I guess I really don't get the point of your post. I thought it was basically a "well, everyone who doesn't think and act like me is wrong!" Slashdot Special, but after re-reading it I'm not so sure.
Well, chalk one up for your intuition and mark me down with a loss for communication.:-)
I suppose I feel a bit confused as to why there seem to be so many people who, when coming into contact with NeXT technologies, have such a visceral dislike of them; while at the same time there is a smaller number for whom it not only seems comfortable, but demonstrably much more productive. There used to be a similar phenomenon with Blender, I think. I'm not really a 3D modeller/animator, so the discussions were always peripheral for me. But I seem to recall people who had worked with 3DS Max and some other professional 3D tools being blown away by how productive Blender made them, once they got past the unusual GUI layout. At the same time, there were a lot of other people who tried it once, said something along the lines of "I don't like this because it's too different," and walked away. Is it just that they didn't take the time to learn how to be effective with the tool? Or is there really some difference in cognitive psychology that makes certain tools more natural to certain people? (You could say, "why not just change the GUI to be more traditional, then?" The problem, I would presume, was that the "unusual" GUI was one of the keys to the increased productivity.)
I have been injured physically by common, but ergonomically poor, equipment designs. Yet when I was shown equipment that is more appropriate for the human body, I disliked it because it felt different from what I was familiar with. Fortunately, I eventually came around and now feel much better because I stuck with it long enough. But "cognitive ergonomics," if there is such a thing, may be different from physical ergonomics.
I think a "big" problem with GNUStep and Apple's Cocoa is its reliance on Objective-C, a language most people have never heard of.
If you could code in Cocoa using C++, C# or even a language like Python, PHP or Ruby, I think it would be a lot easier to convince programmers. I know that personally I was very taken-aback by Objective-C and it's frankly mystifying and strange syntax compared to the C++ I was used to.
I hear this all the time, and it still doesn't make any sense to me. I have yet to understand why anyone in this profession would run screaming into the night because they must learn something new. And, when it comes to syntax, it's not even that different. Object.DoThis() becomes [Object doThis]. What's so difficult about that? I also find the ObjC syntax much easier to scan through quickly, but that might just be me.
Maybe it's a case of "old dogs", but designing a UI with something like RealBasic or Visual Studio is much easier to my brain.
I've worked with Visual Studio 2005 and Interface Builder (both on OPENSTEP/Mach and Mac OS X). I hated Visual Studio's designer component. Could. Not. Stand. It. But IB always seemed so intuitive to me. It fit my mental model like a glove, and was, incidentally, the inspiration for Delphi, Visual Basic, and all the other RAD tools that followed. I always wondered why Borland, Microsoft, and everybody else who copied the idea couldn't achieve the same simplicity and elegance. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that it's just two different development communities with completely different ideas of what software is all about. Full stop.
Debt liability, inheritance, special priviledges, sharing of assets, etc. could be handled through civil contracts and so-called "power of attorney" without creating special exceptions just for marriage.
They could indeed but Conservatives won't wear it, which is a little silly in my mind (and I'm rather Conservative myself). They complain that this is just a "trick" to have gay marriage by another name. "Don't know when to accept victory and quit" would be a great motto for some of these people.
I agree, but I think that this is largely irrelevant. If there is enough support to pass an amendment in the first place, there is probably enough support to bring the rest of the document in line with changes. The amendment need not be compatible with the original Constitution so long as the resulting document is consistent.
Interesting that you should list a proposed amendment as "a Constitutional travesty". After all, the Constitution specifically allows Constitutional amendments, which can take any form Congress chooses (assuming support from a significant majority of representatives).
Only if it agrees with the rest of the Consitution, both in the letter and the spirit. It's absurd to believe in the legitimacy of a Constitutional amendment that quite obviously conflicts with other elements of the Consitution. Of course, our representatives in Washington could craft amendments that make more far-reaching changes to the document as a whole to serve the aim of internal consistency. That's my problem with the FMA (in addition to the fact that I don't think it would actually do what people think it would), and the modern interpretation of the 14th amendment.
P.S. Don't assume from my response that I would support such an amendment.
Heh, don't worry. I'm quite open to arguments on principle when I disagree with the particulars myself.
