I mean, aside from the fact that all programs are, in fact, mathematical expressions,
This is a bit like saying psychology comes from brains consisting of neurons, neurons obey the laws of nature and those laws are applied math so psychology is applied math.
there's the fact that mathematical thinking is exactly what programming is. I'm not talking about O(n), I'm talking about logic, recursion, sets.
Sure but you hardly need a degree in math to understand how to loop through all items in a list, even if that is an extremely rudimentary application of math. How to structure a program isn't a deductive logic like developing theorems from axioms in math, design and structure is more informal logic that is argued not proven. I'll admit recursion is very useful, though I doubt most understand it beyond "if I find a folder inside the current folder, browse through that in the same way" to explore a tree structure.
Of course, learning math won't teach you to program, but it will make you a better programmer.
Absolutely. I just contended the claim that it's applied math, at least not any of the mainstream math. Maybe if you take a degree in set theory and boolean algebra then sure, but knowing fourier transformations or complex number math won't help you program one bit unless that's what you're trying to implement. We need some of those deep theorists too, but it's hardly what you need to slap together a new insurance claim processing form.
Personally I've found that the easiest way is to use C++/Qt and not use new/delete on anything but QObjects, then value classes. For example my app has a FooManager that has a QHash<FooId,Foo> map. I just call FooManager->deleteLater(); and we're done. Or I have QObject children to the managing object. So I can have a connection manager, and the connections are all children of the manager so I can just call deleteLater() and the connections will go away too.
Essentially I have a memory management tree, The fingertip is child of the finger is child of the hand (many to one) is child of the wrist is child of the underarm is child of the elbow is child of the overarm is child of the shoulder. Chop it off at the shoulder and it all goes away automatically, exactly once. Just remember to hook up everything up to the parent it belongs to in the constructor and don't pass your fingers to your feet, they can call but not take ownership.
I also can't really lose memory. I can accidentally create children and lose all reference to it, but it's always there through QObject::children() so it's never truly lost. I can always map it all out in a debug function and see my "lost" objects. If there's some lost memory still then it's a Qt bug. The downside is that I am losing a bit of C++'s smart pointer passing, but through implicit sharing and copy-on-write it's not really making all those copies anyway.
If you want to go into higher computer science and such then yes it's very much applied math, but the basics of it is not. For example, understanding program flow, basic object management (how do we copy/move/reference information), loading and saving information, network communication and that sort of thing. I'm fairly sure you could teach a lot of practical programming without ever going far beyond primary school math. You could at least make it to basic business app level, connect to a database, select a record, process it in some way, update it back. Append records, delete records, essentially the online equivalent of a filing cabinet. If you can make dialogs that look decent for input, pipe to reports that look decent for output... math? Not really.
It's all about logic and structure, That also tends to help you understand math, but it's not math that makes you able to program. Typically it's not the O(n) of the algorithm, it's that you're doing it wrong. Like for example I've rewritten some really horrid SQL, I'm sure both Microsoft and Oracle has put tons of work in optimizing microseconds off the execution time but when you write a crappy query that'll take an hour instead of a minute it's really all for naught. Maybe if you work for Google or anything else with a kazillion records you really have to think new but otherwise if the basic sort operation is killing you then you're doing it wrong. Thousands of objects in memory or a million rows in a database is now light load for a computer. Nothing you do with so little data should really be straining your performance.
I'm not in the US but work gave me an iPhone, they're on this big corporate plan so that's a reason to sell unlocked phones. Not that it's really a big deal here in Norway because they have mandated that you must be able to terminate your contract for a reasonable termination fee anyway.
Suicide isn't illegal, assisting it is. I can think of more than a few inheritance/custody/whatever motives for the assistant to become very assisting, if you get my drift. You can make up all sorts of rules but if they say he or she simply wanted a quiet death in their own home, you'll have a very hard time telling if it was murder or not, suddenly that your fingerprints are on the rope he hanged from isn't that strong evidence anymore. And to take advantage of people that are mentally unbalanced, most suicidals are after all not terminal disease patient but people that have experienced abuse, molestation, rape, violence, loss of a loved one and so on. They for the most part get better and are thankful someone helped them through a rough time. I admit I don't see much point sitting around as a veggie, but I'd be shit scared of someone else deciding if I'm broken enough to be put down. I just hope that I'll have enough left in me to do it myself when I find it's time, no matter what anyone else thinks of my mental condition.
