Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?
That's just plain stupid. Let's replace fucking having children to demonstrate:
Having children is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't having children and selling them legal?
I could give more examples but the basic premise is we accept that act of selling certain things has different consequences than selling general goods. More generally, combining two innocent concepts doesn't make the resulting act an innocent one.
I'm not saying I agree that prostitution should be a criminal act. What I am saying is the reasoning above is for red-necks: High impact words that fail basic logical analysis.
I said "taught", not "proved". You were talking about what was learned from the Cold War, not what the Cold War proved.
Semantics! If what it taught you was incorrect and based on a faulty premise, I can't argue that you learnt otherwise. However I can still successfully argue that only those who take on the wrong premise are going to "learn" that same faulty conclusion.
In other words you learnt the wrong lesson because you didn't apply critical thinking.
The notion that you question the notion that a cure for cancer would be an unalloyed good sounds like you consider the possibility that keeping it around might be a good thing. Which is a despicable attitude.
How the fuck do you get that from "I don't have easy answers. I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease."???
You're just being an asshole. I've just stated that I would like to see a proper cure and you accuse me of considering the possibility of keeping cancer around. There is either something very wrong with your comprehension skills or you're looking to vilify me, which makes you a goddamn loser with too much time on your hands since you don't know me.
Which means that 90% of cancers occur over the age of 45. Which means that GENERALLY (you DID read that in my comment, and not let hysteria take over, didn't you?) cancer is a disease that occurs past the age of reproduction.
Have you ever even heard of exponential growth? A small percentage in each generation quickly adds up.
Note also that a man's ability to impregnate a woman has little to do with population growth rate - the limiter is the number of fertile wombs, not the number of swinging dicks.
Now you're being crude. Believe it or not, not every "fertile womb" will let any old "swinging dick" into it. Or to put it a little less crudely the more males around, the greater choice for a woman and the more likely she'll have a family.
You suggested it quite strongly.
No I didn't you. As I've just show you twisted my words and add your own crude logic.
Note, by the way, that widespread famine is a bugaboo of the ZPG loons. There hasn't been a widespread famine in 30 years that wasn't caused by government action. India and China export food, for god's sake! And the population now is higher by 50% than it was the last time we had a significant famine.
Whereas making out that I'm looking to prolong people's misery is your own personal bugaboo.
If you want to deal with population growth (God knows why, it seems to be taking care of itself nicely in the civilized parts of the world), I suggest you work hard to raise the standard of living in the third world. Not spend your time wondering if it's really a good idea to cure cancer.
Go and FUCK YOURSELF. If you can't read or comprehend that's not my problem, buddy. You want to paint me as the enemy, be my guest. Your inability to follow a logical train of thought makes your insults and insinuations the ravings of a paranoid prejudice idiot. Go insult someone else with your uneducated rantings.
Note, by the way, my own bias. I am currently being treated for my own cancer. I have a reasonable chance of living to see 60, looks like, but not a great chance of seeing 70.
Despite your ravings, I don't want to see you suffer or die. Good luck with the treatment. (I'm being genuine, whether you choose to believe me or not). I have no interest in seeing anyone suffer or die. A woman very dear to me is going to die a lot sooner and her cancer being brain cancer means she'll become more forgetful and start losing her memory etc. She already has spells of confusion. This is the dearest most generous lady you can imagine. I won't even get to see that because she lives hundreds of kilometers away. I certainly was NOT suggesting we don't treat cancer, despite how you chose to read it. Don't take out your misfortune on strangers. It won't make your life any better and it certainly won't improve theirs.
What logitech camera? Let me see if I can find something appropriate. Some of the logitechs have been modded to oblivion by the astrophotography community.
BTW - I own two webcams now. Neither work under Windows since I lost the driver disk
So did you buy cheap web cams from a manufacturer that doesn't have a download site? Or are you just too lazy to go looking? If there are 64 bit Linux drivers there will possibly be 64 bit Windows ones too.
You could argue that the cold war taught us that "mutually assured destruction" is an effective deterrent. Neither Russia nor the US used their nukes, did they?
Only if you believe that a sample size of one proves a premise.
The first time a black person wins the presidency of course it will be a big deal - and assassination attempts (despite everyone talking about it) have been a no show. Next time a black person runs for president there will be much less talk about him being black. If MLK was alive what do you think he would say?
