>... and if you think that's shocking, just wait until you hear what percentage of computer owners have yet to write their first computer program. Or what percentage of car owners haven't entered a single road rally.
That's not quite the same thing. A better car analogy would be: 46% of Americans own a 4-wheel drive, and 45 out of those have never been off of tarmac.
Right-wingers seem to want corps to be persons for the purpose of speech/bribery.
And left-wingers want them to be single bodies for the purpose of suing them for the latest cause du jour (not saying the Nigerian situation is merely a trendy cause).
A consistent position would combine both of those positions.
Also, fairness would dictate the possibility of a corporate death penalty. Mass murder would certainly seem to qualify.
Re:advantages of multiple inheritance
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
>This is sort of like saying democracy in the United States is better because the Constitutional Convention decided an Electoral College would help keep the masses in check.
Well, a lot of people actually think it does contribute to the stability of the US political system. Whether you think stability is good is a different matter.
Now for Java: It's great that there are a lot of cool and funky languages, which are good for different purposes. But for the average ho-hum business application, a severely restricted language is best. Regardless of if you or I are rockstar programmers, most programmers are not. In fact 50% are below average.
For the vast legions of corporate business logic programmers, simple programming leads to greater maintainability. Below average programmers do not have the capability to understand "weird" blocks of code.
Secondly, I don't understand why every language under the sun has to slowly have Lisp/Scheme incorporated into it. We already have those, so why reinvent the wheel?
>The impression I got from trying out their distro is that they are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes who need to be boycotted
Um, that's a bit harsh. Mint is the choice of an increasing number of users. Clement was mostly just doing it by himself. At the point where it becomes a fulltime job, why is it so bad for him earn some money?
Google just made a deal to give Mozilla a billion dollars over the next three years. And you begrudge Mint some (by comparison) pocket change?
I, for one, welcome our new Debian-derivative overlords.
If you believe Obama needs to honor a relationship with a given ally, you should argue that Obama should be tougher regardless of the consequences.
So, for example, some conservatives argued that Obama threw the Brits under the bus with respect to the Falkand Islands. He (according to them) should have stuck with the UK regardless of what Argentina thinks.
Similarly, in the Middle East, a respectable argument would be "Obama should stick with Israel, and be tougher with Iran, regardless of higher oil prices. We all need to make a sacrifice sometimes, and this is it now."
That's not the American way of war these days, though. These days, people want to both go to war, and not have to have any consequences whatsoever.
Well I'm no more of an economist than a lawyer (see sig), but, basically: prices are set at the margin.
Just because supply goes down 5% doesn't mean prices should only go up 5%. We saw that in the Thailand/hard drive situation.
When 5% of supply is knocked out, one out of twenty users (or uses) of oil have to do without. Now, if gas were 5% more expensive, would you stop driving (and take the bus/commute/telecommute/get a closer job/etc.)? I'll guess not. Same for others.
What would it take for you to decrease your consumption? A 10% increase in price? 25% 50%. Answer: whatever it takes the market to even out supply and demand.
Secondary answer: it's not just about current oil supply decreases. China is investing in developing Iranian oilfields, and their investments are being guarded by Chinese soldiers. If the US starts a war, things are going to be highly messy, more so than Iraq. I think traders are factoring that in.
Well, it's funny how both D's and R's have this idea that the President can control everything. It's the cult of the Presidency.
And then there's the ridiculous phrase, used by the media, "X happened on President Y's watch", as if he can wave a magic wand to make things happen or not happen.
Far as I'm concerned, talking about job numbers isn't really useful in relation to Obama. If you like his policies, vote for him. If you want less government, vote against him, regardless of what the job numbers happen to be in November.
In what universe do they live in where they don't realize pressuring an oil-producing country is going to raise oil prices (and hence gas prices, it doesn't fall from the sky)?
Well, wait, what exactly is meant by "investors bailing out"? Selling their stock?
Does that matter to the Eastman Kodak Company?
Consider: an initial investor gave $1000 (or whatever) to buy shares in Kodak. Today, he sells his shares. He won't get $1000 back from Kodak. So how does it matter to Kodak.
Yeah, stock price may go down, but, again, so what? It doesn't prevent Kodak from restructuring.
About about dimming (to the point of turning off) daylight running lights, the absurd waste of forcing keeping car headlights turned on during the day after some bureaucrat read a story that it helps reduce traffic accidents in Nordic countries (which have a lot of dark days).
Can anybody who's a real lawyer say anything about perpetuities?
I thought I read about a case where a huge sum of money was to keep accruing interest forever.
