This coiuld probably be ressurected as a silent media PC with serious horsepower, if the case were styled a bit better. Think "high-end" audio monoblock class A amps, the heat problems they face, and how they're styled.
The QoS on the stock ATA I got from Vonage sucks. I ended up doing my own traffic shaping with a little Linux box. Of course, attempting to throttle incomming traffic rather than shaping it upstream, is never going to be perfect, but at least I can do it better than Vonage's ATA: it basically throttled ALL incomming traffic all the time, to a dismal rate, regardless of any VoIP calls in progress at the time.
The problem is, he wasn't writing an article, it was a letter to the editor.
Indeed.
I used to write many letters to the editor of the Financial Post (a right-wing national financial paper in Canada - I usually argued the libertarian position). I had a good record of getting them published.
Once I got a call from their letters to the editor deportment, saying, basically, "We like your letter. But, it's too long. Can you shorten it? In the next 5 minutes?"
I responded, "Just use the first and last paragraph. It'll stand on those". Silence for a few seconds, then, "Geez, thanks! That works!!" and "clik" as the line went dead.
The point is I wrote my letter to be edited. Most papers reserve that right, to edit for brevity, typos, and grammer. The desk editor was doing me a curtesy by asking, though the cut he was wanting to make was significant (about 70% of the content, most of which was backing my opening assertion).
So, yeah, letters to the editor are often statements of opinion, with little to back them up. The ones that have their substance back up often do get published in favour of those that don't, even though the supporting arguments are omitted in the final version. That this one had several of those arguments published says something of the importance the editor(s) gave it.
The worst problem with a documentation and coding style that meets someone's arbitrary standard of completeness is that (a) the code and docs invariably mismatch and (b) the docs can very often obscure the code!
There is nothing worse than five sets of twenty lines of code each preceeded with 10 lines of comments about what the code does!. Geez, you've now made me see 33% less code in my editor window at a time -- like that's going to make it easier to follow what it does.
Document the why's, and, if they're particularly tricky, the hows, but otherwise butt out. In this vein Hungarian notation must have been dreamed up by Basic weanies used to seeing the type of a variable implicit in its name. Why the heck should I care about the structural implementation detail of an object? If I don't understand the object's type, I shouldn't be messing with it! (An exception can be made in cases where one works with foo, pointer to foo, pointer to array of pointers to foo, and pointer to pointer to array of pointers to foo all in close proximity, I supposed, but that usually implies that details of the data structure should be exposed at that point.
Far too often, and this includes JavaDoc and Doxygen documentation, the documentation covers the trees and completely misses the forest.
As for breaking up large functions... sometimes. Other times it just pollutes the function level namespace with things that are called once. It really is a judgement call.
Document the things that aren't obvius to one skilled in the implementation language.
For example, I recently had to deal with an object that made use of a "helper" object that was a concrete derived class of an abstract interface. Heh. Turns out the semantics and signature of that abstract interface was a close match to the top-level concrete class. Can you say Proxy? I saw what was being attempted: abstraction of some lower-level functionality used by a higher-level object, except the sole current implementation of that lower level functionality followed a model that was so useful it was reflected in the upper level object using the helper class. Kinda makes you think that the "real" lower level functionality should have been simpler-still (since it wasn't really a Proxy that was desired).
Clearly, someone in the dim past had a good idea about abstracting multiple implementations away under a common interface, but the best interface they could imagine in the short time they had was actually that to which their existing first implementation conformed.
From a maintenance standpoint, it meant that Berkely socket semantics (particularly extablishment and termination) extended higher into the application that initially expected. It would have been nice if that was noted somewhere. As it stood, it took a few minutes to grok that from the code alone.
Now, I know from experience, what the original programmer was trying to accomplish, and found, to his or her dismay, that there was no time to sever the application's idea of communication establishment and termination from that of the actual first implementation at hand, and so used the latter as the model for the former. Not quite the flexibility one was hoping for... and crucual to anyone who wants to provide an alternate session establishment protocol at the lowest level: "whaddever ya do, it should map to socket semantics".
Arguably, there was no benefit to be had from the attempt to separate application connection semantics from the primary implementation at hand, and the implied suggestion that there was, because of the abstract class involved was potentially confusing.
A professional programmer modifying a piece of code has to deal with perhaps a dozen such questions in a day -- sometimes more, sometimes less. Sometimes, good ideas end up partially backed in code.
That's the kind of stuff that needs to get documented, not the fact that i is a loop index, in scope for five lines of code, and should be more properly called fooArrayIndex. All those long variable names with short scopes make the program lines longer, wrap more lines, and increase program size. Sometimes the "spreading out" of the code that results does more harm than good.
Most commercial airline pilots never actually "fly" the plane. So, why are they there?
In case something goes wrong.
Even if it is more convenient to use a canned library, the person with an undergraduat academic background should be comfortable with the hows and whys of such libraries.
a lot of programmers are needed out there - and we have to consider the fact that some of them are actually dumb because in 2005 everyone's a programmer - and if we begin to let them handle things such as pointers and multiple inheritance, someone in the company's gonna do things the wrong way
True, but that is not a good reason to restrict what the skilled, battle-hardened, programmer can do: you're reducing every one's tools to what is "safe" to use by the lowest common denominator. That really wastes good talent, and discourages mediocre programmers from becoming better ones, and, eventually, experts. Yes, Virginia, you need to fail sometimes to learn. The trick is to let yourself (and your subordinates) fail on the things that don't matter so much.
A parallel involves programmable user functionallity: we'll let users call libraries, but only to one level deep. We'll support automatic configuration to meet constraints, but with severe restrictions. This often happens to simplify implementation but is passed off as "restricting the user to protect them from themselves".
What happens?
Skilled, and clever users, and those mediocre ones that eventually have an "a ha!" moment, find they can't do what is logical and rational because of built-in limitations. The very people most qualified to evangelize your good work abandon using it out of sheer frustration. A side effect is that your documentation because a bunch of "exceptions" and "special cases".
Note that I said it should be possible to declare "safe code only here", for various definitions of "safe" (unlike.NET's and C#'s binary safe/unsafe code dichotomy). The good designer targetting a C++ implementation language will try to eliminate the need for bald pointers in as many places as possible. S/he can't eliminate them, however, in the "smart pointer" implementation, shouldn't be expected to resort to a "lower level" language to provide that implementation, and should be able to tell, at a glance, if a "junior" programmer has used dangerous features (like a bald pointer).
