I haven't been lying about what you said. I followed your statement to its logical conclusion. If you feel my conclusion is wrong, please explain your conclusion and how you get there. I've already explained why I feel the Consitution is NOT the best place to start when arguing rights, that you can't ignore the philosophy upon which it is based (i.e, the context).
At this point, I don't think you really have an answer. That's what I've been trying to do this entire time, yet all you have been doing is attempting to deflect from that question by accusing me of strawman arguments and putting words into your mouth.
But please, keep telling yourself that you're right, and that I'm just trolling you or whatever it is you're doing to avoid answering the question. Its pretty telling that at this point you seem to know what I want, yet still refuse to provide any kind of answer.. you simply wish to dismiss my questions on your statement... I guess that's more convenient.
You see, you just sound stupid because use the term religion as a term of abuse.
Really? Have you read a majority of the posters replying to me? "We want to destory proprietary software." Without thinking of the consequences, just a blind irrational hate. Can't think of something that describes a religon better.
The problem is that people like you can muster the fact that there are people who have reached a logical conclusion about how they want the world to be. That is called principles buddy, if you sell yours to the higher bidder that is your problem, other people don't and the least they deserve should be respect for that, specially since people in the FOSS movement are not forcing anybody to join.
And much like religon, your "principals" are threatening how I want to live my life. You're not peacefully coexisting, you're trying to force everyone to convert to your philosophy. Again, much like various religons. And yes, there's a large group that is trying to force such a conversion; go read others that have replied to me.
You don't like Linux or FOSS?: who the fuck is pointing a gun to your head to install the latest distro or to release under the GPL any software you write?
I never said I didn't like Linux or OSS. I don't think its a viable way for people who really enjoy software development AND want to make a living at it. How many contributors are there to OSS that do it at night after they get home from their day job creating closed, proprietary software? I suspect many. I like that I can make a living building software; its something I want to do anyway, and because someone is willing to pay me to write software, I get to spend MORE time doing what I love.
Don't like it, don't use it, show some manners and accord the most basic courtesy to people that don't agree with you but that are principled and consistent.
I never said I didn't like it. I said there are economic problems with supporting OSS, namely that developers need to eat too.
But there isn't really a vast number of "I only write proprietary code" developers. Most major open source projects include some developers who work on closed-source applications during the day and write OSS in their off-time.
Huh? Some developers writing closed source during the day and open source at night would seem to indicate that there ARE a vast number of "I only write proprietary code." Besides, what situtation am I in? I'm a FTE building custom software.. but i can't distribute it to anyone I want, its for our company only. So what camp am I in, since I don't write OSS code at night?
There are even open source projects that include people who work at companies like Microsoft.
Yes, but these are a minority. Do you think they would be spending time writing open source software if they didn't work for MS during the day? That's my point.. many of the OSS developers ARE employed by companies that sell proprietary software. So if you remove the proprietrary software market, where does that leave those developers? Unemployed.
Try reading what I wrote; I didn't say "prefer writing for Windows" I said "creating off-the-shelf software." The religon behind OSS will keep those developers (and many investors) away.
So then what exactly do you mean by this: "Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead."
My question is still relevent: Why is an argument on rights better served by quoting the Constitution instead of another document based on the same philosophy as the Constitution?
Am I now using enough of the same words you did to ask my question?
I told you this discussion was over until you did so.
I guess you can't support your argument then.
You cannot REASON your way into supporting you claim that I said "ONLY the Constitution matters". You claime dI said it, I did not.
In those exact words, no, but you implied it. I explained that twice now; are you being purposefully dense? Or can't you admin that you are wrong and the Constitution isn't the "best" place from which to argue rights?
Not sure how evolution is classified anymore, but that gravity exists is indeed a fact. The only question we still have is WHY it exists, as in what causes it.
I'm sorry but did you even read my reply? You impleaded the Delcartion was not relevent: "its nice, but not legally binding." Is that not dismissing it as an avenue from which to argue? Please explain to me how its not, because your claim seems to be that rights come from the Constitution. Otherwise that would not be the "best" way to argue rights.
