They hit often enough, and unless you live in a trailer park, leaving doesn't save your home or other possesions.
Your notion that it wasn't Katrina is laughable. Perhaps you should check out the damage from hurricanes in FL, which also include flooding BTW. The shoddy work held up for years, and without Katrina coming around, it likely would have held up for years to come.
And its more than a PITA for a few years; there are still lots of people who have nothing as a result.
Snow causes some car accidents, a water main break here and there, and some power outages. All in all, the cost per year is less than a single hurricane that lands and levels entire neighborhoods.
There's no guessing; snow sticks to vertical, flat signs, blocking out speed limits, parking, etc. Ya in this case the hood might be a problem, but removing it won't be the solution.
Well wouldn't the snow covered side, acting correctly by stopping, then lead to no accidents? If the other sides can see the signal, they'll be fine as well.
Going beyond that, the snow covered side can take cues from opposing traffic, if they do so logically and cautiously.
Well, we invaded Iraq about a decade earlier. And, of course, bombed them in December 1998.
Yes, after they invaded another country. And none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi.
And from 1975 to 1982 or so, we stupidly got involved in Lebanon's civil war, a giant absurd clusterfuck of a war. Mostly we were supporting Israel, but did plenty of stupid stuff ourself.
And again, none of the 9/11 hijackers were Lebanese. As far as supporting Israel, is being allied with a country enough for one to blow themselves up killing civilians?
Oh, and let's not forget Iran Air Flight 655, along with the rest of the support we gave Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.
At worse, a rouge captian, at best an honest mistake. Given what Iran does to its own people, I'm not sure what you're point really is.
And, oh, oh, Bosnia. Granted, we (As in NATO) didn't do it, but we certainly failed to prevent the Srebrenica massacre despite theoretically being in control of the area. Blaming this on the US is sorta silly, it was the fault the Dutch and NATO in general, but NATO is, rightly or wrongly, see as the US's puppet. (I mention Bosnia only because a few of the 9/11 hijackers were in Bosnia during all this, where NATO sorta kinda tried to stop the Muslim genocide, but not very hard.)
Ya, I agree. So its our fault that we're policing the world... and its our fault for not policing the world. Got it.
And that's not even talking about the US military support of Israel or, possibly more relevant, the US support of the Saudi government.
Oh i see, aliances are reason enough. Now we've gone from the US bombing someone's sister to be allied with someone Arabs (I assume that's who you're talking about) hate and would like to wipe off the map.
bin Laden essentially considers the US to have bribed the Saudi's to have put non-Muslim soldiers in the Muslim holy land, which was the justification for 9/11. Which is, indeed, not actually 'bombing' anyone, but that's just the umbrella under which people are recruited.
In other words, what I said was pretty accurate, and you have no point. Since bin Laden has attacked the US, I suppose I should use his logic, and lets bomb civilians in Saudi Arabia and a host of other raghead nations. I mean, he can demonize us and say we're the devil or whatever because of some stretched logic, why can't I?
The people recruited all have either personal vendettas against the US, or are just essentially brainwashed youth that join a cult-like organization.
Or maybe they're otherwise irrelevent morons who believe in fairy tales and can't accept that their lives are meaningless. But as long as its ok for them to rataionalize, I suppose its ok for the US to.. so fuck the Iraqis and other towelheads.
Why do you expect a newer harddrive with this feature to work? Do you complain too that you can't get an integrated radio + gps in a car that never had the option?
Not to me. The life of my friends and family are, but everyone else, whatever.
Just because it's not possible to prevent deaths everywhere , doesn't mean you should be ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.
I'm sorry, since when does saying "let's not overreact and concentrate on things that WOULD work" equate to being "ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people."
How does pointing out that more people die in auto accidents each year make you ok with it? Its possible to think it was not ok, yet understand its a blip in the radar, and nothing more.
Their loved ones still lost them and that still causes them pain , not matter whether they got 'replaced' or not
No one is saying otherwise; what is being said is that for some like me, who didn't know anyone lost, our lives were not affected.. except that now you have to piss you pants in your seat because you need to stay seated for the last hour of the flight.
By your logic , you would be ok with having your entire family killed , as they will be replaced inside an hour ?
I'm sorry, do you sit up at night crying when some family in Africa or Asia or anywhere far from you is murdered? I don't.
People are more than statistics.
Yes, but people also only care about those important to them. They're not losing sleep over the murder of total strangers, except perhaps in the justice sense of thinking about it.
More people die each year in auto accidents. You're more likely to be hit by lightening than a plane. Yes, it sucked for those involved, but for the rest of us, life should have moved on unaffected.
