Your 99 cent theology sucks. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh and as such, he was the one who created man and woman as part of the created order. Therefore, the OT stated exactly how strongly God felt about homosexuality and Jesus never redefined that. In fact, Jesus didn't redefine sin; he redefined the punishment for sin because he was to bear that punishment himself on behalf and in place of mankind. Jesus called out the woman at the well for adultery, which was also condemned in the OT, and he told the prostitute to go and sin no more.
The only thing worse than his 99 cent theology is your nickel logic.
as a cisgender (god I hate that this term even exists), middle class, right handed, white male I've suffered more bigotry and intolerance over the last 20 years than any homosexual...and from the exact people who's stake-in-claim in politics is purpotedly omnitolerance.
Speaking as a straight white middle class right-handed male, I think I can state with authority that you're completely full of shit.
Replies such as this make you look foolish, and do nothing at all to tarnish the reputation of those you target. Another thing: rarely has "Anonymous Coward" been so appropriate.
Sort of like, "I'm proud to be 5'10"", or, "I'm proud to be male" or something.
If being 5'10" had -- in recent memory -- been the source of shame and/or discrimination at the hands of others, than you would have a workable analogy. Since that is *not* in fact the case, you got nuthin'.
Visa and Mastercard already have a near-monopoly on payment systems, to the detriment of most retailers
I hold it as self-evident that if accepting credit cards wasn't in some way beneficial to the merchants, they wouldn't accept credit cards. The merchants are crying about the fees while conveniently forgetting that taking credit cards greatly increases sales.
Why do companies want people to pay by phone? Phones are larger than debit cards, harder to handle for payments and much less secure. It doesn't any sense whatsover and will be an eternal security nightmare for all parties involved.
Mostly false.
1) Most people always have their phone anyway, so it's not an either-or situation. 2) A phone can handle authentication for more than one card, so the relative size difference (which is a non-issue to start with, see 1) goes down as the number of cards go up. 3) Mobile payments via NFC are much more secure than credit cards, though that depends on the exact protocols built on top of NFC, not NFC itself. 4) It makes quite a bit of sense when you don't start with absolutely false facts.
As I understand it, it produces heat. Allegedly it produces more heat than can be accounted for by the electrical input. A heat source is a great start, but it takes a lot more than that to generate electricity and feed it to the grid.
Ummm... you know that the central process of most power generation involves "just creating heat", right? I mean, let's see... nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar thermal, and geothermal, off the top of my head. The remainder -- the gap between "just creating heat" and generating electricity -- is pretty well understood. One could even call the remainder trivial -- possibly even an implementation detail.
Relying on Trade Secrets for this kind of invention is the #1 indicator of fraud. A proper patent would make him rich beyond his imagination. A Trade Secret is only good for fleecing investors.
Oddly enough, I've spent some time thinking about this, many years ago, as a thought experiment. If by some miracle someone did in fact invent a working perpetual motion machine / cold fusion device / free energy machine -- on that actually worked -- what then? Is patenting the invention really a viable solution? I would like to submit the idea that, in fact, a patent (even if you could get one granted -- and you probably couldn't) would be effectively worthless.
At the point where someone actually proves such a device can exist (and doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics blah blah blah) then the genie is effectively out of the bottle. At that point, a whole slew of smart people (who are slightly embarrassed that they always thought this was impossible) will figure out a whole bunch of other ways to do the same thing and not violate the patent. Many of them will just say "fuck it" and violate the patent, and wait for the courts to act. China will almost certainly nationalize it (independent of where it was invented) and put it online to power the country. Hell, a few Western countries might do the same thing. The reward is much too great to bother with such trivial details as intellectual property laws.
Just look at the tortured series of events that took place after Orville and Wilbur Wright's first flight. Except in this case, I predict that the owner of the patent would likely go broke trying to defend it.
Yep, good ol' Steve Jobs just wasn't strong-willed enough.
What a great scam though....convince people that this is the secret to long life, then you can dismiss any contradicting evidence by simply claiming those people weren't "strong-willed" enough.
I think it's a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. So yes, complete bullshit.
If you use standard C functions to find length, append, but never get into truncating because you make a new array and copy instead, you may actually get through 2 courses without ever needing to know there is a zero. You were told once, but you never wrote a line of code that needed to know about null-termination.
I can put a finer point on it: very few good programmers are created in college programs. The good ones were writing code before they ever entered college. Even very prestigious schools, I've found, turn out downright shitty CS graduates if they weren't already programming before their freshman year.
Oh, and to put this back on topic: if you've spent the bulk of your college education writing Java code, I'm not interested in hiring you.
He is talking about CS graduates, not people with experience.
