Bah, that's only true if you believe Verisign, et al, don't actually perform proper diligence to validate that the owner of the certificate is who they say they are. Thing is, that's not true... while they may not be perfect, at minimum, you are required to provide a variety of personal details, and to verify your identity, before a certificate will be issued. Compared to self-signed certs, I'd call that a "practical difference", wouldn't you?
Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.
And the science shows that, despite that, abstinence-only education doesn't work. Period. There's literally nothing else to debate, the results are in, and it simply *does not work*.
Would you rather have your language force its discipline on you or your manager force his particular brand of discipline on you?
False dichotomy. *I* would rather force discipline on myself, because I believe clean, well-written code should be the ultimate goal of a true professional in the software industry. Part of that process is following established guidelines in the business I'm working in, and if there are no such guidelines, either to assist in developing them, or to do what I can to follow industry and experiential best practice to ensure my work is the best quality I can achieve.
Now, there are those that need guidance because they are unable, or more likely, unwilling to author high quality code. In those cases, I would rather a set of guidelines force them to do the write thing because, hopefully, they will internalize those guidelines, which means their code will be of higher quality regardless of the language or toolset being used. In short, I feel that, for the long-term development of a programmer, a process of learning is better than a toolset that simply imposes a straightjacket.
I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar and you may well be right. However, I would claim that current laws regarding slander, libel, hate-speech, and whatever law covers yelling "fire" in a theater are all laws that abrdige the freedom of speech (and the press, for that matter).
And anyone who's studied these issues (honestly, a first year poli sci class covers this stuff) understands this basic maxim: your rights end where mine begin. Laws which outlaw certain forms of speech (such as libel and slander) exist because, in exercising one's right to free speech, one infringes on another individuals rights. You'll find cases like this all over the place, and it's one of the difficult sticking points when creating new law.
Either the amendment restricts what type of speech it is meant to cover to the narrow venue of political expression, or it is just flatly ignored in order to implement the speech restriction laws I've enumerated above.
Wrong. The amendment protects all forms of speech, so long as, in exercising those rights, you don't infringe on the rights of others. Period. It's really very simple.
But you keep insisting that my opinion doesn't count for anything.
Your opinions about his specific policies are tangential to the issue. The question is this: is Obama lying, pandering, vague, or otherwise deceitful in the course of his campaign. Your contention is that "His real strategy seems to be to convince you he's what you want him to be without giving you any reason to believe he couldn't be". The truth or falsehood of this contention does not hinge upon the perceived validity of his proposals (which you seem intent on attacking), but rather on the way he executes his campaign, communicates with the public, etc.
So, yes, I'm ignoring your attempts to attack Obama's specific policies because whether or not his ideas are good is entirely beside the point.
My opinion is that Obama doesn't have much credibility and his popularity is almost entirely due to the rejection of the current administration and desire for a change and his superficial qualities.
Well, now that's a slightly different claim... quit moving the goalposts, and we can have a real discussion.
Now, credibility *does* come down to policies. The problem is, I have no reason to believe your opinions regarding offshore drilling, the SPR, etc, over those of Obama and his advisors. Your attempts to make black and white claims regarding his policies (eg, drilling in SPR is bad, period) don't prove Obama is less credible unless you can provide real, concrete reasoning, preferably from those with knowledge in the subject (I don't know your credentials, so I have no reason to believe your reasoning is any more sound than mine), as to why his policies are incorrect. And even then, that's just one policy... a far cry from the world of doom and gloom you're so gleefully predicting.
As for the rest (such as the laughable idea that being in the military qualifies one to be President), it's just the usual conservative talking points, and I'm happy to ignore them, as they've been addressed in many other forums, by people with far more knowledge and insight in the topic than I.
frankly, given current trends, I'd bet on McCain winning.
Heh, I will *happily* put money down that McCain will get his ass handed to him in November, without a doubt. While American conservatives may hold their nose and vote McCain, and Clinton supporters will do the same for Obama, I'll bet dollars to donuts the swing vote will go firmly for Obama... quite frankly, McCain has done *too* good a job of aligning himself with Bush and the neocons (or, at least, giving that perception, in order to draw in the conservative base), so much so that those in the middle who are dissatisfied with Bush's reign are more likely than not to vote Obama, if anything to avoid another four years of the same failed policies.
I said "a bit more readable". Not "more readable". And I really mean that... a tiny, little bit. Because, in the end, most programmers indent correctly, anyway, and so the difference between typical Perl code and typical Python code is small to non-existent. Python simply ensures that morons who'd typically write ugly code are forced to due otherwise... and I don't consider that a virtue.