There's no strawman here. Please explain why the Constitution is the place to start when arguing rights. If you can't, you're just throwing out strawman hoping that distract from your original post.
Hate for america is not based on hate for it's citizens, but on american symbols. The capitalism. The military-industrial complex. The space program. The huge cities. The freedom. It is NOT based on any foreign policy that the US implements. Yes Iraq didn't help, but to say it's the cause of anti-americanism anywhere (except perhaps amongst the baathists of iraq) is not just delusional but outright danguerous deception.
Sorry, but you really think they hate our "freedom" and not our meddling (i.e., causing wars and installing dictators when it suited the US)? Sorry, I don't think that's it. Its our foreign policy, which exploits other nations much like the corporations exploited people here in the 1900s before regulations stopped it.
"The Declaration of Independence is nice, but that's not a legally biding statement. Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead"
You pretty much dismiss the Declaration of Independence out of hand. If you're not willing to include the Declaration, why would I think you're willing to include the arguments of classical liberalism upon which BOTH documents are based?
It would seem to me arguments about rights are most effective based on that philosophy, since that's the thinking which is supposed to be ensrined in the Constitution. After all, if you don't buy into classical liberalism, I fail to see why you'd honor anything in the Constitution.
sorry, but I have to agree with siesindallerscheisse: if you go to court w/o presenting law itself or try to challenge standing laws it has to be based on constitutionality and not on "the spirit of the nation"- though legalization is a valid argument as the laws that govern substance use in the ammendments to the constitution only govern liquor
There are no laws in the Constitution which govern liquor. Now that that is out of the way...
Do you go to court and argue only the facts, or are the facts in some kind of context? Is it simply "you killed someone, you get life," or do we allow "you killed someone during a loss of control due to emotional stress, so you get 15 years." Context is always important, and to think you can disregard it even in court is doing a disservice.
That's how you lose things like jury nullification, if you're told you must only consider what the law says, and not include any context around it. That's how you end up with the Bill of Rights being a set list of rights, which it was never intended to be. Our founders certainly didn't want things interpreated without context, and its evidenent in their writings.
The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. is the actual text for the prohibition amendment (XXI) addresses ONLY liquor and the repeal of prohibition states that This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Again, had we NOT ignored context, the 18th amendment would have never been passed. The 21st says that states may regulate liquor. However, given the context, I'm not sure our founders would approve. Look at how amendments one through eight are written; they furter restrict the federal and state governments, not the people. The bill of rights doesn't exist to grant more and more power to the government, they exist to limit it. I think that's an important distinction and given how the founders felt about the federal government I don't think you can argue that they should be given more power than they were originally given. At most, individual states should be deciding these issues, not the federal goverment.
I understand your point, its just garbage. Sorry if you feel insulted, but that's the truth.
I can go to court and say "you broke my arm." It may be true, but it makes a huge difference if you just ran out of nowhere and broke my arm or I attacked you first and you were defending yourself. Context is important when interperating things.
How many jokes are in Shakespear that you miss because you don't know the full context of life in his time? Any good English teacher will be able to point out what was comedy in his time and we don't really get the meaning.
Yes, I'm replying to you, that things ONLY the Constitution matters, and that you can take it by itself. The Declaration provides important context and explains WHY a revolution was needed, and to understand BOTH those documents you need to understand the philosophy (context) in which they are taken.
Also, I was pointing out that the 9th and 10th amenedments pretty clearly mark that the powers in the Constitution granted to the federal government are ONLY those experssly given. I don't see where the Consitution said that the feds can spy on its citizens anywhere, or limit what they injest. As far as spying goes, quite the opposite, the 6th amendment prohibits it.
Again, you fail the context portion of comprehension. Our nation was founded on the principals of classical liberalism. To ignore the philosophy behind the documents is stupidity, as you need that context to interperate them correctly.
See, that would only be applicable if you are distributing binaries only. In the OSS model, I can distribute the source, and get the advantages of machine analysis at a single compile time.