The state disallowed it because they didn't want to allow the creation of a monster.
Aside from legal aspects, if Apple wanted, couldn't it create a fund which would eventually dwarf all other financial entities on Earth? And even own everything? I mean, if they don't give out a dividend, that's where it's going eventually anyway.
I'm trying to figure out why Slashdot has it in for this guy.
Looking over some of the articles (there's 14-year old Vashiva sitting in front of a computer), he did indeed invent a system called EMAIL.
Whether he was the very first to integrate all the functions of what we today expect an email program to do, as opposed to piping text from cat to mail, I don't know.
Maybe he was to email like Steve Jobs was to smartphones: making them usable?
Anyway, there are plenty of other self-promoters in Tech: Nicholas Negroponte, Metcalfe, and so on. Even Sir Tim probably wouldn't be safe as someone could come up with some antecedent which resembled his web system.
So why the special opprobrium for the "creator of EMAIL"?
Assuming autism is mostly genetic (which I don't claim), and assuming they can come up with a prenatal test for it (not this one), would it be moral to abort if a test showed positive for autism?
Thanks for the correction. It was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to get a Funny mod. Note that I also misspelt "mispel".
Like you, I'm amused by the phenomenon of false corrections.
Another interesting one is "between you and I," which drives anyone who knows what objective case is crazy. That one is due to people internalizing the wrong lesson from schoolmarms correcting kids who say "Me and Jimbob went to the store".
Slashdot Mirror
What he's trying to elicit is some kind of identifiable definition of smartphone, other than "the cool kids' phone"?
Most so-called dumb or feature phones allow you to install Java programs.
There's plenty of stuff you can do with the MIDP API:
http://www.developer.nokia.com/Develop/Series_40/
>Smart phones are more like computers that way; they're meant to have programs installed after you get it.
http://www.getjar.com/
People were installing Java apps before Apple even awoke to the concept.
So the question remains, what's a smartphone (other than the acid-wash jeans/Swatch of the 2000s)?
I think they are saying "majority of people who matter". Or maybe they're excluding flyover country.
Something like the math that says "No one ever goes there anymore--it's too crowded."
>... and if you think that's shocking, just wait until you hear what percentage of computer owners have yet to write their first computer program. Or what percentage of car owners haven't entered a single road rally.
That's not quite the same thing. A better car analogy would be: 46% of Americans own a 4-wheel drive, and 45 out of those have never been off of tarmac.
What % of American adults are smart?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Right-wingers seem to want corps to be persons for the purpose of speech/bribery.
And left-wingers want them to be single bodies for the purpose of suing them for the latest cause du jour (not saying the Nigerian situation is merely a trendy cause).
A consistent position would combine both of those positions.
Also, fairness would dictate the possibility of a corporate death penalty. Mass murder would certainly seem to qualify.
>This is sort of like saying democracy in the United States is better because the Constitutional Convention decided an Electoral College would help keep the masses in check.
Well, a lot of people actually think it does contribute to the stability of the US political system. Whether you think stability is good is a different matter.
Now for Java: It's great that there are a lot of cool and funky languages, which are good for different purposes. But for the average ho-hum business application, a severely restricted language is best. Regardless of if you or I are rockstar programmers, most programmers are not. In fact 50% are below average.
For the vast legions of corporate business logic programmers, simple programming leads to greater maintainability. Below average programmers do not have the capability to understand "weird" blocks of code.
Secondly, I don't understand why every language under the sun has to slowly have Lisp/Scheme incorporated into it. We already have those, so why reinvent the wheel?
>The impression I got from trying out their distro is that they are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes who need to be boycotted
Um, that's a bit harsh. Mint is the choice of an increasing number of users. Clement was mostly just doing it by himself. At the point where it becomes a fulltime job, why is it so bad for him earn some money?
Google just made a deal to give Mozilla a billion dollars over the next three years. And you begrudge Mint some (by comparison) pocket change?
I, for one, welcome our new Debian-derivative overlords.
OK, I'll bite.
Now, could you tell me if or to what extent a storage facility would be liable if customer were to store $3000 in cash in their alloted space?
Or using a domestic washer for commercial use (if a fire were to happen)?
>They should have had insurance to cover this.
I'd love to see the Youtube of you trying to explain Bitcoin to your local State Farm agent.
If you believe Obama needs to honor a relationship with a given ally, you should argue that Obama should be tougher regardless of the consequences.
So, for example, some conservatives argued that Obama threw the Brits under the bus with respect to the Falkand Islands. He (according to them) should have stuck with the UK regardless of what Argentina thinks.
