You do realize that the USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on the delivery of mail? I'd hardly call that a normal corporation. Look it up, I was quite surprised at what I found on just the wiki page alone.
Are you totally nuts? Democrat/republican, it's all the SAME damn thing. You make me sick, because your adversarial politics means we all get NOWHERE productive and beneficial. You little pissant.
I'll light my damn property any which way I want. Who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise? Why can't you just keep your damn opinions to yourself instead of trying to impose it on everyone else.
And that just goes to show that vegetarian and vegan diets are NOT natural for humans. And yet, half the veg* people claim that it's natural and healthier, etc etc. The level of W.T.F. when it comes to veg* people is through the roof.
The internet is a cesspool of spammy, useless ads, and sex ads. Nice try, Twitter, but I already have a pleasant viewing experience without having to fork out money to get rid of ads.
If anyone wishes to join me on this side, it's much greener: Go Here
Spend money educating the users... The sheer amount of money they could throw at advertising a pro-freedom campaign is staggering. Civil disobedience, and outright hostility towards institutions that behave immorally such as the DHS and NSA are not going to cut it. They're too easy to dismiss as crazy, hippie, or perhaps even terroristic. Change only comes through education, and that's why the government has a stranglehold on public education. They claim it's a "social good" to give everyone free education, meanwhile it's just a front to "get them while they're young".
And Snowden is being called a Terrorist and Traitor for committing "Treason". Meanwhile, people protest about "NoJustice" for Trayvon. Wtf. If the media redirection campaign isn't painfully obvious from that, I don't know what is.
33/50 states do not have Castle Doctrine laws. That sounds like most, though I do recall a different number hence my usage of the word most. But sure, the stand your ground laws can function kind of like the castle doctrine, but they apply to different situations.
If you ask me, a person has a right to defend his property, especially his home. Stand your ground doesn't apply well to a house, because you have to prove you were in immediate danger, whereas the castle doctrine merely applies to someone breaking into your house.
Either way, the fact that we have any of these laws restricting self-defence and defence of our property is very problematic. People in fearful situations, under duress, and in split moments should not have to think about the law. The aggressor/person that initiated the incident already did, and the consequences of the situation are mostly theirs to bear.
They're going after that one next. What with the new gun banning laws, attacks on "stand your ground" laws. Heck most of the states have gotten rid of the Castle doctrine as well.
It's not so much that they don't want you to be able to defend yourself against the misbehaving government. It's more of a case that they don't want you to be able to defend yourself or others from a third party. Because government hates competition, and they want to be the only game in town when it comes to the protection racket. And not just the one they artificially created (terrorists, boogey men, the red scare), but of actual ones such as criminals (e.g. Trayvon Martin).
That is precisely what Libertarians believe, you statist prick. Libertarians believe that community can replace government, out of our own goodwill, and not from the barrel end of a gun.
There are NO advantages to keeping much of your code in one source file. Other than the fact that you know where all your code is. Quit trying to justify/defend your horrible coding style. All code has separate components, and as soon as you have TWO separate components, you are able to start putting them into separate files.
To conclude: Don't claim I'm using the software wrong when I find a bug in it.
No, but your usage scenario is extreme to say the least. Try open up a multi-gigabyte text file in any standard text-editor, and tell me how that goes. You're essentially pushing eclipse to the limits. Most sane people don't put that much code into a single file. You can design and implement highly complex, and huge systems with man times less code than what you've put in one file.
Either way, I just tried it in 2010, and I was able to successfully copy a piece of code with selecting the code and then using ctrl+drag. Same goes for dragging files around, ctrl+drag creates a copy. And shift+drag moves the file without making a copy.
Too bad you posted as AC, as you might have learnt something new today.
Ignorance of the very foundation of what you are doing is what it is. If you choose ignorance, that is certainly your choice. I choose otherwise because I am a professional.
No, you choose to make your life unnecessarily complicated. Understanding the underlying foundation of the build process, and hand-writing the build files are two completely different things. And hardly a thing that you can use to call yourself a "professional".
This seems to relate to some very basic concepts of programming. We created higher-order programming languages for a reason, and that reason was that we didn't want to fiddle with the inner automatable details every time we wanted to do something. That is in essence what you're doing by hand-writing make files, when a tool could do it in much less time, with less errors and in a more standardized way of doing things. While you're busy still hand-writing make files, a professional developer would have used the right tool for the job, and had a working prototype with acceptable performance long before you.