Ahh. So, got any context for that quote? Something tells me there's more to it than just that (for example, I consider laziness a virtue in a programmer because it encourages modularization and code reuse... I'm too lazy to rewrite the same things over and over).
Bah, the same is true of pretty well every programming language. Take C. Do you allow this?
if ((var = func()) != 0)
Do you enforce this style?
if (0 != (var = func()))
Do you use a standard naming convention? Do you allow statics? Globals? Gotos? etc, etc, etc.
In short, unless you have an exceedingly capable group of programmers, you need a manager who's willing to set the tone and define sufficient guidelines, regardless of the language.
The funny thing is, all of your comments are equally applicable to C++. It's incredibly easy to abuse the language in a myriad of ways if you really want to, with many weird little edges and corners, and multiple possible styles available. And different programmers have a range of skill and discipline levels, producing code that widely ranges in terms of quality. But you don't see people blaming the language (well, okay, some do, but the industry uses it heavily anyway). Instead, we have things like coding guidelines and general corporate culture, code reviews, etc, to ensure that the output from poor to mediocre programmers is up-to-snuff.
By your standard, everyone should write in assembly
Sweet strawman!
You have to make an effort to produce non-mud in Perl.
You sure do. Just like you do in every other damn language out there.
Honestly, the same discipline that allows you to write clean C, or clean Java, or clean Python, allows you to write clean Perl. Declare your variables upfront. Indent consistently. Comment where necessary. Don't be clever unless you have a good reason to, and in those cases, comment profusely. Break code into maintainable modules when it makes sense. Etc, etc, etc.
These are basic, *basic* coding guidelines. If you find you need language to force that discipline on you, you're part of the problem.
Well then, why is bad Python a million times easier to read?
1) It's not. For example, most Python lacks sufficient vertical whitespace for separating code sections because it's presence makes it difficult to insure block-level indentation is right.
2) Because Python forces a particular style on you. Woop-de-doo. If Perl forced you to format your code in a certain way, I'm sure it'd be a bit more readable, too.
I also hear that Perl is great because you can write things quickly.
No, you can write things quickly because CPAN is the end-all and be-all of shared package repositories. It's not a property of the language so much as the community, and no other language comes remotely close.
I also think that those Perl mantras: "laziness impatience and hubris"
I have never once heard those listed as "Perl mantras"... where is this coming from?
Being methodical, aiming for clarity and simplicity, avoiding obscure functionality
What does *any* of this have to do with the language? These are just good coding guidelines. Period.
Perl does not encourage any of these virtues.
It neither encourages nor discourages. It provides tools that allow an undisciplined programmer to write "clever", obfuscated code, but that's an easy-to-solve problem: fire the idiot who thinks he's so damn clever.
Wow. You are spending an awful lot of energy telling me how you don't care about my opinions
And yet, looking at my post, all but the first paragraph were attempts to address the issues you brought up. And you conveniently ignored them. Interesting, that...
It was completely and utterly useless and will cause economic disaster, in my opinion
Yeah, see, I still don't give a shit. Again, you're attempting to inject your personal values into a discussion about Obama, as a candidate and politician. Whether or not you agree with his policies is entirely beside the point, and your inability to see that only highlights the blinders you appear to be wearing.
By the way is he for NAFTA or against it today?
See here. Yup, he's moderated his position. It's not what I'd call a flip-flop, but it's definitely a move to the center.
How about that FISA bill: has he retroactively decided he should have voted against immunity like he promised his cheering but uncritical fans?
Oh, he fucked up, no question. It was an ugly compromise, and I disagree with it. But I prefer that over McCain either not voting at all, or tacitly approving of the bill.
How about his Iraq withdrawal scheme which has slowly but consistently morphed from goofy nonsense to almost exactly what the Republicans are saying (and doing)?
Oh please, Obama's been talking about staged withdrawl for as long as I can remember. And to claim the Republicans have been doing the same is, frankly, hilarious, given McCain's desire to stay in Iraq until 2013.
Why is it that he can't even answer a simple question about who deserves human rights?
Nice try inserting your anti-abortion rhetoric into the conversation. Frankly, this isn't even worth addressing.
then you've fit my prejudices of the typical Obama supporter.
Well, at least you can admit you're prejudiced, that's a start.
No, he's saying "I'm the one you're waiting for." What does that mean?
Meh, go read his policy platform, it's available for anyone who wants to read it. Now, you may not like it, but he's pretty concrete about what he proposes.
The one I'm waiting for......is a libertarian/conservative messiah that will make your socioeconomic wet dreams come true. And I really don't give a shit. It's just the usual libertarian/conservative tripe that's a dime a dozen here on Slashdot.