C# allows for "unsafe" code as well, but it's an all or nothing proposition. For example, I can't declare a section of code as not being permitted to call code with certain attributes, like effecting memory allocation and/or deallocation.
Yeah, I've considered Lisp, usually whenever I wonder at the plethora of different grouping constructs in C/C++/C#/Java: (), {}, [], and <> (templates), and question their usefulness.
They do add syntactic and semantic sugar, of course, but really, I'd like to be the one to define the kind of syntactic sugar they add. It's also the one thing that Lisp lacks: any kind of syntactic or semantic sugar. Forth might have an edge here, but it is less formal a language.
Some waiters actually became quite wealty this way, and the practice exists to this day in some industries: partners buying into a partnership, for example. I think it is prevelent in the hair styling industry, but I am not certain.
I've coded in various assembly languages, scripting languages (though I forget Perl as fast as I decide that it's appropriate for some piece of glue and am constant relearning it), C, C++, C#, and yes, even COBOL in the dim past (using COBOL to provide indexed file support to Pascal applications via COMPASS trampolines on an old Cyber 835 running NOS was, well, a scizophrenic programming experience). I tend to like the richness of C++.
However, it's a double-edged sword. It has been said that C lets you shoot yourself in the foot. C++ provides a dozen ways to shoot yourself in both feet and your own back, simultaneously. Be carefull.
Many have tried to design languages to protect the programmer from themselves, i.e. by providing native garbage collection, disallowing bald pointers, etc. However, this is short-sighted. It presumes what is "hard" and prevents the skilled programmer from replacing the default implementation. C++ new and delete member functions provide no-fuss custom memory management... and probably account for probably half of those ways of shooting one's self in both feet and back.
A language that is complete in the sense of permitting the coding of fundemental facilities is seductive. It provides an assurance that one can implement "low-level" stuff like memory management, or even the bulk of an O/S kernel in it. The lack of I/O facilities in C, for example, is an intentional feature, and not an oversight. Never have to learn another language again.
Other languages may provide the convenience of built-in capabilities that are useful for a particular task at hand: awk, perl, and the rash of modern scripting languages come to mind. When the shoe fits, the adaptable programmer will take the path of least resistance. Languages like Java and C# attempt to bridge the general-purpose languages with the protection and features offered by application-specific ones, the latter via extensive run-time libraries (.NET, anyone?). They tend to return to the pseudo-compiled small-interpreter model to provide hardware portability.
The problem is, that one has do do things the C# "way", or the.NET "way", or the Java "way". Multiple inheritance? Oooh, it's so hard to implement right, and can be so confusing, and, admitedly can be expensive at run-time, so we'll not provide it. Mixin becomes a hack, with language keyword support. Over time, syntactic sugar in the language provides clever support for things like iterators, but binds language features to what should be artbitrary types (Lists are special in C#, for example).
Well, I want it all.
A programming language that will let me shoot myself in the foot any way from Sunday if I dare to try... but, with the flexibility to let me say, "Nope. No bald pointers here." Segregation of programmable expressiveness by program, not language, design.
A programming language that is mutable, so I can invent my own brand of syntactic sugar, and the support to let me quickly find out what mutations a particular piece of code uses.
A programming language that lets me choose when to evaluate things. Do I want this figured out at compile time? Link time? Load time? Run time? Sorry, C++ templates, though Turing-complete are about as maintainable as APL, if one uses them for anythng clever.
It's too bad Mary2 never caught on.
Many will argue that mutable languages result in unmaintainable code: which mutation is in force? I would counter that programs written in non-mutable languages are equally unmaintainable if one does not understand the design of the application. Sure, one can see the "trees", but not the forest: I know x = a + b adds a and b to yield x, but what is that for? The effort to undestand what mutations are in effect is likely similar to the effort to understand an application's design. Except, one has the advantage of a known meta-syntax for expressing the mutatations, instead of having to rely on a design document (which may not exist), likely poorly written or out of date
I generally tip 15% in a restaurant if the service is adequate, up to 25% if it is exceptional. People who work in places I frequent know this and I seam to get slightly better service. I am loath to tip less than 15%, even if the service is slow, or the food bad, though I might not return -- it may be the case that the owner is stingy and has short-staffed the place on a busy day, and the waiter is not responsible for the quality of the food. However, I have been known to leave a penny tip for particularly bad service (getting the order wrong several times in a row at one sitting, rudeness, etc.)
I usually tip 100% for a coffee at a coffee house, and 25% for alcoholic beverages in a bar (though I can't stand it when I order two single malts for myself and a friend at $8 each, pay the bartender with a twenty, and it's assumed that I'll leave the $4 change as a tip).
I once paid an animal groomer 100% on a $50 fee to give our Persian cat a "lion cut" shave: it used to be the case that we had to anesthetize him for this at the vet's, and the bill routinely ran to $250. When we found a groomer that our cat liked, I happily offered to pay double if she could do the job from start to finish, with the cat awake, without giving up. (Long-hair Persions need to be periodically shaved, lest their hair get matted, even with regular brushing. They are not a practical breed, but make very good pets (and are particularly patient with kids) otherwise).
I do not tip when it is not customary to do so or would be considered an insult.
My mantra is to treat people that serve me with greater respect than I might accord those who do not need to perform such "lowly" or "degrading" work: if it is something I would not wish to do myself, then I should be particularly grateful that someone is willing to do it for me (and this is independent of how I tip -- I'm refering to simple curtesys like saying "please" and "thank you" -- too many just yell "waiter!" when they want service). However, I have little patience for incompetence -- if I treat someone in the service industry like a professional, they should act like one. There is no dishounour in earning an honest living, no matter how humble it might be. Teaching this to my kids, however, is a challenge.
It used to be the case that tavern waiters paid the tavern owner for the right to work there, to earn the tips. Obviously, the more popular establishments with more generous patrons, were the most desirable at which to work, and so the price to work their was higher than elsewhere.
