have to use Objective-C at all? Why should I have to have some other language anywhere in my build?
XNA is optional. Objective-C is manditory.
Well, I'm not discrediting things they say based on my statements... I'm saying that they are quite similar. Not all derogatory statements are ad hominems. Saying that you don't have to address a point, or that an arguement is invalid because of the presenter, is a ad hominem.
What I said was a characterization of the two, and how they are the same in most significant ways. This is pertinent, because you claimed to like one and not the other for indeterminable reasons.
Both Reagan and W saw the world in black-and-white, good-vs-evil mentality. They never considered secondary effects. They lacked nuance.
Both Reagan and W wracked up huge debt (see next paragraph), relaxed regulation, and lowered the top tax bracket, giving the rich an incentive to take stupidly risky (one aspect of risk is legality) moves. The result, a stock market collapse near the end of their second term, driven by banks/S+L's.
Reagan and W wracked up huge national debts. From the end of WWII until Reagan, national debt (all numbers in terms of a percentage of GDP) fell under each president. Reagan increased the national debt by 50%. Each Bush increased it by 20%. All other presidents reduced it. I'm sure the bond market loved that.
Reagan and W both, by lacking nuance, tried to bludgeon other countries into doing what they wanted. Surely you have no bone to pick with that.
Reagan and W both ignored vital problems (e.g. AIDS/Katrina) because they predominately affected lower class people.
And finally Reagan and W were both fake cowboys. Reagan played them in movies, and tried to play up that side of his persona. W was born to Northeastern aristocrats, went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, was a member of a secret society, owned a baseball team, and then decided to get a ranch and play dress up.
And they want all games ported to Objective-C. For fuck's sake Apple, let us use C++ on the iPhone like a good computer company.
The CRA had nothing to do with affordable housing. It simply stated that banks could do business in an area or not. If they wanted to accept deposits, they also had to write loans.
Seems like a good plan, aimed at either making big banks be part of a community, or getting out of the way so that another bank could fill that gap.
I never do
I work with people... other than some purely cosmetic issues (colors and background images), no one customizes. So I don't have to think to use their computers, or they use mine. At home, I share the computer as well.
That's nice. Alt-F4 still closes windows, clicking on the thin border lets you resize a window, right clicking does X.... etc. Customizing control panel settings takes up less than one hundredth of one percent of my time. That can be hard, as long as the rest is easy.
Opening a website is important. Not having security holes is important. Running some word processing software is important. Those "important" config files are obstacles I have to overcome to do important things.
Yes.
Freedom is great. However, freedom requires choices. Choices impede adoption. Imagine there was one Linux distro. Well, now to convince people to try it out, they have to partition their drive and set up a dual-boot. Icky, but a well-written setup program can accomidate this. So, let's say you can make a Windows installer that re-partitions the drive, and installs Linux, sets up the dual-boot properly. Now, you can convince people to download and try Linux.
Now, every choice you make means I have to try to research what I want, and every bit of extra time you ask for me to make a choice between two things, I have three options. A, B or screw it.
I don't mind reparitioning and installing a new OS... I did that so I could dualboot 2000 and XP. But I really don't want to have to make tons of little choices. I don't give a shit, but my pride doesn't let me choose arbitarily. Give me one thing that works. I don't want to tinker with the OS.
So, KDE + Gnome slows adoption by quite a bit, which means that fewer people write apps, which has a chilling effect, etc.
Sure. And as a developer I have to do dig through a heap of inaccurate documentation. I hate it. But my customers (for the reasons I outlined above and many others) use Windows. I create software to make money, so I create software for Windows.
And yes, we try to abstract out the OS, so that we can port it later. But it's never been worth our while to actually do so.
Maybe bitter isn't the right word. But I dislike the tanic acid taste.
Lokcing users into one way of doing things is a Good Thing(tm). With Windows or OS X, there's a finite learning curve. With Linux, skills are far less portable. In Windows, you can customize it quite a bit, drop in a different shell or what-have-you. But no one does it because an inferior, but uniform, UI is better (I have to use at least 5 computer on any given day, so I would have to customize all of them. But then other people also use 3 of them.)
You're misquoting. It's not a counterexample, it's an exception. And then you're misinterperting. If you see a sign saying parking in lot X is free on Sunday, that exception proves there's a charge the rest of the week. It's not saying you need more than one counter-example. But, if you must have more, George Washington voluntarily stepped down, as did Teddy Roosevelt (also the result of a campaign promise.)
