Imagine how frustrating it will be for those indians as they listen to barely literate hillfolk stutter out stilted strongly accented hindi read from cue cards.
The book affected me deeply. The symbolic destruction of knowledge VIA burning its vessel is still something I consider to be sacrilege in my system of beliefs.
I know exactly what I am doing. I know I can iterate over all properties and array contents using in. You merely have poor reading comprehension.
I am adding a name property to an object, one that also happens to be an array. Exactly like I said I was. I am fully aware that I am not adding another element to the array when I do stuff.foo = "bar";
Your half intelligent json serialization routine that ignores the properties added to an array is wrong. Just like the other guys suggestion to implement it as an associative array with numeric identifiers. If you hack it to produce valid JSON you do not get the same object out the other end of the pipe. You get something else that is almost but not quite entirely unlike tea.
I know the tool, I know the technology. My criticism is precisely because I use this shit every day.
Here is a question for you. What is the simplest and most efficient way to create an XML mapping to javascript objects. XML elements have attributes and contents that may be other xml element or strings. The names of those elements are arbitrary, one can not simply assume that an xml element wont have an attribute called "contents" or "innerXML" or whatever you decide to call it.
The answer to this question is this: You take a javascript array, the objects that the array contains are the child elements of the element. You then add the xml attributes as properties of the object (that is also an array).
JSON is crap for storing arbitrary structured data and collections for web applications.
In javascript you can easily construct an object that is both an "Array" and has named attributes (an associative array). However, you can't recreate that object with valid JSON.
JSON also introduces a fantastic new method of inserting arbitrarily executing code into a web application, demanding yet another set of defenses against insertion attacks to be developed.
It is a problem masquerading as a solution to a problem it can't actually solve.
The article is barely a description of MongoDB records. It does not really detail any real drawbacks or benefits beyond "look ma, random structure in my record!"
You would lose your bet. I was raised in the fundamentalist church. I've read the bible, start to end, multiple times, multiple versions. I've spent more years studying scripture than you would guess.
Why would you pray for such a horrible thing? Why would I ever want to shackle my mind with faith? To be brainwashed? Why would I ever go back to being a christian? Why would you ask that someone tell me how to think about the bible rather than let me read it on my own and see in its full uncensored horror.
Like so many Christians who are under the false impression that their god is kind and benevolent, you probably never have read the entire bible on your own without having someone hold your hand and tell you how to think about what you read.
A pleasant lie is still a lie. It is empty and hollow. There is no fulfillment in faith, only denial. Maybe one day a rationalist will sacrifice some of his time to tell you what I have told you. And inspire you to take a long hard sobering look at your faith and allow yourself to free yourself of its shackles and see the world unencumbered by the burden of superstition.
These suppositions fundamentally come from the Axiom that being harmed is bad. Assuming you are a masochist of some kind, and do not accept that Axiom. It can be reliably and reproducibly tested. All you have to do is harm a lot of people and ask them if they think that was bad. A statistically relevant percentage of them will say that it is bad.
There are whole bodies of philosophical thought on that topic, I don't really need to regurgitate it here.
You would lose that wager. I have made every attempt to purge faith from my life and what I believe. It isn't completely gone. It is after all a lingering illness that is prone to flare up in times of weakness.
This isn't bullshit. I care more about truth than you can possibly know. If I didn't care about truth, I could have blindly fallowed the religion of my father. I would not have put in the relentless effort to purge the lies, contradictions and untestable elements from I believe.
Feelings are not falsifiable. They can not be reliably or reproducibly tested. Proving love is impossible. All you can do is measure the balance of acts over time. The more kindness you show and the less hurt you inflict creates a trend that appears to correlate strongly with love to an independent observer. My family does not have to have faith that I love them, the preponderance of evidence supports that conclusion.