The subtle use of "intuitively" as an adjective and "know" set out in asterisk-quotes should be seen as the intellectual sloppiness it was intended to be. You obviously missed it, though it is not surpsising that you'd jump on it. Hook, line, sinker. Tell me, do you claim people don't back up their assertions when their references have a comma where there should be a semi-colon?
Since you brought it up... I function quite well, in a challenging environment, among people far better qualified, through interaction with me, to evaluate my sanity, than your self. That, or we're all crazy. Since many of them are Americans, you might actually accept that hypothesis.
As part of routine pre-employemt screening (though not for my current position), I have sometimes been the subject of psychological evaluations which have revealed nothing out of the spectrum of normalcy. I am more suspicious and less trusting than many, but not to the degree of clinical paranoia. This means, for example, that I am more comfortable in Texas, where I have the legal right to shoot and kill an adult treaspasser at night, than I would be somewhere where that is not legal, though I have no desire to have the "thrill" of doing that, nor am I particularly axious living in a place where I can't, legally. I have been made well aware of my quirks (most notably, a preoccupation with technical precision and the letter rather than the "spirit" of a contract or other agreement, taking things perhaps more literally than most -- interpreting "never" as just that, for example). You would likely cry a diagnosis of Asperger's, but no evidence of that was found (I considered this as a possibility at one time). The telling charactersitic is, that when I find a conclusion I reach absurd (such as interpreting "never" literally), I check if that is indeed what is meant. My quest for precision annoys many (though I tend to be informally sloppy in this forum), but has not been found to be pathological to the degree of any illness in DSM IV. In short, I am somehwat eccentric and vocal. I'd accept an accusation of arrogant.
You, sir (or madam), are treading dangerously close to defamation of character, in a public forum.
No doubt you perceive a cultural clash (I think not being able to spend one's own money to purchase health services the state promises but does not deliver is a heinous crime -- many Americans I meet agree; many Canadians find that "crazy") as a mental defect.
Perhaps it is you that needs to do a reality check.
I wish more of "us" would make a noise and denounce the "Canadian lie". I'd seam as less of a lunatic, then. (Well, maybe a little less:-)) I try to do my part:-) It wouldn't be proper for, say, an American, to say "fucking Canadian idiots", but as one native-born, well... I take that somewhat self-deprecating liberty. Don't take it too personally (unless, of course, the shoe fits).
It's sad, really. I was born in Montreal, in 1961, and grew up in a vibrant, respected, city, province (PQ rule excepted), and country. But, socialism (thank you not, Pierre Trudeau), took its toll, and over the next 35 years I saw the country as a whole fall into decay. To be sure, Trudeau wasn't the first "big government socialist" but he sure put things into high gear.
In 1975, my mother had to go back to work -- the increases in income taxes meant that my father could no longer support us on one income. Because Canadians can't file joint tax returns, single-income families suffer great tax discrimination. I always thought this was intentional, and lobbied for by the child daycare industry which appeared to spring up almost overnight, but, of course, I have no proof of that.
One could argue that I should stay in Canada, and fight the system. I became active in the Libertarian Party of Canada, editing it's newsletter for a while, and serving as an elected member of its Ethics Committee. I served as an offical agent for a Libertarian candidate in a federal election (damn, keeping the records for seven years is a royal pain), and wrote my share of scathing Letters to the Editor, getting a surprisingly large fraction published in the Financial Post and other papers.
However, the Libertarian Party of Canada is largely a joke, all 12 of us, as I like to say (with some sadness). I quickly learned that my efforts to "fight the system" were largely ceremonial, but not effective. The best thing I could do is hit the thieves in the pocket book: become a non-resident taxwise. This was surprisingly difficult to do, in 1997 (somewhat easier now): one had to break all ties to Canada (well, not all of them, but the Government wouldn't tell you how many, so it's a case of "more is better"). That meant credit cards, bank accounts, property, obviously health insurance cards and drivers' licenses, etc. I kept an RRSP and passport, and that was it. I could still contribute to Canadian charities if I was so inclined, but even that was risky.
I quickly realised that staying in Canada was not doing my family any good, and we made the bold decision to try our hand at life in the U.S. in 1997, first under a NAFTA visa, and then an H1B. Right now, I'm being sponsored for a green card. We've had very good times and a few bad times, forcing our temporary return to Canada in 2003-2004.
Canadians need to wake up. They are a wonderful people in a great country (as I've found to be generally true about anyone from anywhere). But, they have been fed the worst of socialist lies, and need to set things right. If the only thing I can do is escape so as to improve my economic situation to be able to support the fight to set things right, when it comes, then so be it. Right now, I find that, with diminishing social services, with continued high taxes, many are reduced to acting like rats: those social services exist "for them", but not their fellow neighbours. The supposed "dog eat dog" mentality of a capitalist society has, ironicaly, become the mantra of survival in Toronto, and other places.
P.S. The Conservatives are little better than the Liberals. You wanna see a conservative? Look at an American Republican:-) (Though, the party line on social freedoms is frightening, which is largely why I am libertarian).
I bet when you get your green card, you will keep that Canadian passport, won't you. I bet when you travel (no, not "leave the basement") you make sure everyone knows your Canadian, don't you.
Actually, I am so disgusted with Canada, that I am seriously considering renouncing my citizenship when I become a citizen of another country. While I currently travel on a Canadian passport, it is with shame, and because I have no other.
An aside: when I returned to Canada following the telecom bust in the U.S., I was routinely rebuffed for being "too stupid to live in the U.S. illegally, like so many smart Canadians." Geez, that was eye opening.
My family and I have been treated far better as foreigners in the U.S. than we were ever treated as citizens in Canada (well, my son happens to be an American citizen, so he doesn't "count" in that regard).
The attitude that if one accepts even the slighest social service then one is indebted for life is so prevelent that when we returned to Canada from the U.S. in 2003 for 16 months, I made a point to not apply for the "child tax benefit" even though we were entitled to about $20 a month.
In principle, I refuse to accept government "paybacks" even though I paid more in taxes -- it isn't my money that is being returned -- it's money stolen from all of us poor working slobs to support the liberal thieves.
