When done properly, it has nothing to do with being strongly or weakly typed. It has nothing to do with knowing when you've "screwed up."
The original set of prefixes suggested by Simonyi were designed to convey the PURPOSE of the variable, not simply the data type. It was adding semantic data to the variable name.
Outside of HN, the only way to include this semantic information in all the super excellent languages you mentioned is by adding a comment after the variable declaration.
That's do-able, though. Not because of the LANGUAGE, but because of the IDE, where it's trivial now for the IDE to take you back to the declaration of a given variable and then right back to the last position in the codebase.
It's not the language that makes it obsolete, it's today's IDEs.
First, understand that nearly every bit of "Hungarian Notation" you've ever seen is misused. The original set of prefixes suggested by Simonyi were designed to convey the PURPOSE of the variable, not simply the data type. It was adding semantic data to the variable name.
This is still valuable today.
However, in days of lesser IDEs, the more common use of Hungarian Notation is still helpful, as it was a lot more work to trace a variable back to it's declaration to identify the type.
"Programmers didn't understand why Hungarian originally used his famous notation"
Uhh.. There was never a "Mr. Hungarian"....
It was invented by Charles Simonyi and the name was both a play on "Polish Notation" and a resemblance to Simonyi's father land (Hungary) where the family name precedes the given name.
An eager fake lawyer like yourself surely is familiar with the term "legislative intent."
A big part of the job description of a judge is to study a statute, and case history, to determine legislative intent. He's supposed to weigh his own judgment along side the past judgments of other courts.
Precedent is equally as important in interpreting a statute as the legislative language itself.
So, tell me.. since you've basically represented yourself as an expert on this particular part of the municipal code, have you examined the case history? Do you have a grasp on the precedents set by previous courts?
Movie is a moderate hit, Movie makes $150 MM in theaters and tie-ins in the first year.
The $150 MM Profit number gets reported by New Line to your little website.
But, there's more...
The actual studio and sound stages aren't owned by New Line, they're owned by New Line Studios and Sound Stages, Inc.
And they must be compensated. $5 MM.
And, of course, the post-production is done by New Line Post Production, Inc.
Andd they must be compensated. $10 MM.
And then there's the TV advertising. This is done by New Line Trailer Production, Inc.
And they must be compensated. $30 MM.
And we can't forget the costs of booking travel and making the logistical operations. This is done by New Line Logistics
And they must be compensated. $5 MM.
And when it's all said and done...
Damn...
The movie JUST broke even.
Sorry little fella, but New Line made a big investment here, and we just don't have the ability to pay you out of our pockets: As it is we just broke even!
Of course, all those Subsidiaries will be kicking most of that back upstairs, but hey, that's THE BIZ!!!!
First, Obama has spent 2 full years in the Senate, not one. He was elected in November, 2004 and took office in January, 2005. He did not start campaigning for President until February, 2007.
Second, Obama, as an incoming Senator, played an absolutely pivotal role in the Senate Ethics Reform bill. Sure, it's not perfect, and we can do better, but as a software developer I believe in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I apply that philosophy to most things in life. Obama campaigned for a lot of Democratic senatorial candidates in 2006 that ended up being successfully elected. He was one of the first people to call them after being elected (before taking office) and called in his markers, not for political favor, but to get a meeting with them just days after the election and convincing them of supporting this ethics bill. He told them that very soon, and even moreso after taking office, they will be abutted by a fierce lobbying effort to resist this bill. He knew that capturing these votes before they ever had a chance of being lobbied was his best chance at securing their support. And with the help of these incoming freshmen, the bill was passed.
Yes, Obama's contributions so far to the NATION are few, but that's not the question. Only a portion of the work of a Senator has national scope. Obama has done an awful lot for his constituents, the people of Illinois, as both US Senator and while serving--for more than a decade--in the Illinois Senate.
Now tell me, what has Hillary Clinton done for the American People?
And, really, what has John McCain done for the American People?
With Obama, it's much more about what he can do, what we all can do, than what he has done. Hillary clinton is more 50% + 1 politics. It's more gridlock. More partisan bickering. More special prosecutors, Clinton scandals, talk of Blue dresses, Whitehouse interns, Whitewater investigations, and quid pro quo for the Lincoln Bedroom.
