Yes, GM product marketing failed big time, and Ford and Chrysler to a slighter lesser extent. Even so, it should have been a natural choice for Honda and Toyota to come to the Detroit area for their own American manufacturing, to take advantage of the unemployed labor, local supplier capacity and transportation capacity (rail lines and the St. Lawrence Seaway) left by the big three's shrinking market. Something about the area made them decide it made more sense to start from scratch in the middle of nowhere, in right-to-work states.
I don't know why VB gets such a bad rap. I'm not saying it's the best language out there Which VB? VB.Net is mostly just an alternate syntax to C#, and thus, an awful lot like Java.
Anyone who can play a Fender guitar can also play a Gibson guitar. With zero additional training/learning. Well, sort-of. Fenders have longer necks and correspondingly higher string tension, so you'd need to watch your left hand a bit more when changing positions, and your pre-bending (stretching a string before you play a note, so the pitch can slide down) would be a bit poor for a while.
In case you hadn't noticed, what I said didn't include anything about whether or not I like the band. But it was hardly a serious comment to begin with.
Please show where it says she refused to return the CD's.
TFA: "You give that boy his disks back. Aaron is a brilliant kid and he's learned more using Linux than he ever did using Windows. Those disks and their distribution are perfectly legal and even if he was "disruptive", you cannot keep his property."
Her letter may not have said it, but Ken Starks has clearly talked to the kid about it.
But the name "open source" has its own problems, namely RMS railed against it because it doesn't address the idea of freedom. Not everyone actually agrees with RMS on this.
The problem with "Open Source" here, is that it doesn't make it clear that the software is free of charge.
Next episode, why they have braille on drive-thru ATMs. Don't forget locks on the door at 7-Eleven: Sometimes a lone employee needs to use the bathroom, and they'll lock the doors after a robbery until the police arrive.
It's far easier for a kid to get illegal drugs right now than it is for them to get liquor, and that really needs to change. Teenagers should be able to get pot, though, because the alternative is inhalants, nearly all of which are far more dangerous.
there's nothing that happens on labratory made hallucenogens that doesn't happen on 'shrooms No, not really. I've done both (it's been years, but those are the only two drugs I've done that I really liked and would seriously consider doing again), and they're totally different. Shrooms are a fun little show, but you're not really thinking much beyond "This is really cool". LSD is a multi-hour brainstorming session; you need to reconsider everything after you're done, but you can actually come up with useful new perspectives.
but it is natural So what? So are poisonous mushrooms.
Hell, cocaine is legal for medical use right now. They gave it to my sister when she was TWO to widen her nasal passages after she got a rock stuck up her nose. As a local anesthetic? Any of the "*caine" drugs seem to be both stimulants and local anesthetics, which makes me think dentists really need to be more careful giving them to people with bad hearts.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot. It's harder to masturbate over God than Jennifer Love Hewitt. Type O Negative's "Christian Woman" notwithstanding.
Any moral system in which woman A is responsible for that Not individually, no. I just think overall social views that men should do this list of things and women should do this other list are unfortunate, and do cause trouble for people who don't want to do what's expected. The common choices may very well make sense in any particular case, but they're picked without any consideration way too often.
I, for one, think the world would be a better place if there were better parents. I don't buy that the stay-at-home parents are better, as a rule. Sure, more attention from a parent is good, but so is more socialization with peers. It does depend a lot on how many kids you have, though; my son is an only child, and having him stay home more would have been a decidedly bad thing.
So when you argue that women make the "wrong" choice, so the choice was based on sexism of some sort and therefore invalid, then you're arguing against personal responsibility. Huh? Invalid? We're not talking consent here. Just because I disagree with a choice you make, that doesn't mean you won't be liable for the consequences or rewards of that choice. And while I do tend to agree with liberals and libertarians on most social issues, I think the foundation view that you're not supposed to have an opinion on other people's choices is a load of crap. There are many right answers, but there are still wrong ones.
A stay-at-home parent is generally not independent.
Why don't you look at it as sacrificing her career in order to make sure her kids are raised well? Because unless you have at least four kids or you're homeschooling (and are good at it), it just isn't necessary. It's parasitic.
Can't you respect her decision enough to not view her as a victim but look at her as someone who did something noble? Doing what you think will make you happiest may or may not be the right thing, but that doesn't make it noble. And it doesn't mean that people aren't products of their environment. As to whether or not I can respect it, that would depend on whether there was real, serious consideration about which parent should stay home.
