Well, being 21 myself, I only watched the movie for the first time a few weeks ago on HBO. Then again, I'm not a huge movie buff, so maybe it's just me...
Credit where credit is due: Project Gizmo is yet another invention of Mp3.com creator, Lindows/Linspire creator, long-time enemy of Microsoft Michael Robertson.
For those who didn't get the parent joke, it's based off a 1984 film called Gremlins, where a young boy receives a cute gremlin named 'Gizmo' as a Christmas gift. The catch was that if the gremlin touched water, it could multiply, and also, if you fed it after midnight it would transform into a malicious little a-hole of a creature.
Oh I don't want to force anyone to pray, if it came to forcing you or keeping quiet, I'd much rather keep quiet. Forcing someone to do something against their will was not what Jesus was about.
According to my government, I have the right to freely express my religion, including prayer, even on so-called "secular" grounds such as public schools.
It is not your right to be shielded from all religion, but it is my right to freely express my religion (even if you can hear or see such expressions!).
This is all according to my government's establishment of religion clause. If it was modified to suit your views, I would be breaking the law. Fortunately, we have some balance in our country, and the freedom of religion still exists.
I'd being willing to bet that if you and I and the "Founding Fathers" were to get together, they wouldn't agree with either one of us about everything.
I think that's something we can both agree on.:-)
I have little faith in George F. Will, but I think he offers a valid opinion on the subject of the Founding Fathers, and, by association, the meaning behind the Establishment Clause: the Fathers, though many of them were Deists, meant for the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights as a way to prevent the government from establishing a creed or sect upon citizens.
As a side note, the very phrase "seperation of Church and State" was coined by Jefferson, who, in response to a letter from a Baptism minister fearing Angelicism was becoming the official creed of the government, responded by saying there is a wall of seperation between church and state, assuring the Baptist minister the government will not become Angelican. See the actual letter here.
If you're to interpret the law literally, all expressions of religion are Constitutional, unless Congress passes a law that promotes or denies the religion in question. Has Congress passed a law that forces the 10 Commandments to be displayed everywhere? No. So any state that has 10 commandments displays are not unconstitutional. So the thinking on the right goes.
Even funnier about this whole debate around the 10 commandments is that Christians don't even follow all 10 (haha! talk about hypocrisy!). What's worse is that the Supreme Court has etched in its walls a large figure of Moses holding the 10 Commandments! More hypocrisy! Yet here it is telling other certain states to take down their 10 Commandments displays, and leaving others provided there are enough "reindeer".
So while the left waxes on about how it's everyone's right to be shielded from religion, the right is accurate in that there is no such right, at least, not when the United States was created.
If you listen to both sides, Washington was a fundamentalist hippie who smoked doobies between church services.
Haha, that's great.
Seriously though, the Founders weren't like me. Most of the founders were deists (they believed in God, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian one). See my response to the GP, there's a good article detailing the founder's true identities.
Totally agree with you! And how those right-wing activist judges over the last 20 years have ruled from the bench, passing hard-line, right-wing, fundie ideas into law by legalizing aborting, denying my right to prayer in school, the list goes on! Damn those righties!
Funny you should bring that up, just the other day I was reading an op-ed piece in the Washington post about this very subject. It was an interesting read, check it out here.
We on the right don't want to get rid of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, we love the Bill of Rights as much as the "fundie nutbars" that created it.
And as far as having a rightist judge, I'd say it'd only even things out, with the past 20 years of left-wing activist judges.
I'd rather just see judges become apolitical, but of course that can't happen when people try to see things black and white, leftist hippie and rightist fundie.
Gosling says that "The only serious divide is they (C# /.Net) have this unsafe mode which they use a lot. One of the principles I believe in is there shouldn't be an unsafe mode.
Firstly, the 'unsafe' mode is so rarely used, it's limited to interoping with native code, and used in tight performance scenarios.
The only instance I've seen unsafe context used in a production library was the FastBitmap class, that uses pointers in an unsafe context to access pixel data, thus being much faster than C# and Java equivalents.
I write C# for a living and can tell you that in my company's 500,000+ lines of C# code, we don't use a single unsafe context.
Also, any code that uses unsafe requires a full trust security; meaning that a C# applet off the web wouldn't be able to use it.
Gosling really ought to investigate C# code out there in the wild and in use today; unsafe is almost never used. And when it is used, there's a damn good reason for it (performance & interop).
Um, Java is open, and the CCDL is an OSI-approved license. The only people that whine and complain about Sun are the zealots who follow everyone of RMS's laughable utterances.
Frankly, most companies (including the one I work for) choose to support the most widely used OS; supporting multiple OSes means more testing, more development costs. And for Windows, C# blows away Java.
But again, I won't get sucked into a langauge debate. If I were to write cross-platform software, I might choose Java over C#. It's all about getting the right tool for the job.
C# is not platform specific. However, the.NET framework (i.e. the common code library shared by all.NET languages including C#) is partially platform specific (in particular, System.Windows.Forms namespace).
