Was Lori Drew's intentions to kill the girl or not? Maybe but you can't be absolutely sure.
So we're debating between murder and manslaughter?
The most important problem with your statement is that the girl wasn't relatively healthy. She was already on medication with a known side effect of increased suicidal thoughts.
Relative, is well, relative. Compared to Jack's clients, she was in pristine shape. She was emotionally unhealthy, and her drugs didn't help, but the condition (SFAIK) was a temporary one and the perscription was not intended to be a life long treatment. Had it not been for Drew's intervention, Megen would have likely lived an average lifespan.
If I say you are ugly and you go kill yourself, should I be held accountable for killing you?
Slight difference. How about if you spent weeks getting close to someone you knew to be psychologically unstable, then after gaining their trust, you verbally attack them repeatedly, and tell them, in no jest and with no good will, that they should go kill themself.
I don't know of any examples, but if you remove the computer from the equation, what would have been the result? If instead of instant messages and emails it was face to face scream fests and insulting phone calls?
Personally, I don't think either Jack or Lori deserve a murder rap. And while both are repulsive I can at least understand a moral and ethical code and social responsibility to Jack's work.
He's making the point that the author's point is rather dumb.
The author is arguing that by making it law that people who push others into suicide can be held accountable, more people will commit suicide.
So, by doing something that hurts themselves, they can gain something.
In the case of the car, by losing the car, he gains the insurance payoff or a new car.
In the case of the suicidal, by killing themselves, they gain vengeance.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think most people on the verge of suicide are contemplating the likelihood of legal repercussions on their enemies. That's a little premeditated for most of the heavily depressed/suicidal people I've known and interacted with.
Here's what boggles me though:
Jack Kevorkian helped terminally ill people who had made a rational decision to end their lives with dignity, was convicted of 2nd degree murder and spent 8 years in jail.
Lori Drew drove a (relatively) healthy young lady to make an irrational decision to end her life, was convicted of a few misdemeanors, and is not imprisoned.
Ehh, my presentation wasn't that great. But I'm not lobbying the CEO to buy a new beowulf cluster here;)
But the point is you can just build a tower and throw an antena on it and call it finished. There is a lot more that goes into building cell towers.
My assertion, that it costs millions to build and maintain Cell towers is provably accurate. I could post press release after press release from all of the major providers showing average investments from 1.5 to 4 million dollars per tower. But I'm sure you are just as capable of googling such information on your own.
As for believing them, yeah, I do. They are publicly traded companies, making false press releases and publicly advertising fake costs would bring a world of pain down on them, and to what gain? The company doesn't gain a whole lot be releasing a statement saying they're spending $40 mil in a geographical area instead of $20 mil or $60 mil.
If you have any factual evidence to back up your opinion that it does not cost millions to build and maintain a commercial carrier grade cell tower, please post it. Prove me wrong and I will gladly change my stance.
You sucking figures out of Cingular's ass doesn't make it true
As opposed to your arm chair estimates with no understanding of TCO, the technology, the business, or the construction? I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've seen enough of the industry to have an idea, and Cingular's press release doesn't seem out of line with what I would expect to see.
Odds are some of those towers were more than 3 mil, and some were well under. If they spent 10 mil on a single tower, the average for the other 29 towers would drop to 2 mil, which really isn't that big of a jump.
Depending on the land leases they can get (I've heard of everything from $250,000 up front with a $50k annual down to 12k annual with 5k up front in Wisconsin) the costs can vary wildly. Toss in another 1/4 mil to get a large monopole tower up. Another 100k for the antenas and electrical. Another 60k for a site structure. And another 100k to get a OC* burried from the tower to a provider.
Now that the tower is up you need a drive crew to map out signal strength and interaction between different towers. Then you need the engineers to come up with alignment changes and hand off patterns while the tower crew tweeks the tower and the drive guys keep circling.
Then you figure each tower is going to need some number of hours of skilled labor inspection every year and will have a set amount of maintenance they will have to pay for. Not to mention the continuing expense of the OC* line.
