I would suggest that those videos are only going half way to clarity. "Offense" is a mental condition that does not at all speak to the reality of what triggered it. Any fine joke teller will at one time or another say "what? too soon?"
..as if the expression of a single thought can magically change with the passage of time. An expression of a thought doesn't change with time. Its the same thought in any time.. It is the listeners that change with time.
So; your argument is that people shouldn't overreact... and that if they say labelling [SIC] shit offensively (but not *too* offensively) offends them, that they have a psychosis?
Yes. Care to address this argument?
You didn't seem to address it at all in the entirety of the rest of your post. I am claiming that the act of being offended is caused by a mental disorder, and my evidence for this is all the mental disorders associated with hypersensitivity. We classify both "easily offended" and "often offended" as symptoms of actual mental disorders. I propose that while its not politically correct to classify these offended woman as not having a mental disorder, that they still in fact have one.
All mental disorders are the product of the environment the mind has been put in, particularly in the developmental years. This does not suggest that there is something wrong with the triggers of that mental disorder (B1GB00B5). This only suggests that there is something wrong with the environment which promotes the disorder in the first place.
I understand that many little girls are taught that they are inferior by their parents and various other environmental conditions, and that many women experience systemic discrimination even today. That does not mean that I should coddle to the mental disorder that has resulted from the environment. I am suggesting quite specifically that there is no implied contract to coddle to any mental disorder regardless of how or why it occurred. The problem has never been what triggers mental disorders and I am not about to start treating it as the problem.
Why not just create inflammatory content saying that the patent trolls support same-sex marriage, abortion, evolution and the rights of women to do basically anything other than stay in the house with their heads covered extruding babies like a gumball machine, and let the Christians do the work?
..because its dishonest?
At least with a hitman you must pay a price, a form of self-regulation that filters out willy-nilly attacks on the undeserving.
Why do you folks always reach for dishonesty? Seriously.. its possible to be both ruthless and honest at the same time. The sort of shadow integrity that this world used to have but now lacks because it was replaced by simple dishonest fuckery.. the very shit that defines patent trolling itself.
I disagree due to the fact that people can reverse engineer almost anything
Not true. It is not possible to reverse engineer anything that you do not have access to.
Read the post of the person you replied to again. Especially when he mentions TRADE SECRETS, a subject you have conveniently and completely ignored. The only reason that you could ignore this is because you are either phenomenally ignorant or phenomenally dishonest.
Read again, this time carefully, what you just wrote. That is a carte blanche to be offensive to everyone. Hey, it's their fault, they shouldn't be offended.
I am offended by the letters "mvdwege" when given in sequence. How dare you be offensive.
See the problem with your logic yet? Think again, this time carefully, about what you are trying to argue. Its ridiculous for the world to cater to psychosis, because they are both arbitrary and meaningless. I bet you will reply saying that its OK to be offensive sometimes.. just not when its certain "populist" pet-peeves.
You and I both know that your argument is based on emotion.Try using your brain for more than opening your maw, especially when you know (and I know you know) that its just emotional bullshit.
It is entirely foreseeable for normal people to expect other normal people to be offended by the term "big boobs" in a context in which it clearly does not belong.
Sigh... you do realize that it being foreseeable for someone to be offended also does not make it wrong to be offensive, right? right?
Maybe I dont give a shit that you have a psychosis that allows me to predict your thoughts? Ever think of that?
I guess not. You really don't see the problem with your logic, do you? You are exactly what is wrong with this world.
If you don't believe me, then next time you're at work in a meeting with both women and men, say something like, "We definitely need carefully consider our options going forward. Good ideas are like big boobs, we really need more of them." After you've collected your last paycheck as you're walking out the door, take a little bit of time to consider again the difference between an innocent comment that is taken wrong and a deliberately demeaning and hostile comment that you can be pretty sure will cause offense.
I accept the consequences of my actions, and thus act accordingly. The problem is that you are arguing that some people (the "offended") dont have to accept the consequences of their mental disorder. Your argument and its entire line of reasoning is, quite frankly, retarded.
YOU don't see anything wrong with it. YOU aren't offended by it. That's very nice and all, but
I both am not offended by it nor do I see something wrong with it. You do realize that these two things are not the same, right?
Your entire post is based on the premise that if someone is offended by something, then there is something wrong with that something. It is that premise that is whats wrong.