Surprisingly, I was forced to apply for OHIP coverage by my employer, despite wanting to self-insure: OHIP coverage requires an agreement to live in the province of Ontario permanently. In the end I grudgingly applied, but supplied my own form where the permanent residence agreement was replaced by one that specified the minimum residency required by law. (This is common in Canada: the law establishes something reasonable, but the application forms have much more onweous requirements to which the unsuspecting unwittingly agree, thence being bound by contract).
For the 16 hellish months we were "back", we paid for medical services out of pocket, lest we be accused of "robbing society".
At the time I recounted his death, I was unaware that he knew of the problem and had tried to get treatment. I became aware of it when I sorted through his personal effects, correspondence, and records.
His brief cancer treatment at the hands of the socialist system resulted in radiation burns from overexposure from unmaintined equipment.
Nonetheless, if had been in the U.S. he wouldn't have gotten sick in the first place, since we have access to drugs that you have to go on a waiting list to get.
To be fair, there are drugs available in Canada that the FDA does not permit to be made available in the U.S. And, there are generally no waiting lists for medication in Canada (though it is not covered by universal healthcare). However, one probably has to wait to get the prescription for them.
As soon as you produce any evidence of it, it will be on the front pages of any paper in Canada.
You mean like coverage of the Liberal government "Sponsorship Scandal"? Riiiight.
Geez, just Google for "Canadian Healthcare", and see for yourself. But, I already know that, regardless of how much evidence is provided, you will denounce it all as lies.
Thank you. I intuatively *know* I am sane and correct in my reasoning (though perhaps a bit bold and exaggerating with my rhetoric), but agreement helps.
The scary thing is that the grandparent is typical of Canadian society. I don't know if this is because of some collective mental defect or the effects of socialist government propaganda. It's noble to encourage charity, but there seams to be a perversion of "Help others when you can," to "Help... or else!" taught in the schools.
At the risk of suffering the wrath of Godwin's law, I'm reminded of the point in Hitler's "Mein Kamph," where he rambles on about "the bigger the lie, the better". For, such a thing must be true because of the degree to which it would otherwise be preposterous, and no reasonable person would even thing to attempt to present such a falsehood at the truth. Goebels ate that mantra up, and how many millions died as a result? Adolph Hitler is the father of modern propaganda, and Goebels was his protoge.
If extreme untruths can be accepted to lead to genocide, it stands to reason that less extreme distortions of reality can be easily accepted by the voting masses.
FWIW, I did not become bitter following the death of my father. I had my suspicions long before, and they drove me to leave Canada, with my family, to work legally in the U.S. under NAFTA, the lack of "universal" healthcare no longer being feared, though I'd be without insurance, and have to leave the country if I lost my job. Ah well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I carefully analyzed the circumstances of his death from an economic standpoint, comparing the service he got under Canada's socialized health care plan with the insurance he could have gotten on the free market, and came to the conclusion that, in his case, he got a very bad deal. Perhaps this was indicative of a general problem. Recent evidence of the decline of health service delivery in Canada bears that out.
It might have been possible, for example, that the economies of scale and statistical law of large numbers for a single payer insurer could (a) provide better service than multiple segregated insurers and/or (b) provide similar service but subsidise the very poor, who could not otherwise afford any health insurance.
But, that has not been borne out.
So, I denounce what I see as thinly veiled murder.
And, I will continue to do so. I expect that we will see further decay in the system.
Socialism leads to societal decay, regardless with what one sugar-coats it. Capitalism may indeed be "cruel" to the weak, but, in the long term, it is far better: a rising tide lifts all boats in the end.
The liberal will always attempt to "disprove by example", generally showing a perversion of an generally accepted definition occuring as a result of it apparent practice.
For example, capitalism will be denounced because of the present climate of corporatism in the U.S. (i.e. monied corporations effectively purchasing law).
The astute libertarian will note that the corporate fiction arises precisely because the corrupt state engineers a "mutual admiration society" by providing "rights" to successful enterprises, turning them into corporations, rendering their shareholders devoid of responsibility for the actions of the company. How convenient: the power of an aggregation of money with none of the responsibilities, the red herring of directors liability being just that.
The result of economic freedom so perverted then becomes the justification for curtailing all such freedoms. Make no mistake, the economic "liberal" is nothing more than a rebranded thief. Would it be acceptable for me to "liberate" some cute underage girl from the confines of her underwear? Hmm, methinks not. Yet, that is the context in which the economic liberal operates: to liberate money from the honest worker who has exchanged his labour for it.
Thief! I cry. Thief, and murderer! when the inevitable consequences of such theft come about.
Small government is, perhaps ineffective, to the point of being impotent. But, isn't that exactly the objective?
Sounds to me that accessories to murder like you need to get fucked and die.Thank you.
Thank you.
When the state takes from an individual, it has a responsibility to render the individual whole. Thus, when it takes to provide univeral health care, it should provide at least what the individual could obtain for themselves. This is particularly true when the state promises to do just that! Presumably, economies of scale either let the state provide better service, or subsidize service for those that can not otherwise afford the premium.
However, when the state fails at this, and provides less service than the individual could have obtained on their own, they are guilty of (a) fraud (for not keeping their promise of care); (b) murder, if the individual dies as a result, where there is a good chance that they would not.
Note how an AAA repair was perverted into an "unspecified illness" (hardly). Canada's decline into a third millenium dark age of socialism means that they lack surgeons to perform a surgery that is available in other parts of the workd -- all the good ones left, sick of being exploited.
I quoted a survival rate of 70%, and someone noted (in a side thread) that that might be true if it was treated before rupture, otherwise it was a death sentence. In fact, that 70% figure applies to cases treated post-rupture (at typical 911 response rates), in a typical American hospital, and is as low as it is because not all hospitals have sufficiently skilled surgeons, and rapid intervention is of the essence. Contrary to popular belief, the aorta generally does not explode, but rather "rips", allowing up to 30 minutes to save the life. The general treatment involves allowing the aneurysm to grow to 10 cm (which it invariably will), and intervene surgically to resect and reinforce the artery: at this point the risk of surgery balances the risk of doing nothing. Survival rates in those circumstances exceed 90%.
Of course, few Canadians can imagine such a techologically advanced society.
I've been sloppy at citing some of the figures I mentioned - 80 weeks wait for a tonsillectomy, for example (Sask., Canada, 2002). In this Google age, I figure interested people can search for themselves to see if my claims hold merit, and question them if they can't find corraborative evidence.
