>> There's no reason to assume it's the outlaw of >> guns versus the other multitude of factors that >> contribute to crime.
> On what legitimate basis can you argue that the > reverse would be true then?
He isn't saying the reverse is true. He is saying that they are orthogonal issues. He is speaking a fundamental truth which fails to land upon the brains of most people... "correlation does not equal causation".
The presence of guns has nothing to do with the crime rate. Nothing. Crime is crime. Lack of guns will not decrease crime. More guns will not increase crime. They are completely orthogonal.
A gun may be USED in a crime. But that is not to say that a gun CAUSES a crime. A crime has a motive. And a motive has nothing to do with the weapon used to commit the crime. And 'motive' itself does not cause crime.
Ultimately, PEOPLE commit crimes. And 'commit' is the key word. The tools used, the methods used, the motives... all of these things have nothing to do with crime.
It takes a person to commit a crime. And as long as there are people... there will be crimes. And if guns are gone... crime will still exist. And if guns are prevalent (as in America)... crime will still exist.
Based upon the statistics... showing a cyclical crime rate in all nations... it is quite apparent that lack of guns, or proliferation of guns, has nothing to do with the crime rate itself.
This is the old "what happens if a bomb drops on your house" argument.
How about some more what ifs:
What if a robber breaks into your house, and he doesn't have a gun... but you do. He manages to knock you over the head and take your gun. I sure hope you have a smart gun... otherwise you're deadmeat.
As to your second point, it doesn't follow. Print identification technology has been used for years in other areas. The applications for the technology are limitless. I wish they'd do it not only for guns, but for cars, also.
BTW... back when firearms manufacturers decided to put safeties on all their firearms... people were saying the same things. The technology can't be trusted. Guns with safeties will probably kill more people those without... because a safety causes people to be less careful and more sloppy. Stuff like that.
Needless to say. The arguments don't stand up. Safety mechanisms, redundancy, and fault tolerance in any kind of product make for better safer products.
This legislation isn't only for parents. At least READ the legislation itself before you criticize it. The idea is that nobody but the owner and other authorized user(s) should be able to fire the weapon.
While I won't argue about the reliability or feasibility of this system... ( I haven't seen it personally )... but the idea I am definitely in agreement with the principle. I think it is long past due. Not only for firearms, but also for other things as well.
Carrying a firearm is an immense responsibility... parent or not. Especially in today's world. And it does not seem unreasonable to say that a firearm should only be able to be discharged by its registered user(s).
This is NOT just child-proofing technology. It also keeps someone from prying your gun from your cold dead fingers and shooting someone else with it.
The NRA is like a kinetic propaganda machine. One NRA member on Slashdot tells another... tells another... tells another... tells another.
Before you know it, the entire NRA is posting on the board. Nothing new here. Move on. Whereever there is a gun issue posted on any well-trafficked public board... you can expect a million responses... most of them from gun advocates.
Kids have been taught by their parents to properly use and respect guns for a couple centuries now. I don't see why it should be so tough.
Because these days, kids see it on television every day. People shooting each other. Child heroes killing the bad guys with guns. Video games glorifying the pointless use of a gun. This is what makes it so difficult.
What I find so difficult to understand is how you think that parents should just "be responsible". Although... its perfectly fine for those children of irresponsible parents to die needlessly. Just because you don't want an added safety feature... because you feel personally violated by it.
Its amazing... I'm sure that gun advocates had these same kinds of arguments when SAFETIES were required to be put on guns. "Mah damn gun don't need no safety! I'm a reeeeesponsible person!".
All those prohibitions justified as being "for the good of the children" are pretty damn annoying to the millions that don't have children by choice and yet find their freedoms as adults restricted by inappropriately broad legislation.
Requring some more safety precautions where guns are concerned is not a bad thing. Its a good thing. It isn't to restrict your freedom... (although I'm having a difficult time seeing how your freedom is being restricted by this).
As a gun owner, it is your responsibility to make sure that you are as safe as possible where the gun is concerned. Should your gun fall into the wrong hands, for whatever reason, this kind of mechanism might possibly SAVE a life. That is the point.
Proactive, preventative action is far preferred to _reactive_ measures taken after the damage has already been done.
The problem is the current state of man's mind. His lack of a social conscious. His lack of morality. His fundamental greed and selfishness. The world's values are simply not where they need to be. Humans are still driven by self-preservation rather than the preservation of humans as a whole.
Let's face it. With matters of conscious... money means nothing. Politics means nothing. "Education" is only knowing details.
The truth is that everyone should be taking care of eachother as a unit. As one people. As a big machine. People should not be primarily concerned with how much money they make. They should not be primarily concerned with what kind of car they drive. We should not be concerned about any such bullshit.
Our primary goal should simply be to care for one another. To make eachother happy. I should be working to keep the machine going... because it helps our fellow man. Not enough people in this world understand the absolute joy in caring for others... likewise... being cared for by others.
Mankind simply does not understand that there are more than enough resources in this world... that could ensure that every person is taken care of. Food. Clothing. Healthcare. Everything.
And that is all that matters... nothing else comes close. But I'm doubting that mankind will evolve to the level of understanding that our primary values should rest in taking care of one another... rather than taking advantage of one another and ourselves.