You are advocating the politically correct version of the thought police, but instead of telling people how they should think.. you are trying to tell people that they cant induce particular thoughts ("offended") in others. How dare I alter someones thoughts to a mode of being offended.. right? How dare I?
Did it ever occur to you that the "wrong" part in this whole ordeal (besides your entire post) is that someone got offended in the first place? If someone gets offended easily we call it a disorder. Hypersensitive blah blah and all that. You are suggesting that its normal to be offended by some thing, just not a lot of things. Those facts are not in evidence.
I suggest that its always wrong to be offended.. that its always a psychosis. What happens inside your head is your business, not mine. Dont make it mine. you wont like that.
This is a common question when talking about privilege: if group X is offended by statement A about X, and group Y is NOT offended by the same statement A aimed Y, then X should STFU.
First, you're trying to tell someone how to feel.
Wait.. what?
STFU != THISISHOWYOUSHOUILDFEEL
How about this? If you are offended.. take a week of your overly sensitive life to think about what being offended actually is. Its you. Nobody made you be offended. You did that all by yourself.
In the 80's there was a manufacturer.. forget the name.. that put MS DOS in the BIOS of their clone PC. I recall it booting in way less than a second.
I dual boot Win7 and Linux (an install of Ubuntu prior to Unity) on my primary. The only way I might be getting Win8 is if the price for the x86 Surface looks good. The hardware looks attractive.. the OS not so much.
Putting it into perspective - there is not a single ARM device that you can buy today that has UEFI... And somehow the problem is ARMs' fault?
Why mention UEFI when thats not the problem? You certainly claim that UEFI is the problem in the very next sentence (oh look, I quoted it.)
Here we all thought that the problem was locked down devices, regardless of implementation.
ARM certainly didnt start the locked down device craze (which started in the console market, where ARM couldnt be found) but to pretend (through nefarious reinterpretations of what the "problem" is) that ARM isnt the CPU powering the majority of the locked down devices in the world today is laughably dishonest.
I am going to state it point blank to you and there is nothing you can retort with:
ARM powers the majority of the locked down devices that exist now, or have ever existed.
speculation true.... but also foresight. Why wait until the obvious happens before you do something about it
In the 60's folks protested against a global thermonuclear war that never happened. In the 80's they protested against the Iatola because he was going to destroy Israel.
I don't have a problem with you protesting whatever boogie man haunts your imagination. I do however have a problem with you claiming that its "foresight" to be doing so. Be honest about the shit you spit, buddy. You thinking they might do it is cool, and you telling us that you think it is cool also. However, claiming that its more than a guess is just being a dishonest uncool fuck. Dont be a dishonest uncool fuck.
If you erased Microsoft's past, and they started bundling IE today, nothing would happen (which is probably why they will get away with doing bundling on Windows RT with office and stuff...they don't have a monopoly in that space).
Consider the following...
Microsoft has the vast majority of the office suite market. That by definition is a monopoly. Are you with me so far?
Microsoft is now gearing up to sell its own hardware, the Microsoft Surface. This comes in both Arm and x86 flavors, but Arm is first.. Still with me?
No other Arm hardware can run Office. is that ball still bouncing?
Could it not be said that Microsoft is using its Office monopoly to boost sales of its very own Arm Surface hardware?
That process never worked for Apple. Are we forgetting that Apple needed to be bailed out about the time the quote in my signature was made?
History is littered with the corpses of operating systems that broke significant backward compatibility, with their nose dive coincidentally happening precisely at that compatibility break.
Apple has learned their lesson and they do not break API's nearly as rapidly as they used to. Do not confuse backward compatibility with hardware support. Apple is a hardware company and thrives off obsoleting old hardware as rapidly as they can. 5-year old software works on 1-day old hardware, but often not the other way around in the Apple world. So they are maintaining backward compatibility, but breaking forward compatibility as often as possible.
only that *I*, not my sales, could be said to be "in concert" with the manufacturer if I have any sort of arrangement with the manufacturer to return any unsold items to them for a refund.
You seem to have missed the point. You already do have an arrangement with both the manufacturer and the retailer to return items that you purchased. Whenever Mark-T.. lowly consumer.. buys anything, he enters into a legal contract with both the retailer and manufacturer, because the law states quite clearly that Mark T has entered such a contract.