Ad hominum because you cannot refute any of my points? That's pretty pathetic. You cannot even identify any difference, other than Reagan armed Muslim extremists to deal with Communism, and Bush armed a whole new group of people to deal with Reagan's Muslim extremists.
And with an inability to argue, you think your case is STRONGER because you resort to violence.
Let's not forget your assumption that my heros have been assasinated by the right. I'm not sure which one(s) you are refering to? You mean MLK, who used non-violent protest to end aparthid in this country in a relatively quick period of time?
I believe anyone who likes Reagan but not W. is either a liar (Johnny-Come-Lately) or an idiot (15-year-old who only knows what Reagan did by listening to Fox News).
They're pretty much clones of one another, policy-wise. I suppose the one exception is that Reagan aided the Taliban et al. to fight Communists, and W. aided Pakistan et al. to fight the Taliban.
Oh, and Reagan was a more articulate mouthpiece.
But no matter which nuance-lacking, economy-wrecking, debt-racheting, foreign-policy bully, indifferent to the needy, fake cowboy you choose, they're the same fraking thing.
They also had at least one customer call them on how horrible the food was. And let's forget that they shot a lot of footage and only showed you the parts they wanted to (like the various asking people on the street obvious trivia questions shows). Definately a biased sample. But mostly they could have been praying on the people's nature not to cause a fuss, and to agree with authority. After all, if I tell you that the bitterness in Merlot is a Good Thing, you might not like it, but want to appear sophisticated to me (the waiter), so you claim to. In other words, people lie, especially when they worry their fears aren't warrented.
First, it's not illegal in the sense of prosecutable. It's illegal in the sense of a tort, that is you can sue for damages, but not have the boss arrested. The special prosector had no juristiction to seek evidence for a civil matter, and it was a violation of ethics (and possibly the law) to do so.
Second, it's not inside the federal government... they granted themselves immunity from workplace laws.
Third, "sexual relations" was a fuzzy term. It was argued over by many lawyers, judges, etc.
Fourth, who gives a shit? There was no reason to ask those questions of him, so there was no reason to force, or even expect, him to be truthful. Perjury in a murder trial is serious business. Perjury in a divorce proceeding is very bad. Perjury in a case of jaywalking is hard to get worked up over. Perjury in this case is a non-issue, because this case was always a nonissue. Zero times anything is zero.
IANAL, so if you work for the federal government, molest your secretary, and get in trouble, don't blame me.
So, you're a Republican who learned its politically incorrect to like W?
I understand that Saddam was evil, but he wasn't a headache. He was a buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Kuiwet. He scared the Saudis into asking for us to store troops in their country, for which we got paid with low oil prices. He served as a reminder of the US doing things well (in 1991 I mean).
Bush may have inherited an overinflated stock market, but between screwing us again with Regeanomics, and driving up the price of oil by causing instability in, and less dependence on teh US from, oil-producing areas of the Middle East, he fubared the economy but good.
Why is committing perjury over getting a blowjob an issue? It's only an issue if you think he impeded some cause of justice, and that only happens if you think being deposed over giving a blowjob is something that is reasonable. The court overreached. The significancy of perjury is directly related to the significance of the issue the perjury occured in conjunction with.
Also, he was a lawyer. He parsed carefully. While it may have been misleading, he never actually lied. Because, as much as people unable to parse nuance may deride it, "is" is a legally dubious word. As such, he claimed to have never committed perjury.
All in all, show the harm of that perjury that in any way outweighted the costs of trying to rectify it?
I am not a lawyer
Not every politican. Polk promised to accomplish four goals in four years, and then retire. Without having to worry about re-election, he did so.
We're conflating "how it works" from "the exact representation in memory". In untyped languages, I don't care if it represents it under the hood as an int, a functor needing to be executed (LISP, Scheme, Haskell) or a double (Lua). I care that I can use it as an integer. That it will be outputted with no decimal portion, that it has descreate jumps in usage, etc.
So, you're right in that Hungarian doesn't reflect what's on the metal. But the whole point was to distinguish identical representations on the metal, like loop indicies and scalar multipliers in Lua, both of which have to be represented by a double.
If it ever doesn't, the person who wrote that line of code is in trouble.
Umm... again, Hungarian to the rescue.
System Hungarian was originally used to allow programmers to make guarantees to each other the compiler couldn't (technically) enforce, although it would crash the program at run time. It's not "false" security... it's just not machine verified security.