No, I don't think you understand the optimizations. It has nothing to do with source vs. binary. The test applications both ended up on the same platform after all, Windows.
In.NET, your application optimization takes place nearly every time it loads, so it always -feels- slow. Java has much the same problem.
No, the optimizations are JIT, so it has no affect on load speed..Net applications don't "feel" slow, I've used quite a few. Its been a while since I played with Java, but there are differences in how Java's VM does JITting and how the CLR does it.
It depends on what the problem is that is to be solved. Speed sells, so, a really fast program can be much more appealing than a slow one. So yeah, you can choose to not sweat performance details, and that can help in a lot of kinds of IT programming, but for commercial applications, I would think that in many cases, you would want the performance.
I'd rather a slower application that is reliable vs. one that is unreliable but "faster." The fact is most applications speed is irrelevent because the application is barely using the processor anyway. Certainly things like games must perform well..Net is apparently fast enough that there's a VS version specifically for writing DX games on.Net.
Re:I couldn't help but post this amazing quote.
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
Its not the electoral system that's the problem; its the political party system. Many of our founders were leery of such organizations, and it seems they had good cause.
Actually you are right. It went out as a hotfix to Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 in 2007. However, its not complete.... if you really want to check, have a look at the registry for Time Zones. You'll see that there is, for Eastern Standard Time, a Dynamic DST entry.
I'm almost certain there's an API, and you don't need to look in the registry. Don't have time to check right now though.
But it only covers the recent transition, and not any of the historical ones.
Hmm, you might be right on that one..I don't remember.
Its better than what was there a year ago, I'll give you that, but, what's bothersome about the whole thing is that they have a new API where one would have done.
Not sure I agree. A new API gives you the chance to do things better, without breaking existing consumers of the old API..Net handles this well; a new version is totally seperate. There's also the Obsolete attribute, which can warn and then break (at compile time) applications trying to use the older API.
It really depends on the application. If you want to write really fast code, you have to micromanage memory. That's just the way it is.
Not necessarly. In many cases,.Net outperforms the native application. That's because the VM can do JIT optimizations and other things a static compiler can't. Its not nearly as cut and dry as that. I think the same can be said for Java.
On the other hand, if you are using normal business coding, then C# or Java will work pretty well, although, some folks would argue that Python is better because it facilitates dynamic dispatch in ways that C# or Java can't.
I find they are ideal for this kind of application; I'm writing less and less plumbing code than ever before. Code that will cause big problems if you get it wrong, and code which is boring to write..Net allows for dynamic code as well via the DLR; from what I understand, its working very well.
When I do C++ I tend to keep dynamic allocations to a minimum. I avoid string and I put all of my big "systems" of structures, trees if you will, into a single giant block that I can free with one call. It makes the application both faster and more reliable but at the price of some flexibility that I can live with.
Wouldn't your time be better spent coding to actually solve the problem at hand, instead of worrying over each memory detail?
Of course there's commercial stuff, but my argument was about tools that a solo or small team developer could reasonably afford. Even big IT departments balk at the cost of TFS.
That's why I pointed out Fotress / Vault; there are others as well that fill the solo / small team developer scenario. For solo, Fotress / Vault is free.
That's fine, if you're never planning on leaving the research environment. Its also dangerous, because those kinds of jobs are disappering, just like C++ jobs are. About half the jobs I see are Java, the other.Net.
You act as if everyone will do that, they won't. You also seem to think that OSS beats MS every time. It really doesn't. Java is a great competitor, and I hope it continues to compete with.Net for many years to come, because both sides are benefitting.
But honestly, if you're doing business applications in C++ you're wasting your time. You're writing more plumbing code than anything else, and its all code that can be handled by a VM or code generator. If you think that way of coding adds value, you're wrong.
I don't think anything will change in five years, because the situation in college is the same now as it was then.. colleges are still mainly *nix.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't been lying about what you said. I followed your statement to its logical conclusion. If you feel my conclusion is wrong, please explain your conclusion and how you get there. I've already explained why I feel the Consitution is NOT the best place to start when arguing rights, that you can't ignore the philosophy upon which it is based (i.e, the context).