Sounds to me like you simply don't like Obama's policies, and therefore attack his credibility and his campaign strategy. And, quite frankly, it makes you look like an ass. Just because you personally don't like his policies, doesn't mean you should accuse the man of lying or being disingenuous, let alone predicting doom for the US should he be elected.
His real strategy seems to be to convince you he's what you want him to be without giving you any reason to believe he couldn't be. It's a fiendishly clever scheme
You mean, he's saying he'll try to do stuff in office, without giving you a reason to doubt him? How dastardly!
It's the only way to fly! It's like linked lists or quicksort implementations... why reuse a well-tested, properly engineered implementation when you can build your own from scratch?
It's kinda cowardly, and I'm not even sure it's really feasible, but if you're worried about losing your job, maybe you could try anonymously publishing a description of the material to-be-patented? Obviously you'll want the text to be written such that it isn't obvious you're the source of the concept, but once it's published it can't be patented.
As long as TV advertising is the way to get voters this will not change.
Nah, it's more fundamental than that. The real problem is that Americans have been deluded into believing that money == speech. What they don't seem to get is the collary: that means the rich get to say way more than the poor.
Money as speech is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and eliminating lobbying and private campaign financing would go a long way to correcting the more egregious problem in American politics: legalized bribery.
unless you believe Albert Gore was going to overturn NAFTA then the middle class would still be disappearing.
NAFTA is the only pressure on the middle class? Really? You mean, things like an ailing economy thanks to poorly managed finances have nothing to do with it? The subprime mortgage has nothing to do with it? Massive gas prices have nothing to do with it?
But you're right, I'm sure there's anothing any president could've done, so we should just give Bush a pass and assume everyone would've done just as shitty a job as he did.::rollseyes::
As for an equitable tax code?Ha! Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
Good lord, that's not even an argument.
"Hey you can't afford home ownership so keep renting."
What's wrong with that? If you can't afford a home, why should you be entitled to own one? And what the hell is wrong with renting, anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no practical difference between the two.
Bah, that's only true if you believe Verisign, et al, don't actually perform proper diligence to validate that the owner of the certificate is who they say they are. Thing is, that's not true... while they may not be perfect, at minimum, you are required to provide a variety of personal details, and to verify your identity, before a certificate will be issued. Compared to self-signed certs, I'd call that a "practical difference", wouldn't you?
Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.
And the science shows that, despite that, abstinence-only education doesn't work. Period. There's literally nothing else to debate, the results are in, and it simply *does not work*.
Would you rather have your language force its discipline on you or your manager force his particular brand of discipline on you?
False dichotomy. *I* would rather force discipline on myself, because I believe clean, well-written code should be the ultimate goal of a true professional in the software industry. Part of that process is following established guidelines in the business I'm working in, and if there are no such guidelines, either to assist in developing them, or to do what I can to follow industry and experiential best practice to ensure my work is the best quality I can achieve.
Now, there are those that need guidance because they are unable, or more likely, unwilling to author high quality code. In those cases, I would rather a set of guidelines force them to do the write thing because, hopefully, they will internalize those guidelines, which means their code will be of higher quality regardless of the language or toolset being used. In short, I feel that, for the long-term development of a programmer, a process of learning is better than a toolset that simply imposes a straightjacket.
I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar and you may well be right. However, I would claim that current laws regarding slander, libel, hate-speech, and whatever law covers yelling "fire" in a theater are all laws that abrdige the freedom of speech (and the press, for that matter).
And anyone who's studied these issues (honestly, a first year poli sci class covers this stuff) understands this basic maxim: your rights end where mine begin. Laws which outlaw certain forms of speech (such as libel and slander) exist because, in exercising one's right to free speech, one infringes on another individuals rights. You'll find cases like this all over the place, and it's one of the difficult sticking points when creating new law.
Either the amendment restricts what type of speech it is meant to cover to the narrow venue of political expression, or it is just flatly ignored in order to implement the speech restriction laws I've enumerated above.
Wrong. The amendment protects all forms of speech, so long as, in exercising those rights, you don't infringe on the rights of others. Period. It's really very simple.
But you keep insisting that my opinion doesn't count for anything.
Your opinions about his specific policies are tangential to the issue. The question is this: is Obama lying, pandering, vague, or otherwise deceitful in the course of his campaign. Your contention is that "His real strategy seems to be to convince you he's what you want him to be without giving you any reason to believe he couldn't be". The truth or falsehood of this contention does not hinge upon the perceived validity of his proposals (which you seem intent on attacking), but rather on the way he executes his campaign, communicates with the public, etc.
