You're not a moron. We need to understand the scenario to be able to understand why, uniquely, every solution offered is inadequate. It wasn't forthcoming.
Quick is my being able to replace the battery in 10 seconds by swapping out. Tolerable is going into a shop and their taking 10 minutes to swap it out using a special tool. Last resort is sending my equipment off to be fixed within 48 hours. There is nothing less convenient than having to wait for the post then having to backup and restore including all modifications to a new machine which will have different characteristics.
Do you have a link for the "replace the battery in your own phone" service?
Re (3), there's no conception of ownership and longevity in the Apple model. The objects I've kept over the years have proven themselves to be of reliable build (including at component level!), received excellent care from me, been occasionally tweaked in nontrivial ways to my liking, etc. If someone said to me, "Well, your DVD drive is broke... I'll have to give you a whole other machine" I'd laugh out loud.
Actually, you can do precisely that. You can even create entirely new classes at run time, or extend existing classes by adding new methods to them.
I should have been clearer. I can't just break open the inspector at runtime and edit an Objective C app, i.e. list of messages and nothing but, on the fly. All you're describing is the ability in OS X 20 years later to do the much harder task of source level debugging and partial recompilation of apps under development for which you have the source.
But that is fairly good, I must admit.
If clicking on a menu item to generate accessor methods causes you to worry, then you have a lot to learn.
Wow, Visual BASIC flashback. You deal with garbage collection in pre-Leopard ObjC by "a menu item to generate accessor methods", now? How do all these supposedly world-changing Apple apps get developed when... oh, I give up.
That's the second popular argument from the Apple fanboys (I know you've denied being one, but you're acting like one) - "you wouldn't understand" what people need "in the real world".
all the practical problems that causes (e.g. branching, collaboration),
There are no practical problems if you have some damn discipline, and have learnt from Software Engineering 101 that you should write what you mean and let your preprocessor turn that into suitable code to maintain whatever standards you implement in your organisation. For example, Microsoft platforms have for a good 15 years gone straight for GUIDs for identifying objects, and it looks like Microsoft are doing OK.
why in some scenarios it is not possible at all (e.g. plugins/dynamic linking)
Sorry, what? I've just brought up some of my old code for a basic system monitor to run on bare hardware which handles the interface for drivers and other plugins via such a scheme. Some cunning stub/shim/whatever-you-like-to-call-it generation means transparent RPC, so the keyboard driver could be running on the local machine or across the world.
and why it is pretty much never used (waiting days for release to become compilable while people resolve the merge conflicts of the "unchanging number" lists).
You might as well argue that it's impossible to generate any stable API ever because developers will keep changing the names of their functions and the order of arguments.
Except they can.
And you can automatically generate a hash from number, type and order of arguments. And then store that for a reusable interface. Or whatever. Seriously, what happened to discipline in engineering? Read/The Pragmatic Programmer/, or something.
Selector is essentially a pointer to a method. It doesn't serialize a damn thing
When implementing polymorphism, or message passing, or whatever you like to call it, you are turning a list of words, i.e. the selector, into some sort of unique identifier or hash or offset into a lookup table or who cares what. That's all your "damn" selector is. You are augmenting that with list of arguments which you somehow queue. Your machine is serialising the abstract notion of "passing a queue of messages" into numeric representation of method plus list of arguments, which are built up again to form an actual procedure call, no matter how fancily your Apple documentation likes to describe it.
Eh? "Static number for interface"?? "Static number for function"???
Sigh. Any interface in the world is assigned a single unique unchanging number (OK, C++ just uses the name, but it comes to the same thing within a single organisation). Any method of that interface is denoted by an single unique unchanging offset into some table. If you can ask an arbitrary object for "method 56 of interface 11", your problem is sorted. What is so difficult about your dispatcher being able to make such a lookup?
Go back to the kindergarten.
Why does every argument with an Apple fanboy end up with some comment like this? You've spent about half a dozen messages arguing that C++ doesn't support "messages" just because it doesn't support messages precisely as you want them to, and because you refuse to invent or use one of half a dozen implementations which allow you to use C++ as you want it to. I've pointed out that you're spending way too long complicating what an interface actually is, and you end up by telling me to go back to the kindergarten.
You're either a troll or in the frame of mind which resulted in the "loose" typo right at the start of this thread...
That means code need to know explicitly the interface to call a method.
What problem are you trying to solve where you don't know the format of any messages you need to send?
because that would require the message dispatch to know all the hundreds/thousands interfaces used all over the program.