And if I'm going to call anyone a victim, it would be the man supporting her (feminism seems to have lost the idea lately that patriarchy is bad for both genders), and women who have no intention of having children but have to deal with employer assumptions that they're eventually want to quit to have babies.
When the woman does finally get in the door, she makes only 71% (or whatever the latest stat is) as much as a man doing the same job. The ~70% stat is not for the same job. It's also not just entry-level; it's after a bunch of women have taken four years off to stay home with a kid until they start kindergarten, and then come back with a big resume hole.
There really is sexism from many employers, but there's a lot more sexism in the career choices and childcare choices men and women expect each other to make. Even you're doing it: That is not very conducive to being a mother, whether married or single. Shouldn't it be just as much of a problem for fathers?
college "teacher" (they used to be called professors when I went to college - teachers were for high school - oh how times change) I'll call someone a professor if they have a Ph.D. Dr. Miller had an MD, and I think I was inconsistent with him whether I called him a professor or a teacher.
they've all graduated from college, rejected multiple job opportunities and then stayed home to raise their children So they've internalized sexism; that doesn't mean they aren't subject to it. I'd say the biggest sexism problem we have in America right now is women's view of their own place, followed by men's view of their wive's place. Sexism by employers is nothing compared to those.
This isn't the Afghan government opressing it's citizens, it's the citizens asking the government to kill this man.
Which means that we are the ones saying the citizens don't have a right to determine the laws of their land. I wonder who the totalitarians are in this case. The Afghans themselves. The U.S. just needs to lay off the dogma that democracy is the ultimate social good and a cause unto itself. Democracy is useful, as it prevents kings and aristocrats from getting isolated from reality or just running the country for themselves, but that's it.
If the article is true, what has happened to our sense of 'right and wrong' if this behaviour of female investigators is condoned? My sense of right and wrong is just fine with it, as long as it was strictly volunteer. Different people have different moral systems.
Like any language, in Java or.NET, if you're doing unit testing, it changes the way you design the objects and structures. It shouldn't have to, to nearly the degree that it does.
Combine that with dependency injection and mocks, and your whole last two paragraphs are trivially answered. That's far from trivial. That undercuts any notion that object-oriented programming is intended to model the problem at hand.
but once you get past a few thousand or tens of thousands of lines of code...One of my contracts right now is a ~3M loc system in Java Unless you're doing something on the scale of an operating system, what could possibly warrant three million lines of code in one program? In eleven years programming professionally, the largest program I've ever written was ~10kloc (and I eventually regretted how monolithic I made it) and the largest I've worked on (awful monolithic and repetitive architecture) was around ~50kloc.
I think one of the big things statically typed languages gives you is better tooling. That's my impression, but people who actually use scripting languages for a living (I do.Net and PL/SQL lately) seem to dispute it.
And I have a stepping debugger! Ruby has one, anyway. It's not pretty, but having an interactive interpreter tied to the debugger is handy; that's a big part of why people could get stuff done in VB6 despite the piss-poor language, and Ruby's is more versatile.
In these languages you're FORCED to interact with other components based on your looking at the source (ie, their implementation) rather than their published interface. Not exactly, but no, it's not behaving to your taste. Plenty of people complain about duck-typing, though.
Static typing makes a whole class of bugs impossible Yes. I'm not entirely convinced it's a very significant class of bugs, though. I think performance is probably a better argument.
and results in more reliable programs. Not with current languages, no. Unit testing is done much more consistently by scripting language programmers because testability just doesn't fit very well into the Java/.Net paradigm. When you can change your real classes and objects for a test, you don't have to use dependency injection everywhere, or avoid constructors, concrete classes and inheritance. You can also make your own fake versions of classes Java or C# might have made final.
Now, granted, a language could let you declare "MyClass myObject", validate it, and still let you change what those mean for testing; that would be great. Until languages like that appear, though, I think I'm sold on Python and Ruby being more reliable for practical purposes than Java and.Net.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, GM product marketing failed big time, and Ford and Chrysler to a slighter lesser extent. Even so, it should have been a natural choice for Honda and Toyota to come to the Detroit area for their own American manufacturing, to take advantage of the unemployed labor, local supplier capacity and transportation capacity (rail lines and the St. Lawrence Seaway) left by the big three's shrinking market. Something about the area made them decide it made more sense to start from scratch in the middle of nowhere, in right-to-work states.
