Of course that would also mean much higher phone prices
No, it wouldn't. Prices would necessarly come down, or people wouldn't buy the phone. There's plenty of wiggle room to do so as well... an iPhone doesn't cost as much to make as its "retail" price. Also, if I could buy ONE phone that worked on ANY network, that would further drive prices down, not only for phones, but for plans as well (and may well hasten the stupid defacto contract based system we have now).
Can it be abused? Sure, but there's plenty of crap to abuse in Java too.. and making code always harder to read because someone MIGHT write sloppy code is just plain retarded.
Your comments about not knowing wither myObj.X is an int or a property doesn't make anysense; to the consumer, X is a value that's set, and whether its a property or field is irrelevent to you (and the compiler will tell you if you can't set or get a certain property).
I don't think I've ever seen goto in a C# program.
The richer syntax means I can get my work done faster, without wasting time with boilerplate nonsense.
Your quipe about properties is particually stupid; the property setter and getter are compiled into methods anyway, its just syntatic sugar that means I can type less, but more reable code.
In math, do you write set_X( newValue), or do you write X = newValue? C# allows you to have myObj.X = newValue instead of myObj.set_X( newValue ).
It makes it clearer whats going on; changing state instead of performing an action.
I'm sorry, when did talking about feelings (ie, venting) equate to relationing emotions physically? And it does help sometimes to expression emotions physically. A good workout is a great way to relieve stress.
I think the only fallacy here is you thinking you know what you're talking about.
Why should anyone be "free" to abuse anyone they like, without consequence? That is not freedom at all, but binding someone to prevent action (the campus in this case).
There was no abuse. There was not even proof that she was going to act on anything other than a dead body.
It's mad to think that in fact that has anything to do with blocking freedom, when she was free to talk and they were free to not let her on campus. No freedoms were blocked, she is still perfectly free to bitch on Facebook.
Using your freedom to intimidate another into silence is not a valid exercise of your freedom. Thinking is not a crime.
I guess you people outside the U.S. don't understand freedom at all, given your example.
I'm in the US dolt, and I've spent quite a bit more time discussing and reading about Liberty than you have, as evidenced by your post.
Yes, well we know what the problem with you is; you're an overreacting, paranoid and completely unreasonable person.
Guns don't make a society polite; they make a society that seriously considers raising things beyond verbal. The problem now is not that people yell at each other, it's that we're unarmed and so the bigger guy has no problems moving to violence, because the odds favor him. Guns level it... so you'll still have yelling matches, but people will be more careful about moving from rational anger to irrational anger.
Oh, and you're not fooling anyone; you're so scared and paranoid you'd run for your life like a little girl if someone said they were going to kill you.
No, thats a form of road rage and is also illegal.
Says the arm chair lawyer. But please, feel free to cite a case of road rage being pressed against someone mad their car just got trashed by the other at fault driver.
Actions have consequences.
And words are not action. Amazing that little detail, isn't it?
Go look it up. MS originally had the specs that excluded integrated intel graphics chips because they didn't have the horse power to run aero. Of course, I know you won't... it's so easy to find stories on google, but then your little fantasy world where ms is the ultimate evil would be shattered.
Eminent domain is not a right, it is a power. Governments have powers, individuals have rights.
And when your house is condemed, what exactly is the difference? I understand your point, but its unnessary nitpicking, because it doesn't change the fact that the government can do it.
And as I have been saying - legal authority is not moral authority. The USC has its imperfections, but it's what we have.
Ya, so we should not be able to have a civilization because a few people can't be happy in another home? Checkout the Woodhaven Expressway, it's what happens when a few selfish people block improvements that would benefit many.
Pretending you're ok is not the same as dealing with your emotions in a healthy way. And while control of emotions is necessary its also necessary to work them out in some way.
Your suggestion does neither, which is one cause of people snapping and going postal.
You need to get your head out of your ass. One person shouldn't be incovienced because of something that MIGHT happen.
Maybe we should lock you up, because you could kill somebody. There aren't always clues, after all, so we'll just inconvience you for the safety of others.
