Like it or not, English is the standard international language.
Bullshit. Spanish has more native speakers than English. Mandarin has close to three times as many as English. Hindi and Arabic are each quite close behind English.
Is that some tribal instinct in you invoking emotion instead of logic? English is by far and away the standard international language. Pilots from Russia landing in Taiwan speak English to the radio towers. Travellers between Spain and France in Barcelona (3 languages there) speak English to communicate.
Just because there are more native speakers of Mandarin does not make it the standard international language. And btw, native speakers is a piss poor statistic for a standard international language.
I would rather the current government not only be dissolved but replaced by a fully transparent institution that actually protects everyone's rights equally.
Just curious, how exactly would you do that? A democracy? An oligarchy? Even if you had 24/7 monitoring, how exactly would you give such an entity the ability to protect yourself from bad guys and also defend the rights of Muslims and gays equally without bias?
This is not a troll question, this is actually a question that comes up a bunch when drinking with my buddies.
Well, the issue that so many Slashdotters are up in arms about is a very relevant issue to the tech industry in America. You say that there is no legitimate reason to tax, but what everyone is arguing is that the business IS done here, but accounting witchcraft makes it seem like it's not.
Now, there are plenty of legitimate arguments about certain topics such as the iPhone which is manufactured elsewhere, but the reality is is that there are a lot of American corporations who pay little to no taxes while making tons of money while benefiting from the American government. Many shades of gray? Yes. Feds wanting to tax something that they don't have a legitimate reason tax? Actually not so gray; there are legitimate problems with the tax system that the feds feel like they need to clamp down on.
Now, don't take what I say to be an approval for high taxes or in fact taxes at all; what I'm saying is that you are dismissing the argument of tax loopholes as invalid when in fact there are serious problems that could be solved and simplified for the greater benefit of both American corporations and the American society.
Ever read the Diamond Age by (Neal Stephenson I think)? It has a very realistic proposal of a future in which the collapse of governments happens due to the inability for governments to collect taxes based on hypothetical Bitcoin technologies. In fact, in this realistic future, people still do continue to exist, and (some of them) do indeed have individual freedoms. The governments of said future are actually akin to collective corporations. The problem is that it's like Atlas Shrugged; it's fiction. In fact, we have proof of the reality of a lack of government: the first 100,000 years of humanity.
Have you ever been to Southern Mexico? You'll see just how well the absence of a federal government, a functioning Mafia, and private cartels do for a society.
Actually essential liberty is not having your property and earnings stolen from you by any government.
Although I admit this is a subjective statement you just made, I still think it's complete bullshit. Not having your earnings taxed has never been an "essential liberty", and I am aware of no major society on this planet that doesn't tax.
... USA. It's trying to steal money that was earned from foreign operations from foreign customers.
Although I presume your'e trolling, you should realize from the article and all of the comments that all of us are actually considering the money that is actually made in America but not taxed (hidden by the double Irish scheme for example).
It's reliable, you never get in the position VB puts you where you can have a working program which you copy over to another identical machine, and suddenly it stops working. Or you where you shut down the computer and come back later, only to suddenly have it suddenly not working.
That never happens with C? Are you kidding me?
C programs are easy to deploy, as opposed to for instance java.
WHAAAAT?
Compiler error messages tend to be pretty concise, readable and comprehensible
You know, this perked my interest and I went researching why GOTO is bad. As it turns out, it was a long process. Dijkstra himself made "a case against the goto statement" which was later presented as "goto considered harmful." Donald E. Knuth also made a statement which disagrees with GOTO always being evil.
Dijkstra:
Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth.
Knuth:
I believe that by presenting such a view I am not in fact disagreeing sharply with Dijkstra's ideas, since he recently wrote the following: "Please don't fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!"
"something" might be a member. It might be a property. It might be a method with no arguments (which gets called). It might be a function defined outside the class with a special property. It might be any of the above on a member of A, specially defined (subtyping). I will not be surprised to hear I missed something.
How is that simple?
You just described a simplified syntax for doing 5 things. That there is only 1 syntax as opposed to 5 syntaxes makes it simple.
As a liberal who wants socialist-ish healthcare, I agree with you.
I presume we disagree on many other things, but certainly the free emergency room visits are a reality and a fact of unnatural healthcare costs in the US.
Complaining about the disproportionate nature of the Senate is just downright silly and ignoring its purpose in the first place.
Oh fuck off. That's like saying "complaining about the electoral college of representatives is downright silly and ignoring its purpose in the first place". There used to be something called State's Rights. It was a big deal. Then there was something called the Civil War. State's Rights hasn't been such a big deal since. And it shouldn't be; 80% of the people in this country couldn't give a fuck about the state in which they were born/live, unlike 200 years ago, when they really did represent more quasi-tribal regions.