I don't know why VB gets such a bad rap. I'm not saying it's the best language out there
Which VB? VB.Net is mostly just an alternate syntax to C#, and thus, an awful lot like Java.
Classic VB is much less respectable.
Anyone who can play a Fender guitar can also play a Gibson guitar. With zero additional training/learning.
Well, sort-of. Fenders have longer necks and correspondingly higher string tension, so you'd need to watch your left hand a bit more when changing positions, and your pre-bending (stretching a string before you play a note, so the pitch can slide down) would be a bit poor for a while.
Did anyone ever try to connect your regular USB keyboard and mouse to a PS3?
No, but I've done it with Bluetooth without trouble.
I never really used it, though, after realizing that the Wii's web browser is much better than the PS3's.
what decent programming language exists that is not free nowadays or does not have loads of free support material available?
Flash?
In case you hadn't noticed, what I said didn't include anything about whether or not I like the band. But it was hardly a serious comment to begin with.
Please show where it says she refused to return the CD's.
TFA:
"You give that boy his disks back. Aaron is a brilliant kid and he's learned more using Linux than he ever did using Windows. Those disks and their distribution are perfectly legal and even if he was "disruptive", you cannot keep his property."
Her letter may not have said it, but Ken Starks has clearly talked to the kid about it.
But the name "open source" has its own problems, namely RMS railed against it because it doesn't address the idea of freedom.
Not everyone actually agrees with RMS on this.
The problem with "Open Source" here, is that it doesn't make it clear that the software is free of charge.
Next episode, why they have braille on drive-thru ATMs.
Don't forget locks on the door at 7-Eleven: Sometimes a lone employee needs to use the bathroom, and they'll lock the doors after a robbery until the police arrive.
It's far easier for a kid to get illegal drugs right now than it is for them to get liquor, and that really needs to change.
Teenagers should be able to get pot, though, because the alternative is inhalants, nearly all of which are far more dangerous.
there's nothing that happens on labratory made hallucenogens that doesn't happen on 'shrooms
No, not really. I've done both (it's been years, but those are the only two drugs I've done that I really liked and would seriously consider doing again), and they're totally different. Shrooms are a fun little show, but you're not really thinking much beyond "This is really cool". LSD is a multi-hour brainstorming session; you need to reconsider everything after you're done, but you can actually come up with useful new perspectives.
but it is natural
So what? So are poisonous mushrooms.
Hell, cocaine is legal for medical use right now. They gave it to my sister when she was TWO to widen her nasal passages after she got a rock stuck up her nose.
As a local anesthetic? Any of the "*caine" drugs seem to be both stimulants and local anesthetics, which makes me think dentists really need to be more careful giving them to people with bad hearts.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
It's harder to masturbate over God than Jennifer Love Hewitt. Type O Negative's "Christian Woman" notwithstanding.
Any moral system in which woman A is responsible for that
Not individually, no. I just think overall social views that men should do this list of things and women should do this other list are unfortunate, and do cause trouble for people who don't want to do what's expected. The common choices may very well make sense in any particular case, but they're picked without any consideration way too often.
I, for one, think the world would be a better place if there were better parents.
I don't buy that the stay-at-home parents are better, as a rule. Sure, more attention from a parent is good, but so is more socialization with peers. It does depend a lot on how many kids you have, though; my son is an only child, and having him stay home more would have been a decidedly bad thing.
So when you argue that women make the "wrong" choice, so the choice was based on sexism of some sort and therefore invalid, then you're arguing against personal responsibility.
Huh? Invalid? We're not talking consent here. Just because I disagree with a choice you make, that doesn't mean you won't be liable for the consequences or rewards of that choice. And while I do tend to agree with liberals and libertarians on most social issues, I think the foundation view that you're not supposed to have an opinion on other people's choices is a load of crap. There are many right answers, but there are still wrong ones.
A stay-at-home parent is generally not independent.
Why don't you look at it as sacrificing her career in order to make sure her kids are raised well?
Because unless you have at least four kids or you're homeschooling (and are good at it), it just isn't necessary. It's parasitic.
Can't you respect her decision enough to not view her as a victim but look at her as someone who did something noble?
Doing what you think will make you happiest may or may not be the right thing, but that doesn't make it noble. And it doesn't mean that people aren't products of their environment. As to whether or not I can respect it, that would depend on whether there was real, serious consideration about which parent should stay home.
