I'm one of the world's only men. I'm one of the smartest, best looking, cleanest, dirtiest, stupidest, transparent, greenest and fluffiest people on the planet.
I am one of them, and adding "only" adds no context. How about quantifying? One of 3? Or one of 100?
Emotion seems to be applied to the input first, as an immediate self preservation evaluation. Whether the information is a risk in some fashion and requires action.
Is it a warning like "Duck!" or "The Dow is dropping like its hot"? Or a positive message like "Unzip your pants so I may pleasure you"?
Reading means we skip the emotional cues in vocalizations, and have to go on the message alone. The tone of the words can have a similar effect, for I can sound angry or whimsical by choosing select words.
After that, evaluation on how to deal with the information begins. Is it redundant, contradictory, or new? This may be the subconscious part, but it is still tinged with emotion.
Contradictory information has to be rejected or assimilated, and strategies like cognitive dissonance are in play. Experience plays a role, so accepting or rejecting your early environment may decide if you accept or reject this information, not the truthiness of the information.
The source is considered, as you may believe the president or talk show host more or less readily. This could be emotional or subconscious.
If the information is unscathed, you are now ready for logical evaluation. The trick is turning off automatic evaluation, which is nearly impossible due to how information arrives.
And thanks for not replying to say that you carefully consider new information logically because you are neither normal nor representative. Most people have the initial emotional response, and have to override it with logic, and fail to.
Admitting you are wrong is a great evaluation of how this happens, or fails to. I work with a masterful reframer and deflector who is absolutely never wrong, and it is like watching an artist paint a beautiful, intricate scene using bullshit paint on a bullshit canvas. He doesn't believe it is bullshit, truly.
Can I get you to concede that there are scientists unworthy of the title?
And that many scientists belive that consensus with no serious contending alternative explanations is effectively settled? With the caveat that new evidence requires new scrutiny, of course.
And while I'm here, though a scientist may be less susceptible, can we agree that poll wording and analysis means the 97% number is not a fact, and certainly not incontrovertible. It is a data point with a measure of uncertainty, and additional ambiguity due to using langauge to convey ideas, instead of pure thought, combined with post analysis and reporting which distills and simplifies the results so they approximate a fact.
Scientists are not pure logic, emotion free computers. To assert that they are is ignorant at best.
If you read about any breakthrough that turns accepted science on its head, there is usually a small number of scientists who do not accept the new way. Is it pride? Stubbornness? Or belief that the old way has been right for so long that it has to be right? Surely it wouldn't be finding a valid flaw in the new way, which everyone can dispassionately verify?
There are plenty more who believe an issue is settled and needs no more research. Individual scientists, not science as a whole.
If you still doubt , consider how many have reviewed the data collection and analyses of every landmark paper.
There is considerable room for belief and faith for individual scientists. Not as a collective body, but they did not poll a collective body. They polled imperfect, human scientists.
You are a terrible reader. I cannot imagine a PR piece that could be more harmful to the cause.
It sounds like you allowed some preconceived notion to spin the words for you, because I didn't find your references until the second read through. The first was after reading this post so I was looking for spin to confirm it.
The article was not well written in parts, but it includes some quotes that, taken out of context, more than balance out your spin assertion. The very first sentence in the article explicitly states that Americans were not legally intercepted. The question of who was targeted is a separate issue, depending on the definition of foreign, which is also addressed later.
Your assignment. Make one list of all of the positive spin, and another of spin free clearly negative information. Especially when it is the same concept worded differently. Post this list to back up your claim.
Because screen savers do not save screens. That was their original purpose, but most people don't even think of them as screen savers. They are rotating photo displays.
Despite the warnings of Joel on Software, a rewrite is a great chance to weed out legacy requirements and functionality.
Sure there is the chance of oversimplifying to the point of introducing bugs, but automated regression/unit tests can compare the old and new code output to make sure the results are at least equivalent (if not the same).
An even more important reason is to be able to throw more warm bodies at a problem. Perl recruiting in that area might be difficult, and choosing something trendy but not overly trendy can ease the hiring burden.
So maybe it's not just the code that's broken. The requirements and developer pool could be the broken parts, and switching languages is just the needed fix.
