Dude, that's a corporate culture and/or a personal dicipline issue. Learn how to tell people to f*ck off unequivocally, and most of them will respect you for being forthright.
Never ever be nice to people who want to see themselves as funny, intelligen, or who want to kill time. They will do so at your expense and regret.
No, the problem is that they try and teach you to write code prematurely.
Document your application, requirements, constraints, and system interactions (what the engineer does). Then write the code (what the coder does).
It's the classical chicken and egg problem, man. Back when I was in college, we had huge introductory classes where most people mysteriously disappeared as the semester progressed.
How can you write comments and documentation at all when you don't know what code can do and how it can do it? Few people are so strongly theoretically inclined that they can follow an abstract discourse on methodology without having had hands-on experience with the subject matter at hand.
The problem is that there are a few barriers to be broken while learning to develop good software. Good team work is often one of them, as it takes experience and not just imagination to collaborate effectively.
Btw, I'm surprised nobody has pounced at the "guy that figures out how to solve the challenge presented". In my experience, a lot of bad code I've produced has been the result of drinking too much coffee and confabulating on the abilities of my program. Meanwhile, time moves on, and suddenly that A+ "how the hell did you do that?"-design has crumbled and left an "is this guy a genius or a bullshitter"-pile of source.
Languages aren't static; this type of shift happens all of the time, even if an interested group isn't pushing for the change. As numerous other posts have mentioned, 'marriage' at various times has meant a legal and/or religious bond between a white man and a white woman, a legal and/or religious bond between a man and a woman of the same race, and a legal and/or religious bond between a man and a woman of any race.
I most humbly disagree. The religious term 'marriage' has meant the same thing throughout those changes you mention. It is not the institution of marriage that has progressed w.r.t. to those changes you have mentioned, but rather society's acknowledgement of all peoples as equals in in humanity.
In retrospect, this may seem an artificial distinction to make, but I assure you that people didn't sit down and say: "Whites, blacks, and the lot of them should be able to get married!" I'd imagine somebody rather saw the inherent unfairness in having a supposed egalitarian society where one kind of people was treated as inherently inferior.
Telling someone "I'm married" communicates a commitment to one partner, a status as a responsible adult within the wider community, a recognition by the government, and possibly a recognition by a religion.
Well, if I am to recognize gay marriage to be quite as 'responsible' (God, I hate that word being thrown all over the place these days.), I'd imagine the consequences should have to be as dire if the whole thing falls over. This is the one place where "Think about the children!" actually applies. That two people promise themselves to each other is, indeed, wonderful. Yet I don't want to have to nod and think, "yes, those are responsible members of society" about two people entering into a commitment where nothing but emotions and joint possessions are at stake.
To use one of your examples, we're not saying "listen, everyone, now 'cowboy' is a verb meaning 'to arrange festive floral bouquets," we're saying "let's expand the definition of 'cowboy' to also include women who herd cows and men and women who herd water buffalo, llamas, and other large meat-producing grazing animals."
The point is that somebody saying "Let's expand the definition!" is, in itself, artificial. I'm sure that the majority of English-speakers would agree with me that the correct word would be "rancher" for anybody on horseback herding large grazing animals, with "cowboy" being more of an iconic concept.
In conclusion, I have no problem with gay/lesbian/bi/10%-people wherever they are. I've had gay men hit on me, and it doesn't bother me (it is, after all a compliment). I've also tried to pick up lesbian women with little result, and I haven't thought "damned d**e" after that. My point is that the word "marriage" doesn't apply, being a religious term. Whatever civil contracts and personal promises people make is between them, and I am fine by the State awarding them the same rights and responsibilities overall as married people get. Lacking a) the religio-moral dimension, and b) the child dimension makes me feel it's a different sort of union altogether, though, and I would like to say I'd rather see the State remove all benefits altogether for marriages than being forced to acknowledge something to be that which I see it is not.
oh, one last thing. If this: To use one of your examples, we're not saying "listen, everyone, now 'cowboy' is a verb meaning 'to arrange festive floral bouquets," is your mode of debate, you might want to take a long look at how honest you are, specifically asking yourself the question: "Did I toss that example in there to evoke an image of the parent being a redneck, flower-hating, gay-bashing s.o.b.?" Maybe not. Yet I, as I'm sure many others, would appreciate an objective mode of discourse. Even in an inherently subjective subject matter such as this.
...hit submit too soon. Here's the post more nicely formatted:
In my experience, there is the power of choice. There will always be different choices based on morality, ethics and society. Once one amasses enough choices, one gains a world view - and thereby, a world in which to live.
To me the issue of gay marriage is a non-issue. I am religious, despite the lingual terror of my/.name. To me, the words and ideas surrounding marriage, especially the word itself, involve a man and a woman and a blessed form of covenant.
