I never said or implied that I have any problem with memory management or security. The problems come when languages like Java, C++ or etc... try to insert protections for you without knowing exactly how you want the protection to work. Java also extracts the programmer way to far away from the hardware, which is essential for any good developer, who doesn't work in web land.
Java is what a lazy developer uses to get free security and free memory protection, a child could write a business application in Java and have it secure. To me that doesn't sounds like a good language as much as it does a language for lazy programmers, which should loose it a few points.
It's a pretty good list but my only question is how on earth did Java beat out C. Java is a decent language for a lot of different areas but doesn't come to the table in any one area and own the hill. On the other hand C is the king of the embedded world, Operating System world ( such as kernels ) and can still rock it on the desktop with C++ and C#. If C and Java switched places then it would be prefect, until that happens I can't really agree with it.
It is a two side issue, I mean on one hand drivers need to pay attention, there is no excuse for a driver to not know what is going on. Now on the other hand people need to pay attention when they cross the street, you can be on your phone well you walk down the side walk but when you're ready to cross the street, look up, look both ways and make sure it's safe.
Drivers need to pay attention to the road, there is no excuse for hitting a pedestrian in a cross walk or for a car to hit car at a cross walk. Drivers need to grow up, pay attention and stop blaming everything but the lack of driving ability.
Fair enough but I don't think comparing electronically illiterate kids to engineers in fair. This actually backs on to the lack of quality of the school system but I'm going to not even touch that one.
If you aren't happy with the current features of a smart watches then sit down and make your own, that's what I did, so instead of complaining I just solved my own issue.
If religion isn't a security blanket for irrational and immaturity then what is it exactly? I grew up in a very religious small town in Ontario Canada, I was indoctrinated into Roman Catholicism very young and was taught that to question my belief was the same as signing my ticket to hell. I became agnostic in grade 8 after realizing that not only did religious NOT provide answers, but the adults who were meant to guide me in my faith had none of the answer either.
If you look at a security blanket of a child it generally has the following attributes:
1. It keeps them safe. 2. It makes them feel protected. 3. It makes them feel like it will always be there. 4. It makes all forms of evil non existent. 5. It instills them with a level of protection and safety they have no other way of achieving. 6. It has personal truth and has personally reviled qualities to them, that no one else can see, even another child will see something different or know something different.
What does religion teach us (Roman Catholicism)?
1. If you hold the bible as truth it will protect you. 2. If you obey the laws of God you'll be safe. 3. If you deny the power of God then you'll be punished. 4. God will keep you free from sin and protect you forever. 5. God will be personally reviled to you if you believe.
So in reality I'm not far off, believing in Roman Catholicism really is no different then holding a secutiry blanket. I don't remember the actual numbers but less than 1% of the bible has actually been verified as fact and most serious theologians have doubts that Jesus ever existed, which if he didn't Catholicism is over with.
Now before you accuse me not being fair to the other big religions, Islam is a security blanket with the added feature of the child having radical outbursts of hissy fits, with the full kicking, screaming and hating the world.
Mormonism is the security blanket but you get to add a TON of special powers, let it prevent you from interaction with your world and it lets to disregard history in favor of facts everyone else knows it wrong.
Judaism is just security blanket and that's it, nothing else added to it.
The thing missing from all of these religions, just like the blanky? Evidence!, proof that holding this blanket will do what you claim, proof that it's personal truth can be realized by everyone, proof that it has a force for good in the world and proof that it's not just brain washing you into false sense of protection.
It's fun and cute when you're 2/3, it's sad, pathetic, immature, irrational, illogical and dangerous when you're an adult, not to mention that if you're an adult who feel women are garbage and that suicide it's the way to heaven.
If you want to hold religious belief then I think you have to be able to come to the table with hard evidence, the kind you can point to and the kind science can back up, other wise you have nothing. It's not enough for you to say that I have to hold your beliefs gently because they're your beliefs, because if I have a sock that I claim is God, you would have to get down and pray 10 times a day to it, to not offend me! Until the religiously minded can come to the table with proof, I have no reason to respect anything they say or anything they do in the name of religion.
Religious objection has just won a battle it had no right to fight. Religious views should not be allowed to influence society, freedoms or laws of any kind, and this ruling true shows how far the intelligence level has fallen in the US.
This is a very accurate view of a theological view on religion. When you're very young, maybe 2 or 3, you have a blanky that can protect you from everything and has super natural powers. As you grow up generally you get rid of the blanky and pick up maturity and rationality. Religion is the exact opposite action, it's refusing to let go of the all powerful, unproven blanky. It allows an immature, irrational, illogical human to feel comfort by being able to tell themselves that blanky will scare away the monster under the bed, will keep them safe as they sleep and will fix all the problems. Just as no one can see the blanky of a little child actually protect them, no one has ever seen the blanky of religion ever do anything supernatural either. People who hold religious views that are based in theology land really lie to themselves over and over until they actually believe a blanky will protect them.