I think nearly all the existing amendments should never have been passed, with one or two exceptions (mainly dealing with equality of minorities, on which the original Constitution was strangely schizophrenic), and I would prefer the government stop authorizing/controlling marriage entirely instead of playing word games with the Constitution. I really don't see any reason why they need to be involved in the first place. Of course, that applies to most of the things they're involved in, so I suppose marriage isn't really all that unique in this respect.
Yep. One of the reasons Conservatives are so opposed to gay marriage is that they see marriage as being purely a religious concept derived from Genesis. And I really think that's the proper place for marriage anyway. I suppose there are legal necessities for civil marriage though--mostly relating to taxes and debt liability.
See, I interpret that as "you want to force me to move into an urban shithole." Somehow, that rubs me the wrong way. As does the idea that government should (or even CAN) shape the economy successfully. This always seems to fail in practice.
I'm far more worried about my fellow man. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise, but the Little Optimum doesn't scare me as much as the countless examples of the blackness of the human heart and the universal desire to exert power over neighbors.
A lot of things have to change, like our automobile usage, suburban lifestyle, and the excessive packaging of one time use products.
All of which are "Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answers." Because if we could do that overnight, we'd be right back where we are 5 years from now. If North America disappeared overnight, it would still probably only buy 15 years or so because China's and India's needs are growing so quickly.
And how would you propose to implement your proposals, anyway? It would take oppressive and violent acts of governments around the world. And it won't happen. Sorry.
There are two problems with that reading of the 14th amendment: (1) the amendment doesn't say anything remotely like that; and (2) it's completely inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution, both logically and in terms of the intent of the Founders.
(1): The 14th amendment, translated into something a little more direct, says this: "You know all those people who were slaves? Well they're naturalized citizens now, so you can't keep holding them against their will on the flimsy charge that they're foreign invaders." In the Northeastern establishment, slavery was public enemy #1. They were completely pissed off when slaveholders kept flaunting the expressed will of the Union. That's why the 14th amendment was written. It had nothing to do with applying the Bill of Rights to the states.
(2): The overriding framework of the Constitution is popular sovereignty and a "bottom-up" Republic. The people are the King of the United States. As the King, the people have supreme authority. State and Central Governments are appointed delegates of the people and, like previous monarchies, only have the powers specifically delegated to them. Those powers are spelled out in the articles of the Constitution. The popular modern interpretation of the 14th amendment that you mention is out of harmony with this principle, since we never modified the Constitution to give Congress moral authority over the States or people. In fact, the Central Government was never intended to directly rule over individuals.
Following on from that framework, the 1st amendment explicitly mentions Congress as the target of the restriction on powers, rather than the State governments. And just so there was to be no misunderstanding, the 10th amendment stated that powers not delegated to the branches of the Central Government were reserved to the States and people.
Since none of this language was ever amended to accomodate the modern interpretation of the 14th amendment, it is legally impossible to interpret it that way and still uphold the Constitution. But then, upholding the Constitution doesn't seem to be something with which our elected servants are terribly concerned.
Straight up. Not only has the 9th been ignored, but the 10th has as well. Ever since the 1890s, when radicals decided to start interpreting the 14th amendment as saying things it doesn't even come CLOSE to saying, the Central Government has been accreting unlawful powers like it's going out of style. What's funny is that, besides a handful of principled and educated Conservatives and Libertarians, both Left and Right are infatuated with this process. They key difference is in which direction they want to dictate what states and and cannot do. The Federal Marriage Amendment was just as much a Constitutional travesty as Roe v. Wade.
Don't kid yourself. NPR is really a reactionary extremist right-wing mouthpiece run from a bunker underneath the White House. In fact, Dick Cheney probably wrote the script for that program to help his cronies at Halliburton. The liberal media bias is made up. It's actually a right-wing media bias. They want to destroy the environment and we can't let them.
I find the quality of Google search results has gone down
I've been feeling the same. It seems to me that it started about a year ago, maybe a little longer. I remember being able to find what I was looking for in the first page of 10 results. Now sometimes I can't find what I'm looking for at all.