Trying to predict what a dead man I barely knew would say is difficult but I would guess that he'd be very pleased with this step but that he wouldn't be declaring victory.
As for assassination attempts, there has already been talk of a foiled attempt and the man hadn't even become president elect yet. You should probably at least wait until he's taken office before declaring them a "no show". Ideally you'd wait until his term as president was over.
It raises the question, godsdamnit. Here's what "begging the question" actually means:
Originally you're correct. The common idiom has changed to reflect a more intuitive meaning. Language changes over time. YOU are the one failing to deal with it.
"The US Army is ramping up the development of technology right out of the X-Files, "making science fiction into reality"
I can't be bothered reading the article. This is slashdot after all. So can someone please tell me whether they're manufacturing the aliens or they've created some kind of reality distortion machine that literally makes science fiction real? I hope it's the later so we can all like like James T. Kirk and mate with green and blue alien women with excess body parts.
Not that I like Rudd but in his defence many people have said the same thing - its sort of the token sound bite you would come to expect, and is not exactly untrue - a half black man has taken the highest office in US government. While it doesn't mean that there is no more racism, its a very important milestone.
Can I suggest respectfully that you go and read the MLK speech. He was talking about a world where a black man being president would not even draw media attention. What we have instead is a world where it is a big deal (a "milestone" as you put it) and where assassination attempts are almost a given. Sure it's a step in the right direction that it's possible, but calling that the realization of MLKs dream would be like taking one step and claiming you'd won a marathon!
It seems to me that any number of debilitating and lethal diseases can be seen this way and that population control should be proactive
Agreed.
I'd pretty much support anything that would have kept friends and family from dying a slow, painful death.
I too would like to prevent this. However note that older people dying of cancer are more likely to suffer a slow, painful death anyway if we prolong their life - other parts of the body give out. (No I'm not saying that means we shouldn't try to cure diseases) Also note that a death resulting from famine due to overpopulation wouldn't be the least painful you could have either.
If there are diseases you'd like to keep around to prevent overpopulation, may I suggest lobbying to return Smallpox to the wild instead?
Wooooaahhhh there buddy. I didn't say I wanted to keep any disease around. Just that we should have a plan that means our population (and consumption) are sustainable so we don't have wide spread famine.
Cancer, in general, happens to people well past the age of reproduction.
What are you talking about? There are whole classes of cancers commonly referred to as "childhood cancer".
Now the earlier the cancer occurs the more likely it is to have an impact on reproduction. So yes age has a bearing, but your view of cancer as a disease for old people is just wrong.
Seriously, some of you people scare me....
Perhaps you should READ what the other person wrote before letting hysteria take over? To take what I wrote and suggest that I want cancer to hang around is just paranoid. (I said I hated losing people dear to me). It isn't wrong to want to have a plan to prevent the population from becoming unsustainable. My interest isn't in restricting freedoms, handing control to the government, or having people die at my whim. I'd like to see LESS suffering. Painting me as a monster is INSULTING.
As an Australian who fervently opposes Chairman Rudd's censorship bill...
I'm Australian too and I'm getting increasingly annoyed with Rudd. I find the man to be less than genuine, and it doesn't stop with his pandering to China or fearlessly taking on a dictatorial line. He seems to remind me of that every time he's in the news. Like yesterday saying that Obama had fulfilled Martin Luther King's dream. Tell that to almost all the southern states - they all voted for McCain. I can't even think how I'd be feeling if I were a US secret service officer tasked with protecting the president (or family of one of these guys). How much did their life insurance just go up? That is NOT the dream MLK had. He was speaking about true equality and predjudice being a thing of the past. Way to go hijacking that dream to suck up to the president elect of the US. Idiot.
This pains me to say - a couple of friends of the family have been diagnosed with cancer- one very dear to me and with limited time to live, the other a very decent man and doesn't know his chances yet.
I can't help but think that cancer is acting as a brake on the population explosion. If we cured cancer tomorrow these people who are dear to me wouldn't suffer, but we'd be even less sustainable and eventually we'd see wide spread poverty and famine. So the question becomes: If we do gather the knowledge we need to cure various forms of cancer so that those dear to us don't suffer, what are we going to do to balance things out and prevent the population from skyrocketing?
