A more plausible story is that this asshole never knew how to code to begin with, somehow got a quality assurance job, and under idiot management, managed to do absolutely nothing for six years, until somewhere higher up the chain started asking "Why is so much shitty code making it into production?"
At which point, our moronic friend was outed.
The $200,000 claim is likely utterly false, unless he was taking bribes to let shit code get through.
I feel like I just read a Weekly World News article. The next article must have been "Bat Boy gets job programming in Bay Area! Seen buying a cafe late at Starbucks!"
I'm sorry. I just don't believe this. First of all, what kind of quality assurance job, particularly code review, would allow you to automate most of what you do? I would suggest any programmer capable of so significantly automating their job that they can sit back for over five years and jerk off would be among the most elite programmers on the planet...
Which leads to the absurdity of the second claim, that the individual forgot how to program. Now I can imagine someone getting a bit rusty after four or five years of not coding. I've actually gone through fairly long stretches, as long as a couple of years, over the last decade I've done more management-end work, not doing much in the way of coding, and while I admit that it takes me a day or two to get back into the rhythm when I need to do it, in pretty short order I'm backing in fighting shape. It might mean some refamiliarizing with libraries, and if there's new versions or new tools, I might take a while to get acclimatized, but really within a week I can get on that bike again.
I don't think I'm a genius. I just think that once you actually learn to code, you don't really forget. A long stretch would certainly mean you've got some learning, but if you were a coder of any worth, which someone who can automate their entire job ought to be, you'll pick it up soon enough.
In fact, the whole thing sounds like an absolute load of shit, some anonymous poster yanking chains. Let's see:
1. Essentially claiming absurd levels of technical competence. 2. Bizarre claims of forgetting how to do the very thing he claims he was so competent at. 3. Claims of boatloads of money. This is the real teller for me. Why do these liars always have to invent claims of great amounts of cash?
In one weekend at least two people sought to kill LGBT people in large numbers. One succeeded, the other was caught before he could carry out the attacks. Yes, in absolute numbers, the mass murder in Orlando is insignificant, and yet, it isn't an insignificant act, and it's not the first time someone has obtained high powered weapons and used them to kill a lot of people. It's certainly not the first time someone who at least some other people knew was mentally unfit managed to get high powered weapons and kill a lot of people.
What you're arguing is little different than arguing we don't really need police at all, because, you know, in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, even without cops, most people won't die violently.
In modern times, the collapse of tyrannies has almost always involved the army of those nations either turning on the leaders, or the commanders ordering their men to stay in their barracks. All but the flimsiest modern governments have firepower so great that there is no way a mass insurrection without the direct or tacit backing of the army could ever hope to succeed. Even the USSR finally collapsed because the Red Army refused to follow the orders of the leaders of the putsch.
Do you seriously think even the best-armed private militia could meaningfully prevent the US government? Even a century and a half ago, the Confederacy was ultimately incapable, and it hard a very large, well-equipped army and not insignificant naval resources at its disposal.
The Second Amendment was written in an age when a militia and a government military force were at parity in military capacity. The Continental Army had at least reasonable odds against the British Army and allied mercenary groups. Less than a century after the Revolutionary War, the hand had tipped so far in favor in government military capacity that even a well-armed military force couldn't withstand US troops.
The only reason any private militias in the US survive at all is because the Constitution acts as a constraint on Federal and/or State forces simply blowing all those crazy survivalists in the mountains of Oregon and Washington State to smithereens. I mean, Jesus fcuking Christ, if the US government stopped being constrained, they could literally launch missiles at these little private armies, and terminate them completely.
The Second Amendment as it is written was an anachronism within 80 years of its being penned. Now, it's just a bizarre joke.
I'm not saying there aren't atheists who are fervently anti-theistic, reactionary and at times exhibiting behaviors that are typical of more extreme forms of religiosity.
But me, I lack belief in God. It's not that I don't deny that such a being could exist, it's that I honestly see no point to such a being, and if one is going to invoke a Prime Mover as a necessity, then I'll just apply Occam's razor, take the attributes needed to explain the universe (by making the universe its own cause), and get rid of what I view as the unnecessary entity.
That's not to say that God couldn't exist, and that I'm totally wrong. In that respect, I suppose I'm an agnostic atheist. That tends to make me a little less doctrinaire, I suppose, and I really do have little time for the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, whose brand of anti-theism I tend to find fairly infantile.
Origin of the Species is full of problems; most glaringly Darwin didn't actually have a mechanism of inheritance when he wrote it.
