Try to find a microscope or science kit that ISN'T marketed exclusively toward boys.
Enough people posted links refuting your assertion of "marketed to boys" to make you look like a moron, hence there's no need for me to join in - it's obvious you are wrong. The question I want to ask is: now that you have been provided with evidence that your assertion on science toys is absolutely disconnected from reality, will you change your mind or try to change reality? Will you ever, in the future, post this particular assertion no slashdot, after being thoroughly refuted with actual evidence? Are you going to post the same assertion, knowing full well that the same refutations will be provided, with the same evidence?
The reason I ask is because I notice a tendency for the evidence-less side to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist, purely on the off-chance that no one bothers to post it. For example, that men have it easier than women. Or decline in numbers is due to sexism. etc... etc etc etc. It would be nice to think that you would never post this garbage assertion ever again. Go ahead. Be nice.
Obviously, you can say that the amount of interest by the two sexes is not the same, but apparently there was more interest by girls back in the 1980s. Why is it different now? That seems to be the question that no one is asking.
If you read the highly moderated posts by the sexist morons that seem to make up the majority of Slashdot posters and moderators - the problem isn't that they're not asking or interested in asking that question. It's that even when confronted with the evidence, they're denying that its a valid question in the first place - the sociological equivalent of dividing by zero.
Nope. when confronted by the assertion "it must be sexism" we call it out (rightly) as a bullshit assertion. Women now have more freedoms in employment than they did back then. They are now exercising their options for other careers. If you want to return to a place where more women enter CS/STEM, you are free to go to theocracies which demand that women can't even show their faces in public. Those societies have more women in STEM.
The problem (for you, anyway) is that the fact that women, when given a choice, choose *not* to do CS, is that it breaks your ideology. Back when they had fewer choices they were found in CS. Now that they have *more* choices you find them elsewhere. Your narrative that the decline in numbers is disconnected from reality.
That was a generation ago; these aren't the same women, so your explanation makes zero sense. Something's changed in society.
You're absolutely correct - women now have more choices. That's what changed - other professions became open to them. Society changed to give women more freedom. Women didn't like it before, but they had fewer options. Now they have a lot more options so they don't have to work at a job they don't enjoy.
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
Utter tosh. "Normal" does not mean "at least half the population share that characteristic". For example, it is perfectly normal for someone to have red hair.
It's playing with words, you're really wanting to say that homosexuals are "abnormal".
Look at my posting history, you blithering idiot. I'm in full support of gay rights. Calling something that is unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal" is incorrect. You can also say "it's perfectly normal for someone to act on the urge to kill", considering that there are more attempted murders per population than there are homosexuals. You can't really say "$foo, which is $y% of the population, is normal but $bar, which is also $y % of the population is not normal".
(PS. There's a difference between not normal and abnormal. Look it up. I never called homosexuality abnormal.)
You are not, as you seem to believe, arguing for your political ideology; you can even leave homosexuality out of the discussion - the question is only "Is an occurrence rate of less than 10% enough to satisfy the assertion of 'this is a normal occurence' or not?"
That's the only question - is a 10% rate of occurrence enough to call a characteristic normal?
You answer "yes". I answer "no".
(PS. Your answer leads to the assertion that child-molesters, rapists, sociopaths, psychopaths, mental illness sufferers (plus a range of other characteristics) are all "normal". Most people would not agree with your assertion that rapists are normal)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".
First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.
Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down:-)
Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.
Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not normal.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert:-)).
However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.
The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.
Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.
You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.
Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".
First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.
Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down:-)
Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.
Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not the norm.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert:-)).
However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.
The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.
Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.
You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.
Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
Which ironically will give them the exact justification to bring in the contractors -
What does quitting do other than fulfilling what management wanted all along??
Because you get to do it on your terms, not theirs.
Your terms, coincidentally, involves saving Disney a chunk of money. Money that will of course find its way to the execs who thought the idea up in the first place. And your new employer will probably sooner or later be thinking along the same lines. It's lose-lose, no matter what you do.
