So basically, Java's run anyways promise never matters in the real world.
is bullshit. my career thus far has depeneded upon java's cross platform abilities. in the first case we supported our product on z/OS and for the most part, stuff worked.
And there's things like weblogic, websphere, jboss. Which people run on different platforms, so it certainly isn't just me.
Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.
So it's about the government controlling the internet. Or is the government telling corporations what they can or cannot do with their property, not control?
But anyways, it might not be so bad now, but just wait til the some new threat comes up on the internet and BAM FCC needs more authority, and whatever else. It's already happening, and you want them to have more power, because you're worried about a situation that could have happened for the last 10 years, but has not.
That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky.
which all goes through the court system which is run by what again? the government.
This illusion that somehow the money in your pocket came to you by yourself alone is the greatest lie of Libertarianism.
Which is why almost no libertarian would say that(except maybe in primitive examples). Go read/listen to milton friedman's explanation on the making of a pencil.
What libertarians say is individuals making their own choices, builds society. Not government making choices for you.
he was making an analogy, that money you earn gets wasted, and it probably ticks him off.
The only thing close to trolling was that he said 'grow up', which is hardly an insult considering that the poster said he was a student.
He didn't even say taxes or government, he just implied his money was being wasted. That is trolling or controversial? hardly furthering tea party propaganda.
In reality you and the mods are just being biased twats.
No. the reason is because we have barbaric laws about what people do with their own bodies. Not because people who did crimes go to jail. Besides this guy was recommended to a halfway house. But hell, i would agree that probably probation would have been enough in this case.
You don't think big companies have bureaucracies in place? They do, and while they always get out of hand, they at the lest, have a limit to their pointlessness. Government programs know of no such limits.
You realize that privatization doesn't mean strictly for-profit? You can have charities and associations and such. Plus the fact you would have more money since we wouldn't be wasting our taxes on huge government bureaucracies.
except we've had more and more government involvement over the last 50 years, and healthcare, in many ways, gets worse and worse. The real problem is we encourage third party payment. Imagine if employers gave out food insurance because the government gave them tax breaks for doing so, we'd eventually have the same situation, and everyone would blame the insurance companies then.
I'm reasonably certain--as much as I can be without actually studying it--that welfare was created for that exact section of the population.
intention != result;
I don't know where you imagine this phantom caste of people comes from that would actually prefer to live under welfare unless they either arrived there from below or were born into it.
You really think people are above abusing handouts? Does the government have any incentive to try to prevent abuse? Not really.
Also note that I never said that people don't need help. I've made the argument that government aid is not as efficient as private charity. Look at katrina, look at foreign which just goes to those in power.
An official stance that "you don't have a basic right to the things you need to survive (but we'll tax you the moment you have enough money, if you live that long)" by the government would be a completely justified reason for civil unrest.
No. Just because you don't have a right to something doesn't mean you won't get it.
If your choice is steal or die then you steal - that simple. Do not tell me that you would not especially if you have children to feed.
True, but not really important since this isn't the only choice most people on welfare have.
Why should charities be responsible for this anyway, why should they be better, they are not fairer, they are not more efficient, and people who are not pitiable will simply fall though the cracks.
Because that's what charities are for? Charities are by in large better, look at who helped more for katrina, it wasn't the government. Government aid is usually throw money at a problem, which of course doesn't solve many problems. But it's great if you're the one getting the money.
but your right to life is a right not a privilege
And where do you have the right to take from other people to have what you want? It's not in the constitution, that's for sure.
Enough food to eat and basic medical care are rights not things for the rich and to things to be offered those those who the rich take pity on when thy feel like it.
Where is it that you have a right to food? Where do you get a right to medical care? No where do you have a right to these things.
what are the reasons for taking away voting rights from 75+? you just bitched they didn't vote the same way as you want them too and called them stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
i responded because what you said:
So basically, Java's run anyways promise never matters in the real world.
is bullshit. my career thus far has depeneded upon java's cross platform abilities. in the first case we supported our product on z/OS and for the most part, stuff worked.
And there's things like weblogic, websphere, jboss. Which people run on different platforms, so it certainly isn't just me.
the same thing any type safety has solved. which maybe you can argue it doesn't solve anything, but it alleviates some of the pain of creating code.
type safety killed java?
huge cost (code clarity, maintenance and education)
no, no and well i guess there's some truth to the last.
Code clarity improved with generics. yeah writing containers is a little more tricky, but hey, if you can't handle them, you can just use Object :)
maintenance again, same thing.
yeah it's true it's a new feature.. so you have to learn about it. true with any feature..
bullshit.
granted it may not matter as much as it's hyped, but.. that's just hype.
Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.
So it's about the government controlling the internet. Or is the government telling corporations what they can or cannot do with their property, not control?
But anyways, it might not be so bad now, but just wait til the some new threat comes up on the internet and BAM FCC needs more authority, and whatever else. It's already happening, and you want them to have more power, because you're worried about a situation that could have happened for the last 10 years, but has not.
That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky.
which all goes through the court system which is run by what again? the government.
it was also a joke in that if x is a nan then
x!=x will be true.
so google is a nan?
No, liberals will force me to give the man a fish. libertarians will say, it's up to me, whether I give him a fish.
This illusion that somehow the money in your pocket came to you by yourself alone is the greatest lie of Libertarianism.
Which is why almost no libertarian would say that(except maybe in primitive examples). Go read/listen to milton friedman's explanation on the making of a pencil.
What libertarians say is individuals making their own choices, builds society. Not government making choices for you.
he was making an analogy, that money you earn gets wasted, and it probably ticks him off.
The only thing close to trolling was that he said 'grow up', which is hardly an insult considering that the poster said he was a student.
He didn't even say taxes or government, he just implied his money was being wasted. That is trolling or controversial? hardly furthering tea party propaganda.
In reality you and the mods are just being biased twats.
Do you know the difference between front end and back end?
Your line about a lot of business getting done on the web leads me to believe you don't.
There's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes.
It is primarily liberal. Don't believe me? go to any net neutrality thread and see all the people begging for big brother to protect them.
No. the reason is because we have barbaric laws about what people do with their own bodies. Not because people who did crimes go to jail. Besides this guy was recommended to a halfway house. But hell, i would agree that probably probation would have been enough in this case.
You don't think big companies have bureaucracies in place? They do, and while they always get out of hand, they at the lest, have a limit to their pointlessness. Government programs know of no such limits.
You realize that privatization doesn't mean strictly for-profit? You can have charities and associations and such. Plus the fact you would have more money since we wouldn't be wasting our taxes on huge government bureaucracies.
z/OS
granted no Swing..
Constitution ratified 1788.
We're still a largely free people, so i don't think it's turned out so bad.. despite many shortcomings.
There is nothing in the constitution which defines corporations as citizens
true
with 1st amendment rights.
false, 1st amendment is 'no law', not 'thing x has the right..'
(otherwise we'd just teach scripting and be done with a CS degree in a quarter)
because the programming language has so much to do with CS?
except we've had more and more government involvement over the last 50 years, and healthcare, in many ways, gets worse and worse. The real problem is we encourage third party payment. Imagine if employers gave out food insurance because the government gave them tax breaks for doing so, we'd eventually have the same situation, and everyone would blame the insurance companies then.
what does income disparity have to do with anything we've talked about in this thread?
that's not taking, that's called trade.
I'm reasonably certain--as much as I can be without actually studying it--that welfare was created for that exact section of the population.
intention != result;
I don't know where you imagine this phantom caste of people comes from that would actually prefer to live under welfare unless they either arrived there from below or were born into it.
You really think people are above abusing handouts? Does the government have any incentive to try to prevent abuse? Not really.
Also note that I never said that people don't need help. I've made the argument that government aid is not as efficient as private charity. Look at katrina, look at foreign which just goes to those in power.
An official stance that "you don't have a basic right to the things you need to survive (but we'll tax you the moment you have enough money, if you live that long)" by the government would be a completely justified reason for civil unrest.
No. Just because you don't have a right to something doesn't mean you won't get it.
because it works better. But as you may notice it's not just the rich.
If your choice is steal or die then you steal - that simple. Do not tell me that you would not especially if you have children to feed.
True, but not really important since this isn't the only choice most people on welfare have.
Why should charities be responsible for this anyway, why should they be better, they are not fairer, they are not more efficient, and people who are not pitiable will simply fall though the cracks.
Because that's what charities are for? Charities are by in large better, look at who helped more for katrina, it wasn't the government. Government aid is usually throw money at a problem, which of course doesn't solve many problems. But it's great if you're the one getting the money.
but your right to life is a right not a privilege
And where do you have the right to take from other people to have what you want? It's not in the constitution, that's for sure.
Enough food to eat and basic medical care are rights not things for the rich and to things to be offered those those who the rich take pity on when thy feel like it.
Where is it that you have a right to food? Where do you get a right to medical care? No where do you have a right to these things.
what are the reasons for taking away voting rights from 75+? you just bitched they didn't vote the same way as you want them too and called them stupid.