Eh? A static number for interface, a static number for function, a two-level lookup table.
Constantly serializing/deserializing is way too expensive.
What's a Selector object doing, behind the scenes?
... of which the Objective C is one of the descendants. The End.
No, it's the bastard offspring of C and parts of the Smalltalk platform. Smalltalk implements everything using messages to objects, whereas Objective C does sometimes. I can't just break open the inspector at runtime and edit an Objective C app, i.e. list of messages and nothing but, on the fly. Hell, until a couple of years ago I still had to worry about tracking memory allocation!
OK, b4dc0d3r, we get it, it's tough in this post-'90s world to find someone with a less hip nick. I spent about 8 years posting AC on/., but it was tiresome to hear people like you complaining about my lack of identity.
FWIW, calling "loosing" a typo is like calling "nigger" a slip of the tongue - there's enough case history to reveal that it reflects an error in the CPU, not a transient fault at the output device.
It all boils down to the trivial problem: given an object, one should be able to call a random method on it.
C++ forbids this
What you might mean is, "I can't build up a random method call at runtime in an ANSI standard way". Your "trivial problem" is soluble at compile time, as is the intention for statically typed languages.
Nor you can't represent a method as a variable.
However "insane" you like to think it is, a method isn't a variable (although you can indicate a particular non-static method of an class in a variable using member function pointers). You probably want to use an pointer of abstract base class type, i.e. interface. Why do you keep wanting to defeat static typing?
You can queue up selector/object pairs in ObjC for later calling - you can't anything close to it in C++. Thus no native messaging in C++.
I don't define messaging as "queueing up a random sequence of method calls chosen at runtime for later calling". Again, you're probably looking for some array type from which elements are consumed to call methods (perhaps chosen using member function pointers) via a pointer typed to an abstract base class.
If you want to be able to queue random calls to/anything/, represented in some language-defined way as calls with all their parameters, just because it's nice to say you can, you are probably looking for a completely dynamically typed language like Smalltalk.
What on earth has the availability of an interface builder app got to do with language function call semantics / implementation differences?
Are you trying to imply that something about C++ means that I have to recompile backend.cpp when I change the implementation detail of called routines in gui.cpp, even when the interface remains the same? Because no.
Why in the end the Objective-C++ was actually born:
"Just because you shouldn't, it doesn't mean you can't."
to get the weak typing and messaging where it is needed it - without loosing compile time binding and strict typing where it counts.
With the utmost respect, anyone who fails to recognise the very basic difference between `loose' and `lose' is unlikely to have a proper appreciation of when (or indeed whether) weak or strong typing is needed. As for "messaging", well, just because Objective C calls it a message and C++ calls it a polymorphic method call, it doesn't mean there's a relevant difference.
Objective-C is what C++ could have been if they had done it right.
No, there is no real way of objectifying C well, because C is essentially a low level systems and high performance macro assembler, designed for people who want to and need to care about the underlying system. Now, C# is a fairly good language with C-type constructs,and Java is ok-ish, but they are managed languages more abstracted from the underlying hardware.
Objective C is an attempt to mix macro assembler with the beautifully pure OO language that is Smalltalk, giving the advantages of neither.
I did like Objective C when I first learnt about it, about 16 years ago. I was a teen and my knowledge of languages extended little beyond BASIC, C, C++, Forth and a vague understanding of LISP. I craved something fit for a more high level purpose. Objective C is an experimental half way house which has been hanging around because C++ is so bad and Jobs happened to run NeXT, but it's no pleasure.
And I was stereotyping the average person's response to government bureaucrats... or was I?
We could team up: I could cut my hair and wear a drab suit to represent the ruthless businessman, and you could cut your hair and wear a smart suit to represent government bureaucracy. We could call ourselves... the Confusing Uniform & Motive twins. People would see us accelerating through the sky on our privately built flying car running over state owned highways and shout, "CUM, again?"
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of the free market after all she has been through.!
She lost her banks, she went through a crash. She has $12 billion of debt.
China turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now she's going through a custody battle. All you people care about is.. iPods and making money off of her.
SHE’S A HUMAN! (ah! ooh!) What you don’t realize is that the free market is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about her.
She hasn’t increased employment in years. Her mantra is called “greed is good” for a reason because all you people want is MORE! MORE-MORE, MORE: MORE!.
LEAVE HER ALONE! You are lucky she even performed for you BASTARDS! LEAVE THE FREE MARKET ALONE!..Please.