I'm talking about both, though I probably didn't make that clear enough. Generally, I'm talking about people who have graduated with CS degrees within the last 0 to 4 years, and who (for values greater than 0) have some professional experience writing code.
I'm in the process of hiring software engineers right now, so I've been exposed to a lot of resumes and had the opportunity to talk to a lot of people on the phone (standard phone screen). Invariably, all recent CS graduates list C on their resume as one of their languages. One of the things I ask every candidate to do on the phone is to describe how C strings work. This is my "marker", the test of how much time they've spent in C (vs Java, or ObjC, or whatever). If you're a serious C programmer, you know how C strings work. No exceptions. If you've spent your entire time in college (or even professionally) programming within an environment where strings are handled by object abstraction, you've probably never had to deal with C strings directly. A suitable answer to the question is as simple as "A C string is an array of chars with a null termination at the end".
You'd be surprised at how many people fail the screening process (and thus are rejected) based on this single question. Probably close to 75%, and every single one of them has a CS degree.
Maybe there's enough people to realize you're full of shit. I'd say Citation Fucking Needed for your post, but we all know it's just the ramblings of a clueless sheep who willingly laps up whatever MSNBC spoon feeds to him. Enjoy your fantasy world.
The word "sheep" is a sure-fire bet that someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you're just out of substantive ideas. Either way, game over.
That's like saying that the way to learn how to swim is to dump everyone in deep water and see who takes to it naturally...
Agreed. That's an apt analogy. Except -- speaking as someone who has had a long career as a programmer and is now a hiring manager -- I think that's a good thing.
So you support state sponsored terrorism. Tyranny, fun for the whole country....
If the state-sponsored terrorism is applied to Greenpeace, then yes. Yes I do. Wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. I think someone ought to sink another one of their boats, just so they get the fucking message.
The solution to the tragedy of the commons is private ownership and liability in order to change the incentives, not more government government regulations.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Government regulations on energy production are the only thing that's keeping the US from looking like China.
Slashdot Mirror
Your 99 cent theology sucks. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh and as such, he was the one who created man and woman as part of the created order. Therefore, the OT stated exactly how strongly God felt about homosexuality and Jesus never redefined that. In fact, Jesus didn't redefine sin; he redefined the punishment for sin because he was to bear that punishment himself on behalf and in place of mankind. Jesus called out the woman at the well for adultery, which was also condemned in the OT, and he told the prostitute to go and sin no more.
The only thing worse than his 99 cent theology is your nickel logic.
as a cisgender (god I hate that this term even exists), middle class, right handed, white male I've suffered more bigotry and intolerance over the last 20 years than any homosexual...and from the exact people who's stake-in-claim in politics is purpotedly omnitolerance.
Speaking as a straight white middle class right-handed male, I think I can state with authority that you're completely full of shit.
What more could a fanboi want?
Replies such as this make you look foolish, and do nothing at all to tarnish the reputation of those you target. Another thing: rarely has "Anonymous Coward" been so appropriate.
Sort of like, "I'm proud to be 5'10"", or, "I'm proud to be male" or something.
If being 5'10" had -- in recent memory -- been the source of shame and/or discrimination at the hands of others, than you would have a workable analogy. Since that is *not* in fact the case, you got nuthin'.
Visa and Mastercard already have a near-monopoly on payment systems, to the detriment of most retailers
I hold it as self-evident that if accepting credit cards wasn't in some way beneficial to the merchants, they wouldn't accept credit cards. The merchants are crying about the fees while conveniently forgetting that taking credit cards greatly increases sales.
You can't have it both ways.
You sir (or madam) seem not too familiar with Wall Street.
When was the last time you bought securities on Wall Street with cash?
But the original SystemBCPL had a structural beauty that later versions never matched.
I see what you did there.
Why do companies want people to pay by phone? Phones are larger than debit cards, harder to handle for payments and much less secure. It doesn't any sense whatsover and will be an eternal security nightmare for all parties involved.
Mostly false.
1) Most people always have their phone anyway, so it's not an either-or situation.
2) A phone can handle authentication for more than one card, so the relative size difference (which is a non-issue to start with, see 1) goes down as the number of cards go up.
3) Mobile payments via NFC are much more secure than credit cards, though that depends on the exact protocols built on top of NFC, not NFC itself.
4) It makes quite a bit of sense when you don't start with absolutely false facts.
For the love of god, why oh why do the pills have to be clear?!?
As I understand it, it produces heat. Allegedly it produces more heat than can be accounted for by the electrical input. A heat source is a great start, but it takes a lot more than that to generate electricity and feed it to the grid.
Ummm... you know that the central process of most power generation involves "just creating heat", right? I mean, let's see... nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar thermal, and geothermal, off the top of my head. The remainder -- the gap between "just creating heat" and generating electricity -- is pretty well understood. One could even call the remainder trivial -- possibly even an implementation detail.
