How about, hmm, I don't know, reducing the scope? Did you ever see president Eisenhowers' farewell speech? If you didn't, you can always find it online.
And no, one trillion dollar isn't pocket change. That's an insane amount of money. Just take a calculator and calculate the cost per capita, the "trillion" figure is a unit people aren't very familiar with, and looks deceivingly small. It isn't.
Don't be so harsh on the US military. They only have a trillion dollar budget, you know? How are you ever going to set up redundant systems if all you get is pocket change? You have to cut corners somewhere. Maybe it's time to increase their funding a bit more.
I'm really sorry if I offended you, I just wanted to let you know how "God, the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists" sounds in the mind of a non-believer.
Aren't you mixing duality and theism? Duality deals with an assumed distinction between body and mind (-> Descartes). Theism is a belief in magical superheroes. The one does not imply the other. Even if you were to convince me of dualism, that doesn't imply the existence of a god.
Anyway, there are some serious objections to dualism. If there is an immortal soul, there should be a mechanism by which it connects to your brain. How else can your soul perceive what your senses feel? So the claim you thought was so safe from science is suddenly under siege. Dualism, since it interacts with reality, should be testable.
In fact, the current data all points into the direction that the mind is what the brain does. This explains neurological disorders quite well. In fact, you can be a kind, honest, gentle person, but if I were to remove a specific, small part of your brain, you would become a lying, cheating son of a bitch. So if you have the misfortune of a hemorrhage and you become a bad person, after you die you get punished in the afterlife as well?
So yes, you can try to convince some atheists using those arguments, but it won't work on me. I ask too many questions.
Step 1: Download gay porn to phone Step 2: Accuse phone owner of homosexuality. Step 3: Volunteer to clean up the phone while your captors stone the phone owner. Step 4: Read up on slashdot, dilbert, check facebook, solve an online sudoku, you have plenty of time (stoning is damn slow). Step 5: Tweet your location Step 6: ??? Step 7: FREEDOM!
I just think it will take up a fair deal of court time, time better spend on more important issues. And even if you go after the companies directly, I fear that foreign companies will be hard to tackle. Adblock is a much simpler solution.
>You're saying the solution to laws that could ruin your life in the short term is to sue after the fact? wow! [ Sarten-X is] what's wrong with this country, I'd just like to point that out.
> All this c*ap about "safe levels" is absurd - you're inbibing a psycho-active substance, the only real "safe" level that doesn't affect you is none. I mean, if it didn't have a psycho-active effect, would you even really be taking it?
100% wrong. You are confusing the terms "safe" and "active". It's the same as with medicine: you can overdose on medication too, but that doesn't imply that there can't be safe levels. The psycho-active effects are the WHOLE POINT of taking drugs.
Could turn out to be interesting, a game based on the old testament could be plausible, where you get missions directly from God (enslave your neighboring tribe, kill every man in another tribe,...). It would be very violent though, so I don't think it would get approved for children.
It all depends, if the functionality you're writing is called all the time, it might very well be worth it to optimize the thing. A similar example: when I got the RAM size for an embedded application below 512KB, this saved a lot of money to the company I work for just by the sheer volume of units they sell each year (what was is, something like 3$/unit * 3000 units/yr - numbers could be off). The economics go further than just "faster to write".
About competence: my current theory is that if you kill the worst 10% of all programmers, there will be much less demand for good programmers. The bad ones mess things up so badly that the rest of us are mostly cleaning up their code.
erating is not fine. You can't just jump into the code and immediately deduce its meaning. It could be some sort of error. It could be something else. So you have to postpone making up what the variable is for and keep an open mind about it until you discover what it really means. Add a few of those together and you will have turned the average reader into a neurotic pile of misery. You wouldn't make up words like that in regular conversation, so don't do it in code either. Also, if it is part of an employee struct, the 'e' is completely redundant, and such redundancies are a bad thing. It's like violating the normal forms in database design.
On a sidenote, when declaring variable names that are composed words, or when using pre-/suffixes (nothing against that, unless you're using system hungarian notation) I have become a fan of the underscore. Why? Because variable_name is more readable than variableName or any other capitulation scheme you can think of. You might think these are details, but when reading code, these little things add up quickly. And readability is *the* *key*.
Slashdot Mirror
How about, hmm, I don't know, reducing the scope? Did you ever see president Eisenhowers' farewell speech? If you didn't, you can always find it online.
And no, one trillion dollar isn't pocket change. That's an insane amount of money. Just take a calculator and calculate the cost per capita, the "trillion" figure is a unit people aren't very familiar with, and looks deceivingly small. It isn't.
Don't be so harsh on the US military. They only have a trillion dollar budget, you know? How are you ever going to set up redundant systems if all you get is pocket change? You have to cut corners somewhere. Maybe it's time to increase their funding a bit more.
