I only have this anecdotal evidence for the 1 in 10 statistic... it seems valid to me in my experience.
In a city in the midwest (not a big one), I worked at a software company. In the main building with all the developers, there were hallways with ten offices in each. There was one gay person that I knew about in each hallway but two... one of those hallways had two gay people, and one had none.
Thus, one in ten.
Well, until you went to the floor where all of customer service and support was, in which case it was a lot closer to one in five.
I make no claim to have known every single gay person there (why would I? I'm sure engineering isnt' the most "out" profession, and I'm certain there were closet cases and bisexuals that I knew nothing about). But it's been quite similar at just about every place I've worked over my long life.
To me, one in ten is quite believable. And even three in twenty isn't over-board if you add bisexuals and closet cases and all that stuff to the count.
So I honestly don't think it's "complete baloney".
The 30% figure I quoted (and it should be taken as 'near 30%') was for anyone (male or female) who had ever had any same-sex experience at all. No, I agree, it does not make them gay, and in fact, I hope I didn't imply that in any way. I do think, based on my experience, that bisexuality is more common than many think (which isn't difficult since many or most people probably don't even think bisexuality exists). And I think a lot of guys and girls experiement here and there, or are in situations (such as military or prison) where options are restrained to the point where they dabble on the other side. All of this would be included in that 'near 30%' number. As such, I think you'll find such a number isn't quite so unreasonable as it seems at first blush.
And I agree that a 'scale' is an appropraite thing to use to express sexual orientation. And some people may move here and there along it, but I doubt anyone moves significantly. After all, such a scale only measures 'potential' and 'desire', not behavior.
Actually, the number for men who have had any sort of same sex experience is around 30%, last I saw.
The 10% figure is a rough guess, and might be a bit high, but is at least in the ball park.
The 1-2% number has been thorougly discredited as very biased due to the questioning method and the question itself (it was a very strict definition).
I'd say the real number of gay identified people is probably around 3-4%, and if you include active bisexuals and closet cases, it can push 8-10% or so. This is no hard science, but the conclusion I've come to from reading the various studies and factoring in personal experiences.
Why would somebody need this? One of the advantages gays have is being 'on their own turf' so to speak. They already have a pretty good understanding of their preferred partner... because they themselves are one.
I dunno. Engineering is a relatively homophobic occupation. Lots of gays in the area, but mostly closeted. It's easy to find gay guys in liberal arts and tons of other professions, but I find it difficult to meet "geek gay guys" for some reason. Especially of the engineering/science type.
I wouldn't assume that "advantage" you speak of, simply because of things like "the closet". And of course, not every gay guy is his own type... opposites attract with gay people too.
So there are many reasons why "someone would need this". Just so you know.
Yes, but watch it a *second* time is the point. It's a bit "over done" I admit, but it resonated a lot more the second time. Give it at least one more chance before putting it on permanent fast-forward.
the gollum/smeagol (serkis) debate might be my least favorite scene from a movie last year. i'm just not convinced that it deserved a best picture nod.
I thought it fell flat (and got lots of unintentional laughter) when I first saw it. But I saw the movie a second time (without a full house), and that scene played a LOT better. Did you see the movie a second time? Like FOTR, it improves on a second viewing, probably because there's just so much happening.
And besides - I'm just mad because they made Gimli into comic relief and put Elves at the battle of Helms Deep. Fellowship was better.
I agree that Fellowship was better, but to be honest with you, I thought the Elves marching into Helms Deep was one of the high points of the movie. It gave me goosebumps. I think it was an improvement over the book, imho. One of the deviations from the book that I actually enjoyed.
I can't wait for the extended version of TTT, though. The extended version of FOTR was vastly superior to the theatrical release, and I'm certain the same will hold true of TTT.
It'll be interesting after this coming year, and The Matrix. Agent Smith is computerized. They scanned in the actor, and created a performance that looks utterly "real", but was never given by the actor himself. If such a performance were extraordinary, who would you give the oscar to?
Yes, the switch statement is one of the biggest annoyances in the C/C++ language, imho. Okay, I said "one of";-)
I programmed in a langauge called BLISS for a few years, which pretty much did everything wrong EXCEPT the way it did switch-like statements. It had several alternatives, depending on what you wanted. One was a compile-time "select" statement that worked just like the C switch did (more or less). Then there was a "SelectOne" statement that didn't do automatic fall-through. And finally, there was a DYNAMICALLY evaluated one, where you could use variables and expressions for your "case" statements, and it was essentially syntactic sugar for long and messy "if/elseif/elseif" type statements.