The only useful form of government is one that recognizes the individual and their inalienable rights.
No system of government is beyond rewriting all their rules, just because the US has a constitution it can still be amended in every which way. They introduced prohibition, then a bit later they amended it again to say "forget we ever did that". If they wanted to they could reinstate slavery and void the Bill of Rights too. Call it any form of safeguard you will but it's ultimately a self-imposed one, it may temper rash and foolish decisions that go against those rights, but if the US people really wanted to then no piece of paper would keep them from turning into the equivalent of Nazi Germany. (hello Godwin) If you call pure democracy morally vacant then splitting that vacancy into two with regular and constitutional law is equally vacant. It just looks better on paper, until we tear it up.
Yep, this is starting to get as bad as the second life hyping. Seriously, you're not building credibility when it seems like the only thing you do is troll for more bitcoin buyers.
Come on. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, somebody else would.
Really? Consider that both the #2 and #3 search engine is both powered by Microsoft, who'd clearly not want to break the IE dominance and most of open source would rebel at the idea. #4 is a tie between Ask Jeeves and Baidu with about 0.4% of the market, they wouldn't have the financial muscle.
Google has paid Mozilla very well to break IEs dominance, I think they've seen it just as much an investment as an expense. And in that, mission accomplished. But I find it unlikely that Google is that interested in funding Mozilla now that IEs dominance is well and truly broken and Chrome will pass 20% market share on statcounter this month.
This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.
And therefore it can't happen? Exhibit 1, history.
The US has placed half the world on their copyright watch list. And I don't mean rag tag countries like Russia or China but highly developed western countries like Canada and large parts of Europe. They want global IP law and they want to write it. Fits quite nicely with their overall agenda as world police, too. So I wouldn't be surprised if they just kept it, so that keeping a domain name means you have to stay inside both local law and US law. They have the audacity to do it.
Imagine doctors who live on a continuum of the opinion that cleanliness is effective in reducing infection. Which are right? Are any? Or should we be tolerant of doctors who operate with dirty hands? (BTW at one time doctors summarily dismissed the practice of hand-washing, even when faced with the overwhelming evidence of it's efficacy.)
No, but the standards will be wildly different between an operating theater, a hospital ward, a visit to the general practitioner's office and first aid on a gushing wound. And for that matter how contagious it is, a cancer ward will only have basic sanitation while a virulent lung disease will be in full isolation. So no, there's not one answer that is perfectly right. But like you point out, there are many answers that are very wrong:)
keeping everything that's good about Java (except for the cross-platform action, which in my experience for any practical application was more of an in-theory benefit than actual benefit)
I worked a lot with a huge honking Java app that ran on Windows, Linux and Unix but with a web browser GUI. It never became good at doing GUIs, but a lot of server code is written in and will continue to be written in Java. My prediction is that Java will be the new COBOL long after Microsoft has moved from.NET to something else.
That said, between C# in the hands of MS and Java in the hands of Oracle, I wish there was a third option. There's always C/C++ but they're getting really long in the tooth and with all respect to Perl/PHP/Python/Ruby/Haskell and so on they're not a replacement. I don't know, buy out Qt, steal all the best ideas from C# and Java then turn it into the Q language. I'll get right on that after I win my $100 million in the lottery...
Luckily I've not run into many like that, but I think they divide into two groups. The naturally sloppy - which will write sloppy code too, and those that have just given up on real world human social life. I mean, the computer doesn't mind if you wear food-stained, ragged clothes and stink to high heaven. Your WoW-buddies will never see it. Cats and dogs don't seem to care and if they pee inside that'll really top off your smell. The last ones aren't sloppy, they "optimized" it away in the sense that why shower, I'll only get sweaty again. In fact the musk means any coworker will be glad to leave, meaning you get more time with your computer. And you don't get invited to meetings, everyone will just send documents for review. I wouldn't recommend it as a life style but some are really that odd and churn out great code.