Sure, we can build a bridge back to the 20th century and elect another Clinton. And we can enjoy 4 years of incrementalism that will feel like progress after 8 years of George Bush. Or we can nominate Obama, who will, for the first time since 1984, gather votes from a wide array of the electorate. An Obama candidacy is the only one that would being together Labor and blue collar support, African Americans, young people, educated and professional people of all stripes, a large percentage of independants, and more republicans than any other Democrat has attracted in an awfully long time. This coalition would probably result in a lot of 47-53 type victories over McCain, but an absolute blowout in the electoral college.
This sort of mandate and wide appeal will demand the attention of a congress that is equally progressive thanks to Democratic gains in 2006 that are likely to be reinforced this year.
Is Obama a perfect candidate? Far from it. But politics, like comedy, is all about timing. And now is the time for Barack Obama.
I'm pretty sure that's to give you some tactile feedback. I think if they could do it JUST RIGHT it might work, but I'd have to try it out to say for sure.
Actually, it's not a "conclusion" that most the founding fathers were agnostic. It's a fact. They say so themselves in their writings and journals and they seldom, if ever, attended any religious services.
I'm sorry if this doesn't jive well with the way you (and many religious types) have INTERPRETED their words, but it is, nevertheless, a fact.
Yes, they refer to a "creator." But they WERE NOT referring to the Christian God, Jewish Yaweh, Jesus Christ, or any other figure in particular. That's the whole point: they were agnostic (not atheist).
To some men, this could've meant, in a literal sense, their parents. It could mean ANYTHING. The word agnostic means "without knowledge." They're saying "I have no idea, and either do you, because knowing is impossible."
Unfortunately, many religious types use their words for their own agenda. Which is exactly what Franklin sought to avoid by removing the word "sacred" from the most important part of the most important document (at the time) since the Magna Carta.
It will close existing loopholes, and open new ones.
There's already a thiving, multi-billion dollar underground economy in this country. With a consumption tax, you can expect that to increase dramatically. Along with that, will come safety and health concerns, not to mention the crime that occurs along the edges of the black market.
And like it or not, an awful lot of families would be in an awful lot of trouble if they were suddenly hit with a 20% tax rate if they're currently working 'under the table.' I agree in fair and egalatarian enforcement of laws. But we're talking real, acute pain that touches a lot of innocent victims, not just the perpetrating parent.
Unassimilatible answered most your points in much better form than I could've, but I wanted to expand on one thing in particular.
Without a doubt, the Declaration borrows from Locke, who is widely known to be Jefferson's favorite philosopher. But there is a reason why Locke is a "philosopher," and Jefferson, while by some definition could also be considered a philosopher, is known for so much more.
I suppose I could've been clearer when I wrote that it was the first time anybody had written it down. I meant as a law, as a fundamental bedrock of truth upon which the entire government sits.
There is some original thought in the Declaration, both Jefferson's, and Franklin's. But more than that, their contribution was turning abstract philosophy into a reality that has lit the world for hundreds of years.
I think the problem with Huckabee is his policy positions are castles built on sand.
He's actually pretty tolerable, as far as the Religious Right goes, for whatever that's worth.
And true enough, in AK he governed from the center.
But all this constitution chatter is his fault. From a speech he made in Michigan a couple weeks ago:
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
I'm sure that, like Bush bating a DOMA Amendment, he would have no intention of making good on such a promise once he became the nominee much less the president. But the fact he's willing to parse those words disqualify him from my ever getting my vote, even if I wasn't solidly behind Senator Obama.
I will say one thing, though. Senator Obama is a longshot, still, for the Democratic Nomination. And Huckabee even moreso for that of his party. But after Iowa I reflected on a Obama v. Huckabee race and it seemed very much like a race I'd enjoy, like a race that would be good for America. As civil and gracious and engaging as such a contest can be. Mario Cuomo famously said that we campaign in poetry and govern in prose. A Huckabee v. Obama election would indeed be one of poetry.
I do conceed, however, that, from the mouth of Senator Obama, what I hear as poetry, to the next man is just the pied piper.
Also, the "FairTax" (aka National Sales Tax, aka National Consumption Tax) is not a bad idea on paper, but it's a genuinely bad idea for our nation. I'm familiar with it. And even with the annual lump-sum "rebates" it's still a regressive tax on many and a flat tax on many more and only in certain circumstances could it be called a progressive tax.