To those of you who claim that marriage was first a civil union, let me ask a historical question: Did e.g. the Saxons, or the vikings have marriages between men? Did their society award any particular status and word to same-sex promises of that kind?
The reason I ask is because the word 'marriage' is, among other things, a concept. I will never consider two men or two women to be married, to be in wedlock or to have been joined in holy matrimony. All of this is because the concepts are both defined by and tied into religions that mean exactly one thing by it, and one thing only.
I fail to see how slapping the word 'marriage' onto same-sex unions can benefit anyone. It's a mostly religious term, and, as a matter of simple linguistic household, shouldn't be redefined willy-nilly. I don't run around redefining words such as strong, courageous, friend, priest, bigot, nature, nurture, science, coward, cowboy, soldier, or king based on whether or not I want those words to apply to me.
If homosexuals are particularly in vogue one day, I don't claim to be a homosexual, because that term doesn't apply to me (cue all the comments on homophobia being a sign of latent homosexuality).
If we are at all to have a common language - and one that can be used by us all, we can't be idly permissive about the meanings of words. I do not consider the unions of men nor of women to be religious in nature, and therein lies the problem: A religious term is being usurped by those who clearly not fall under it. It is being used to describe a relationship inherently forbidden by the same religions whence the term sprang.
This may be scandalous of me, but I just don't mind any of the benefits bestowed upon married couples to be bestowed upon gay couples also. I would have wished that the more vocal people among the gay would have the courage to choose their own words - to stand for what they so staunchly believe is right, if they believe Christianity to be so wrong.
In my experience, there is the power of choice. There will always be different choices based on morality, ethics and society. Once one amasses enough choices, one gains a world view - and thereby, a world in which to live.
To me the issue of gay marriage is a non-issue. I am religious, despite the lingual terror of my/.name. To me, the words and ideas surrounding marriage, especially the word itself, involve a man and a woman and a blessed form of covenant.
To those of you who claim that marriage was first a civil union, let me ask a historical question: Did e.g. the Saxons, or the vikings have marriages between men? Did their society award any particular status and word to same-sex promises of that kind?
The reason I ask is because the word 'marriage' is, among other things, a concept. I will never consider two men or two women to be married, to be in wedlock or to have been joined in holy matrimony. All of this is because the concepts are both defined by and tied into religions that mean exactly one thing by it, and one thing only.
I fail to see how slapping the word 'marriage' onto same-sex unions can benefit anyone. It's a mostly religious term, and, as a matter of simple linguistic household, shouldn't be redefined willy-nilly. I don't run around redefining words such as strong, courageous, friend, priest, bigot, nature, nurture, science, coward, cowboy, soldier, or king based on whether or not I want those words to apply to me.
If homosexuals are particularly in vogue one day, I don't claim to be a homosexual, because that term doesn't apply to me (cue all the comments on homophobia being a sign of latent homosexuality).
If we are at all to have a common language - and one that can be used by us all, we can't be idly permissive about the meanings of words. I do not consider the unions of men nor of women to be religious in nature, and therein lies the problem: A religious term is being usurped by those who clearly not fall under it. It is being used to describe a relationship inherently forbidden by the same religions whence the term sprang.
This may be scandalous of me, but I just don't mind any of the benefits bestowed upon married couples to be bestowed upon gay couples also. I would have wished that the more vocal people among the gay would have the courage to choose their own words - to stand for what they so staunchly believe is right, if they believe Christianity to be so wrong.
That's actually the criticism many people have of Christianity, you realise? As pertaining to trying to fit findings to a theory rather than theory to available evidence.
That may be. Yet that only makes it twice as grievous when such a practice is continued under a new cloak.
For those of you that still haven't resolved with yourselves what irony is: Forgetting to check the formatting on a post about personal will for Quality (r) would be precisely that which is irony.
Well, your logic is hard to refute. If you go to the job merely to make money, that's your deal, lot and burden in life.
One question, though: What does your money do for you? Buy you goods and services you say?
Where do those goods and services come from?
I may be a stubborn bastard, but I don't make crap. I don't present crap. If I can't make something to my own satisfaction, it will not be seen by others.
Money to me is a necessary evil to allow people to trade fairly (and, by failing to prevent trading unfairly, that, too, of course).
But you can really go to your job and pity yourself (or act reactively to your self-pity and pretend that you're an assertive fellow). That's your choice to make, and my choices are mine, so don't you try telling me what my professional goals are, Mister/Ms. Anonymous Coward
but what about all the spinoffs? if a few key statements had been patented just when the modern philosophers really started picking up steam...
Nietszche: "Shit, can't say that. Patented by Goethe."
Goethe: "Dang. Patented by Kant"
Kant: "Fricken' ey! The English got that one."
(Disclaimer: Chronology not a point. I don't know jack shit about these men's real philosophical accomplishments.)