The waterfall-agile axis in software development is doing to go away as soon as the left-right axis in politics does. On the extreme left (or right, I don't really want to this to have any political meaning) you have strict waterfall, a single flow down exclusive phases. Then as you move right you have more overlaps, several delivery phases and so on. Eventually you get to agile, where you re-prioritize, redesign, code and test in very short sprints. And on the right of that you have cowboy coding, where you've given up all pretense of cycles and just do it all at once. Are any of them "right"? Probably not. Some things will require more planning, some things less depending on the project. And some claim their solution is the solution to everything. And if that there's problems with it, that's because they're not doing it right or not doing it extreme enough. The most avid agile zealots remind me a little of libertarians, if the free market isn't working it's because it's not free enough. And if the agile project has problems, it's because it's not agile enough. There's no problem that can't be solved by greater ideological purity.
I meant it to be disturbing but DADT is different than "I know, but we've had the talk about it and as long as she does it her room" as I hardly expect it to be the topic around the breakfast table. It means you really don't know at all, and you'd rather never find out. I mean it more like a state of denial, no my kids don't masturbate. And my teens don't have sex. And my husband doesn't look at porn. LALALALALA not happening. It's the only country I know still seriously trying to push abstinence and a single sex partner for life. The rest of the world has pretty much said as long as they don't get pregnant or catch STDs, oh well...
Yawn, turn it into to a baseless personal attack if that makes you feel better, did I hit a nerve or something? Examples of studies showing:
1. Men think more about sex. 2. Men seek sex more avidly.
"Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it,"
Men (...) are more interested in casual sex.
The rest of it basically goes on to say that women need lots of effort from the man on feelings, setting, foreplay etc. while the man is much more ready to just do it.
Of course that's on average... I have at least on two occasions have people comment on her wanting more sex than him, but usually it's the other way around.
But I'm sure you'll reply with another snarky comment to show your superior sexual prowess. You go, champ.
It's not as much a requirement as it's a natural distribution, just like in a big war you'd have 1% special forces, 10% regular soldiers and the rest drafted civilians. Would it be great if everyone was seasoned marines? Yes. But you use what you have so some are effectively cannon fodder. You don't encourage them to be fools, they're just not ready to be anything more than what they are.
Take the war on drugs for example, your average pothead isn't hard to catch. There's just so many of them that it'll never end as long as the dealers and distribution continues, it's just a few random example to say "yes, we can take you too so don't feel safe" than even trying for 100%. Is that according to some big plan? Nah. It's just the way it is, it's Sturgeon's Law for people. 90% of everything is crap and 90% of everyone are idiots.
The only places that isn't true are the places where you've went through a lot of trouble to weed out the idiots. But when you're going for a broad public movement, you haven't got an choice. There will be plenty idiots, people you can't trust to do much of anything. Cheer in a rally? Throw some rocks. Yeah, we can have you do that and that's all we'd trust you to do, too.
The hackers are just in it for the lulz, but it certainly could be used as a blackmail mechanism by others. If for example you find one of the guys on the list is a big bible thumper and threaten to put this in the mailbox of everyone in his church group. Like if you move to start over and someone from your old town threatens to expose your old life to your new neighbors, it doesn't have to be a strict secret as long as there's someone who don't know and that you don't want to know.
That's the pure economic cost, but that's not the biggest "cost". Have you ever had a friend that's dating someone who's a complete mismatch? That suddenly has different interests when he's with her, even though it's really out of character? I've seen a lot of strange things come and go because of regular access to pussy. Usually they end when she figures out he doesn't want to be serious with her and never will be.
The ratio of men to women who'd really like just the one night stand is nowhere near 50-50. And even if they were, the men generally want it more often so a few sex hungry studs covers the needs of many sex hungry women. For the rest of us, except for the rare lucky strike we have to try building a relationship. That's a lot of time and effort that is a sunk cost - I'm not talking economically - and so when you're finally fucking you'd rather just keep it up, even if you've figured that as a long-term relationship it's a bust.
I think it's the second biggest cause of infidelity, after wanting more sex on the side. That yes you are getting sex, but you're not getting the rest you want to so people are looking to jump onto something else without first ending their current relationship. In short, to have an uninterrupted supply of pussy during the switch.
Paying is probably the most honest form of exchange, it's clear what you're giving and what you're getting and there's no false pretenses. As long as the woman is doing it of her own free will (no pimps or such forcing her to the sex trade) then it's her choice whether she wants to or not. Seriously, you can marry Playboy-Hefner but not pay a girl for a blowjob? It's all legal as long as you pay in diamond rings...