Faith is only required in large quantities for marriage if you are marrying a stranger or someone who has shown inconsistent or worse indicators of trust, affection, compatibility and compromise. Again, feelings are not falsifiable. Faith means you can marry a gold digger and expect her to not spend all your money in spite of the indications she will. Faith means you can marry a sadist and expect him not to beat you in spite of the indications he will. No. Faith is harmful to marriage. Trust rather than faith is the basis of a sound marriage. Trust is earned, and not granted so easily as faith.
Yes, the majority of people are or have been mentally ill. Just like the majority of people have been infected with the common cold.
If a rapist or killer has a physical advantage (or an advantage because he ignores the gun ban) he can strike with impunity against unarmed people. If the law abiding people had guns, every time he attacks he risks forfeiting his own life. That prevents deaths, either by preventing the crime or stopping the criminal.
No. The right to own a gun comes from property rights. Or more specifically material rights. It is based on the right to own an object that can be possessed.
The right USE a gun for self defense is based on the idea that your life and body are yours and someone attempting to take that from you justifies forfeiting their own.
Treyvon Martin could have legally defended himself from the man who chased and attacked him if he was armed. So yes, Treyvon Martins death is exactly what happens when an insufficient number of law abiding citizens are armed.
The minister who believes all gays should be jailed believes that because his faith in his religion demands that he condemn homosexuality.
Where do your morals come from?
Do they have an objective rational basis?
Or do you believe them because someone or something you are not permitted to question told you to believe them?
Morality dictated by authority is not moral. It is just as likely to be abhorrent as it is to be good. It is arbitrary. It is the exact same thing if it causes you to believe as the minister you mention, or to respect your parents, to not eat pork, to not kill, or blow up airplanes.
My morality is a superior morality. It is formed from an objective rational basis. Justice, liberty and equality are not well served by irrational thought based on the crumbling edifice of religions built on a mountain of skulls.
Why do I say that faith is a mental illness? Because it is. It behaves exactly like a virus The mechanism of infection takes over the mental machinery of the host and modifies it to ensure that it propagates throughout the population, just as an organic virus infects a cell and takes over its genetic machinery to propagate itself. The faithful are strongly compelled to spread their faith to others.
Faith itself is belief in the absence of reason, belief in the face of contradiction. It makes it easier for someone to believe in things that are objectively and morally wrong. And these sometimes malevolent and violent memes follow in the wake of faith like secondary infections follow the compromised immune system of an HIV victim. These memes con often not be separated from the basis of faith and they form a complementary complex that further spreads the infection (often by eliminating the uninfected or those infected by a competing vector by violent force).
I used to be very religious. I was a fundamentalist christian once. The more I learned about God, the happier I became to realize that he was nothing more the dark specter of a fevered mind.
They are not dumb. They are victims of an virulently infectious and devastating mental illness (faith). They can't really help it and they should not be insulted for it any more than a kid with polio should be insulted about being in a wheel chair.
I went to Golden Coral with my family on mothers day and was unable to cut the steak with the butter knife they provide at the table. I wouldn't have been able to find the edible half of that slab of gristle without my razor sharp folding pocket knife.
Not really. Just the "fiscally conservative" folks who claim that tax cuts for the ultra wealthy will balance the budget, educate the children and secure national security. That isn't fiscal conservatism, it is a radical attack on this nation that will bring us to our knees so that the yoke of plutocratic oppression can be placed on our shoulders. That is of course assuming the Chicoms don't take advantage of the opportunity before the plutocrats can.
Slashdot Mirror
>90% of "bugs" are features, conditions and behaviors not covered by the systems design.
Long answer: as long as they are willing to pay you at a competitive rate.
Or worse, Kentucky.
Imagine how frustrating it will be for those indians as they listen to barely literate hillfolk stutter out stilted strongly accented hindi read from cue cards.
Indeed, fingerprints are not unique.
The book affected me deeply. The symbolic destruction of knowledge VIA burning its vessel is still something I consider to be sacrilege in my system of beliefs.