That said, the Mono Project allows you to write code in any.NET language (be that C#, VB.NET, JScript.NET, J#, C++, and about 30 others) that runs on everything from Solaris to Mac to BSD to RedHat. I suggest you check it out for more info.
So, under your rules, you'd better not code in Java either since anyone, anywhere could have a pending patent.
Give me a break... at least with C#, it's an ISO and ECMA standard. Further, Microsoft has explicitly permitted 3rd party implementations of the.NET framework and C# language.
But I'm not going to get into a petty langauge war. Use the right tool for the job, if it's C# or Java, frankly it matters little. Only zealots think otherwise.
from the oxymoron dept...
on
Effective C#
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Effective Java!
[mod me +5 funny like the parent. What's that? You don't like underhanded my-langauge-is-better-than-yours jokes, meant to enflame rage between already volatile communities? Oh, sorry, mod me down then.]
what makes an Indian any less of a programmer than an American or a European?
The inability to create a user interface that makes sense to an English speaker.
Additionally, the ability to document and comment code in a coherent, sensible fashion, to the point where documentation and commenting are useless to English speakers.
I would also add that because the major software APIs out there (Win32, Java,.NET, for example) are written in English, with English documentation and commenting, it's more difficult for someone without English skills to fully understand such programming interfaces.
Finally, working, cooperating, and communicating with English speaking co-workers, employers, and executives can prove a hinderance to writing software; there is no collaboration.
Granted, not all Indians are poor English speakers, but a vast many of them speak and write very poor English.
The Web worked perfectly well, with lots of free content available, for the several years before advertising appeared. What would be wrong with going back to that?
Even though we probably disagree on a lot of things, glad to see you're back posting, twitter. Maybe with your lapse of posts the crazy ACs will stop hounding you finally.:-p
Yes. But generally 5 year old boys are more rambunctious and curious; there is definitely a higher risk of jumping on, throwing, or bending the DVD, whereas the tape discovery is a far less concern.:-)
What is the major reason for people still sticking with VHS?
We'll always have our VCR because my wife has nearly every Disney movie ever made on VHS (sad, I know). And since we have a VCR, we can get our 5 year old VHS tapes that are often cheaper than DVDs. And honestly, they hold up quite a bit better with a 5 year old than DVDs and CDs do.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, never said I liked the guy. But Lindows has done pretty well, and Mp3.com was a great invention, you've got to admit.
Well, being 21 myself, I only watched the movie for the first time a few weeks ago on HBO. Then again, I'm not a huge movie buff, so maybe it's just me...
Credit where credit is due: Project Gizmo is yet another invention of Mp3.com creator, Lindows/Linspire creator, long-time enemy of Microsoft Michael Robertson.
Can't remember his connection to SCO, though...
For those who didn't get the parent joke, it's based off a 1984 film called Gremlins, where a young boy receives a cute gremlin named 'Gizmo' as a Christmas gift. The catch was that if the gremlin touched water, it could multiply, and also, if you fed it after midnight it would transform into a malicious little a-hole of a creature.
Oh I don't want to force anyone to pray, if it came to forcing you or keeping quiet, I'd much rather keep quiet. Forcing someone to do something against their will was not what Jesus was about.
According to my government, I have the right to freely express my religion, including prayer, even on so-called "secular" grounds such as public schools.
It is not your right to be shielded from all religion, but it is my right to freely express my religion (even if you can hear or see such expressions!).
This is all according to my government's establishment of religion clause. If it was modified to suit your views, I would be breaking the law. Fortunately, we have some balance in our country, and the freedom of religion still exists.
I'd being willing to bet that if you and I and the "Founding Fathers" were to get together, they wouldn't agree with either one of us about everything.
:-)
I think that's something we can both agree on.
I have little faith in George F. Will, but I think he offers a valid opinion on the subject of the Founding Fathers, and, by association, the meaning behind the Establishment Clause: the Fathers, though many of them were Deists, meant for the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights as a way to prevent the government from establishing a creed or sect upon citizens.
As a side note, the very phrase "seperation of Church and State" was coined by Jefferson, who, in response to a letter from a Baptism minister fearing Angelicism was becoming the official creed of the government, responded by saying there is a wall of seperation between church and state, assuring the Baptist minister the government will not become Angelican. See the actual letter here.
If you're to interpret the law literally, all expressions of religion are Constitutional, unless Congress passes a law that promotes or denies the religion in question. Has Congress passed a law that forces the 10 Commandments to be displayed everywhere? No. So any state that has 10 commandments displays are not unconstitutional. So the thinking on the right goes.
Even funnier about this whole debate around the 10 commandments is that Christians don't even follow all 10 (haha! talk about hypocrisy!). What's worse is that the Supreme Court has etched in its walls a large figure of Moses holding the 10 Commandments! More hypocrisy! Yet here it is telling other certain states to take down their 10 Commandments displays, and leaving others provided there are enough "reindeer".
So while the left waxes on about how it's everyone's right to be shielded from religion, the right is accurate in that there is no such right, at least, not when the United States was created.
Whether someone is allowed to give a speech is not up to me or the government.