And to touch on your use of the word "Ignorance". What is programming if not ignorance? Are we not ignorant by not understanding an entire library and it's inner workings when we include that library? Are we not ignorant when we code to an API instead of coding passed that interface boundary and fiddling with the other module? The obvious answer is no. Just because you choose to call yourself a "professional" by voodoo-hand-writing make files doesn't make you a professional. It makes you a hack with decades of experience to hold over the rest of us as some sort of proof of your technical superiority.
I personally wouldn't pay for any charity that I expect the government to do through my taxes. Oh, they chose to spend all my taxes on military? Well, that's too bad. Maybe some smooth orator will come along and convince the masses to steal from the rich, instead of relying on them for charity. Yeah, that is so fair. Also, charity is completely different to outright paying for someone else's medical bills.
But personally, I think you're thinking about it the wrong way. You dislike the choice people made. Perhaps they don't want to pay for other peoples' misfortune. It's like free speech: you can't give it to people then complain about the things they say because you don't like it. It's a take it or leave it sort of thing.
Bear in mind, I don't know the details of the situation that happened in the UK that you speak of. For all we know, there could have been a multitude of reasons why they supposedly "need"ed the NHS.
Maybe some day you statists will figure out what the rest of us have. That government seldom get's smaller, and change doesn't come easy, no matter how sincere the promise because the system simply isn't built for change. When we talk about the "system being rigged", we're not channeling the "anti-TheMan" hippies from the 70's, we're being literal.
The government IS the profiteering middleman in all socialist-type mechanics. Now look, I'm not saying taking a cut out of providing a transfer-like service is a bad thing, but when you're also making the rules(laws) and not allowing people to NOT give you a cut by not doing business with you, then that's utterly immoral. That's something that a lot of pro-government people don't understand about the libertarian/anarchist crowd. They seem to think that we don't want to help our fellow man, when in reality, what we really want is to be given a choice in the matter. And no, a puny "vote" is not a choice in the matter.
Yes, because arguing with immoral statists like you is a waste of time. Best to just tell you what you really are and hope you get the picture that you're unwanted.
Those bankers and politicians you speak of... They can't wage any wars without the compliance of the "working class". People need to take responsibility for their actions, and sooner or later that vet/soldier/paid killer will have to admit to himself that it is of his own volition that he went over to another country to kill. They are just as every bit as to blame as the ones that started the war.
You have to show them BOTH that paid killing(or any killing for that matter) is wrong, and stop skirting around the bush and not rocking their boat. This. Has. To. Stop.
As Picard said: "I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And *I* will make them pay for what they've done!"
That's simply not true. You've projected your own insecurities and views of the world onto the behavior you've observed in women. Like it or not, you're also striving for some sort of ideal, and falling short because you fail to be theirs. Real life means compromising our ultimate ideals, because we ourselves are not perfect. Yes, that means lowering your standards.
Just do what the rest of the herd does and find a suitable middle ground. Find the weird that accepts you for what you are, instead of blaming and lashing out at the women who have rejected you.
Politically, lobby for a "basic income" for all. The fact is, most of us will soon be "unemployable" relative to AI, robotics, and other automation (see Marshall Brain), breaking the income-through jobs link that previously undergird the right to consume.
So we, the rest of the population, must pay for this demotivated and unproductive member of society? It doesn't matter if sooner or later most of us are going to start getting "unemployable" as you put it. The simple fact is that this has been happening for centuries with automation and scientific advances. People find a way to survive, that's what we do. If you put up a safety net, we will just be incentivizing non-productive consumers, that spend other people's money under some pretense of "social good".
Your son is lucky to have a caring involved father like you!
Yeah, the kid is very lucky to have a caregiver that can be involved and provide for him. This is contrary to what you suggest, where you'd like the rest of us to be footing the bill for this care, thereby removing the responsibility for parents such as this one to take care of their loved ones.
Sooner or later you'll realize that the key to happy life and sustainable living is having a cohesive family. They are your safety net, not the state.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that the USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on the delivery of mail? I'd hardly call that a normal corporation. Look it up, I was quite surprised at what I found on just the wiki page alone.
I get a bill by email ...