I think freedom of the press is absolute, should be absolute, and was intended to be absolute. The was the whole point of the 1st amendment. If the founders wanted something else, why didnt they write what you just wrote?
Dan, if the right was absolute, they would have WRITTEN IT THAT WAY. Don't you get it? You are the one inserting words into the amendment. There is example after example of where you are not allowed by federal law to say certain things. Or print certain things. And there are valid reasons why these limitations exist. Usually to protect the citzenry or the system itself.
Debating about absolute rights is stupid. Because I can easily go down each amendment in the consitution and show you where limitations have been imposed.
Laws are accepted guidelines that we try to apply to certain circumstances to see what fits... what doesn't... what repercussions should be... etc. The consitution is nothing but a set of laws by which the government has been told to abide.
By like any laws, there are exceptions. There are amendments. There are limitations. Laws are never absolute, unchangeable, or exempt from interpretation.
If you think laws are absolute, then you have no concept of why the Supreme Court exists, or what 'law' itself is.
How do you decide who's campaign gets state money without squelching free speech? You certainly can't be giving money to every putz with an axe to grind.
That's not how you do it at all. You give the money to the candidates which are put forward by their party to run. The political party has to be officially recognized. Official status is usually garnered by petition or by past vote results.
So the repubs put forward their candidate, the dems put forward theirs, the independents put forward theirs. And each candidate is given an equal amount of money to run on.
As a tax-payer, why should I be funding the campaign of someone who's positions are antithetical to my own?
This argument is dumb. Do you think that, as a taxpayer, you get to pick and choose where you want to spend your money? No. You don't. If you think you do, think again. I don't like my tax dollars supporting terrorist nations... but it happens. I don't like my tax dollars enforcing a useless war on drugs... but it happens. I have countless other examples...
Think of it this way... you are contributing your tax dollars to making the election system a level playing field again. Instead of one ruled by the wealthy and the special interest.
It isn't restriction of free speech. The problem that the court is trying to solve is the absolute booming voice of the media.
What the law is trying to eliminate is that the very wealthy Dan Heskett can buy millions of dollars worth of TV spots pushing his own bias. That Dan Heskett has access to something not because of the law, but only because of his money. Basically, Dan increases his candidate's chances of winning simply because of his financial wealth.
That is a HUGE problem. In today's society, only the rich have voices. Only the special interest groups have voices. There is no individual voice anymore. We are slaves to a two-party system which locks out other parties by denying them access to debates and ads spots. And in this system... whoever spends more money basically gets the job. This is fundamentally wrong, and completely against the doctrine upon which this country was built.
The problem is, Dan, that you don't seem to understand that every right has its boundaries. Rights are never absolute. Never.
The three fundamental rights in the declaration of independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But those three rights are indeed limited and removed depending on how you use those three rights.
So, let's get it straight. The right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want to. The right to freedom of the press does not mean that the press can print what it wants, whenever it wants to.
When you can understand what I've said about rights not being absolute, the closer you'll be to actually contributing something meaningful to this discussion.
So I'd argue that to truly be as powerful as the human brain, you would need 100 petaflops of 1-2 input flops, with at least a petabyte tape system.
I love it when people try to simplify the human brain and what it is. Especially when they have no idea how it works, or understands how it does what it does. You know absolutely nothing. Nobody else does either.
First off, you can't compare a brain to a computer. On any level. The brain achieves consciousness. And consciousness is something that you'll never see a computer achieve. Ever.
Why? Because nobody understands what consciousness is. Not from a scientific perspective. There are many philosophical definitions, but nothing quanitified by science. It is an intangible that science cannot quantify and measure.
And science does not understand how the brain is able to achieve consciousness... or if the brain is responsible for producing consciousness to begin with. The most advanced brain specialists in the world still have no clue about the brain... aside from its physics and its parts. Which we have discovered tell us very very little about consciousness itself. Hell, anybody can look at something and identify its parts. But we still have no idea how it works.
I'll believe all this bullshit when I see someone actually create an organic, conscious brain from scratch. Until then, its all moot.
This is a huge waste of money. How the hell can the US fund this bullshit instead of helping real, living, breathing people? Stop spending billions trying to reproduce the brain, and start helping people who actually have brains.
Eizo monitors kick ass, too...
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have a 15" Eizo LCD flat panel, and it is by far the best monitor I've ever owned. Very fast pixel disposal, very even colors and brightness from top to bottom. Wide viewing angle. About the only bad thing I can say about it is that you can't rotate the screen 90 degrees, but I'd never use that feature, anyways.
Excellent brightness and contrast. Black is excellent. Eizo also has image smoothing built-in, but I never use it.
Great for gaming. Unreal Tournament and Castle Wolfenstein are totally smooth. No ghosts. No slowness.
If you're in the market for an LCD panel, make sure you audition an Eizo, as well. Fantastic monitors (CRT and LCD panel both).
I am not a Christian, or a Jewish person, and I do feel that most religious texts are overall rubbish.