Of course, a guy named Gregor Mendel was busily finding the solution to that even as Darwin was publishing.
And i'll wager you've never read Origins, nor are you the least bit familiar with biology or evolution, because the evidence for speciation and evolution is overwhelming, and has been for well over a century.
And you know what, none of it has anything to do with atheism. The man who wrote the essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the greatest biologists in history, and a practicing Orthodox Christian.
Or, to put it more simply, you're a fucking ignoramus.
And your definition of religion is just your private definition. Wouldn't you say trying to foist a private definition into a debate is fundamentally dishonest?
Can you provide the citation for this belief system. Being an atheist, I'd like to know what parts of my "belief system" I'm missing. Go on, provide the list of citations.
Unless you're just making the claim up, in which case you should ask yourself why you feel compelled to lie about what other people believe or disbelieve.
Really? And what structures are those? Be specific. Being an atheist, I want to know what structures you think I am involved in, so go on, provide a list.
There are fifty dead people in Florida, and many more who are wounded, many seriously, who are sure happy that your paranoia is intact. What's fifty lives next to the unlimited access to high powered weapons.
They're buying nothing... Nothing at all... A bunch of email addresses and a bunch of technologies that are either worthless or long ago replicated elsewhere. Yahoo isn't worth one millionth of whatever its pieces manage to earn in its dismantling. It was a worthless bit of property a decade ago, and it has only depreciated since then.
And how many binaries are out in the wild now that are happily dumping debug data in production environments? Just because from now on the compiler doesn't perform what really is a very bad fucking idea doesn't mean that binaries compiled while it was doing this moronic and stupid thing aren't creating potential security and usability issues.
If it is doing undocumented dumps of data or program state, then yes, it very well could violate many jurisdictions' privacy and accountability laws, even where the data isn't directly leaving the system.
Slashdot Mirror
A more plausible story is that this asshole never knew how to code to begin with, somehow got a quality assurance job, and under idiot management, managed to do absolutely nothing for six years, until somewhere higher up the chain started asking "Why is so much shitty code making it into production?"
At which point, our moronic friend was outed.
The $200,000 claim is likely utterly false, unless he was taking bribes to let shit code get through.
I feel like I just read a Weekly World News article. The next article must have been "Bat Boy gets job programming in Bay Area! Seen buying a cafe late at Starbucks!"
I'm sorry. I just don't believe this. First of all, what kind of quality assurance job, particularly code review, would allow you to automate most of what you do? I would suggest any programmer capable of so significantly automating their job that they can sit back for over five years and jerk off would be among the most elite programmers on the planet...
Which leads to the absurdity of the second claim, that the individual forgot how to program. Now I can imagine someone getting a bit rusty after four or five years of not coding. I've actually gone through fairly long stretches, as long as a couple of years, over the last decade I've done more management-end work, not doing much in the way of coding, and while I admit that it takes me a day or two to get back into the rhythm when I need to do it, in pretty short order I'm backing in fighting shape. It might mean some refamiliarizing with libraries, and if there's new versions or new tools, I might take a while to get acclimatized, but really within a week I can get on that bike again.
I don't think I'm a genius. I just think that once you actually learn to code, you don't really forget. A long stretch would certainly mean you've got some learning, but if you were a coder of any worth, which someone who can automate their entire job ought to be, you'll pick it up soon enough.
In fact, the whole thing sounds like an absolute load of shit, some anonymous poster yanking chains. Let's see:
1. Essentially claiming absurd levels of technical competence.
2. Bizarre claims of forgetting how to do the very thing he claims he was so competent at.
3. Claims of boatloads of money. This is the real teller for me. Why do these liars always have to invent claims of great amounts of cash?
Yes, and the armies that refused to step in to save the dictators. Now, look at what happened in Syria and Iran...
Anybody remember Logo, with all those drawing turtles? I remember my first introduction to recursion was in Logo.
In one weekend at least two people sought to kill LGBT people in large numbers. One succeeded, the other was caught before he could carry out the attacks. Yes, in absolute numbers, the mass murder in Orlando is insignificant, and yet, it isn't an insignificant act, and it's not the first time someone has obtained high powered weapons and used them to kill a lot of people. It's certainly not the first time someone who at least some other people knew was mentally unfit managed to get high powered weapons and kill a lot of people.
What you're arguing is little different than arguing we don't really need police at all, because, you know, in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, even without cops, most people won't die violently.