Furthermore, it would discourage consumption, encourage black-market importation of oversees goods, and it would hit a great deal of families very hard who are currently working "off the books" or "under the table." Perhaps we consume too much. And perhaps those working off the books are wrong. But this is nonetheless the reality of the day and a "FairTax" proposal would cause a great deal of real pain to a great deal of Americans.
That the IRS is broken is not reason enough to replace the idea of a progressive income tax.
And, I don't mean to nitpick, but the single word that was of such importance wasn't "sacred" which found itself in the dustbin of history. No, the single word of importance is "self-evident"
Most people don't realize how young Thomas Jefferson was. He was just 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He was very good friends with Franklin, nearly 40 years his senior.
In fact, Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration and sent it to Franklin with a request that he suggest revisions such that his age and experience compel, or something along those lines.
He made a change of just a few syllables, but with an enormous magnitude far beyond his years. He read Jefferson's line, "We hold these truths to be scared and undeniable" and he was worried that the word "scared" might be misused in future generations to justify religious dogmas. (Most people fond of saying that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs look over the fact that most our founding fathers were agnostic.)
So he put a few slashes thru the words and penned in their place, perhaps the most succinctly written statement of purpose in all of human history: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." What seems like just a small change was, in reality, a massively different statement. It is undeniable that 2+2 = 4. It is undeniable that the opposite of True is False. But a select few truths in this world are Self-Evident. At that time, the list was even smaller: The world in which we live and that we are being.
After 7/4/1776, that list became: The world in which we live, that we are being, and that we are free and that all men are created equal.
Simple as it sounds, it's the first time anybody thought to actually write it down.
Actually, Jefferson wanted to include in the constitution a mandate that the people hold a Constitutional Convention every 20 years.
He used European life expectancy tables to determine that, roughly every 19 years or so, half of the existing population would have died and been replenished by a new generation. His opinion was that every generation is equally as free to chose their own destiny as those that have come before.
Unfortunately, Jefferson was the ambassador to France at the time and he wasn't a participant in the second constiutional convention. He did, however, correspond regularly with Franklin (his predecessor in the Paris Embassy) and his intentions have been made clear in letters that today are held in the national archives.
I hate Huckabee as much as everyone else, I'm just saying, his crime is not that he wants to change the constitution. His crime is HOW he wants to change it.
i know you meant this as tongue-in-cheek, but you didn't really pick a very good example.
Childhood obesity is an issue of I/O.
The input is faulty: empty carbs and fast food.
But the output side of this coin is just as much to blame. Lack of exercise is equally culpable. And yes, I'm sure video games contribute to this a great deal.
He said that when they first shined the laser upon it, their instruments could not detect the laser being reflected back. He said they knew two things when that happened:
1. They're on to something 2. They're going to need better equipment
He also said that they hope to make it even blacker by finding a way to produce nanotubes that are more perfectly straight.
Actually, a fully normalized schema eliminates the NEED for NULL as a datatype.
Any columns that currently can be NULL would be put in their own table. You'd LEFT JOIN the table and anybody that declined to provide a SSN would simply return a NULL in that column.
NULL's are returned, but they are not STORABLE data, which makes a lot of sense, since NULL is "void of value"
I wouldn't look to the user-facing API for clues to the underlying app structure. The API gives you clues to the API object hierarchy, but that's about it.
The most recent numbers I found were from October, 2007. In that month we exported $141.7 billion worth of goods. America still produces (and exports) a great deal. Besides, even if we exported NOTHING my point would be valid: if the US Dollar continued to lose value it would, eventually, make us very attractive to foreign investors. Foreign companies would close their domestic factories and offshore to the US.
And actually, the theories of Adam Smith hold up now more than ever. And lets be real, have you ever actually READ the Wealth of Nations?
The "Credit Crunch" has nothing to do with fiat currency! Fiat currency did not produce the credit crunch, and commodity-backed currency would not have prevented the credit crunch. In fact.. a commodity-backed currency would cause more problems similar to what we mean when we say "credit crunch" since it would artificially restrict the money supply.
By basing your currency on debt you are required to inflate forever (exponentially) to pay the previous round of debts.
First, inflation has not been exponential. Second, the fact that fiat currency in the US has coincided with a surge in national debt means nothing. Correlation does not imply causation. A great deal of inflation occurred pre-1970s as well.