But, even here, the ever-thieving liberal will demand proof, and when presented with it, denounce the source (i.e. Fraser Institute) as propagating lies, rather like I have been accused of doing. There's no satisfying some people. Provide your own evidence. Perhaps the Sask. figure of 80 weeks was atypical, or the worst case for all of Canada. Provide evidence to refute it, then.
But no: the liberal is reduced to foaming-at-the-mouth ad hominem attacks, and calls of "liar", or "paranoid schizophrenic".
This thread is, on the surface, off-topic, in a discussion about copyright and taxes on copyright material downloads. However, the underlying problem is the whole notion of "tax the world". I mearly demonstrate where this can lead, in the world of socialized health care, and ask the question: "Is this a scenario Americans might want in exchange for the 'promise' of universal healthcare?" Or, would they rather take their chances?
Clearly, despite being born in Canada, and steeped in it's doctrinaire socialism, I somehow grew up a "freak" and found "the American way" more to my liking (despite being far from perfect). I chalk it up to a not overly remarkable three-digit I.Q., apparently otherwise rare in Canada.
Let the liberals foam and froth at the mouth! It makes for amusing entertainment (Just please, wear a bib).
Slashdot Mirror
This coiuld probably be ressurected as a silent media PC with serious horsepower, if the case were styled a bit better. Think "high-end" audio monoblock class A amps, the heat problems they face, and how they're styled.
YMMV.
Indeed.
I used to write many letters to the editor of the Financial Post (a right-wing national financial paper in Canada - I usually argued the libertarian position). I had a good record of getting them published.
Once I got a call from their letters to the editor deportment, saying, basically, "We like your letter. But, it's too long. Can you shorten it? In the next 5 minutes?"
I responded, "Just use the first and last paragraph. It'll stand on those". Silence for a few seconds, then, "Geez, thanks! That works!!" and "clik" as the line went dead.
The point is I wrote my letter to be edited. Most papers reserve that right, to edit for brevity, typos, and grammer. The desk editor was doing me a curtesy by asking, though the cut he was wanting to make was significant (about 70% of the content, most of which was backing my opening assertion).
So, yeah, letters to the editor are often statements of opinion, with little to back them up. The ones that have their substance back up often do get published in favour of those that don't, even though the supporting arguments are omitted in the final version. That this one had several of those arguments published says something of the importance the editor(s) gave it.
The worst problem with a documentation and coding style that meets someone's arbitrary standard of completeness is that (a) the code and docs invariably mismatch and (b) the docs can very often obscure the code!
There is nothing worse than five sets of twenty lines of code each preceeded with 10 lines of comments about what the code does!. Geez, you've now made me see 33% less code in my editor window at a time -- like that's going to make it easier to follow what it does.
Document the why's, and, if they're particularly tricky, the hows, but otherwise butt out. In this vein Hungarian notation must have been dreamed up by Basic weanies used to seeing the type of a variable implicit in its name. Why the heck should I care about the structural implementation detail of an object? If I don't understand the object's type, I shouldn't be messing with it! (An exception can be made in cases where one works with foo, pointer to foo, pointer to array of pointers to foo, and pointer to pointer to array of pointers to foo all in close proximity, I supposed, but that usually implies that details of the data structure should be exposed at that point.
Far too often, and this includes JavaDoc and Doxygen documentation, the documentation covers the trees and completely misses the forest.
As for breaking up large functions... sometimes. Other times it just pollutes the function level namespace with things that are called once. It really is a judgement call.
Document the things that aren't obvius to one skilled in the implementation language.
For example, I recently had to deal with an object that made use of a "helper" object that was a concrete derived class of an abstract interface. Heh. Turns out the semantics and signature of that abstract interface was a close match to the top-level concrete class. Can you say Proxy? I saw what was being attempted: abstraction of some lower-level functionality used by a higher-level object, except the sole current implementation of that lower level functionality followed a model that was so useful it was reflected in the upper level object using the helper class. Kinda makes you think that the "real" lower level functionality should have been simpler-still (since it wasn't really a Proxy that was desired).
Clearly, someone in the dim past had a good idea about abstracting multiple implementations away under a common interface, but the best interface they could imagine in the short time they had was actually that to which their existing first implementation conformed.
From a maintenance standpoint, it meant that Berkely socket semantics (particularly extablishment and termination) extended higher into the application that initially expected. It would have been nice if that was noted somewhere. As it stood, it took a few minutes to grok that from the code alone.
Now, I know from experience, what the original programmer was trying to accomplish, and found, to his or her dismay, that there was no time to sever the application's idea of communication establishment and termination from that of the actual first implementation at hand, and so used the latter as the model for the former. Not quite the flexibility one was hoping for... and crucual to anyone who wants to provide an alternate session establishment protocol at the lowest level: "whaddever ya do, it should map to socket semantics".
Arguably, there was no benefit to be had from the attempt to separate application connection semantics from the primary implementation at hand, and the implied suggestion that there was, because of the abstract class involved was potentially confusing.
A professional programmer modifying a piece of code has to deal with perhaps a dozen such questions in a day -- sometimes more, sometimes less. Sometimes, good ideas end up partially backed in code.
That's the kind of stuff that needs to get documented, not the fact that i is a loop index, in scope for five lines of code, and should be more properly called fooArrayIndex. All those long variable names with short scopes make the program lines longer, wrap more lines, and increase program size. Sometimes the "spreading out" of the code that results does more harm than good.
In case something goes wrong.
Even if it is more convenient to use a canned library, the person with an undergraduat academic background should be comfortable with the hows and whys of such libraries.
True, but that is not a good reason to restrict what the skilled, battle-hardened, programmer can do: you're reducing every one's tools to what is "safe" to use by the lowest common denominator. That really wastes good talent, and discourages mediocre programmers from becoming better ones, and, eventually, experts. Yes, Virginia, you need to fail sometimes to learn. The trick is to let yourself (and your subordinates) fail on the things that don't matter so much.
A parallel involves programmable user functionallity: we'll let users call libraries, but only to one level deep. We'll support automatic configuration to meet constraints, but with severe restrictions. This often happens to simplify implementation but is passed off as "restricting the user to protect them from themselves".