Do we live in the Dark Ages and masturbation is a sin?
A lot of elected representatives in the US would like us to...
It's Americas biggest version of "don't ask, don't tell". A classic is the Utah store owner who proved they were watching tons of PPV porn at the local hotel to get past the Miller test. Politicians simply play the game to win votes, I hardly think they're better than the rest of us. Most of the world - and even the US - have gotten over the whole "sin" to spill the seed, but you still don't talk about it. That's the way it's been from the very beginning, where's little Suzy? Oh, she's furiously frigging her clit. A lot of them go "LALALALALALA", don't want to see it, hear about it, think about it, go to your room and this is on DADT basis. Never figured out why it was such a big deal, if I didn't I'd have such a serious case of blue balls I'd sleep with almost anything - which would be grounds for concern.
It's one thing to have rules and restrictions, it's another to babysit them every moment of their life. You find age-appropriate toys and books and tv series and movies and games, you don't sit shoulder reading in case someone decided to cut to hardcore porn. Like I remember I was asked to help once, the parents had an IM app installed to chat to their grandparents and some friends and family and all that, paid enough attention to who but didn't watch their every move. Well, turns out spambots were sending messages with porn links, and the kids were the age they'd click almost anything. So they asked me for help, is there some setting so they only get messages from people on their friend list. If anyone needed to be added, they'd vet them first.
To me that's a perfectly sane attitude. The Internet is a mix of a whole lot of stuff, some obviously designed for 18+ people. And if you completely deny them web surfing, they will miss out on a *lot*. So you want to find some middle ground where you have some scope of control - like who they talk to on IM, but not everything they ever said. Just like they get to walk public streets but not into strip clubs, it doesn't mean you have to walk them door to door.
On the other hand, a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking. The citizen journalist is going to blog their suspicions and air unfounded allegations. A low signal-to-noise compared to a legit newpaper, but a lot of tip of the iceberg stuff which might appear earlier.
Maybe on some of their own stories, the ones they decide when to publish. But the general news is all about pumping it out on the web ASAP, they want you to hear it on their site first. Where before maybe you'd spend an few hours researching an article for tomorrow's paper, it's now about getting the headline out there in less than 2 minutes. Apart from on the surface being more neutral in the commentary the rest isn't much better than the blogs.
You already lost the game, when you accepted belief instead of facts. (...) So make wise choices, and when in doubt, never ever "believe".:)
The future is always conjecture, whether you're trying to choose a pickup line or decide what your major in college should be. True, generally compliments work better than insults but you'll never have the facts until afterwards. Life is not a scientific experiment because it's impossible to recreate, or as the old Greeks put it: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." When you have the facts it is already history, you can not go back and change the past. And even so, you never have the facts about how the alternatives would work out. Of all the possible conversation you might have had, you only know the outcome of the one you actually did.
Stupid PC buyers... buying according to their needs and monetary abilities. Why can't they learn that it is much better to be "committed". (...) While Apple rocks.
Funny that, since Apple is the IBM of cell phones while Android is the Microsoft. If you invest heavily in Android apps, you can switch between any number of clones. If you invest in iApps, you're committed to Apple hardware which comes with a heavy premium.
Don't get me wrong, I have an iPhone myself because it has features ahead of its time - but so did OS/2. But unless they keep moving they'll end up just like IBM did, overrun by cheap clones doing pretty much the same at a much lower cost.
I honestly hate this idea. You write have to write a program once. Most programs run thousands of times, some programs will run millions or billions of times. If you actually calculated the global collective waste due to slow heavily abstracted languages running across the globe that cost is significantly than it would've been to write it properly to begin with.
If you're developing OpenOffice or MySQL perhaps. I've many scripts and procedures at work that are run once a day or once a month on a centralized system for many users, the carbon footprint of that is probably smaller than the first user who drove to the office. And right now I'm doing a migration that's only going to be done once, things that are wasteful but make no sense optimizing.
If we assume you get less done with a more "to the metal" language, you also have to consider the cost of what we wouldn't get done. Oh, they're still sending paper reports because that new electronic system isn't done yet - how costly is that and what's the carbon footprint of that? It's an opportunity cost, and compared to how much other shit we blow electricity on getting more things done by computer is usually both cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, aside from the fact that all programs are, in fact, mathematical expressions,
This is a bit like saying psychology comes from brains consisting of neurons, neurons obey the laws of nature and those laws are applied math so psychology is applied math.
there's the fact that mathematical thinking is exactly what programming is. I'm not talking about O(n), I'm talking about logic, recursion, sets.