So after reading that, how the hell does anyone thing that blanky should be allowed to influence laws? Your letting the equivalent of a childs comfort element run society, the next most logical move would be to declare a unicorn day. This isn't just a blow the image of the US, this is proof that the governmental system in the US really does put it's blanky before science and thinks that gripping it tight in the dark with a night light on will win in the real world.
Well when you can read it you can record it. As the person in front of the window I should have no right to tell someone they can't record me when I knowingly made the choice to not privatize myself. In fact I would claim that you have even less right to complain when it comes to Wi-Fi because the security is already there, you just have to use it. It would be like the window coming with curtains installed and you just didn't put them down.
You can't claim defense when your un-encrypted or poorly encrypted network gets read. Think about it this way, if you are getting changed in your room and have very poor / no curtains at all then you can't or shouldn't be allowed to complain when someone see's you naked. If you cared about your data getting read then you would of blocked people from reading it, just as if you cared about people seeing you naked, you'd hang curtains up. In this case I would of told the idiots who left there networks exposed to deal with it and learn for next time. You basically flaunted the fact your an idiot or didn't care and you got what you deserved, hard lesson.
I really don't think this is a matter for the courts, it's not the food company's fault you got fat based off the fact you didn't use self control. A food company could release a 200 oz drink and it doesn't mean you have to drink it.
If you really were a qualified teacher you would noticed I didn't indite all teachers, just the "common" teacher and given my personal experience of growing up and going to school for 20 years and having 86.66667% of my teacher being total and completely failures, well I think I can draw a clear and concise conclusion about what the "common" teacher is to me. If you break the mold and really do excel and you rock the class room like a rock star at a concert then awesome, but 86% of my personal experience says it's not likely true.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough
SecureSocket sslSocket = new SSLSocket(blah);
List linklist = new List();
Tree tree = new Tree();
So how is it not for the lazy programmer?
I never said or implied that I have any problem with memory management or security. The problems come when languages like Java, C++ or etc... try to insert protections for you without knowing exactly how you want the protection to work. Java also extracts the programmer way to far away from the hardware, which is essential for any good developer, who doesn't work in web land.
Well I'm an embedded system developer and I can tell that compared to C, Java gives you everything and the kitchen sink.
Java is what a lazy developer uses to get free security and free memory protection, a child could write a business application in Java and have it secure. To me that doesn't sounds like a good language as much as it does a language for lazy programmers, which should loose it a few points.
It's a pretty good list but my only question is how on earth did Java beat out C. Java is a decent language for a lot of different areas but doesn't come to the table in any one area and own the hill. On the other hand C is the king of the embedded world, Operating System world ( such as kernels ) and can still rock it on the desktop with C++ and C#. If C and Java switched places then it would be prefect, until that happens I can't really agree with it.
Great so now I can get a smart watch that is 1mm thinner and twice the price and one piece of aluminum, big deal!
It is a two side issue, I mean on one hand drivers need to pay attention, there is no excuse for a driver to not know what is going on. Now on the other hand people need to pay attention when they cross the street, you can be on your phone well you walk down the side walk but when you're ready to cross the street, look up, look both ways and make sure it's safe.
Oh I know that one! I live in Toronto and the standard is that at least 3 cards will enter and turn on a red light.
Drivers need to pay attention to the road, there is no excuse for hitting a pedestrian in a cross walk or for a car to hit car at a cross walk. Drivers need to grow up, pay attention and stop blaming everything but the lack of driving ability.
Haha well if you have to get an engineering degree to figure that out then switch jobs :P
I would even go as far to saw a basic / simple firmware.
LMAO +10 funny! That is such a wicked idea that it's worth doing for the shear stupidity and hilarity or it.
I've designed my watch with the capability of expansion, so if you really wanted to write a module to do that you could.
Fair enough but I don't think comparing electronically illiterate kids to engineers in fair. This actually backs on to the lack of quality of the school system but I'm going to not even touch that one.
I'd be happy to send you the layout, I'm open sourcing it when I'm done.
You don't have to be an engineer to build a basic circuit, or write simple software.
So true, if Microsoft actually makes a watch it will be train wreck. They have no concept on slim, power saving designs.
If you aren't happy with the current features of a smart watches then sit down and make your own, that's what I did, so instead of complaining I just solved my own issue.
If religion isn't a security blanket for irrational and immaturity then what is it exactly? I grew up in a very religious small town in Ontario Canada, I was indoctrinated into Roman Catholicism very young and was taught that to question my belief was the same as signing my ticket to hell. I became agnostic in grade 8 after realizing that not only did religious NOT provide answers, but the adults who were meant to guide me in my faith had none of the answer either.