At this point, I don't think you really have an answer. That's what I've been trying to do this entire time, yet all you have been doing is attempting to deflect from that question by accusing me of strawman arguments and putting words into your mouth.
But please, keep telling yourself that you're right, and that I'm just trolling you or whatever it is you're doing to avoid answering the question. Its pretty telling that at this point you seem to know what I want, yet still refuse to provide any kind of answer.. you simply wish to dismiss my questions on your statement... I guess that's more convenient.
So a power failure renders the unpowered equipment useless?
You see, you just sound stupid because use the term religion as a term of abuse.
Really? Have you read a majority of the posters replying to me? "We want to destory proprietary software." Without thinking of the consequences, just a blind irrational hate. Can't think of something that describes a religon better.
The problem is that people like you can muster the fact that there are people who have reached a logical conclusion about how they want the world to be. That is called principles buddy, if you sell yours to the higher bidder that is your problem, other people don't and the least they deserve should be respect for that, specially since people in the FOSS movement are not forcing anybody to join.
And much like religon, your "principals" are threatening how I want to live my life. You're not peacefully coexisting, you're trying to force everyone to convert to your philosophy. Again, much like various religons. And yes, there's a large group that is trying to force such a conversion; go read others that have replied to me.
You don't like Linux or FOSS?: who the fuck is pointing a gun to your head to install the latest distro or to release under the GPL any software you write?
I never said I didn't like Linux or OSS. I don't think its a viable way for people who really enjoy software development AND want to make a living at it. How many contributors are there to OSS that do it at night after they get home from their day job creating closed, proprietary software? I suspect many. I like that I can make a living building software; its something I want to do anyway, and because someone is willing to pay me to write software, I get to spend MORE time doing what I love.
Don't like it, don't use it, show some manners and accord the most basic courtesy to people that don't agree with you but that are principled and consistent.
I never said I didn't like it. I said there are economic problems with supporting OSS, namely that developers need to eat too.
But there isn't really a vast number of "I only write proprietary code" developers. Most major open source projects include some developers who work on closed-source applications during the day and write OSS in their off-time.
Huh? Some developers writing closed source during the day and open source at night would seem to indicate that there ARE a vast number of "I only write proprietary code." Besides, what situtation am I in? I'm a FTE building custom software.. but i can't distribute it to anyone I want, its for our company only. So what camp am I in, since I don't write OSS code at night?
There are even open source projects that include people who work at companies like Microsoft.
Yes, but these are a minority. Do you think they would be spending time writing open source software if they didn't work for MS during the day? That's my point.. many of the OSS developers ARE employed by companies that sell proprietary software. So if you remove the proprietrary software market, where does that leave those developers? Unemployed.
Try reading what I wrote; I didn't say "prefer writing for Windows" I said "creating off-the-shelf software." The religon behind OSS will keep those developers (and many investors) away.
I never made that claim either
So then what exactly do you mean by this: "Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead."
My question is still relevent: Why is an argument on rights better served by quoting the Constitution instead of another document based on the same philosophy as the Constitution?
Am I now using enough of the same words you did to ask my question?
Except that MS is replacing the "Windows API" with the .Net framework.
Which is why many developers will steer clear of it... you pretty much can't make OTS software with that view.
I told you this discussion was over until you did so.
I guess you can't support your argument then.
You cannot REASON your way into supporting you claim that I said "ONLY the Constitution matters". You claime dI said it, I did not.
In those exact words, no, but you implied it. I explained that twice now; are you being purposefully dense? Or can't you admin that you are wrong and the Constitution isn't the "best" place from which to argue rights?
Not sure how evolution is classified anymore, but that gravity exists is indeed a fact. The only question we still have is WHY it exists, as in what causes it.
I'm sorry but did you even read my reply? You impleaded the Delcartion was not relevent: "its nice, but not legally binding." Is that not dismissing it as an avenue from which to argue? Please explain to me how its not, because your claim seems to be that rights come from the Constitution. Otherwise that would not be the "best" way to argue rights.