What happens?
Skilled, and clever users, and those mediocre ones that eventually have an "a ha!" moment, find they can't do what is logical and rational because of built-in limitations. The very people most qualified to evangelize your good work abandon using it out of sheer frustration. A side effect is that your documentation because a bunch of "exceptions" and "special cases".
Note that I said it should be possible to declare "safe code only here", for various definitions of "safe" (unlike .NET's and C#'s binary safe/unsafe code dichotomy). The good designer targetting a C++ implementation language will try to eliminate the need for bald pointers in as many places as possible. S/he can't eliminate them, however, in the "smart pointer" implementation, shouldn't be expected to resort to a "lower level" language to provide that implementation, and should be able to tell, at a glance, if a "junior" programmer has used dangerous features (like a bald pointer).
C# allows for "unsafe" code as well, but it's an all or nothing proposition. For example, I can't declare a section of code as not being permitted to call code with certain attributes, like effecting memory allocation and/or deallocation.
They do add syntactic and semantic sugar, of course, but really, I'd like to be the one to define the kind of syntactic sugar they add. It's also the one thing that Lisp lacks: any kind of syntactic or semantic sugar. Forth might have an edge here, but it is less formal a language.
Some waiters actually became quite wealty this way, and the practice exists to this day in some industries: partners buying into a partnership, for example. I think it is prevelent in the hair styling industry, but I am not certain.
However, it's a double-edged sword. It has been said that C lets you shoot yourself in the foot. C++ provides a dozen ways to shoot yourself in both feet and your own back, simultaneously. Be carefull.
Many have tried to design languages to protect the programmer from themselves, i.e. by providing native garbage collection, disallowing bald pointers, etc. However, this is short-sighted. It presumes what is "hard" and prevents the skilled programmer from replacing the default implementation. C++ new and delete member functions provide no-fuss custom memory management... and probably account for probably half of those ways of shooting one's self in both feet and back.
A language that is complete in the sense of permitting the coding of fundemental facilities is seductive. It provides an assurance that one can implement "low-level" stuff like memory management, or even the bulk of an O/S kernel in it. The lack of I/O facilities in C, for example, is an intentional feature, and not an oversight. Never have to learn another language again.
Other languages may provide the convenience of built-in capabilities that are useful for a particular task at hand: awk, perl, and the rash of modern scripting languages come to mind. When the shoe fits, the adaptable programmer will take the path of least resistance. Languages like Java and C# attempt to bridge the general-purpose languages with the protection and features offered by application-specific ones, the latter via extensive run-time libraries (.NET, anyone?). They tend to return to the pseudo-compiled small-interpreter model to provide hardware portability.
The problem is, that one has do do things the C# "way", or the .NET "way", or the Java "way". Multiple inheritance? Oooh, it's so hard to implement right, and can be so confusing, and, admitedly can be expensive at run-time, so we'll not provide it. Mixin becomes a hack, with language keyword support. Over time, syntactic sugar in the language provides clever support for things like iterators, but binds language features to what should be artbitrary types (Lists are special in C#, for example).
Well, I want it all.
A programming language that will let me shoot myself in the foot any way from Sunday if I dare to try... but, with the flexibility to let me say, "Nope. No bald pointers here." Segregation of programmable expressiveness by program, not language, design.
A programming language that is mutable, so I can invent my own brand of syntactic sugar, and the support to let me quickly find out what mutations a particular piece of code uses.
A programming language that lets me choose when to evaluate things. Do I want this figured out at compile time? Link time? Load time? Run time? Sorry, C++ templates, though Turing-complete are about as maintainable as APL, if one uses them for anythng clever.
It's too bad Mary2 never caught on.
Many will argue that mutable languages result in unmaintainable code: which mutation is in force? I would counter that programs written in non-mutable languages are equally unmaintainable if one does not understand the design of the application. Sure, one can see the "trees", but not the forest: I know x = a + b adds a and b to yield x, but what is that for? The effort to undestand what mutations are in effect is likely similar to the effort to understand an application's design. Except, one has the advantage of a known meta-syntax for expressing the mutatations, instead of having to rely on a design document (which may not exist), likely poorly written or out of date
I usually tip 100% for a coffee at a coffee house, and 25% for alcoholic beverages in a bar (though I can't stand it when I order two single malts for myself and a friend at $8 each, pay the bartender with a twenty, and it's assumed that I'll leave the $4 change as a tip).
I once paid an animal groomer 100% on a $50 fee to give our Persian cat a "lion cut" shave: it used to be the case that we had to anesthetize him for this at the vet's, and the bill routinely ran to $250. When we found a groomer that our cat liked, I happily offered to pay double if she could do the job from start to finish, with the cat awake, without giving up. (Long-hair Persions need to be periodically shaved, lest their hair get matted, even with regular brushing. They are not a practical breed, but make very good pets (and are particularly patient with kids) otherwise).
I do not tip when it is not customary to do so or would be considered an insult.
My mantra is to treat people that serve me with greater respect than I might accord those who do not need to perform such "lowly" or "degrading" work: if it is something I would not wish to do myself, then I should be particularly grateful that someone is willing to do it for me (and this is independent of how I tip -- I'm refering to simple curtesys like saying "please" and "thank you" -- too many just yell "waiter!" when they want service). However, I have little patience for incompetence -- if I treat someone in the service industry like a professional, they should act like one. There is no dishounour in earning an honest living, no matter how humble it might be. Teaching this to my kids, however, is a challenge.
It used to be the case that tavern waiters paid the tavern owner for the right to work there, to earn the tips. Obviously, the more popular establishments with more generous patrons, were the most desirable at which to work, and so the price to work their was higher than elsewhere.
Since you brought it up... I function quite well, in a challenging environment, among people far better qualified, through interaction with me, to evaluate my sanity, than your self. That, or we're all crazy. Since many of them are Americans, you might actually accept that hypothesis.