Karl Marx talked about the fall of capitalism and said if workers unite they would’ve pulled it off no matter what.
Speaking of communism, when is it communist to publicly bash someone who is going through a hard time.
Leave The Free Market Alone Please. ! Leave The Free Market alone!right now!.I mean it.!
Anyone that has a problem with her you deal with me, because she is not well right now.
never printed something remotely to Kinkos. That feature is convenient and can be a life-saver
You're correct - if I want to print something at a random retail outlet, I'll just bring in media and/or laptop. If things don't look quite right, I'm then more likely to be able to fix it.
If Google made it easy enough, I could see myself...
...setting up a printer business by taking a couple of minutes to enable Internet Printing Protocol on Windows 2000 or later, CUPS or Netware?
I'm not sure what Google still need to do to make it easier, though... adverts on your printouts? A Print2.0 marketing moniker?
How can anyone take Google seriously outside the search engine market? What won't it do to convince you that you need to do something half way across the world using systems under their control, what you once did perfectly in your office? "We know what you search for, we must see what you print too!" Stop allowing the creation of the next Microsoft, guys. Especially one with far more control and access to your stuff than MS planned for.
1. Why is it better for a friend to use his CC than you? Do you pay him some % to manage the risk of potential CC fraud?
2. YOU GIVE YOUR BANK DETAILS TO PAYPAL?! SOMEONE COULD CLEAR OUT YOUR ACCOUNT. Or, if you get a chargeback, Paypal will just withdraw money from your account to prevent making a loss.
Seriously, 2, dude. Don't ever give your bank details to Paypal.
You, as the two ACs, are wrong. To begin, monopolizing behaviour is a type of anti-competitive behaviour in the basic English usage ("acting in the manner of a monopoly"). To continue, such behaviour is prerequisite to the legal offence of monopolization under Sherman.
Whether they are guilty of the legal offence of monopolization (which I did not accuse Apple of) depends on their also being a monopoly. But this is a state of being, not a behaviour. As far as behaviour, Apple are monopolistic - this is what I stated, and no amount of semantic or legal misunderstanding will get away from that.
Apple displays monopolistic, i.e. anti-competitive, behaviour. Who cares whether they're a monopoly? unless your aim is to punish success (i.e. Microsoft) out of spite rather than to stop activity which is damaging to the marketplace.
The whole point is that for the most part, one should accept this and move on. Accept that and by happy living your life the best way YOU can. That's a far cry from "just kill yourself now".
"Shut up and accept how the world is, just forget about caring and enjoy yourself," is to me pretty much equivalent to, "You might as well kill yourself now". That sort of soulless existence, making me nothing more than a trained monkey, is at odds with my desire to be all the things a human has the ability to be.
Also, if you get out of the nihilistic subculture of geeky 18-30 males, the world is full of idealistic and helpful humans working to help others' lot on a familial, urban or global scale. Your trinket-based approach to living sees the selfish as successful - and they are, if they are also clever and lucky - but it doesn't question the definition of success which leads to that conclusion. If all I have gained when I am 70 is 5 beautiful wives, two large houses, and the full range of Apple iProducts, I am no more evolved than a monkey.
Nothing you do yourself is going to affect the world large scale.
Shouldn't this be followed with, "So you might as well kill yourself now"?
Recall the story of the boy who threw stranded animals from the sand into the sea. "You'll never save them all!" shouts the old cynic. "No, but I saved this one," he replies.
Also, people are better in the long run at following by example than following the words of hypocrites. This works starting with the most basic family unit, the family.
The UK's had min wage for under 15 years, with more lax rules for teens and young adults. Before then, and still now for young people, many were paid below the current main adult min wage.
Of course, it's a horrible wage to live on. But China's 13/15 of min wage is not far behind the civilised opportunities we like to think we offer in the West.
Yes, the lack of worker movement leading to unions/tribunals/etc in China (irony...) is a problem. As is the fact that a teen worries about the cost of marriage and supporting his parents' farm. Although there are many jobs which youths have to do in the West which come with poor live-in conditions, and tower blocks of state housing in Europe resemble such dormitories in their liveability.
...I'd love to have earnt 65 cents an hour, scaled up to what the CoL is in my country, in an intense job to earn me quick money when I'm not studying. For me, working 15 hours a day is pretty standard, and I'll do it often providing (i) I enjoy the work; or (ii) it's for a limited amount of time.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not a moron. We need to understand the scenario to be able to understand why, uniquely, every solution offered is inadequate. It wasn't forthcoming.