Predictability is a lot more important than you seem to think it is, and languages behaving inconsistently is a lot more of a problem than you think it is.
The naming convention makes reading code a lot more readable, and a lot easier to understand. Also, depending on whether your IDE supports autocompletion completely, partially, flaky, or not at all, it is a lot harder to make stupid errors if types and functions/methods follow a pattern.
Having functions return false, but some functions throw an exception, is an inconsistent design. If the designers started out with returning false, then changed to exceptions, that means they changed their minds and decided that false was not a good design. And functions still return false because it would be a breaking change. So now it's both poorly designed AND inconsistent.
The 'Concise' point seems to be minimizing the example. With a try/catch you can catch every failure, not just one per line, with a single handler. I'm used to languages where you can catch and log the exception, and language constructs clean up resources. Any code-managed resources can be cleaned up in the catch block. One try, one catch, a call to a log, and most of the time that's it. As opposed to a try/catch around every line of code, which seems to be the slant of this paragraph.
I don't understand the point about 'Debuggable' because I never used it. I also never used it with Oracle, so 'b-b-b-but Oracle' is the least convincing argument ever in this context.
I stopped reading about the time I saw the "Arguments" paragraph, because so far the author is exactly as guilty as the previous author.
In short, we have two people who fundamentally disagree on the precursors to software development arguing their beliefs instead of making a solid, language-agnostic argument. Everything they argue is skewed way out of proportion, and the counterexamples are ridiculously oversimplified.
There is not a true rational argument here, other than both authors pointing out legitimate shortfalls of PHP I concede, not having read nor written any PHP, that it was poorly designed, just based on the rebuttal you linked to alone.
Point me to a rebuttal that is more than essentially "You're right, but it's fine and everyone else should be totally okay with it broken this way" and maybe I'll change my mind.
It was cum-garglingly, cunt-leakingly, colon-lickingly shitty.
If your (coding) language makes it easier to be sloppy, regardless of whatever additional criteria you have arbitrarily added to the argument, it is not a good choice. All of the fine structure in the world can be written sloppily. Especially in the relatively common case of having a design shipped offshore to be implemented by the cheapest labor.
Being a great writer can be done in any language. Choosing the best one for the job helps average and bad people make fewer mistakes.
And none of this helps answer the question of which language should be used by people writing a "web based service". And for that matter, I don't think anyone can help given that vague description.
So let's just argue semantics and move the goalposts without having any real content to bite into, because that seems like the way this is headed.
I could explain it to you, but you seem like you're happy being ignorant as all hell. Just remember this post next time you conclude that the only answer is bribery. Just maybe, you might look into the facts just a smidge before posting nonsense.
Wrong answer. No, the source of testable claims does not matter. We don't discriminate.
When someone repeatedly makes the same claim, proven false already, we can discount it. When someone makes similar claims that have not been tested, we can be forgiven for not testing.
It sounds like you have some experience discrediting this guy, which most of us probably don't have. That would be more helpful than snide asides and disregarding information.
Your opposition has been noted. Meanwhile, development continues as if you said nothing.
That's because you are not representative of the market.
Do you stop by a dealership every 6 months and explain that you would buy if it weren't a computer? Or do you not even consider Ford products? After considering, you may realize that you really aren't the market at all.
So, how do you buy a modern car not a computer after that's the only option? Because I'm not the market, and I would love to disrupt this. By buying what I want, instead of typing angrily where Ford is unlikely to see it.
And food, and water. Yet when we find someone willing to move, we say sorry, immigration laws. Or housing prices. Or unemployment.
Any time you can say "just move", there are all kinds of complications.
So no, it really isn't that easy if you want a solution. If all you want to do is steal the oversimplified philosophy of dead comedians, yes it is just that easy.
Re: anecdote Bulk prices go down if the good is market priced, and has built in efficiency. You can still earn a profit but make slightly less.
Resource scarcity can make the goods harder to acquire, I.e. more locations have to be visited.
At a minimum, I would expect the price not to change downward unless coconut guy already had them picked. You should reevaluate your expectations on this one.
The last time this came up in a big way, no one here could point to anything suggesting that flight is a necessary part of modern life, to the point that it is a constitutional right.
In fact, most people pointed to cases where travel was NOT a constitutional right.