That notwithstanding, I don't see anywhere in Christian or Jewish scripture where a fetus is declared to be the same as a born, breathing person. If anything, it is the exact opposite. The word "breath" and the act of "breathing" are referred to many times over as being the qualifier for life. Bodies being fully formed, yet without the breath of life. Calling forth the winds to breath life into corpses... etc... etc. The Jewish priniciple was always that God breathed life and gave the soul to the child when the child was born. Because that is how it is written even when Adam was first created.
Ezekiel 37:
"Thus says the Lord God to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. 'And I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin, and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the Lord.' "
Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Job 27:3
"For the length of my life is still in me, And the spirit of God is in my nostrils"
There are lots more references to such things. But overall, it does appear clear that according to Jewish and Christian scriptures... the fetus is not a living, soul-having child until it comes out and has the breath of life breathed into it.
On another point, if the Christian and Jewish God was so dead set against child-killing, he certainly didn't show it... since he made it a point to dictate the killing of living/breathing, innocent children in several circumstances.
And for those who quote Exodus 21 as being proof that abortion is condemned... that is wrong. In Exodus 21, the consequence of life for life was if the _bystanding PREGNANT woman_ died due to being accidentally hurt as the result of a brawl between men... not the fetus. If the women lived, the perpetrators would simply be fined. Nowhere in this text does it say that the well-being of the fetus and the mother both are to be considered. This is probably the most commonly misused, and over-interpreted modern Jewish/Christian text related to abortion.
Just wanted to inject a little information into the fray.
When are people going to realize that no matter how much syntactical sugar someone puts into a language, it won't make a developer into a better developer. Or a designer into a better designer. You're either good at writing code, or you aren't. You either understand the precepts of object-oriented programming, or you don't. Java is a capable OO langauge. C# is also a capable OO language.
Java and C# are very similar. C# offers some nice-to-haves. C# also offers some things that really don't make sense... properties are the best example. Exception handling is another example. C# takes a few minor steps forward and a few steps back. Which equates to pretty much standing still in reference to Java.
I simply don't see enough compelling reasons to switch from Java to C#. The two languages are nearly identical. Java has far more support. Java is far more mature. I just don't see the benefits of changing at this time.
Some of the C# examples are pretty bad, too. Who cares if I can write code like this in C#?
my.object.foo++; my.object.font = BOLD;
I wouldn't write code like that anyways. Because it is poor code. Sure, it is quicker to type. But if you're really craving to save those extra keystrokes... use LISP. You don't get much more concise than that. Less keystrokes does not necessarily equate to better readibility or maintainability.
For now, I'll stick with Java. C# just doesn't have the value-add yet to even consider changing.
As a developer, if you want to expand your OO knowledge level... don't learn the same old thing over again... which is what you'd be doing going from Java to C#. Learn something worthwhile...
Currently, we use Jetty 4.1 and Apache on our medium-level production traffic site. We absolutely love it.
Originally, we used Apache/Tomcat... but Tomcat was far too slow. Jetty is very fast serving both dynamic pages and static content. Jetty is highly configurable and easily modified with wonderful XML-based configuration files. I have Jetty configuring a part of my application using some custom/application-specific classes that I wrote. Great stuff! The days of having to code application startup stuff in the init() method of a load-on-startup servlet is OVER.
Oh... and Jetty running on J2SE 1.4 supports non-blocking I/O. The guys at Mortbay are on top of their game. I cannot say enough about how wonderful this tool is.
The only reason we still have Apache hanging around is because Jetty has a _very primitive_ CGI interface. It doesn't support HTTP sessions. It will run Perl scripts, but without the session support... it renders most CGI-based applications useless.
So if you want to run CGI-based apps like Bugzilla or mysqltool... you need Apache to do it for you. Jetty can't cut the mustard here.
Not withstanding its CGI weaknesses, I still feel Jetty is by far the best servlet engine out there. I have also tried Resin... but I don't see any major advantage of Resin over Jetty. I certainly didn't see any signifigant performance difference on my server (Dual 1.2Ghz, SCSI Cheetah, 1GB RAM).
If you want a servlet engine... try Jetty. I doubt you'll look any further once you've tried it.
My former employer required the use of 65-page UML diagrams for the simplest command-line utilities. Why? Because it was popular, and the investors liked to make sure we were buzzword-compliant. UML is designed for non-technical audiences, and as such it flies in the face of the engineering goals it is designed to solve. What's good for the suits isn't necessarily good for the engineers.
I'm not sure how to say this nicely, but you are a moron. You actually think that UML and design diagrams are only for suits? That is ridiculous. Just because your former employer was a complete idiot and requiring obscene amounts of UML diagrams for small things doesn't make the whole concept a farce.
Good engineering (of any kind) starts with design... a plan. I'm glad you don't build skyscrapers or airplanes.
These stand in the way of progress like no other corporate "bad habit." Requiring programmers to have a supervisor (often a non-technical PHB) "sign off" on their code prior to the commit is ludicrous. Developer time costs $20-40 an hour - should that time be wasted pursuading co-workers to check in and approve their code, or should it be spent doing actual development?
Oh boy. So you basically are thinking... what... that code should be reviewed after it has already hit QA or something? Or perhaps we shouldn't review code at all?
Here's a clue. If a developer is costing 20-40 per hour writing CRAPPY code... THAT is a far worse waste of time than taking a little time... reviewing the code... and correcting it if necessary.
