Ever notice that fields women take an interest in generally make less money? And yet they are typically just as important?
I guess the people in those fields need to unionize and use collective bargaining to rise their salaries, then.
Cue a hundred self-styled libertarians replying that unions are evil and should be banned because the right to freely associate and seek one's rational self-interest somehow doesn't extend to employees.
I wish they'd go back quite a few years. They've made cars so complicated that it frustrating to repair them. Is it out of gas, or is one of hundreds of electrical components or miles of wire nonfunctional?
Yes, but on the other hand, my completely non-electrical car with its flintlock sparkplugs isn't so much fun either;).
The best Idea I can think of is you could pump water onto it at the same time you remove the cargo to keep it all neutral.
Simply divide the helium-holding tanks in half with a membrane, which is large enough that it can give all space to either half. One half contains helium, the other air; the membrane keeps them from mixing. When you want to decrease lift, pump helium out of the tank and into a high-pressure storage bottle, while simultaneously pumping in air to the other half; and when you want to increase lift, let some helium back to the tank while simultaneously removing air.
In this way you can get exactly the lift you require in any given situation; but of course the membrane will add some weight.
How cool would it be to have a fusion-reactor-driven zeppelin that replenishes its own Helium?
If you have onboard fusion reactors, why are you playing around with a glorified air balloon when you can travel via sub-orbital ballistic trajectory ?
Offering anonymous internet access to random persons passing by your house *does* promote free speech, and *is* thus a possible threat to your corporate overlords.
This bill does not specifically force me, a LA teacher, to teach ID, or the mythical status of global warming, but it does represent law makers meddling in an area they are not experts.
Teachers are also highly trained professionals that know how to do their job without the state meddling directly in the goings on of the classroom.
The new law does not force teachers to teach ID, only makes it acceptable to teach ID as science. This bothers me.
So... Do you want the state telling you what you must teach, or don't you ? Because from your own words it seems to me that the bill lets the decision of whether to teach ID or not in your hands, as you said you wanted, yet this seems to bother you. Please educate me ?-)
My aversion to homosexuality has nothing to do with Christianity. My aversion is rooted in evolution; the "yuck" factor maintains reproduction. Evolution depends entirely on reproduction!
But aversion to homosexuality in no way increases your chances of reproduction. If anything, making friends with homosexuals of your gender would give you an ally who doesn't compete with mates, thus increasing your chances. And while aversion to homosexuals of the opposite gender doesn't directly harm you, it doesn't help you either, and it does cause strife within the group which hurts it as a whole.
So, please explain the mechanism for how aversion to homosexuality would evolve ? Or are you perhaps confusing acceptance of homosexuality with being a homosexual ?
Sure I have, and a miracle diet at that. I could eat all I wanted, and losing weight was supposed to be the miracle;).
There are plenty of senile old people who don't know what day it is, where they are, or their names. Senility by itself won't kill you.
Senility doesn't cause death; senility is caused by the process of dying. It simply often gets your mental functions before heartbeat. The reaper has a nasty tendency of aiming high - or low, judging by the sales of Viagra - before hitting the target.
What conspiracy ? Given a choice between shooting down a plane and killing everyone onboard or letting some lunatic ram it into a building, killing everyone onboard anyway and lots of people besides them, which would you choose ? Cold-hearted, perhaps, but also the path of least corpses.
BTW. Is the edit box in this section supposed to be postal stamp -sized ?
Amusing. You spent a whole page of quoting and "refuting" my thoughts with those implanted in your head by others (lovely idea actually) and then you FINALLY get it, there, at the end.
I notice you failed to refute any of those refutations, though.
Not that I'm being mean, but who pays for your "financial" safety net?
I do, at the moment. That's why it is called a "safety net" rather than a "lift". And why are you putting "financial" in quotes; do you imply that it is an inappropriate word for unemployment benefits and such ? If so, why ?
And since your beloved government pays for it out of what they take from you (albeit at a much higher value than they give back, due to their own imposed monetary inflation) but that'd be like explaining to the FDR fanatics as to why that man robbed their children and their children's children of a future.
Your sentence is incoherent in a way that suggests that you left something out from the middle. Perhaps you might repost it in its entirety ?
Today's insolvent government spending sprees are directly due to his "elastic currency" utopia... read utopia as in "not here, not now, not ever" kind of utopia.
If this utopia is "not here, not now, not ever", then how can anything be due to it ?
Like I said, it isn't an "us versus them". Its us with us and them versus them. Get it straight.
Doing that while trying to follow your logic is quite difficult, especially it seems to be relying mostly on vague rethoric.
