do you know what chaotic means? Thats the climate for you. You'd better be 100% percent sure of your inputs, an impossibility in itself, to get any meaningful results, even if your model is 100% correct ( a huge leap of faith). This doesn't jive well with 'up to 75% of the variables affecting the climate are either known unkowns or unknowns unkowns' statements made, among others the IPCC.
None of which are deep within heat domes of major population centres. I'd also like to point that geographic evidence, in terms of glacier sizes are fairly good indicators of temperature change over thousands of years.
Glaciers, very true. So how would you explain that on the mount blance in the frensh alps a village is slowly reappearing that has been abandoned 150 years ago due to glacier increases? Does this not imply that the glacier in question used to be smaller before the big CO2 dumping began and is now only returning to its preindustial size?
I think astronomy is a good example of how science can really work. The cause for this does not lie within the brilliant, good-willing, good-doing nature of scientist. Astronomy, the theories and experiments that relate to the field are very resistant to being politisized. In my opinion because they don't matter much beyond the intellectual sphere. No job, regulation or tax increase is affected by the discovery that yes, planets can form earlier than we thought before discovering system X. Don't get me wrong, I love all space related articles and findings but for my immediate reality it has no bearing if black holes radiate away or even exist. Science works so well for astronomy because no politician will loose his job after proclaiming 'sorry, we've been wrong to think that those rocks contain fossilezed life forms'.
Now, lets look at climate 'science'. There is so much cultural background, political bias and money issues that its not easy to hear the signal from all the noise. I agree with everyone that says that 'anti-climate-change' scientist are biased, but I'd strongly insist that the same holds true for 'pro-climater-changers'. Apart from that, if someone says 'look, I got this model and it says we are all going to die soon, unless you stop driving your car and hand over a billion dollars' I just can't take it very seriously because as a programmer I can create lots of models that all say that salvation of human kind hinges on the fact that I become pontifex maximus of the entire earth. They are like the doomsayers of the middle ages, instead of dressing in purple, they are wearing white, nothing else has changed.
now, I'm certainly not the type of person that would talk down to you for your job. I'm not even that jealous because though I enjoy playing games this is not true for *all* games, especially bug ridden ones. But being a software developer myself, I have, as we all have, a 6th bug sense. So when finding a bug it becomes part of the game for me to find out when and under what circumstances this occur. If the bug is not too horrible (like say the freaking game spy online browser within Rome) I don't bother to write in to the developer. There just is no feedback and no reward in it. Maybe you can make this proposal to your employers: Have a second stage, post release, test team that is entirely made up of volunteering game-playing software devs (like me). Give them access to some sort of online bug tracker after they submitted the first useable bug report. For useful testers (say, ones that accuratly described >5 mayor bugs) give away early and/or free copies of the next game. I think that would greatly reduce the first-patch worse-than-unpatched-issues. One thing is certain, in my mind at least. If the buggieness of PC games continues to be such an inhibiting factor (say, if you want to play rome tw online, two people together behind a router), the PC game industry will die as people reach their frustration threshold. I was almost crossed this line, buying between 15 and 20 titles each year, if it weren't for the few games that 'just-work' (tm) as rainbow six or battlefield vietnam do.
you don't get it. You mix concepts that might be similar on one level and treat them as equal on all levels. Womens' sufferage is clearly a different thing. Within a democracy it's the legal recognition that women are in fact just as human as men, ability to reason and ability to be responsible included. What you advertise is forbidding women from accepting payment for sex (or payment for sex+work). This is not empowering in the least. Yes, I realize women have struggled to 'achieve' this but its fallaciuos to assume that this lends the proposition any credibility whatsoever. I hope it is obvious that I am not opposed to equal rights for men and women, but I'm also for maximum rights for humans and those include freely enterting contracts of any sort they see fit, without first having to consult a 'higher' authority. I stand firmly convicted of the principle that liberty (=rights) should end only where the liberties of others are concerned. In this case the 'other' is the boss (owner of a company). The boss has just as much a right employ people on his conditions as you have the right to only be employed when your conditions are met.
To illustrate the point: many would think that they shouldn't 'have to' decide between starving and working and yet you don't advocate that companies should pay people to do nothing just because they feel they needn't have to make the decision, or do you?