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, that's a corporate culture and/or a personal dicipline issue. Learn how to tell people to f*ck off unequivocally, and most of them will respect you for being forthright. Never ever be nice to people who want to see themselves as funny, intelligen, or who want to kill time. They will do so at your expense and regret.
No, the problem is that they try and teach you to write code prematurely.
Document your application, requirements, constraints, and system interactions (what the engineer does). Then write the code (what the coder does).
It's the classical chicken and egg problem, man. Back when I was in college, we had huge introductory classes where most people mysteriously disappeared as the semester progressed.
How can you write comments and documentation at all when you don't know what code can do and how it can do it? Few people are so strongly theoretically inclined that they can follow an abstract discourse on methodology without having had hands-on experience with the subject matter at hand.
The problem is that there are a few barriers to be broken while learning to develop good software. Good team work is often one of them, as it takes experience and not just imagination to collaborate effectively.
Btw, I'm surprised nobody has pounced at the "guy that figures out how to solve the challenge presented". In my experience, a lot of bad code I've produced has been the result of drinking too much coffee and confabulating on the abilities of my program. Meanwhile, time moves on, and suddenly that A+ "how the hell did you do that?"-design has crumbled and left an "is this guy a genius or a bullshitter"-pile of source.
Chickens and eggs, man. Just gotta dig in.
You don't?
I most humbly disagree. The religious term 'marriage' has meant the same thing throughout those changes you mention. It is not the institution of marriage that has progressed w.r.t. to those changes you have mentioned, but rather society's acknowledgement of all peoples as equals in in humanity.
In retrospect, this may seem an artificial distinction to make, but I assure you that people didn't sit down and say: "Whites, blacks, and the lot of them should be able to get married!" I'd imagine somebody rather saw the inherent unfairness in having a supposed egalitarian society where one kind of people was treated as inherently inferior.
Telling someone "I'm married" communicates a commitment to one partner, a status as a responsible adult within the wider community, a recognition by the government, and possibly a recognition by a religion.
Well, if I am to recognize gay marriage to be quite as 'responsible' (God, I hate that word being thrown all over the place these days.), I'd imagine the consequences should have to be as dire if the whole thing falls over. This is the one place where "Think about the children!" actually applies. That two people promise themselves to each other is, indeed, wonderful. Yet I don't want to have to nod and think, "yes, those are responsible members of society" about two people entering into a commitment where nothing but emotions and joint possessions are at stake.
To use one of your examples, we're not saying "listen, everyone, now 'cowboy' is a verb meaning 'to arrange festive floral bouquets," we're saying "let's expand the definition of 'cowboy' to also include women who herd cows and men and women who herd water buffalo, llamas, and other large meat-producing grazing animals."
The point is that somebody saying "Let's expand the definition!" is, in itself, artificial. I'm sure that the majority of English-speakers would agree with me that the correct word would be "rancher" for anybody on horseback herding large grazing animals, with "cowboy" being more of an iconic concept.
In conclusion, I have no problem with gay/lesbian/bi/10%-people wherever they are. I've had gay men hit on me, and it doesn't bother me (it is, after all a compliment). I've also tried to pick up lesbian women with little result, and I haven't thought "damned d**e" after that. My point is that the word "marriage" doesn't apply, being a religious term. Whatever civil contracts and personal promises people make is between them, and I am fine by the State awarding them the same rights and responsibilities overall as married people get. Lacking a) the religio-moral dimension, and b) the child dimension makes me feel it's a different sort of union altogether, though, and I would like to say I'd rather see the State remove all benefits altogether for marriages than being forced to acknowledge something to be that which I see it is not.
oh, one last thing. If this: To use one of your examples, we're not saying "listen, everyone, now 'cowboy' is a verb meaning 'to arrange festive floral bouquets," is your mode of debate, you might want to take a long look at how honest you are, specifically asking yourself the question: "Did I toss that example in there to evoke an image of the parent being a redneck, flower-hating, gay-bashing s.o.b.?" Maybe not. Yet I, as I'm sure many others, would appreciate an objective mode of discourse. Even in an inherently subjective subject matter such as this.
...hit submit too soon. Here's the post more nicely formatted:
/.name. To me, the words and ideas surrounding marriage, especially the word itself, involve a man and a woman and a blessed form of covenant.
In my experience, there is the power of choice. There will always be different choices based on morality, ethics and society. Once one amasses enough choices, one gains a world view - and thereby, a world in which to live.
To me the issue of gay marriage is a non-issue. I am religious, despite the lingual terror of my
To those of you who claim that marriage was first a civil union, let me ask a historical question: Did e.g. the Saxons, or the vikings have marriages between men? Did their society award any particular status and word to same-sex promises of that kind?