See, the upside is suckers like you who want someone else to "keep you safe" will always pay the ultimate price for that folly.
Ah, namecalling. That certainly wins any argument, especially when combined with FUD.
You want someone else to live your life for you, preferably all the hard parts.
No, I want someone to cover by back when things get rough.
Which is fine, since you, by your vote to confiscate from others what you feel is rightfully yours (obviously, how dare other people not conform and give you part of what they make?) are performing an act of aggression against those people.
The cost of living in a society - any society - is that you are sometimes required to contribute to common good, even if that has a personal cost to yourself. In no group are you allowed to simply reap the benefits and never help the group; the expected contributions might not be official, but failure to meet the groups standards can and eventually will result to being forcibly removed from the group.
Society as a whole is one such group. The taxes you complain about the expected form of contribution, and the failure to pay them will ultimately result in you being imprisoned, which is a way to remove people from the society without burdening other societies with them.
The very Internet you used to post to Slashdot was developed with tax money. You use it, thus indicating that you have no moral problem with benefiting from the society and its resources contributed by others; but when it comes time to return the favour, you complain that requiring it is "aggression". That is quite hypocritical of you.
Besides, aren't these people also committing a similar act of aggression against me, by claiming ownership of some natural resources (such as land) and thus denying me from using them ?
You dig your own grave, because while digging theirs you miss the part where you will end up just as fleeced as they.
I'm not digging anyone's grave, I'm trying to stay out of mine. Is this truly so difficult to understand ?
In that case, I think it would make more sense to wire your community with a redundant power grid (2 separate power sources for every domicile) rather than maintain an obsolete comm. protocol just because it was designed with a +45v wire.
Or just bury the existing wires underground where they aren't affected by storms. Sure, it wouldn't be cheap, but it would likely be cheaper than rewiring an entire community, and would ensure power for all appliances rather than just communications.
More importantly, if you find out that you do have abnormal genes, and nonetheless say that you are healthy to the medical insurance company, have you just committed a fraud, and can the insurance company deny a claim on that basis ?
We all benefit from someone's loss all the time. If people never died, we'd all be starving, etc.
If people never died, starvation would be a mere inconvenience, since it wouldn't kill you;).
Can you imagine having your overly-senile great-great-great-20-times-removed ancestors hanging around - and ALL their offspring - you'd want to kill them, just to get some breathing room.
Since senility is caused by deterioration in the function of brains associated with age, and it is this very deterioration which ultimately kills you if you die from old age, there is little reason to assume that an immortal would go senile with age.
Hate to say it, but the Lion King was right with that "Circle of Life" bit.
No, it wasn't. The "Circle of Life" is simply an attempt to convince oneself that an unpleasant and invariant - at least for the moment - circumstance is "good".
Of course, the "death" of the Old Republic, happened when the North conquered the South, in a war of aggression (not sure why they call it a civil war, since it was two federations fighting each other, one to conquer and subjugate, the other to maintain the right of its member states to be independent, and the "nation of freedom" was stillborn even in 1791, for the most part because those who created its "founding document" did it with intentional flaws built in.
Offhand I can't think of anything that would evoke my sympathy less than a nation of slave-owners losing their independency in a war they started.
Well obviously, men who want government, want it only because it benefits them, they love power...
I want government because I want protection from predations of those more powerful than me, and financial safety nets to keep me from starving to death in the case of accidents, illness or unemployment. It has nothing to do with laughing maniacally and crying out "Power! Unlimited power!!!"; it's simply a matter of increasing my chances of survival.
The average plebe, regardless of where, is still just a mindless drone who hates money, hates thinking and most above all, hates getting out of his mental box (or hers, ladies I haven't forgotten about your ability to be equal to men in the endeavor of willful ignorance.) Actually judging by my observations of the "average Joe", I would wager that perhaps people DO need someone else to do some of their thinking for them, since obviously the vast majorities are unwilling to think past the divisive slogans and political campaigns.
Such as calling "Joe Average" "plebe", a "mindless drone" who opposes your views due to "wilful ignorance" and needs "someone" (you?) to think for him ? Do you mean that kind of slogans and campaigns ?
The majority of stupid people in this country see no problem with the "us vs them" mentality because they are thinking "americans vs arabs" or "democrats vs republicans"... they don't realize its "parasites versus producers".
Of course. These other stupid people, they are wrong; only a select view to whom you belong to know what the fight is really about.
Too many producers are too busy blaming other producers for their problems, while calling for more parasites, to realize that the parasites aren't necessary.