So, yes, I'm ignoring your attempts to attack Obama's specific policies because whether or not his ideas are good is entirely beside the point.
My opinion is that Obama doesn't have much credibility and his popularity is almost entirely due to the rejection of the current administration and desire for a change and his superficial qualities.
Well, now that's a slightly different claim... quit moving the goalposts, and we can have a real discussion.
Now, credibility *does* come down to policies. The problem is, I have no reason to believe your opinions regarding offshore drilling, the SPR, etc, over those of Obama and his advisors. Your attempts to make black and white claims regarding his policies (eg, drilling in SPR is bad, period) don't prove Obama is less credible unless you can provide real, concrete reasoning, preferably from those with knowledge in the subject (I don't know your credentials, so I have no reason to believe your reasoning is any more sound than mine), as to why his policies are incorrect. And even then, that's just one policy... a far cry from the world of doom and gloom you're so gleefully predicting.
As for the rest (such as the laughable idea that being in the military qualifies one to be President), it's just the usual conservative talking points, and I'm happy to ignore them, as they've been addressed in many other forums, by people with far more knowledge and insight in the topic than I.
frankly, given current trends, I'd bet on McCain winning.
Heh, I will *happily* put money down that McCain will get his ass handed to him in November, without a doubt. While American conservatives may hold their nose and vote McCain, and Clinton supporters will do the same for Obama, I'll bet dollars to donuts the swing vote will go firmly for Obama... quite frankly, McCain has done *too* good a job of aligning himself with Bush and the neocons (or, at least, giving that perception, in order to draw in the conservative base), so much so that those in the middle who are dissatisfied with Bush's reign are more likely than not to vote Obama, if anything to avoid another four years of the same failed policies.
I said "a bit more readable". Not "more readable". And I really mean that... a tiny, little bit. Because, in the end, most programmers indent correctly, anyway, and so the difference between typical Perl code and typical Python code is small to non-existent. Python simply ensures that morons who'd typically write ugly code are forced to due otherwise... and I don't consider that a virtue.
Ahh. So, got any context for that quote? Something tells me there's more to it than just that (for example, I consider laziness a virtue in a programmer because it encourages modularization and code reuse... I'm too lazy to rewrite the same things over and over).
Bah, the same is true of pretty well every programming language. Take C. Do you allow this?
if ((var = func()) != 0)
Do you enforce this style?
if (0 != (var = func()))
Do you use a standard naming convention? Do you allow statics? Globals? Gotos? etc, etc, etc.
In short, unless you have an exceedingly capable group of programmers, you need a manager who's willing to set the tone and define sufficient guidelines, regardless of the language.
The funny thing is, all of your comments are equally applicable to C++. It's incredibly easy to abuse the language in a myriad of ways if you really want to, with many weird little edges and corners, and multiple possible styles available. And different programmers have a range of skill and discipline levels, producing code that widely ranges in terms of quality. But you don't see people blaming the language (well, okay, some do, but the industry uses it heavily anyway). Instead, we have things like coding guidelines and general corporate culture, code reviews, etc, to ensure that the output from poor to mediocre programmers is up-to-snuff.
By your standard, everyone should write in assembly
Sweet strawman!
You have to make an effort to produce non-mud in Perl.
You sure do. Just like you do in every other damn language out there.
Honestly, the same discipline that allows you to write clean C, or clean Java, or clean Python, allows you to write clean Perl. Declare your variables upfront. Indent consistently. Comment where necessary. Don't be clever unless you have a good reason to, and in those cases, comment profusely. Break code into maintainable modules when it makes sense. Etc, etc, etc.
These are basic, *basic* coding guidelines. If you find you need language to force that discipline on you, you're part of the problem.
Well then, why is bad Python a million times easier to read?
1) It's not. For example, most Python lacks sufficient vertical whitespace for separating code sections because it's presence makes it difficult to insure block-level indentation is right.
2) Because Python forces a particular style on you. Woop-de-doo. If Perl forced you to format your code in a certain way, I'm sure it'd be a bit more readable, too.
I also hear that Perl is great because you can write things quickly.
No, you can write things quickly because CPAN is the end-all and be-all of shared package repositories. It's not a property of the language so much as the community, and no other language comes remotely close.
I also think that those Perl mantras: "laziness impatience and hubris"
I have never once heard those listed as "Perl mantras"... where is this coming from?
Being methodical, aiming for clarity and simplicity, avoiding obscure functionality
What does *any* of this have to do with the language? These are just good coding guidelines. Period.
Perl does not encourage any of these virtues.
