When your head has been blown apart by multiple 9mm hits or you're rendered brain-dead by a thorough beating, you won't hear any "wooosh" anymore.
Everyone dies, Anon.
Try your armchair revolution tactics before a phalanx of well-armed cops, see what happens.
What happens is that the cops must choose between doing nothing or attacking unarmed people. Former means their weapons do them no good, the latter means they expose their evil for all to see, thus deligitimizing their authority. It's an extremely efficient tactic that turns the very armed might of your opponents against themselves, but of course it requires you to be ready to die - or spend the rest of your life in jail - for your cause.
You do realize that this has been demonstrated multiple times in the past century alone?
But I strongly doubt you would dare.
Nobody knows until the moment of truth comes. But I think it's more likely you're afraid they just might dare, thus exposing your worldview as a delusion held due to fear.
Might makes right: if someone with more power than you says you can't do something, then you cannot do it. There are no noble and high principles that can stand up to reality. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Get over it.
Which is why Pirate Bay has been shut down, just like Ghandhi's resistance was quickly and efficiently suppressed by the British Empire. Not to mention the hard-line communists who stopped the dissolution of Soviet Union through military power, and the US stamping out drug use through its War on Drugs.
Perhaps you should take a look at reality, and consider how well your own principles stand up to it? Then again, posting as AC strongly implies you already know you're spouting bullshit.
No, they want the science to be settled more-thoroughly before we re-model our entire society in response to it.
No, they want to avoid any change since that risks the status quo that works just fine for them and their buddies. Demanding more evidence is simply a delay tactic at this point.
But the bottom line is: people aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are, and they don't need the science community usurping the decision-making power by internalizing the debate and lying to everyone.
And they're never more ingenious than when they're coming up with excuses for why they don't need to change. Which is their problem when it's their own body or personal life they're ruining, but becomes my problem when it's the entire world that's at stake.
Republican, Democrat, WHATEVER, they're all saying the same thing to you (whatever they think will make you vote for them) now, and doing whatever the fuck they can to maximize benefit to their personal pocket book later.
It occurs to me that this is precisely what a corrupt politician would say to paralyze the public with hopelessness, so they won't be voted out. It's also what a lay Republican party member would use to excuse their support of a hopelessly corrupt and outright evil organization.
Because US economy can't back it anymore. Income is concentrated on too few hands to keep up the demand without accumulating massive debt, which is ultimately an unsustainable model. And as they've demonstrated, the US government can't even pass a budget without turning it into a crisis. It would be unwise to tie your economy to that of a country on its way to the bottom.
I have to say, I agree with Bjarne's answers, especially his answer to the notion of dropping compatibility with older features. While it does make the language more complex to keep that cruft around, it's equally important to allow programmers to wrap up older libraries with newer interfaces, for example, and make sure the codebase still compiles cleanly.
Is there some reason you couldn't do backwards compatibility the same way every other data format does: just provide a version number so the compiler knows what you're trying to say?
I don't doubt they improve performance. But they can't improve above the performance of code that has no need for that.
That wouldn't be (good) C++ code, since C++ has inheritance and so faces the exact same problem.
But the real problem with "var" types is that the compiler can't check type safety for you, so you get a whole new class of bugs at runtime. Why not go the Haskell way: the compiler inferes type information where it can, you provide it where it can't, and you can optionally provide it where ever you want? That gives you the best of all worlds: short "script" programs are fast and easy to write, all functions and data structures are generic by default, and the whole program has run-time type safety?
Once again, the fascists display their true colors.
Dunno about Mussolini, but didn't Hitler have this weird fetish for getting SS to live in small farming houses on the countryside? Something about it being the traditional German way of life...
I'll never live anywhere that won't let me have a car or where for whatever reason cars are uneconomical. I just refuse to live like that.
To each his own. I'd give up the car in a heartbeat if I could. Maintaining and fueling it is just a bother, and driving tired is dangerous.
It makes no sense. Spread out, people. Its a big world. Doesn't anyone want to listen to music without having to worry about whether the neighbors will object? Doesn't anyone want a dog or a garden or just some space that is theirs?
Some people want space, some want fast Internet, some want services and shopping to be within walking distance, most want both. There's a tradition in Finland of having a second, primitive home in the countryside you visit on weekends. That way you get the best of both worlds without having to commit to either.
Complexity. the "vertical" transport system only goes to given floors in a given building. The roads go everywhere. I can drive from NYC to Los Angeles... and anywhere in between.
But I only need to go between points A and B, and don't much care about hypothetical point C (since I can always rent transport there, if needs be).
In order to transition an economy or government to true socialism,
Finland has been social democrat since the World War II. It's only in the recent years American-style capitalism has become fashionable. I'm sure it's a pure coincidence that our economy switched to an apparently permanent tailspin at the same time.
