it provides a consistent API to use across objects. Am I allowed to set a field or not? It also has the nice benefit with intilisense i can type ".set" and see all that I can change. And if there is sanitizing/converting that needs to be, it's transparent. So i'm not looking for.value i just look for.setValue. It also provides some control for who can read/write the field. You could make the setter protected and getter public.
probably other reasons. IDK, i don't care much either way. but it's certainly nice when i'm dealing with 10 different objects i'm unfamiliar with, that I can use certain prefixes(set,get,add,is) and probably get pretty close to the desired outcome.
For the first year it's enacted, the limit is indeed 95, goes up from there. And yes, there is jail time potential.
Like i said, if you guys want to debate that it's not 'taking over', go for it. It's very drastic move that will alter healthcare. So the technical detail of whether you want to call it taking over is not interesting to me. Which is what i said in my post: but that's still a very strong move, even if it's not outright taking it over.
No, because people point to times like the bush administration and say, SEE?? laissez faire didnt' work!!
Which is total nonsense, with the exception of the internet(and to a lesser degree technology in general) and look at how great it's been doing. Now everyone wants to bog it down in regulation and red tape, because they fear a problem that is non existent, but could theoretically happen.
Other's might say we tried laissez faire under hoover. Which is a great example, some of our first steps into the realm of government intervention resulted in the great depression. And now we could be on the verge of the great depression part 2. And the idea that roosevelt got us out from the great depression is equally nonsensical. We didn't have any recovery until WW2, and recovery at that point is hugely debatable. But our unemployment numbers became better, but of course, we sent millions of young men over seas.. who would be the ones working otherwise.
but was lost in appeals(only a couple of months ago) when the high court ruled that because ISPs are classified as "Information Services" and not "Common Carriers"
No it's not. Net neutrality is the government forcing 'fairness'. Right now, there isn't and it's working just fine. (unless i've missed some regulation that has been passed recently.)
and why not? You think net neutrality is just so obvious no one would dare disagree?
Net neutrality is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and will not exist in any real sense. However net neutrality will cause far more pain than it could hope to alleviate. It's the same tired approach, centralized planning rarely works.
But don't worry, you'll probably get your way and in 10-20 years, we'll have FCC firewalls or a bunch of mandated sniffing by ISPs or whatever stupid shit gets passed for the children or for our own good.
I've never been, but hey i've heard as much from swedish people. One guy tells me all the women are hot and blond.
Texas is a less diverse place than Europe.
And as for your dismissal of me as 'another one'. You're another one that thinks that somehow a centralized government is a good thing. that mommy and daddy government will only have our best interests in heart and will be able to take good care of us. It does not work in the long run.
Socialism, and all the various forms of government intervention do not achieve the results you want. This would be so much easier for you to understand if these issues didn't have so many other factors. They are essentially, a tyrannical approach to problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Jefferson's ideals didn't work all that well 200 years ago
Which of his ideals didn't work out?
well think harder. :P
it provides a consistent API to use across objects. Am I allowed to set a field or not? It also has the nice benefit with intilisense i can type ".set" and see all that I can change. And if there is sanitizing/converting that needs to be, it's transparent. So i'm not looking for .value i just look for .setValue. It also provides some control for who can read/write the field. You could make the setter protected and getter public.
probably other reasons. IDK, i don't care much either way. but it's certainly nice when i'm dealing with 10 different objects i'm unfamiliar with, that I can use certain prefixes(set,get,add,is) and probably get pretty close to the desired outcome.
i always wished java had a getter/setter keyword.
private get set int value;
or something similiar. maybe annona
I don't care what you use, but don't use Java.
OK then, what do you think people should use?
Especially for large enterprise software, there doesn't seem to be much of an alternative beyond C++.. of course feel free to correct me.
I don't see how much overhead it would take a developer to do a couple of tests against Wine for Linux targetable games.
I think you under estimate the overhead of supporting a whole new platform.
fuck that. trying to beat the brutal campaign made me get depressed. i thought i was good at starcraft.
but i did atleast beat it. took a while and several save/loads. taking out fliers for the last mission is way easier too..
For the first year it's enacted, the limit is indeed 95, goes up from there. And yes, there is jail time potential.
Like i said, if you guys want to debate that it's not 'taking over', go for it. It's very drastic move that will alter healthcare. So the technical detail of whether you want to call it taking over is not interesting to me. Which is what i said in my post:
but that's still a very strong move, even if it's not outright taking it over.
Just because he's not well liked, doesn't mean they didn't vote for him.
One thing that makes Obama is worse, imo, because he's still well liked. Bush wasn't, even by conservatives.
The government forcing people to purchase something or face fines/jail, isn't taking over an industry?
Of course it's somewhat subjective, but that's still a very strong move, even if it's not outright taking it over.
which means everything since the internet was wrecked during the bush years...
How does "treat everybody fairly" equate to "bog it down"?
Because it's force, and creates all sorts of things that must happen, that will effectively screw everyone. all in the pursuit of fairness.
Laissez faire... Have we already forgotten banks, bailouts, and taxpayer-funded bonuses?
I don't understand your point.
while i could believe he doesn't read the comments, how could he not have 20k..
Haven't we put this tired argument to rest yet
No, because people point to times like the bush administration and say, SEE?? laissez faire didnt' work!!
Which is total nonsense, with the exception of the internet(and to a lesser degree technology in general) and look at how great it's been doing. Now everyone wants to bog it down in regulation and red tape, because they fear a problem that is non existent, but could theoretically happen.
Other's might say we tried laissez faire under hoover. Which is a great example, some of our first steps into the realm of government intervention resulted in the great depression. And now we could be on the verge of the great depression part 2. And the idea that roosevelt got us out from the great depression is equally nonsensical. We didn't have any recovery until WW2, and recovery at that point is hugely debatable. But our unemployment numbers became better, but of course, we sent millions of young men over seas.. who would be the ones working otherwise.
but was lost in appeals(only a couple of months ago) when the high court ruled that because ISPs are classified as "Information Services" and not "Common Carriers"
So like i said, there was no net neutrality.
adam savage reads /. though i'm not sure if he has over 40 million.
No it's not. Net neutrality is the government forcing 'fairness'. Right now, there isn't and it's working just fine. (unless i've missed some regulation that has been passed recently.)
o really? then why all the hype about net neutrality if it's already there?
you're wrong.
Net neutrality is centralized planning. In this case planning of the internet and trying to make it work better.
I never expected to see such on Slashdot
and why not? You think net neutrality is just so obvious no one would dare disagree?
Net neutrality is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and will not exist in any real sense. However net neutrality will cause far more pain than it could hope to alleviate. It's the same tired approach, centralized planning rarely works.
But don't worry, you'll probably get your way and in 10-20 years, we'll have FCC firewalls or a bunch of mandated sniffing by ISPs or whatever stupid shit gets passed for the children or for our own good.
I've never been, but hey i've heard as much from swedish people. One guy tells me all the women are hot and blond.
Texas is a less diverse place than Europe.
And as for your dismissal of me as 'another one'. You're another one that thinks that somehow a centralized government is a good thing. that mommy and daddy government will only have our best interests in heart and will be able to take good care of us. It does not work in the long run.
Socialism, and all the various forms of government intervention do not achieve the results you want. This would be so much easier for you to understand if these issues didn't have so many other factors. They are essentially, a tyrannical approach to problems.
racism? you're a fucking idiot.
All of which are far more homogeneous than the US.
It's a hell of a lot easier to make one size fits all, with a lack of diversity.
i cannot imagine who's gonna pay for this.
lol well ok. ignore anything with an agenda then i guess?