Bull. I have an email address, which I give to everyone. The service I use to get the address provides NO STORAGE, it's only purpose is to forward mail to another address I specify.
This is very useful because I can give this address out, and not have to worry about changing who's hosting my mail.
Ahh.. figures that shit company would pull something like that. Of course, that's not quite the same. They're not locking you into a contract just to get service, just to get service at a discount.
I disagree with WA going after DirectTV is going to harm their customers. One, they're going after DirectTV based on the number of compaints. Why aren't their competitors getting as many complaints? Clearly they're doing something wrong. Two, if WA makes it more expensive to not be nice than to be nice, they'll certainly change their ways. And three, if DirectTV raises their rates, well to me that's a breach of contract, and so any customers "hurt" can cancel and not be hurt by WA's actoins.
Cable hasn't had contracts for decades now. What cable company do you have that even has that as an option? Just because everone has ETF doesn't make it right, and extending your contract for "breathing" is also wrong, regardless of whether its being done or not.
Why rely on the state to fix these issues? If they're doing something wrong, tell tehm to pound sand AND DON'T PAY.
I did this with a credit card dispute; no lawsuit ever filed, and the hit on my credit score amounted to nothing; I still got a great mortgage and other cards.
Should have let it go to collections. Its really not that big a deal if it does, and you can always dispute it (by documenting your side of things and showing that they're being deseptive).
Spending less time with boilerplate code means getting my work done faster. Everyone seems to forget that things like databinding become possible and easier when you have the concept of a property built right in.
You're right; maintanence is most of a programmers job. More readable code (which I think most agree having properties makes code more readable than not) means maintanence is easier as well.
I seriously doubt that obj.X = 5 would lead to x += 5 more than obj.setX( 5 ) would; if anything, I think the latter would be more open to that flaw, because hey with a method, do whatever you want. A property setter, when you choose to write one, the goal really is to set the value (and probably validate it as well).
Operator overloading, like properties, is certainly something that can be abused. But I'd rather have the option of being able to do it in the rare instances I need to than have to do some thing really awkward and less readable because that tool isn't available.
My point was the using the equals sign results in more readable code.
A class is not an abstraction over a set of data; a class is encapsulation of behavior. The data is only around to be able to peform that behavior.
If you want to be anal about things, there's nothing wrong with properties, because technically propertiers are methods anyway. There's nothing wrong with a plain setter either. Its changing state, and I'm sure there are plenty of methods in Java which only record a value for the object to use at a later time.
As far as your ambiguity is concerned, its really irrelevent. How do you know if a method is going to return quickly or not? Is the method just doing a quick few (but important) lines, or is going to take an hour to process? Given the state you call the method is, both could be true. Why do you think properties somehow change this fact? If the docs don't tell you, you'd still have to look at the code.
Your last statement demonstrates where you are going wrong; a class is supposed to be a black box. You ask it to do something, perhaps by also giving it some data. How it does it should not be important to you, only that it does what it says it does. You learn about what it does via documentation, not by looking at its internals.
Well if my wife, who was molested as well, can do so I don't see any problems. Apparently a lot of people agree with me, given the running joke on Family Guy. BTW, I think your horse (wife) joke was lame, but that's my point. To each his own, its not up to me to decide for you what you should think is funny.
He wasn't trespassing! He walked up the driveway and knocked on the front door! You don't seriously think shooting him for that was acceptable do you?
Stepping foot on private property IS trespassing. So unless you're saying the driveway and front porch was public property (which certainly doesn't seem to be the case), the guy was trespassing. Need directions? Go to a store, look at a map, use your cell phone, etc. The shooting could have been avoided by not going onto someone's private property. Seems simple enough to me.
RTFA. Yes there were. Three separate people felt it was serious enough to suspend her temporarily and investigate. This was not an overreaction.
I did read the article. There were no threats made, and those three seperate people were mentioned nowhere in the posts, nor was anyone else. Did you miss the part where there was a Kill Bill reference in one of the posts? Its called dark humor. Oh, and somebody who's going to go on a rampage doesn't think about flirting with the undertaker.
That three people irrationally overreacted does not make it rational. Herd mentality does not take individual irrationality and make it rational. They should not be living their life in fear of a statistical anomolies, nor should you.
Slashdot Mirror
They hit often enough, and unless you live in a trailer park, leaving doesn't save your home or other possesions.
Your notion that it wasn't Katrina is laughable. Perhaps you should check out the damage from hurricanes in FL, which also include flooding BTW. The shoddy work held up for years, and without Katrina coming around, it likely would have held up for years to come.
And its more than a PITA for a few years; there are still lots of people who have nothing as a result.