Sure but you hardly need a degree in math to understand how to loop through all items in a list, even if that is an extremely rudimentary application of math. How to structure a program isn't a deductive logic like developing theorems from axioms in math, design and structure is more informal logic that is argued not proven. I'll admit recursion is very useful, though I doubt most understand it beyond "if I find a folder inside the current folder, browse through that in the same way" to explore a tree structure.
Of course, learning math won't teach you to program, but it will make you a better programmer.
Absolutely. I just contended the claim that it's applied math, at least not any of the mainstream math. Maybe if you take a degree in set theory and boolean algebra then sure, but knowing fourier transformations or complex number math won't help you program one bit unless that's what you're trying to implement. We need some of those deep theorists too, but it's hardly what you need to slap together a new insurance claim processing form.
Personally I've found that the easiest way is to use C++/Qt and not use new/delete on anything but QObjects, then value classes. For example my app has a FooManager that has a QHash<FooId,Foo> map. I just call FooManager->deleteLater(); and we're done. Or I have QObject children to the managing object. So I can have a connection manager, and the connections are all children of the manager so I can just call deleteLater() and the connections will go away too.
Essentially I have a memory management tree, The fingertip is child of the finger is child of the hand (many to one) is child of the wrist is child of the underarm is child of the elbow is child of the overarm is child of the shoulder. Chop it off at the shoulder and it all goes away automatically, exactly once. Just remember to hook up everything up to the parent it belongs to in the constructor and don't pass your fingers to your feet, they can call but not take ownership.
I also can't really lose memory. I can accidentally create children and lose all reference to it, but it's always there through QObject::children() so it's never truly lost. I can always map it all out in a debug function and see my "lost" objects. If there's some lost memory still then it's a Qt bug. The downside is that I am losing a bit of C++'s smart pointer passing, but through implicit sharing and copy-on-write it's not really making all those copies anyway.
If you want to go into higher computer science and such then yes it's very much applied math, but the basics of it is not. For example, understanding program flow, basic object management (how do we copy/move/reference information), loading and saving information, network communication and that sort of thing. I'm fairly sure you could teach a lot of practical programming without ever going far beyond primary school math. You could at least make it to basic business app level, connect to a database, select a record, process it in some way, update it back. Append records, delete records, essentially the online equivalent of a filing cabinet. If you can make dialogs that look decent for input, pipe to reports that look decent for output... math? Not really.
It's all about logic and structure, That also tends to help you understand math, but it's not math that makes you able to program. Typically it's not the O(n) of the algorithm, it's that you're doing it wrong. Like for example I've rewritten some really horrid SQL, I'm sure both Microsoft and Oracle has put tons of work in optimizing microseconds off the execution time but when you write a crappy query that'll take an hour instead of a minute it's really all for naught. Maybe if you work for Google or anything else with a kazillion records you really have to think new but otherwise if the basic sort operation is killing you then you're doing it wrong. Thousands of objects in memory or a million rows in a database is now light load for a computer. Nothing you do with so little data should really be straining your performance.
I'm not in the US but work gave me an iPhone, they're on this big corporate plan so that's a reason to sell unlocked phones. Not that it's really a big deal here in Norway because they have mandated that you must be able to terminate your contract for a reasonable termination fee anyway.
Suicide isn't illegal, assisting it is. I can think of more than a few inheritance/custody/whatever motives for the assistant to become very assisting, if you get my drift. You can make up all sorts of rules but if they say he or she simply wanted a quiet death in their own home, you'll have a very hard time telling if it was murder or not, suddenly that your fingerprints are on the rope he hanged from isn't that strong evidence anymore. And to take advantage of people that are mentally unbalanced, most suicidals are after all not terminal disease patient but people that have experienced abuse, molestation, rape, violence, loss of a loved one and so on. They for the most part get better and are thankful someone helped them through a rough time. I admit I don't see much point sitting around as a veggie, but I'd be shit scared of someone else deciding if I'm broken enough to be put down. I just hope that I'll have enough left in me to do it myself when I find it's time, no matter what anyone else thinks of my mental condition.