Relying on Trade Secrets for this kind of invention is the #1 indicator of fraud. A proper patent would make him rich beyond his imagination. A Trade Secret is only good for fleecing investors.
Oddly enough, I've spent some time thinking about this, many years ago, as a thought experiment. If by some miracle someone did in fact invent a working perpetual motion machine / cold fusion device / free energy machine -- on that actually worked -- what then? Is patenting the invention really a viable solution? I would like to submit the idea that, in fact, a patent (even if you could get one granted -- and you probably couldn't) would be effectively worthless.
At the point where someone actually proves such a device can exist (and doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics blah blah blah) then the genie is effectively out of the bottle. At that point, a whole slew of smart people (who are slightly embarrassed that they always thought this was impossible) will figure out a whole bunch of other ways to do the same thing and not violate the patent. Many of them will just say "fuck it" and violate the patent, and wait for the courts to act. China will almost certainly nationalize it (independent of where it was invented) and put it online to power the country. Hell, a few Western countries might do the same thing. The reward is much too great to bother with such trivial details as intellectual property laws.
Just look at the tortured series of events that took place after Orville and Wilbur Wright's first flight. Except in this case, I predict that the owner of the patent would likely go broke trying to defend it.
From TFS:
ignoring the fact that the company did its most cutting-edge work when it was willing to kill off its previous products in fairly short order.
When was that, exactly?
What, Godwined already? Sheesh.
1. Vote Libertarian on November 4th
If Libertarian candidates were electable, they'd already be elected.
Yep, good ol' Steve Jobs just wasn't strong-willed enough.
What a great scam though....convince people that this is the secret to long life, then you can dismiss any contradicting evidence by simply claiming those people weren't "strong-willed" enough.
I think it's a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. So yes, complete bullshit.
If you use standard C functions to find length, append, but never get into truncating because you make a new array and copy instead, you may actually get through 2 courses without ever needing to know there is a zero. You were told once, but you never wrote a line of code that needed to know about null-termination.
I can put a finer point on it: very few good programmers are created in college programs. The good ones were writing code before they ever entered college. Even very prestigious schools, I've found, turn out downright shitty CS graduates if they weren't already programming before their freshman year.
Oh, and to put this back on topic: if you've spent the bulk of your college education writing Java code, I'm not interested in hiring you.
He is talking about CS graduates, not people with experience.
I'm talking about both, though I probably didn't make that clear enough. Generally, I'm talking about people who have graduated with CS degrees within the last 0 to 4 years, and who (for values greater than 0) have some professional experience writing code.
I'm in the process of hiring software engineers right now, so I've been exposed to a lot of resumes and had the opportunity to talk to a lot of people on the phone (standard phone screen). Invariably, all recent CS graduates list C on their resume as one of their languages. One of the things I ask every candidate to do on the phone is to describe how C strings work. This is my "marker", the test of how much time they've spent in C (vs Java, or ObjC, or whatever). If you're a serious C programmer, you know how C strings work. No exceptions. If you've spent your entire time in college (or even professionally) programming within an environment where strings are handled by object abstraction, you've probably never had to deal with C strings directly. A suitable answer to the question is as simple as "A C string is an array of chars with a null termination at the end".
You'd be surprised at how many people fail the screening process (and thus are rejected) based on this single question. Probably close to 75%, and every single one of them has a CS degree.
Maybe there's enough people to realize you're full of shit. I'd say Citation Fucking Needed for your post, but we all know it's just the ramblings of a clueless sheep who willingly laps up whatever MSNBC spoon feeds to him. Enjoy your fantasy world.
The word "sheep" is a sure-fire bet that someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you're just out of substantive ideas. Either way, game over.
Your point is sabotaged by your own rhetoric.
That's like saying that the way to learn how to swim is to dump everyone in deep water and see who takes to it naturally...
Agreed. That's an apt analogy. Except -- speaking as someone who has had a long career as a programmer and is now a hiring manager -- I think that's a good thing.
No, I condone sinking their ships. Read my comment again.
So you support state sponsored terrorism. Tyranny, fun for the whole country....
If the state-sponsored terrorism is applied to Greenpeace, then yes. Yes I do. Wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. I think someone ought to sink another one of their boats, just so they get the fucking message.
The solution to the tragedy of the commons is private ownership and liability in order to change the incentives, not more government government regulations.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Government regulations on energy production are the only thing that's keeping the US from looking like China.
See, like most liberal assholes, it is do as i say not as I do. Anyone who give Greenpeace another nickel is a fool.
I think you will find that most liberal assholes (myself included) happen to hold a very dim view of Greenpeace.
Also, fuck you.