The question you should be asking before you bestow your lessons upon us all is whether that "further instability" is caused by our intervention or not. Five years ago I might have agreed with you. What's happened across parts of the Arab world we never set foot in during that time has caused my opinion to evolve on the subject. They're plenty good at making messes for themselves over there. Our power to subract from that is limited, yes. But our power to add to it is also limited. The question is whether we believe we need to get something done that won't happen on its own. Revenge in Afghanistan. Pre-emption in Iraq.
No, in fact I couldn't believe she was raped. I could certainly believe that she believes she had been raped, but there's belief and then there's something approximating objective reality. This whole sensitivity training believe the victim baloney yet another deliberate effort to blur that line and make a power grab away from the rule of law and for the rule of emotions and passions.
If something needs to be done in C because it talks to hardware (and everything operation that computes eventually talks to hardware), then having another layer in front of it that still needs to talk to C code doesn't necessarily get rid your chance to make mistakes; it might in fact leave you even more rope to hang yourself with. And it won't look like the same kinds of errors you're making now, which is why you don't foresee it.
One is data structures: in C there are no data structures. Any memory can be treated any way you like. So you can pack different bits and bytes together on one end and have them make sense on the other. At the cost of a potential security hole. But sometimes that's how you need to talk to hardware and for speed's sake, the thing that talks to the thing that talks to the hardware speaks the same language. Now if you impose a type-safe bounds-checked language anywhere in there, then one of three things will happen:
1. You can't do in the type safe language what you used to be able to do in C because you can't specify the necessary data structures anymore. 2. You can do it, but it costs you a ton of extra execution time, because even though you can *specify* an analogous variable-length data structure in your type safe language, the newer and better language makes no guarantees about how that data actually resides in memory, so when it gets to the C layer, there's a bunch of gathering and reconstructing and recreating that packed data from various places, all with bounds check overhead. This is what happens in Java. 3. You can do it, but you have to write a language extension to support what you're doing. And guess what language you have to write it in? C!
Yes, I do. If the hijackers had been trained and sent by a fundamentalist Catholic sect operating out of a Catholic theocracy on the other side of the world, we would have gone to war with them and pre-emptive war with those we perceived to be their fellow travellers just the same.
Example: Janet Yellen (not an academic in the strictest sense, but hey...) insisting that 2% inflation is the optimal number. Milton Friedman (an academic in the strictest sense) insisting zero is the correct number. A consistent set of laws cannot yield two different answers to the same exact question. I might agree with Friedman over Yellen, but I do so because of my own judgement of the merits of if zero inflation and not anything I'd call macroeconomic theory.
There are no such things as platonic ideals, dear interlocutor, neither in life nor in mathematical logic. Belief systems are riddled with exceptions because of messiness of complex situations doesn't land them cleanly on one side of the dividing line between good and evil. "...yes. But..." is the only possible consequence of that.
If you knew anything about Christianity, or Judiasm, or Islam, AC, then you'd be meaning this as a joke. But in case you're generally ignorant of western theology, the answer is the One True God. If you subscribe to the Bahai Faith, you'd be open to the argument that some of those literal millions are different manifestations of the same One True God. If you don't, then you'd believe they're mere idols invented by superstitious minds to explain things they can't otherwise understand. Depending on your particular brand of religion, you might be subject to that accusation yourself, or you might be on the "divine clockmaker" end of the spectrum.
Says the guy posting as AC. Sorry, but I am going to keep my identifying information to a minimum. To answer your question, it's not a condition of admission, it's a condition of officially registering for a class to have it count on your transcript. It is a condition of progress through the graduate program. It's not specific to any department, it's school-wide as I understood it.
Unknown unknowns, AC. They're real, they cause good people to make poor decisions, and they only become obvious decades after. The lesson I draw from history is not that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but that we should have had a plan to occupy it from the get-go, not the piecemeal appease-underreact-overreact-neglect mess that we're about halfway through the second cycle on now.
And your evidence for those being the primary motivation and the icing on the cake are...what exactly? Ugly thoughts you conjure up and put into other people's heads and ugly words you say and put into other people's mouths don't count.
In your world, is it possible for anyone who's a Christian or an American or just white to do anything right? I'm not asking because I'm a Christian, in fact I'm not, but because I don't know if you can be reasoned with.