Quick is my being able to replace the battery in 10 seconds by swapping out. Tolerable is going into a shop and their taking 10 minutes to swap it out using a special tool. Last resort is sending my equipment off to be fixed within 48 hours. There is nothing less convenient than having to wait for the post then having to backup and restore including all modifications to a new machine which will have different characteristics.
Do you have a link for the "replace the battery in your own phone" service?
Re (3), there's no conception of ownership and longevity in the Apple model. The objects I've kept over the years have proven themselves to be of reliable build (including at component level!), received excellent care from me, been occasionally tweaked in nontrivial ways to my liking, etc. If someone said to me, "Well, your DVD drive is broke... I'll have to give you a whole other machine" I'd laugh out loud.
Actually, you can do precisely that. You can even create entirely new classes at run time, or extend existing classes by adding new methods to them.
I should have been clearer. I can't just break open the inspector at runtime and edit an Objective C app, i.e. list of messages and nothing but, on the fly. All you're describing is the ability in OS X 20 years later to do the much harder task of source level debugging and partial recompilation of apps under development for which you have the source.
But that is fairly good, I must admit.
If clicking on a menu item to generate accessor methods causes you to worry, then you have a lot to learn.
Wow, Visual BASIC flashback. You deal with garbage collection in pre-Leopard ObjC by "a menu item to generate accessor methods", now? How do all these supposedly world-changing Apple apps get developed when... oh, I give up.
Well, you really do lack experience to understand
That's the second popular argument from the Apple fanboys (I know you've denied being one, but you're acting like one) - "you wouldn't understand" what people need "in the real world".
all the practical problems that causes (e.g. branching, collaboration),
There are no practical problems if you have some damn discipline, and have learnt from Software Engineering 101 that you should write what you mean and let your preprocessor turn that into suitable code to maintain whatever standards you implement in your organisation. For example, Microsoft platforms have for a good 15 years gone straight for GUIDs for identifying objects, and it looks like Microsoft are doing OK.
why in some scenarios it is not possible at all (e.g. plugins/dynamic linking)
Sorry, what? I've just brought up some of my old code for a basic system monitor to run on bare hardware which handles the interface for drivers and other plugins via such a scheme. Some cunning stub/shim/whatever-you-like-to-call-it generation means transparent RPC, so the keyboard driver could be running on the local machine or across the world.
and why it is pretty much never used (waiting days for release to become compilable while people resolve the merge conflicts of the "unchanging number" lists).
You might as well argue that it's impossible to generate any stable API ever because developers will keep changing the names of their functions and the order of arguments.
Except they can.
And you can automatically generate a hash from number, type and order of arguments. And then store that for a reusable interface. Or whatever. Seriously, what happened to discipline in engineering? Read /The Pragmatic Programmer/, or something.
Selector is essentially a pointer to a method. It doesn't serialize a damn thing
When implementing polymorphism, or message passing, or whatever you like to call it, you are turning a list of words, i.e. the selector, into some sort of unique identifier or hash or offset into a lookup table or who cares what. That's all your "damn" selector is. You are augmenting that with list of arguments which you somehow queue. Your machine is serialising the abstract notion of "passing a queue of messages" into numeric representation of method plus list of arguments, which are built up again to form an actual procedure call, no matter how fancily your Apple documentation likes to describe it.
Eh? "Static number for interface"?? "Static number for function"???
Sigh. Any interface in the world is assigned a single unique unchanging number (OK, C++ just uses the name, but it comes to the same thing within a single organisation). Any method of that interface is denoted by an single unique unchanging offset into some table. If you can ask an arbitrary object for "method 56 of interface 11", your problem is sorted. What is so difficult about your dispatcher being able to make such a lookup?
Go back to the kindergarten.
Why does every argument with an Apple fanboy end up with some comment like this? You've spent about half a dozen messages arguing that C++ doesn't support "messages" just because it doesn't support messages precisely as you want them to, and because you refuse to invent or use one of half a dozen implementations which allow you to use C++ as you want it to. I've pointed out that you're spending way too long complicating what an interface actually is, and you end up by telling me to go back to the kindergarten.
You're either a troll or in the frame of mind which resulted in the "loose" typo right at the start of this thread...
That means code need to know explicitly the interface to call a method.
What problem are you trying to solve where you don't know the format of any messages you need to send?
because that would require the message dispatch to know all the hundreds/thousands interfaces used all over the program.
Eh? A static number for interface, a static number for function, a two-level lookup table.
Constantly serializing/deserializing is way too expensive.