Similarly, in the Middle East, a respectable argument would be "Obama should stick with Israel, and be tougher with Iran, regardless of higher oil prices. We all need to make a sacrifice sometimes, and this is it now."
That's not the American way of war these days, though. These days, people want to both go to war, and not have to have any consequences whatsoever.
1 "You're under arrest"
2 "For what?"
3 "For resisting arrest"
4 "Arrest on what charge?"
5 "Resisting arrest." GOTO 1
?@#! Calls for an xkcd.
Well I'm no more of an economist than a lawyer (see sig), but, basically: prices are set at the margin.
Just because supply goes down 5% doesn't mean prices should only go up 5%. We saw that in the Thailand/hard drive situation.
When 5% of supply is knocked out, one out of twenty users (or uses) of oil have to do without. Now, if gas were 5% more expensive, would you stop driving (and take the bus/commute/telecommute/get a closer job/etc.)? I'll guess not. Same for others.
What would it take for you to decrease your consumption? A 10% increase in price? 25% 50%.
Answer: whatever it takes the market to even out supply and demand.
Secondary answer: it's not just about current oil supply decreases. China is investing in developing Iranian oilfields, and their investments are being guarded by Chinese soldiers. If the US starts a war, things are going to be highly messy, more so than Iraq. I think traders are factoring that in.
Well, it's funny how both D's and R's have this idea that the President can control everything. It's the cult of the Presidency.
And then there's the ridiculous phrase, used by the media, "X happened on President Y's watch", as if he can wave a magic wand to make things happen or not happen.
Far as I'm concerned, talking about job numbers isn't really useful in relation to Obama. If you like his policies, vote for him. If you want less government, vote against him, regardless of what the job numbers happen to be in November.
What's really mind-blowing is the GOP candidates (except Paul) attacking Obama for both
1) not being tough enough with Iran
2) and for high gas prices (!)
In what universe do they live in where they don't realize pressuring an oil-producing country is going to raise oil prices (and hence gas prices, it doesn't fall from the sky)?
Stupid question, but couldn't they just make the mirrors bigger to let you see more of the world?
Well, wait, what exactly is meant by "investors bailing out"? Selling their stock?
Does that matter to the Eastman Kodak Company?
Consider: an initial investor gave $1000 (or whatever) to buy shares in Kodak. Today, he sells his shares. He won't get $1000 back from Kodak. So how does it matter to Kodak.
Yeah, stock price may go down, but, again, so what? It doesn't prevent Kodak from restructuring.
About about dimming (to the point of turning off) daylight running lights, the absurd waste of forcing keeping car headlights turned on during the day after some bureaucrat read a story that it helps reduce traffic accidents in Nordic countries (which have a lot of dark days).
Can anybody who's a real lawyer say anything about perpetuities?
I thought I read about a case where a huge sum of money was to keep accruing interest forever.
The state disallowed it because they didn't want to allow the creation of a monster.
Aside from legal aspects, if Apple wanted, couldn't it create a fund which would eventually dwarf all other financial entities on Earth? And even own everything? I mean, if they don't give out a dividend, that's where it's going eventually anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightrope_walking
Seems like they have experience.
I'm trying to figure out why Slashdot has it in for this guy.
Looking over some of the articles (there's 14-year old Vashiva sitting in front of a computer), he did indeed invent a system called EMAIL.
Whether he was the very first to integrate all the functions of what we today expect an email program to do, as opposed to piping text from cat to mail, I don't know.
Maybe he was to email like Steve Jobs was to smartphones: making them usable?
Anyway, there are plenty of other self-promoters in Tech: Nicholas Negroponte, Metcalfe, and so on. Even Sir Tim probably wouldn't be safe as someone could come up with some antecedent which resembled his web system.
So why the special opprobrium for the "creator of EMAIL"?
Well, believe it or not, the New York Times is considered the "Paper of Record".
Wapo and Time are just below the category of NYTimes, so that's probably why someone decided to call them august.
Assuming autism is mostly genetic (which I don't claim), and assuming they can come up with a prenatal test for it (not this one), would it be moral to abort if a test showed positive for autism?
Thanks for the correction. It was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to get a Funny mod. Note that I also misspelt "mispel".
Like you, I'm amused by the phenomenon of false corrections.
Another interesting one is "between you and I," which drives anyone who knows what objective case is crazy. That one is due to people internalizing the wrong lesson from schoolmarms correcting kids who say "Me and Jimbob went to the store".
>Maybe that's part of the reason Pontiac is out of business, for all intent and purposes now.
You mispelled "intensive purposes".