Have you considered the possibility that since the number of straight male programmers so vastly out numbers the gay male and straight females, that it is obvious that the bulk of the bad coding practices are going to be by straight men?
That women tend to cluster around the average for abilities may be true, but becoming a programmer requires greater than average abilities. Both men and women who are not better than average in ability will tend either to never become programmers or will be lower end programmers.
So in programming, proportionately, there will be more men and the men will tend to be better.
If programming capability has no correlation with helpfulness and if women tend to try to be more helpful than men, then the female programmers would tend to write more comments in an attempt to be more helpful, even if they are not as good at coding.
See, that can't possibly be it. Didn't you watch all those 80s after-school specials? Have you not watched all those female empowerment action movies?
*Sigh*
All women, everywhere, regardless of age, height, weight or any other consideration are absolutely fantastic at everything they do. All women are at least above average intelligence, though most are in the genius category. Obviously, since she is a woman, she is doing her job brilliantly!
I mean look at all the uplifting, empowering stories that show how amazing women are. Can a 300 pound linebacker be flattened by a 95 pound girl? Of course! As long as she believes in herself!
But there is danger out there. What if a woman does something and someone says that it is not very good. That would hurt her self-esteem! Since we've already proven that women are indeed capable of doing everything far better than men, this attempt to hurt women's self-esteem must be stopped. There will be a meeting followed by a handout of the new rules about how all men must grovel a sufficient amount everyday to be allowed in the room with women's amazing wonderfulness.
So, obviously, Mr. "She's not doing her job" you are just a supporter of the white male patriarchy, since you hate women and want them all to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
Don't worry, though. We'll re-educate you. Oh yes we will...
Republics and democracies can pass some truly stupid laws and engage in incredibly foolish endeavors. There is no dispute about that. Even so, the people are governed by those they choose and disagreement is probably inevitable. Given enough disagreement, the governors will be replaced in due time.
Regardless of how wise the actions of an unelected ruler on behalf of the ruled may be, he still rules. The ruled are to obey the ruler and do not get much in the way of a choice in the matter. All that they can do is wait for him to die.
As I understand it, the Geneva Conventions only apply to signatories or to signatories if the non-signatories abide by it even if they have not become signatories. Somehow, I don't think Al Qaeda, for example, fits that bill.
You wrote that he "asserted that the nation's foreign policy has been and is bfurther being controlled by an "unelected, politically unaccountable" group of people." But that is not quite what he said. What he said that democracy does not hold full sway over foreign policy and that it is losing ground to the non-democratic branch of government.
American-run soil is not the same thing as American soil, but they obviously have a lot in common. It is possible that a lot of the dispute is constituted by what is and is not American territory with regards to domestic jurisdiction.
While you are quite correct on the language of the constitution, you have to understand that judges are all lawyers. So language abuse tends to reign supreme. Some examples.
Take the first few words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law". "No" in legalese apparently means "not too many". And Congress, through some ingenious interpretation of the words "due process" includes city councils, state legislatures and more.
"Interstate commerce" includes activities which are neither interstate nor commerce.
"Equal protection" means that some can be legally discriminated against in favor of others.
Better question is how could you not comprehend Roberts' sentence.
The sentence you do not understand is lamenting that the foreign policy of the United States will be less democratic than it was before. The implication of the sentence is that elected people should hold sway over what the country's foreign policy is, not unelected judges.
I'm not a fan of the more vitriolic commentators. I like Limbaugh in small doses, but he grates on me after about 15 minutes. Never cared much for O'Reilly; he reminds me too much of the "professors" I had in college: all who disagree are stupid and should be made to shut up.
But you are mistaken in thinking that this only came about with O'Reilly. Hell, Truman, after asking former President Hoover to head up something in Truman's administration, called Hoover a fascist in a speech; when Hoover complained, Truman replied that when he got to that part of his speech, he almost didn't say it.
I don't think there is much of anything that can be done about the rancor. The disagreements may be so fundamental that there can be no rational resolution. If that is the case, then there is no way for any side to win except by domination.
The best thing I have read so far relating to this sort of topic is a book called After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre. The first chapter has a brief and insightful take on what passes for rational argument today.
Slashdot Mirror
No justice in the world where this was not modded funny.
I might be interested in this game if I can make Cthulhu & the Gang. Otherwise, meh.
International Herald Tribune is on the case as well.
Look!
Up in the sky!
It's an asteroid!
It's a planetoid!
It's SUPEREARTH!
Yes, it's Superearth, strange planet from a far away solar system with gravity and atmospheres far beyond those of mortal planets.
not to mention that the games that are still played a few years after release will look absolutely fantastic.
Really? From my post?
Nah...
Have you considered the possibility that since the number of straight male programmers so vastly out numbers the gay male and straight females, that it is obvious that the bulk of the bad coding practices are going to be by straight men?