As an ulitarian side note, in your example, your boss just wouldn't give the woman the choice, leaving her with the lower income and no futher discussion, eventhough she might really like the option of 'work+sex=more income'. Your world view leaves absolutly no room for this; - a good hint that your framwork of though might by glaringly inconsistent with reality.
it's a choice for her. A decision. Either I blow him or leave for a different job. The minute you allow yourself to become sole judge over the rightfulness of a persons decision, your are on your way to totaliterialism. And after all, it's not a businesses obligation to employ people on the condition those people set.
i don't know what kind of harassment you mean, I'll just assume unwanted 'gropping' and such: you see, thats the point. This almost borders on physical violence, a violation of ownership of the womens body. Now, if a woman chooses to enter a contract that includes blow jobs she excercises ownership over herself. Forbidding prostitution actually equals sexual harassment on the moral plain becauses both deprive the woman of the right to do with her body as she pleases.
while I am, too, disgusted by hypocrisies, I really enjoy the scare liberties that are left in the political correct, socialist police state (germany). If alcohol and tabacco really get banned I'll have become a 'terrorist' aka freedom fighter.
yes, except when there is no space where to extend the block too. Then the whole array is going to be copied. In the worst case, this will be every single time you try this. Also, you need an external counter for your array size. A list is much clearer than your solution. The way you do it, you turn basic assumptions on their head like: arrays have static size. Now, if I ever see a member declared as listXXX or List xxx I know what it *means*.
If I read something like your post, I can't resist imagening a 15 year old pimple faced, long haired, hippy style youth. Reality is not a movie. Here, my girlfriend is 37 years old, she could tell me in detail how the transition to prostitution comes about: you work at a bar, making between 20k-30k a year. In germany, this a median income and you can life of this pretty good, even with a child. Now you meet certain people, hooker and pimps and such. You see there luxurious world that comes with earning 100k a year. You might like big mercedes convertibles and jewelery but could never afford this so you start to think: well, I like and enjoy sex very much, why not also earn money with it. My girlfriend has been there, she didn't take that route because she'd rather become a nurse.
There is no drama, there is nothing special about prostitution. It's just a job, it has risks like any other job and provides a very good income. Now the perceptible difference is caused by the law that won't accept prostitution as business and provides NO protection, but the opposite: persecution. Now imaging your job was literally outlawed, pursuing your profession would be punishable. Imaging nonetheless exercising your jobs. You'd be at the mercy of your customer/employer because you have no legal route to make him/her pay you after you've done your work. You can't even tell anybody about it because you risk landing in jail. That is where abuse and violence enters the picture caused by measures that suppossedly should prevent it. In truth, no such intent was there when those laws where made. Imposing morality was the intention. The pimps you complain about are the creation of the meassures you support. They are the prostitution police, preventing abuse of the hookers by customers and making sure they pay. Now the protection contract between hookers and pimps is just as illegal as the prostitution itself is -> abuse and violence follows. But the risk a prostitute takes when 'contracting' a pimp is a little less because it is in the pimps interesst that the prostitute is in good shape and has good morals.
please, stop making that argument. the more people point to the fact that alcohol and tabacco are drugs as well, the stronger the case for outlawing them will be. It already started. Your argument will not get drugs leagized, it will get A&T banned.
you don't have a clue. I know hookers from my job as barkeeper, believe me, the usual hooker is not not the starved down dirty women with the little girls eyes that suffers from each penetration. These women could just as easily work as waitresses or cashiers or hair dressers but they like earning 100k und couldn't do with 30k.
It's all about self-esteem and respect.
Yeah, its pretty good for ones self esteem when big drunken, beating daddy state tells you in detail
what you need to do and what you mustn't, in you own interest of course. Having the values of others imposed really futhers indivduality, too. I mean, your logic is unimpeachable: I won't sell my body because it's bad for my self esteem, I'm human, therefore all humans that sell their bodies have low self esteem, therefore I must free them from their shackles by chaining them to mine.