Sure they are. Who would you feel superior to if not for them ?
As to which is which I leave it as an exercise to each reader to decide who are the producers and who are the parasites.
Allowing us all identify with the $GOOD_GUYS and our opponents with $BAD_GUYS. It's the same shit once again; I wonder if you were trying to be sarcastic, or if you truly don't realize how ironic it is to berate "us vs. them" mentality and then immediately describe your version of it.
Obviously, you should run a wire from your tinfoil hat to a conductive grounding strip attached to the heel of your shoe. Then you replace your floors with carbon impregnated panels, and for the final touch connect them to a six foot copper rod driven into the earth.
Couldn't you just shield your entire house, so you wouldn't need to wear a helmet while inside ?
Dude, I was writing pseudo-code. Stop being an asshole. The point I was making is that the code to solve an issue of this nature is trivial; I was not trying to make it perfect, hence the term pseudo-code.
If pointing out your errors insults you, that is unfortunate; but it doesn't make me or anyone else an asshole.
And pseudo-code doesn't mean code that has logical errors, it means a step-by-step presentation of an algorithm that's easily turned into actual code. And your "pseudo-code" bears an uncanny resemblance to Java:).
However, you did certainly demonstrate why things like the article describes happen: trivial problems aren't necessarily so trivial to solve right, especially if the guy trying to solve them thinks they're trivial and not really worth giving much thought to;).
If you start hard-coding roles into your application and need to change that policy, you will need to change code. But if you make calls like:
However, the userId might need to be implemented from the request as I have described in case you want to support administrative features where a superuser can access any account.
Except that he can't, in your example, because a mismatch between the userId parameter and the user associated with the session causes the whole server to exit. Holy Denial of Service, Batman:)! Perhaps you meant "if (!user.isSuperUser() && !user.user.isId(userId))" ? Or perhaps even "if (!user.canAccessId(userID))" ? The last option pushes access control for users into the User class, where it IMHO belongs, rather than having it duplicated in every servlet.
In any case, it would probably be better to have a separate administrative utility, rather than mixing it with normal user code. That way there's less of a danger that you accidentally expose more functionality than you should to ordinary mortals.
It's our responsibility as consumers to punish companies that lose our's and other people's data by no longer doing business with them. We don't need the government looking over everybody's shoulder making sure we're all being treated okay. Believe it or not, it's up to us to look out for ourselves sometimes!
I don't know if you realize this, but in a democracy, the government is us. It is our servant, created for the specific purposes of dealing with antisocial behaviour and looking after us. It is perfectly valid to delegate the task of dealing with companies and forcing them to behave to the government.
It is natural in human societies for leaders to arise; hell, by promoting a course of action - boycotting these companies - you are setting yourself up as a leader. And a government is simply leadership made official, which means that its powers and responsibilities have been clearly defined, as is the process amending those definitions should the need arise, as well as the process of replacing the current leaders with new ones. It is foolish to suggest that cooperation - the tactic which has served us for millions of years and made us the undisputed rulers of this world and of which modern governments are perhaps the most evolved example - shows unwillingness to take personal responsibility.
It isn't a matter of having someone look over your shoulder, it's the matter of having someone cover your back.
Imagine if the company had to pay a fine of $5,000 or more, per customer involved in the data loss. My guess is they would be a bit more careful.
My guess is they'd charge $5000 more per customer, for "extra security." And then lose the data anyway.
It must be one altruistic company, then; for surely a for-profit corporation is already charging the amount that will maximize their profit, so only an altruistic company dedicated to the well-being of its customers over the profits of its shareholders would be able to pass fines to said customers. They could get $5,000 more per customer while still retaining their userbase, and yet they aren't doing so; truly they have a heart of purest gold, if not a wallet full of it.
The claim that "customers pay the fines" is simply rubbish. It is no doubt spread by the very companies who know they deserve to be fined to try to persuade the public opinion against imposing those fines, but a very basic analysis shows that it is impossible for a for-profit corporation to pass the fines to its customers, because it is already taking all it can from them. No, fines hurt the company shareholders, just like they should.
So fine the bastards until they learn their lesson or go bankrupt. Forcing people to care about the consequences of their actions to other people is exactly what the legal system is supposed to do.
Hitler didn't do anywhere near as much damage to the US as Sadam did with his lies.
Arguably Hitler helped the USA: not only did the destruction in Europe remove several competitors, but it also drove the cream of German scientists to work for US.
Slashdot Mirror
In the interest of gender equality the above quote must be ignored until it can be attributed to a woman.
I guess the people in those fields need to unionize and use collective bargaining to rise their salaries, then.