The best thing to do is to unionise *and* stay. They try to pull this shit again and executive heads will roll.
The enterprise plans aren't cheap, and private github repos are pretty popular with startups (of which there's a bazillion of them now).
Of course they aren't going to get 222/user per year. If they did, their valuation would be 5-10 billion, not 2. No company makes their entire valuation in revenue every year.
Firstly, I never claimed $222/year. Secondly, almost every commercial (i.e. have money to spend) dev team can have their own private enterprise git repo on a number of different VPS's out there for chump change. A few years ago it was different, it was expensive to host your own server. Now it's cheap. Host multiple ones in different sites and you also get redundancy and backup, probably for a lot less than the enterprise github plans.
So each user is worth $222? Please... this has all the characteristics of a bubble. There is no way they are ever going to be able to monetize users to the tune of $222/user.
What should be happening : when you're planning a new release, raise the component versions to the latest and run your test suite. If it passes, good job, release it.
What is actually happening : the version numbers never get edited, because that version worked, and if you change it, OMG, it might stop working.
Part of the problem I run into with this is that sometimes projects stick with old dependencies because at some point, some major version came along that significantly changed the organization of the API in such a way that the latest component version an't just be dropped in, but requires significant resources refactoring your code to use it. Getting management buy-in for that when there aren't any big customers breathing down their neck to get a flaw fixed can be neigh on impossible.
I ran into this recently myself. During internal testing, I discovered a flaw in our product when accessing any of our web resources using an IPv6 destination IP in the URL (i.e.: http://18080./ A quick bit of debugging showed that an external library we had been using for several years was doing some brain-dead parsing of the URL to pull out the port number; it was just doing a string split after the first colon it found, and presumed the rest was the port number.
Modifying the Maven POM to use a newer version of the API in question was initially difficult because the project had since reorganized their own library structure, breaking things into multiple smaller JARs. Except that some of the functionality was actually _removed_, and isn't available at the latest API revision (functionality we had been using, naturally). Classes had moved around to different packages than where they were previously, and various interfaces appear to have been completely rewritten.
Upgrading to a version of the library that actually fixed the flaw was going to be akin to opening Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, our former architect (from whom I inherited this code) was the type of guy who just liked to throw external libraries at every problem. In the end we had to document the fault for all current versions of the product, and now I'm trying to get management buy-in to do the work necessary to upgrade the library in question for the next version of our product.
It might not be worth it - this scenario will no doubt play out again. You'll move to version X, and make thousands of code changes to make the move. In about five years your successor will find some bug in version X that is fixed in version X+5. Unfortunately, architectural changes would be once again required, much like now. It's a vicious cycle.
Your best bet is to continue using the current library and simply not use it's URL parsing functionality - write your own small function to do just that one thing. Every change to code raises the probability of fresh bugs appearing, regardless of unit-tests.
You should see the 'preening' that goes on in the Discus forums. The EU would be pleased
You - I linked to one of the myriad of studies that display the well-known inverse correlation between IQ and religious conviction. No text, just the link, and it was deleted in about 8 hours:-)
Websites tend to like disqus discussions - by removing all the dissenting voice they can present a "this is what the general readers think" picture which might only be a minority view of the actual readers.
My point is even if Swift gets to #1 for iOS apps, its marketshare will be so small that it may as well be statistical noise.
Then your point is stupid. The very least that's going to happen is it's going to replace Obj-C in the ratings, and that's currently number 5.
Way to go to prove my point for me - obj-c is what? Something like a quarter of the Java rating? A third of the C rating? You're basically measuring obj-c in fractions of what the mainstream languages rate. And you're using web-searches (tiobe uses web-searches) to determine a languages popularity.