The reason I ask is because the word 'marriage' is, among other things, a concept. I will never consider two men or two women to be married, to be in wedlock or to have been joined in holy matrimony. All of this is because the concepts are both defined by and tied into religions that mean exactly one thing by it, and one thing only.
I fail to see how slapping the word 'marriage' onto same-sex unions can benefit anyone. It's a mostly religious term, and, as a matter of simple linguistic household, shouldn't be redefined willy-nilly. I don't run around redefining words such as strong, courageous, friend, priest, bigot, nature, nurture, science, coward, cowboy, soldier, or king based on whether or not I want those words to apply to me.
If homosexuals are particularly in vogue one day, I don't claim to be a homosexual, because that term doesn't apply to me (cue all the comments on homophobia being a sign of latent homosexuality).
If we are at all to have a common language - and one that can be used by us all, we can't be idly permissive about the meanings of words. I do not consider the unions of men nor of women to be religious in nature, and therein lies the problem: A religious term is being usurped by those who clearly not fall under it. It is being used to describe a relationship inherently forbidden by the same religions whence the term sprang.
This may be scandalous of me, but I just don't mind any of the benefits bestowed upon married couples to be bestowed upon gay couples also. I would have wished that the more vocal people among the gay would have the courage to choose their own words - to stand for what they so staunchly believe is right, if they believe Christianity to be so wrong.
In my experience, there is the power of choice. There will always be different choices based on morality, ethics and society. Once one amasses enough choices, one gains a world view - and thereby, a world in which to live. To me the issue of gay marriage is a non-issue. I am religious, despite the lingual terror of my /.name. To me, the words and ideas surrounding marriage, especially the word itself, involve a man and a woman and a blessed form of covenant.
To those of you who claim that marriage was first a civil union, let me ask a historical question: Did e.g. the Saxons, or the vikings have marriages between men? Did their society award any particular status and word to same-sex promises of that kind?
The reason I ask is because the word 'marriage' is, among other things, a concept. I will never consider two men or two women to be married, to be in wedlock or to have been joined in holy matrimony. All of this is because the concepts are both defined by and tied into religions that mean exactly one thing by it, and one thing only.
I fail to see how slapping the word 'marriage' onto same-sex unions can benefit anyone. It's a mostly religious term, and, as a matter of simple linguistic household, shouldn't be redefined willy-nilly. I don't run around redefining words such as strong, courageous, friend, priest, bigot, nature, nurture, science, coward, cowboy, soldier, or king based on whether or not I want those words to apply to me.
If homosexuals are particularly in vogue one day, I don't claim to be a homosexual, because that term doesn't apply to me (cue all the comments on homophobia being a sign of latent homosexuality).
If we are at all to have a common language - and one that can be used by us all, we can't be idly permissive about the meanings of words. I do not consider the unions of men nor of women to be religious in nature, and therein lies the problem: A religious term is being usurped by those who clearly not fall under it. It is being used to describe a relationship inherently forbidden by the same religions whence the term sprang.
This may be scandalous of me, but I just don't mind any of the benefits bestowed upon married couples to be bestowed upon gay couples also. I would have wished that the more vocal people among the gay would have the courage to choose their own words - to stand for what they so staunchly believe is right, if they believe Christianity to be so wrong.
Yet being out of town and in a rugged landscape might yield other relative efficiency results.
That's actually the criticism many people have of Christianity, you realise? As pertaining to trying to fit findings to a theory rather than theory to available evidence.
That may be. Yet that only makes it twice as grievous when such a practice is continued under a new cloak.
I always knew there was something filthy about touch typists.
These guys will have a solution for you. They know how to recover the data. They know how to erase it past any hope of recovery.
Disclaimer: Affiliations from past work experience.
For those of you that still haven't resolved with yourselves what irony is: Forgetting to check the formatting on a post about personal will for Quality (r) would be precisely that which is irony.
Well, your logic is hard to refute. If you go to the job merely to make money, that's your deal, lot and burden in life. One question, though: What does your money do for you? Buy you goods and services you say? Where do those goods and services come from? I may be a stubborn bastard, but I don't make crap. I don't present crap. If I can't make something to my own satisfaction, it will not be seen by others. Money to me is a necessary evil to allow people to trade fairly (and, by failing to prevent trading unfairly, that, too, of course). But you can really go to your job and pity yourself (or act reactively to your self-pity and pretend that you're an assertive fellow). That's your choice to make, and my choices are mine, so don't you try telling me what my professional goals are, Mister/Ms. Anonymous Coward
but what about all the spinoffs? if a few key statements had been patented just when the modern philosophers really started picking up steam... Nietszche: "Shit, can't say that. Patented by Goethe." Goethe: "Dang. Patented by Kant" Kant: "Fricken' ey! The English got that one." (Disclaimer: Chronology not a point. I don't know jack shit about these men's real philosophical accomplishments.)
Oh yeah? (sorry. this is way lame of me)