Cue a hundred self-styled libertarians replying that unions are evil and should be banned because the right to freely associate and seek one's rational self-interest somehow doesn't extend to employees.
Because having a single user mode which doesn't require a password available on the system makes having any passwords at all on it utterly pointless ?
Really ? But how can I be sure this is not fraud ? Maybe these people are thieves ? Maybe they sell counterfeit glass beads ? And can you prove they're not funding terrorists in order to assassinate president Bush with a radiactive dirty bomb, or perhaps even poison ?
Those filthy spammers ! I sure hope they'll get the bad reputation they deserve !
Yes, but on the other hand, my completely non-electrical car with its flintlock sparkplugs isn't so much fun either ;).
A real nerd's lawnmower makes its own fuel from the grass it cuts as it goes !-)
Simply divide the helium-holding tanks in half with a membrane, which is large enough that it can give all space to either half. One half contains helium, the other air; the membrane keeps them from mixing. When you want to decrease lift, pump helium out of the tank and into a high-pressure storage bottle, while simultaneously pumping in air to the other half; and when you want to increase lift, let some helium back to the tank while simultaneously removing air.
In this way you can get exactly the lift you require in any given situation; but of course the membrane will add some weight.
If you have onboard fusion reactors, why are you playing around with a glorified air balloon when you can travel via sub-orbital ballistic trajectory ?
Fixed that for you.
But the real shocker is how good Windows 95 still looks ;).
Nary a single exception.
So... Do you want the state telling you what you must teach, or don't you ? Because from your own words it seems to me that the bill lets the decision of whether to teach ID or not in your hands, as you said you wanted, yet this seems to bother you. Please educate me ?-)
But aversion to homosexuality in no way increases your chances of reproduction. If anything, making friends with homosexuals of your gender would give you an ally who doesn't compete with mates, thus increasing your chances. And while aversion to homosexuals of the opposite gender doesn't directly harm you, it doesn't help you either, and it does cause strife within the group which hurts it as a whole.
So, please explain the mechanism for how aversion to homosexuality would evolve ? Or are you perhaps confusing acceptance of homosexuality with being a homosexual ?
Sure I have, and a miracle diet at that. I could eat all I wanted, and losing weight was supposed to be the miracle ;).
Senility doesn't cause death; senility is caused by the process of dying. It simply often gets your mental functions before heartbeat. The reaper has a nasty tendency of aiming high - or low, judging by the sales of Viagra - before hitting the target.
What conspiracy ? Given a choice between shooting down a plane and killing everyone onboard or letting some lunatic ram it into a building, killing everyone onboard anyway and lots of people besides them, which would you choose ? Cold-hearted, perhaps, but also the path of least corpses.
BTW. Is the edit box in this section supposed to be postal stamp -sized ?
I notice you failed to refute any of those refutations, though.
I do, at the moment. That's why it is called a "safety net" rather than a "lift". And why are you putting "financial" in quotes; do you imply that it is an inappropriate word for unemployment benefits and such ? If so, why ?
Your sentence is incoherent in a way that suggests that you left something out from the middle. Perhaps you might repost it in its entirety ?
If this utopia is "not here, not now, not ever", then how can anything be due to it ?
Doing that while trying to follow your logic is quite difficult, especially it seems to be relying mostly on vague rethoric.
Ah, namecalling. That certainly wins any argument, especially when combined with FUD.
No, I want someone to cover by back when things get rough.
The cost of living in a society - any society - is that you are sometimes required to contribute to common good, even if that has a personal cost to yourself. In no group are you allowed to simply reap the benefits and never help the group; the expected contributions might not be official, but failure to meet the groups standards can and eventually will result to being forcibly removed from the group.
Society as a whole is one such group. The taxes you complain about the expected form of contribution, and the failure to pay them will ultimately result in you being imprisoned, which is a way to remove people from the society without burdening other societies with them.
The very Internet you used to post to Slashdot was developed with tax money. You use it, thus indicating that you have no moral problem with benefiting from the society and its resources contributed by others; but when it comes time to return the favour, you complain that requiring it is "aggression". That is quite hypocritical of you.
Besides, aren't these people also committing a similar act of aggression against me, by claiming ownership of some natural resources (such as land) and thus denying me from using them ?
I'm not digging anyone's grave, I'm trying to stay out of mine. Is this truly so difficult to understand ?
Or just bury the existing wires underground where they aren't affected by storms. Sure, it wouldn't be cheap, but it would likely be cheaper than rewiring an entire community, and would ensure power for all appliances rather than just communications.