Gaze upon our debt-free university-level education and despair. Or grow balls and demand it from your own government. Either way, I'm gainfully employed and paying taxes because and only because my government gave me an education offer I could had refused, but didn't see any rational reason to.
How is this blow against Uber?
Uber is illegal in Finland as taxis here need a license to operate and they have service obligation.
Why would anyone use a taxi to get around Helsinki? It's the one city even I just leave my car parked at the outskirt (Mellunmäki metro station 24h free parking with enough space to make sure some is always available - take note everyone, that's what it takes to get people to abandon cars) and switch to mass transit.
Nuclear power requires uninterrupted police powers for tens of thousands of years to control nuclear waste.
Anything that stays active for ten thousand years is either not dangerous or fuel. The exact same power that damages your tissues will just as happily turn a steam turbine for you.
Lots of things kill birds, and actually wind turbines are pretty low on the scale. Even nuclear plants kill more by some estimates:
Yes, obviously it takes a retarded bird to be hit by an easily visible object moving at a perfectly regular path. That doesn't stop people from protesting wind power on behalf of birds, though. And the thing is, they aren't necessarily wrong: while it takes spectacular bad luck for a bird to die from an encounter with a windmill, it also takes a ridiculous amounts of windmills to replace a single nuclear plant.
Of course, there's always the possibility of not having a single large turbine, but a tower full of small turbines. That would not only make them bird-safe, but also allow them to run right up to and including hurricane winds, unlike a single large one (due to stress to bearings because windspeed varies across the area).
Thanks California. Human impact of using coal fired plants? Nope, think of the children has been replaced by "think of the birds".
It's not California. It's everywhere. Anything whatsoever has some impact, thus enviromental groups oppose it. Even damn wind turbines have been opposed on the grounds that they might chop up birds.
None of which means we shouldn't think about how this effect could be mitigated or prevented (maybe use optic fibers rather than open space to transport and concentrate light? Put a glass roof on the whole thing?) but no matter what, there's going to be some negative ones.
The soviet government was unable to keep the lie going. The USA government does not have that problem: They are funded by biased taxation and trade agreements, a monopoly on many forms of intellectual property, a monopoly on 'world police' duties, and sale of most of the international currency. When all that fails, they simply invent 1/3rd of their federal revenue from thin air.
The US government is hardly synonymous with capitalism. Whether that's a good or bad thing I won't get into, but it's entirely possible that US might survive the fall of capitalism and recover. However, should this not be the case, it doesn't matter how much money it can print for itself. Money only has value within a functioning economic system; all the money in the world can't buy anything is no one is selling.
All the people provide is disposable labour and babies for future labour markets.
And they're starting to admit that, too. Once you consciously admit that the promises offered by some Power that Be are lies, it no longer has any power to compel your loyalty. It might try coercion, but as the Soviet coup demonstrated, that's a desperate gambit that has low chances of working, even if the people who make up the army still stay under its spell.
In short, capitalism is going to fall for failing the same test it judges people by: can you deliver? And it could had avoided its fate by showing mercy for those who can't. There is irony in that. But the stupid thing is that it already got a stay of execution back when communism first arose by becoming lighter and softer with unemployment benefits and keynesian stimulus economics, and is really only dying due to abandoning those - and could still repent a second time, it's just bloody unlikely to.
or, more practically, make sure your phone password turns on immediately after the phone is put to sleep, rather than there being a 5 min delay.
What would that accomplish, other than getting your phone "dropped"? Or maybe you just get tased until you voluntarily give the password. Or maybe you just get shot for assaulting the officers. That seems to happen a lot in the US.
Let's be honest here: does anyone really believe their rights will be respected by the law enforcement?
This delusional refusal to acknowledge that anything but outright violence could ever be coercive is the acid that's quickly dissolving whatever credibility capitalism still has left and exposing the grinning skull of feudalism beneath the mask of prosperity. I wonder what economic system will replace it, once people finally get tired of having structural flaws treated as unchangeable laws of nature or blamed on their victim's personal weaknesses?
The current climate is just like that which preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union: the prevailing myths are so much out of sync with reality people are running out of willing suspension of disbelief and losing their faith. No one believes anymore that hard work will be repaid with anything but layoffs, or that business success comes with a superior product rather than gaming the system, or that the rules are the same for everyone. The system has already lost its beating heart of credible mythology that can organize behaviour, it's just a matter of time before the necrosis of anarchy spreads everywhere.
Actually feminism is about equality for men and women.
Okay. So naturally feminists are working hard to set up those shelters for men who suffer from domestic abuse which you confirmed are currently missing?
