And as usual those same right-wing proponents squawk about "value" as if that word had any a priori meaning. It's the same thing Marx got wrong. Value isn't defined by how much work went into a good. And it certainly isn't defined, nor caused, by the "Rich." Value exists solely on an interpersonal level and is defined by each and every individual with respect to a particular good.
I may highly value a certain kind of Cigar, while you will scoff and say it's a waste of money. Value in and of itself can not be used in an aggregate context and has absolutely no meaning outside the context of an individual (and a particular good.)
The only thing that will save our society is to end the mindless veneration of Richness as the ultimate goal of life. The Declaration of Independence asserts the right for all of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and yet nowhere in that venerable document does it define the "Pursuit of Happiness" as the pursuit for riches above all else. Our priorities are all wrong. And no-one wants to admit it.
I will first note that I have never myself done any comprehensive study regarding the statistics of "Self Made Men" verses "Inherited Rich Men."
That being said, I believe that it is a logical fallacy to state categorically that being Rich necessarily implies having earned those riches. Without a doubt, behind every trust fund baby there is a Self Made Man SOMEWHERE in the family tree. But it just doesn't make sense to glorify the ultra rich by saying "They earned it, let em keep it." Exactly what did Paris Hilton do to earn her riches? George W. Bush? I'm sure we could find example after example. For every Warren Buffet (whose "earning" of large sums of money certainly conflicts with the common sense definition of "earn") we can find at the very least twice as many examples of Inherited Riches who not even the staunchest free market proponent could claim earned it.
America has a fundamentally twisted view on what is actually important. We value "Teh Rich" and their lifestyles over anything which could potentially raise the basic ability for even the most ordinary individual to be happy. We have twisted views on "Fairness," which value an individuals ability to Get Rich by any means necessary rather than ensuring that everyone has certain basic needs taken care of, allowing them to finally focus on possible entrepreneurial activities. We raise the proud few who happened to be born "under the right star" with the right ability, in the right place, at the right time over the rest of the citizenry who "just aren't trying hard enough."
We hem and haw about the so called "Welfare Queens" who laze around, pushing out kids and living the high life on whatever pittance they get from the dole. While at the exact same time turning a blind eye to the parasites at the top who are bleeding our treasury dry with bailouts, gold parashutes, revolving doors between Wall Street and the regulators and all the other un-ethical shit 'Teh Rich" get away with each and every day.
But never mind that, it's those goddamned Welfare Queens. They're bleeding our country dry with their $600 a month in welfare. And don't forget those Medicare teet-suckers. If it weren't for them, we'd have a lot more money to funnel into bailouts, corporate welfare and other, more important, entitlements for the modern Aristocracy.
Don't fool yourselves. Even now, in the 21st century, our once proud American society, founded For the People by the People is now the proud owners of an Aristocracy every bit as parasitic as the ones which bled the life out of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and which our system of government was established to get away from.
Just keep hating the poor, it's their own fault anyway. Lazy shits.
Oh and the first person to call me a socialist can go get themselves fucked, straight away. I am advocating that the fundamentals of our society are predicated on an unhealthy love of Riches and are thus skewed in the favor of those Rich to the detriment of the rest of society. Let those who can be rich. But why base the whole system on gaining that particular state and venerate that state practically to the point of being a national religion while the rest of the country muddles on, sometimes in the squalor of abject poverty?
This is a manifestation of the American Mindset of "He didn't earn it, so he doesn't deserve it." This, BTW, is the same reason Americans by and large cry foul over certain entitlements and other "socialist" programs. Ordinary Americans tend to have a belief in "Fairness" which borders on pathological.
I agree. Ok, so you can get me from one side of the country to the other in 10% less time, but it uses 25% more fuel and costs 45% more. Sounds like a deal to me!
As much as I want to sympathize with your "Corporations run the country" ideology, what you really should be saying is "Our priorities are stuck somewhere with the policy makers lips between the ball sack and the arsehole of bankers and high finance while fondling in the wallets of their personal interests and gains."
Sure, GE might squeeze a some graft from the gubmint here and there, but it pales in comparison of the way Wall Street and the banking cartels skull fuck our government, and by extension the people.