More importantly, if you find out that you do have abnormal genes, and nonetheless say that you are healthy to the medical insurance company, have you just committed a fraud, and can the insurance company deny a claim on that basis ?
If people never died, starvation would be a mere inconvenience, since it wouldn't kill you ;).
Since senility is caused by deterioration in the function of brains associated with age, and it is this very deterioration which ultimately kills you if you die from old age, there is little reason to assume that an immortal would go senile with age.
No, it wasn't. The "Circle of Life" is simply an attempt to convince oneself that an unpleasant and invariant - at least for the moment - circumstance is "good".
Well, Linux is written in C, so...
Offhand I can't think of anything that would evoke my sympathy less than a nation of slave-owners losing their independency in a war they started.
I want government because I want protection from predations of those more powerful than me, and financial safety nets to keep me from starving to death in the case of accidents, illness or unemployment. It has nothing to do with laughing maniacally and crying out "Power! Unlimited power!!!"; it's simply a matter of increasing my chances of survival.
Such as calling "Joe Average" "plebe", a "mindless drone" who opposes your views due to "wilful ignorance" and needs "someone" (you?) to think for him ? Do you mean that kind of slogans and campaigns ?
Of course. These other stupid people, they are wrong; only a select view to whom you belong to know what the fight is really about.
Sure they are. Who would you feel superior to if not for them ?
Allowing us all identify with the $GOOD_GUYS and our opponents with $BAD_GUYS. It's the same shit once again; I wonder if you were trying to be sarcastic, or if you truly don't realize how ironic it is to berate "us vs. them" mentality and then immediately describe your version of it.
Couldn't you just shield your entire house, so you wouldn't need to wear a helmet while inside ?
If pointing out your errors insults you, that is unfortunate; but it doesn't make me or anyone else an asshole.
And pseudo-code doesn't mean code that has logical errors, it means a step-by-step presentation of an algorithm that's easily turned into actual code. And your "pseudo-code" bears an uncanny resemblance to Java :).
However, you did certainly demonstrate why things like the article describes happen: trivial problems aren't necessarily so trivial to solve right, especially if the guy trying to solve them thinks they're trivial and not really worth giving much thought to ;).
Yes, you are right, ACL's are better.
Except that he can't, in your example, because a mismatch between the userId parameter and the user associated with the session causes the whole server to exit. Holy Denial of Service, Batman :)! Perhaps you meant "if (!user.isSuperUser() && !user.user.isId(userId))" ? Or perhaps even "if (!user.canAccessId(userID))" ? The last option pushes access control for users into the User class, where it IMHO belongs, rather than having it duplicated in every servlet.
In any case, it would probably be better to have a separate administrative utility, rather than mixing it with normal user code. That way there's less of a danger that you accidentally expose more functionality than you should to ordinary mortals.
I don't know if you realize this, but in a democracy, the government is us. It is our servant, created for the specific purposes of dealing with antisocial behaviour and looking after us. It is perfectly valid to delegate the task of dealing with companies and forcing them to behave to the government.
It is natural in human societies for leaders to arise; hell, by promoting a course of action - boycotting these companies - you are setting yourself up as a leader. And a government is simply leadership made official, which means that its powers and responsibilities have been clearly defined, as is the process amending those definitions should the need arise, as well as the process of replacing the current leaders with new ones. It is foolish to suggest that cooperation - the tactic which has served us for millions of years and made us the undisputed rulers of this world and of which modern governments are perhaps the most evolved example - shows unwillingness to take personal responsibility.
It isn't a matter of having someone look over your shoulder, it's the matter of having someone cover your back.
It must be one altruistic company, then; for surely a for-profit corporation is already charging the amount that will maximize their profit, so only an altruistic company dedicated to the well-being of its customers over the profits of its shareholders would be able to pass fines to said customers. They could get $5,000 more per customer while still retaining their userbase, and yet they aren't doing so; truly they have a heart of purest gold, if not a wallet full of it.
The claim that "customers pay the fines" is simply rubbish. It is no doubt spread by the very companies who know they deserve to be fined to try to persuade the public opinion against imposing those fines, but a very basic analysis shows that it is impossible for a for-profit corporation to pass the fines to its customers, because it is already taking all it can from them. No, fines hurt the company shareholders, just like they should.
So fine the bastards until they learn their lesson or go bankrupt. Forcing people to care about the consequences of their actions to other people is exactly what the legal system is supposed to do.
Arguably Hitler helped the USA: not only did the destruction in Europe remove several competitors, but it also drove the cream of German scientists to work for US.