So what will change is everyone here will now have a case to point to suggesting that the no-fly list is actually unconstitutional. Actually unconstitutional as opposed to obviously unconstitutional.
So the difference on slashdot is that people will have a case to point to, but still won't.
Incredulity isn't helping. If you ever used Outlook/ Exchange with a quota, you understand what happened. Failure to retain server backups is probably illegal, so the IT head should be fired or in jail. Everything else is applying your personal perspective and inferring pointless nonsense.
Keep in mind, the law enforcement division does not use the same hardware pool as the Exchange server backup team, and now you seem silly for having posted false equivalence.
You rolled all of R&D into one pile, so horseshit.
Drug R&D is way different from tech R&D. Microsoft is sitting on billions of unmonetized discoveries. They could, if they converted 10% of the non-operational Microsoft Research into marketable assets, push Apple off the map.
In comparison, look at the price for a cure for HCV. $100 per pill, or $90,000+ in total. It seems to be a solved problem, and not one of those things where big pharma hides a cure because long-term treatment is financially more beneficial.
If you want to attack big pharma, the number to argue is the advertising to cost, or advertising to research dollar amount. Not arguing unrelated numbers pulled out of your ass.
You accused me of being a troll my first post, because you apparently disagreed with me. After pointing out multiple flaws in your reasoning, you are officially a troll. Maybe unintentionally, out of either ignorance or stupidity, but nevertheless you have a hook upon which you post some faith, and with which you intend to catch respondents. Troll under the bridge, troll on a boat, same same bmo.
"Repeat" doesn't really sit well with me, because science is about repeating and confirming.
I googled your suggestion, but I did not come up with anything that resembled this. Very loosely, if at all, but certainly not as described.
So is there a specific result that demonstrates just how leaves place water above the surface so they can absorb stuff from the air without water interfering?
Because that's what I took from this, and what I did not take from the first page of your suggestion.
I'm sure others have so replied, but I do so for the record.
Higher education in your chosen career is furthering education, but it is not currently job preparation. High school is job prep, and college/uni is on the verge of becoming job prep. But it currently is not. By definition, leading to a job is not the point. For students it may be the point, but for everyone else it is not.
A trillion dollar debt problem is NOT THE FUCKING CONVERSATION. At all. It is unrelated, unless you are talking about student debt and nothing else. Not "and credit cards", not "and house". And you don't clarify, so I classify this claim as nutter territory.
Given this, unless you have specific objections outside of someone performing outside of the expected average, HR departments requiring a BA at least kinda says college pays off. Again, unless you have specific objections.
Requiring a MA degree for library work, as far as I understand the number of positions and number of applicants, sounds like a very reasonable way to cut down the number of applicants. It does not make whatever point you have in your head.
I have nothing but contempt for you, but the reason is that you seem to have preconceived notions which rate some sort of bile response, rather than some amount of thoughtfulness on your part.
Just think about this for a bit, and try to defend yourself with 1) related data and 2) no unrelated data
It's insightful because you equivocate individual citizens to law enforcement, because clearly their super powers are exactly the same.
Are you, as an individual with a stingray device, allowed to request judicial approval to investigate and/or detain a potentially lawbreaking citizen?
I'm very fucking well not talking about unconstitutional horseshit, where you ask rhetorically whether some agency should be able to ask permission from some secret bunch of righteous dudes.
I'm talking about you, as a non-law-enforcement person, being remotely the same ballpark as law enforcement. It;s not. They don't think it's innocuous, they think it's legal.
If you are going to fight something you should really understand it, and not make terrible rhetorical arguments. Or, you can be like this guy and say stupid shit, your call.
Police don't think they are innocuous, nor illegal, nor any other negative. They believe themselves necessary, and for that reason individual non-law-enforcement people are not necessary. So they would advise you to stay out of it and give them whatever info you have.
Slashdot Mirror
Get back on your choo choo train and quit yer bitching.
I'm one of the world's only men. I'm one of the smartest, best looking, cleanest, dirtiest, stupidest, transparent, greenest and fluffiest people on the planet.
I am one of them, and adding "only" adds no context. How about quantifying? One of 3? Or one of 100?