Snow causes some car accidents, a water main break here and there, and some power outages. All in all, the cost per year is less than a single hurricane that lands and levels entire neighborhoods.
There's no guessing; snow sticks to vertical, flat signs, blocking out speed limits, parking, etc. Ya in this case the hood might be a problem, but removing it won't be the solution.
You gloss over Katrina as if it were nothing. Snow doesn't do anywhere near the amount of damage hurricanes and tornadoes do.
Well wouldn't the snow covered side, acting correctly by stopping, then lead to no accidents? If the other sides can see the signal, they'll be fine as well.
Going beyond that, the snow covered side can take cues from opposing traffic, if they do so logically and cautiously.
Well, we invaded Iraq about a decade earlier. And, of course, bombed them in December 1998.
Yes, after they invaded another country. And none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi.
And from 1975 to 1982 or so, we stupidly got involved in Lebanon's civil war, a giant absurd clusterfuck of a war. Mostly we were supporting Israel, but did plenty of stupid stuff ourself.
And again, none of the 9/11 hijackers were Lebanese. As far as supporting Israel, is being allied with a country enough for one to blow themselves up killing civilians?
Oh, and let's not forget Iran Air Flight 655, along with the rest of the support we gave Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.
At worse, a rouge captian, at best an honest mistake. Given what Iran does to its own people, I'm not sure what you're point really is.
And, oh, oh, Bosnia. Granted, we (As in NATO) didn't do it, but we certainly failed to prevent the Srebrenica massacre despite theoretically being in control of the area. Blaming this on the US is sorta silly, it was the fault the Dutch and NATO in general, but NATO is, rightly or wrongly, see as the US's puppet. (I mention Bosnia only because a few of the 9/11 hijackers were in Bosnia during all this, where NATO sorta kinda tried to stop the Muslim genocide, but not very hard.)
Ya, I agree. So its our fault that we're policing the world... and its our fault for not policing the world. Got it.
And that's not even talking about the US military support of Israel or, possibly more relevant, the US support of the Saudi government.
Oh i see, aliances are reason enough. Now we've gone from the US bombing someone's sister to be allied with someone Arabs (I assume that's who you're talking about) hate and would like to wipe off the map.
bin Laden essentially considers the US to have bribed the Saudi's to have put non-Muslim soldiers in the Muslim holy land, which was the justification for 9/11. Which is, indeed, not actually 'bombing' anyone, but that's just the umbrella under which people are recruited.
In other words, what I said was pretty accurate, and you have no point. Since bin Laden has attacked the US, I suppose I should use his logic, and lets bomb civilians in Saudi Arabia and a host of other raghead nations. I mean, he can demonize us and say we're the devil or whatever because of some stretched logic, why can't I?
The people recruited all have either personal vendettas against the US, or are just essentially brainwashed youth that join a cult-like organization.
Or maybe they're otherwise irrelevent morons who believe in fairy tales and can't accept that their lives are meaningless. But as long as its ok for them to rataionalize, I suppose its ok for the US to.. so fuck the Iraqis and other towelheads.
Sounds like a great way to ensure higher support costs. Oh.. you're the support?
Why do you expect a newer harddrive with this feature to work? Do you complain too that you can't get an integrated radio + gps in a car that never had the option?
Who exactly were we bombing that we killed someones sister prior to 9/11?
Every life is important.
Not to me. The life of my friends and family are, but everyone else, whatever.
Just because it's not possible to prevent deaths everywhere , doesn't mean you should be ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.
I'm sorry, since when does saying "let's not overreact and concentrate on things that WOULD work" equate to being "ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people."
How does pointing out that more people die in auto accidents each year make you ok with it? Its possible to think it was not ok, yet understand its a blip in the radar, and nothing more.
Their loved ones still lost them and that still causes them pain , not matter whether they got 'replaced' or not
No one is saying otherwise; what is being said is that for some like me, who didn't know anyone lost, our lives were not affected.. except that now you have to piss you pants in your seat because you need to stay seated for the last hour of the flight.
By your logic , you would be ok with having your entire family killed , as they will be replaced inside an hour ?
I'm sorry, do you sit up at night crying when some family in Africa or Asia or anywhere far from you is murdered? I don't.
People are more than statistics.
Yes, but people also only care about those important to them. They're not losing sleep over the murder of total strangers, except perhaps in the justice sense of thinking about it.
sorry... but when a gang shoots up a neighborhood over drugs, is that an act of war, or simply criminal activity?
More people die each year in auto accidents. You're more likely to be hit by lightening than a plane. Yes, it sucked for those involved, but for the rest of us, life should have moved on unaffected.
I saw it as showing bad uses of technology, and more about retelling the story of the native americans as well.
