I admit it; I lied. I don't use Java and don't like it. Its lack of destructors (as C++ has) is a big shortcoming, since destructors aren't just about freeing resources. Witness Java code with lots of finally clauses, where in C++ you can package that cleanup with creation, eliminating the possibility creating without deleting. Also in Java you often want to call close() on a file/stream to ensure it's closed now, not whenever the collector feels like it.
Have I even stated my position on the matter? And it's funny that my previous post got modded down. Was it too neutral sounding?
The chance of a complication from one of these vaccines (real complications, not some bullshit that Joe's sister's cousin's friend's coworker had) is the same as getting hit by lightning on the way home from the doctor. And most of those are due to allergies.
What if you know yourself to already be allergic to things? The probability of complication depends on how much you know about your situation, so applying general probabilities to yourself is silly.
Note how my comments have been viewed as arguing against vaccines. All I'm doing is discussing aspects of them. How can one even make a decision without being able to discuss individual aspects?
The same people who say that women must have free access to abortion, because they have the right to say what they do with their bodies, are now saying that NYS health care workers don't have the right to say what they do with their bodies with regards to a vaccine?
Yes, because these people chose to be health workers; there is no way to become on without making a deliberate decision to do so. If you don't like mandatory vaccination, then don't be a health worker.
Though I don't really understand the point. If a health worker wants to expose himself without vaccination, let him. With or without vaccination, a sick health care worker should not be working; having him at work while sick because "hey, I'm vaccinated" would be idiotic.
Of course there's more than just the science behind the active ingredient of a vaccine. There's the other things intentionally added, those unintentionally added, quality control, and the actual result of injecting people with it, which can never be determined reliably by theory alone. I think most of the objections are to the latter, rather than how the active ingredient of a vaccine works.
If I'm trying to get somewhere, not sure of where it is, and don't have anyone to ask, I'm better off walking in the same direction for a while, rather than constantly changing directions. A coherent approach is more likely to yield something useful, even if just "this approach doesn't work", than one that is incoherent. So I can see value in using previous decisions as constraints on future ones, lacking any strong reason to not do so.
This is exactly why I never buy anything that is not previously labeled with a price. I will negotiate but not if I have to contemplate a starting value myself.
So just imagine seeing a price of $1.00 on the item. Would you buy it at that price? If so, double it. If not, halve it. Keep repeating until your answer changes. Now you have prices on both sides. Offer something between. If your offer is accepted, buy the item. If rejected, don't (yes, I don't like haggling; take it leave it is my style).
But I'm generally too lazy to even go through this thought experiment when something is unpriced. It's literally not worth it. It's not that hard to price everything at a yard sale; either have a default price for unmarked things, or divide things into groups with set prices, along with a group where higher-priced things are marked.
You cannot have a free market once economic power starts to accumulate, as it will in the absence of regulation; nor you have a free market with regulation.
And regulation makes it worse, by allowing those who pay off politicians to have even more force in the market, beyond simply deciding what they do with their own property. The problem is concentration of power, and the free market is the best way to keep it dilute.
I think the Mac is in need of advertising inside the OS. I mean, how else is Apple going to make up for its low price, especially the low-priced hardware? Mac users need to pay for this luxury in some way.
When the original linux powered Asus EEE PC was released, it was so popular, it pushed Microsoft into third place behind Apple and Xandros for OS shipments that month. I imagine that would give monkey-boy a bit of a fright.
And leave Seattle chairs shaking under their tables. Won't someone think of the chairs?
I have little opinion on TPB (never even used BitTorrent), but I don't think your claim of hypocrisy is valid. Those who are for TPB and for the GPL probably believe that imaginary property shouldn't have any legal protection. The GPL is seen as a way to ensure free access to software, and TPB the same.
[...] The Pirate Bay has to remove a list of torrents linking to copyrighted works. The defendants are given three months to comply, if not, they will face penalties of 5,000 euros ($7,500) per person, per day."
Translation: start mirroring all the torrents before they're removed. Hmmm, anyone got a.torrent of these?
The iTunes application relies on the QuickTime framework to play media and the WebKit framework to display iTunes Store and iTunes LP. Trying to run iTunes without QuickTime and WebKit is like trying to run Windows Media Player without Windows Media or trying to run VLC without libavcodec.
I'm sorry, I don't understand; can you provide a car analogy?
Seriously. I actually like iTunes, but damn is it a resource hog. Sometimes it will chew up 90%+ of CPU for no apparent reason. It will often be unresponsive to clicks for a couple seconds. I am not sure what is so complicated about a music player that causes this.
Posted anonymous for obvious reasons. I used to be in the inner circle of Steve's RDF team, and this is part of how it works. Little blips of CPU usage, distributed on all the machines running iTunes, are what keep the field active. They use particular patterns of bus accesses to emit the field. What, did you believe the story about all that bloat being an application framework so they didn't have to write a special version of iTunes for Windows? I used to think that too...
While you LEND a book, you can't read it. The other party can read it (without paying for it). Then you get it back and you can read it but the other party can't.