You've heard of the business cycle? That is caused by our monetary system's requirement for continual inflation, to the point where they're selling debt to those who cannot afford to pay (sub prime). Fiat currencies embody huge boom/bust cycles.
This is so wrong that I'm not sure where to begin.
1. The business cycle has nothing to do with fiat currency. To say that it does would suggest that there was no "business cycle" before 1971. That is obviously incorrect.
2. Subprime lending is not a problem until it becomes predatory. You don't think that predatory lending can (and has) occurred while using a commodity-backed system?
3. The move to a fiat currency has seen a huge RETRACTION in the severity of the boom/bust cycles. The US experiecned 2 instances of economic depression during the period of commodity-backed currency, and none since the advent of fiat currency. Recessions since '70s have been mild and the economy has quickly recovered.
4. Deflation can be far more disruptive to an economy than inflation, and was a major contributor to the negative-feedback cycle that resulted in the great depression
Then there's the long term devaluation of the currency, essentially the theft of wealth from those who can least afford it.
Currency isn't meant to be stuffed into a mattress. A dollar invested (in a bank, stocks, bonds, whatev) in the 70s is going to be worth far more today than it was when it was invested. That is, the ROI is greater than the negative forces of inflation.
A dollar is now worth a tiny fraction of it's original value, something like 5%.
Much of that devaluation occurred while the Dollar was still commodity-based.
In summary... I'm not sure what kind of monetary system you're advocating for, here. Because all of your arguments against fiat currency apply equally to commodity-backed currency.
Fiat currency is the true representation of the value of an economy. Commodity-backed currency is the true representation of the value of that commodity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's wrong.
I'm sorry, bro.
It just is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation
When done properly, it has nothing to do with being strongly or weakly typed. It has nothing to do with knowing when you've "screwed up."
The original set of prefixes suggested by Simonyi were designed to convey the PURPOSE of the variable, not simply the data type. It was adding semantic data to the variable name.
Outside of HN, the only way to include this semantic information in all the super excellent languages you mentioned is by adding a comment after the variable declaration.
That's do-able, though. Not because of the LANGUAGE, but because of the IDE, where it's trivial now for the IDE to take you back to the declaration of a given variable and then right back to the last position in the codebase.
It's not the language that makes it obsolete, it's today's IDEs.
First, understand that nearly every bit of "Hungarian Notation" you've ever seen is misused. The original set of prefixes suggested by Simonyi were designed to convey the PURPOSE of the variable, not simply the data type. It was adding semantic data to the variable name.
This is still valuable today.
However, in days of lesser IDEs, the more common use of Hungarian Notation is still helpful, as it was a lot more work to trace a variable back to it's declaration to identify the type.
"Programmers didn't understand why Hungarian originally used his famous notation"
....
Uhh.. There was never a "Mr. Hungarian"
It was invented by Charles Simonyi and the name was both a play on "Polish Notation" and a resemblance to Simonyi's father land (Hungary) where the family name precedes the given name.
Question...
An eager fake lawyer like yourself surely is familiar with the term "legislative intent."
A big part of the job description of a judge is to study a statute, and case history, to determine legislative intent. He's supposed to weigh his own judgment along side the past judgments of other courts.
Precedent is equally as important in interpreting a statute as the legislative language itself.
So, tell me.. since you've basically represented yourself as an expert on this particular part of the municipal code, have you examined the case history? Do you have a grasp on the precedents set by previous courts?
I really couldn't care less about this discussion, but...
"And today, they brew hotter."
I'd say it's good for ole' Stella that the lawsuit didn't happen today. It happened in the early '90s, when, apparently, the standard was different.
It's not like a Judge could've said "Stella, get real, in ten years every home coffee maker will be brewing at 200* !!"
Here's basically how it works..
New Line makes movie, movie costs $100MM to make.
Movie is a moderate hit, Movie makes $150 MM in theaters and tie-ins in the first year.
The $150 MM Profit number gets reported by New Line to your little website.
But, there's more...
The actual studio and sound stages aren't owned by New Line, they're owned by New Line Studios and Sound Stages, Inc.
And they must be compensated. $5 MM.
And, of course, the post-production is done by New Line Post Production, Inc.
Andd they must be compensated. $10 MM.
And then there's the TV advertising. This is done by New Line Trailer Production, Inc.
And they must be compensated. $30 MM.