I looked at the github stats some time back - objective-c is bottom of the popularity contest if you consider code committed to github, but top of the popularity contest when you look at registered watchers on github. IOW, there are more people looking at objective-c projects than there are people using it. This is also why I suspect it comes up higher on tiobe - more people search for it, fewer people use it.
Of course not. There are now variations going out regularly, I'm talking about new code.
Well good luck:-) I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's waiting to see how well this language fares in extended real-world usage. Be sure to publicise your successes.
Thank you - I looked at the index just now and it appears that Swift is ahead by 0.004% over MATLAB. Swift is still lower than the more obscure and outdated languages there - Object Pascal out ranks it. So does VB, R and Perl. At this point Swift is not even in the running; the languages it beats out are COBOL, Abap and Pascal. Other than Pascal, it is the lowest ranking general purpose language. Which leads me to wonder why you would even bother asking people to look at the tiobe index - it shows Swift t be much worse off than I thought.
More significantly that other young contender, Ruby, is below it.
Young? Ruby is over two decades old - you cannot compare Ruby to Swift as "young" languages. Ruby is old, and this is as popular is it is ever going to get. Swift still has a chance to climb up the rankings; if it ever gets as popular as objective-c did, it would rank at a quarter of the lead language, a third of the second leading language.
And yes of course I mean phone app developers. Some Mac developers, but mainly phone developers.
A burgeoning market I believe. Last I saw it was estimated $35m (all handsets included) in revenue. The total software market is estimated $400b. Swift can be #1 for developing iOS apps, but it is still insignificant against the overall software market which uses non-Apple languages. My point is even if Swift gets to #1 for iOS apps, its marketshare will be so small that it may as well be statistical noise. This is why I said that Apple may want a larger take-up of Swift on other platforms. It is more likely to survive if cross-platform.
Swift's only been out a year, and it's already #14 on the Tiobe index.
Zealot alert, sign #4 - "All my friends are dead, but I'm the survivor!" - Swift @14 is below general purpose languages like Pascal and below niche languages like R, Matlab, etc. Even Perl, considered a dead language, is higher than #14.
And has been voted StackOverflow users favourite language. Take up has been anything but slow.
Zealot alert, sign #2 - "That's the only argument I've got so I'm gonna use it!" -
For future notes: "Not as fast as they predicted" is not the same as "slow".
And I'd expect it to accelerate now, even without the open sourcing, as plenty of people were treating the 1.x label is meaning not yet ready. Plenty of companies will be starting to use it now it's 2.x.
By "plenty of companies" did you mean "iPhone App Makers"? 'Cos objective-C itself was rarely used outside of iOS targets. Hell, I'm a firm WindowMaker/Gnustep user, have been for decades, and even I struggle to find apps written in objective-c.
(I'm an iOS Obj-C developer on one of the most popular apps on the store. We haven't started using Swift yet, but now 2.0 is out I'll be pushing for that.)
That doesn't sound like a very wise business decision - are you planning to rewrite the (current popular) app?
That would probably have prevented the annoying bug I ran into a few years ago where someone copied a 64-bit time_t to a 32-bit int, did some arithmetic, and then copied it back to a 64-bit time_t, requiring us to update firmware at all customer sites to fix it. If they had to explicitly convert, they'd almost certainly have realized they were doing something wrong.
That bug alone probably cost us more money than the time required for programmers to always explicitly convert types.
Your programmers might not be very smart if they either a) didn't turn on the warnings or b) ignored the warnings. In both those cases a language won't help - you'd still have bugs due to ignoring the warnings.
Why would Apple "fanboys" give a damn whether developers on other platforms use Swift. It doesn't affect us. It was the Linux heads here that were complaining that swift wasn't cross platform. Well now it is. Take it or leave it, it doesn't matter to us.
Objective-C was also available to the rest of the world outside Apple. They left it. Now Apple is (presumably) leaving it too.