*again* is wrong. There never has been a society like that. Consentual business contracts covering sexual services have always condemmed and banned. If you think that this is to the benefits of hookers you are wrong. It deprives them of security that everyone pays for through taxes (VAT etc.) and criminalizes their only income source. No unpartial agency will enforce the contracts they make with customers so the door to abuse and violence is wide open. This is the reason they have to resort to 'pimps' who usually protect them.
look I'm sorry about your family. But if you haven't been living behind the moon you would know that *everything* causes cancer. My own prediction is that living past the age of 35 is most at fault for cancer.
what balance? Just show me one instance in earths history where there every existed something that can reasonably be called 'balanced'. Live and our ecosystem are in continual motion towards a balance and every so much missing it. Balance is static, it is death. Move to mercury if you would like to life on a 'balanced' world.
how can you make that difference? I mean, I am all for viewing humans as the pinnacle of life, but your view is extremly human centric. Why is it that the development from beastly, bloodthirsty wolve to a cute, little, naket chiwauwa is 'microevolution' while loosing hair and getting a bigger brain (ape -> man) is macroevolution. I am no genetics expert but I do strongly suspect that we have more in common with chimps, anatomicly and socially, than little 'rat'-dogs with wolves.
The answer lies in your question. You condem all who are 'selfish'. In your ideal world, you should care and look after me while I'd do the same for you. Yet, some people just don't see the greatness of your plan. And since you are the one that is affected by my negligence, you wish for some form of sanction in the afterlife to scare me into being 'unselfish'. Now, what I don't get is, why can't we just cut the crap and say that everyone only is responsible to himself?
Your sampling of good developers may be limited to your dad, thus your opinion is apropriately biased.
Quite true. Statistically it doesn't matter at all. Also, he is way old school and doesn't like the relativly new OO stuff very much. Incidentally, few days after I wrote the original post, I did need multiple inheritance. It occured to me that it is quite cumbersome to implement a new method of an interface into all it's subclasses, eventhough you need the special case making this method necessary only in one. In light of this new experience I fully agree with the first answer to the grandparent: 'usually you don't need it, but if, you need it badly'. I also agree with your point, that when using multiple inheritance the design must be well thought through. My personal guess as to why it didn't make it into java is not that java is aimed at novices (especially J2EE java is not easy) but that it was just to much trouble to implement.
Slashdot Mirror
do you know what chaotic means? Thats the climate for you. You'd better be 100% percent sure of your inputs, an impossibility in itself, to get any meaningful results, even if your model is 100% correct ( a huge leap of faith). This doesn't jive well with 'up to 75% of the variables affecting the climate are either known unkowns or unknowns unkowns' statements made, among others the IPCC.
None of which are deep within heat domes of major population centres. I'd also like to point that geographic evidence, in terms of glacier sizes are fairly good indicators of temperature change over thousands of years.
Glaciers, very true. So how would you explain that on the mount blance in the frensh alps a village is slowly reappearing that has been abandoned 150 years ago due to glacier increases? Does this not imply that the glacier in question used to be smaller before the big CO2 dumping began and is now only returning to its preindustial size?
I think astronomy is a good example of how science can really work. The cause for this does not lie within the brilliant, good-willing, good-doing nature of scientist. Astronomy, the theories and experiments that relate to the field are very resistant to being politisized. In my opinion because they don't matter much beyond the intellectual sphere. No job, regulation or tax increase is affected by the discovery that yes, planets can form earlier than we thought before discovering system X. Don't get me wrong, I love all space related articles and findings but for my immediate reality it has no bearing if black holes radiate away or even exist. Science works so well for astronomy because no politician will loose his job after proclaiming 'sorry, we've been wrong to think that those rocks contain fossilezed life forms'.
Now, lets look at climate 'science'. There is so much cultural background, political bias and money issues that its not easy to hear the signal from all the noise. I agree with everyone that says that 'anti-climate-change' scientist are biased, but I'd strongly insist that the same holds true for 'pro-climater-changers'. Apart from that, if someone says 'look, I got this model and it says we are all going to die soon, unless you stop driving your car and hand over a billion dollars' I just can't take it very seriously because as a programmer I can create lots of models that all say that salvation of human kind hinges on the fact that I become pontifex maximus of the entire earth. They are like the doomsayers of the middle ages, instead of dressing in purple, they are wearing white, nothing else has changed.