In fact, everyone in Mark-T's household also enters a contract (his wife, for instance) when Mark-T purchases something, even if they did not approve of the purchase. If Mark-T should not be available to execute the terms of the contract, other members of his household may do so.
Its called the Uniform Commercial Code, and nearly everyone in the country is bound by it.
Manufacturer sells to retailer. Retailer sells to you. You dont like it but you know I will so you sell to me. Obviously your sale to me is "in concert" with the manufacturer because you could have returned it, right? right? oh, no? Even though you have an implied legal contract with the manufacturer (as defined and mandated to exist by law regardless of what you may or may not have signed), you arent their partner?
Stop being a ridiculous fanboy. Logic isnt hard. Try fucking using some.
Microsoft's Surface has a thin keyboard that connects magnetically (its a separate piece), and the display is propped up when in "notebook mode" by a simple flap on the back of the display rather than by hinges at the keyboard/display junction. The keyboard itself seems to be able to be connectible in 3 different configurations.. as a display protector/cover, tucked away on the reverse side, and free "hinged" (magnetic) for actual use as a keyboard.
While term limits would certainly limit entrenched corruption, it would promote "flash in the pan" corruption. Why worry about your reputation if you can't make a career of it?
Even if you know that its the square of the power required to crack 1024 bit certs, which themselves are the square of the power to crack 512 bit certs, which are themselves the square of the power to crack 256 bit certs.. when you are ignorant of how much power THAT is, you are still just guessing.
No organization on earth considers the breaking of 256 bit hashes/encryption trivial. Thats a 1 followed by a whopping 77 zeros. Thats only about 3 zeros away from the number of baryons in the entire visible universe.
Low level in the sense of C means direct manipulation of memory addresses including pointers
This is essentially the crux of problem with calling out memory manipulation as "low level." The ability to read and write memory is not unique to low level languages at all. Hell, quickbasic had lower level memory access in that the language gave you simple implicit control of the target segment register (DEF SEG) whereas in C you had to use a higher level (FAR pointers) abstraction, which caused the very need to emit implicit assembler for every far pointer use, implicit assembler which you then go on the deride:
Also there is very little implicit assembler being generated unlike with C++ for things such as constructors, destructors, hidden conversions, template code duplication , pre-main() initialisation etc etc.
You have proved my point here. You are declaring C a low level language because of what it lacks rather than what it has. "Low level" used to mean a set of architecture specific features, not a lack of high level features. Somehow you language bigots have managed to redefine what "low level" means to be "that which C does." Its ridiculous but I guess with that wikipedia shit, that you've somehow won. Congratulations on your empty victory.
Soon I guess BASIC will be low level, right? Wont find any constructors, destructors, templates, and so on. Lack of features = low level, right?
The C preprocessor is most definitely the languages best feature. Both simple and powerful at the same time. I cannot think of a language that has done it better.
The most insightful thing you will ever take from using OO programming practices extensively is that its the politically correct way to write spaghetti code and other "bad practices."
In the days of old before Structured Programming really took hold, people would write code with lots of GoTo's, branching haphazardly around in a hard to follow ways. "GoTo Considered Harmful" they said.
In these enlightened times however, people now use the powerful OO techniques such as polymorphism and inheritance to branch haphazardly around in hard to follow ways. But its OK now because its "Object Oriented."
You will see that global variables are bad if its a structured program, but its quite alright to have a single instance of an object accessible from anywhere and everywhere.
And C++ makes it a whole lot better because of templates. You can completely override every convention while doing your OO stuff, because that makes everything much easier to understand and follow. You will never be asking the question "how the hell did it get here?"
Now there is an even greater power for OO purists to leverage. Its called "lambda expressions" also known as "anonymous functions" because if there is one thing the OO guys need, its another way to hide program flow.
Slashdot Mirror
I would suggest that those videos are only going half way to clarity. "Offense" is a mental condition that does not at all speak to the reality of what triggered it. Any fine joke teller will at one time or another say "what? too soon?"
..as if the expression of a single thought can magically change with the passage of time. An expression of a thought doesn't change with time. Its the same thought in any time.. It is the listeners that change with time.
So; your argument is that people shouldn't overreact... and that if they say labelling [SIC] shit offensively (but not *too* offensively) offends them, that they have a psychosis?
Yes. Care to address this argument?