There's no strawman here. Please explain why the Constitution is the place to start when arguing rights. If you can't, you're just throwing out strawman hoping that distract from your original post.
So then maybe Europe should remove US troops by force.
Hate for america is not based on hate for it's citizens, but on american symbols. The capitalism. The military-industrial complex. The space program. The huge cities. The freedom. It is NOT based on any foreign policy that the US implements. Yes Iraq didn't help, but to say it's the cause of anti-americanism anywhere (except perhaps amongst the baathists of iraq) is not just delusional but outright danguerous deception.
Sorry, but you really think they hate our "freedom" and not our meddling (i.e., causing wars and installing dictators when it suited the US)? Sorry, I don't think that's it. Its our foreign policy, which exploits other nations much like the corporations exploited people here in the 1900s before regulations stopped it.
"The Declaration of Independence is nice, but that's not a legally biding statement. Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead"
You pretty much dismiss the Declaration of Independence out of hand. If you're not willing to include the Declaration, why would I think you're willing to include the arguments of classical liberalism upon which BOTH documents are based?
It would seem to me arguments about rights are most effective based on that philosophy, since that's the thinking which is supposed to be ensrined in the Constitution. After all, if you don't buy into classical liberalism, I fail to see why you'd honor anything in the Constitution.
sorry, but I have to agree with siesindallerscheisse: if you go to court w/o presenting law itself or try to challenge standing laws it has to be based on constitutionality and not on "the spirit of the nation"- though legalization is a valid argument as the laws that govern substance use in the ammendments to the constitution only govern liquor
There are no laws in the Constitution which govern liquor. Now that that is out of the way...
Do you go to court and argue only the facts, or are the facts in some kind of context? Is it simply "you killed someone, you get life," or do we allow "you killed someone during a loss of control due to emotional stress, so you get 15 years." Context is always important, and to think you can disregard it even in court is doing a disservice.
That's how you lose things like jury nullification, if you're told you must only consider what the law says, and not include any context around it. That's how you end up with the Bill of Rights being a set list of rights, which it was never intended to be. Our founders certainly didn't want things interpreated without context, and its evidenent in their writings.
The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
is the actual text for the prohibition amendment (XXI) addresses ONLY liquor and the repeal of prohibition states that
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Again, had we NOT ignored context, the 18th amendment would have never been passed. The 21st says that states may regulate liquor. However, given the context, I'm not sure our founders would approve. Look at how amendments one through eight are written; they furter restrict the federal and state governments, not the people. The bill of rights doesn't exist to grant more and more power to the government, they exist to limit it. I think that's an important distinction and given how the founders felt about the federal government I don't think you can argue that they should be given more power than they were originally given. At most, individual states should be deciding these issues, not the federal goverment.
I understand your point, its just garbage. Sorry if you feel insulted, but that's the truth.
I can go to court and say "you broke my arm." It may be true, but it makes a huge difference if you just ran out of nowhere and broke my arm or I attacked you first and you were defending yourself. Context is important when interperating things.
How many jokes are in Shakespear that you miss because you don't know the full context of life in his time? Any good English teacher will be able to point out what was comedy in his time and we don't really get the meaning.
/. a bit behind the times I guess. I got Sql Server Gal at an event I went to over a year ago. Oh well, better late than never I guess.. wait, no.
Yes, I'm replying to you, that things ONLY the Constitution matters, and that you can take it by itself. The Declaration provides important context and explains WHY a revolution was needed, and to understand BOTH those documents you need to understand the philosophy (context) in which they are taken.
Also, I was pointing out that the 9th and 10th amenedments pretty clearly mark that the powers in the Constitution granted to the federal government are ONLY those experssly given. I don't see where the Consitution said that the feds can spy on its citizens anywhere, or limit what they injest. As far as spying goes, quite the opposite, the 6th amendment prohibits it.
Again, you fail the context portion of comprehension. Our nation was founded on the principals of classical liberalism. To ignore the philosophy behind the documents is stupidity, as you need that context to interperate them correctly.