These parasites have us all convinced that the world wouldn't last a day with out them while they suck us dry. I only wish I could use the same diabolical logic on my boss. "Sir, this company wouldn't last a day with out me. Give me a 125% raise!"... "Durr, OK!" (Note that my Boss says "Durr" a lot, but it's never with respect to my compensation. Unfortunately)
I didn't mean to imply that I thought refactoring was in and of itself useless, rather that with the Java style getters/setters you either have to use those exclusively, just in case you need to change the semantics of accessing a particular property, or use refactoring tools to automate changing what had previously been a simple attribute access, e.g. blah == foo.bar, to blah = foo.getBar() when the situation dictates.
I merely wished to point out the typical Java solution of "Getters and Setters For Everything" is wrong headed and leads to the exact kind of code bloat and extraneous verbosity that Java is undeniably famous for. The kind of pointless verbosity which requires complex IDE's and toolsets to keep developers from going insane. "Oh joy, my new class is going to have 20 publicly visible attributes, time to write 20 more getter methods. I love my job!"
What are you talking about? The style of operator overloading he's talking about is hardly any different than the C++ style.
What is the functional difference between Python's class Foo(object):
def __add__(self, other):
return self.value + other.value
and the C++ equivalent class Foo {
Foo operator+(Foo &other) {
return Foo(this.value + other.value);
} }
I'm not familiar with Smalltalk, but I would imagine that other "operator methods" could be overloaded in a similar fashion. In all cases the compiler is going to see foo + bar (where both are instances of the Foo class) as foo.__add___(bar) and foo.operator+(bar)
respectively.
Except when a change in requirements requires a change in the semantics of how a particular attribute behaves. With the Ruby/Python property syntax you can create a property with the exact same name as the attribute, implementing the new semantics and ALL code relying on that attribute will continue to function with out change. The fact that writing foo.bar = "Baz" translates to foo.bar("Baz") is completely invisible to the user, as it should be. And don't even start on "Refactoring tools" as a solution to this problem. The necessity for "refactoring" when you simply need to change something so simple is merely an indication of design flaws in in the language itself.
The Java method is to access public attributes strictly with the kludgey getter/setter functions. Although I've never worked on a "huge enterprisey project," the Ruby/Python method of public except where absolutely necessary is easiest to work with. If some stupid bastard is changing things in an object which shouldn't be changed from the outside, the problem is due to PERSONNEL, not design.
They exist at the bottom of the class so I never have to look at them and the IDE takes care of adding and removing them when necessary
Which is exactly the kind of thing that makes Python users chuckle at Java. The bloody thing is so designed that it practically requires a sophisticated development environment to hide the warts required by said design.
That being said, the "Python way" is to have everything public, unless absolutely necessary, in which case you use name mangling (self.__foobar gets mangled to be object specific, making it much more difficult to access out side of the particular class). Properties are useful strictly for the cases in which you wish to have fine control of what happens when an attribute is accessed/set.
I know a lot of seasoned Java/C++ static typing coders get disconcerted by such a cavalier handling of attribute/method access, but it works for Python with a little bit of discipline and foreknowledge. Not much difference than knowing better than to try to access some block of memory in C++ after having already freed it.
... but the traditionalists are going to go crazy if this catches on, the same way they complained about the digital projection showings of the recent Star Wars movies.
Just like traditionalists have gone crazy over every single other change throughout history. They'll either get over it or eventually die off, and the rest of us will shrug and move on. If we listened to every cranky traditionalist who poo-pooed new ideas we'd still be hunting buffalo and sleeping in caves.
Oh, and one last blow to the traditionalist mindset: The very things they cherish as tradition were at one point *GASP* NEW IDEAS!! Shocking, I know.
Who's the troll now? So lovely, so profound. I call you out for blathering about HOSTS files in unrelated threads and I'm trolling. So here you are, live and in the flesh, APK the magnificent, trolling. I guess it IS like Alanis said, "It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife."
Furthermore, you rail against hairyfeet's "TECHNICAL BLUNDERS & more (regarding HOSTS files)" in a thread which, rather unsurprisingly has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PRECIOUS HOSTS FILES.
Bravo sir, well played.