And we can't forget the costs of booking travel and making the logistical operations. This is done by New Line Logistics
And they must be compensated. $5 MM.
And when it's all said and done...
Damn...
The movie JUST broke even.
Sorry little fella, but New Line made a big investment here, and we just don't have the ability to pay you out of our pockets: As it is we just broke even!
Of course, all those Subsidiaries will be kicking most of that back upstairs, but hey, that's THE BIZ!!!!
First, Obama has spent 2 full years in the Senate, not one. He was elected in November, 2004 and took office in January, 2005. He did not start campaigning for President until February, 2007.
Second, Obama, as an incoming Senator, played an absolutely pivotal role in the Senate Ethics Reform bill. Sure, it's not perfect, and we can do better, but as a software developer I believe in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I apply that philosophy to most things in life. Obama campaigned for a lot of Democratic senatorial candidates in 2006 that ended up being successfully elected. He was one of the first people to call them after being elected (before taking office) and called in his markers, not for political favor, but to get a meeting with them just days after the election and convincing them of supporting this ethics bill. He told them that very soon, and even moreso after taking office, they will be abutted by a fierce lobbying effort to resist this bill. He knew that capturing these votes before they ever had a chance of being lobbied was his best chance at securing their support. And with the help of these incoming freshmen, the bill was passed.
Yes, Obama's contributions so far to the NATION are few, but that's not the question. Only a portion of the work of a Senator has national scope. Obama has done an awful lot for his constituents, the people of Illinois, as both US Senator and while serving--for more than a decade--in the Illinois Senate.
Now tell me, what has Hillary Clinton done for the American People?
And, really, what has John McCain done for the American People?
With Obama, it's much more about what he can do, what we all can do, than what he has done. Hillary clinton is more 50% + 1 politics. It's more gridlock. More partisan bickering. More special prosecutors, Clinton scandals, talk of Blue dresses, Whitehouse interns, Whitewater investigations, and quid pro quo for the Lincoln Bedroom.
Sure, we can build a bridge back to the 20th century and elect another Clinton. And we can enjoy 4 years of incrementalism that will feel like progress after 8 years of George Bush. Or we can nominate Obama, who will, for the first time since 1984, gather votes from a wide array of the electorate. An Obama candidacy is the only one that would being together Labor and blue collar support, African Americans, young people, educated and professional people of all stripes, a large percentage of independants, and more republicans than any other Democrat has attracted in an awfully long time. This coalition would probably result in a lot of 47-53 type victories over McCain, but an absolute blowout in the electoral college.
This sort of mandate and wide appeal will demand the attention of a congress that is equally progressive thanks to Democratic gains in 2006 that are likely to be reinforced this year.
Is Obama a perfect candidate? Far from it. But politics, like comedy, is all about timing. And now is the time for Barack Obama.
I'm pretty sure that's to give you some tactile feedback. I think if they could do it JUST RIGHT it might work, but I'd have to try it out to say for sure.
Google buy AOL?
No way. Not going to happen. Who are these "talks" between? You and who else?
Seriously, though, WHY would GOOGLE purchase AOL?
Actually, it's not a "conclusion" that most the founding fathers were agnostic. It's a fact. They say so themselves in their writings and journals and they seldom, if ever, attended any religious services.
I'm sorry if this doesn't jive well with the way you (and many religious types) have INTERPRETED their words, but it is, nevertheless, a fact.
Yes, they refer to a "creator." But they WERE NOT referring to the Christian God, Jewish Yaweh, Jesus Christ, or any other figure in particular. That's the whole point: they were agnostic (not atheist).
To some men, this could've meant, in a literal sense, their parents. It could mean ANYTHING. The word agnostic means "without knowledge." They're saying "I have no idea, and either do you, because knowing is impossible."
Unfortunately, many religious types use their words for their own agenda. Which is exactly what Franklin sought to avoid by removing the word "sacred" from the most important part of the most important document (at the time) since the Magna Carta.
No, it won't eliminate loopholes.
It will close existing loopholes, and open new ones.
There's already a thiving, multi-billion dollar underground economy in this country. With a consumption tax, you can expect that to increase dramatically. Along with that, will come safety and health concerns, not to mention the crime that occurs along the edges of the black market.