I don't have easy answers. I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease.
That's not technically a BSoD, you can press any key to return to Windows. It's a reboot confirmation screen (CTRL+ALT+DEL reboots in DOS)
It was entirely possible to have an error resulting in that screen from which even ctrl-alt-delete would not work. You needed to press the reset button or shutdown and start again. To say that Win 3.1 didn't have a blue screen of death is not correct.
"The Blue Screen of Death (also known as a stop error, BSOD, bluescreen, or Blue Screen of Doom) is an error screen displayed by some operating systems, most notably Microsoft Windows, after encountering a critical system error which can cause the system to shut down, to prevent damage."
"Bluescreens have been present in all Windows-based operating systems since Windows 3.1"
Not really - we need management once we grow to a large enough size that communication is a problem; it's the workers who produce the product and make the value - basically, you've got things backwards. Anyway, I'm just saying that management needs to be brought round to reality - that's your job as the expert.
Very few companies are actually run by the technical staff. You can't make someone who's higher in the chain of command do anything. So you either gain their trust so that they know if they don't listen to you it's at their peril, or you find a new company to start with. For a good company you need good workers and good management both. You also need everyone to work together. The us vs them thing is going to get you nowhere in life.
Did it ever occur to you that I could be writing for the audience?
You don't buy the Wall Street Journal for the cartoons. If you're posting on/. and yet bought a $30 month DSL connection and in 2008 still expect it to be unlimited then yes, you're pretty delusional.
No, it didn't. You made a blanket statement and did not qualify it. Apologies for failing to read your mind!
The words are a bit harsh, but some manglement has trouble seeing that massive changes in requirements can nullify most of the existing work; they need something more than the usual soft sell about what their changes mean. Sometimes they decide that they don't really need it that much.
Before ridiculing them as 'manglement' you should realize that without a job they give you to do, you'd be out of a job. It really is worth being on management's best side if you can be. A team divided and all that. If they come to see you as an ally and trust you, your words will count for a lot more. If you're explicit and accurate about what the costs are it really is their job to make the final decision. You always have the option of finding alternate work if things go really badly or you don't believe your input is being considered.
I suspect (correct me if I'm assuming too much) the real reason for the original "Off topic" mod was that you posted this comment to a story about Linux hardware support rather than the story about IBMs patent.
My mistake indeed!
If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.
Then you need the balls to tell them it is a new project. You should also make sure they change the project name so as to prevent confusion with the old and now dead project.
Putting forward a good argument and suggesting that they start a new project may be the right thing to do. Trying to tell your employer what to do is stupid. Building a rapport and gaining their confidence isn't.
It's not about having balls. Telling someone who employs you that they MUST do something your way is stupid. You don't have the power to execute your decision. At best you look foolish and the business harbour ill will at being told what to do. At worst, start looking for another job.
They all do it, and the purpose is mostly for the sake of maintaining a defensive-patent war chest to keep the other big companies at bay with mutually assured destruction.
So what you're saying is we've learnt NOTHING from the cold war and are all happy to live our lives under the constant threat that someone's going to turn our life to mush at any moment.
Actually it fails pretty spectacularly when you try to determine it based on chromosomes, too. There are XY women with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), and both XXY and XYY men. In many cases, especially those of AIS, they may go their whole lives without knowing that their chromosomes convey something different than their sex organs.
I agree it's difficult to assign a gender (if you only allow male, female) to an XY woman with AIS since you have external female appears with internal undescended testicles. However XXY and XYY men are as you just said classified as male, so it's just an AIS XY that is the problem.
Two ways of dealing with the problem, using only chromosomes: 1) Assign AIS XY individuals a gender based on reasoning and logic instead of allowing them to choose. 2) Create a 3rd category, androgen.
So it doesn't fail. The real world just forces you to come up with more complex rules. It's a hell of a lot more reliable and fair than trying to accomodate every fool that says "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body". Well sometimes I wish I were a dolphin buddy, but I'm not going to lobby for others to recognise me as one. Life's harsh. In practice I'd take a more compassionate stance and not be so crass about it but having some compassion does not mean I have to deal with other people's dillusions and fanciful wishes that don't change reality.
If you're writing something simple with very straight forward relationships and are able to define your database yourself up front it's not too bad. You lose some performance in caching, but also gain some in that hibernate does well using indexes to generate sane queries.