P.S. => Despite my frequent tirades against you, you're still my favorite SlashTard. Even better than the GNAA and the Shit Eaters. The primary difference as I see it is that you actually think you're sane, while those other guys are typical dyed in the wool trolls, just trying to get people to react. Just shut the hell up about HOSTS files already. WE GET THE FRIGGIN PICTURE.
YES! The only way to get a link to open is to right click and pick "Open in new tab/window".. this is almost as bad as the unholy abortion that is MySQL Workbench 5.2.33b... but that's a whole other rant.
The best part of his "argument" is the failure to appreciate the qualitative differences between "human error" when say, walking down the street and "human error" when piloting a 1.5 ton vehicle traveling at 65 MPH. While the first may cause an old lady to fall over when you accidently bump into her, the second will cause that same old lady to be crushed and killed when you accidently bump your high velocity death wagon into her. This propensity to try and put these same "human errors" into different categories just because one involves an automobile is completely stupid. Any opportunity to reduce "human error" should be taken just as soon as the solution is shown to be statistically safer. Just because a few control-freak whiners cry about not having enough control doesn't mean we should stop progress just to shut them up!!!
I hope that's not your personal argument, because it's completely irrational. Oh my, people might die, but at least when it's people killing people we have someone to blame! What a bunch of bollocks. Deaths are deaths, the exact cause, whether human or algorithm makes absolutely no difference. But of course the same creatures who are happy to attribute their creation to an imaginary sky fairy will be more than happy to subscribe to the exact same faulty logic. Yay for humans, the most intelligent species on our planet, and the most willing treat utter fantasy as the absolute truth.
Oh no sir, I was COUNTING on you keeping close vigil on your pathetic bleatings and making half assed, desperate attempts to defend yourself, just like you always do.
And how in the hell does my post in any way shape or form constitute backstabbing? ITS A PUBLIC FORUM!! Once again you show the world your fundamental incapacity for rational thought. Bravo, way to make my point for me! I hardly even have to do anything.
At first I was amused by your bleatings, but it's starting to grow tiresome. First you assert that one requires a PHD in psychology, or at the very least experience in the field of psychoanalysis, to form an opinion about the apparent mental state of a particular poster on an internet forum. Then, you repeat yourself several times, all the while failing to produce a single reason why a "PHD in Psychology" is necessary for the formation of opinion.
To top it all off, you pretend I'm a troll when the only impact my posts will have is on YOU, APK. At best you could call it flamebait. But in reality, I'm only saying what everyone else thinks when you post the exact same copy pasta about HOSTS files or whatever other thing gets your rocks off.
Let's see what else you have in your playbook. So far I'm not impressed.
BTW spanky, your "evidence" which you used to "expose hairyfeet in his BIG FAIL" is pretty weak. It amounts to you rebutting his post with "Nuh uh!" Bravo, your wit will surely go down in history as unassailable.
P.S. => Gossip and bullshit is what slashdot is about. Try digg if you want hard hitting commentary. Hell they might even welcome your raving lunacy there. Who knows?
I applaud your attempt to save apk from himself but he is impervious to criticism. As you can see from the first reply he made he didn't even completely parse your post, instead he flew off the handle daring you to show your PH.D as if that were a requirement for forming an opinion about his terrible posts. No, apk is a dyed in the wool lunatic, frothing at the mouth about hosts and blind to the fact that everybody knows he's insane.
And apk, before you feel tempted to make some half assed response to this post, don't bother. All the rambling bullshit in the world will never convince even a single soul that your NOT everything I have accused you of being.
Yes, but it potentially saves extra mouse motion and having aim for the maximize button. I mean really, is one extra click going to ruin your life? I don't have an opinion on this issue, seeing as how I'm not a GNOME user. But honestly, some of the butt-hurt whining going on here is getting to be absurd!
Slashdot Mirror
And as usual those same right-wing proponents squawk about "value" as if that word had any a priori meaning. It's the same thing Marx got wrong. Value isn't defined by how much work went into a good. And it certainly isn't defined, nor caused, by the "Rich." Value exists solely on an interpersonal level and is defined by each and every individual with respect to a particular good.