I'd like to go to their office and show them my potential for violence face-to-face.
It seems like with this machine, you are just one software bug away from castration.
Perhaps arts students are taught such phrases in a class called "plan B".
I have to say, I like your sense of humour.
I'm really sorry if I offended you, I just wanted to let you know how "God, the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists" sounds in the mind of a non-believer.
Aren't you mixing duality and theism? Duality deals with an assumed distinction between body and mind (-> Descartes). Theism is a belief in magical superheroes. The one does not imply the other. Even if you were to convince me of dualism, that doesn't imply the existence of a god.
Anyway, there are some serious objections to dualism. If there is an immortal soul, there should be a mechanism by which it connects to your brain. How else can your soul perceive what your senses feel? So the claim you thought was so safe from science is suddenly under siege. Dualism, since it interacts with reality, should be testable.
In fact, the current data all points into the direction that the mind is what the brain does. This explains neurological disorders quite well. In fact, you can be a kind, honest, gentle person, but if I were to remove a specific, small part of your brain, you would become a lying, cheating son of a bitch. So if you have the misfortune of a hemorrhage and you become a bad person, after you die you get punished in the afterlife as well?
So yes, you can try to convince some atheists using those arguments, but it won't work on me. I ask too many questions.
Step 1: Download gay porn to phone
Step 2: Accuse phone owner of homosexuality.
Step 3: Volunteer to clean up the phone while your captors stone the phone owner.
Step 4: Read up on slashdot, dilbert, check facebook, solve an online sudoku, you have plenty of time (stoning is damn slow).
Step 5: Tweet your location
Step 6: ???
Step 7: FREEDOM!
I just think it will take up a fair deal of court time, time better spend on more important issues. And even if you go after the companies directly, I fear that foreign companies will be hard to tackle. Adblock is a much simpler solution.
Yes. This will work because the internet is completely situated in one country. Also, legislation (and enforcement of -) doesn't cost a thing.
>You're saying the solution to laws that could ruin your life in the short term is to sue after the fact? wow! [ Sarten-X is] what's wrong with this country, I'd just like to point that out.
What is your solution? Invent infallibility?
I'd really like to know.
> (you know, like the palestinian practice of throwing kids on the street just before an Israeli jeep just so they can claim the IDF murders children)
Source?
Well, considering the U.S. track record in the middle east, it is a sign of common sense to loathe them.
Her name is Alice, and the "pounce" is the fist of death.
> All this c*ap about "safe levels" is absurd - you're inbibing a psycho-active substance, the only real "safe" level that doesn't affect you is none. I mean, if it didn't have a psycho-active effect, would you even really be taking it?
100% wrong. You are confusing the terms "safe" and "active". It's the same as with medicine: you can overdose on medication too, but that doesn't imply that there can't be safe levels. The psycho-active effects are the WHOLE POINT of taking drugs.
With all those perverts around, my advice to beautiful women is to keep your T-shirt wet at all times.
Instead, they should keep the money for themselves and split it evenly among its iluminati members, right? YOU BASTARD!
It works so well because of the extensive starvation testing.
And don't forget: a massive amount of bombs and countless ways to reduce people to a bloody pile of organs! The usefulness is killing me!
Statistics always involve guesswork. Well, not always, but in 98% of the cases at least.
Could turn out to be interesting, a game based on the old testament could be plausible, where you get missions directly from God (enslave your neighboring tribe, kill every man in another tribe, ...). It would be very violent though, so I don't think it would get approved for children.
It all depends, if the functionality you're writing is called all the time, it might very well be worth it to optimize the thing. A similar example: when I got the RAM size for an embedded application below 512KB, this saved a lot of money to the company I work for just by the sheer volume of units they sell each year (what was is, something like 3$/unit * 3000 units/yr - numbers could be off). The economics go further than just "faster to write".
PS: Yes, SRAM is very expensive.
About competence: my current theory is that if you kill the worst 10% of all programmers, there will be much less demand for good programmers. The bad ones mess things up so badly that the rest of us are mostly cleaning up their code.
erating is not fine. You can't just jump into the code and immediately deduce its meaning. It could be some sort of error. It could be something else. So you have to postpone making up what the variable is for and keep an open mind about it until you discover what it really means. Add a few of those together and you will have turned the average reader into a neurotic pile of misery. You wouldn't make up words like that in regular conversation, so don't do it in code either. Also, if it is part of an employee struct, the 'e' is completely redundant, and such redundancies are a bad thing. It's like violating the normal forms in database design.
On a sidenote, when declaring variable names that are composed words, or when using pre-/suffixes (nothing against that, unless you're using system hungarian notation) I have become a fan of the underscore. Why? Because variable_name is more readable than variableName or any other capitulation scheme you can think of. You might think these are details, but when reading code, these little things add up quickly. And readability is *the* *key*.