You didn't seem to address it at all in the entirety of the rest of your post. I am claiming that the act of being offended is caused by a mental disorder, and my evidence for this is all the mental disorders associated with hypersensitivity. We classify both "easily offended" and "often offended" as symptoms of actual mental disorders. I propose that while its not politically correct to classify these offended woman as not having a mental disorder, that they still in fact have one.
All mental disorders are the product of the environment the mind has been put in, particularly in the developmental years. This does not suggest that there is something wrong with the triggers of that mental disorder (B1GB00B5). This only suggests that there is something wrong with the environment which promotes the disorder in the first place.
I understand that many little girls are taught that they are inferior by their parents and various other environmental conditions, and that many women experience systemic discrimination even today. That does not mean that I should coddle to the mental disorder that has resulted from the environment. I am suggesting quite specifically that there is no implied contract to coddle to any mental disorder regardless of how or why it occurred. The problem has never been what triggers mental disorders and I am not about to start treating it as the problem.
Why not just create inflammatory content saying that the patent trolls support same-sex marriage, abortion, evolution and the rights of women to do basically anything other than stay in the house with their heads covered extruding babies like a gumball machine, and let the Christians do the work?
At least with a hitman you must pay a price, a form of self-regulation that filters out willy-nilly attacks on the undeserving.
Why do you folks always reach for dishonesty? Seriously.. its possible to be both ruthless and honest at the same time. The sort of shadow integrity that this world used to have but now lacks because it was replaced by simple dishonest fuckery.. the very shit that defines patent trolling itself.
I disagree due to the fact that people can reverse engineer almost anything
Not true. It is not possible to reverse engineer anything that you do not have access to.
Read the post of the person you replied to again. Especially when he mentions TRADE SECRETS, a subject you have conveniently and completely ignored. The only reason that you could ignore this is because you are either phenomenally ignorant or phenomenally dishonest.
Read again, this time carefully, what you just wrote. That is a carte blanche to be offensive to everyone. Hey, it's their fault, they shouldn't be offended.
I am offended by the letters "mvdwege" when given in sequence. How dare you be offensive.
See the problem with your logic yet? Think again, this time carefully, about what you are trying to argue. Its ridiculous for the world to cater to psychosis, because they are both arbitrary and meaningless. I bet you will reply saying that its OK to be offensive sometimes.. just not when its certain "populist" pet-peeves.
You and I both know that your argument is based on emotion.Try using your brain for more than opening your maw, especially when you know (and I know you know) that its just emotional bullshit.
It is entirely foreseeable for normal people to expect other normal people to be offended by the term "big boobs" in a context in which it clearly does not belong.
Sigh... you do realize that it being foreseeable for someone to be offended also does not make it wrong to be offensive, right? right?
Maybe I dont give a shit that you have a psychosis that allows me to predict your thoughts? Ever think of that?
I guess not. You really don't see the problem with your logic, do you? You are exactly what is wrong with this world.
If you don't believe me, then next time you're at work in a meeting with both women and men, say something like, "We definitely need carefully consider our options going forward. Good ideas are like big boobs, we really need more of them." After you've collected your last paycheck as you're walking out the door, take a little bit of time to consider again the difference between an innocent comment that is taken wrong and a deliberately demeaning and hostile comment that you can be pretty sure will cause offense.
I accept the consequences of my actions, and thus act accordingly. The problem is that you are arguing that some people (the "offended") dont have to accept the consequences of their mental disorder. Your argument and its entire line of reasoning is, quite frankly, retarded.
YOU don't see anything wrong with it. YOU aren't offended by it. That's very nice and all, but
I both am not offended by it nor do I see something wrong with it. You do realize that these two things are not the same, right?
Your entire post is based on the premise that if someone is offended by something, then there is something wrong with that something. It is that premise that is whats wrong.
You are advocating the politically correct version of the thought police, but instead of telling people how they should think.. you are trying to tell people that they cant induce particular thoughts ("offended") in others. How dare I alter someones thoughts to a mode of being offended.. right? How dare I?
Did it ever occur to you that the "wrong" part in this whole ordeal (besides your entire post) is that someone got offended in the first place? If someone gets offended easily we call it a disorder. Hypersensitive blah blah and all that. You are suggesting that its normal to be offended by some thing, just not a lot of things. Those facts are not in evidence.