That women tend to cluster around the average for abilities may be true, but becoming a programmer requires greater than average abilities. Both men and women who are not better than average in ability will tend either to never become programmers or will be lower end programmers.
So in programming, proportionately, there will be more men and the men will tend to be better.
If programming capability has no correlation with helpfulness and if women tend to try to be more helpful than men, then the female programmers would tend to write more comments in an attempt to be more helpful, even if they are not as good at coding.
"she's not doing her job properly"
See, that can't possibly be it. Didn't you watch all those 80s after-school specials? Have you not watched all those female empowerment action movies?
*Sigh*
All women, everywhere, regardless of age, height, weight or any other consideration are absolutely fantastic at everything they do. All women are at least above average intelligence, though most are in the genius category. Obviously, since she is a woman, she is doing her job brilliantly!
I mean look at all the uplifting, empowering stories that show how amazing women are. Can a 300 pound linebacker be flattened by a 95 pound girl? Of course! As long as she believes in herself!
But there is danger out there. What if a woman does something and someone says that it is not very good. That would hurt her self-esteem! Since we've already proven that women are indeed capable of doing everything far better than men, this attempt to hurt women's self-esteem must be stopped. There will be a meeting followed by a handout of the new rules about how all men must grovel a sufficient amount everyday to be allowed in the room with women's amazing wonderfulness.
So, obviously, Mr. "She's not doing her job" you are just a supporter of the white male patriarchy, since you hate women and want them all to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
Don't worry, though. We'll re-educate you. Oh yes we will...
Every, single day.
:)
Let us not forget the many non-fans of Smith.
Regulate!
Tax!
???
Profit!
Everything should come with a Magic|More Magic switch.
Why the hell would I want a chip with multiple personality disorder?
cptnapalm sits down to work at his computer
*a message pops up on the screen*
"Hello, Dave."
cptnapalm: "My name's not... Oh shit..."
So that is what the ??? in the profit meme stands for!
1. Do something.
2. Do something else.
3. "and then some magic happens"
4. Profit!
Republics and democracies can pass some truly stupid laws and engage in incredibly foolish endeavors. There is no dispute about that. Even so, the people are governed by those they choose and disagreement is probably inevitable. Given enough disagreement, the governors will be replaced in due time.
Regardless of how wise the actions of an unelected ruler on behalf of the ruled may be, he still rules. The ruled are to obey the ruler and do not get much in the way of a choice in the matter. All that they can do is wait for him to die.
As I understand it, the Geneva Conventions only apply to signatories or to signatories if the non-signatories abide by it even if they have not become signatories. Somehow, I don't think Al Qaeda, for example, fits that bill.
You wrote that he "asserted that the nation's foreign policy has been and is bfurther being controlled by an "unelected, politically unaccountable" group of people." But that is not quite what he said. What he said that democracy does not hold full sway over foreign policy and that it is losing ground to the non-democratic branch of government.
American-run soil is not the same thing as American soil, but they obviously have a lot in common. It is possible that a lot of the dispute is constituted by what is and is not American territory with regards to domestic jurisdiction.
While you are quite correct on the language of the constitution, you have to understand that judges are all lawyers. So language abuse tends to reign supreme. Some examples.
Take the first few words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law". "No" in legalese apparently means "not too many". And Congress, through some ingenious interpretation of the words "due process" includes city councils, state legislatures and more.
"Interstate commerce" includes activities which are neither interstate nor commerce.
"Equal protection" means that some can be legally discriminated against in favor of others.
Better question is how could you not comprehend Roberts' sentence.
The sentence you do not understand is lamenting that the foreign policy of the United States will be less democratic than it was before. The implication of the sentence is that elected people should hold sway over what the country's foreign policy is, not unelected judges.
But then who will Democratic presidents be able to nominate?
Your navel?
Hard right wing guy here.
I'm not a fan of the more vitriolic commentators. I like Limbaugh in small doses, but he grates on me after about 15 minutes. Never cared much for O'Reilly; he reminds me too much of the "professors" I had in college: all who disagree are stupid and should be made to shut up.
But you are mistaken in thinking that this only came about with O'Reilly. Hell, Truman, after asking former President Hoover to head up something in Truman's administration, called Hoover a fascist in a speech; when Hoover complained, Truman replied that when he got to that part of his speech, he almost didn't say it.
I don't think there is much of anything that can be done about the rancor. The disagreements may be so fundamental that there can be no rational resolution. If that is the case, then there is no way for any side to win except by domination.
The best thing I have read so far relating to this sort of topic is a book called After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre. The first chapter has a brief and insightful take on what passes for rational argument today.
No, they just love being ironic.
"a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows"
*blink*
*blinkblink*
*blink*
What?
...I think my boss took my stapler... This does not please me.
This is funny :)