I don't. I don't think Google or my work needs to know what I'm spending my money on.
Then perhaps YOU are the problem, not the solutions that these companies are offering. If you're that paranoid, then why use email at all?
Are you totally nuts? Democrat/republican, it's all the SAME damn thing. You make me sick, because your adversarial politics means we all get NOWHERE productive and beneficial. You little pissant.
I'll light my damn property any which way I want. Who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise? Why can't you just keep your damn opinions to yourself instead of trying to impose it on everyone else.
And that just goes to show that vegetarian and vegan diets are NOT natural for humans. And yet, half the veg* people claim that it's natural and healthier, etc etc. The level of W.T.F. when it comes to veg* people is through the roof.
The nu-age hippies use all their mod points when articles such as these come here.
i.e. You've made your own conclusions, citations be damned. Typical urban nu-age hippie bullshit.
The internet is a cesspool of spammy, useless ads, and sex ads. Nice try, Twitter, but I already have a pleasant viewing experience without having to fork out money to get rid of ads.
If anyone wishes to join me on this side, it's much greener: Go Here
, the least you could do, for yourself, for all of our children, is to show up and vote for them.
No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM
Spend money educating the users... The sheer amount of money they could throw at advertising a pro-freedom campaign is staggering. Civil disobedience, and outright hostility towards institutions that behave immorally such as the DHS and NSA are not going to cut it. They're too easy to dismiss as crazy, hippie, or perhaps even terroristic. Change only comes through education, and that's why the government has a stranglehold on public education. They claim it's a "social good" to give everyone free education, meanwhile it's just a front to "get them while they're young".
And Snowden is being called a Terrorist and Traitor for committing "Treason". Meanwhile, people protest about "NoJustice" for Trayvon. Wtf. If the media redirection campaign isn't painfully obvious from that, I don't know what is.
33/50 states do not have Castle Doctrine laws. That sounds like most, though I do recall a different number hence my usage of the word most. But sure, the stand your ground laws can function kind of like the castle doctrine, but they apply to different situations.
If you ask me, a person has a right to defend his property, especially his home. Stand your ground doesn't apply well to a house, because you have to prove you were in immediate danger, whereas the castle doctrine merely applies to someone breaking into your house.
Either way, the fact that we have any of these laws restricting self-defence and defence of our property is very problematic. People in fearful situations, under duress, and in split moments should not have to think about the law. The aggressor/person that initiated the incident already did, and the consequences of the situation are mostly theirs to bear.
They're going after that one next. What with the new gun banning laws, attacks on "stand your ground" laws. Heck most of the states have gotten rid of the Castle doctrine as well.
It's not so much that they don't want you to be able to defend yourself against the misbehaving government. It's more of a case that they don't want you to be able to defend yourself or others from a third party. Because government hates competition, and they want to be the only game in town when it comes to the protection racket. And not just the one they artificially created (terrorists, boogey men, the red scare), but of actual ones such as criminals (e.g. Trayvon Martin).
That is precisely what Libertarians believe, you statist prick. Libertarians believe that community can replace government, out of our own goodwill, and not from the barrel end of a gun.
To conclude: Don't claim I'm using the software wrong when I find a bug in it.
No, but your usage scenario is extreme to say the least. Try open up a multi-gigabyte text file in any standard text-editor, and tell me how that goes. You're essentially pushing eclipse to the limits. Most sane people don't put that much code into a single file. You can design and implement highly complex, and huge systems with man times less code than what you've put in one file.
Ever heard of copy-paste and cut-paste?
Either way, I just tried it in 2010, and I was able to successfully copy a piece of code with selecting the code and then using ctrl+drag. Same goes for dragging files around, ctrl+drag creates a copy. And shift+drag moves the file without making a copy.
Too bad you posted as AC, as you might have learnt something new today.
Ignorance of the very foundation of what you are doing is what it is. If you choose ignorance, that is certainly your choice. I choose otherwise because I am a professional.
No, you choose to make your life unnecessarily complicated. Understanding the underlying foundation of the build process, and hand-writing the build files are two completely different things. And hardly a thing that you can use to call yourself a "professional".