I suggest that its always wrong to be offended.. that its always a psychosis. What happens inside your head is your business, not mine. Dont make it mine. you wont like that.
This is a common question when talking about privilege: if group X is offended by statement A about X, and group Y is NOT offended by the same statement A aimed Y, then X should STFU.
First, you're trying to tell someone how to feel.
Wait.. what?
STFU != THISISHOWYOUSHOUILDFEEL
How about this? If you are offended.. take a week of your overly sensitive life to think about what being offended actually is. Its you. Nobody made you be offended. You did that all by yourself.
In the 80's there was a manufacturer.. forget the name.. that put MS DOS in the BIOS of their clone PC. I recall it booting in way less than a second.
I dual boot Win7 and Linux (an install of Ubuntu prior to Unity) on my primary. The only way I might be getting Win8 is if the price for the x86 Surface looks good. The hardware looks attractive.. the OS not so much.
Putting it into perspective - there is not a single ARM device that you can buy today that has UEFI... And somehow the problem is ARMs' fault?
Why mention UEFI when thats not the problem? You certainly claim that UEFI is the problem in the very next sentence (oh look, I quoted it.)
Here we all thought that the problem was locked down devices, regardless of implementation.
ARM certainly didnt start the locked down device craze (which started in the console market, where ARM couldnt be found) but to pretend (through nefarious reinterpretations of what the "problem" is) that ARM isnt the CPU powering the majority of the locked down devices in the world today is laughably dishonest.
I am going to state it point blank to you and there is nothing you can retort with:
ARM powers the majority of the locked down devices that exist now, or have ever existed.
speculation true .... but also foresight. Why wait until the obvious happens before you do something about it
In the 60's folks protested against a global thermonuclear war that never happened. In the 80's they protested against the Iatola because he was going to destroy Israel.
I don't have a problem with you protesting whatever boogie man haunts your imagination. I do however have a problem with you claiming that its "foresight" to be doing so. Be honest about the shit you spit, buddy. You thinking they might do it is cool, and you telling us that you think it is cool also. However, claiming that its more than a guess is just being a dishonest uncool fuck. Dont be a dishonest uncool fuck.
If you erased Microsoft's past, and they started bundling IE today, nothing would happen (which is probably why they will get away with doing bundling on Windows RT with office and stuff...they don't have a monopoly in that space).
Consider the following...
Microsoft has the vast majority of the office suite market. That by definition is a monopoly. Are you with me so far?
Microsoft is now gearing up to sell its own hardware, the Microsoft Surface. This comes in both Arm and x86 flavors, but Arm is first.. Still with me?
No other Arm hardware can run Office. is that ball still bouncing?
Could it not be said that Microsoft is using its Office monopoly to boost sales of its very own Arm Surface hardware?
Being disorganized is precisely why I dont lose anything. I may not know where it is exactly, but I know approximately which pile of crap its in.
That process *seems* to work for Apple.
That process never worked for Apple. Are we forgetting that Apple needed to be bailed out about the time the quote in my signature was made?
History is littered with the corpses of operating systems that broke significant backward compatibility, with their nose dive coincidentally happening precisely at that compatibility break.
Apple has learned their lesson and they do not break API's nearly as rapidly as they used to. Do not confuse backward compatibility with hardware support. Apple is a hardware company and thrives off obsoleting old hardware as rapidly as they can. 5-year old software works on 1-day old hardware, but often not the other way around in the Apple world. So they are maintaining backward compatibility, but breaking forward compatibility as often as possible.
only that *I*, not my sales, could be said to be "in concert" with the manufacturer if I have any sort of arrangement with the manufacturer to return any unsold items to them for a refund.
You seem to have missed the point. You already do have an arrangement with both the manufacturer and the retailer to return items that you purchased. Whenever Mark-T .. lowly consumer .. buys anything, he enters into a legal contract with both the retailer and manufacturer, because the law states quite clearly that Mark T has entered such a contract.
In fact, everyone in Mark-T's household also enters a contract (his wife, for instance) when Mark-T purchases something, even if they did not approve of the purchase. If Mark-T should not be available to execute the terms of the contract, other members of his household may do so.
Its called the Uniform Commercial Code, and nearly everyone in the country is bound by it.