The idea that you don't have to hand code is only partly true. The low level database calls are indeed done for you but your mapping isn't - some of it is just moved away from Java and into XML (You still have to code the object class...some of that can be done for you if you use the right tools but the tools keep breaking and/or being re-written so a lot of people end up doing it by hand. One of the stupidest bugs I ever introduced to code was mis-capitalizing the instance variable in an accessor for one of the fields that mapped to the DB. As a result, hibernate would null that field and save to the database even though save was not explicitly called - the app ended up clearing out reference data in the database!). So my experience with hibernate as a tool to remove errors hasn't been all positive. My experience with the tools hasn't been all positive.
Next there's HQL. What an abomination. Not every piece of SQL you can write will map to legal HQL. DB specific stuff, while not a good thing to use in the first place, just doesn't work in some cases (or at least didn't in Hibernate 2. That may have been fixed). You end up falling back on JDBC for stuff that needs that. I even vaguely recall problems with certain standard SQL...certain group by clauses or sub-clauses didn't work.
Next take a look at the way more complex mappings work. Some of the options in the XML mapping files are not intuitive at all. In fact you have to spend considerable time to understand what they are doing, and even then complete understanding only comes when something breaks. It can be very difficult to tune the mappings so that they work well for all the various scenarios in your application, so you have to make compromises.
Finally, I've worked on proprietary data access frameworks (mostly in Smalltalk, not Java) and they can be quite a burden to maintain, but I see an equal amount of pain trying to keep up with the latest Hibernate version and work out whether you want to do it their way or use Spring to wrap the data access.
Talk to a Hibernate fan and they'll come up with something to counter each of the above (as that is the nature of the fan) but as far as I'm concerned Hibernate is not the magical wonderful error free data access framework it's made out to be. There's no such animal.
Slashdot Mirror
Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?
That's just plain stupid. Let's replace fucking having children to demonstrate:
Having children is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't having children and selling them legal?
I could give more examples but the basic premise is we accept that act of selling certain things has different consequences than selling general goods. More generally, combining two innocent concepts doesn't make the resulting act an innocent one.
I'm not saying I agree that prostitution should be a criminal act. What I am saying is the reasoning above is for red-necks: High impact words that fail basic logical analysis.
I said "taught", not "proved". You were talking about what was learned from the Cold War, not what the Cold War proved.
Semantics! If what it taught you was incorrect and based on a faulty premise, I can't argue that you learnt otherwise. However I can still successfully argue that only those who take on the wrong premise are going to "learn" that same faulty conclusion.
In other words you learnt the wrong lesson because you didn't apply critical thinking.
The notion that you question the notion that a cure for cancer would be an unalloyed good sounds like you consider the possibility that keeping it around might be a good thing. Which is a despicable attitude.
How the fuck do you get that from "I don't have easy answers. I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease."???
You're just being an asshole. I've just stated that I would like to see a proper cure and you accuse me of considering the possibility of keeping cancer around. There is either something very wrong with your comprehension skills or you're looking to vilify me, which makes you a goddamn loser with too much time on your hands since you don't know me.
Which means that 90% of cancers occur over the age of 45. Which means that GENERALLY (you DID read that in my comment, and not let hysteria take over, didn't you?) cancer is a disease that occurs past the age of reproduction.
Have you ever even heard of exponential growth? A small percentage in each generation quickly adds up.
Note also that a man's ability to impregnate a woman has little to do with population growth rate - the limiter is the number of fertile wombs, not the number of swinging dicks.
Now you're being crude. Believe it or not, not every "fertile womb" will let any old "swinging dick" into it. Or to put it a little less crudely the more males around, the greater choice for a woman and the more likely she'll have a family.
You suggested it quite strongly.
No I didn't you. As I've just show you twisted my words and add your own crude logic.
Note, by the way, that widespread famine is a bugaboo of the ZPG loons. There hasn't been a widespread famine in 30 years that wasn't caused by government action. India and China export food, for god's sake! And the population now is higher by 50% than it was the last time we had a significant famine.
Whereas making out that I'm looking to prolong people's misery is your own personal bugaboo.
If you want to deal with population growth (God knows why, it seems to be taking care of itself nicely in the civilized parts of the world), I suggest you work hard to raise the standard of living in the third world. Not spend your time wondering if it's really a good idea to cure cancer.