In the hope that you can be, my answer to your question is that some were wearing Sadam's uniform, some were his supporters, and many were innocent victims whom he was holding hostage over the thirty-some years he was in power. Killing them was immoral, letting Sadam stay in power and making more victims was also immoral. Similar to how bombing Assad's side is immoral and so is staying out while he gases his own people.
If you set the bar so high that fewer and fewer people clear it, then I could see how you can believe all sorts of the things that you believe. I don't set it that high*. It's not too much to expect people to abide by basic moral laws.
Thinking consenting adults are capable of understanding that bad things happen to good people, including women and children who are held hostage by the sorts of people who love their children by strapping bombs to them.
If you see it as capricious violence just because their skin color is "wrong" (your words), then that says more about you than it says about anything or anyone else.
You're quite right. Nowhere did it say explicitly that the accused don't have rights. What it did say is that I ought not act like the burden of proof lies on the accuser. From which I reasoned that they don't want me pointing out that accused have rights, the most fundamental one of which is that the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and not the accused. Not much of a logical leap, is it now?
Professors are often the most solipsistic individuals you'll have the misfortune of encountering. Their 'expertise' is often irrelevant to the topic under discussion, but if you take it from them, studying ancient Carthaginian poetry qualifies you to pontificate on all sorts of things. And it goes without saying that most academic economists could be practicing voodoo for all the predictive power their theories have.
I went back in for the grad school thing and as a condition of registration, I had to take a sensitivity test where to pass, I had to assert on the multiple-choice quiz at the end that 40% of women on college campuses are victims of rape. And that accused don't have rights because I had a moral duty to "believe the victim."
See what happened? If you challenge the believability of that number ("Look to your left, look to your right, one of you is being raped right now!"), you confess to not "believing." Lovely game, no?
This was ten months ago, and not at some backwater no-name liberal arts school, either.
Life is sacred, yes. But thinking consenting adults are fully capable of flushing it all down the toilet to the point where they, and not anyone else, sign their own death warrant. The unborn are not capable of such things.
Slashdot Mirror
The question you should be asking before you bestow your lessons upon us all is whether that "further instability" is caused by our intervention or not. Five years ago I might have agreed with you. What's happened across parts of the Arab world we never set foot in during that time has caused my opinion to evolve on the subject. They're plenty good at making messes for themselves over there. Our power to subract from that is limited, yes. But our power to add to it is also limited. The question is whether we believe we need to get something done that won't happen on its own. Revenge in Afghanistan. Pre-emption in Iraq.
No, in fact I couldn't believe she was raped. I could certainly believe that she believes she had been raped, but there's belief and then there's something approximating objective reality. This whole sensitivity training believe the victim baloney yet another deliberate effort to blur that line and make a power grab away from the rule of law and for the rule of emotions and passions.
is still just noise.
"Did you build it right?" is easy to answer. "Did you build the right thing?" is not. Language choice has nothing to do with that.
If something needs to be done in C because it talks to hardware (and everything operation that computes eventually talks to hardware), then having another layer in front of it that still needs to talk to C code doesn't necessarily get rid your chance to make mistakes; it might in fact leave you even more rope to hang yourself with. And it won't look like the same kinds of errors you're making now, which is why you don't foresee it.
One is data structures: in C there are no data structures. Any memory can be treated any way you like. So you can pack different bits and bytes together on one end and have them make sense on the other. At the cost of a potential security hole. But sometimes that's how you need to talk to hardware and for speed's sake, the thing that talks to the thing that talks to the hardware speaks the same language. Now if you impose a type-safe bounds-checked language anywhere in there, then one of three things will happen:
1. You can't do in the type safe language what you used to be able to do in C because you can't specify the necessary data structures anymore.
2. You can do it, but it costs you a ton of extra execution time, because even though you can *specify* an analogous variable-length data structure in your type safe language, the newer and better language makes no guarantees about how that data actually resides in memory, so when it gets to the C layer, there's a bunch of gathering and reconstructing and recreating that packed data from various places, all with bounds check overhead. This is what happens in Java.
3. You can do it, but you have to write a language extension to support what you're doing. And guess what language you have to write it in? C!
Yes, I do. If the hijackers had been trained and sent by a fundamentalist Catholic sect operating out of a Catholic theocracy on the other side of the world, we would have gone to war with them and pre-emptive war with those we perceived to be their fellow travellers just the same.
Were you here? Your spelling of 'color' suggests you weren't. I was. And that's not how it went down.