The electoral college and "tribal"-based Senate are antiquated and now bad ideas. Unlike the electoral college, which is a uniquely fucked-up American thing, the non-democratic disproportionate representations that exist similar to the Senate does exist in other countries, but it's usually a sign that shit ain't working well (see Lebanon's power sharing president/prime minister/speaker of national assembly based on religion, another type of tribe).
Anyways, complaining about the disproportionate nature of the Senate is correct, and there SHOULD be changes made to it.
Do you happen to know if said software will return table column divider lines to table widgets? One of my biggest problems with Windows 8 is that anywhere there is a table widget, I can't tell where the divider is between two different columns without moving the mouse around to find where the cursor changes, in order to change the column size.
Because.08 is a fucking bullshit number. A breathalyzer is an arbitrary device that does NOT calculate how impaired you are. The amount one can drink before imparidness differs greatly from person to person..08 is lower than what the medical field established in the 70s. It is low because governments take in LOTS of money from the DUI industry. Therefore,.08 is VERY political.
The bullshit here is that the measurement for ".08" is bullshit. It's calibrated for a 100lb woman and is only meant to "get" as many people as possible. The problem is that you're saying people who have.08 are at a certain impairment, but it's a scam. A complete bullshit scam, that breathalyzers actually can measure impairment impartially and justly.
I'm actually OK with the system erring on the side of public safety when picking up drunks as long as the actual convictions require proof that the law was indisputably violated.
This is the same as saying "I'm OK with the death penalty as long as..." In my case, I'm telling you, I had one beer. I am an (almost) anonymous internet poster, and I have no reason to lie. I live in the USA where there are checks and balances. The behemoth system was there to get money, and it got some from me. The large dispute against "We should legislate against those who would harm us" sounds like it's an easy and obvious case, but I'm telling that it fails and it failed 1000% percent in my case. My life would be ruined if you had your way, and God can only help us if you evil scum have your way to lead the USA to the laws of Saudi Arabia.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Spanish has more native speakers than English. Mandarin has close to three times as many as English. Hindi and Arabic are each quite close behind English.
Is that some tribal instinct in you invoking emotion instead of logic? English is by far and away the standard international language. Pilots from Russia landing in Taiwan speak English to the radio towers. Travellers between Spain and France in Barcelona (3 languages there) speak English to communicate.
Just because there are more native speakers of Mandarin does not make it the standard international language. And btw, native speakers is a piss poor statistic for a standard international language.
There are something like 80,000 H1B visa applications per year. That's microscopic compared to other forms of immigration (legal and illegal).
I'd rather be H1B-ified from intelligent and capable and needed immigrants than the rest.
I would rather the current government not only be dissolved but replaced by a fully transparent institution that actually protects everyone's rights equally.
Just curious, how exactly would you do that? A democracy? An oligarchy? Even if you had 24/7 monitoring, how exactly would you give such an entity the ability to protect yourself from bad guys and also defend the rights of Muslims and gays equally without bias?
This is not a troll question, this is actually a question that comes up a bunch when drinking with my buddies.
Oh why do you post anonymously? Great argument.
Well, the issue that so many Slashdotters are up in arms about is a very relevant issue to the tech industry in America. You say that there is no legitimate reason to tax, but what everyone is arguing is that the business IS done here, but accounting witchcraft makes it seem like it's not.
Now, there are plenty of legitimate arguments about certain topics such as the iPhone which is manufactured elsewhere, but the reality is is that there are a lot of American corporations who pay little to no taxes while making tons of money while benefiting from the American government. Many shades of gray? Yes. Feds wanting to tax something that they don't have a legitimate reason tax? Actually not so gray; there are legitimate problems with the tax system that the feds feel like they need to clamp down on.
Now, don't take what I say to be an approval for high taxes or in fact taxes at all; what I'm saying is that you are dismissing the argument of tax loopholes as invalid when in fact there are serious problems that could be solved and simplified for the greater benefit of both American corporations and the American society.
Ever read the Diamond Age by (Neal Stephenson I think)? It has a very realistic proposal of a future in which the collapse of governments happens due to the inability for governments to collect taxes based on hypothetical Bitcoin technologies. In fact, in this realistic future, people still do continue to exist, and (some of them) do indeed have individual freedoms. The governments of said future are actually akin to collective corporations. The problem is that it's like Atlas Shrugged; it's fiction. In fact, we have proof of the reality of a lack of government: the first 100,000 years of humanity.
Have you ever been to Southern Mexico? You'll see just how well the absence of a federal government, a functioning Mafia, and private cartels do for a society.
God bless you, sir.
Actually essential liberty is not having your property and earnings stolen from you by any government.
Although I admit this is a subjective statement you just made, I still think it's complete bullshit. Not having your earnings taxed has never been an "essential liberty", and I am aware of no major society on this planet that doesn't tax.