The only useful form of government is one that recognizes the individual and their inalienable rights.
No system of government is beyond rewriting all their rules, just because the US has a constitution it can still be amended in every which way. They introduced prohibition, then a bit later they amended it again to say "forget we ever did that". If they wanted to they could reinstate slavery and void the Bill of Rights too. Call it any form of safeguard you will but it's ultimately a self-imposed one, it may temper rash and foolish decisions that go against those rights, but if the US people really wanted to then no piece of paper would keep them from turning into the equivalent of Nazi Germany. (hello Godwin) If you call pure democracy morally vacant then splitting that vacancy into two with regular and constitutional law is equally vacant. It just looks better on paper, until we tear it up.
Yep, this is starting to get as bad as the second life hyping. Seriously, you're not building credibility when it seems like the only thing you do is troll for more bitcoin buyers.
Come on. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, somebody else would.
Really? Consider that both the #2 and #3 search engine is both powered by Microsoft, who'd clearly not want to break the IE dominance and most of open source would rebel at the idea. #4 is a tie between Ask Jeeves and Baidu with about 0.4% of the market, they wouldn't have the financial muscle.
Google has paid Mozilla very well to break IEs dominance, I think they've seen it just as much an investment as an expense. And in that, mission accomplished. But I find it unlikely that Google is that interested in funding Mozilla now that IEs dominance is well and truly broken and Chrome will pass 20% market share on statcounter this month.
This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.
And therefore it can't happen? Exhibit 1, history.
The US has placed half the world on their copyright watch list. And I don't mean rag tag countries like Russia or China but highly developed western countries like Canada and large parts of Europe. They want global IP law and they want to write it. Fits quite nicely with their overall agenda as world police, too. So I wouldn't be surprised if they just kept it, so that keeping a domain name means you have to stay inside both local law and US law. They have the audacity to do it.
Imagine doctors who live on a continuum of the opinion that cleanliness is effective in reducing infection. Which are right? Are any? Or should we be tolerant of doctors who operate with dirty hands? (BTW at one time doctors summarily dismissed the practice of hand-washing, even when faced with the overwhelming evidence of it's efficacy.)
No, but the standards will be wildly different between an operating theater, a hospital ward, a visit to the general practitioner's office and first aid on a gushing wound. And for that matter how contagious it is, a cancer ward will only have basic sanitation while a virulent lung disease will be in full isolation. So no, there's not one answer that is perfectly right. But like you point out, there are many answers that are very wrong :)
keeping everything that's good about Java (except for the cross-platform action, which in my experience for any practical application was more of an in-theory benefit than actual benefit)
I worked a lot with a huge honking Java app that ran on Windows, Linux and Unix but with a web browser GUI. It never became good at doing GUIs, but a lot of server code is written in and will continue to be written in Java. My prediction is that Java will be the new COBOL long after Microsoft has moved from .NET to something else.
That said, between C# in the hands of MS and Java in the hands of Oracle, I wish there was a third option. There's always C/C++ but they're getting really long in the tooth and with all respect to Perl/PHP/Python/Ruby/Haskell and so on they're not a replacement. I don't know, buy out Qt, steal all the best ideas from C# and Java then turn it into the Q language. I'll get right on that after I win my $100 million in the lottery...
Luckily I've not run into many like that, but I think they divide into two groups. The naturally sloppy - which will write sloppy code too, and those that have just given up on real world human social life. I mean, the computer doesn't mind if you wear food-stained, ragged clothes and stink to high heaven. Your WoW-buddies will never see it. Cats and dogs don't seem to care and if they pee inside that'll really top off your smell. The last ones aren't sloppy, they "optimized" it away in the sense that why shower, I'll only get sweaty again. In fact the musk means any coworker will be glad to leave, meaning you get more time with your computer. And you don't get invited to meetings, everyone will just send documents for review. I wouldn't recommend it as a life style but some are really that odd and churn out great code.