No, if I were a student or teacher, I'd write it off as angry venting, nothing more. See, most people are perfectly reasonable, and also vent in this manner (maybe more privately, but they do it).
When someone says "err on the side of caution" I interperate that as "I'm scared of my own shadow and the booggy monster and have to have mommy and daddy check under my bed for monsters each night, and I don't think there's anything wrong with a nightlight even though I'm 40 years old."
I think the issue here is that people would rather err on the side of caution.
That phrase has just become a way to cover your ass when you're caught over-reacting in a serious way.
You can't walk up to someone on the street and say "I'm gonna kill you" without consequences. They are illegal and a felony. Why would anyone think the same thing over the phone, or via e-mail would be any less so?
Actually I believe it depends. If you said it in a non-serious tone and walked off with nothing else, I doubt anyone would bother doing anything. Then there's the asshole that hit your car; I'm sure people have threatened death (or less), but everyone with a brain seems to understand this is an angry phrase, but nothing more. I'd be very suprised if someone took it seriously. The anger part, sure, but most reasonabale people understand the other person is still reasonable while angry and not going to try anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course that would also mean much higher phone prices
No, it wouldn't. Prices would necessarly come down, or people wouldn't buy the phone. There's plenty of wiggle room to do so as well... an iPhone doesn't cost as much to make as its "retail" price. Also, if I could buy ONE phone that worked on ANY network, that would further drive prices down, not only for phones, but for plans as well (and may well hasten the stupid defacto contract based system we have now).
Can it be abused? Sure, but there's plenty of crap to abuse in Java too.. and making code always harder to read because someone MIGHT write sloppy code is just plain retarded.
Your comments about not knowing wither myObj.X is an int or a property doesn't make anysense; to the consumer, X is a value that's set, and whether its a property or field is irrelevent to you (and the compiler will tell you if you can't set or get a certain property).
You've done it in other cases though, which you just admitted, so get off your high horse and STFU. Its not up to you to draw the line.
And the case where a foreign student went to a door to ask for directions, and was promptly shot by the owners? He got off scott free.
Saying trespass is ok in certain situations is similar to saying stealing is ok in certain situations.
So if you take the 'shouldn't be there' attitude, then she shouldn't be making threats online.
As I said, there were NO THREATS MADE. A mortitan student looking forward to an embaming lession? Please.
Doesn't matter if it was direcdted at someone or just an idle 'I'd like to' threat.
Words are not actions. You can't shoot someone for saying they'll come onto your property, only for actually coming onto your property.
Thought is not a crime.
I'm saying no one has ever been charged with road rage law for actions AFTER the accident occurs.
Hmm... that explains why apps on phones suck I guess. Slow, crashing pieces of trash.
Ugh...
I don't think I've ever seen goto in a C# program.
The richer syntax means I can get my work done faster, without wasting time with boilerplate nonsense.
Your quipe about properties is particually stupid; the property setter and getter are compiled into methods anyway, its just syntatic sugar that means I can type less, but more reable code.
In math, do you write set_X( newValue), or do you write X = newValue? C# allows you to have myObj.X = newValue instead of myObj.set_X( newValue ).
It makes it clearer whats going on; changing state instead of performing an action.
So is that why we have .Net developer positions which pay six figures?
I'm sorry, when did talking about feelings (ie, venting) equate to relationing emotions physically? And it does help sometimes to expression emotions physically. A good workout is a great way to relieve stress.
I think the only fallacy here is you thinking you know what you're talking about.
She didn't make a death threat either.
Besides, you might not make the threat, you might just do it. So I say we lock you up now, just in case. After all, you clearly could do it.
Why should anyone be "free" to abuse anyone they like, without consequence? That is not freedom at all, but binding someone to prevent action (the campus in this case).
There was no abuse. There was not even proof that she was going to act on anything other than a dead body.
It's mad to think that in fact that has anything to do with blocking freedom, when she was free to talk and they were free to not let her on campus. No freedoms were blocked, she is still perfectly free to bitch on Facebook.