Emotion seems to be applied to the input first, as an immediate self preservation evaluation. Whether the information is a risk in some fashion and requires action.
Is it a warning like "Duck!" or "The Dow is dropping like its hot"? Or a positive message like "Unzip your pants so I may pleasure you"?
Reading means we skip the emotional cues in vocalizations, and have to go on the message alone. The tone of the words can have a similar effect, for I can sound angry or whimsical by choosing select words.
After that, evaluation on how to deal with the information begins. Is it redundant, contradictory, or new? This may be the subconscious part, but it is still tinged with emotion.
Contradictory information has to be rejected or assimilated, and strategies like cognitive dissonance are in play. Experience plays a role, so accepting or rejecting your early environment may decide if you accept or reject this information, not the truthiness of the information.
The source is considered, as you may believe the president or talk show host more or less readily. This could be emotional or subconscious.
If the information is unscathed, you are now ready for logical evaluation. The trick is turning off automatic evaluation, which is nearly impossible due to how information arrives.
And thanks for not replying to say that you carefully consider new information logically because you are neither normal nor representative. Most people have the initial emotional response, and have to override it with logic, and fail to.
Admitting you are wrong is a great evaluation of how this happens, or fails to. I work with a masterful reframer and deflector who is absolutely never wrong, and it is like watching an artist paint a beautiful, intricate scene using bullshit paint on a bullshit canvas. He doesn't believe it is bullshit, truly.
Can I get you to concede that there are scientists unworthy of the title?
And that many scientists belive that consensus with no serious contending alternative explanations is effectively settled? With the caveat that new evidence requires new scrutiny, of course.
And while I'm here, though a scientist may be less susceptible, can we agree that poll wording and analysis means the 97% number is not a fact, and certainly not incontrovertible. It is a data point with a measure of uncertainty, and additional ambiguity due to using langauge to convey ideas, instead of pure thought, combined with post analysis and reporting which distills and simplifies the results so they approximate a fact.
Scientists are not pure logic, emotion free computers. To assert that they are is ignorant at best.
If you read about any breakthrough that turns accepted science on its head, there is usually a small number of scientists who do not accept the new way. Is it pride? Stubbornness? Or belief that the old way has been right for so long that it has to be right? Surely it wouldn't be finding a valid flaw in the new way, which everyone can dispassionately verify?
There are plenty more who believe an issue is settled and needs no more research. Individual scientists, not science as a whole.
If you still doubt , consider how many have reviewed the data collection and analyses of every landmark paper.
There is considerable room for belief and faith for individual scientists. Not as a collective body, but they did not poll a collective body. They polled imperfect, human scientists.
You are a terrible reader. I cannot imagine a PR piece that could be more harmful to the cause.
It sounds like you allowed some preconceived notion to spin the words for you, because I didn't find your references until the second read through. The first was after reading this post so I was looking for spin to confirm it.
The article was not well written in parts, but it includes some quotes that, taken out of context, more than balance out your spin assertion. The very first sentence in the article explicitly states that Americans were not legally intercepted. The question of who was targeted is a separate issue, depending on the definition of foreign, which is also addressed later.
Your assignment. Make one list of all of the positive spin, and another of spin free clearly negative information. Especially when it is the same concept worded differently. Post this list to back up your claim.
Which one is the former and which the latter? Because intercepting messages sounds like it is mighty unconstitutional.
Because screen savers do not save screens. That was their original purpose, but most people don't even think of them as screen savers. They are rotating photo displays.
Despite the warnings of Joel on Software, a rewrite is a great chance to weed out legacy requirements and functionality.
Sure there is the chance of oversimplifying to the point of introducing bugs, but automated regression/unit tests can compare the old and new code output to make sure the results are at least equivalent (if not the same).
An even more important reason is to be able to throw more warm bodies at a problem. Perl recruiting in that area might be difficult, and choosing something trendy but not overly trendy can ease the hiring burden.
So maybe it's not just the code that's broken. The requirements and developer pool could be the broken parts, and switching languages is just the needed fix.
Predictability is a lot more important than you seem to think it is, and languages behaving inconsistently is a lot more of a problem than you think it is.
The naming convention makes reading code a lot more readable, and a lot easier to understand. Also, depending on whether your IDE supports autocompletion completely, partially, flaky, or not at all, it is a lot harder to make stupid errors if types and functions/methods follow a pattern.