What's a Selector object doing, behind the scenes?
... of which the Objective C is one of the descendants. The End.
No, it's the bastard offspring of C and parts of the Smalltalk platform. Smalltalk implements everything using messages to objects, whereas Objective C does sometimes. I can't just break open the inspector at runtime and edit an Objective C app, i.e. list of messages and nothing but, on the fly. Hell, until a couple of years ago I still had to worry about tracking memory allocation!
OK, b4dc0d3r, we get it, it's tough in this post-'90s world to find someone with a less hip nick. I spent about 8 years posting AC on /., but it was tiresome to hear people like you complaining about my lack of identity.
FWIW, calling "loosing" a typo is like calling "nigger" a slip of the tongue - there's enough case history to reveal that it reflects an error in the CPU, not a transient fault at the output device.
It all boils down to the trivial problem: given an object, one should be able to call a random method on it.
C++ forbids this
What you might mean is, "I can't build up a random method call at runtime in an ANSI standard way". Your "trivial problem" is soluble at compile time, as is the intention for statically typed languages.
Nor you can't represent a method as a variable.
However "insane" you like to think it is, a method isn't a variable (although you can indicate a particular non-static method of an class in a variable using member function pointers). You probably want to use an pointer of abstract base class type, i.e. interface. Why do you keep wanting to defeat static typing?
You can queue up selector/object pairs in ObjC for later calling - you can't anything close to it in C++. Thus no native messaging in C++.
I don't define messaging as "queueing up a random sequence of method calls chosen at runtime for later calling". Again, you're probably looking for some array type from which elements are consumed to call methods (perhaps chosen using member function pointers) via a pointer typed to an abstract base class.
If you want to be able to queue random calls to /anything/, represented in some language-defined way as calls with all their parameters, just because it's nice to say you can, you are probably looking for a completely dynamically typed language like Smalltalk.
What on earth has the availability of an interface builder app got to do with language function call semantics / implementation differences?
Are you trying to imply that something about C++ means that I have to recompile backend.cpp when I change the implementation detail of called routines in gui.cpp, even when the interface remains the same? Because no.
Why in the end the Objective-C++ was actually born:
"Just because you shouldn't, it doesn't mean you can't."
to get the weak typing and messaging where it is needed it - without loosing compile time binding and strict typing where it counts.
With the utmost respect, anyone who fails to recognise the very basic difference between `loose' and `lose' is unlikely to have a proper appreciation of when (or indeed whether) weak or strong typing is needed. As for "messaging", well, just because Objective C calls it a message and C++ calls it a polymorphic method call, it doesn't mean there's a relevant difference.
Objective-C is what C++ could have been if they had done it right.
No, there is no real way of objectifying C well, because C is essentially a low level systems and high performance macro assembler, designed for people who want to and need to care about the underlying system. Now, C# is a fairly good language with C-type constructs,and Java is ok-ish, but they are managed languages more abstracted from the underlying hardware.
Objective C is an attempt to mix macro assembler with the beautifully pure OO language that is Smalltalk, giving the advantages of neither.
I did like Objective C when I first learnt about it, about 16 years ago. I was a teen and my knowledge of languages extended little beyond BASIC, C, C++, Forth and a vague understanding of LISP. I craved something fit for a more high level purpose. Objective C is an experimental half way house which has been hanging around because C++ is so bad and Jobs happened to run NeXT, but it's no pleasure.
No. People like making money with the iPhone. But development in the classical sense, i.e. "growth; progress", does not occur on iPhone.
And I was stereotyping the average person's response to government bureaucrats... or was I?
We could team up: I could cut my hair and wear a drab suit to represent the ruthless businessman, and you could cut your hair and wear a smart suit to represent government bureaucracy. We could call ourselves... the Confusing Uniform & Motive twins. People would see us accelerating through the sky on our privately built flying car running over state owned highways and shout, "CUM, again?"
I see what you're saying and it sounds like:
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of the free market after all she has been through.!
She lost her banks, she went through a crash. She has $12 billion of debt.
China turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now she's going through a custody battle. All you people care about is.. iPods and making money off of her.
SHE’S A HUMAN! (ah! ooh!) What you don’t realize is that the free market is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about her.
She hasn’t increased employment in years. Her mantra is called “greed is good” for a reason because all you people want is MORE! MORE-MORE, MORE: MORE!.
LEAVE HER ALONE! You are lucky she even performed for you BASTARDS!
LEAVE THE FREE MARKET ALONE!..Please.