The thing is, you can claim you are about equality, and even believe so from the bottom of your heart, but if you only ever adress inequalities that go one way, you aren't. You're a lobbyist promoting special interests, perhaps fair-mindledly, but a lobbyist still.
The problem is that when women do it, it's considered 'empowering.' When men do it, it's considered sexist bigotry.
Having a double standard for members of your own group vs. members of other groups is also natural human behaviour. Neither women nor feminists are any less hypocritical or power-hungry than humans in general. Every movement, no matter it's initial purpose, eventually degenerates into benefiting the people within at the expense of the people without, and at that point should be considered as having exhausted any moral high ground it might ever had had, and abandoned in favour of something new and still shiny.
In theory you could just let the emails sit there until you are back at work, but in practice sadly it is often expected that you check your email inbox every now and then.
Just make it so the work email account is unreadable from outside the office network, and any emails going to your personal account means an hour of automatic overtime pay. Then let the beancounters discuss whether the message really was so important it couldn't wait with the sender.
Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.
The problem is, that makes trolls indispensable for meaningful discussion, since they draw the implicit assumptions and attitudes out into the open for all to see. Ghandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus were all epic trolls by this definition. And the authorities of the day wanted to ban them all, which rises some questions about where, exactly speaking, does this apparent concern for the sensibilities of forum readers originate?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone dies, Anon.
What happens is that the cops must choose between doing nothing or attacking unarmed people. Former means their weapons do them no good, the latter means they expose their evil for all to see, thus deligitimizing their authority. It's an extremely efficient tactic that turns the very armed might of your opponents against themselves, but of course it requires you to be ready to die - or spend the rest of your life in jail - for your cause.
You do realize that this has been demonstrated multiple times in the past century alone?
Nobody knows until the moment of truth comes. But I think it's more likely you're afraid they just might dare, thus exposing your worldview as a delusion held due to fear.
Which is why Pirate Bay has been shut down, just like Ghandhi's resistance was quickly and efficiently suppressed by the British Empire. Not to mention the hard-line communists who stopped the dissolution of Soviet Union through military power, and the US stamping out drug use through its War on Drugs.
Perhaps you should take a look at reality, and consider how well your own principles stand up to it? Then again, posting as AC strongly implies you already know you're spouting bullshit.
No, they want to avoid any change since that risks the status quo that works just fine for them and their buddies. Demanding more evidence is simply a delay tactic at this point.
And they're never more ingenious than when they're coming up with excuses for why they don't need to change. Which is their problem when it's their own body or personal life they're ruining, but becomes my problem when it's the entire world that's at stake.
It occurs to me that this is precisely what a corrupt politician would say to paralyze the public with hopelessness, so they won't be voted out. It's also what a lay Republican party member would use to excuse their support of a hopelessly corrupt and outright evil organization.
Because US economy can't back it anymore. Income is concentrated on too few hands to keep up the demand without accumulating massive debt, which is ultimately an unsustainable model. And as they've demonstrated, the US government can't even pass a budget without turning it into a crisis. It would be unwise to tie your economy to that of a country on its way to the bottom.
Is there some reason you couldn't do backwards compatibility the same way every other data format does: just provide a version number so the compiler knows what you're trying to say?
That wouldn't be (good) C++ code, since C++ has inheritance and so faces the exact same problem.
But the real problem with "var" types is that the compiler can't check type safety for you, so you get a whole new class of bugs at runtime. Why not go the Haskell way: the compiler inferes type information where it can, you provide it where it can't, and you can optionally provide it where ever you want? That gives you the best of all worlds: short "script" programs are fast and easy to write, all functions and data structures are generic by default, and the whole program has run-time type safety?
So basically, you're saying they're harmless?
Dunno about Mussolini, but didn't Hitler have this weird fetish for getting SS to live in small farming houses on the countryside? Something about it being the traditional German way of life...
To each his own. I'd give up the car in a heartbeat if I could. Maintaining and fueling it is just a bother, and driving tired is dangerous.
Some people want space, some want fast Internet, some want services and shopping to be within walking distance, most want both. There's a tradition in Finland of having a second, primitive home in the countryside you visit on weekends. That way you get the best of both worlds without having to commit to either.
But I only need to go between points A and B, and don't much care about hypothetical point C (since I can always rent transport there, if needs be).
Finland has been social democrat since the World War II. It's only in the recent years American-style capitalism has become fashionable. I'm sure it's a pure coincidence that our economy switched to an apparently permanent tailspin at the same time.
Gaze upon our debt-free university-level education and despair. Or grow balls and demand it from your own government. Either way, I'm gainfully employed and paying taxes because and only because my government gave me an education offer I could had refused, but didn't see any rational reason to.