Having functions return false, but some functions throw an exception, is an inconsistent design. If the designers started out with returning false, then changed to exceptions, that means they changed their minds and decided that false was not a good design. And functions still return false because it would be a breaking change. So now it's both poorly designed AND inconsistent.
The 'Concise' point seems to be minimizing the example. With a try/catch you can catch every failure, not just one per line, with a single handler. I'm used to languages where you can catch and log the exception, and language constructs clean up resources. Any code-managed resources can be cleaned up in the catch block. One try, one catch, a call to a log, and most of the time that's it. As opposed to a try/catch around every line of code, which seems to be the slant of this paragraph.
I don't understand the point about 'Debuggable' because I never used it. I also never used it with Oracle, so 'b-b-b-but Oracle' is the least convincing argument ever in this context.
I stopped reading about the time I saw the "Arguments" paragraph, because so far the author is exactly as guilty as the previous author.
In short, we have two people who fundamentally disagree on the precursors to software development arguing their beliefs instead of making a solid, language-agnostic argument. Everything they argue is skewed way out of proportion, and the counterexamples are ridiculously oversimplified.
There is not a true rational argument here, other than both authors pointing out legitimate shortfalls of PHP I concede, not having read nor written any PHP, that it was poorly designed, just based on the rebuttal you linked to alone.
Point me to a rebuttal that is more than essentially "You're right, but it's fine and everyone else should be totally okay with it broken this way" and maybe I'll change my mind.
This is slashdot. You walked past abuse and argument into bolgia ten, where all of the editors have rashes, dropsy, leprosy and consumption.
You make good points, but the analogy was shitty.
Not just bad, or even *bad*.
It was cum-garglingly, cunt-leakingly, colon-lickingly shitty.
If your (coding) language makes it easier to be sloppy, regardless of whatever additional criteria you have arbitrarily added to the argument, it is not a good choice. All of the fine structure in the world can be written sloppily. Especially in the relatively common case of having a design shipped offshore to be implemented by the cheapest labor.
Being a great writer can be done in any language. Choosing the best one for the job helps average and bad people make fewer mistakes.
And none of this helps answer the question of which language should be used by people writing a "web based service". And for that matter, I don't think anyone can help given that vague description.
So let's just argue semantics and move the goalposts without having any real content to bite into, because that seems like the way this is headed.
I could explain it to you, but you seem like you're happy being ignorant as all hell.
Just remember this post next time you conclude that the only answer is bribery. Just maybe, you might look into the facts just a smidge before posting nonsense.
Wrong answer. No, the source of testable claims does not matter. We don't discriminate.
When someone repeatedly makes the same claim, proven false already, we can discount it. When someone makes similar claims that have not been tested, we can be forgiven for not testing.
It sounds like you have some experience discrediting this guy, which most of us probably don't have. That would be more helpful than snide asides and disregarding information.
Your opposition has been noted. Meanwhile, development continues as if you said nothing.
That's because you are not representative of the market.
Do you stop by a dealership every 6 months and explain that you would buy if it weren't a computer? Or do you not even consider Ford products? After considering, you may realize that you really aren't the market at all.
So, how do you buy a modern car not a computer after that's the only option? Because I'm not the market, and I would love to disrupt this. By buying what I want, instead of typing angrily where Ford is unlikely to see it.
And food, and water. Yet when we find someone willing to move, we say sorry, immigration laws. Or housing prices. Or unemployment.
Any time you can say "just move", there are all kinds of complications.
So no, it really isn't that easy if you want a solution. If all you want to do is steal the oversimplified philosophy of dead comedians, yes it is just that easy.
Re: anecdote
Bulk prices go down if the good is market priced, and has built in efficiency. You can still earn a profit but make slightly less.
Resource scarcity can make the goods harder to acquire, I.e. more locations have to be visited.
At a minimum, I would expect the price not to change downward unless coconut guy already had them picked. You should reevaluate your expectations on this one.
Exempt employees do not have to be paid overtime. If the job atmosphere pushes you into it, you will work it or be replaced by someone who will.
So these people, at least in one large country, and states can change the rules too. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/f...