If the tower has an expect life of 20 years, 2 mil is by no means a stretch and 3 mil is totally possible. And if they are trying to build larger towers or get into more densly populated areas, they are going to be paying more for every single part of the project.
Same is true in Wisconsin. In the late 90's early 2000's US Cellular covered Wisconsin in CDMA towers and networks.
At first Sprint and Verizon were only covering major metros and interstates. But in order to be competitive in the area they needed more coverage. And US Cellular, while having an awesome network, didn't have the cash on hand to advertise and push demand. So Verizon buys (or leases, I have no idea on the details) service on US Cellular's network. Verizon went from insignificant coverage to almost total coverage of the state and US Cellular gets a nice chunk of change to pay for the network and their own growth.
Later on, AT&T and/or TMob got service in the area. This carrier, if it latched onto your phone, would not let it go, especially if you came into town from the North or West. You had to get downtown and power cycle your phone usually, and maybe do that three times.
That is actually pretty standard. Once your call roams to another network, the other network's hand off mappings are only configured for their own towers. So the only way to get off of a "roaming" network is to end your call, disable the roaming feature on your phone (or return to an area where your carrier has the best signal).
It's been a few years since I've been in the industry, but I would be surprised if the major players haven't been optimizing their phones and networks to try to get off network calls handed off back to the carrier's network.
Your inability to calculate TCO doesn't actually make it cheaper:
From a Cingular Press release.
Cingular Wireless has spent almost $90 million building more than 30 new cell sites throughout Indiana in 2005. This includes key sites in the following Indianapolis areas...
When you go into roaming, you are using your provider's competitor's network. The competition wants to make money to pay for their tower, and you are not their customer, so they are going to bill your provider an arm an a leg for access, and your provider will pass those costs on to you.
Even more so, the more the competition charges for roaming calls, the more upset you will be with your provider, and if you need to go into roaming often enough, you will be more likely to leave your provider and join up with the very competitor that had been billing 50 cents a minute for the same call you are now making for 10 cents a minute.
Although, with all the new peering and leasing agreements going on, we'll likely see less and less of roaming fees from any provider that owns some amount of their own towers.
On Slashdot Post: "IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
At any tech user group meeting stand up and say: "IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
And then come back and say that "anonymity doesn't affect anyone"
By harm I mean provable physical or monetary damages.
Part of successfully arguing a libel/defamation case is proving damage. If the shop owner did not suffer any loss of business, he would be hard pressed to successfully prove defamation, and even if he did prove defamation, with out damages in civil court, there would be nothing for him to recoup.
That matters entirely on jurisdiction. Also depending on the context an opinion that is an expression of fact may still be liable if the person making the comment is believed by the listeners to have sufficient knowledge as to be able to make a factual statement.
Also, from all accounts at this point in time, his store is spotlessly clean, and he is getting tons of free publicity. Maybe not such a dumb move after all.
First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed.
So you would rather allow the government to hear a case and possible find against you with out ever informing you of the charges or allowing you to defend yourself, then using that trial as cause to determine your identity and hold you accountable?
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
This is where it gets sticky.
The store owner is claiming that they defamed him. The store owner (just like every other American) has legal protection from slander and libel. The only way to (legally) know for sure is to take the speakers to trial. It could be that they are not guilty of anything, or it could be that they are guilty of liable. But the only way to know for sure is to allow the shop owner to sue them.
But who can he sue? John Doe? Even if John Doe is convicted of liable in abstinencia (err what ever it is called when you are tried with out being present) who would they punish for it? Libel I believe is just a tort, a civil crime. So no one is going to be arrested, and it is unlikely that an over worked DA is going to do a whole lot for you.
Was it Jefferson who said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"?
Same basic deal, your right to free speech ends when your words impead other peoples rights.
Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" != You can make false statements that harm another person.