This rumor comes up every year. There would be no advantage to them releasing an Android device. They wouldn't get any cut of app sales,
So? It's not like they're making anything now from their own app store; they lose absolutely nothing by throwing away their own store (which they won't necessarily have to do anyway) and using android stores.
they can't control Android security (which is an absolute joke),
They can quite easily sandbox it. Android is only a subsystem after all. It already runs as a subsystem in BB 10 OS.
and people still won't buy it because it's a BB.
I'm a die hard BB fan. I've had 6 or 7 BB devices since 2004 (currently a Z10 running 10.3.1) and I'm a 10+ year BES admin. The BlackBerry 10 OS is solid, secure and fast. Give it time. A lot of time. It already runs most Android apps.
I'm not a die-hard BB fan - hell, I'm not even a fan at all. I own a BB Passport, and without a doubt it has the best hardware I've ever used (phonewise, that is). Going from an iPhone6 to a BB Passport is like going from an NES to a PS4. The display is the best I've ever seen, bar none. Readable in direct sunlight, ~450 pixel density (much much higher than the iPhone6/Galaxy S6), easier to read (more chars/line). Phone has battery life out the wazoo even with GPS/Wifi/everything turned on all the time. Interface is as snappy as can be, loading times are nonexistent and the keypad can be typed on much faster than I ever managed on touchscreen keyboards
But the software - my god! It could not possibly get worse! Poorly designed, walled-garden, NIH syndrome permeates every aspect of BB software. Just pick something, anything, and you'll find a dumb decision. For example, voice commands are recognised well even with data turned off, but are implemented stupidly. I do "call wife" and it calls my wife, but doesn't put the phone on speakerphone, hence defeating the purpose of using voice commands as a hands-free interface.
I plug it into my PC so I can use the keyboard to type out BBMs. Yeah, their "blend" pc software uses phone data to send the BBMs *from my pc*. Apparently BBM can only be used from the device and no where else - ignore the PC's internet connection when I'm at work.... go ahead and force me to turn on phone data just to send a few bytes across the network. With phone data turned on, every other application (like email) starts using the data, even though I'm already getting my emails on the PC!
The updates come (when on wifi). They very cleverly remove the play store I have installed (not any other apps, just the play store). I've got to reinstall the play store each time I update. Speaking of which, the BB appstore (whatever they call it) has absolutely no apps I want to use. Every single app that I installed on the phone was from the google play store or amazon app store. Even the crappy BB apps to kill time like bejeweled clones are non-free. They may have nice apps, but I'm not spending a fortune just to find out they don't work for me or my use case. With Android I download and delete so many apps that had I been paying for all of those I'd be a poor man now.
The reason RIMS marketshare won't move from where they are now is due to the dearth of apps for their platform. Using a sandboxed android platform on BB 10 OS will change that. People want the gmail app, not the shitty "ignore gmail folders/tags" email application that they have now. People want to continue using hangouts, not try to convince their friends to use BBM. Their built-in browser is useless - if you get 990 bytes of a 1000 byte HTML file, it will simply refuse to display *anything*. This software truly is horrendous! The only way I could continue using my phone was by installing firefox.
OTOH, the advantages the hardware brings to my life/sort of/ make up for all the BB 10 OS shortcomings. I never used to read much on the phone (to
It's only what a tiny minority of consumers have been asking for since the release of Android...
FTFY
That "tiny minority" who wants blackberry hardware with android software is likely a multiple of the current size of blackberry users. Not that it isn't tiny compared to other android phone users, but it's probably still much much larger than the current BB userbase.
No, you're missing the point. It's not acting as a nanny, it's merely removing the redundancy of having both reasonably-indented code and start/stop tokens. That's it.
Sorry, it keeps the start tokens and only does away with the end tokens[1]. Logically, this does not make sense. Logical people hate python.
[1]Some may even argue that it keeps the end tokens too, only it makes them invisible using whitespace rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to find a microscope or science kit that ISN'T marketed exclusively toward boys.