The waterfall-agile axis in software development is doing to go away as soon as the left-right axis in politics does. On the extreme left (or right, I don't really want to this to have any political meaning) you have strict waterfall, a single flow down exclusive phases. Then as you move right you have more overlaps, several delivery phases and so on. Eventually you get to agile, where you re-prioritize, redesign, code and test in very short sprints. And on the right of that you have cowboy coding, where you've given up all pretense of cycles and just do it all at once. Are any of them "right"? Probably not. Some things will require more planning, some things less depending on the project. And some claim their solution is the solution to everything. And if that there's problems with it, that's because they're not doing it right or not doing it extreme enough. The most avid agile zealots remind me a little of libertarians, if the free market isn't working it's because it's not free enough. And if the agile project has problems, it's because it's not agile enough. There's no problem that can't be solved by greater ideological purity.
I meant it to be disturbing but DADT is different than "I know, but we've had the talk about it and as long as she does it her room" as I hardly expect it to be the topic around the breakfast table. It means you really don't know at all, and you'd rather never find out. I mean it more like a state of denial, no my kids don't masturbate. And my teens don't have sex. And my husband doesn't look at porn. LALALALALA not happening. It's the only country I know still seriously trying to push abstinence and a single sex partner for life. The rest of the world has pretty much said as long as they don't get pregnant or catch STDs, oh well...
Yawn, turn it into to a baseless personal attack if that makes you feel better, did I hit a nerve or something? Examples of studies showing:
1. Men think more about sex.
2. Men seek sex more avidly.
"Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it,"
Men (...) are more interested in casual sex.
The rest of it basically goes on to say that women need lots of effort from the man on feelings, setting, foreplay etc. while the man is much more ready to just do it.
Of course that's on average... I have at least on two occasions have people comment on her wanting more sex than him, but usually it's the other way around.
But I'm sure you'll reply with another snarky comment to show your superior sexual prowess. You go, champ.
It's not as much a requirement as it's a natural distribution, just like in a big war you'd have 1% special forces, 10% regular soldiers and the rest drafted civilians. Would it be great if everyone was seasoned marines? Yes. But you use what you have so some are effectively cannon fodder. You don't encourage them to be fools, they're just not ready to be anything more than what they are.
Take the war on drugs for example, your average pothead isn't hard to catch. There's just so many of them that it'll never end as long as the dealers and distribution continues, it's just a few random example to say "yes, we can take you too so don't feel safe" than even trying for 100%. Is that according to some big plan? Nah. It's just the way it is, it's Sturgeon's Law for people. 90% of everything is crap and 90% of everyone are idiots.
The only places that isn't true are the places where you've went through a lot of trouble to weed out the idiots. But when you're going for a broad public movement, you haven't got an choice. There will be plenty idiots, people you can't trust to do much of anything. Cheer in a rally? Throw some rocks. Yeah, we can have you do that and that's all we'd trust you to do, too.
The hackers are just in it for the lulz, but it certainly could be used as a blackmail mechanism by others. If for example you find one of the guys on the list is a big bible thumper and threaten to put this in the mailbox of everyone in his church group. Like if you move to start over and someone from your old town threatens to expose your old life to your new neighbors, it doesn't have to be a strict secret as long as there's someone who don't know and that you don't want to know.
Not me, but knowing the gender composition of slashdot that password sounds extremely gay.
That's the pure economic cost, but that's not the biggest "cost". Have you ever had a friend that's dating someone who's a complete mismatch? That suddenly has different interests when he's with her, even though it's really out of character? I've seen a lot of strange things come and go because of regular access to pussy. Usually they end when she figures out he doesn't want to be serious with her and never will be.
The ratio of men to women who'd really like just the one night stand is nowhere near 50-50. And even if they were, the men generally want it more often so a few sex hungry studs covers the needs of many sex hungry women. For the rest of us, except for the rare lucky strike we have to try building a relationship. That's a lot of time and effort that is a sunk cost - I'm not talking economically - and so when you're finally fucking you'd rather just keep it up, even if you've figured that as a long-term relationship it's a bust.
I think it's the second biggest cause of infidelity, after wanting more sex on the side. That yes you are getting sex, but you're not getting the rest you want to so people are looking to jump onto something else without first ending their current relationship. In short, to have an uninterrupted supply of pussy during the switch.
Paying is probably the most honest form of exchange, it's clear what you're giving and what you're getting and there's no false pretenses. As long as the woman is doing it of her own free will (no pimps or such forcing her to the sex trade) then it's her choice whether she wants to or not. Seriously, you can marry Playboy-Hefner but not pay a girl for a blowjob? It's all legal as long as you pay in diamond rings...