I would hope that D would "fix" this problem with the switch statement. I mean, the problem with "switch" is that it's default behavior is only RARELY needed. Thus the default behavior is incorrect. Each "case" SHOULD be treated as a statement-block, just like in an if/else, and not just a stream of statements. This would eliminate another problem of declaring variables in "case" blocks. Personally, I'd require the braces (since I always put them in anyway).
Arrays have a built in sort method anyway. But you could easily use delegates to implement functional programming, and of course implement your own sorting routines.
So what you want is in there. Go back and look at the spec a bit more deeply.
I've been using Java for two years now, and don't want to ever go back. The tools are vastly superior, and the productivity boost I gained is phenominal. Hell, just getting rid of having to muck with header includes and include ordering in large projects is a huge win. The rest was sauce for the goose.
But not for THIS ride. The only thing they did was move the bumper cars to another park (removing them), and move some things around.
They did get rid of the old "Schwabenchen" (sp?) but that had nothing to do with making room for this coaster. They didn't tear down any coasters at all. There were three rides sitting on the footprint of this new coaster: the aforementioned bumper cars, the Troika, and the Chaos. The latter two were moved over by last year's new coaster, Wicket Twister.
You're friend's a moron, then. This was being constructed before the park closed, and the area was fenced off for the entire summer. And there's no such thing as "Steel Force".
The correct pronunciation of "GIF" is "JIF", as in the peanut-butter. I know this because I worked at CompuServe, with the people who invented the thing, and remember the way THEY pronounced it, and the pronunciation guide they wrote into their documentation.
Anyone who pronounces it "GIF" as in "GIFT" (rather than as Giraff and Giant and Gin), is pronouncing it wrong. And yes, that includes the clueless customer service reps that CompuServe now employs (or should I say "AOL" now?)
I wonder if they can use this research to help remove the abject fear of gay people that the military seems to have. The very idea that letting a gay person in would so traumatize all the soldiers that the army would be completely ineffective is just the most bizzare homophobia I've ever seen. Never mind the direct counter-evidence available in just about every other NATO military organization outside the U.S. Yeah, I think the military needs this research to help our military personel get over their intense fear of gay guys.
Lots of space battles. Destruct sequences, auxillary power, bulkheads giving way, people being sucked into space, ships blasting apart, space sharapnel, photon torpedos, phasers, cloaking, and big bang booms!
I dunno guys. I enjoyed it. Was it great cinema? No, of course not. Was it an entertaining movie? Sure it was. And I say it definitely keeps the thread of 'even movies are good' going.
Displayed quite prominently on a screen in "Star Trek: Nemisis", is the USS Archer... a ship presumably named after the first captain of the "Enterprise"... NX-01.
Did you read the entire part of the review labeled "The Scoop"? It seems to address everything you want. Of course it's not a "design patterns" book! Why on earth would you even think it was? It's a "how to learn and use C# for Java developers" book. What classes in the frameworks are equivalent, where do the pitfalls lie (where assumptions that are valid in one, are not valid in the other)... things like that. I'm not sure what you're looking for. I think the review said everything that needed to be said without regurgitating the contents of the book. So I'm still not sure what you're missing or what you're fishing for.
Um, how can you not have any idea what the book is about? Not only is the title a dead give-away, but the review was pretty clear in describing the contents. If you want MORE detail, the obvious answer is to buy the book. A review is NOT supposed to BE the book!
Slashdot Mirror
I only have this anecdotal evidence for the 1 in 10 statistic... it seems valid to me in my experience.
In a city in the midwest (not a big one), I worked at a software company. In the main building with all the developers, there were hallways with ten offices in each. There was one gay person that I knew about in each hallway but two... one of those hallways had two gay people, and one had none.
Thus, one in ten.
Well, until you went to the floor where all of customer service and support was, in which case it was a lot closer to one in five.
I make no claim to have known every single gay person there (why would I? I'm sure engineering isnt' the most "out" profession, and I'm certain there were closet cases and bisexuals that I knew nothing about). But it's been quite similar at just about every place I've worked over my long life.