Development isn't just writing code any way you want. You want things to be very solid, standardized, and consistent before it gets into beta. Using your way... you'd never know if the code was good or not. Apparently... to you... if it works... ship it!
Code review is a power trip and best, and a drain on morale at worst. If a programmer cannot be trusted to develop excellent code, he should be replaced with somebody who can.
What? How do we know if the code is bad? We have to REVIEW it? What if the developer doesn't understand a certain design pattern and implemented it incorrectly? Hell... what if a bug or flaw is discovered during the review process?
These are all common issues in everyday development. It doesn't necessarily mean the developer is BAD. Rather... the developer is HUMAN.
Although... with your lack of a code review process, lack of system design process, and lack of formal check-in process... I am surprised that any decent code gets written at all.
The best work is emphatically not done by 1400 people in the Redmond campus. The best work is done by culling experts of individual niche areas from around the globe. Not surprisingly, this is the model that Linux and most Open Source software uses, and that is why OSS is phenominally successful compared with any of its proprietary competition.
You're comparing apples and tractors. Financial gain or customer/user base size are NOT measures of good code, excellent development standards, or strong design processes. Although, I'm not certain you will understand what I'm saying here.
There is some excellent open-source software out there. Likewise, there is some excellent proprietary software out there.
And there is crappy software out there, too... for both worlds. Whether or not something is open source or proprietary says nothing about how it is written or how well it is designed.
This obviously is a huge troll that I'm feeding here.
Moderators... mod up the parent, please. This couldn't be any more true.
Steve McConnell's books are among those considered to be immortal to software developers. His testimony would be extremely powerful.
Consider it. Either Windows is modular or it is a poorly written product. If Windows IS in fact modular... then it proves the defense's case. However, if Windows IS in fact a poorly written product... this will be on public record from one of the top analysts in the world.
This isn't a troll. JBuilder just sucks. And Borland has went seriously downhill in their business practices.
Borland releases 1 to 2 new versions a year, and has a horrific upgrade price for existing customers. Worse yet, their new and improved versions really have no added value except for a couple of features that could easily be written as an OpenTool.
They have recently released 6.0 which has no serious value-add over 5.0. Yet they consider it to be a MAJOR version release. Whatever.
Borland abandoned the free JBuilder Foundation edition a couple of years ago because everyone stopped buying the Standard and Professional edition. Why did everyone stop buying it? Because nobody NEEDS any of JBuilder's bloated/useless features in the Professional or Standard editions.
I have completely abandoned Borland and gone to NetBeans. NetBeans is by far a superior IDE. It is truly an INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT unlike JBuilder. It has greater numbers of features. And its open-source to boot.
These guys are messed in the head. The real problem is the lack of real estate available to display information.
If everyone had a 21-inch (or greater) monitor, we might be able to come up with other possible "metaphors" for computer usage. Obviously... there is a lot more space to work with.
I myself use two monitors. And I can see how with TWO monitors, the "metaphor" could change drastically. A combined 2048x768 resolution gives a lot more options. And I don't consider multiple virtual desktops an a single monitor an option. That's just ugly.
Improving the user environment demands improved interaction. I would like to see voice interaction pushed heavily. And instead of just "dialog boxes" giving messages, complement that with an actual vocal message. Being able to start programs or interact with the OS by voice command would be wonderful.
But, if all we're stuck with is just a mouse and two buttons... well... that's not going to cut it. Our options are very limited.
Whether well-founded or not in general, the point is that the post does lack any rationale.
You are getting into a loop. I think you need to reboot.
A well-founded post doesn't lack rationale.
You have not addressed any relevant issue. Your post is up there with the guy who said that generics are for people who know nothing about OO. Yet he does nothing to qualify that statement. You qualify nothing. Again.
By the way, the information you are giving out in your extremely useful posts is common knowledge. I don't think you have to relay information equivalent to "2+2=4" in your posts. At least shed some new light.
Everyone knows that there are a few patchwork options for integrating with the native Windows libraries... however inadequate as they may be. SWT is a decent one. Although, C# is a far better... for obvious reasons. It would make more sense to have a Java->.NET port and then be able to use the native libraries. Of course... that is what J# is, basically.
Everyone also knows that GenericJava was going to be included, since Sun refused to do the work themselves, and then they pulled the plug at the last minute -- and for good reason, IMHO.
BTW, if you don't like getting modded down, then I recommend that you address the issue at hand. A post that basically says, "Hey moderators! That post sucked! You suck, too!" really isn't going to get anywhere at all. You should know that.
Generics are a crutch? You are clearly delusional. Take a look at the most OO languages out there, and you will see that they include features such as parametric polymorphism, parametric types, and covariance.
I suggest you check out Eiffel. Of course, you probably think that the folks who designed Eiffel don't know anything about OO, either. Or Ada. Or C++. I guess they all were idiots.
You obviously don't understand the benefits of generics, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such dumb things. Yeah... asking for some type safety and a generic collections framework is really dumb.
You obviously are an idiot who thinks they understand what OO is about... but really don't know.
And if you think I'm a Microsoft junkie simply because I want Java to be more than what it is, then you are even more of an idiot.
Its not a baseless rant. It is actually well-founded.