I know exactly what I am doing. I know I can iterate over all properties and array contents using in. You merely have poor reading comprehension.
I am adding a name property to an object, one that also happens to be an array. Exactly like I said I was. I am fully aware that I am not adding another element to the array when I do stuff.foo = "bar";
Your half intelligent json serialization routine that ignores the properties added to an array is wrong. Just like the other guys suggestion to implement it as an associative array with numeric identifiers. If you hack it to produce valid JSON you do not get the same object out the other end of the pipe. You get something else that is almost but not quite entirely unlike tea.
I know the tool, I know the technology. My criticism is precisely because I use this shit every day.
Here is a question for you. What is the simplest and most efficient way to create an XML mapping to javascript objects. XML elements have attributes and contents that may be other xml element or strings. The names of those elements are arbitrary, one can not simply assume that an xml element wont have an attribute called "contents" or "innerXML" or whatever you decide to call it.
The answer to this question is this: You take a javascript array, the objects that the array contains are the child elements of the element. You then add the xml attributes as properties of the object (that is also an array).
That was the point. Not everyone does that.
The defacto standard for instantiating an object from json is still eval()
Ok, take that associative array and add non associative elements to it.
Or more accurately, take a non associative array and add associative elements to it
["a", "b", "c" "foo":"bar"] is not valid JSON
niether is {"a", "b", "c" "foo":"bar"}
Yet I can do:
var stuff = ["a", "b", "c"];
stuff.foo = "bar";
That javscript object can not be serialized to valid JSON.
JSON is crap for storing arbitrary structured data and collections for web applications.
In javascript you can easily construct an object that is both an "Array" and has named attributes (an associative array). However, you can't recreate that object with valid JSON.
JSON also introduces a fantastic new method of inserting arbitrarily executing code into a web application, demanding yet another set of defenses against insertion attacks to be developed.
It is a problem masquerading as a solution to a problem it can't actually solve.
The article is barely a description of MongoDB records. It does not really detail any real drawbacks or benefits beyond "look ma, random structure in my record!"
The only thing in the eye of the beholder is charm, death, fear, telekinesis, serious wounds, and anti-magic.
You would lose your bet. I was raised in the fundamentalist church. I've read the bible, start to end, multiple times, multiple versions. I've spent more years studying scripture than you would guess.
Why would you pray for such a horrible thing? Why would I ever want to shackle my mind with faith? To be brainwashed? Why would I ever go back to being a christian? Why would you ask that someone tell me how to think about the bible rather than let me read it on my own and see in its full uncensored horror.
Like so many Christians who are under the false impression that their god is kind and benevolent, you probably never have read the entire bible on your own without having someone hold your hand and tell you how to think about what you read.
A pleasant lie is still a lie. It is empty and hollow. There is no fulfillment in faith, only denial. Maybe one day a rationalist will sacrifice some of his time to tell you what I have told you. And inspire you to take a long hard sobering look at your faith and allow yourself to free yourself of its shackles and see the world unencumbered by the burden of superstition.
These suppositions fundamentally come from the Axiom that being harmed is bad. Assuming you are a masochist of some kind, and do not accept that Axiom. It can be reliably and reproducibly tested. All you have to do is harm a lot of people and ask them if they think that was bad. A statistically relevant percentage of them will say that it is bad.
There are whole bodies of philosophical thought on that topic, I don't really need to regurgitate it here.
You would lose that wager. I have made every attempt to purge faith from my life and what I believe. It isn't completely gone. It is after all a lingering illness that is prone to flare up in times of weakness.
This isn't bullshit. I care more about truth than you can possibly know. If I didn't care about truth, I could have blindly fallowed the religion of my father. I would not have put in the relentless effort to purge the lies, contradictions and untestable elements from I believe.
Feelings are not falsifiable. They can not be reliably or reproducibly tested. Proving love is impossible. All you can do is measure the balance of acts over time. The more kindness you show and the less hurt you inflict creates a trend that appears to correlate strongly with love to an independent observer. My family does not have to have faith that I love them, the preponderance of evidence supports that conclusion.