Karl Marx talked about the fall of capitalism and said if workers unite they would’ve pulled it off no matter what.
Speaking of communism, when is it communist to publicly bash someone who is going through a hard time.
Leave The Free Market Alone Please. !
Leave The Free Market alone!right now!.I mean it.!
Anyone that has a problem with her you deal with me, because she is not well right now.
LEAVE HER ALONE!
never printed something remotely to Kinkos. That feature is convenient and can be a life-saver
You're correct - if I want to print something at a random retail outlet, I'll just bring in media and/or laptop. If things don't look quite right, I'm then more likely to be able to fix it.
If Google made it easy enough, I could see myself...
...setting up a printer business by taking a couple of minutes to enable Internet Printing Protocol on Windows 2000 or later, CUPS or Netware?
I'm not sure what Google still need to do to make it easier, though... adverts on your printouts? A Print2.0 marketing moniker?
How can anyone take Google seriously outside the search engine market? What won't it do to convince you that you need to do something half way across the world using systems under their control, what you once did perfectly in your office? "We know what you search for, we must see what you print too!" Stop allowing the creation of the next Microsoft, guys. Especially one with far more control and access to your stuff than MS planned for.
I applaud your ideal, but:
1. Why is it better for a friend to use his CC than you? Do you pay him some % to manage the risk of potential CC fraud?
2. YOU GIVE YOUR BANK DETAILS TO PAYPAL?! SOMEONE COULD CLEAR OUT YOUR ACCOUNT. Or, if you get a chargeback, Paypal will just withdraw money from your account to prevent making a loss.
Seriously, 2, dude. Don't ever give your bank details to Paypal.
You, as the two ACs, are wrong. To begin, monopolizing behaviour is a type of anti-competitive behaviour in the basic English usage ("acting in the manner of a monopoly"). To continue, such behaviour is prerequisite to the legal offence of monopolization under Sherman.
Whether they are guilty of the legal offence of monopolization (which I did not accuse Apple of) depends on their also being a monopoly. But this is a state of being, not a behaviour. As far as behaviour, Apple are monopolistic - this is what I stated, and no amount of semantic or legal misunderstanding will get away from that.
Apple displays monopolistic, i.e. anti-competitive, behaviour. Who cares whether they're a monopoly? unless your aim is to punish success (i.e. Microsoft) out of spite rather than to stop activity which is damaging to the marketplace.
The whole point is that for the most part, one should accept this and move on. Accept that and by happy living your life the best way YOU can. That's a far cry from "just kill yourself now".
"Shut up and accept how the world is, just forget about caring and enjoy yourself," is to me pretty much equivalent to, "You might as well kill yourself now". That sort of soulless existence, making me nothing more than a trained monkey, is at odds with my desire to be all the things a human has the ability to be.
Also, if you get out of the nihilistic subculture of geeky 18-30 males, the world is full of idealistic and helpful humans working to help others' lot on a familial, urban or global scale. Your trinket-based approach to living sees the selfish as successful - and they are, if they are also clever and lucky - but it doesn't question the definition of success which leads to that conclusion. If all I have gained when I am 70 is 5 beautiful wives, two large houses, and the full range of Apple iProducts, I am no more evolved than a monkey.
Going afk.. thanks for the responses.
Nothing you do yourself is going to affect the world large scale.
Shouldn't this be followed with, "So you might as well kill yourself now"?
Recall the story of the boy who threw stranded animals from the sand into the sea. "You'll never save them all!" shouts the old cynic. "No, but I saved this one," he replies.
Also, people are better in the long run at following by example than following the words of hypocrites. This works starting with the most basic family unit, the family.
The UK's had min wage for under 15 years, with more lax rules for teens and young adults. Before then, and still now for young people, many were paid below the current main adult min wage.
Of course, it's a horrible wage to live on. But China's 13/15 of min wage is not far behind the civilised opportunities we like to think we offer in the West.
Yes, the lack of worker movement leading to unions/tribunals/etc in China (irony...) is a problem. As is the fact that a teen worries about the cost of marriage and supporting his parents' farm. Although there are many jobs which youths have to do in the West which come with poor live-in conditions, and tower blocks of state housing in Europe resemble such dormitories in their liveability.
...I'd love to have earnt 65 cents an hour, scaled up to what the CoL is in my country, in an intense job to earn me quick money when I'm not studying. For me, working 15 hours a day is pretty standard, and I'll do it often providing (i) I enjoy the work; or (ii) it's for a limited amount of time.