If you listen to both sides, Washington was a fundamentalist hippie who smoked doobies between church services.
Haha, that's great.
Seriously though, the Founders weren't like me. Most of the founders were deists (they believed in God, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian one). See my response to the GP, there's a good article detailing the founder's true identities.
Totally agree with you! And how those right-wing activist judges over the last 20 years have ruled from the bench, passing hard-line, right-wing, fundie ideas into law by legalizing aborting, denying my right to prayer in school, the list goes on! Damn those righties!
Funny you should bring that up, just the other day I was reading an op-ed piece in the Washington post about this very subject. It was an interesting read, check it out here.
We on the right don't want to get rid of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, we love the Bill of Rights as much as the "fundie nutbars" that created it.
And as far as having a rightist judge, I'd say it'd only even things out, with the past 20 years of left-wing activist judges.
I'd rather just see judges become apolitical, but of course that can't happen when people try to see things black and white, leftist hippie and rightist fundie.
Gosling says that "The only serious divide is they (C# / .Net) have this unsafe mode which they use a lot. One of the principles I believe in is there shouldn't be an unsafe mode.
Firstly, the 'unsafe' mode is so rarely used, it's limited to interoping with native code, and used in tight performance scenarios.
The only instance I've seen unsafe context used in a production library was the FastBitmap class, that uses pointers in an unsafe context to access pixel data, thus being much faster than C# and Java equivalents.
I write C# for a living and can tell you that in my company's 500,000+ lines of C# code, we don't use a single unsafe context.
Also, any code that uses unsafe requires a full trust security; meaning that a C# applet off the web wouldn't be able to use it.
Gosling really ought to investigate C# code out there in the wild and in use today; unsafe is almost never used. And when it is used, there's a damn good reason for it (performance & interop).
Yes, well, there are some of us in the world who do not think everything has to be licensed under GPL in order to be 'open'.
...open, freely available, widely used, widely deployed, and a great language.
I'm a C# person myself, so it's somewhat ironic being here defending Java, but hey, the truth is the truth.
Um, Java is open, and the CCDL is an OSI-approved license. The only people that whine and complain about Sun are the zealots who follow everyone of RMS's laughable utterances.
Then download and run the free & open source Mono instead, which runs Jon's patch just fine.
Java is an acceptable gamble, C# isn't.
Frankly, most companies (including the one I work for) choose to support the most widely used OS; supporting multiple OSes means more testing, more development costs. And for Windows, C# blows away Java.
But again, I won't get sucked into a langauge debate. If I were to write cross-platform software, I might choose Java over C#. It's all about getting the right tool for the job.
Why learn a platform specific language
.NET framework (i.e. the common code library shared by all .NET languages including C#) is partially platform specific (in particular, System.Windows.Forms namespace).
.NET language (be that C#, VB.NET, JScript.NET, J#, C++, and about 30 others) that runs on everything from Solaris to Mac to BSD to RedHat. I suggest you check it out for more info.
C# is not platform specific. However, the
That said, the Mono Project allows you to write code in any
So, under your rules, you'd better not code in Java either since anyone, anywhere could have a pending patent.
.NET framework and C# language.
Give me a break... at least with C#, it's an ISO and ECMA standard. Further, Microsoft has explicitly permitted 3rd party implementations of the
But I'm not going to get into a petty langauge war. Use the right tool for the job, if it's C# or Java, frankly it matters little. Only zealots think otherwise.
Effective Java!
[mod me +5 funny like the parent. What's that? You don't like underhanded my-langauge-is-better-than-yours jokes, meant to enflame rage between already volatile communities? Oh, sorry, mod me down then.]
what makes an Indian any less of a programmer than an American or a European?
.NET, for example) are written in English, with English documentation and commenting, it's more difficult for someone without English skills to fully understand such programming interfaces.
The inability to create a user interface that makes sense to an English speaker.
Additionally, the ability to document and comment code in a coherent, sensible fashion, to the point where documentation and commenting are useless to English speakers.
I would also add that because the major software APIs out there (Win32, Java,
Finally, working, cooperating, and communicating with English speaking co-workers, employers, and executives can prove a hinderance to writing software; there is no collaboration.
Granted, not all Indians are poor English speakers, but a vast many of them speak and write very poor English.
The Web worked perfectly well, with lots of free content available, for the several years before advertising appeared. What would be wrong with going back to that?
No one would make any money.
Even though we probably disagree on a lot of things, glad to see you're back posting, twitter. Maybe with your lapse of posts the crazy ACs will stop hounding you finally. :-p
Yes. But generally 5 year old boys are more rambunctious and curious; there is definitely a higher risk of jumping on, throwing, or bending the DVD, whereas the tape discovery is a far less concern. :-)
What is the major reason for people still sticking with VHS?
We'll always have our VCR because my wife has nearly every Disney movie ever made on VHS (sad, I know). And since we have a VCR, we can get our 5 year old VHS tapes that are often cheaper than DVDs. And honestly, they hold up quite a bit better with a 5 year old than DVDs and CDs do.