Maybe we can extend this improvement to all digital goods, so that for example when I have a Slashdot story on my screen, nobody else can see it until I close the window. Imagine all the things we'll be able to not do when we finally stamp out the evils of copying bits for free!
Whenever I get in a car I make use of my own brain-cell-controlled-robot. Just by thinking, I initiate a process that results in the car turning to the left (and right). It can even stay within the lines on the road. And it's all controlled by brain cells. Where's my fame?
Slashdot Mirror
And this is a good thing? Pain isn't an unwanted side-effect that evolution hasn't eliminated; it's a very valuable survival trait.
Seconded; pepper sauce goes great with bonsai kittens, though I don't think these come in six-packs unfortunately.
I admit it; I lied. I don't use Java and don't like it. Its lack of destructors (as C++ has) is a big shortcoming, since destructors aren't just about freeing resources. Witness Java code with lots of finally clauses, where in C++ you can package that cleanup with creation, eliminating the possibility creating without deleting. Also in Java you often want to call close() on a file/stream to ensure it's closed now, not whenever the collector feels like it.
Slashdot is a good start. Pretty soon, offspring will come to mean programs you've written, which have a very small carbon footprint.
I use Java, so my software doesn't have memory leaks.
What if you know yourself to already be allergic to things? The probability of complication depends on how much you know about your situation, so applying general probabilities to yourself is silly.
Note how my comments have been viewed as arguing against vaccines. All I'm doing is discussing aspects of them. How can one even make a decision without being able to discuss individual aspects?
Yes, because these people chose to be health workers; there is no way to become on without making a deliberate decision to do so. If you don't like mandatory vaccination, then don't be a health worker.
Though I don't really understand the point. If a health worker wants to expose himself without vaccination, let him. With or without vaccination, a sick health care worker should not be working; having him at work while sick because "hey, I'm vaccinated" would be idiotic.
Of course there's more than just the science behind the active ingredient of a vaccine. There's the other things intentionally added, those unintentionally added, quality control, and the actual result of injecting people with it, which can never be determined reliably by theory alone. I think most of the objections are to the latter, rather than how the active ingredient of a vaccine works.
So anyone who doesn't believe vaccines are the second coming is crazy and shouldn't be able to voice his views?
If I'm trying to get somewhere, not sure of where it is, and don't have anyone to ask, I'm better off walking in the same direction for a while, rather than constantly changing directions. A coherent approach is more likely to yield something useful, even if just "this approach doesn't work", than one that is incoherent. So I can see value in using previous decisions as constraints on future ones, lacking any strong reason to not do so.
So just imagine seeing a price of $1.00 on the item. Would you buy it at that price? If so, double it. If not, halve it. Keep repeating until your answer changes. Now you have prices on both sides. Offer something between. If your offer is accepted, buy the item. If rejected, don't (yes, I don't like haggling; take it leave it is my style).
But I'm generally too lazy to even go through this thought experiment when something is unpriced. It's literally not worth it. It's not that hard to price everything at a yard sale; either have a default price for unmarked things, or divide things into groups with set prices, along with a group where higher-priced things are marked.
And regulation makes it worse, by allowing those who pay off politicians to have even more force in the market, beyond simply deciding what they do with their own property. The problem is concentration of power, and the free market is the best way to keep it dilute.
Good choice. Might I interest you in some SparkFun servers? I know the name looks exactly the same, but it's different if you look closely.
I think the Mac is in need of advertising inside the OS. I mean, how else is Apple going to make up for its low price, especially the low-priced hardware? Mac users need to pay for this luxury in some way.
And leave Seattle chairs shaking under their tables. Won't someone think of the chairs?
So in a way, each new release of Microsoft products is feedback to the customer: "Here's how you're going to have to do things now. Enjoy."
I have little opinion on TPB (never even used BitTorrent), but I don't think your claim of hypocrisy is valid. Those who are for TPB and for the GPL probably believe that imaginary property shouldn't have any legal protection. The GPL is seen as a way to ensure free access to software, and TPB the same.
Hmmm, would that .torrent include itself?
Confession: I've never actually used BitTorrent. Sad, I know. So my joke about it might be factually incorrect.
Translation: start mirroring all the torrents before they're removed. Hmmm, anyone got a .torrent of these?
I'm sorry, I don't understand; can you provide a car analogy?
Posted anonymous for obvious reasons. I used to be in the inner circle of Steve's RDF team, and this is part of how it works. Little blips of CPU usage, distributed on all the machines running iTunes, are what keep the field active. They use particular patterns of bus accesses to emit the field. What, did you believe the story about all that bloat being an application framework so they didn't have to write a special version of iTunes for Windows? I used to think that too...
Maybe we can extend this improvement to all digital goods, so that for example when I have a Slashdot story on my screen, nobody else can see it until I close the window. Imagine all the things we'll be able to not do when we finally stamp out the evils of copying bits for free!
Agreed; there was The Matrix, and two other movies that sucked.
Whenever I get in a car I make use of my own brain-cell-controlled-robot. Just by thinking, I initiate a process that results in the car turning to the left (and right). It can even stay within the lines on the road. And it's all controlled by brain cells. Where's my fame?