Or if you'd like to switch it up a bit, I can exercise my 1st amendment rights as many people around here seem to think of them to inform your family, coworkers, significant other, x-girl friends, and neighbors that you are actually an un-register sex offender that has aids.
I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right?/sarcasm
The whole thing makes me sceptical. Especially the author's personal notes he injects, like this gem:
Wang noted that millions of these fiber pairs, each about one centimeter long, would be have to be woven into about 9 square feet of fabric (which would make for a shirt the size of really big poncho)to power an iPod.
9 square feet is a really big poncho? That's a 3x3' square. Most adult sized rain ponchos are well over 3'. Here's one that comes in at 45x53" (over 16.5 square feet) and only covers to waist to elbo. 9 square feet is probably a lot closer to XL T-shirt size than it is poncho size.
If the guy has issues comprehending something as simple as the size of 9 square feet, how can we trust him with the more complex underlying technology?
Without knowing how it works, you have no way to gauge whether it is the correct tool to use or not.
You seem like an intelligent fellow. I would venture a guess that you comprehend the basics of an internal combustion engine. You understand that an air fuel mixture is compressed and ignighted and the resulting expantion is used to force a piston down, turning a crank shaft and producing torque.
Now, if we assume that you know that, and follow your logic, you should not be able decide if a car is an appropriate means of transportations.
Why? Because I doubt that you are intimately familiar with the underlying technology of your car. The electronic control systems, the fuel delivery system, the air delivery system, the exhaust, etc...
Do you honestly know the composition of all of the catalitic converters on your car and the temperatures they require to opperate correctly and the exact chemical reactions they produce to reduce your car's emissions? Do you know the composition of your engine block, it's rate of expansion, it's ability to transfer heat? Do you know the displacement of your heads, the valve presure, the oil gally routes? etc...
And to my point, does knowing any of that make you a better driver?
As for the GC issue. So long as a developer understands scope, and the basics of how memory works (this is the heap, this is the stack) then they are perfectly capable of making such a decision. Just as knowing the simple basics of how a car works allows a person to make decisions about their means of transportation, even if they can't tell a wankle from a otto.
I would venture a guess that many of the people who have contributed code to the/. code base do not know how garbage collection works.
I would venture a guess that the majority of people who actively develop small business (and even large business) software solutions using managed code libraries don't know the intricacies of how garbage collection works.
So long as they understand scope, and that the GC will clear memory when it decides it needs to, they are perfectly capable of writing great applications. Understanding they underlying windows pump messages and assembly level memory interactions is a waste of time.
Is it good to know? Sure. But it will not make them a better application developer. And anyone who is cowboy enough to try to rewrite a memory management system while on contract has no business being on contract in the first place. The tools already exist, use them. If you want to design new tools, and you want to get into the intricacies of the GC, get a job with Microsoft, Sun, IBM or even the smaller 3rd party tool designer companies where you will be working on creating the next generation of tools. There are significantly more jobs for people who use the tools than those who design them.
You want to talk about stupid reads, see how your CIO would feel about reading your time sheets with 200 hours dedicated to creating a new memory management system for an ERP application.
If you don't know how garbage collection and compilers work, then IMO, you are not a Programmer. You're only a code-monkey at best, somebody who can bang rocks together and can make things happen, but is incapable of anything higher-level than that. One of those useless management types, at best.
Going with your definitions, I've seen a "Programmer" cost a company half a million dollars in a single day. And I've seen "Code monkeys" develop top notch applications that saved companies millions of dollars every year.
Personally, the debate doesn't matter to me. You may take offense that a "code monkey" who doesn't deal with assemblers or GC gets paid more than you, and the code monkeys may be offended by your pretentiousness, but in the end, it still takes both types of mind sets to push the future of software development.
Those technicalities are what you're trying to teach. Or you should be, anyway.
Ahh, but your initial assertion was that it is easier to EXPLAIN cout << "output" << endl;. Not that it was better teaching material.