And if I'm going to call anyone a victim, it would be the man supporting her (feminism seems to have lost the idea lately that patriarchy is bad for both genders), and women who have no intention of having children but have to deal with employer assumptions that they're eventually want to quit to have babies.
Only if you think that mothers and fathers are the same and interchangeable.
Apart from breastfeeding, yes, I do. And my son turns 11 in three weeks.
When the woman does finally get in the door, she makes only 71% (or whatever the latest stat is) as much as a man doing the same job.
The ~70% stat is not for the same job. It's also not just entry-level; it's after a bunch of women have taken four years off to stay home with a kid until they start kindergarten, and then come back with a big resume hole.
There really is sexism from many employers, but there's a lot more sexism in the career choices and childcare choices men and women expect each other to make. Even you're doing it:
That is not very conducive to being a mother, whether married or single.
Shouldn't it be just as much of a problem for fathers?
college "teacher" (they used to be called professors when I went to college - teachers were for high school - oh how times change)
I'll call someone a professor if they have a Ph.D. Dr. Miller had an MD, and I think I was inconsistent with him whether I called him a professor or a teacher.
they've all graduated from college, rejected multiple job opportunities and then stayed home to raise their children
So they've internalized sexism; that doesn't mean they aren't subject to it. I'd say the biggest sexism problem we have in America right now is women's view of their own place, followed by men's view of their wive's place. Sexism by employers is nothing compared to those.
Do you consider abortion an action that has informed consent?
By the only person involved, sure.
This isn't the Afghan government opressing it's citizens, it's the citizens asking the government to kill this man.
Which means that we are the ones saying the citizens don't have a right to determine the laws of their land. I wonder who the totalitarians are in this case.
The Afghans themselves. The U.S. just needs to lay off the dogma that democracy is the ultimate social good and a cause unto itself. Democracy is useful, as it prevents kings and aristocrats from getting isolated from reality or just running the country for themselves, but that's it.
If the article is true, what has happened to our sense of 'right and wrong' if this behaviour of female investigators is condoned?
My sense of right and wrong is just fine with it, as long as it was strictly volunteer. Different people have different moral systems.
Or you can burn a pile of DVDs and hide them throughout the woods.
Isn't that what the Reiser file system does now?
Like any language, in Java or .NET, if you're doing unit testing, it changes the way you design the objects and structures.
It shouldn't have to, to nearly the degree that it does.
Combine that with dependency injection and mocks, and your whole last two paragraphs are trivially answered.
That's far from trivial. That undercuts any notion that object-oriented programming is intended to model the problem at hand.
but once you get past a few thousand or tens of thousands of lines of code...One of my contracts right now is a ~3M loc system in Java
Unless you're doing something on the scale of an operating system, what could possibly warrant three million lines of code in one program? In eleven years programming professionally, the largest program I've ever written was ~10kloc (and I eventually regretted how monolithic I made it) and the largest I've worked on (awful monolithic and repetitive architecture) was around ~50kloc.
I think one of the big things statically typed languages gives you is better tooling. .Net and PL/SQL lately) seem to dispute it.
That's my impression, but people who actually use scripting languages for a living (I do
And I have a stepping debugger!
Ruby has one, anyway. It's not pretty, but having an interactive interpreter tied to the debugger is handy; that's a big part of why people could get stuff done in VB6 despite the piss-poor language, and Ruby's is more versatile.
In these languages you're FORCED to interact with other components based on your looking at the source (ie, their implementation) rather than their published interface.
Not exactly, but no, it's not behaving to your taste. Plenty of people complain about duck-typing, though.
Static typing makes a whole class of bugs impossible
Yes. I'm not entirely convinced it's a very significant class of bugs, though. I think performance is probably a better argument.
and results in more reliable programs.
Not with current languages, no. Unit testing is done much more consistently by scripting language programmers because testability just doesn't fit very well into the Java/.Net paradigm. When you can change your real classes and objects for a test, you don't have to use dependency injection everywhere, or avoid constructors, concrete classes and inheritance. You can also make your own fake versions of classes Java or C# might have made final.
Now, granted, a language could let you declare "MyClass myObject", validate it, and still let you change what those mean for testing; that would be great. Until languages like that appear, though, I think I'm sold on Python and Ruby being more reliable for practical purposes than Java and .Net.