As part of routine pre-employemt screening (though not for my current position), I have sometimes been the subject of psychological evaluations which have revealed nothing out of the spectrum of normalcy. I am more suspicious and less trusting than many, but not to the degree of clinical paranoia. This means, for example, that I am more comfortable in Texas, where I have the legal right to shoot and kill an adult treaspasser at night, than I would be somewhere where that is not legal, though I have no desire to have the "thrill" of doing that, nor am I particularly axious living in a place where I can't, legally. I have been made well aware of my quirks (most notably, a preoccupation with technical precision and the letter rather than the "spirit" of a contract or other agreement, taking things perhaps more literally than most -- interpreting "never" as just that, for example). You would likely cry a diagnosis of Asperger's, but no evidence of that was found (I considered this as a possibility at one time). The telling charactersitic is, that when I find a conclusion I reach absurd (such as interpreting "never" literally), I check if that is indeed what is meant. My quest for precision annoys many (though I tend to be informally sloppy in this forum), but has not been found to be pathological to the degree of any illness in DSM IV. In short, I am somehwat eccentric and vocal. I'd accept an accusation of arrogant.
You, sir (or madam), are treading dangerously close to defamation of character, in a public forum.
No doubt you perceive a cultural clash (I think not being able to spend one's own money to purchase health services the state promises but does not deliver is a heinous crime -- many Americans I meet agree; many Canadians find that "crazy") as a mental defect.
Perhaps it is you that needs to do a reality check.
I wish more of "us" would make a noise and denounce the "Canadian lie". I'd seam as less of a lunatic, then. (Well, maybe a little less :-)) I try to do my part :-) It wouldn't be proper for, say, an American, to say "fucking Canadian idiots", but as one native-born, well... I take that somewhat self-deprecating liberty. Don't take it too personally (unless, of course, the shoe fits).
It's sad, really. I was born in Montreal, in 1961, and grew up in a vibrant, respected, city, province (PQ rule excepted), and country. But, socialism (thank you not, Pierre Trudeau), took its toll, and over the next 35 years I saw the country as a whole fall into decay. To be sure, Trudeau wasn't the first "big government socialist" but he sure put things into high gear.
In 1975, my mother had to go back to work -- the increases in income taxes meant that my father could no longer support us on one income. Because Canadians can't file joint tax returns, single-income families suffer great tax discrimination. I always thought this was intentional, and lobbied for by the child daycare industry which appeared to spring up almost overnight, but, of course, I have no proof of that.
One could argue that I should stay in Canada, and fight the system. I became active in the Libertarian Party of Canada, editing it's newsletter for a while, and serving as an elected member of its Ethics Committee. I served as an offical agent for a Libertarian candidate in a federal election (damn, keeping the records for seven years is a royal pain), and wrote my share of scathing Letters to the Editor, getting a surprisingly large fraction published in the Financial Post and other papers.
However, the Libertarian Party of Canada is largely a joke, all 12 of us, as I like to say (with some sadness). I quickly learned that my efforts to "fight the system" were largely ceremonial, but not effective. The best thing I could do is hit the thieves in the pocket book: become a non-resident taxwise. This was surprisingly difficult to do, in 1997 (somewhat easier now): one had to break all ties to Canada (well, not all of them, but the Government wouldn't tell you how many, so it's a case of "more is better"). That meant credit cards, bank accounts, property, obviously health insurance cards and drivers' licenses, etc. I kept an RRSP and passport, and that was it. I could still contribute to Canadian charities if I was so inclined, but even that was risky.
I quickly realised that staying in Canada was not doing my family any good, and we made the bold decision to try our hand at life in the U.S. in 1997, first under a NAFTA visa, and then an H1B. Right now, I'm being sponsored for a green card. We've had very good times and a few bad times, forcing our temporary return to Canada in 2003-2004.
Canadians need to wake up. They are a wonderful people in a great country (as I've found to be generally true about anyone from anywhere). But, they have been fed the worst of socialist lies, and need to set things right. If the only thing I can do is escape so as to improve my economic situation to be able to support the fight to set things right, when it comes, then so be it. Right now, I find that, with diminishing social services, with continued high taxes, many are reduced to acting like rats: those social services exist "for them", but not their fellow neighbours. The supposed "dog eat dog" mentality of a capitalist society has, ironicaly, become the mantra of survival in Toronto, and other places.
P.S. The Conservatives are little better than the Liberals. You wanna see a conservative? Look at an American Republican :-) (Though, the party line on social freedoms is frightening, which is largely why I am libertarian).
Actually, I am so disgusted with Canada, that I am seriously considering renouncing my citizenship when I become a citizen of another country. While I currently travel on a Canadian passport, it is with shame, and because I have no other.
An aside: when I returned to Canada following the telecom bust in the U.S., I was routinely rebuffed for being "too stupid to live in the U.S. illegally, like so many smart Canadians." Geez, that was eye opening.
My family and I have been treated far better as foreigners in the U.S. than we were ever treated as citizens in Canada (well, my son happens to be an American citizen, so he doesn't "count" in that regard).
The attitude that if one accepts even the slighest social service then one is indebted for life is so prevelent that when we returned to Canada from the U.S. in 2003 for 16 months, I made a point to not apply for the "child tax benefit" even though we were entitled to about $20 a month.
In principle, I refuse to accept government "paybacks" even though I paid more in taxes -- it isn't my money that is being returned -- it's money stolen from all of us poor working slobs to support the liberal thieves.
Surprisingly, I was forced to apply for OHIP coverage by my employer, despite wanting to self-insure: OHIP coverage requires an agreement to live in the province of Ontario permanently. In the end I grudgingly applied, but supplied my own form where the permanent residence agreement was replaced by one that specified the minimum residency required by law. (This is common in Canada: the law establishes something reasonable, but the application forms have much more onweous requirements to which the unsuspecting unwittingly agree, thence being bound by contract).
For the 16 hellish months we were "back", we paid for medical services out of pocket, lest we be accused of "robbing society".
His brief cancer treatment at the hands of the socialist system resulted in radiation burns from overexposure from unmaintined equipment.
To be fair, there are drugs available in Canada that the FDA does not permit to be made available in the U.S. And, there are generally no waiting lists for medication in Canada (though it is not covered by universal healthcare). However, one probably has to wait to get the prescription for them.
At the time I posted that, I was unaware that he knew of, and tried to get treatment for, the AAA.
You mean like coverage of the Liberal government "Sponsorship Scandal"? Riiiight.