And like it or not, an awful lot of families would be in an awful lot of trouble if they were suddenly hit with a 20% tax rate if they're currently working 'under the table.' I agree in fair and egalatarian enforcement of laws. But we're talking real, acute pain that touches a lot of innocent victims, not just the perpetrating parent.
Unassimilatible answered most your points in much better form than I could've, but I wanted to expand on one thing in particular.
Without a doubt, the Declaration borrows from Locke, who is widely known to be Jefferson's favorite philosopher. But there is a reason why Locke is a "philosopher," and Jefferson, while by some definition could also be considered a philosopher, is known for so much more.
I suppose I could've been clearer when I wrote that it was the first time anybody had written it down. I meant as a law, as a fundamental bedrock of truth upon which the entire government sits.
There is some original thought in the Declaration, both Jefferson's, and Franklin's. But more than that, their contribution was turning abstract philosophy into a reality that has lit the world for hundreds of years.
I think the problem with Huckabee is his policy positions are castles built on sand.
He's actually pretty tolerable, as far as the Religious Right goes, for whatever that's worth.
And true enough, in AK he governed from the center.
But all this constitution chatter is his fault. From a speech he made in Michigan a couple weeks ago:
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
I'm sure that, like Bush bating a DOMA Amendment, he would have no intention of making good on such a promise once he became the nominee much less the president. But the fact he's willing to parse those words disqualify him from my ever getting my vote, even if I wasn't solidly behind Senator Obama.
I will say one thing, though. Senator Obama is a longshot, still, for the Democratic Nomination. And Huckabee even moreso for that of his party. But after Iowa I reflected on a Obama v. Huckabee race and it seemed very much like a race I'd enjoy, like a race that would be good for America. As civil and gracious and engaging as such a contest can be. Mario Cuomo famously said that we campaign in poetry and govern in prose. A Huckabee v. Obama election would indeed be one of poetry.
I do conceed, however, that, from the mouth of Senator Obama, what I hear as poetry, to the next man is just the pied piper.
Also, the "FairTax" (aka National Sales Tax, aka National Consumption Tax) is not a bad idea on paper, but it's a genuinely bad idea for our nation. I'm familiar with it. And even with the annual lump-sum "rebates" it's still a regressive tax on many and a flat tax on many more and only in certain circumstances could it be called a progressive tax.
Furthermore, it would discourage consumption, encourage black-market importation of oversees goods, and it would hit a great deal of families very hard who are currently working "off the books" or "under the table." Perhaps we consume too much. And perhaps those working off the books are wrong. But this is nonetheless the reality of the day and a "FairTax" proposal would cause a great deal of real pain to a great deal of Americans.
That the IRS is broken is not reason enough to replace the idea of a progressive income tax.
(Spell check error)
And, I don't mean to nitpick, but the single word that was of such importance wasn't "sacred" which found itself in the dustbin of history. No, the single word of importance is "self-evident"
One more thing:
:)
Most people don't realize how young Thomas Jefferson was. He was just 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He was very good friends with Franklin, nearly 40 years his senior.
In fact, Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration and sent it to Franklin with a request that he suggest revisions such that his age and experience compel, or something along those lines.
He made a change of just a few syllables, but with an enormous magnitude far beyond his years. He read Jefferson's line, "We hold these truths to be scared and undeniable" and he was worried that the word "scared" might be misused in future generations to justify religious dogmas. (Most people fond of saying that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs look over the fact that most our founding fathers were agnostic.)
So he put a few slashes thru the words and penned in their place, perhaps the most succinctly written statement of purpose in all of human history: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." What seems like just a small change was, in reality, a massively different statement. It is undeniable that 2+2 = 4. It is undeniable that the opposite of True is False. But a select few truths in this world are Self-Evident. At that time, the list was even smaller: The world in which we live and that we are being.
After 7/4/1776, that list became: The world in which we live, that we are being, and that we are free and that all men are created equal.
Simple as it sounds, it's the first time anybody thought to actually write it down.
And herein ends the history lesson for today
Actually, Jefferson wanted to include in the constitution a mandate that the people hold a Constitutional Convention every 20 years.
He used European life expectancy tables to determine that, roughly every 19 years or so, half of the existing population would have died and been replenished by a new generation. His opinion was that every generation is equally as free to chose their own destiny as those that have come before.