It neither encourages nor discourages. It provides tools that allow an undisciplined programmer to write "clever", obfuscated code, but that's an easy-to-solve problem: fire the idiot who thinks he's so damn clever.
For some subjective metric of "better"...
Wow. You are spending an awful lot of energy telling me how you don't care about my opinions
And yet, looking at my post, all but the first paragraph were attempts to address the issues you brought up. And you conveniently ignored them. Interesting, that...
Every hobby has its hazards.
Yeah, I know every time I crack open a book, I worry I'm going to suffer a fatal papercut...
It was completely and utterly useless and will cause economic disaster, in my opinion
Yeah, see, I still don't give a shit. Again, you're attempting to inject your personal values into a discussion about Obama, as a candidate and politician. Whether or not you agree with his policies is entirely beside the point, and your inability to see that only highlights the blinders you appear to be wearing.
By the way is he for NAFTA or against it today?
See here. Yup, he's moderated his position. It's not what I'd call a flip-flop, but it's definitely a move to the center.
How about that FISA bill: has he retroactively decided he should have voted against immunity like he promised his cheering but uncritical fans?
Oh, he fucked up, no question. It was an ugly compromise, and I disagree with it. But I prefer that over McCain either not voting at all, or tacitly approving of the bill.
How about his Iraq withdrawal scheme which has slowly but consistently morphed from goofy nonsense to almost exactly what the Republicans are saying (and doing)?
Oh please, Obama's been talking about staged withdrawl for as long as I can remember. And to claim the Republicans have been doing the same is, frankly, hilarious, given McCain's desire to stay in Iraq until 2013.
Why is it that he can't even answer a simple question about who deserves human rights?
Nice try inserting your anti-abortion rhetoric into the conversation. Frankly, this isn't even worth addressing.
then you've fit my prejudices of the typical Obama supporter.
Well, at least you can admit you're prejudiced, that's a start.
No, he's saying "I'm the one you're waiting for." What does that mean?
Meh, go read his policy platform, it's available for anyone who wants to read it. Now, you may not like it, but he's pretty concrete about what he proposes.
The one I'm waiting for... ...is a libertarian/conservative messiah that will make your socioeconomic wet dreams come true. And I really don't give a shit. It's just the usual libertarian/conservative tripe that's a dime a dozen here on Slashdot.
Sounds to me like you simply don't like Obama's policies, and therefore attack his credibility and his campaign strategy. And, quite frankly, it makes you look like an ass. Just because you personally don't like his policies, doesn't mean you should accuse the man of lying or being disingenuous, let alone predicting doom for the US should he be elected.
His real strategy seems to be to convince you he's what you want him to be without giving you any reason to believe he couldn't be. It's a fiendishly clever scheme
You mean, he's saying he'll try to do stuff in office, without giving you a reason to doubt him? How dastardly!
It's the only way to fly! It's like linked lists or quicksort implementations... why reuse a well-tested, properly engineered implementation when you can build your own from scratch?
Nah, you then just publish the idea. Voila, well poisoned.
It's kinda cowardly, and I'm not even sure it's really feasible, but if you're worried about losing your job, maybe you could try anonymously publishing a description of the material to-be-patented? Obviously you'll want the text to be written such that it isn't obvious you're the source of the concept, but once it's published it can't be patented.
It's better than sex
Uhhh, no. It isn't. It really really isn't.
I know no-one who is excited about the Olympics. I've never known anyone who is interested in the Olympics.
Ahh yes... anecdotal evidence. With a selection bias! Ahh, the best kind.
As long as TV advertising is the way to get voters this will not change.
Nah, it's more fundamental than that. The real problem is that Americans have been deluded into believing that money == speech. What they don't seem to get is the collary: that means the rich get to say way more than the poor.
Money as speech is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and eliminating lobbying and private campaign financing would go a long way to correcting the more egregious problem in American politics: legalized bribery.
So the Linux kernel is developed like every major software project that's ever existed.
How completely and utterly unremarkable.
unless you believe Albert Gore was going to overturn NAFTA then the middle class would still be disappearing.
NAFTA is the only pressure on the middle class? Really? You mean, things like an ailing economy thanks to poorly managed finances have nothing to do with it? The subprime mortgage has nothing to do with it? Massive gas prices have nothing to do with it?
But you're right, I'm sure there's anothing any president could've done, so we should just give Bush a pass and assume everyone would've done just as shitty a job as he did. ::rollseyes::
As for an equitable tax code?Ha! Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
Good lord, that's not even an argument.
"Hey you can't afford home ownership so keep renting."
What's wrong with that? If you can't afford a home, why should you be entitled to own one? And what the hell is wrong with renting, anyway?