In modern times, the collapse of tyrannies has almost always involved the army of those nations either turning on the leaders, or the commanders ordering their men to stay in their barracks. All but the flimsiest modern governments have firepower so great that there is no way a mass insurrection without the direct or tacit backing of the army could ever hope to succeed. Even the USSR finally collapsed because the Red Army refused to follow the orders of the leaders of the putsch.
Do you seriously think even the best-armed private militia could meaningfully prevent the US government? Even a century and a half ago, the Confederacy was ultimately incapable, and it hard a very large, well-equipped army and not insignificant naval resources at its disposal.
The Second Amendment was written in an age when a militia and a government military force were at parity in military capacity. The Continental Army had at least reasonable odds against the British Army and allied mercenary groups. Less than a century after the Revolutionary War, the hand had tipped so far in favor in government military capacity that even a well-armed military force couldn't withstand US troops.
The only reason any private militias in the US survive at all is because the Constitution acts as a constraint on Federal and/or State forces simply blowing all those crazy survivalists in the mountains of Oregon and Washington State to smithereens. I mean, Jesus fcuking Christ, if the US government stopped being constrained, they could literally launch missiles at these little private armies, and terminate them completely.
The Second Amendment as it is written was an anachronism within 80 years of its being penned. Now, it's just a bizarre joke.
So a lack of belief is now a belief?
I'm not saying there aren't atheists who are fervently anti-theistic, reactionary and at times exhibiting behaviors that are typical of more extreme forms of religiosity.
But me, I lack belief in God. It's not that I don't deny that such a being could exist, it's that I honestly see no point to such a being, and if one is going to invoke a Prime Mover as a necessity, then I'll just apply Occam's razor, take the attributes needed to explain the universe (by making the universe its own cause), and get rid of what I view as the unnecessary entity.
That's not to say that God couldn't exist, and that I'm totally wrong. In that respect, I suppose I'm an agnostic atheist. That tends to make me a little less doctrinaire, I suppose, and I really do have little time for the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, whose brand of anti-theism I tend to find fairly infantile.
There's an alternative story. The atheist died... and that was that.
Origin of the Species is full of problems; most glaringly Darwin didn't actually have a mechanism of inheritance when he wrote it.
Of course, a guy named Gregor Mendel was busily finding the solution to that even as Darwin was publishing.
And i'll wager you've never read Origins, nor are you the least bit familiar with biology or evolution, because the evidence for speciation and evolution is overwhelming, and has been for well over a century.
And you know what, none of it has anything to do with atheism. The man who wrote the essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the greatest biologists in history, and a practicing Orthodox Christian.
Or, to put it more simply, you're a fucking ignoramus.
I lack belief in God. That's a system?
And your definition of religion is just your private definition. Wouldn't you say trying to foist a private definition into a debate is fundamentally dishonest?
Can you provide the citation for this belief system. Being an atheist, I'd like to know what parts of my "belief system" I'm missing. Go on, provide the list of citations.
Unless you're just making the claim up, in which case you should ask yourself why you feel compelled to lie about what other people believe or disbelieve.
Really? And what kind of belief system's only tenet is a lack of belief in God? Not much of a system.
Really? And what structures are those? Be specific. Being an atheist, I want to know what structures you think I am involved in, so go on, provide a list.
Are you willfully trying to miss the point? Because the alternative is that you're an idiot.
Believing in something there isn't evidence for doesn't in and of itself qualify as a religion.
The American Indian would certainly concur.
There are fifty dead people in Florida, and many more who are wounded, many seriously, who are sure happy that your paranoia is intact. What's fifty lives next to the unlimited access to high powered weapons.
How can atheism be a religion? Be specific, and provide your definition of "religion"
Go away APK
They're buying nothing... Nothing at all... A bunch of email addresses and a bunch of technologies that are either worthless or long ago replicated elsewhere. Yahoo isn't worth one millionth of whatever its pieces manage to earn in its dismantling. It was a worthless bit of property a decade ago, and it has only depreciated since then.
And apparently some of these disgusting sociopathic creatures have mod points.
Here's a bit of advice, MS shill. Being a shill is the lowest activity there is. There are people that eat dog feces who I'd rate higher than a shill.
And how many binaries are out in the wild now that are happily dumping debug data in production environments? Just because from now on the compiler doesn't perform what really is a very bad fucking idea doesn't mean that binaries compiled while it was doing this moronic and stupid thing aren't creating potential security and usability issues.
If it is doing undocumented dumps of data or program state, then yes, it very well could violate many jurisdictions' privacy and accountability laws, even where the data isn't directly leaving the system.