VB is a programming language that's definitely in use. Why the rush to write it off?
I hate Perl and Lisp, but I don't drag them through the mud. They're tools people use to accomplish tasks like any other language.
Or closer to home, I hate Macs (I have 2, and only the Mac Mini is in use, and that's just so I can compile iDevice apps... talk about proprietary) but they're a tool people use. So why drag them through the mud?
And people will install it if they want to use the app written in Silverlight. Or they'll find an alternative and use it. Platform agnosticism... choice is good.
Weird. Most (not all) of the experience I've had with clients switching (nevermind I'm a software guy and not desktop services or training) has been more along the lines of "oh there it is.... ok."
I've worked with both C# and Java, and I read the comment differently.
Generally if you use Visual Studio and C#/ASP.Net everything is there and ready to go. That's not so with Java/J2EE. You need to decide the web framework to use and there are lots (lots of good ones I might add). If you're doing MVC you need to decide which framework to use for that.
There are a lot more decisions to make and more complications when working with Java. Conversely, it's been my experience that Java programmers know more about the fundamentals than C# programmers do... because they've been forced to understand it.
I did see that one, but that hasn't prevented 24 states from carrying similar laws.
The ruling was that it was ok as long as they had probable cause to detain and ask.
Again it boils down to what the PO decides is probable cause.
Of note: Stevens and Breyer offered their dissent.
“The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and precise.” The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
The narrow requirements of Nevada’s stop-and-identify law meant that it did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. “In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.” Since Terry, it has been clear that a police officer who reasonably suspects that a person is involved in criminal activity may detain a person long enough to dispel that suspicion. Questions related to a person’s identity are a “routine and accepted part of many Terry stops.” Knowing a person’s identity may, of course, help to clear a suspect and divert the attention of the police to another suspect. On the other hand, knowing the suspect’s name may just as quickly confirm to the officer that the person is wanted for another, unrelated crime. In cases such as this, where the police are investigating a domestic dispute, officers “need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.” “The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. The threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity does not become a legal nullity.” Balancing the intrusion into the individual’s privacy against the extent to which the stop-and-identify law promotes legitimate government interests, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit Nevada from making it a crime for a person detained under conditions of Terry to refuse to identify himself to a police officer upon request.
Furthermore, the officer’s request that Hiibel identify himself did not implicate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. There was no “articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel’s] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ him.” Because Hiibel’s name was not an incriminating piece of evidence, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to disclose it.
In our current state, companies seem to demand loyalty from employees while offering none. The age of working for the same company for 20+ years is all but gone with the pensions they no longer offer, and layoffs at the drop of a hat because they might not hit the next quarterly earnings targets.
Slashdot Mirror
Just one. We find an abandoned platform mistakenly placed just outside of coastal jurisdiction and call it Sealand.
Crap, it's been done.
*sigh*
VB is a programming language that's definitely in use. Why the rush to write it off?
I hate Perl and Lisp, but I don't drag them through the mud. They're tools people use to accomplish tasks like any other language.
Or closer to home, I hate Macs (I have 2, and only the Mac Mini is in use, and that's just so I can compile iDevice apps... talk about proprietary) but they're a tool people use. So why drag them through the mud?
And people will install it if they want to use the app written in Silverlight. Or they'll find an alternative and use it. Platform agnosticism... choice is good.
Either way, your post is a troll.
I think you're confusing VB1-6 with VB.Net. In it's current iteration, it's a fairly nice OO language.
I don't use it because I'm a fan of curly brackets, but your writing it off suggests not having used or seen VB.Net in action.
Looked like JUSTIF to me, but to be honest, both of those languages look like gibberish to me.
Weird. Most (not all) of the experience I've had with clients switching (nevermind I'm a software guy and not desktop services or training) has been more along the lines of "oh there it is.... ok."
I've worked with both C# and Java, and I read the comment differently.
Generally if you use Visual Studio and C#/ASP.Net everything is there and ready to go. That's not so with Java/J2EE. You need to decide the web framework to use and there are lots (lots of good ones I might add). If you're doing MVC you need to decide which framework to use for that.
There are a lot more decisions to make and more complications when working with Java. Conversely, it's been my experience that Java programmers know more about the fundamentals than C# programmers do... because they've been forced to understand it.
One of the reasons my former CIO is my former CIO (I left, he's still trashing the place) was a conversation about ESBs.
He said we wouldn't look at Mule because it was OSS and "you know you can't get any support for open source."
Some people may never get it.
I trust the "we're going to support Mono" statement. I get, though, that it's an exception to the rule.
You should be able to infer that it kind of sucked.
All I know of the list is RPG which was less than fun to write code in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerium
http://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/58.html
India, Brazil, USA, Sweden.
It's the most abundant of rare earth metals, and is low to moderate toxicity.
I believe you're right on both thoughts there.
One of the things my wife's coworkers liked to say was "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride."
I did see that one, but that hasn't prevented 24 states from carrying similar laws.
The ruling was that it was ok as long as they had probable cause to detain and ask.
Again it boils down to what the PO decides is probable cause.
Of note: Stevens and Breyer offered their dissent.
“The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and precise.” The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
The narrow requirements of Nevada’s stop-and-identify law meant that it did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. “In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.” Since Terry, it has been clear that a police officer who reasonably suspects that a person is involved in criminal activity may detain a person long enough to dispel that suspicion. Questions related to a person’s identity are a “routine and accepted part of many Terry stops.” Knowing a person’s identity may, of course, help to clear a suspect and divert the attention of the police to another suspect. On the other hand, knowing the suspect’s name may just as quickly confirm to the officer that the person is wanted for another, unrelated crime. In cases such as this, where the police are investigating a domestic dispute, officers “need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.” “The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. The threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity does not become a legal nullity.” Balancing the intrusion into the individual’s privacy against the extent to which the stop-and-identify law promotes legitimate government interests, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit Nevada from making it a crime for a person detained under conditions of Terry to refuse to identify himself to a police officer upon request.
Furthermore, the officer’s request that Hiibel identify himself did not implicate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. There was no “articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel’s] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ him.” Because Hiibel’s name was not an incriminating piece of evidence, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to disclose it.
See my other posts, or actually use google.com your damned self.
I will never understand why people flip out when you try to correct them and demand our form of government be called a democracy.
Makes me want to call Amy Goodman every morning, say "you're an idiot" and hang up.
In our current state, companies seem to demand loyalty from employees while offering none. The age of working for the same company for 20+ years is all but gone with the pensions they no longer offer, and layoffs at the drop of a hat because they might not hit the next quarterly earnings targets.
So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Not me... I wouldn't touch anything to do with Siemens with a 10 foot politician.
Yeah, I'm actually too depressed to kill myself now.
30 Rock!
Silly Tablizer, we've been a plutocracy for quite a while now.
I know I'm a broken record now when I say you're fooling yourself if you think one party is better than the other. They're all run by PACs.
Here's a post from someone that's logged in.
Anyone who thinks Dems are better than Reps or Reps are better than Dems is fooling themselves.
They're ALL politicians, and don't have any interest in what the people actually want.
Become a PAC and you'll get your voice heard, but not until then.
pecosdave for President!
(no, that wasn't sarcasm)
Please don't be an apologist (for him or any other politician). He's a politician and always has been. He'll cave to PACs as quickly as the next guy.
AT&T has no 4G network, and for that matter, nobody has one. The 4G specs mandate 100mbps of bandwidth.
p.s. at 14-21mbps, theirs is definitely in the running for fastest HPSA+ or 3G+.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418803_videoside.html
According to this one, 24 states have "stop and identify" laws. They all require probable cause, but POs can make that up on the fly.