I may highly value a certain kind of Cigar, while you will scoff and say it's a waste of money. Value in and of itself can not be used in an aggregate context and has absolutely no meaning outside the context of an individual (and a particular good.)
The only thing that will save our society is to end the mindless veneration of Richness as the ultimate goal of life. The Declaration of Independence asserts the right for all of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and yet nowhere in that venerable document does it define the "Pursuit of Happiness" as the pursuit for riches above all else. Our priorities are all wrong. And no-one wants to admit it.
I will first note that I have never myself done any comprehensive study regarding the statistics of "Self Made Men" verses "Inherited Rich Men."
That being said, I believe that it is a logical fallacy to state categorically that being Rich necessarily implies having earned those riches. Without a doubt, behind every trust fund baby there is a Self Made Man SOMEWHERE in the family tree. But it just doesn't make sense to glorify the ultra rich by saying "They earned it, let em keep it." Exactly what did Paris Hilton do to earn her riches? George W. Bush? I'm sure we could find example after example. For every Warren Buffet (whose "earning" of large sums of money certainly conflicts with the common sense definition of "earn") we can find at the very least twice as many examples of Inherited Riches who not even the staunchest free market proponent could claim earned it.
America has a fundamentally twisted view on what is actually important. We value "Teh Rich" and their lifestyles over anything which could potentially raise the basic ability for even the most ordinary individual to be happy. We have twisted views on "Fairness," which value an individuals ability to Get Rich by any means necessary rather than ensuring that everyone has certain basic needs taken care of, allowing them to finally focus on possible entrepreneurial activities. We raise the proud few who happened to be born "under the right star" with the right ability, in the right place, at the right time over the rest of the citizenry who "just aren't trying hard enough."
We hem and haw about the so called "Welfare Queens" who laze around, pushing out kids and living the high life on whatever pittance they get from the dole. While at the exact same time turning a blind eye to the parasites at the top who are bleeding our treasury dry with bailouts, gold parashutes, revolving doors between Wall Street and the regulators and all the other un-ethical shit 'Teh Rich" get away with each and every day.
But never mind that, it's those goddamned Welfare Queens. They're bleeding our country dry with their $600 a month in welfare. And don't forget those Medicare teet-suckers. If it weren't for them, we'd have a lot more money to funnel into bailouts, corporate welfare and other, more important, entitlements for the modern Aristocracy.
Don't fool yourselves. Even now, in the 21st century, our once proud American society, founded For the People by the People is now the proud owners of an Aristocracy every bit as parasitic as the ones which bled the life out of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and which our system of government was established to get away from.
Just keep hating the poor, it's their own fault anyway. Lazy shits.
Oh and the first person to call me a socialist can go get themselves fucked, straight away. I am advocating that the fundamentals of our society are predicated on an unhealthy love of Riches and are thus skewed in the favor of those Rich to the detriment of the rest of society. Let those who can be rich. But why base the whole system on gaining that particular state and venerate that state practically to the point of being a national religion while the rest of the country muddles on, sometimes in the squalor of abject poverty?
This is a manifestation of the American Mindset of "He didn't earn it, so he doesn't deserve it." This, BTW, is the same reason Americans by and large cry foul over certain entitlements and other "socialist" programs. Ordinary Americans tend to have a belief in "Fairness" which borders on pathological.
I agree. Ok, so you can get me from one side of the country to the other in 10% less time, but it uses 25% more fuel and costs 45% more. Sounds like a deal to me!
As much as I want to sympathize with your "Corporations run the country" ideology, what you really should be saying is "Our priorities are stuck somewhere with the policy makers lips between the ball sack and the arsehole of bankers and high finance while fondling in the wallets of their personal interests and gains."
Sure, GE might squeeze a some graft from the gubmint here and there, but it pales in comparison of the way Wall Street and the banking cartels skull fuck our government, and by extension the people.
These parasites have us all convinced that the world wouldn't last a day with out them while they suck us dry. I only wish I could use the same diabolical logic on my boss. "Sir, this company wouldn't last a day with out me. Give me a 125% raise!" ... "Durr, OK!" (Note that my Boss says "Durr" a lot, but it's never with respect to my compensation. Unfortunately)
I didn't mean to imply that I thought refactoring was in and of itself useless, rather that with the Java style getters/setters you either have to use those exclusively, just in case you need to change the semantics of accessing a particular property, or use refactoring tools to automate changing what had previously been a simple attribute access, e.g. blah == foo.bar, to blah = foo.getBar() when the situation dictates.