I would concur with you on that side. If your goal is to teach computer science bridging from machine code to high level languages, then C is a better route. If your goal is to write code that can be quickly and easily explained and immediately obvious to later reviewers, the Java/C# (or even C++) option is a better route.
Your way does not produce programmers. It produces script-kiddies.
No need for a pissing match. Not everyone who uses managed code is a "script-kiddie". And not everyone who codes in C is a Computer Scientist.
You'll never bill time to a contract for developing your own compiler. (**except in a very limited number of situations). And only a handful of developers in the world will ever work on embedded software where memory management tools are not available.
Is it good to understand how garbage collection works? Sure. Is it great to have the knowledge of how compilers work? absolutely! Will either make you a better developer in the vast majority of software development positions in the world? nope.
But there are still great things that can be done with that knowledge, and there will always be a small demand for people who have studied hard on the subjects and are willing to push the envelop and work with the lower level technology. So I think it is excellent that it is taught in Universities.
But for the vast majority of computer programmers in the world, such lessons will have no significant impact on their professional careers. Which is why I think it is excellent that it is NOT taught in Tech Schools. (depends on the school actually, most programs that I've seen still cover a semester or two of C++ pointers, memory management, and compiler directives, but nothing compared to the in depth focus most University programs do)
The most recent test I've seen had a variety of prac app questions on it. Including one that had a SQL question to hand write a 4 table join query a long with a few twists.
We were just looking to hire a junior body in as well. They all took that same test. Some people couldn't get past the first question. Some people couldn't get past a simple loop. Some people couldn't get past the easy SQL statement. And some couldn't get past the "hard" SQL question.
But we weren't looking for a SQL pro who could nail recursion and reflection, we were looking for an entry level person. So if they could get the easy questions (a=b, loops, etc...) they would have the technical requirements to fulfill the role.
That said, the A=B question is the bottom of the line. If you can't pass that, you need to get more training and experience on your own dime. Answering the A=B question with out a 3rd variable screams 'cowboy'. I've worked with some extremely talented cowboy coders over the years, and I would gladly have traded any of them in for a lesser coder who can follow standards.
In this case, cout is a special object with its output side hooked to the console.
Magic. How is it attached? What type of model does it use to interact? And most importantly, who cares?
The System.out.println is much more magical, as there is absolutely no explanation for how the println prints to the console.
Again, magic. System.out is a stream object that by default prints to the console.
In either case the cout function and the System.out namespace are functionally identical for our intended use at this point.
And a "stream" is relatively easy to understand, as it's an object that can take input and produces output using stream operators.
Which requires the explaination of stream opperators, functions, and inputs..Println requires the explaination of functions and inputs.
IMO it is much easier to explain how System.out.PrintLn works because there is less technicalities exposed. The user needs to understand that there is a stream called out in the System namespace, and that they can use the PrintLn function to output a parameter to that stream. And that by default that stream is directed to the console.
For cout the user needs to understand that there is a very special stream called cout, that they need to use stream operators (that have no english representation) to output to that stream and that they need to know reserved words that can be used to indicate a line end.
As far as ease of explaination goes, the higher level language wins out, pretty much every time. It's a high level language, that's what it is designed to do.
What is a waste is calling anything taught at a tech school "Computer Science". Most of them call it something else, like "Programming" or "Computer Engineering" or even "Software Engineering". Not many call it CS any more.
Ehh, CS might not be the best term for it, but that's what it was called at the Tech schools I checked out and attended. I've seen gems of students come from both Universities and Tech Schools, I'm not about to say either is better than the other. They develope different skill sets for different purposes. That doesn't make University students smarter or Tech students better coders, it just means they are different. And the best thing to do as an individual is to attempt to learn as much as you can from both institutions.
Why would you even ask that if you weren't looking for a "clever" answer? Or are the caliber of people you're looking for so stupid that many of them might not know how to swap the values of two variables?
The caliber of people I'm looking for know how to swap the value of two variables.
The caliber of people applying do not necessarily know how to swap the value of two variables.