Go and FUCK YOURSELF. If you can't read or comprehend that's not my problem, buddy. You want to paint me as the enemy, be my guest. Your inability to follow a logical train of thought makes your insults and insinuations the ravings of a paranoid prejudice idiot. Go insult someone else with your uneducated rantings.
Note, by the way, my own bias. I am currently being treated for my own cancer. I have a reasonable chance of living to see 60, looks like, but not a great chance of seeing 70.
Despite your ravings, I don't want to see you suffer or die. Good luck with the treatment. (I'm being genuine, whether you choose to believe me or not). I have no interest in seeing anyone suffer or die. A woman very dear to me is going to die a lot sooner and her cancer being brain cancer means she'll become more forgetful and start losing her memory etc. She already has spells of confusion. This is the dearest most generous lady you can imagine. I won't even get to see that because she lives hundreds of kilometers away. I certainly was NOT suggesting we don't treat cancer, despite how you chose to read it. Don't take out your misfortune on strangers. It won't make your life any better and it certainly won't improve theirs.
What logitech camera? Let me see if I can find something appropriate. Some of the logitechs have been modded to oblivion by the astrophotography community.
BTW - I own two webcams now. Neither work under Windows since I lost the driver disk
So did you buy cheap web cams from a manufacturer that doesn't have a download site? Or are you just too lazy to go looking? If there are 64 bit Linux drivers there will possibly be 64 bit Windows ones too.
You could argue that the cold war taught us that "mutually assured destruction" is an effective deterrent. Neither Russia nor the US used their nukes, did they?
Only if you believe that a sample size of one proves a premise.
The first time a black person wins the presidency of course it will be a big deal - and assassination attempts (despite everyone talking about it) have been a no show. Next time a black person runs for president there will be much less talk about him being black. If MLK was alive what do you think he would say?
Trying to predict what a dead man I barely knew would say is difficult but I would guess that he'd be very pleased with this step but that he wouldn't be declaring victory.
As for assassination attempts, there has already been talk of a foiled attempt and the man hadn't even become president elect yet. You should probably at least wait until he's taken office before declaring them a "no show". Ideally you'd wait until his term as president was over.
It raises the question, godsdamnit. Here's what "begging the question" actually means:
Originally you're correct. The common idiom has changed to reflect a more intuitive meaning. Language changes over time. YOU are the one failing to deal with it.
"The US Army is ramping up the development of technology right out of the X-Files, "making science fiction into reality"
I can't be bothered reading the article. This is slashdot after all. So can someone please tell me whether they're manufacturing the aliens or they've created some kind of reality distortion machine that literally makes science fiction real? I hope it's the later so we can all like like James T. Kirk and mate with green and blue alien women with excess body parts.
Not that I like Rudd but in his defence many people have said the same thing - its sort of the token sound bite you would come to expect, and is not exactly untrue - a half black man has taken the highest office in US government. While it doesn't mean that there is no more racism, its a very important milestone.
Can I suggest respectfully that you go and read the MLK speech. He was talking about a world where a black man being president would not even draw media attention. What we have instead is a world where it is a big deal (a "milestone" as you put it) and where assassination attempts are almost a given. Sure it's a step in the right direction that it's possible, but calling that the realization of MLKs dream would be like taking one step and claiming you'd won a marathon!
It seems to me that any number of debilitating and lethal diseases can be seen this way and that population control should be proactive
Agreed.
I'd pretty much support anything that would have kept friends and family from dying a slow, painful death.
I too would like to prevent this. However note that older people dying of cancer are more likely to suffer a slow, painful death anyway if we prolong their life - other parts of the body give out. (No I'm not saying that means we shouldn't try to cure diseases) Also note that a death resulting from famine due to overpopulation wouldn't be the least painful you could have either.
If there are diseases you'd like to keep around to prevent overpopulation, may I suggest lobbying to return Smallpox to the wild instead?
Wooooaahhhh there buddy. I didn't say I wanted to keep any disease around. Just that we should have a plan that means our population (and consumption) are sustainable so we don't have wide spread famine.
Cancer, in general, happens to people well past the age of reproduction.
What are you talking about? There are whole classes of cancers commonly referred to as "childhood cancer".