Enough people posted links refuting your assertion of "marketed to boys" to make you look like a moron, hence there's no need for me to join in - it's obvious you are wrong. The question I want to ask is: now that you have been provided with evidence that your assertion on science toys is absolutely disconnected from reality, will you change your mind or try to change reality? Will you ever, in the future, post this particular assertion no slashdot, after being thoroughly refuted with actual evidence? Are you going to post the same assertion, knowing full well that the same refutations will be provided, with the same evidence?
The reason I ask is because I notice a tendency for the evidence-less side to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist, purely on the off-chance that no one bothers to post it. For example, that men have it easier than women. Or decline in numbers is due to sexism. etc ... etc etc etc. It would be nice to think that you would never post this garbage assertion ever again. Go ahead. Be nice.
If you read the highly moderated posts by the sexist morons that seem to make up the majority of Slashdot posters and moderators - the problem isn't that they're not asking or interested in asking that question. It's that even when confronted with the evidence, they're denying that its a valid question in the first place - the sociological equivalent of dividing by zero.
Nope. when confronted by the assertion "it must be sexism" we call it out (rightly) as a bullshit assertion. Women now have more freedoms in employment than they did back then. They are now exercising their options for other careers. If you want to return to a place where more women enter CS/STEM, you are free to go to theocracies which demand that women can't even show their faces in public. Those societies have more women in STEM.
The problem (for you, anyway) is that the fact that women, when given a choice, choose *not* to do CS, is that it breaks your ideology. Back when they had fewer choices they were found in CS. Now that they have *more* choices you find them elsewhere. Your narrative that the decline in numbers is disconnected from reality.
That was a generation ago; these aren't the same women, so your explanation makes zero sense. Something's changed in society.
You're absolutely correct - women now have more choices. That's what changed - other professions became open to them. Society changed to give women more freedom. Women didn't like it before, but they had fewer options. Now they have a lot more options so they don't have to work at a job they don't enjoy.
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
Utter tosh. "Normal" does not mean "at least half the population share that characteristic". For example, it is perfectly normal for someone to have red hair.
It's playing with words, you're really wanting to say that homosexuals are "abnormal".
Look at my posting history, you blithering idiot. I'm in full support of gay rights. Calling something that is unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal" is incorrect. You can also say "it's perfectly normal for someone to act on the urge to kill", considering that there are more attempted murders per population than there are homosexuals. You can't really say "$foo, which is $y% of the population, is normal but $bar, which is also $y % of the population is not normal".
(PS. There's a difference between not normal and abnormal. Look it up. I never called homosexuality abnormal.)
You are not, as you seem to believe, arguing for your political ideology; you can even leave homosexuality out of the discussion - the question is only "Is an occurrence rate of less than 10% enough to satisfy the assertion of 'this is a normal occurence' or not?"
That's the only question - is a 10% rate of occurrence enough to call a characteristic normal?
You answer "yes". I answer "no".
(PS. Your answer leads to the assertion that child-molesters, rapists, sociopaths, psychopaths, mental illness sufferers (plus a range of other characteristics) are all "normal". Most people would not agree with your assertion that rapists are normal)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".
First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.
Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down :-)
Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.
Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not normal.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert :-)).
However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.
The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.
Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.
You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.
Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".
First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.
Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down :-)
Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.
Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not the norm.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert :-)).
However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.
The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.
Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.
You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.
Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
Which ironically will give them the exact justification to bring in the contractors -
What does quitting do other than fulfilling what management wanted all along??
Because you get to do it on your terms, not theirs.
Your terms, coincidentally, involves saving Disney a chunk of money. Money that will of course find its way to the execs who thought the idea up in the first place. And your new employer will probably sooner or later be thinking along the same lines. It's lose-lose, no matter what you do.
The best thing to do is to unionise *and* stay. They try to pull this shit again and executive heads will roll.
The enterprise plans aren't cheap, and private github repos are pretty popular with startups (of which there's a bazillion of them now).