If you look at a security blanket of a child it generally has the following attributes:
1. It keeps them safe.
2. It makes them feel protected.
3. It makes them feel like it will always be there.
4. It makes all forms of evil non existent.
5. It instills them with a level of protection and safety they have no other way of achieving.
6. It has personal truth and has personally reviled qualities to them, that no one else can see, even another child will see something different or know something different.
What does religion teach us (Roman Catholicism)?
1. If you hold the bible as truth it will protect you.
2. If you obey the laws of God you'll be safe.
3. If you deny the power of God then you'll be punished.
4. God will keep you free from sin and protect you forever.
5. God will be personally reviled to you if you believe.
So in reality I'm not far off, believing in Roman Catholicism really is no different then holding a secutiry blanket. I don't remember the actual numbers but less than 1% of the bible has actually been verified as fact and most serious theologians have doubts that Jesus ever existed, which if he didn't Catholicism is over with.
Now before you accuse me not being fair to the other big religions, Islam is a security blanket with the added feature of the child having radical outbursts of hissy fits, with the full kicking, screaming and hating the world.
Mormonism is the security blanket but you get to add a TON of special powers, let it prevent you from interaction with your world and it lets to disregard history in favor of facts everyone else knows it wrong.
Judaism is just security blanket and that's it, nothing else added to it.
The thing missing from all of these religions, just like the blanky? Evidence!, proof that holding this blanket will do what you claim, proof that it's personal truth can be realized by everyone, proof that it has a force for good in the world and proof that it's not just brain washing you into false sense of protection.
It's fun and cute when you're 2/3, it's sad, pathetic, immature, irrational, illogical and dangerous when you're an adult, not to mention that if you're an adult who feel women are garbage and that suicide it's the way to heaven.
If you want to hold religious belief then I think you have to be able to come to the table with hard evidence, the kind you can point to and the kind science can back up, other wise you have nothing. It's not enough for you to say that I have to hold your beliefs gently because they're your beliefs, because if I have a sock that I claim is God, you would have to get down and pray 10 times a day to it, to not offend me! Until the religiously minded can come to the table with proof, I have no reason to respect anything they say or anything they do in the name of religion.
Religious objection has just won a battle it had no right to fight. Religious views should not be allowed to influence society, freedoms or laws of any kind, and this ruling true shows how far the intelligence level has fallen in the US.
This is a very accurate view of a theological view on religion. When you're very young, maybe 2 or 3, you have a blanky that can protect you from everything and has super natural powers. As you grow up generally you get rid of the blanky and pick up maturity and rationality. Religion is the exact opposite action, it's refusing to let go of the all powerful, unproven blanky. It allows an immature, irrational, illogical human to feel comfort by being able to tell themselves that blanky will scare away the monster under the bed, will keep them safe as they sleep and will fix all the problems. Just as no one can see the blanky of a little child actually protect them, no one has ever seen the blanky of religion ever do anything supernatural either. People who hold religious views that are based in theology land really lie to themselves over and over until they actually believe a blanky will protect them.
So after reading that, how the hell does anyone thing that blanky should be allowed to influence laws? Your letting the equivalent of a childs comfort element run society, the next most logical move would be to declare a unicorn day. This isn't just a blow the image of the US, this is proof that the governmental system in the US really does put it's blanky before science and thinks that gripping it tight in the dark with a night light on will win in the real world.
Well when you can read it you can record it. As the person in front of the window I should have no right to tell someone they can't record me when I knowingly made the choice to not privatize myself. In fact I would claim that you have even less right to complain when it comes to Wi-Fi because the security is already there, you just have to use it. It would be like the window coming with curtains installed and you just didn't put them down.
The either put up a fence or deal with the fact you didn't prevent the issue in the first place.
You can't claim defense when your un-encrypted or poorly encrypted network gets read. Think about it this way, if you are getting changed in your room and have very poor / no curtains at all then you can't or shouldn't be allowed to complain when someone see's you naked. If you cared about your data getting read then you would of blocked people from reading it, just as if you cared about people seeing you naked, you'd hang curtains up. In this case I would of told the idiots who left there networks exposed to deal with it and learn for next time. You basically flaunted the fact your an idiot or didn't care and you got what you deserved, hard lesson.
I really don't think this is a matter for the courts, it's not the food company's fault you got fat based off the fact you didn't use self control. A food company could release a 200 oz drink and it doesn't mean you have to drink it.
If you really were a qualified teacher you would noticed I didn't indite all teachers, just the "common" teacher and given my personal experience of growing up and going to school for 20 years and having 86.66667% of my teacher being total and completely failures, well I think I can draw a clear and concise conclusion about what the "common" teacher is to me. If you break the mold and really do excel and you rock the class room like a rock star at a concert then awesome, but 86% of my personal experience says it's not likely true.