I merely wished to point out the typical Java solution of "Getters and Setters For Everything" is wrong headed and leads to the exact kind of code bloat and extraneous verbosity that Java is undeniably famous for. The kind of pointless verbosity which requires complex IDE's and toolsets to keep developers from going insane. "Oh joy, my new class is going to have 20 publicly visible attributes, time to write 20 more getter methods. I love my job!"
What are you talking about? The style of operator overloading he's talking about is hardly any different than the C++ style.
What is the functional difference between Python's
class Foo(object):
def __add__(self, other):
return self.value + other.value
and the C++ equivalent
class Foo {
Foo operator+(Foo &other) {
return Foo(this.value + other.value);
}
}
I'm not familiar with Smalltalk, but I would imagine that other "operator methods" could be overloaded in a similar fashion. In all cases the compiler is going to see
foo + bar
(where both are instances of the Foo class) as
foo.__add___(bar)
and
foo.operator+(bar)
respectively.
Except when a change in requirements requires a change in the semantics of how a particular attribute behaves. With the Ruby/Python property syntax you can create a property with the exact same name as the attribute, implementing the new semantics and ALL code relying on that attribute will continue to function with out change. The fact that writing foo.bar = "Baz" translates to foo.bar("Baz") is completely invisible to the user, as it should be. And don't even start on "Refactoring tools" as a solution to this problem. The necessity for "refactoring" when you simply need to change something so simple is merely an indication of design flaws in in the language itself.
The Java method is to access public attributes strictly with the kludgey getter/setter functions. Although I've never worked on a "huge enterprisey project," the Ruby/Python method of public except where absolutely necessary is easiest to work with. If some stupid bastard is changing things in an object which shouldn't be changed from the outside, the problem is due to PERSONNEL, not design.
They exist at the bottom of the class so I never have to look at them and the IDE takes care of adding and removing them when necessary
Which is exactly the kind of thing that makes Python users chuckle at Java. The bloody thing is so designed that it practically requires a sophisticated development environment to hide the warts required by said design.
That being said, the "Python way" is to have everything public, unless absolutely necessary, in which case you use name mangling (self.__foobar gets mangled to be object specific, making it much more difficult to access out side of the particular class). Properties are useful strictly for the cases in which you wish to have fine control of what happens when an attribute is accessed/set.
I know a lot of seasoned Java/C++ static typing coders get disconcerted by such a cavalier handling of attribute/method access, but it works for Python with a little bit of discipline and foreknowledge. Not much difference than knowing better than to try to access some block of memory in C++ after having already freed it.
You should be happy, it gives you one more thing to complain about.
Honestly, in my day the cranky whiners were HAPPY to have a new thing to complain about. Kids these days...
... but the traditionalists are going to go crazy if this catches on, the same way they complained about the digital projection showings of the recent Star Wars movies.
Just like traditionalists have gone crazy over every single other change throughout history. They'll either get over it or eventually die off, and the rest of us will shrug and move on. If we listened to every cranky traditionalist who poo-pooed new ideas we'd still be hunting buffalo and sleeping in caves.
Oh, and one last blow to the traditionalist mindset: The very things they cherish as tradition were at one point *GASP* NEW IDEAS!! Shocking, I know.
Who's the troll now? So lovely, so profound. I call you out for blathering about HOSTS files in unrelated threads and I'm trolling. So here you are, live and in the flesh, APK the magnificent, trolling. I guess it IS like Alanis said, "It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife."
Furthermore, you rail against hairyfeet's "TECHNICAL BLUNDERS & more (regarding HOSTS files)" in a thread which, rather unsurprisingly has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PRECIOUS HOSTS FILES.
Bravo sir, well played.
P.S. => Despite my frequent tirades against you, you're still my favorite SlashTard. Even better than the GNAA and the Shit Eaters. The primary difference as I see it is that you actually think you're sane, while those other guys are typical dyed in the wool trolls, just trying to get people to react. Just shut the hell up about HOSTS files already. WE GET THE FRIGGIN PICTURE.