Faith is only required in large quantities for marriage if you are marrying a stranger or someone who has shown inconsistent or worse indicators of trust, affection, compatibility and compromise. Again, feelings are not falsifiable. Faith means you can marry a gold digger and expect her to not spend all your money in spite of the indications she will. Faith means you can marry a sadist and expect him not to beat you in spite of the indications he will. No. Faith is harmful to marriage. Trust rather than faith is the basis of a sound marriage. Trust is earned, and not granted so easily as faith.
Yes, the majority of people are or have been mentally ill. Just like the majority of people have been infected with the common cold.
guns are not the only thing that kills people.
If a rapist or killer has a physical advantage (or an advantage because he ignores the gun ban) he can strike with impunity against unarmed people. If the law abiding people had guns, every time he attacks he risks forfeiting his own life. That prevents deaths, either by preventing the crime or stopping the criminal.
No. The right to own a gun comes from property rights. Or more specifically material rights. It is based on the right to own an object that can be possessed.
The right USE a gun for self defense is based on the idea that your life and body are yours and someone attempting to take that from you justifies forfeiting their own.
Treyvon Martin could have legally defended himself from the man who chased and attacked him if he was armed. So yes, Treyvon Martins death is exactly what happens when an insufficient number of law abiding citizens are armed.
No.
The minister who believes all gays should be jailed believes that because his faith in his religion demands that he condemn homosexuality.
Where do your morals come from?
Do they have an objective rational basis?
Or do you believe them because someone or something you are not permitted to question told you to believe them?
Morality dictated by authority is not moral. It is just as likely to be abhorrent as it is to be good. It is arbitrary. It is the exact same thing if it causes you to believe as the minister you mention, or to respect your parents, to not eat pork, to not kill, or blow up airplanes.
My morality is a superior morality. It is formed from an objective rational basis. Justice, liberty and equality are not well served by irrational thought based on the crumbling edifice of religions built on a mountain of skulls.
Why do I say that faith is a mental illness? Because it is. It behaves exactly like a virus The mechanism of infection takes over the mental machinery of the host and modifies it to ensure that it propagates throughout the population, just as an organic virus infects a cell and takes over its genetic machinery to propagate itself. The faithful are strongly compelled to spread their faith to others.
Faith itself is belief in the absence of reason, belief in the face of contradiction. It makes it easier for someone to believe in things that are objectively and morally wrong. And these sometimes malevolent and violent memes follow in the wake of faith like secondary infections follow the compromised immune system of an HIV victim. These memes con often not be separated from the basis of faith and they form a complementary complex that further spreads the infection (often by eliminating the uninfected or those infected by a competing vector by violent force).
I used to be very religious. I was a fundamentalist christian once. The more I learned about God, the happier I became to realize that he was nothing more the dark specter of a fevered mind.
They are not dumb. They are victims of an virulently infectious and devastating mental illness (faith). They can't really help it and they should not be insulted for it any more than a kid with polio should be insulted about being in a wheel chair.
Yes. it really is far sillier.
It was mothers day, I didn't get to pick the restaurant.
Who leaves the house without at least one knife?
I went to Golden Coral with my family on mothers day and was unable to cut the steak with the butter knife they provide at the table. I wouldn't have been able to find the edible half of that slab of gristle without my razor sharp folding pocket knife.
Mensa is full of people dumb enough that they have to pay someone to tell them how smart they are.
Not really. Just the "fiscally conservative" folks who claim that tax cuts for the ultra wealthy will balance the budget, educate the children and secure national security. That isn't fiscal conservatism, it is a radical attack on this nation that will bring us to our knees so that the yoke of plutocratic oppression can be placed on our shoulders. That is of course assuming the Chicoms don't take advantage of the opportunity before the plutocrats can.
Yes, it is merely a fortunate side side effect.