Geez, just Google for "Canadian Healthcare", and see for yourself. But, I already know that, regardless of how much evidence is provided, you will denounce it all as lies.
Thank you. I intuatively *know* I am sane and correct in my reasoning (though perhaps a bit bold and exaggerating with my rhetoric), but agreement helps.
The scary thing is that the grandparent is typical of Canadian society. I don't know if this is because of some collective mental defect or the effects of socialist government propaganda. It's noble to encourage charity, but there seams to be a perversion of "Help others when you can," to "Help... or else!" taught in the schools.
At the risk of suffering the wrath of Godwin's law, I'm reminded of the point in Hitler's "Mein Kamph," where he rambles on about "the bigger the lie, the better". For, such a thing must be true because of the degree to which it would otherwise be preposterous, and no reasonable person would even thing to attempt to present such a falsehood at the truth. Goebels ate that mantra up, and how many millions died as a result? Adolph Hitler is the father of modern propaganda, and Goebels was his protoge.
If extreme untruths can be accepted to lead to genocide, it stands to reason that less extreme distortions of reality can be easily accepted by the voting masses.
FWIW, I did not become bitter following the death of my father. I had my suspicions long before, and they drove me to leave Canada, with my family, to work legally in the U.S. under NAFTA, the lack of "universal" healthcare no longer being feared, though I'd be without insurance, and have to leave the country if I lost my job. Ah well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I carefully analyzed the circumstances of his death from an economic standpoint, comparing the service he got under Canada's socialized health care plan with the insurance he could have gotten on the free market, and came to the conclusion that, in his case, he got a very bad deal. Perhaps this was indicative of a general problem. Recent evidence of the decline of health service delivery in Canada bears that out.
It might have been possible, for example, that the economies of scale and statistical law of large numbers for a single payer insurer could (a) provide better service than multiple segregated insurers and/or (b) provide similar service but subsidise the very poor, who could not otherwise afford any health insurance.
But, that has not been borne out.
So, I denounce what I see as thinly veiled murder. And, I will continue to do so. I expect that we will see further decay in the system.
Socialism leads to societal decay, regardless with what one sugar-coats it. Capitalism may indeed be "cruel" to the weak, but, in the long term, it is far better: a rising tide lifts all boats in the end.
For example, capitalism will be denounced because of the present climate of corporatism in the U.S. (i.e. monied corporations effectively purchasing law).
The astute libertarian will note that the corporate fiction arises precisely because the corrupt state engineers a "mutual admiration society" by providing "rights" to successful enterprises, turning them into corporations, rendering their shareholders devoid of responsibility for the actions of the company. How convenient: the power of an aggregation of money with none of the responsibilities, the red herring of directors liability being just that.
The result of economic freedom so perverted then becomes the justification for curtailing all such freedoms. Make no mistake, the economic "liberal" is nothing more than a rebranded thief. Would it be acceptable for me to "liberate" some cute underage girl from the confines of her underwear? Hmm, methinks not. Yet, that is the context in which the economic liberal operates: to liberate money from the honest worker who has exchanged his labour for it.
Thief! I cry. Thief, and murderer! when the inevitable consequences of such theft come about.
Small government is, perhaps ineffective, to the point of being impotent. But, isn't that exactly the objective?
Karl, is that you?
Thank you.
When the state takes from an individual, it has a responsibility to render the individual whole. Thus, when it takes to provide univeral health care, it should provide at least what the individual could obtain for themselves. This is particularly true when the state promises to do just that! Presumably, economies of scale either let the state provide better service, or subsidize service for those that can not otherwise afford the premium.
However, when the state fails at this, and provides less service than the individual could have obtained on their own, they are guilty of (a) fraud (for not keeping their promise of care); (b) murder, if the individual dies as a result, where there is a good chance that they would not.
Note how an AAA repair was perverted into an "unspecified illness" (hardly). Canada's decline into a third millenium dark age of socialism means that they lack surgeons to perform a surgery that is available in other parts of the workd -- all the good ones left, sick of being exploited.
I quoted a survival rate of 70%, and someone noted (in a side thread) that that might be true if it was treated before rupture, otherwise it was a death sentence. In fact, that 70% figure applies to cases treated post-rupture (at typical 911 response rates), in a typical American hospital, and is as low as it is because not all hospitals have sufficiently skilled surgeons, and rapid intervention is of the essence. Contrary to popular belief, the aorta generally does not explode, but rather "rips", allowing up to 30 minutes to save the life. The general treatment involves allowing the aneurysm to grow to 10 cm (which it invariably will), and intervene surgically to resect and reinforce the artery: at this point the risk of surgery balances the risk of doing nothing. Survival rates in those circumstances exceed 90%.
Of course, few Canadians can imagine such a techologically advanced society.
I've been sloppy at citing some of the figures I mentioned - 80 weeks wait for a tonsillectomy, for example (Sask., Canada, 2002). In this Google age, I figure interested people can search for themselves to see if my claims hold merit, and question them if they can't find corraborative evidence.
But, even here, the ever-thieving liberal will demand proof, and when presented with it, denounce the source (i.e. Fraser Institute) as propagating lies, rather like I have been accused of doing. There's no satisfying some people. Provide your own evidence. Perhaps the Sask. figure of 80 weeks was atypical, or the worst case for all of Canada. Provide evidence to refute it, then.
But no: the liberal is reduced to foaming-at-the-mouth ad hominem attacks, and calls of "liar", or "paranoid schizophrenic".
This thread is, on the surface, off-topic, in a discussion about copyright and taxes on copyright material downloads. However, the underlying problem is the whole notion of "tax the world". I mearly demonstrate where this can lead, in the world of socialized health care, and ask the question: "Is this a scenario Americans might want in exchange for the 'promise' of universal healthcare?" Or, would they rather take their chances?
Clearly, despite being born in Canada, and steeped in it's doctrinaire socialism, I somehow grew up a "freak" and found "the American way" more to my liking (despite being far from perfect). I chalk it up to a not overly remarkable three-digit I.Q., apparently otherwise rare in Canada.
Let the liberals foam and froth at the mouth! It makes for amusing entertainment (Just please, wear a bib).
Well, the hernia repair hospital appears willing to disclose medical records to next of kin of a deceased former patient. So, that's a start.