YES! The only way to get a link to open is to right click and pick "Open in new tab/window".. this is almost as bad as the unholy abortion that is MySQL Workbench 5.2.33b... but that's a whole other rant.
People are stupid.
Amen. Though you and me are people too, what does that say?
That we're stupid too, but at least we know it!
The best part of his "argument" is the failure to appreciate the qualitative differences between "human error" when say, walking down the street and "human error" when piloting a 1.5 ton vehicle traveling at 65 MPH. While the first may cause an old lady to fall over when you accidently bump into her, the second will cause that same old lady to be crushed and killed when you accidently bump your high velocity death wagon into her. This propensity to try and put these same "human errors" into different categories just because one involves an automobile is completely stupid. Any opportunity to reduce "human error" should be taken just as soon as the solution is shown to be statistically safer. Just because a few control-freak whiners cry about not having enough control doesn't mean we should stop progress just to shut them up!!!
I hope that's not your personal argument, because it's completely irrational. Oh my, people might die, but at least when it's people killing people we have someone to blame! What a bunch of bollocks. Deaths are deaths, the exact cause, whether human or algorithm makes absolutely no difference. But of course the same creatures who are happy to attribute their creation to an imaginary sky fairy will be more than happy to subscribe to the exact same faulty logic. Yay for humans, the most intelligent species on our planet, and the most willing treat utter fantasy as the absolute truth.
Oh no sir, I was COUNTING on you keeping close vigil on your pathetic bleatings and making half assed, desperate attempts to defend yourself, just like you always do.
And how in the hell does my post in any way shape or form constitute backstabbing? ITS A PUBLIC FORUM!! Once again you show the world your fundamental incapacity for rational thought. Bravo, way to make my point for me! I hardly even have to do anything.
At first I was amused by your bleatings, but it's starting to grow tiresome. First you assert that one requires a PHD in psychology, or at the very least experience in the field of psychoanalysis, to form an opinion about the apparent mental state of a particular poster on an internet forum. Then, you repeat yourself several times, all the while failing to produce a single reason why a "PHD in Psychology" is necessary for the formation of opinion.
To top it all off, you pretend I'm a troll when the only impact my posts will have is on YOU, APK. At best you could call it flamebait. But in reality, I'm only saying what everyone else thinks when you post the exact same copy pasta about HOSTS files or whatever other thing gets your rocks off.
Let's see what else you have in your playbook. So far I'm not impressed.
What in the hell are you talking about? Without a PHD in what areas? Troll detection?
Where's your PHD in psychology to call me a 'ne-er-do-well' wannabe?
Don't be mad just because I call you out every time you start going on your pathetic tirades.
Nobody asked for your opinion troll
BTW spanky, your "evidence" which you used to "expose hairyfeet in his BIG FAIL" is pretty weak. It amounts to you rebutting his post with "Nuh uh!" Bravo, your wit will surely go down in history as unassailable.
P.S. => Gossip and bullshit is what slashdot is about. Try digg if you want hard hitting commentary. Hell they might even welcome your raving lunacy there. Who knows?
As an aside, I'm waiting for MichaelKristopeit and APK duke it out.
Yo dawg, I heard you liek trolls so I put a troll in your troll so you can troll while you troll. lol
I applaud your attempt to save apk from himself but he is impervious to criticism. As you can see from the first reply he made he didn't even completely parse your post, instead he flew off the handle daring you to show your PH.D as if that were a requirement for forming an opinion about his terrible posts. No, apk is a dyed in the wool lunatic, frothing at the mouth about hosts and blind to the fact that everybody knows he's insane.
And apk, before you feel tempted to make some half assed response to this post, don't bother. All the rambling bullshit in the world will never convince even a single soul that your NOT everything I have accused you of being.
Yes, but it potentially saves extra mouse motion and having aim for the maximize button. I mean really, is one extra click going to ruin your life? I don't have an opinion on this issue, seeing as how I'm not a GNOME user. But honestly, some of the butt-hurt whining going on here is getting to be absurd!
And there's the money shot. Right on cue.