Of course they aren't going to get 222/user per year. If they did, their valuation would be 5-10 billion, not 2. No company makes their entire valuation in revenue every year.
Firstly, I never claimed $222/year. Secondly, almost every commercial (i.e. have money to spend) dev team can have their own private enterprise git repo on a number of different VPS's out there for chump change. A few years ago it was different, it was expensive to host your own server. Now it's cheap. Host multiple ones in different sites and you also get redundancy and backup, probably for a lot less than the enterprise github plans.
So each user is worth $222? Please... this has all the characteristics of a bubble. There is no way they are ever going to be able to monetize users to the tune of $222/user.
What should be happening : when you're planning a new release, raise the component versions to the latest and run your test suite. If it passes, good job, release it.
What is actually happening : the version numbers never get edited, because that version worked, and if you change it, OMG, it might stop working.
Part of the problem I run into with this is that sometimes projects stick with old dependencies because at some point, some major version came along that significantly changed the organization of the API in such a way that the latest component version an't just be dropped in, but requires significant resources refactoring your code to use it. Getting management buy-in for that when there aren't any big customers breathing down their neck to get a flaw fixed can be neigh on impossible.
I ran into this recently myself. During internal testing, I discovered a flaw in our product when accessing any of our web resources using an IPv6 destination IP in the URL (i.e.: http://18080./ A quick bit of debugging showed that an external library we had been using for several years was doing some brain-dead parsing of the URL to pull out the port number; it was just doing a string split after the first colon it found, and presumed the rest was the port number.
Modifying the Maven POM to use a newer version of the API in question was initially difficult because the project had since reorganized their own library structure, breaking things into multiple smaller JARs. Except that some of the functionality was actually _removed_, and isn't available at the latest API revision (functionality we had been using, naturally). Classes had moved around to different packages than where they were previously, and various interfaces appear to have been completely rewritten.
Upgrading to a version of the library that actually fixed the flaw was going to be akin to opening Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, our former architect (from whom I inherited this code) was the type of guy who just liked to throw external libraries at every problem. In the end we had to document the fault for all current versions of the product, and now I'm trying to get management buy-in to do the work necessary to upgrade the library in question for the next version of our product.
It might not be worth it - this scenario will no doubt play out again. You'll move to version X, and make thousands of code changes to make the move. In about five years your successor will find some bug in version X that is fixed in version X+5. Unfortunately, architectural changes would be once again required, much like now. It's a vicious cycle.
Your best bet is to continue using the current library and simply not use it's URL parsing functionality - write your own small function to do just that one thing. Every change to code raises the probability of fresh bugs appearing, regardless of unit-tests.
You should see the 'preening' that goes on in the Discus forums. The EU would be pleased
You - I linked to one of the myriad of studies that display the well-known inverse correlation between IQ and religious conviction. No text, just the link, and it was deleted in about 8 hours :-)
Websites tend to like disqus discussions - by removing all the dissenting voice they can present a "this is what the general readers think" picture which might only be a minority view of the actual readers.
"It's not like he has to produce a new build or approve a new patch every 47 seconds to keep the world from exploding."
BLASPHEMY!!! You can expect the inquisitors to arrive shortly.
Not the spanish ones.
(NOTE: The spanish ones *will* come, yuo just won't expect them)
My point is even if Swift gets to #1 for iOS apps, its marketshare will be so small that it may as well be statistical noise.
Then your point is stupid. The very least that's going to happen is it's going to replace Obj-C in the ratings, and that's currently number 5.
Way to go to prove my point for me - obj-c is what? Something like a quarter of the Java rating? A third of the C rating? You're basically measuring obj-c in fractions of what the mainstream languages rate. And you're using web-searches (tiobe uses web-searches) to determine a languages popularity.