Why would anyone use a taxi to get around Helsinki? It's the one city even I just leave my car parked at the outskirt (Mellunmäki metro station 24h free parking with enough space to make sure some is always available - take note everyone, that's what it takes to get people to abandon cars) and switch to mass transit.
Anything that stays active for ten thousand years is either not dangerous or fuel. The exact same power that damages your tissues will just as happily turn a steam turbine for you.
Yes, obviously it takes a retarded bird to be hit by an easily visible object moving at a perfectly regular path. That doesn't stop people from protesting wind power on behalf of birds, though. And the thing is, they aren't necessarily wrong: while it takes spectacular bad luck for a bird to die from an encounter with a windmill, it also takes a ridiculous amounts of windmills to replace a single nuclear plant.
Of course, there's always the possibility of not having a single large turbine, but a tower full of small turbines. That would not only make them bird-safe, but also allow them to run right up to and including hurricane winds, unlike a single large one (due to stress to bearings because windspeed varies across the area).
It's not California. It's everywhere. Anything whatsoever has some impact, thus enviromental groups oppose it. Even damn wind turbines have been opposed on the grounds that they might chop up birds.
None of which means we shouldn't think about how this effect could be mitigated or prevented (maybe use optic fibers rather than open space to transport and concentrate light? Put a glass roof on the whole thing?) but no matter what, there's going to be some negative ones.
The US government is hardly synonymous with capitalism. Whether that's a good or bad thing I won't get into, but it's entirely possible that US might survive the fall of capitalism and recover. However, should this not be the case, it doesn't matter how much money it can print for itself. Money only has value within a functioning economic system; all the money in the world can't buy anything is no one is selling.
And they're starting to admit that, too. Once you consciously admit that the promises offered by some Power that Be are lies, it no longer has any power to compel your loyalty. It might try coercion, but as the Soviet coup demonstrated, that's a desperate gambit that has low chances of working, even if the people who make up the army still stay under its spell.
In short, capitalism is going to fall for failing the same test it judges people by: can you deliver? And it could had avoided its fate by showing mercy for those who can't. There is irony in that. But the stupid thing is that it already got a stay of execution back when communism first arose by becoming lighter and softer with unemployment benefits and keynesian stimulus economics, and is really only dying due to abandoning those - and could still repent a second time, it's just bloody unlikely to.
What would that accomplish, other than getting your phone "dropped"? Or maybe you just get tased until you voluntarily give the password. Or maybe you just get shot for assaulting the officers. That seems to happen a lot in the US.
Let's be honest here: does anyone really believe their rights will be respected by the law enforcement?
This delusional refusal to acknowledge that anything but outright violence could ever be coercive is the acid that's quickly dissolving whatever credibility capitalism still has left and exposing the grinning skull of feudalism beneath the mask of prosperity. I wonder what economic system will replace it, once people finally get tired of having structural flaws treated as unchangeable laws of nature or blamed on their victim's personal weaknesses?
The current climate is just like that which preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union: the prevailing myths are so much out of sync with reality people are running out of willing suspension of disbelief and losing their faith. No one believes anymore that hard work will be repaid with anything but layoffs, or that business success comes with a superior product rather than gaming the system, or that the rules are the same for everyone. The system has already lost its beating heart of credible mythology that can organize behaviour, it's just a matter of time before the necrosis of anarchy spreads everywhere.
Does it matter? Fusion is still nuclear power, so even if we had a working reactor right now we couldn't use it.
Okay. So naturally feminists are working hard to set up those shelters for men who suffer from domestic abuse which you confirmed are currently missing?
The thing is, you can claim you are about equality, and even believe so from the bottom of your heart, but if you only ever adress inequalities that go one way, you aren't. You're a lobbyist promoting special interests, perhaps fair-mindledly, but a lobbyist still.
Having a double standard for members of your own group vs. members of other groups is also natural human behaviour. Neither women nor feminists are any less hypocritical or power-hungry than humans in general. Every movement, no matter it's initial purpose, eventually degenerates into benefiting the people within at the expense of the people without, and at that point should be considered as having exhausted any moral high ground it might ever had had, and abandoned in favour of something new and still shiny.
Just make it so the work email account is unreadable from outside the office network, and any emails going to your personal account means an hour of automatic overtime pay. Then let the beancounters discuss whether the message really was so important it couldn't wait with the sender.
Then you'd better make arrangements to have a backup contact, now wouldn't you? Just like you'd do with any other mission-critical system.
The problem is, that makes trolls indispensable for meaningful discussion, since they draw the implicit assumptions and attitudes out into the open for all to see. Ghandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus were all epic trolls by this definition. And the authorities of the day wanted to ban them all, which rises some questions about where, exactly speaking, does this apparent concern for the sensibilities of forum readers originate?