now, I'm certainly not the type of person that would talk down to you for your job. I'm not even that jealous because though I enjoy playing games this is not true for *all* games, especially bug ridden ones. But being a software developer myself, I have, as we all have, a 6th bug sense. So when finding a bug it becomes part of the game for me to find out when and under what circumstances this occur. If the bug is not too horrible (like say the freaking game spy online browser within Rome) I don't bother to write in to the developer. There just is no feedback and no reward in it. Maybe you can make this proposal to your employers: Have a second stage, post release, test team that is entirely made up of volunteering game-playing software devs (like me). Give them access to some sort of online bug tracker after they submitted the first useable bug report. For useful testers (say, ones that accuratly described >5 mayor bugs) give away early and/or free copies of the next game. I think that would greatly reduce the first-patch worse-than-unpatched-issues. One thing is certain, in my mind at least. If the buggieness of PC games continues to be such an inhibiting factor (say, if you want to play rome tw online, two people together behind a router), the PC game industry will die as people reach their frustration threshold. I was almost crossed this line, buying between 15 and 20 titles each year, if it weren't for the few games that 'just-work' (tm) as rainbow six or battlefield vietnam do.
If you worked on Rome:Total War, please make sure that *someone* tests the online play at least once next time.
then stop emmiting photons. Your are the one polluting us with your sight.
you don't get it. You mix concepts that might be similar on one level and treat them as equal on all levels. Womens' sufferage is clearly a different thing. Within a democracy it's the legal recognition that women are in fact just as human as men, ability to reason and ability to be responsible included. What you advertise is forbidding women from accepting payment for sex (or payment for sex+work). This is not empowering in the least. Yes, I realize women have struggled to 'achieve' this but its fallaciuos to assume that this lends the proposition any credibility whatsoever. I hope it is obvious that I am not opposed to equal rights for men and women, but I'm also for maximum rights for humans and those include freely enterting contracts of any sort they see fit, without first having to consult a 'higher' authority. I stand firmly convicted of the principle that liberty (=rights) should end only where the liberties of others are concerned. In this case the 'other' is the boss (owner of a company). The boss has just as much a right employ people on his conditions as you have the right to only be employed when your conditions are met.
To illustrate the point: many would think that they shouldn't 'have to' decide between starving and working and yet you don't advocate that companies should pay people to do nothing just because they feel they needn't have to make the decision, or do you?
As an ulitarian side note, in your example, your boss just wouldn't give the woman the choice, leaving her with the lower income and no futher discussion, eventhough she might really like the option of 'work+sex=more income'. Your world view leaves absolutly no room for this; - a good hint that your framwork of though might by glaringly inconsistent with reality.
I can just see how your description is a liberals wet dream for human society.
it's a choice for her. A decision. Either I blow him or leave for a different job. The minute you allow yourself to become sole judge over the rightfulness of a persons decision, your are on your way to totaliterialism. And after all, it's not a businesses obligation to employ people on the condition those people set.
i don't know what kind of harassment you mean, I'll just assume unwanted 'gropping' and such: you see, thats the point. This almost borders on physical violence, a violation of ownership of the womens body. Now, if a woman chooses to enter a contract that includes blow jobs she excercises ownership over herself. Forbidding prostitution actually equals sexual harassment on the moral plain becauses both deprive the woman of the right to do with her body as she pleases.
while I am, too, disgusted by hypocrisies, I really enjoy the scare liberties that are left in the political correct, socialist police state (germany). If alcohol and tabacco really get banned I'll have become a 'terrorist' aka freedom fighter.
yes, except when there is no space where to extend the block too. Then the whole array is going to be copied. In the worst case, this will be every single time you try this. Also, you need an external counter for your array size. A list is much clearer than your solution. The way you do it, you turn basic assumptions on their head like: arrays have static size. Now, if I ever see a member declared as listXXX or List xxx I know what it *means*.
if there was an X-prize for finding the tooth fairy, it still couldn't be found.
If I read something like your post, I can't resist imagening a 15 year old pimple faced, long haired, hippy style youth. Reality is not a movie. Here, my girlfriend is 37 years old, she could tell me in detail how the transition to prostitution comes about: you work at a bar, making between 20k-30k a year. In germany, this a median income and you can life of this pretty good, even with a child. Now you meet certain people, hooker and pimps and such. You see there luxurious world that comes with earning 100k a year. You might like big mercedes convertibles and jewelery but could never afford this so you start to think: well, I like and enjoy sex very much, why not also earn money with it. My girlfriend has been there, she didn't take that route because she'd rather become a nurse.