Go to javasoft.com and take a look at the top requested features for Java. You will see that they are generics, assertions, and const correctness. DBC (Design by contract) features.
You'll also see a shitload of GUI bugs in there, as well. Mainly because the GUI libraries (Swing) are too bloated and over-complicated.
It has been made very obvious that Sun has practically ignored the language syntax itself for years. They also have all but completely ignored the GUI side of things. They have really poured all of their efforts into server-side technology... J2EE/EJB etc etc etc... ignoring other critical aspects of Java technology.
If you have something to add, think you can shed light, or refute something... then by all means, feel free. I'd love to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
>> There's no reason to assume it's the outlaw of
>> guns versus the other multitude of factors that
>> contribute to crime.
> On what legitimate basis can you argue that the
> reverse would be true then?
He isn't saying the reverse is true. He is saying that they are orthogonal issues. He is speaking a fundamental truth which fails to land upon the brains of most people... "correlation does not equal causation".
The presence of guns has nothing to do with the crime rate. Nothing. Crime is crime. Lack of guns will not decrease crime. More guns will not increase crime. They are completely orthogonal.
A gun may be USED in a crime. But that is not to say that a gun CAUSES a crime. A crime has a motive. And a motive has nothing to do with the weapon used to commit the crime. And 'motive' itself does not cause crime.
Ultimately, PEOPLE commit crimes. And 'commit' is the key word. The tools used, the methods used, the motives... all of these things have nothing to do with crime.
It takes a person to commit a crime. And as long as there are people... there will be crimes. And if guns are gone... crime will still exist. And if guns are prevalent (as in America)... crime will still exist.
Based upon the statistics... showing a cyclical crime rate in all nations... it is quite apparent that lack of guns, or proliferation of guns, has nothing to do with the crime rate itself.
This is the old "what happens if a bomb drops on your house" argument.
How about some more what ifs:
What if a robber breaks into your house, and he doesn't have a gun... but you do. He manages to knock you over the head and take your gun. I sure hope you have a smart gun... otherwise you're deadmeat.
As to your second point, it doesn't follow. Print identification technology has been used for years in other areas. The applications for the technology are limitless. I wish they'd do it not only for guns, but for cars, also.
BTW... back when firearms manufacturers decided to put safeties on all their firearms... people were saying the same things. The technology can't be trusted. Guns with safeties will probably kill more people those without... because a safety causes people to be less careful and more sloppy. Stuff like that.
Needless to say. The arguments don't stand up. Safety mechanisms, redundancy, and fault tolerance in any kind of product make for better safer products.
Guns or otherwise.
Do actually think most people are smart? If people were smart, we wouldn't need any kind of protection mechanisms on anything.
This legislation isn't only for parents. At least READ the legislation itself before you criticize it. The idea is that nobody but the owner and other authorized user(s) should be able to fire the weapon.
While I won't argue about the reliability or feasibility of this system... ( I haven't seen it personally )... but the idea I am definitely in agreement with the principle. I think it is long past due. Not only for firearms, but also for other things as well.
Carrying a firearm is an immense responsibility... parent or not. Especially in today's world. And it does not seem unreasonable to say that a firearm should only be able to be discharged by its registered user(s).
This is NOT just child-proofing technology. It also keeps someone from prying your gun from your cold dead fingers and shooting someone else with it.
Its a _gun_ issue. That's why so many comments.
The NRA is like a kinetic propaganda machine. One NRA member on Slashdot tells another... tells another... tells another... tells another.
Before you know it, the entire NRA is posting on the board. Nothing new here. Move on. Whereever there is a gun issue posted on any well-trafficked public board... you can expect a million responses... most of them from gun advocates.
Kids have been taught by their parents to properly use and respect guns for a couple centuries now. I don't see why it should be so tough.
Because these days, kids see it on television every day. People shooting each other. Child heroes killing the bad guys with guns. Video games glorifying the pointless use of a gun. This is what makes it so difficult.
What I find so difficult to understand is how you think that parents should just "be responsible". Although... its perfectly fine for those children of irresponsible parents to die needlessly. Just because you don't want an added safety feature... because you feel personally violated by it.
Its amazing... I'm sure that gun advocates had these same kinds of arguments when SAFETIES were required to be put on guns. "Mah damn gun don't need no safety! I'm a reeeeesponsible person!".
All those prohibitions justified as being "for the good of the children" are pretty damn annoying to the millions that don't have children by choice and yet find their freedoms as adults restricted by inappropriately broad legislation.
Requring some more safety precautions where guns are concerned is not a bad thing. Its a good thing. It isn't to restrict your freedom... (although I'm having a difficult time seeing how your freedom is being restricted by this).
As a gun owner, it is your responsibility to make sure that you are as safe as possible where the gun is concerned. Should your gun fall into the wrong hands, for whatever reason, this kind of mechanism might possibly SAVE a life. That is the point.
Proactive, preventative action is far preferred to _reactive_ measures taken after the damage has already been done.
The problem is the current state of man's mind. His lack of a social conscious. His lack of morality. His fundamental greed and selfishness. The world's values are simply not where they need to be. Humans are still driven by self-preservation rather than the preservation of humans as a whole.