Manufacturer sells to retailer. Retailer sells to you. You dont like it but you know I will so you sell to me. Obviously your sale to me is "in concert" with the manufacturer because you could have returned it, right? right? oh, no? Even though you have an implied legal contract with the manufacturer (as defined and mandated to exist by law regardless of what you may or may not have signed), you arent their partner?
Stop being a ridiculous fanboy. Logic isnt hard. Try fucking using some.
but of course, I might easily be wrong.
I would just say misinformed assumptions.
Microsoft's Surface has a thin keyboard that connects magnetically (its a separate piece), and the display is propped up when in "notebook mode" by a simple flap on the back of the display rather than by hinges at the keyboard/display junction. The keyboard itself seems to be able to be connectible in 3 different configurations.. as a display protector/cover, tucked away on the reverse side, and free "hinged" (magnetic) for actual use as a keyboard.
Judging by this 1 minute video the keyboard appears to be no thicker than the cover of a hardcover book.
All-in-all the device itself looks extremely nice. The Win8 OS on the other hand... not so much.
While term limits would certainly limit entrenched corruption, it would promote "flash in the pan" corruption. Why worry about your reputation if you can't make a career of it?
The best marketing half a billion dollars can buy?
Take the tinfoil off.
The problem is that..
Even if you know that its the square of the power required to crack 1024 bit certs, which themselves are the square of the power to crack 512 bit certs, which are themselves the square of the power to crack 256 bit certs.. when you are ignorant of how much power THAT is, you are still just guessing.
No organization on earth considers the breaking of 256 bit hashes/encryption trivial. Thats a 1 followed by a whopping 77 zeros. Thats only about 3 zeros away from the number of baryons in the entire visible universe.
Which part of the cracking problem requiring the power of a star thousands of times larger than our sun that confuses you?
Better yet.. dont answer that.. instead simply explain why your 4-digit slashdot ID isn't backed up by someone aware?
When moving from XP to Win7/64 I noted that there were no 64-bit drivers for my shitty philips webcam.
The OS still installed. The computer still worked. The webcam was cheaply and easily replaced with another slightly less shitty one.
The difference is that Apple is yet again telling their customers "FUCK YOU!"
Win7 runs on 1ghz Pentium 3's for christ sakes (released in 1999)
Low level in the sense of C means direct manipulation of memory addresses including pointers
This is essentially the crux of problem with calling out memory manipulation as "low level." The ability to read and write memory is not unique to low level languages at all. Hell, quickbasic had lower level memory access in that the language gave you simple implicit control of the target segment register (DEF SEG) whereas in C you had to use a higher level (FAR pointers) abstraction, which caused the very need to emit implicit assembler for every far pointer use, implicit assembler which you then go on the deride:
Also there is very little implicit assembler being generated unlike with C++ for things such as constructors, destructors, hidden conversions, template code duplication , pre-main() initialisation etc etc.
You have proved my point here. You are declaring C a low level language because of what it lacks rather than what it has. "Low level" used to mean a set of architecture specific features, not a lack of high level features. Somehow you language bigots have managed to redefine what "low level" means to be "that which C does." Its ridiculous but I guess with that wikipedia shit, that you've somehow won. Congratulations on your empty victory.
Soon I guess BASIC will be low level, right? Wont find any constructors, destructors, templates, and so on. Lack of features = low level, right?
The C preprocessor is most definitely the languages best feature. Both simple and powerful at the same time. I cannot think of a language that has done it better.
The most insightful thing you will ever take from using OO programming practices extensively is that its the politically correct way to write spaghetti code and other "bad practices."
In the days of old before Structured Programming really took hold, people would write code with lots of GoTo's, branching haphazardly around in a hard to follow ways. "GoTo Considered Harmful" they said.
In these enlightened times however, people now use the powerful OO techniques such as polymorphism and inheritance to branch haphazardly around in hard to follow ways. But its OK now because its "Object Oriented."
You will see that global variables are bad if its a structured program, but its quite alright to have a single instance of an object accessible from anywhere and everywhere.
And C++ makes it a whole lot better because of templates. You can completely override every convention while doing your OO stuff, because that makes everything much easier to understand and follow. You will never be asking the question "how the hell did it get here?"
Now there is an even greater power for OO purists to leverage. Its called "lambda expressions" also known as "anonymous functions" because if there is one thing the OO guys need, its another way to hide program flow.