No, sorry. You can't read the Constitution out of context. Also, the 9th and 10th Amendments cover pretty much everything else.
See, that would only be applicable if you are distributing binaries only. In the OSS model, I can distribute the source, and get the advantages of machine analysis at a single compile time.
.NET, your application optimization takes place nearly every time it loads, so it always -feels- slow. Java has much the same problem.
.Net applications don't "feel" slow, I've used quite a few. Its been a while since I played with Java, but there are differences in how Java's VM does JITting and how the CLR does it.
.Net is apparently fast enough that there's a VS version specifically for writing DX games on .Net.
No, I don't think you understand the optimizations. It has nothing to do with source vs. binary. The test applications both ended up on the same platform after all, Windows.
In
No, the optimizations are JIT, so it has no affect on load speed.
It depends on what the problem is that is to be solved. Speed sells, so, a really fast program can be much more appealing than a slow one. So yeah, you can choose to not sweat performance details, and that can help in a lot of kinds of IT programming, but for commercial applications, I would think that in many cases, you would want the performance.
I'd rather a slower application that is reliable vs. one that is unreliable but "faster." The fact is most applications speed is irrelevent because the application is barely using the processor anyway. Certainly things like games must perform well.
Its not the electoral system that's the problem; its the political party system. Many of our founders were leery of such organizations, and it seems they had good cause.
Actually you are right. It went out as a hotfix to Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 in 2007. However, its not complete.... if you really want to check, have a look at the registry for Time Zones. You'll see that there is, for Eastern Standard Time, a Dynamic DST entry.
.Net handles this well; a new version is totally seperate. There's also the Obsolete attribute, which can warn and then break (at compile time) applications trying to use the older API.
.Net outperforms the native application. That's because the VM can do JIT optimizations and other things a static compiler can't. Its not nearly as cut and dry as that. I think the same can be said for Java.
.Net allows for dynamic code as well via the DLR; from what I understand, its working very well.
I'm almost certain there's an API, and you don't need to look in the registry. Don't have time to check right now though.
But it only covers the recent transition, and not any of the historical ones.
Hmm, you might be right on that one..I don't remember.
Its better than what was there a year ago, I'll give you that, but, what's bothersome about the whole thing is that they have a new API where one would have done.
Not sure I agree. A new API gives you the chance to do things better, without breaking existing consumers of the old API.
It really depends on the application. If you want to write really fast code, you have to micromanage memory. That's just the way it is.
Not necessarly. In many cases,
On the other hand, if you are using normal business coding, then C# or Java will work pretty well, although, some folks would argue that Python is better because it facilitates dynamic dispatch in ways that C# or Java can't.
I find they are ideal for this kind of application; I'm writing less and less plumbing code than ever before. Code that will cause big problems if you get it wrong, and code which is boring to write.
When I do C++ I tend to keep dynamic allocations to a minimum. I avoid string and I put all of my big "systems" of structures, trees if you will, into a single giant block that I can free with one call. It makes the application both faster and more reliable but at the price of some flexibility that I can live with.
Wouldn't your time be better spent coding to actually solve the problem at hand, instead of worrying over each memory detail?
Of course there's commercial stuff, but my argument was about tools that a solo or small team developer could reasonably afford. Even big IT departments balk at the cost of TFS.
That's why I pointed out Fotress / Vault; there are others as well that fill the solo / small team developer scenario. For solo, Fotress / Vault is free.
That's fine, if you're never planning on leaving the research environment. Its also dangerous, because those kinds of jobs are disappering, just like C++ jobs are. About half the jobs I see are Java, the other .Net.
You act as if everyone will do that, they won't. You also seem to think that OSS beats MS every time. It really doesn't. Java is a great competitor, and I hope it continues to compete with .Net for many years to come, because both sides are benefitting.
But honestly, if you're doing business applications in C++ you're wasting your time. You're writing more plumbing code than anything else, and its all code that can be handled by a VM or code generator. If you think that way of coding adds value, you're wrong.
I don't think anything will change in five years, because the situation in college is the same now as it was then.. colleges are still mainly *nix.