.. rather than taking advantage of one another and ourselves.
Let's face it. With matters of conscious... money means nothing. Politics means nothing. "Education" is only knowing details.
The truth is that everyone should be taking care of eachother as a unit. As one people. As a big machine. People should not be primarily concerned with how much money they make. They should not be primarily concerned with what kind of car they drive. We should not be concerned about any such bullshit.
Our primary goal should simply be to care for one another. To make eachother happy. I should be working to keep the machine going... because it helps our fellow man. Not enough people in this world understand the absolute joy in caring for others... likewise... being cared for by others.
Mankind simply does not understand that there are more than enough resources in this world... that could ensure that every person is taken care of. Food. Clothing. Healthcare. Everything.
And that is all that matters... nothing else comes close. But I'm doubting that mankind will evolve to the level of understanding that our primary values should rest in taking care of one another.
I think freedom of the press is absolute, should be absolute, and was intended to be absolute. The was the whole point of the 1st amendment. If the founders wanted something else, why didnt they write what you just wrote?
Dan, if the right was absolute, they would have WRITTEN IT THAT WAY. Don't you get it? You are the one inserting words into the amendment. There is example after example of where you are not allowed by federal law to say certain things. Or print certain things. And there are valid reasons why these limitations exist. Usually to protect the citzenry or the system itself.
Debating about absolute rights is stupid. Because I can easily go down each amendment in the consitution and show you where limitations have been imposed.
Laws are accepted guidelines that we try to apply to certain circumstances to see what fits... what doesn't... what repercussions should be... etc. The consitution is nothing but a set of laws by which the government has been told to abide.
By like any laws, there are exceptions. There are amendments. There are limitations. Laws are never absolute, unchangeable, or exempt from interpretation.
If you think laws are absolute, then you have no concept of why the Supreme Court exists, or what 'law' itself is.
How do you decide who's campaign gets state money without squelching free speech? You certainly can't be giving money to every putz with an axe to grind.
That's not how you do it at all. You give the money to the candidates which are put forward by their party to run. The political party has to be officially recognized. Official status is usually garnered by petition or by past vote results.
So the repubs put forward their candidate, the dems put forward theirs, the independents put forward theirs. And each candidate is given an equal amount of money to run on.
As a tax-payer, why should I be funding the campaign of someone who's positions are antithetical to my own?
This argument is dumb. Do you think that, as a taxpayer, you get to pick and choose where you want to spend your money? No. You don't. If you think you do, think again. I don't like my tax dollars supporting terrorist nations... but it happens. I don't like my tax dollars enforcing a useless war on drugs... but it happens. I have countless other examples...
Think of it this way... you are contributing your tax dollars to making the election system a level playing field again. Instead of one ruled by the wealthy and the special interest.
It isn't restriction of free speech. The problem that the court is trying to solve is the absolute booming voice of the media.
What the law is trying to eliminate is that the very wealthy Dan Heskett can buy millions of dollars worth of TV spots pushing his own bias. That Dan Heskett has access to something not because of the law, but only because of his money. Basically, Dan increases his candidate's chances of winning simply because of his financial wealth.
That is a HUGE problem. In today's society, only the rich have voices. Only the special interest groups have voices. There is no individual voice anymore. We are slaves to a two-party system which locks out other parties by denying them access to debates and ads spots. And in this system... whoever spends more money basically gets the job. This is fundamentally wrong, and completely against the doctrine upon which this country was built.
The problem is, Dan, that you don't seem to understand that every right has its boundaries. Rights are never absolute. Never.
The three fundamental rights in the declaration of independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But those three rights are indeed limited and removed depending on how you use those three rights.
So, let's get it straight. The right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want to. The right to freedom of the press does not mean that the press can print what it wants, whenever it wants to.
When you can understand what I've said about rights not being absolute, the closer you'll be to actually contributing something meaningful to this discussion.
So I'd argue that to truly be as powerful as the human brain, you would need 100 petaflops of 1-2 input flops, with at least a petabyte tape system.
I love it when people try to simplify the human brain and what it is. Especially when they have no idea how it works, or understands how it does what it does. You know absolutely nothing. Nobody else does either.
First off, you can't compare a brain to a computer. On any level. The brain achieves consciousness. And consciousness is something that you'll never see a computer achieve. Ever.
Why? Because nobody understands what consciousness is. Not from a scientific perspective. There are many philosophical definitions, but nothing quanitified by science. It is an intangible that science cannot quantify and measure.
And science does not understand how the brain is able to achieve consciousness... or if the brain is responsible for producing consciousness to begin with. The most advanced brain specialists in the world still have no clue about the brain... aside from its physics and its parts. Which we have discovered tell us very very little about consciousness itself. Hell, anybody can look at something and identify its parts. But we still have no idea how it works.
I'll believe all this bullshit when I see someone actually create an organic, conscious brain from scratch. Until then, its all moot.
This is a huge waste of money. How the hell can the US fund this bullshit instead of helping real, living, breathing people? Stop spending billions trying to reproduce the brain, and start helping people who actually have brains.
I have a 15" Eizo LCD flat panel, and it is by far the best monitor I've ever owned. Very fast pixel disposal, very even colors and brightness from top to bottom. Wide viewing angle. About the only bad thing I can say about it is that you can't rotate the screen 90 degrees, but I'd never use that feature, anyways.