To me, one in ten is quite believable. And even three in twenty isn't over-board if you add bisexuals and closet cases and all that stuff to the count.
So I honestly don't think it's "complete baloney".
Alas, I'm in Austin, TX. :-)
And again, the problem isn't so much finding gay geeks, as finding gay geeks in my age range (30-40). Ah well.
The 30% figure I quoted (and it should be taken as 'near 30%') was for anyone (male or female) who had ever had any same-sex experience at all. No, I agree, it does not make them gay, and in fact, I hope I didn't imply that in any way. I do think, based on my experience, that bisexuality is more common than many think (which isn't difficult since many or most people probably don't even think bisexuality exists). And I think a lot of guys and girls experiement here and there, or are in situations (such as military or prison) where options are restrained to the point where they dabble on the other side. All of this would be included in that 'near 30%' number. As such, I think you'll find such a number isn't quite so unreasonable as it seems at first blush.
And I agree that a 'scale' is an appropraite thing to use to express sexual orientation. And some people may move here and there along it, but I doubt anyone moves significantly. After all, such a scale only measures 'potential' and 'desire', not behavior.
So where do gay geek guys hang out to meet each other and hook up?
:-)
Maybe I'm not geeky enough to know these things
Of course, I'm looking for geeks around their 30's (like myself) so maybe it's a generational thing and I'm just too old now.
Actually, the number for men who have had any sort of same sex experience is around 30%, last I saw.
The 10% figure is a rough guess, and might be a bit high, but is at least in the ball park.
The 1-2% number has been thorougly discredited as very biased due to the questioning method and the question itself (it was a very strict definition).
I'd say the real number of gay identified people is probably around 3-4%, and if you include active bisexuals and closet cases, it can push 8-10% or so. This is no hard science, but the conclusion I've come to from reading the various studies and factoring in personal experiences.
Why would somebody need this?
One of the advantages gays have is being 'on their own turf' so to speak. They already have a pretty good understanding of their preferred partner... because they themselves are one.
I dunno. Engineering is a relatively homophobic occupation. Lots of gays in the area, but mostly closeted. It's easy to find gay guys in liberal arts and tons of other professions, but I find it difficult to meet "geek gay guys" for some reason. Especially of the engineering/science type.
I wouldn't assume that "advantage" you speak of, simply because of things like "the closet". And of course, not every gay guy is his own type... opposites attract with gay people too.
So there are many reasons why "someone would need this". Just so you know.
Yes, but watch it a *second* time is the point. It's a bit "over done" I admit, but it resonated a lot more the second time. Give it at least one more chance before putting it on permanent fast-forward.
the gollum/smeagol (serkis) debate might be my least favorite scene from a movie last year. i'm just not convinced that it deserved a best picture nod.
I thought it fell flat (and got lots of unintentional laughter) when I first saw it. But I saw the movie a second time (without a full house), and that scene played a LOT better. Did you see the movie a second time? Like FOTR, it improves on a second viewing, probably because there's just so much happening.
And besides - I'm just mad because they made Gimli into comic relief and put Elves at the battle of Helms Deep. Fellowship was better.
I agree that Fellowship was better, but to be honest with you, I thought the Elves marching into Helms Deep was one of the high points of the movie. It gave me goosebumps. I think it was an improvement over the book, imho. One of the deviations from the book that I actually enjoyed.
I can't wait for the extended version of TTT, though. The extended version of FOTR was vastly superior to the theatrical release, and I'm certain the same will hold true of TTT.
It'll be interesting after this coming year, and The Matrix. Agent Smith is computerized. They scanned in the actor, and created a performance that looks utterly "real", but was never given by the actor himself. If such a performance were extraordinary, who would you give the oscar to?
Yes, the switch statement is one of the biggest annoyances in the C/C++ language, imho. Okay, I said "one of" ;-)
I programmed in a langauge called BLISS for a few years, which pretty much did everything wrong EXCEPT the way it did switch-like statements. It had several alternatives, depending on what you wanted. One was a compile-time "select" statement that worked just like the C switch did (more or less). Then there was a "SelectOne" statement that didn't do automatic fall-through. And finally, there was a DYNAMICALLY evaluated one, where you could use variables and expressions for your "case" statements, and it was essentially syntactic sugar for long and messy "if/elseif/elseif" type statements.