There are tons of Radio Shack outlets down here in South Carolina. They just built a new one about 2 miles from my house. Which I think is part of their problem. Even if Radio Shack were still a great place to buy electronic components, there are at least 5 or 10 stores in this moderate-sized southern town alone. That's ridiculous.
A friend of a friend was named John H. Christ (pronounced like 'krist'). Back in the day, he got on Compuserve or some-such service and left a message in an IBM forum as J.H. Christ. A flame war ensued.
Well, you do. She speaks English. You speak some kind of mangled dialect of it and even spell some of the words funny, but it's definitely not English, more like a disused dialect that's been flushed down the john and had all the air let out of it, similar to calling petrol by some funny version called gas, when the whole world calls it petrol anyway.
We have a vast stockpile of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Q.E.D.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Objective-c is Apples attempt to co-opt developers.
Really? I thought Objective-C was Brad Cox's attempt to create a message-passing object-oriented extension to C in the manner of Smalltalk.
Well, chalk one up for your intuition and mark me down with a loss for communication. :-)
I suppose I feel a bit confused as to why there seem to be so many people who, when coming into contact with NeXT technologies, have such a visceral dislike of them; while at the same time there is a smaller number for whom it not only seems comfortable, but demonstrably much more productive. There used to be a similar phenomenon with Blender, I think. I'm not really a 3D modeller/animator, so the discussions were always peripheral for me. But I seem to recall people who had worked with 3DS Max and some other professional 3D tools being blown away by how productive Blender made them, once they got past the unusual GUI layout. At the same time, there were a lot of other people who tried it once, said something along the lines of "I don't like this because it's too different," and walked away. Is it just that they didn't take the time to learn how to be effective with the tool? Or is there really some difference in cognitive psychology that makes certain tools more natural to certain people? (You could say, "why not just change the GUI to be more traditional, then?" The problem, I would presume, was that the "unusual" GUI was one of the keys to the increased productivity.)
I have been injured physically by common, but ergonomically poor, equipment designs. Yet when I was shown equipment that is more appropriate for the human body, I disliked it because it felt different from what I was familiar with. Fortunately, I eventually came around and now feel much better because I stuck with it long enough. But "cognitive ergonomics," if there is such a thing, may be different from physical ergonomics.
I hear this all the time, and it still doesn't make any sense to me. I have yet to understand why anyone in this profession would run screaming into the night because they must learn something new. And, when it comes to syntax, it's not even that different. Object.DoThis() becomes [Object doThis]. What's so difficult about that? I also find the ObjC syntax much easier to scan through quickly, but that might just be me.
I've worked with Visual Studio 2005 and Interface Builder (both on OPENSTEP/Mach and Mac OS X). I hated Visual Studio's designer component. Could. Not. Stand. It. But IB always seemed so intuitive to me. It fit my mental model like a glove, and was, incidentally, the inspiration for Delphi, Visual Basic, and all the other RAD tools that followed. I always wondered why Borland, Microsoft, and everybody else who copied the idea couldn't achieve the same simplicity and elegance. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that it's just two different development communities with completely different ideas of what software is all about. Full stop.
They could indeed but Conservatives won't wear it, which is a little silly in my mind (and I'm rather Conservative myself). They complain that this is just a "trick" to have gay marriage by another name. "Don't know when to accept victory and quit" would be a great motto for some of these people.
Sure. But they don't do it. :-)
Yeah, I remember taking Data Structures sophomore year...
Only if it agrees with the rest of the Consitution, both in the letter and the spirit. It's absurd to believe in the legitimacy of a Constitutional amendment that quite obviously conflicts with other elements of the Consitution. Of course, our representatives in Washington could craft amendments that make more far-reaching changes to the document as a whole to serve the aim of internal consistency. That's my problem with the FMA (in addition to the fact that I don't think it would actually do what people think it would), and the modern interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Heh, don't worry. I'm quite open to arguments on principle when I disagree with the particulars myself.
Yep. One of the reasons Conservatives are so opposed to gay marriage is that they see marriage as being purely a religious concept derived from Genesis. And I really think that's the proper place for marriage anyway. I suppose there are legal necessities for civil marriage though--mostly relating to taxes and debt liability.