Excellent brightness and contrast. Black is excellent. Eizo also has image smoothing built-in, but I never use it.
Great for gaming. Unreal Tournament and Castle Wolfenstein are totally smooth. No ghosts. No slowness.
If you're in the market for an LCD panel, make sure you audition an Eizo, as well. Fantastic monitors (CRT and LCD panel both).
That notwithstanding, I don't see anywhere in Christian or Jewish scripture where a fetus is declared to be the same as a born, breathing person. If anything, it is the exact opposite. The word "breath" and the act of "breathing" are referred to many times over as being the qualifier for life. Bodies being fully formed, yet without the breath of life. Calling forth the winds to breath life into corpses... etc... etc. The Jewish priniciple was always that God breathed life and gave the soul to the child when the child was born. Because that is how it is written even when Adam was first created.
Ezekiel 37:
Genesis 2:7
Job 27:3
There are lots more references to such things. But overall, it does appear clear that according to Jewish and Christian scriptures... the fetus is not a living, soul-having child until it comes out and has the breath of life breathed into it.
On another point, if the Christian and Jewish God was so dead set against child-killing, he certainly didn't show it... since he made it a point to dictate the killing of living/breathing, innocent children in several circumstances.
And for those who quote Exodus 21 as being proof that abortion is condemned... that is wrong. In Exodus 21, the consequence of life for life was if the _bystanding PREGNANT woman_ died due to being accidentally hurt as the result of a brawl between men... not the fetus. If the women lived, the perpetrators would simply be fined. Nowhere in this text does it say that the well-being of the fetus and the mother both are to be considered. This is probably the most commonly misused, and over-interpreted modern Jewish/Christian text related to abortion.
Just wanted to inject a little information into the fray.
Java and C# are very similar. C# offers some nice-to-haves. C# also offers some things that really don't make sense... properties are the best example. Exception handling is another example. C# takes a few minor steps forward and a few steps back. Which equates to pretty much standing still in reference to Java.
I simply don't see enough compelling reasons to switch from Java to C#. The two languages are nearly identical. Java has far more support. Java is far more mature. I just don't see the benefits of changing at this time.
Some of the C# examples are pretty bad, too. Who cares if I can write code like this in C#?I wouldn't write code like that anyways. Because it is poor code. Sure, it is quicker to type. But if you're really craving to save those extra keystrokes... use LISP. You don't get much more concise than that. Less keystrokes does not necessarily equate to better readibility or maintainability.
For now, I'll stick with Java. C# just doesn't have the value-add yet to even consider changing.
As a developer, if you want to expand your OO knowledge level... don't learn the same old thing over again... which is what you'd be doing going from Java to C#. Learn something worthwhile...
Learn Eiffel.
Currently, we use Jetty 4.1 and Apache on our medium-level production traffic site. We absolutely love it.
Originally, we used Apache/Tomcat... but Tomcat was far too slow. Jetty is very fast serving both dynamic pages and static content. Jetty is highly configurable and easily modified with wonderful XML-based configuration files. I have Jetty configuring a part of my application using some custom/application-specific classes that I wrote. Great stuff! The days of having to code application startup stuff in the init() method of a load-on-startup servlet is OVER.
Oh... and Jetty running on J2SE 1.4 supports non-blocking I/O. The guys at Mortbay are on top of their game. I cannot say enough about how wonderful this tool is.
The only reason we still have Apache hanging around is because Jetty has a _very primitive_ CGI interface. It doesn't support HTTP sessions. It will run Perl scripts, but without the session support... it renders most CGI-based applications useless.
So if you want to run CGI-based apps like Bugzilla or mysqltool... you need Apache to do it for you. Jetty can't cut the mustard here.
Not withstanding its CGI weaknesses, I still feel Jetty is by far the best servlet engine out there. I have also tried Resin... but I don't see any major advantage of Resin over Jetty. I certainly didn't see any signifigant performance difference on my server (Dual 1.2Ghz, SCSI Cheetah, 1GB RAM).
If you want a servlet engine... try Jetty. I doubt you'll look any further once you've tried it.
Good engineering (of any kind) starts with design... a plan. I'm glad you don't build skyscrapers or airplanes. Oh boy. So you basically are thinking... what... that code should be reviewed after it has already hit QA or something? Or perhaps we shouldn't review code at all?
Here's a clue. If a developer is costing 20-40 per hour writing CRAPPY code... THAT is a far worse waste of time than taking a little time... reviewing the code... and correcting it if necessary.
Development isn't just writing code any way you want. You want things to be very solid, standardized, and consistent before it gets into beta. Using your way... you'd never know if the code was good or not. Apparently... to you... if it works... ship it! What? How do we know if the code is bad? We have to REVIEW it? What if the developer doesn't understand a certain design pattern and implemented it incorrectly? Hell... what if a bug or flaw is discovered during the review process?
These are all common issues in everyday development. It doesn't necessarily mean the developer is BAD. Rather... the developer is HUMAN.
