your question "Why the else would anyone believe in god?" falls under the category of "begging the question
Well, I don't speak for the poster, but I read it as a rhetorical question. Rough translation: at least people who believe in god because of their upbringing have an excuse.
Okay, I'll bite this troller's bait. This review, and probably the book (I won't actually review something I haven't read, so a caveat here that I'm just going off the reviewer's obviously biased sentiment) and certainly this comment are all typical of a particular (and if I may say so, garden variety and dime a dozen) variety of "skeptic." This smart guy has everybody figured out - they are slaves of their childhood training, not liberated minds like ol' Boomer here.
You're just bitter because you have chosen to waste your life grovelling, while the rest of us can do as we please. You probably also suspect in your heart of hearts that we're going to get away with it. Poor, afraid sucker.
That's why you should turn up. Turning up says you care: spoiling the ballot says you consider the choice to be an outrage
One practical objection is that if large numbers of spoiled ballots become routine, it is easier for dishonest election workers to rig the outcome.
Not turning up says you don't give a stuff either way.
It is this presumption which is the problem. Lower turnout detracts from the legitimacy of the government - it does not mean that the abstainers have given tacit approval for the government to do as it pleases.
Choosing one makes you partially complicit. Not choosing has no effect, but at least you aren't involved.
Exactly. When I tell voters that I don't vote, the Pavlovian response is "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government". I say that this is completely wrong. It is precisely when you do vote that you can't complain - the implicit contract of voting is that you consent to be bound by the outcome, whether or not your party wins.
As I have never voted, I have withheld this consent. I do not personally require a leader. (No, this is not to say that I advocate anarchy). For the same reason, I do not consider myself morally bound to obey the law (although I do acknowledge that hazards like police and courts do exist, and have my own reasons for behaving ethically).
Your various claims in this thread depend heavily on some supposed special insight into the minds of others, for example
charitable donors:
My insight is not imagined. I've worked with non-profits and know the psychology and practices of the donors.
'self-indulgent' Gnome coders:
They do it for personal fulfillment.
other posters:
Your kind lacks the moral compass to make that sort of judgement.
legislators:
You and I both know that organizations like Gnome were not what legislators had in mind when they drafted 501(c)(3).
and so on. The universally negative responses you have elicited in this thread demonstrate that you have no such insight.
So you believe that the tax rates are not, in any way, influenced by deductions? You think that every person in the U.S. could double their deductions and the tax rates would not go up?
Strawman. The actual claim I refuted was:
If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.
If someone donates $100 to Gnome, that's $100 less that they have to donate to other organizations.
Or $100 less to spend on drugs and prostitutes. Do any evidence, other than your imagined special insight into the motives of others, to support your rather strong claim that giving to Gnome 'diverts money away from worthy charities'.
If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.
Nonsense. I'm willing to bet that your tax bill is calculated on your own income, just like everyone elses.
I don't want anyone to be able to take a tax deduction for giving to Gnome. It diverts money away from worthy charities.
By what mechanism? Do you assume that anyone who donates to Gnome would otherwise have donated an equal amount to one of your worthy charities? Or do you think that the tax deductions themselves are somehow funded by these charities?
That's because programmers keep programming in C, which is a glorified assembler,
Ignorant programmers are not the fault of the language. C makes it simple to avoid buffer overflows almost everywhere (exception being the absence of snprintf() - remedied in C99).
...instead of using a HIGHER level language that handles all the plumbing...
If a programmer is too weak to avoid buffer overflows in C, how will they cope with, say, C++ exception safety?
The book under review seems even more vacuous than usual for the genre. The chapter titles are laughable, but appealing to a certain 'inspirational leadership' type of manager. Only one successful case study? Design Patterns cites several per pattern. And I simply don't believe the anecdote about the manager with the million+ lines of code in his source file.
This proliferation of licences will harm the adoption of Open Source / Free Software by commercial organizations. It's hard enough to persuade management that GPL'd software is safe to use, or to distinguish between LGPL and GPL. Now we have a dozen new licences which will need to be scrutinized by the legal department.
It's exactly the same issue as with the.porn domain idea
With.porn, you define a domain positively based on its content. It's easy to imagine a whole list of such domains dealing with different types of 'controversial' material, say, domians which dealt with comparitive religion, explicit but non-porn sexual matters, and so on. These domains would be blockable by arbitrarily liberal or prudish parents
.kids is different, in that it's a catch-all containing everything left over when you remove the unsuitable material. Further, it has to be suitable for children in the most repressive households, or else word gets out among some religious community that.kids allows unfettered access to material dealing with sexual health, evolution, atheism, blood transfusions, or other such horrors.
The trouble with '.kids' is that you end up with the intersection of everybody's ideas of what is suitable for kids. If you've met the kind of religious cunt who glues together the pages dealing with evolution in the family encyclopaedia, you'll see the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Double nitpick: only certain forms of Duff's device are portable. The form in which it first came to fame was not portable.
Triple nitpick: It is portable. It just doesn't do very much on implementations where the destination address isn't magic
there's already a portable way to do it which is probably more efficient.
Nitpick: Duff's device is portable
To go back to the Duff's Device example, almost all compilers will implement loop unrolling already
Even where the number of iterations is not known until runtime, as in Duff's Device?
your question "Why the else would anyone believe in god?" falls under the category of "begging the question
Well, I don't speak for the poster, but I read it as a rhetorical question. Rough translation: at least people who believe in god because of their upbringing have an excuse.