I'm not sure how overtime promotes good programmers... especially when the rest of your comment seems to contradict your statement.
Bull. I have an email address, which I give to everyone. The service I use to get the address provides NO STORAGE, it's only purpose is to forward mail to another address I specify.
This is very useful because I can give this address out, and not have to worry about changing who's hosting my mail.
Ahh.. figures that shit company would pull something like that. Of course, that's not quite the same. They're not locking you into a contract just to get service, just to get service at a discount.
I disagree with WA going after DirectTV is going to harm their customers. One, they're going after DirectTV based on the number of compaints. Why aren't their competitors getting as many complaints? Clearly they're doing something wrong. Two, if WA makes it more expensive to not be nice than to be nice, they'll certainly change their ways. And three, if DirectTV raises their rates, well to me that's a breach of contract, and so any customers "hurt" can cancel and not be hurt by WA's actoins.
Seriously, I don't care what I "promise" to a company, because they certainly don't care if they break promises to me.
She has every right to say "fuck off" to directtv. If they can't survive without locking people into contracts, they shoudl just die already.
Cable hasn't had contracts for decades now. What cable company do you have that even has that as an option? Just because everone has ETF doesn't make it right, and extending your contract for "breathing" is also wrong, regardless of whether its being done or not.
Just because they put something in a contract does not mean its valid.
Why rely on the state to fix these issues? If they're doing something wrong, tell tehm to pound sand AND DON'T PAY.
I did this with a credit card dispute; no lawsuit ever filed, and the hit on my credit score amounted to nothing; I still got a great mortgage and other cards.
Why should you be limited in your choice of housing because of a stupid TV contract?
Should have let it go to collections. Its really not that big a deal if it does, and you can always dispute it (by documenting your side of things and showing that they're being deseptive).
Spending less time with boilerplate code means getting my work done faster. Everyone seems to forget that things like databinding become possible and easier when you have the concept of a property built right in.
You're right; maintanence is most of a programmers job. More readable code (which I think most agree having properties makes code more readable than not) means maintanence is easier as well.
I seriously doubt that obj.X = 5 would lead to x += 5 more than obj.setX( 5 ) would; if anything, I think the latter would be more open to that flaw, because hey with a method, do whatever you want. A property setter, when you choose to write one, the goal really is to set the value (and probably validate it as well).
Operator overloading, like properties, is certainly something that can be abused. But I'd rather have the option of being able to do it in the rare instances I need to than have to do some thing really awkward and less readable because that tool isn't available.
My point was the using the equals sign results in more readable code.
A class is not an abstraction over a set of data; a class is encapsulation of behavior. The data is only around to be able to peform that behavior.
If you want to be anal about things, there's nothing wrong with properties, because technically propertiers are methods anyway. There's nothing wrong with a plain setter either. Its changing state, and I'm sure there are plenty of methods in Java which only record a value for the object to use at a later time.
As far as your ambiguity is concerned, its really irrelevent. How do you know if a method is going to return quickly or not? Is the method just doing a quick few (but important) lines, or is going to take an hour to process? Given the state you call the method is, both could be true. Why do you think properties somehow change this fact? If the docs don't tell you, you'd still have to look at the code.
Your last statement demonstrates where you are going wrong; a class is supposed to be a black box. You ask it to do something, perhaps by also giving it some data. How it does it should not be important to you, only that it does what it says it does. You learn about what it does via documentation, not by looking at its internals.
Well if my wife, who was molested as well, can do so I don't see any problems. Apparently a lot of people agree with me, given the running joke on Family Guy. BTW, I think your horse (wife) joke was lame, but that's my point. To each his own, its not up to me to decide for you what you should think is funny.
He wasn't trespassing! He walked up the driveway and knocked on the front door! You don't seriously think shooting him for that was acceptable do you?
Stepping foot on private property IS trespassing. So unless you're saying the driveway and front porch was public property (which certainly doesn't seem to be the case), the guy was trespassing. Need directions? Go to a store, look at a map, use your cell phone, etc. The shooting could have been avoided by not going onto someone's private property. Seems simple enough to me.
RTFA. Yes there were. Three separate people felt it was serious enough to suspend her temporarily and investigate. This was not an overreaction.
I did read the article. There were no threats made, and those three seperate people were mentioned nowhere in the posts, nor was anyone else. Did you miss the part where there was a Kill Bill reference in one of the posts? Its called dark humor. Oh, and somebody who's going to go on a rampage doesn't think about flirting with the undertaker.
That three people irrationally overreacted does not make it rational. Herd mentality does not take individual irrationality and make it rational. They should not be living their life in fear of a statistical anomolies, nor should you.