There is no drama, there is nothing special about prostitution. It's just a job, it has risks like any other job and provides a very good income. Now the perceptible difference is caused by the law that won't accept prostitution as business and provides NO protection, but the opposite: persecution.
Now imaging your job was literally outlawed, pursuing your profession would be punishable. Imaging nonetheless exercising your jobs. You'd be at the mercy of your customer/employer because you have no legal route to make him/her pay you after you've done your work. You can't even tell anybody about it because you risk landing in jail. That is where abuse and violence enters the picture caused by measures that suppossedly should prevent it. In truth, no such intent was there when those laws where made. Imposing morality was the intention. The pimps you complain about are the creation of the meassures you support. They are the prostitution police, preventing abuse of the hookers by customers and making sure they pay. Now the protection contract between hookers and pimps is just as illegal as the prostitution itself is -> abuse and violence follows. But the risk a prostitute takes when 'contracting' a pimp is a little less because it is in the pimps interesst that the prostitute is in good shape and has good morals.
please, stop making that argument. the more people point to the fact that alcohol and tabacco are drugs as well, the stronger the case for outlawing them will be. It already started. Your argument will not get drugs leagized, it will get A&T banned.
you don't have a clue. I know hookers from my job as barkeeper, believe me, the usual hooker is not not the starved down dirty women with the little girls eyes that suffers from each penetration. These women could just as easily work as waitresses or cashiers or hair dressers but they like earning 100k und couldn't do with 30k.
It's all about self-esteem and respect.
Yeah, its pretty good for ones self esteem when big drunken, beating daddy state tells you in detail what you need to do and what you mustn't, in you own interest of course. Having the values of others imposed really futhers indivduality, too. I mean, your logic is unimpeachable: I won't sell my body because it's bad for my self esteem, I'm human, therefore all humans that sell their bodies have low self esteem, therefore I must free them from their shackles by chaining them to mine.
*again* is wrong. There never has been a society like that. Consentual business contracts covering sexual services have always condemmed and banned. If you think that this is to the benefits of hookers you are wrong. It deprives them of security that everyone pays for through taxes (VAT etc.) and criminalizes their only income source. No unpartial agency will enforce the contracts they make with customers so the door to abuse and violence is wide open. This is the reason they have to resort to 'pimps' who usually protect them.
look I'm sorry about your family. But if you haven't been living behind the moon you would know that *everything* causes cancer. My own prediction is that living past the age of 35 is most at fault for cancer.
what balance? Just show me one instance in earths history where there every existed something that can reasonably be called 'balanced'. Live and our ecosystem are in continual motion towards a balance and every so much missing it. Balance is static, it is death. Move to mercury if you would like to life on a 'balanced' world.
how can you make that difference? I mean, I am all for viewing humans as the pinnacle of life, but your view is extremly human centric. Why is it that the development from beastly, bloodthirsty wolve to a cute, little, naket chiwauwa is 'microevolution' while loosing hair and getting a bigger brain (ape -> man) is macroevolution. I am no genetics expert but I do strongly suspect that we have more in common with chimps, anatomicly and socially, than little 'rat'-dogs with wolves.
The answer lies in your question. You condem all who are 'selfish'. In your ideal world, you should care and look after me while I'd do the same for you. Yet, some people just don't see the greatness of your plan. And since you are the one that is affected by my negligence, you wish for some form of sanction in the afterlife to scare me into being 'unselfish'. Now, what I don't get is, why can't we just cut the crap and say that everyone only is responsible to himself?
So, you would say that dogs are the same species as wolves?
the *overall* order decreases. This does not exclude a local increase at the expense of a decrease somewhere else.
Your sampling of good developers may be limited to your dad, thus your opinion is apropriately biased.
Quite true. Statistically it doesn't matter at all. Also, he is way old school and doesn't like the relativly new OO stuff very much. Incidentally, few days after I wrote the original post, I did need multiple inheritance. It occured to me that it is quite cumbersome to implement a new method of an interface into all it's subclasses, eventhough you need the special case making this method necessary only in one. In light of this new experience I fully agree with the first answer to the grandparent: 'usually you don't need it, but if, you need it badly'. I also agree with your point, that when using multiple inheritance the design must be well thought through. My personal guess as to why it didn't make it into java is not that java is aimed at novices (especially J2EE java is not easy) but that it was just to much trouble to implement.