See, I interpret that as "you want to force me to move into an urban shithole." Somehow, that rubs me the wrong way. As does the idea that government should (or even CAN) shape the economy successfully. This always seems to fail in practice.
Sounds like somebody didn't get his nap today. :-)
I'm far more worried about my fellow man. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise, but the Little Optimum doesn't scare me as much as the countless examples of the blackness of the human heart and the universal desire to exert power over neighbors.
All of which are "Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answers." Because if we could do that overnight, we'd be right back where we are 5 years from now. If North America disappeared overnight, it would still probably only buy 15 years or so because China's and India's needs are growing so quickly.
And how would you propose to implement your proposals, anyway? It would take oppressive and violent acts of governments around the world. And it won't happen. Sorry.
(1): The 14th amendment, translated into something a little more direct, says this: "You know all those people who were slaves? Well they're naturalized citizens now, so you can't keep holding them against their will on the flimsy charge that they're foreign invaders." In the Northeastern establishment, slavery was public enemy #1. They were completely pissed off when slaveholders kept flaunting the expressed will of the Union. That's why the 14th amendment was written. It had nothing to do with applying the Bill of Rights to the states.
(2): The overriding framework of the Constitution is popular sovereignty and a "bottom-up" Republic. The people are the King of the United States. As the King, the people have supreme authority. State and Central Governments are appointed delegates of the people and, like previous monarchies, only have the powers specifically delegated to them. Those powers are spelled out in the articles of the Constitution. The popular modern interpretation of the 14th amendment that you mention is out of harmony with this principle, since we never modified the Constitution to give Congress moral authority over the States or people. In fact, the Central Government was never intended to directly rule over individuals.
Following on from that framework, the 1st amendment explicitly mentions Congress as the target of the restriction on powers, rather than the State governments. And just so there was to be no misunderstanding, the 10th amendment stated that powers not delegated to the branches of the Central Government were reserved to the States and people.
Since none of this language was ever amended to accomodate the modern interpretation of the 14th amendment, it is legally impossible to interpret it that way and still uphold the Constitution. But then, upholding the Constitution doesn't seem to be something with which our elected servants are terribly concerned.
Straight up. Not only has the 9th been ignored, but the 10th has as well. Ever since the 1890s, when radicals decided to start interpreting the 14th amendment as saying things it doesn't even come CLOSE to saying, the Central Government has been accreting unlawful powers like it's going out of style. What's funny is that, besides a handful of principled and educated Conservatives and Libertarians, both Left and Right are infatuated with this process. They key difference is in which direction they want to dictate what states and and cannot do. The Federal Marriage Amendment was just as much a Constitutional travesty as Roe v. Wade.
You spend a lot of time reading Zippy the Pinhead, don't you? :-)
I think they're broken.
Don't kid yourself. NPR is really a reactionary extremist right-wing mouthpiece run from a bunker underneath the White House. In fact, Dick Cheney probably wrote the script for that program to help his cronies at Halliburton. The liberal media bias is made up. It's actually a right-wing media bias. They want to destroy the environment and we can't let them.
I've been feeling the same. It seems to me that it started about a year ago, maybe a little longer. I remember being able to find what I was looking for in the first page of 10 results. Now sometimes I can't find what I'm looking for at all.
Get with the fucking program, will ya? Fucktard.
Between golf and caber tossing, I think we can safely ask, "What the hell is it with the Scots, anyway?"
Simply brilliant. Yes, it's Flash. Sorry. But if you have the player, the refreshingly frank expression will brighten your day.
When did this become the Daily Kos?
There are tons of Radio Shack outlets down here in South Carolina. They just built a new one about 2 miles from my house. Which I think is part of their problem. Even if Radio Shack were still a great place to buy electronic components, there are at least 5 or 10 stores in this moderate-sized southern town alone. That's ridiculous.
...they need someone who can pray.
Wow. I thought I was the only one. :-)
I also lusted for Space Quest (I and II) but Thexder and Silpheed was what brought me to Radio Shack.
A friend of a friend was named John H. Christ (pronounced like 'krist'). Back in the day, he got on Compuserve or some-such service and left a message in an IBM forum as J.H. Christ. A flame war ensued.
We have a vast stockpile of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Q.E.D. :-)