I looked at the github stats some time back - objective-c is bottom of the popularity contest if you consider code committed to github, but top of the popularity contest when you look at registered watchers on github. IOW, there are more people looking at objective-c projects than there are people using it. This is also why I suspect it comes up higher on tiobe - more people search for it, fewer people use it.
Of course not. There are now variations going out regularly, I'm talking about new code.
Well good luck :-) I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's waiting to see how well this language fares in extended real-world usage. Be sure to publicise your successes.
Wrong, both Pascal and MATLAB are below it.
Thank you - I looked at the index just now and it appears that Swift is ahead by 0.004% over MATLAB. Swift is still lower than the more obscure and outdated languages there - Object Pascal out ranks it. So does VB, R and Perl. At this point Swift is not even in the running; the languages it beats out are COBOL, Abap and Pascal. Other than Pascal, it is the lowest ranking general purpose language. Which leads me to wonder why you would even bother asking people to look at the tiobe index - it shows Swift t be much worse off than I thought.
More significantly that other young contender, Ruby, is below it.
Young? Ruby is over two decades old - you cannot compare Ruby to Swift as "young" languages. Ruby is old, and this is as popular is it is ever going to get. Swift still has a chance to climb up the rankings; if it ever gets as popular as objective-c did, it would rank at a quarter of the lead language, a third of the second leading language.
And yes of course I mean phone app developers. Some Mac developers, but mainly phone developers.
A burgeoning market I believe. Last I saw it was estimated $35m (all handsets included) in revenue. The total software market is estimated $400b. Swift can be #1 for developing iOS apps, but it is still insignificant against the overall software market which uses non-Apple languages. My point is even if Swift gets to #1 for iOS apps, its marketshare will be so small that it may as well be statistical noise. This is why I said that Apple may want a larger take-up of Swift on other platforms. It is more likely to survive if cross-platform.
Swift's only been out a year, and it's already #14 on the Tiobe index.
Zealot alert, sign #4 - "All my friends are dead, but I'm the survivor!" - Swift @14 is below general purpose languages like Pascal and below niche languages like R, Matlab, etc. Even Perl, considered a dead language, is higher than #14.
And has been voted StackOverflow users favourite language. Take up has been anything but slow.
Zealot alert, sign #2 - "That's the only argument I've got so I'm gonna use it!" -
For future notes: "Not as fast as they predicted" is not the same as "slow".
And I'd expect it to accelerate now, even without the open sourcing, as plenty of people were treating the 1.x label is meaning not yet ready. Plenty of companies will be starting to use it now it's 2.x.
By "plenty of companies" did you mean "iPhone App Makers"? 'Cos objective-C itself was rarely used outside of iOS targets. Hell, I'm a firm WindowMaker/Gnustep user, have been for decades, and even I struggle to find apps written in objective-c.
(I'm an iOS Obj-C developer on one of the most popular apps on the store. We haven't started using Swift yet, but now 2.0 is out I'll be pushing for that.)
That doesn't sound like a very wise business decision - are you planning to rewrite the (current popular) app?
That would probably have prevented the annoying bug I ran into a few years ago where someone copied a 64-bit time_t to a 32-bit int, did some arithmetic, and then copied it back to a 64-bit time_t, requiring us to update firmware at all customer sites to fix it. If they had to explicitly convert, they'd almost certainly have realized they were doing something wrong.
That bug alone probably cost us more money than the time required for programmers to always explicitly convert types.
Your programmers might not be very smart if they either a) didn't turn on the warnings or b) ignored the warnings. In both those cases a language won't help - you'd still have bugs due to ignoring the warnings.
Why would Apple "fanboys" give a damn whether developers on other platforms use Swift. It doesn't affect us. It was the Linux heads here that were complaining that swift wasn't cross platform. Well now it is. Take it or leave it, it doesn't matter to us.
Objective-C was also available to the rest of the world outside Apple. They left it. Now Apple is (presumably) leaving it too.