Do we live in the Dark Ages and masturbation is a sin?
A lot of elected representatives in the US would like us to...
It's Americas biggest version of "don't ask, don't tell". A classic is the Utah store owner who proved they were watching tons of PPV porn at the local hotel to get past the Miller test. Politicians simply play the game to win votes, I hardly think they're better than the rest of us. Most of the world - and even the US - have gotten over the whole "sin" to spill the seed, but you still don't talk about it. That's the way it's been from the very beginning, where's little Suzy? Oh, she's furiously frigging her clit. A lot of them go "LALALALALALA", don't want to see it, hear about it, think about it, go to your room and this is on DADT basis. Never figured out why it was such a big deal, if I didn't I'd have such a serious case of blue balls I'd sleep with almost anything - which would be grounds for concern.
It's one thing to have rules and restrictions, it's another to babysit them every moment of their life. You find age-appropriate toys and books and tv series and movies and games, you don't sit shoulder reading in case someone decided to cut to hardcore porn. Like I remember I was asked to help once, the parents had an IM app installed to chat to their grandparents and some friends and family and all that, paid enough attention to who but didn't watch their every move. Well, turns out spambots were sending messages with porn links, and the kids were the age they'd click almost anything. So they asked me for help, is there some setting so they only get messages from people on their friend list. If anyone needed to be added, they'd vet them first.
To me that's a perfectly sane attitude. The Internet is a mix of a whole lot of stuff, some obviously designed for 18+ people. And if you completely deny them web surfing, they will miss out on a *lot*. So you want to find some middle ground where you have some scope of control - like who they talk to on IM, but not everything they ever said. Just like they get to walk public streets but not into strip clubs, it doesn't mean you have to walk them door to door.
On the other hand, a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking. The citizen journalist is going to blog their suspicions and air unfounded allegations. A low signal-to-noise compared to a legit newpaper, but a lot of tip of the iceberg stuff which might appear earlier.
Maybe on some of their own stories, the ones they decide when to publish. But the general news is all about pumping it out on the web ASAP, they want you to hear it on their site first. Where before maybe you'd spend an few hours researching an article for tomorrow's paper, it's now about getting the headline out there in less than 2 minutes. Apart from on the surface being more neutral in the commentary the rest isn't much better than the blogs.
You already lost the game, when you accepted belief instead of facts. (...) So make wise choices, and when in doubt, never ever "believe". :)
The future is always conjecture, whether you're trying to choose a pickup line or decide what your major in college should be. True, generally compliments work better than insults but you'll never have the facts until afterwards. Life is not a scientific experiment because it's impossible to recreate, or as the old Greeks put it: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." When you have the facts it is already history, you can not go back and change the past. And even so, you never have the facts about how the alternatives would work out. Of all the possible conversation you might have had, you only know the outcome of the one you actually did.
Stupid PC buyers... buying according to their needs and monetary abilities. Why can't they learn that it is much better to be "committed".
(...)
While Apple rocks.
Funny that, since Apple is the IBM of cell phones while Android is the Microsoft. If you invest heavily in Android apps, you can switch between any number of clones. If you invest in iApps, you're committed to Apple hardware which comes with a heavy premium.
Don't get me wrong, I have an iPhone myself because it has features ahead of its time - but so did OS/2. But unless they keep moving they'll end up just like IBM did, overrun by cheap clones doing pretty much the same at a much lower cost.
I honestly hate this idea. You write have to write a program once. Most programs run thousands of times, some programs will run millions or billions of times. If you actually calculated the global collective waste due to slow heavily abstracted languages running across the globe that cost is significantly than it would've been to write it properly to begin with.
If you're developing OpenOffice or MySQL perhaps. I've many scripts and procedures at work that are run once a day or once a month on a centralized system for many users, the carbon footprint of that is probably smaller than the first user who drove to the office. And right now I'm doing a migration that's only going to be done once, things that are wasteful but make no sense optimizing.
If we assume you get less done with a more "to the metal" language, you also have to consider the cost of what we wouldn't get done. Oh, they're still sending paper reports because that new electronic system isn't done yet - how costly is that and what's the carbon footprint of that? It's an opportunity cost, and compared to how much other shit we blow electricity on getting more things done by computer is usually both cheaper and more environmentally friendly.