I would hope that D would "fix" this problem with the switch statement. I mean, the problem with "switch" is that it's default behavior is only RARELY needed. Thus the default behavior is incorrect. Each "case" SHOULD be treated as a statement-block, just like in an if/else, and not just a stream of statements. This would eliminate another problem of declaring variables in "case" blocks. Personally, I'd require the braces (since I always put them in anyway).
Instead of function pointers, there are delegats.
Arrays have a built in sort method anyway. But you could easily use delegates to implement functional programming, and of course implement your own sorting routines.
So what you want is in there. Go back and look at the spec a bit more deeply.
I used to love C++
I've been using Java for two years now, and don't want to ever go back. The tools are vastly superior, and the productivity boost I gained is phenominal. Hell, just getting rid of having to muck with header includes and include ordering in large projects is a huge win. The rest was sauce for the goose.
Now I'm hoping I never have to go back to C++.
But not for THIS ride. The only thing they did was move the bumper cars to another park (removing them), and move some things around.
They did get rid of the old "Schwabenchen" (sp?) but that had nothing to do with making room for this coaster. They didn't tear down any coasters at all. There were three rides sitting on the footprint of this new coaster: the aforementioned bumper cars, the Troika, and the Chaos. The latter two were moved over by last year's new coaster, Wicket Twister.
You're friend's a moron, then. This was being constructed before the park closed, and the area was fenced off for the entire summer. And there's no such thing as "Steel Force".
They most certainly did NOT have to tear down any coasters to build this one.
They got rid of a bumber cars, and moved two flat rides. That's all.
The correct pronunciation of "GIF" is "JIF", as in the peanut-butter. I know this because I worked at CompuServe, with the people who invented the thing, and remember the way THEY pronounced it, and the pronunciation guide they wrote into their documentation.
Anyone who pronounces it "GIF" as in "GIFT" (rather than as Giraff and Giant and Gin), is pronouncing it wrong. And yes, that includes the clueless customer service reps that CompuServe now employs (or should I say "AOL" now?)
I wonder if they can use this research to help remove the abject fear of gay people that the military seems to have. The very idea that letting a gay person in would so traumatize all the soldiers that the army would be completely ineffective is just the most bizzare homophobia I've ever seen. Never mind the direct counter-evidence available in just about every other NATO military organization outside the U.S. Yeah, I think the military needs this research to help our military personel get over their intense fear of gay guys.
Having seen Nemisis, I can assure you it is vastly superior to "Insurrection" in just about every way.
I frankly don't understand why this movie is being received so harshly. It was quite enjoyable, imho.
You'll definitely like Star Trek: Nemisis.
Lots of space battles. Destruct sequences, auxillary power, bulkheads giving way, people being sucked into space, ships blasting apart, space sharapnel, photon torpedos, phasers, cloaking, and big bang booms!
I dunno guys. I enjoyed it. Was it great cinema? No, of course not. Was it an entertaining movie? Sure it was. And I say it definitely keeps the thread of 'even movies are good' going.
That won't work.
Displayed quite prominently on a screen in "Star Trek: Nemisis", is the USS Archer... a ship presumably named after the first captain of the "Enterprise"... NX-01.
... or you just want to be REALLY, REALLY accurate :-)
"Dammit, Jim! I've calculated it out to a trillion decimal places, and I'm POSITIVE the answer is EXACTLY -1!"
"Keep going, Bones! We have to be Absolutely SURE!"
...we have sodium gnomes??
Did you read the entire part of the review labeled "The Scoop"? It seems to address everything you want. Of course it's not a "design patterns" book! Why on earth would you even think it was? It's a "how to learn and use C# for Java developers" book. What classes in the frameworks are equivalent, where do the pitfalls lie (where assumptions that are valid in one, are not valid in the other)... things like that. I'm not sure what you're looking for. I think the review said everything that needed to be said without regurgitating the contents of the book. So I'm still not sure what you're missing or what you're fishing for.
Um, how can you not have any idea what the book is about? Not only is the title a dead give-away, but the review was pretty clear in describing the contents. If you want MORE detail, the obvious answer is to buy the book. A review is NOT supposed to BE the book!