This rumor comes up every year. There would be no advantage to them releasing an Android device. They wouldn't get any cut of app sales,
So? It's not like they're making anything now from their own app store; they lose absolutely nothing by throwing away their own store (which they won't necessarily have to do anyway) and using android stores.
they can't control Android security (which is an absolute joke),
They can quite easily sandbox it. Android is only a subsystem after all. It already runs as a subsystem in BB 10 OS.
and people still won't buy it because it's a BB.
I'm a die hard BB fan. I've had 6 or 7 BB devices since 2004 (currently a Z10 running 10.3.1) and I'm a 10+ year BES admin. The BlackBerry 10 OS is solid, secure and fast. Give it time. A lot of time. It already runs most Android apps.
I'm not a die-hard BB fan - hell, I'm not even a fan at all. I own a BB Passport, and without a doubt it has the best hardware I've ever used (phonewise, that is). Going from an iPhone6 to a BB Passport is like going from an NES to a PS4. The display is the best I've ever seen, bar none. Readable in direct sunlight, ~450 pixel density (much much higher than the iPhone6/Galaxy S6), easier to read (more chars/line). Phone has battery life out the wazoo even with GPS/Wifi/everything turned on all the time. Interface is as snappy as can be, loading times are nonexistent and the keypad can be typed on much faster than I ever managed on touchscreen keyboards
But the software - my god! It could not possibly get worse! Poorly designed, walled-garden, NIH syndrome permeates every aspect of BB software. Just pick something, anything, and you'll find a dumb decision. For example, voice commands are recognised well even with data turned off, but are implemented stupidly. I do "call wife" and it calls my wife, but doesn't put the phone on speakerphone, hence defeating the purpose of using voice commands as a hands-free interface.
I plug it into my PC so I can use the keyboard to type out BBMs. Yeah, their "blend" pc software uses phone data to send the BBMs *from my pc*. Apparently BBM can only be used from the device and no where else - ignore the PC's internet connection when I'm at work.... go ahead and force me to turn on phone data just to send a few bytes across the network. With phone data turned on, every other application (like email) starts using the data, even though I'm already getting my emails on the PC!
The updates come (when on wifi). They very cleverly remove the play store I have installed (not any other apps, just the play store). I've got to reinstall the play store each time I update. Speaking of which, the BB appstore (whatever they call it) has absolutely no apps I want to use. Every single app that I installed on the phone was from the google play store or amazon app store. Even the crappy BB apps to kill time like bejeweled clones are non-free. They may have nice apps, but I'm not spending a fortune just to find out they don't work for me or my use case. With Android I download and delete so many apps that had I been paying for all of those I'd be a poor man now.
The reason RIMS marketshare won't move from where they are now is due to the dearth of apps for their platform. Using a sandboxed android platform on BB 10 OS will change that. People want the gmail app, not the shitty "ignore gmail folders/tags" email application that they have now. People want to continue using hangouts, not try to convince their friends to use BBM. Their built-in browser is useless - if you get 990 bytes of a 1000 byte HTML file, it will simply refuse to display *anything*. This software truly is horrendous! The only way I could continue using my phone was by installing firefox.
OTOH, the advantages the hardware brings to my life /sort of/ make up for all the BB 10 OS shortcomings. I never used to read much on the phone (to
It's only what a tiny minority of consumers have been asking for since the release of Android...
FTFY
That "tiny minority" who wants blackberry hardware with android software is likely a multiple of the current size of blackberry users. Not that it isn't tiny compared to other android phone users, but it's probably still much much larger than the current BB userbase.
We are the knights who say...
"PING!"
No, you're missing the point. It's not acting as a nanny, it's merely removing the redundancy of having both reasonably-indented code and start/stop tokens. That's it.
Sorry, it keeps the start tokens and only does away with the end tokens[1]. Logically, this does not make sense. Logical people hate python.
[1]Some may even argue that it keeps the end tokens too, only it makes them invisible using whitespace rules.