Using your freedom to intimidate another into silence is not a valid exercise of your freedom. Thinking is not a crime.
I guess you people outside the U.S. don't understand freedom at all, given your example.
I'm in the US dolt, and I've spent quite a bit more time discussing and reading about Liberty than you have, as evidenced by your post.
So do you think one person is free to imprison another? I mean, its not the government doing it then, right?
I don't know why you think your anecdote matters in the least.
Yes, well we know what the problem with you is; you're an overreacting, paranoid and completely unreasonable person.
Guns don't make a society polite; they make a society that seriously considers raising things beyond verbal. The problem now is not that people yell at each other, it's that we're unarmed and so the bigger guy has no problems moving to violence, because the odds favor him. Guns level it... so you'll still have yelling matches, but people will be more careful about moving from rational anger to irrational anger.
Oh, and you're not fooling anyone; you're so scared and paranoid you'd run for your life like a little girl if someone said they were going to kill you.
Um, where's the problem? This is kinda like complaining that playing in the street is dangerous. You shouldn't be playing in the street anyway.
Oh, you shouldn't have to check who owns property first? So its ok to take something out of a car without knowing who owns it? That's what I thought.
No, thats a form of road rage and is also illegal.
Says the arm chair lawyer. But please, feel free to cite a case of road rage being pressed against someone mad their car just got trashed by the other at fault driver.
Actions have consequences.
And words are not action. Amazing that little detail, isn't it?
What's the phrase... "all talk, no action?"
Their feelings don't enter into it, really. I'm sure you laughed at jokes where the incident was serious for those involved.
Go look it up. MS originally had the specs that excluded integrated intel graphics chips because they didn't have the horse power to run aero. Of course, I know you won't... it's so easy to find stories on google, but then your little fantasy world where ms is the ultimate evil would be shattered.
Eminent domain is not a right, it is a power. Governments have powers, individuals have rights.
And when your house is condemed, what exactly is the difference? I understand your point, but its unnessary nitpicking, because it doesn't change the fact that the government can do it.
And as I have been saying - legal authority is not moral authority. The USC has its imperfections, but it's what we have.
Ya, so we should not be able to have a civilization because a few people can't be happy in another home? Checkout the Woodhaven Expressway, it's what happens when a few selfish people block improvements that would benefit many.
Pretending you're ok is not the same as dealing with your emotions in a healthy way. And while control of emotions is necessary its also necessary to work them out in some way.
Your suggestion does neither, which is one cause of people snapping and going postal.
You need to get your head out of your ass. One person shouldn't be incovienced because of something that MIGHT happen.
Maybe we should lock you up, because you could kill somebody. There aren't always clues, after all, so we'll just inconvience you for the safety of others.
I think you're missing the fact that she's a student learning to embalm to become a mortitan.
Its amazing to me how supposedly freedom loving Americans are really quick to try and use non-government methods to limit other's freedoms.
No, if I were a student or teacher, I'd write it off as angry venting, nothing more. See, most people are perfectly reasonable, and also vent in this manner (maybe more privately, but they do it).
When someone says "err on the side of caution" I interperate that as "I'm scared of my own shadow and the booggy monster and have to have mommy and daddy check under my bed for monsters each night, and I don't think there's anything wrong with a nightlight even though I'm 40 years old."
I think the issue here is that people would rather err on the side of caution.
That phrase has just become a way to cover your ass when you're caught over-reacting in a serious way.
You can't walk up to someone on the street and say "I'm gonna kill you" without consequences. They are illegal and a felony. Why would anyone think the same thing over the phone, or via e-mail would be any less so?
Actually I believe it depends. If you said it in a non-serious tone and walked off with nothing else, I doubt anyone would bother doing anything. Then there's the asshole that hit your car; I'm sure people have threatened death (or less), but everyone with a brain seems to understand this is an angry phrase, but nothing more. I'd be very suprised if someone took it seriously. The anger part, sure, but most reasonabale people understand the other person is still reasonable while angry and not going to try anything.