Looking at the stats here, nearly 10% of cancers occur under the age of 45. Let's call that the reproductive cutoff for women....now men can have children into their 60s, and about 45% roughly occur by age 65
http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/results_merged/topic_age_dist.pdf
Now the earlier the cancer occurs the more likely it is to have an impact on reproduction. So yes age has a bearing, but your view of cancer as a disease for old people is just wrong.
Seriously, some of you people scare me....
Perhaps you should READ what the other person wrote before letting hysteria take over? To take what I wrote and suggest that I want cancer to hang around is just paranoid. (I said I hated losing people dear to me). It isn't wrong to want to have a plan to prevent the population from becoming unsustainable. My interest isn't in restricting freedoms, handing control to the government, or having people die at my whim. I'd like to see LESS suffering. Painting me as a monster is INSULTING.
As an Australian who fervently opposes Chairman Rudd's censorship bill...
I'm Australian too and I'm getting increasingly annoyed with Rudd. I find the man to be less than genuine, and it doesn't stop with his pandering to China or fearlessly taking on a dictatorial line. He seems to remind me of that every time he's in the news. Like yesterday saying that Obama had fulfilled Martin Luther King's dream. Tell that to almost all the southern states - they all voted for McCain. I can't even think how I'd be feeling if I were a US secret service officer tasked with protecting the president (or family of one of these guys). How much did their life insurance just go up? That is NOT the dream MLK had. He was speaking about true equality and predjudice being a thing of the past. Way to go hijacking that dream to suck up to the president elect of the US. Idiot.
This pains me to say - a couple of friends of the family have been diagnosed with cancer- one very dear to me and with limited time to live, the other a very decent man and doesn't know his chances yet.
I can't help but think that cancer is acting as a brake on the population explosion. If we cured cancer tomorrow these people who are dear to me wouldn't suffer, but we'd be even less sustainable and eventually we'd see wide spread poverty and famine. So the question becomes: If we do gather the knowledge we need to cure various forms of cancer so that those dear to us don't suffer, what are we going to do to balance things out and prevent the population from skyrocketing?
I don't have easy answers. I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease.
That's not technically a BSoD, you can press any key to return to Windows. It's a reboot confirmation screen (CTRL+ALT+DEL reboots in DOS)
It was entirely possible to have an error resulting in that screen from which even ctrl-alt-delete would not work. You needed to press the reset button or shutdown and start again. To say that Win 3.1 didn't have a blue screen of death is not correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Screen_of_Death
"The Blue Screen of Death (also known as a stop error, BSOD, bluescreen, or Blue Screen of Doom) is an error screen displayed by some operating systems, most notably Microsoft Windows, after encountering a critical system error which can cause the system to shut down, to prevent damage."
"Bluescreens have been present in all Windows-based operating systems since Windows 3.1"
Win3.1 did not have BSOD!
Informative????? Try incorrect!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsK7TZhomE
Not really - we need management once we grow to a large enough size that communication is a problem; it's the workers who produce the product and make the value - basically, you've got things backwards. Anyway, I'm just saying that management needs to be brought round to reality - that's your job as the expert.
Very few companies are actually run by the technical staff. You can't make someone who's higher in the chain of command do anything. So you either gain their trust so that they know if they don't listen to you it's at their peril, or you find a new company to start with. For a good company you need good workers and good management both. You also need everyone to work together. The us vs them thing is going to get you nowhere in life.
Did it ever occur to you that I could be writing for the audience?
You don't buy the Wall Street Journal for the cartoons. If you're posting on /. and yet bought a $30 month DSL connection and in 2008 still expect it to be unlimited then yes, you're pretty delusional.
No, it didn't. You made a blanket statement and did not qualify it. Apologies for failing to read your mind!
The words are a bit harsh, but some manglement has trouble seeing that massive changes in requirements can nullify most of the existing work; they need something more than the usual soft sell about what their changes mean. Sometimes they decide that they don't really need it that much.
Before ridiculing them as 'manglement' you should realize that without a job they give you to do, you'd be out of a job. It really is worth being on management's best side if you can be. A team divided and all that. If they come to see you as an ally and trust you, your words will count for a lot more. If you're explicit and accurate about what the costs are it really is their job to make the final decision. You always have the option of finding alternate work if things go really badly or you don't believe your input is being considered.