Unfortunately, Jefferson was the ambassador to France at the time and he wasn't a participant in the second constiutional convention. He did, however, correspond regularly with Franklin (his predecessor in the Paris Embassy) and his intentions have been made clear in letters that today are held in the national archives.
I hate Huckabee as much as everyone else, I'm just saying, his crime is not that he wants to change the constitution. His crime is HOW he wants to change it.
i know you meant this as tongue-in-cheek, but you didn't really pick a very good example.
Childhood obesity is an issue of I/O.
The input is faulty: empty carbs and fast food.
But the output side of this coin is just as much to blame. Lack of exercise is equally culpable. And yes, I'm sure video games contribute to this a great deal.
I heard this guy on NPR last night.
He said that when they first shined the laser upon it, their instruments could not detect the laser being reflected back. He said they knew two things when that happened:
1. They're on to something
2. They're going to need better equipment
He also said that they hope to make it even blacker by finding a way to produce nanotubes that are more perfectly straight.
Actually, a fully normalized schema eliminates the NEED for NULL as a datatype.
Any columns that currently can be NULL would be put in their own table. You'd LEFT JOIN the table and anybody that declined to provide a SSN would simply return a NULL in that column.
NULL's are returned, but they are not STORABLE data, which makes a lot of sense, since NULL is "void of value"
I wouldn't look to the user-facing API for clues to the underlying app structure. The API gives you clues to the API object hierarchy, but that's about it.
So all you had to contribute was hyperbole?
The most recent numbers I found were from October, 2007. In that month we exported $141.7 billion worth of goods. America still produces (and exports) a great deal. Besides, even if we exported NOTHING my point would be valid: if the US Dollar continued to lose value it would, eventually, make us very attractive to foreign investors. Foreign companies would close their domestic factories and offshore to the US.
And actually, the theories of Adam Smith hold up now more than ever. And lets be real, have you ever actually READ the Wealth of Nations?
"Credit Crunch"
The "Credit Crunch" has nothing to do with fiat currency! Fiat currency did not produce the credit crunch, and commodity-backed currency would not have prevented the credit crunch. In fact.. a commodity-backed currency would cause more problems similar to what we mean when we say "credit crunch" since it would artificially restrict the money supply.
By basing your currency on debt you are required to inflate forever (exponentially) to pay the previous round of debts.
First, inflation has not been exponential. Second, the fact that fiat currency in the US has coincided with a surge in national debt means nothing. Correlation does not imply causation. A great deal of inflation occurred pre-1970s as well.
You've heard of the business cycle? That is caused by our monetary system's requirement for continual inflation, to the point where they're selling debt to those who cannot afford to pay (sub prime). Fiat currencies embody huge boom/bust cycles.
This is so wrong that I'm not sure where to begin.
1. The business cycle has nothing to do with fiat currency. To say that it does would suggest that there was no "business cycle" before 1971. That is obviously incorrect.
2. Subprime lending is not a problem until it becomes predatory. You don't think that predatory lending can (and has) occurred while using a commodity-backed system?
3. The move to a fiat currency has seen a huge RETRACTION in the severity of the boom/bust cycles. The US experiecned 2 instances of economic depression during the period of commodity-backed currency, and none since the advent of fiat currency. Recessions since '70s have been mild and the economy has quickly recovered.
4. Deflation can be far more disruptive to an economy than inflation, and was a major contributor to the negative-feedback cycle that resulted in the great depression
Then there's the long term devaluation of the currency, essentially the theft of wealth from those who can least afford it. Currency isn't meant to be stuffed into a mattress. A dollar invested (in a bank, stocks, bonds, whatev) in the 70s is going to be worth far more today than it was when it was invested. That is, the ROI is greater than the negative forces of inflation.
A dollar is now worth a tiny fraction of it's original value, something like 5%. Much of that devaluation occurred while the Dollar was still commodity-based.
In summary... I'm not sure what kind of monetary system you're advocating for, here. Because all of your arguments against fiat currency apply equally to commodity-backed currency.
Fiat currency is the true representation of the value of an economy. Commodity-backed currency is the true representation of the value of that commodity.
Ferrets are not indigenous to the wild.
They are the product of the domestication of the polecat 3000 years ago.
Feral ferrets exist only in places where humans introduced them and they only survive in the wild if they interbreed with the polecat.
And in polecats, there is a social hierarchy. There is an alpha (or a number of them).
What societal animal does not have an alpha?