Correct. But the distinction was deliberately blurred in that training material.
Example: Janet Yellen (not an academic in the strictest sense, but hey...) insisting that 2% inflation is the optimal number. Milton Friedman (an academic in the strictest sense) insisting zero is the correct number. A consistent set of laws cannot yield two different answers to the same exact question. I might agree with Friedman over Yellen, but I do so because of my own judgement of the merits of if zero inflation and not anything I'd call macroeconomic theory.
There are no such things as platonic ideals, dear interlocutor, neither in life nor in mathematical logic. Belief systems are riddled with exceptions because of messiness of complex situations doesn't land them cleanly on one side of the dividing line between good and evil. "...yes. But..." is the only possible consequence of that.
*won a word game
Be honest, do you think you've won the argument because you've a word game?
If you knew anything about Christianity, or Judiasm, or Islam, AC, then you'd be meaning this as a joke. But in case you're generally ignorant of western theology, the answer is the One True God. If you subscribe to the Bahai Faith, you'd be open to the argument that some of those literal millions are different manifestations of the same One True God. If you don't, then you'd believe they're mere idols invented by superstitious minds to explain things they can't otherwise understand. Depending on your particular brand of religion, you might be subject to that accusation yourself, or you might be on the "divine clockmaker" end of the spectrum.
Says the guy posting as AC. Sorry, but I am going to keep my identifying information to a minimum. To answer your question, it's not a condition of admission, it's a condition of officially registering for a class to have it count on your transcript. It is a condition of progress through the graduate program. It's not specific to any department, it's school-wide as I understood it.
Unknown unknowns, AC. They're real, they cause good people to make poor decisions, and they only become obvious decades after. The lesson I draw from history is not that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but that we should have had a plan to occupy it from the get-go, not the piecemeal appease-underreact-overreact-neglect mess that we're about halfway through the second cycle on now.
And your evidence for those being the primary motivation and the icing on the cake are...what exactly? Ugly thoughts you conjure up and put into other people's heads and ugly words you say and put into other people's mouths don't count.
If that's what you see, that's your problem. I guess you can't be reasoned with.
In your world, is it possible for anyone who's a Christian or an American or just white to do anything right? I'm not asking because I'm a Christian, in fact I'm not, but because I don't know if you can be reasoned with.
In the hope that you can be, my answer to your question is that some were wearing Sadam's uniform, some were his supporters, and many were innocent victims whom he was holding hostage over the thirty-some years he was in power. Killing them was immoral, letting Sadam stay in power and making more victims was also immoral. Similar to how bombing Assad's side is immoral and so is staying out while he gases his own people.
Everybody's a victim. I know. We're all just leaves on the winds of fate and no one is responsible for anything.
If you set the bar so high that fewer and fewer people clear it, then I could see how you can believe all sorts of the things that you believe. I don't set it that high*. It's not too much to expect people to abide by basic moral laws.
*Have fun with that.
Thinking consenting adults are capable of understanding that bad things happen to good people, including women and children who are held hostage by the sorts of people who love their children by strapping bombs to them.
If you see it as capricious violence just because their skin color is "wrong" (your words), then that says more about you than it says about anything or anyone else.
You're quite right. Nowhere did it say explicitly that the accused don't have rights. What it did say is that I ought not act like the burden of proof lies on the accuser. From which I reasoned that they don't want me pointing out that accused have rights, the most fundamental one of which is that the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and not the accused. Not much of a logical leap, is it now?
Professors are often the most solipsistic individuals you'll have the misfortune of encountering. Their 'expertise' is often irrelevant to the topic under discussion, but if you take it from them, studying ancient Carthaginian poetry qualifies you to pontificate on all sorts of things. And it goes without saying that most academic economists could be practicing voodoo for all the predictive power their theories have.
I went back in for the grad school thing and as a condition of registration, I had to take a sensitivity test where to pass, I had to assert on the multiple-choice quiz at the end that 40% of women on college campuses are victims of rape. And that accused don't have rights because I had a moral duty to "believe the victim."
See what happened? If you challenge the believability of that number ("Look to your left, look to your right, one of you is being raped right now!"), you confess to not "believing." Lovely game, no?
This was ten months ago, and not at some backwater no-name liberal arts school, either.
Life is sacred, yes. But thinking consenting adults are fully capable of flushing it all down the toilet to the point where they, and not anyone else, sign their own death warrant. The unborn are not capable of such things.