This seems to relate to some very basic concepts of programming. We created higher-order programming languages for a reason, and that reason was that we didn't want to fiddle with the inner automatable details every time we wanted to do something. That is in essence what you're doing by hand-writing make files, when a tool could do it in much less time, with less errors and in a more standardized way of doing things. While you're busy still hand-writing make files, a professional developer would have used the right tool for the job, and had a working prototype with acceptable performance long before you.
And to touch on your use of the word "Ignorance". What is programming if not ignorance? Are we not ignorant by not understanding an entire library and it's inner workings when we include that library? Are we not ignorant when we code to an API instead of coding passed that interface boundary and fiddling with the other module? The obvious answer is no. Just because you choose to call yourself a "professional" by voodoo-hand-writing make files doesn't make you a professional. It makes you a hack with decades of experience to hold over the rest of us as some sort of proof of your technical superiority.
Perhaps you should move to a different country, then. And judging from the english that guy was using, I don't think he's living in America, either.
I personally wouldn't pay for any charity that I expect the government to do through my taxes. Oh, they chose to spend all my taxes on military? Well, that's too bad. Maybe some smooth orator will come along and convince the masses to steal from the rich, instead of relying on them for charity. Yeah, that is so fair. Also, charity is completely different to outright paying for someone else's medical bills.
But personally, I think you're thinking about it the wrong way. You dislike the choice people made. Perhaps they don't want to pay for other peoples' misfortune. It's like free speech: you can't give it to people then complain about the things they say because you don't like it. It's a take it or leave it sort of thing.
Bear in mind, I don't know the details of the situation that happened in the UK that you speak of. For all we know, there could have been a multitude of reasons why they supposedly "need"ed the NHS.
Maybe some day you statists will figure out what the rest of us have. That government seldom get's smaller, and change doesn't come easy, no matter how sincere the promise because the system simply isn't built for change. When we talk about the "system being rigged", we're not channeling the "anti-TheMan" hippies from the 70's, we're being literal.
The government IS the profiteering middleman in all socialist-type mechanics. Now look, I'm not saying taking a cut out of providing a transfer-like service is a bad thing, but when you're also making the rules(laws) and not allowing people to NOT give you a cut by not doing business with you, then that's utterly immoral. That's something that a lot of pro-government people don't understand about the libertarian/anarchist crowd. They seem to think that we don't want to help our fellow man, when in reality, what we really want is to be given a choice in the matter. And no, a puny "vote" is not a choice in the matter.
Yes, because arguing with immoral statists like you is a waste of time. Best to just tell you what you really are and hope you get the picture that you're unwanted.
Those bankers and politicians you speak of... They can't wage any wars without the compliance of the "working class". People need to take responsibility for their actions, and sooner or later that vet/soldier/paid killer will have to admit to himself that it is of his own volition that he went over to another country to kill. They are just as every bit as to blame as the ones that started the war.
You have to show them BOTH that paid killing(or any killing for that matter) is wrong, and stop skirting around the bush and not rocking their boat. This. Has. To. Stop.
As Picard said: "I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And *I* will make them pay for what they've done!"
That's simply not true. You've projected your own insecurities and views of the world onto the behavior you've observed in women. Like it or not, you're also striving for some sort of ideal, and falling short because you fail to be theirs. Real life means compromising our ultimate ideals, because we ourselves are not perfect. Yes, that means lowering your standards.
Just do what the rest of the herd does and find a suitable middle ground. Find the weird that accepts you for what you are, instead of blaming and lashing out at the women who have rejected you.
Politically, lobby for a "basic income" for all. The fact is, most of us will soon be "unemployable" relative to AI, robotics, and other automation (see Marshall Brain), breaking the income-through jobs link that previously undergird the right to consume.
So we, the rest of the population, must pay for this demotivated and unproductive member of society? It doesn't matter if sooner or later most of us are going to start getting "unemployable" as you put it. The simple fact is that this has been happening for centuries with automation and scientific advances. People find a way to survive, that's what we do. If you put up a safety net, we will just be incentivizing non-productive consumers, that spend other people's money under some pretense of "social good".
Your son is lucky to have a caring involved father like you!
Yeah, the kid is very lucky to have a caregiver that can be involved and provide for him. This is contrary to what you suggest, where you'd like the rest of us to be footing the bill for this care, thereby removing the responsibility for parents such as this one to take care of their loved ones.
Sooner or later you'll realize that the key to happy life and sustainable living is having a cohesive family. They are your safety net, not the state.