The last time this came up in a big way, no one here could point to anything suggesting that flight is a necessary part of modern life, to the point that it is a constitutional right.
In fact, most people pointed to cases where travel was NOT a constitutional right.
So what will change is everyone here will now have a case to point to suggesting that the no-fly list is actually unconstitutional. Actually unconstitutional as opposed to obviously unconstitutional.
So the difference on slashdot is that people will have a case to point to, but still won't.
Who requests an arrest warrant?
Do judges just sit around reading the news, becoming outraged periodically, and issue arrest warrants?
I'm really curious how this process works.
Incredulity isn't helping. If you ever used Outlook/ Exchange with a quota, you understand what happened. Failure to retain server backups is probably illegal, so the IT head should be fired or in jail. Everything else is applying your personal perspective and inferring pointless nonsense.
Keep in mind, the law enforcement division does not use the same hardware pool as the Exchange server backup team, and now you seem silly for having posted false equivalence.
You rolled all of R&D into one pile, so horseshit.
Drug R&D is way different from tech R&D. Microsoft is sitting on billions of unmonetized discoveries. They could, if they converted 10% of the non-operational Microsoft Research into marketable assets, push Apple off the map.
In comparison, look at the price for a cure for HCV. $100 per pill, or $90,000+ in total. It seems to be a solved problem, and not one of those things where big pharma hides a cure because long-term treatment is financially more beneficial.
If you want to attack big pharma, the number to argue is the advertising to cost, or advertising to research dollar amount. Not arguing unrelated numbers pulled out of your ass.
You accused me of being a troll my first post, because you apparently disagreed with me. After pointing out multiple flaws in your reasoning, you are officially a troll. Maybe unintentionally, out of either ignorance or stupidity, but nevertheless you have a hook upon which you post some faith, and with which you intend to catch respondents. Troll under the bridge, troll on a boat, same same bmo.
"Repeat" doesn't really sit well with me, because science is about repeating and confirming.
I googled your suggestion, but I did not come up with anything that resembled this. Very loosely, if at all, but certainly not as described.
So is there a specific result that demonstrates just how leaves place water above the surface so they can absorb stuff from the air without water interfering?
Because that's what I took from this, and what I did not take from the first page of your suggestion.
I'm sure others have so replied, but I do so for the record.
Higher education in your chosen career is furthering education, but it is not currently job preparation. High school is job prep, and college/uni is on the verge of becoming job prep. But it currently is not. By definition, leading to a job is not the point. For students it may be the point, but for everyone else it is not.
A trillion dollar debt problem is NOT THE FUCKING CONVERSATION. At all. It is unrelated, unless you are talking about student debt and nothing else. Not "and credit cards", not "and house". And you don't clarify, so I classify this claim as nutter territory.
Given this, unless you have specific objections outside of someone performing outside of the expected average, HR departments requiring a BA at least kinda says college pays off. Again, unless you have specific objections.
Requiring a MA degree for library work, as far as I understand the number of positions and number of applicants, sounds like a very reasonable way to cut down the number of applicants. It does not make whatever point you have in your head.
I have nothing but contempt for you, but the reason is that you seem to have preconceived notions which rate some sort of bile response, rather than some amount of thoughtfulness on your part.
Just think about this for a bit, and try to defend yourself with 1) related data and 2) no unrelated data
It's insightful because you equivocate individual citizens to law enforcement, because clearly their super powers are exactly the same.
Are you, as an individual with a stingray device, allowed to request judicial approval to investigate and/or detain a potentially lawbreaking citizen?
I'm very fucking well not talking about unconstitutional horseshit, where you ask rhetorically whether some agency should be able to ask permission from some secret bunch of righteous dudes.
I'm talking about you, as a non-law-enforcement person, being remotely the same ballpark as law enforcement. It;s not. They don't think it's innocuous, they think it's legal.
If you are going to fight something you should really understand it, and not make terrible rhetorical arguments. Or, you can be like this guy and say stupid shit, your call.
Police don't think they are innocuous, nor illegal, nor any other negative. They believe themselves necessary, and for that reason individual non-law-enforcement people are not necessary. So they would advise you to stay out of it and give them whatever info you have.
Be honest, and rhetoric be damned.