Although... with your lack of a code review process, lack of system design process, and lack of formal check-in process... I am surprised that any decent code gets written at all. You're comparing apples and tractors. Financial gain or customer/user base size are NOT measures of good code, excellent development standards, or strong design processes. Although, I'm not certain you will understand what I'm saying here.
There is some excellent open-source software out there. Likewise, there is some excellent proprietary software out there.
And there is crappy software out there, too... for both worlds. Whether or not something is open source or proprietary says nothing about how it is written or how well it is designed.
This obviously is a huge troll that I'm feeding here.
Moderators... mod up the parent, please. This couldn't be any more true.
Steve McConnell's books are among those considered to be immortal to software developers. His testimony would be extremely powerful.
Consider it. Either Windows is modular or it is a poorly written product. If Windows IS in fact modular... then it proves the defense's case. However, if Windows IS in fact a poorly written product... this will be on public record from one of the top analysts in the world.
Awesome stuff.
This isn't a troll. JBuilder just sucks. And Borland has went seriously downhill in their business practices.
Borland releases 1 to 2 new versions a year, and has a horrific upgrade price for existing customers. Worse yet, their new and improved versions really have no added value except for a couple of features that could easily be written as an OpenTool.
They have recently released 6.0 which has no serious value-add over 5.0. Yet they consider it to be a MAJOR version release. Whatever.
Borland abandoned the free JBuilder Foundation edition a couple of years ago because everyone stopped buying the Standard and Professional edition. Why did everyone stop buying it? Because nobody NEEDS any of JBuilder's bloated/useless features in the Professional or Standard editions.
I have completely abandoned Borland and gone to NetBeans. NetBeans is by far a superior IDE. It is truly an INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT unlike JBuilder. It has greater numbers of features. And its open-source to boot.
Dump JBuilder. Use NetBeans. Down with Borland.
These guys are messed in the head. The real problem is the lack of real estate available to display information.
If everyone had a 21-inch (or greater) monitor, we might be able to come up with other possible "metaphors" for computer usage. Obviously... there is a lot more space to work with.
I myself use two monitors. And I can see how with TWO monitors, the "metaphor" could change drastically. A combined 2048x768 resolution gives a lot more options. And I don't consider multiple virtual desktops an a single monitor an option. That's just ugly.
Improving the user environment demands improved interaction. I would like to see voice interaction pushed heavily. And instead of just "dialog boxes" giving messages, complement that with an actual vocal message. Being able to start programs or interact with the OS by voice command would be wonderful.
But, if all we're stuck with is just a mouse and two buttons... well... that's not going to cut it. Our options are very limited.
Whether well-founded or not in general, the point is that the post does lack any rationale.
You are getting into a loop. I think you need to reboot.
A well-founded post doesn't lack rationale.
You have not addressed any relevant issue. Your post is up there with the guy who said that generics are for people who know nothing about OO. Yet he does nothing to qualify that statement. You qualify nothing. Again.
By the way, the information you are giving out in your extremely useful posts is common knowledge. I don't think you have to relay information equivalent to "2+2=4" in your posts. At least shed some new light.
Everyone knows that there are a few patchwork options for integrating with the native Windows libraries... however inadequate as they may be. SWT is a decent one. Although, C# is a far better... for obvious reasons. It would make more sense to have a Java->.NET port and then be able to use the native libraries. Of course... that is what J# is, basically.
Everyone also knows that GenericJava was going to be included, since Sun refused to do the work themselves, and then they pulled the plug at the last minute -- and for good reason, IMHO.
BTW, if you don't like getting modded down, then I recommend that you address the issue at hand. A post that basically says, "Hey moderators! That post sucked! You suck, too!" really isn't going to get anywhere at all. You should know that.
Have a point. Then come back to me.
Templates? Who said anything about templates? Or multiple inheritance? Did I say I wanted multiple inheritance?
Generics != templates.
For those out there who may not know... there are OTHER well designed languages which actually use generics.
Generics are a crutch? You are clearly delusional. Take a look at the most OO languages out there, and you will see that they include features such as parametric polymorphism, parametric types, and covariance.
I suggest you check out Eiffel. Of course, you probably think that the folks who designed Eiffel don't know anything about OO, either. Or Ada. Or C++. I guess they all were idiots.
You obviously don't understand the benefits of generics, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such dumb things. Yeah... asking for some type safety and a generic collections framework is really dumb.
You obviously are an idiot who thinks they understand what OO is about... but really don't know.
And if you think I'm a Microsoft junkie simply because I want Java to be more than what it is, then you are even more of an idiot.
Can you say STRAWMAN?
Its not a baseless rant. It is actually well-founded.
Go to javasoft.com and take a look at the top requested features for Java. You will see that they are generics, assertions, and const correctness. DBC (Design by contract) features.
You'll also see a shitload of GUI bugs in there, as well. Mainly because the GUI libraries (Swing) are too bloated and over-complicated.
It has been made very obvious that Sun has practically ignored the language syntax itself for years. They also have all but completely ignored the GUI side of things. They have really poured all of their efforts into server-side technology... J2EE/EJB etc etc etc... ignoring other critical aspects of Java technology.
If you have something to add, think you can shed light, or refute something... then by all means, feel free. I'd love to hear it.
Otherwise...
Shut.the.fuck("up");