Okay, I'll bite this troller's bait. This review, and probably the book (I won't actually review something I haven't read, so a caveat here that I'm just going off the reviewer's obviously biased sentiment) and certainly this comment are all typical of a particular (and if I may say so, garden variety and dime a dozen) variety of "skeptic." This smart guy has everybody figured out - they are slaves of their childhood training, not liberated minds like ol' Boomer here.
You're just bitter because you have chosen to waste your life grovelling, while the rest of us can do as we please. You probably also suspect in your heart of hearts that we're going to get away with it. Poor, afraid sucker.
That's why you should turn up. Turning up says you care: spoiling the ballot says you consider the choice to be an outrage
One practical objection is that if large numbers of spoiled ballots become routine, it is easier for dishonest election workers to rig the outcome.
Not turning up says you don't give a stuff either way.
It is this presumption which is the problem. Lower turnout detracts from the legitimacy of the government - it does not mean that the abstainers have given tacit approval for the government to do as it pleases.
Exactly. When I tell voters that I don't vote, the Pavlovian response is "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government". I say that this is completely wrong. It is precisely when you do vote that you can't complain - the implicit contract of voting is that you consent to be bound by the outcome, whether or not your party wins.
As I have never voted, I have withheld this consent. I do not personally require a leader. (No, this is not to say that I advocate anarchy). For the same reason, I do not consider myself morally bound to obey the law (although I do acknowledge that hazards like police and courts do exist, and have my own reasons for behaving ethically).
Not voting is the only means I have to express my dissatisfaction with all of the available candidates.
Why is a low voter turnout always assumed to indicate that the population is apathetic?
Why do we have a PlayStation2 controller for the 'Your Rights Online' icon? Bring back the harmonica guy!
Your various claims in this thread depend heavily on some supposed special insight into the minds of others, for example
charitable donors:
My insight is not imagined. I've worked with non-profits and know the psychology and practices of the donors.
'self-indulgent' Gnome coders:
They do it for personal fulfillment.
other posters:
Your kind lacks the moral compass to make that sort of judgement.
legislators:
You and I both know that organizations like Gnome were not what legislators had in mind when they drafted 501(c)(3).
and so on. The universally negative responses you have elicited in this thread demonstrate that you have no such insight.
So you believe that the tax rates are not, in any way, influenced by deductions? You think that every person in the U.S. could double their deductions and the tax rates would not go up?
Strawman. The actual claim I refuted was:
If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.
which remains false.
Or $100 less to spend on drugs and prostitutes. Do any evidence, other than your imagined special insight into the motives of others, to support your rather strong claim that giving to Gnome 'diverts money away from worthy charities'.
If you get a deduction, the rest of us have to make up for it.Nonsense. I'm willing to bet that your tax bill is calculated on your own income, just like everyone elses.
By what mechanism? Do you assume that anyone who donates to Gnome would otherwise have donated an equal amount to one of your worthy charities? Or do you think that the tax deductions themselves are somehow funded by these charities?
Why are you so bitter? Did they reject a patch from you or something?
If you don't understand the technical content of a post, mod it down as 'Offtopic' or 'Redundant', not 'Flamebait'.
'Flamebait' is for jokes which go over your head.
Ignorant programmers are not the fault of the language. C makes it simple to avoid buffer overflows almost everywhere (exception being the absence of snprintf() - remedied in C99).
If a programmer is too weak to avoid buffer overflows in C, how will they cope with, say, C++ exception safety?
In Java:
int a[] = new int[10];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) a[i] = i++;
Each access a[i] is needlessly bounds-checked.
How long if you're hetero?
In related news, the Russians are considering 'demanning' Lance Bass
The book under review seems even more vacuous than usual for the genre. The chapter titles are laughable, but appealing to a certain 'inspirational leadership' type of manager. Only one successful case study? Design Patterns cites several per pattern. And I simply don't believe the anecdote about the manager with the million+ lines of code in his source file.
This proliferation of licences will harm the adoption of Open Source / Free Software by commercial organizations. It's hard enough to persuade management that GPL'd software is safe to use, or to distinguish between LGPL and GPL. Now we have a dozen new licences which will need to be scrutinized by the legal department.
From the article:
search-and-rescue robots did perform tasks at the WTC disaster site and were successful by any reasonable performance metric
Number of lives saved?
With .porn, you define a domain positively based on its content. It's easy to imagine a whole list of such domains dealing with different types of 'controversial' material, say, domians which dealt with comparitive religion, explicit but non-porn sexual matters, and so on. These domains would be blockable by arbitrarily liberal or prudish parents
.kids is different, in that it's a catch-all containing everything left over when you remove the unsuitable material. Further, it has to be suitable for children in the most repressive households, or else word gets out among some religious community that .kids allows unfettered access to material dealing with sexual health, evolution, atheism, blood transfusions, or other such horrors.
The courts. Law is full of 'man on the Clapham omnibus'-style subjective definitions. Why should porn be different?
Legislators would devise some 'reasonable wankability' test, which the courts would interpret and apply.
The trouble with '.kids' is that you end up with the intersection of everybody's ideas of what is suitable for kids. If you've met the kind of religious cunt who glues together the pages dealing with evolution in the family encyclopaedia, you'll see the problem.
I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
It's spelled 'deaf'
My Jap's eye emits a subtle off-white liquid from time to time. Could be related.