I suspect (correct me if I'm assuming too much) the real reason for the original "Off topic" mod was that you posted this comment to a story about Linux hardware support rather than the story about IBMs patent.
My mistake indeed!
If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
At your going rate of $0, it's a deal!!!
How does use of the logo show you're legit? I bet there are plenty of pirate and torrent sites that could stick that logo right on their front page today.
Then you need the balls to tell them it is a new project. You should also make sure they change the project name so as to prevent confusion with the old and now dead project.
Putting forward a good argument and suggesting that they start a new project may be the right thing to do. Trying to tell your employer what to do is stupid. Building a rapport and gaining their confidence isn't.
It's not about having balls. Telling someone who employs you that they MUST do something your way is stupid. You don't have the power to execute your decision. At best you look foolish and the business harbour ill will at being told what to do. At worst, start looking for another job.
They all do it, and the purpose is mostly for the sake of maintaining a defensive-patent war chest to keep the other big companies at bay with mutually assured destruction.
So what you're saying is we've learnt NOTHING from the cold war and are all happy to live our lives under the constant threat that someone's going to turn our life to mush at any moment.
Actually it fails pretty spectacularly when you try to determine it based on chromosomes, too. There are XY women with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), and both XXY and XYY men. In many cases, especially those of AIS, they may go their whole lives without knowing that their chromosomes convey something different than their sex organs.
I agree it's difficult to assign a gender (if you only allow male, female) to an XY woman with AIS since you have external female appears with internal undescended testicles. However XXY and XYY men are as you just said classified as male, so it's just an AIS XY that is the problem.
Two ways of dealing with the problem, using only chromosomes:
1) Assign AIS XY individuals a gender based on reasoning and logic instead of allowing them to choose.
2) Create a 3rd category, androgen.
So it doesn't fail. The real world just forces you to come up with more complex rules. It's a hell of a lot more reliable and fair than trying to accomodate every fool that says "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body". Well sometimes I wish I were a dolphin buddy, but I'm not going to lobby for others to recognise me as one. Life's harsh. In practice I'd take a more compassionate stance and not be so crass about it but having some compassion does not mean I have to deal with other people's dillusions and fanciful wishes that don't change reality.
I wonder how the law deals with this?
I'd like to know what you dislike of Hibernate.
Where to start...
If you're writing something simple with very straight forward relationships and are able to define your database yourself up front it's not too bad. You lose some performance in caching, but also gain some in that hibernate does well using indexes to generate sane queries.
The idea that you don't have to hand code is only partly true. The low level database calls are indeed done for you but your mapping isn't - some of it is just moved away from Java and into XML (You still have to code the object class...some of that can be done for you if you use the right tools but the tools keep breaking and/or being re-written so a lot of people end up doing it by hand. One of the stupidest bugs I ever introduced to code was mis-capitalizing the instance variable in an accessor for one of the fields that mapped to the DB. As a result, hibernate would null that field and save to the database even though save was not explicitly called - the app ended up clearing out reference data in the database!). So my experience with hibernate as a tool to remove errors hasn't been all positive. My experience with the tools hasn't been all positive.
Next there's HQL. What an abomination. Not every piece of SQL you can write will map to legal HQL. DB specific stuff, while not a good thing to use in the first place, just doesn't work in some cases (or at least didn't in Hibernate 2. That may have been fixed). You end up falling back on JDBC for stuff that needs that. I even vaguely recall problems with certain standard SQL...certain group by clauses or sub-clauses didn't work.
Next take a look at the way more complex mappings work. Some of the options in the XML mapping files are not intuitive at all. In fact you have to spend considerable time to understand what they are doing, and even then complete understanding only comes when something breaks. It can be very difficult to tune the mappings so that they work well for all the various scenarios in your application, so you have to make compromises.
Finally, I've worked on proprietary data access frameworks (mostly in Smalltalk, not Java) and they can be quite a burden to maintain, but I see an equal amount of pain trying to keep up with the latest Hibernate version and work out whether you want to do it their way or use Spring to wrap the data access.
Talk to a Hibernate fan and they'll come up with something to counter each of the above (as that is the nature of the fan) but as far as I'm concerned Hibernate is not the magical wonderful error free data access framework it's made out to be. There's no such animal.