... USA. It's trying to steal money that was earned from foreign operations from foreign customers.
Although I presume your'e trolling, you should realize from the article and all of the comments that all of us are actually considering the money that is actually made in America but not taxed (hidden by the double Irish scheme for example).
That's not a weird American government view. All governments everywhere have taxes, it's not a unique thing to the American federal government.
Seems like a perfectly cromulent report to me.
Memory management and pointers are some of the core fundamental concepts of some languages such as C. They are not fundamental to "programming".
Honestly, both work fine in English. In fact, the C style is more succinct.
"integer x is 1"
"x, an integer, is 1"
The first works fine in English. "Player Three is next". You're right about the for loop, though.
Holy shit AC.
It's reliable, you never get in the position VB puts you where you can have a working program which you copy over to another identical machine, and suddenly it stops working. Or you where you shut down the computer and come back later, only to suddenly have it suddenly not working.
That never happens with C? Are you kidding me?
C programs are easy to deploy, as opposed to for instance java.
WHAAAAT?
Compiler error messages tend to be pretty concise, readable and comprehensible
OK I've officially been trolled.
You know, this perked my interest and I went researching why GOTO is bad. As it turns out, it was a long process. Dijkstra himself made "a case against the goto statement" which was later presented as "goto considered harmful." Donald E. Knuth also made a statement which disagrees with GOTO always being evil.
Dijkstra:
Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth.
Knuth:
I believe that by presenting such a view I am not in fact disagreeing sharply with Dijkstra's ideas, since he recently wrote the following: "Please don't fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!"
Yes. Yes it is.
A a;
a.something;
"something" might be a member. It might be a property. It might be a method with no arguments (which gets called). It might be a function defined outside the class with a special property. It might be any of the above on a member of A, specially defined (subtyping). I will not be surprised to hear I missed something.
How is that simple?
You just described a simplified syntax for doing 5 things. That there is only 1 syntax as opposed to 5 syntaxes makes it simple.
As a liberal who wants socialist-ish healthcare, I agree with you.
I presume we disagree on many other things, but certainly the free emergency room visits are a reality and a fact of unnatural healthcare costs in the US.
Complaining about the disproportionate nature of the Senate is just downright silly and ignoring its purpose in the first place.
Oh fuck off. That's like saying "complaining about the electoral college of representatives is downright silly and ignoring its purpose in the first place". There used to be something called State's Rights. It was a big deal. Then there was something called the Civil War. State's Rights hasn't been such a big deal since. And it shouldn't be; 80% of the people in this country couldn't give a fuck about the state in which they were born/live, unlike 200 years ago, when they really did represent more quasi-tribal regions.
The electoral college and "tribal"-based Senate are antiquated and now bad ideas. Unlike the electoral college, which is a uniquely fucked-up American thing, the non-democratic disproportionate representations that exist similar to the Senate does exist in other countries, but it's usually a sign that shit ain't working well (see Lebanon's power sharing president/prime minister/speaker of national assembly based on religion, another type of tribe).
Anyways, complaining about the disproportionate nature of the Senate is correct, and there SHOULD be changes made to it.
Do you happen to know if said software will return table column divider lines to table widgets? One of my biggest problems with Windows 8 is that anywhere there is a table widget, I can't tell where the divider is between two different columns without moving the mouse around to find where the cursor changes, in order to change the column size.
Is it wrong that I guessed that this guy was a conservative, and I was right?
Because .08 is a fucking bullshit number. A breathalyzer is an arbitrary device that does NOT calculate how impaired you are. The amount one can drink before imparidness differs greatly from person to person. .08 is lower than what the medical field established in the 70s. It is low because governments take in LOTS of money from the DUI industry. Therefore, .08 is VERY political.
The bullshit here is that the measurement for ".08" is bullshit. It's calibrated for a 100lb woman and is only meant to "get" as many people as possible. The problem is that you're saying people who have .08 are at a certain impairment, but it's a scam. A complete bullshit scam, that breathalyzers actually can measure impairment impartially and justly.
I'm actually OK with the system erring on the side of public safety when picking up drunks as long as the actual convictions require proof that the law was indisputably violated.
This is the same as saying "I'm OK with the death penalty as long as..." In my case, I'm telling you, I had one beer. I am an (almost) anonymous internet poster, and I have no reason to lie. I live in the USA where there are checks and balances. The behemoth system was there to get money, and it got some from me. The large dispute against "We should legislate against those who would harm us" sounds like it's an easy and obvious case, but I'm telling that it fails and it failed 1000% percent in my case. My life would be ruined if you had your way, and God can only help us if you evil scum have your way to lead the USA to the laws of Saudi Arabia.
Amen. I wish people would think through these things.