It is not a trick question. It is a screening question, one of many, used to quickly weed out people who do not have the technical knowledge or logic processing ability to handle the requirements of the job.
Also, if you ever see a screening question that has a compilation error, it is also likely not a trick question. It is probably a type-o or mistake by the test writer. Indicate the mistake in the margine, then give the answer that you believe fulfills the intent of the question.
System is a namespace out is a print stream object println is a function the outputs a line to the console "output" is a parameter
done.
cout "output" endl;
cout is a predefined ostream that outputs to the console
if the write operator "output" is a value endl is a keyword the represents and end of line character
done.
Now, this is just personal tastes, but "out.PrintLn()" makes a whole lot more sense than "cout " which requires you to accept the 'magic' of the operator.
The memory side of things you have a point. But how many people are writing code that they have to manage their own memory? Almost everything at this point is either managed code with garbage collection built in, or there are toolsets you can use to manage memory for you. Are you ever going to send a consultant out and let them bill a customer for the time it takes to write memory management code when they could just use and off the shelf option? (**with very few exceptions)
If you are going to a university aiming for a computer Science degree, then yeah, starting off with lower level languages is a must. If you are going to a tech school for a Computer science degree, then starting off with lower level languages is a waste.
Slashdot Mirror
Was Lori Drew's intentions to kill the girl or not? Maybe but you can't be absolutely sure.
So we're debating between murder and manslaughter?
The most important problem with your statement is that the girl wasn't relatively healthy. She was already on medication with a known side effect of increased suicidal thoughts.
Relative, is well, relative. Compared to Jack's clients, she was in pristine shape. She was emotionally unhealthy, and her drugs didn't help, but the condition (SFAIK) was a temporary one and the perscription was not intended to be a life long treatment. Had it not been for Drew's intervention, Megen would have likely lived an average lifespan.
If I say you are ugly and you go kill yourself, should I be held accountable for killing you?
Slight difference. How about if you spent weeks getting close to someone you knew to be psychologically unstable, then after gaining their trust, you verbally attack them repeatedly, and tell them, in no jest and with no good will, that they should go kill themself.
I don't know of any examples, but if you remove the computer from the equation, what would have been the result? If instead of instant messages and emails it was face to face scream fests and insulting phone calls?
Personally, I don't think either Jack or Lori deserve a murder rap. And while both are repulsive I can at least understand a moral and ethical code and social responsibility to Jack's work.
-Rick
He's making the point that the author's point is rather dumb.
The author is arguing that by making it law that people who push others into suicide can be held accountable, more people will commit suicide.
So, by doing something that hurts themselves, they can gain something.
In the case of the car, by losing the car, he gains the insurance payoff or a new car.
In the case of the suicidal, by killing themselves, they gain vengeance.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think most people on the verge of suicide are contemplating the likelihood of legal repercussions on their enemies. That's a little premeditated for most of the heavily depressed/suicidal people I've known and interacted with.
Here's what boggles me though:
Jack Kevorkian helped terminally ill people who had made a rational decision to end their lives with dignity, was convicted of 2nd degree murder and spent 8 years in jail.
Lori Drew drove a (relatively) healthy young lady to make an irrational decision to end her life, was convicted of a few misdemeanors, and is not imprisoned.
-Rick
Ehh, my presentation wasn't that great. But I'm not lobbying the CEO to buy a new beowulf cluster here ;)
But the point is you can just build a tower and throw an antena on it and call it finished. There is a lot more that goes into building cell towers.
My assertion, that it costs millions to build and maintain Cell towers is provably accurate. I could post press release after press release from all of the major providers showing average investments from 1.5 to 4 million dollars per tower. But I'm sure you are just as capable of googling such information on your own.
As for believing them, yeah, I do. They are publicly traded companies, making false press releases and publicly advertising fake costs would bring a world of pain down on them, and to what gain? The company doesn't gain a whole lot be releasing a statement saying they're spending $40 mil in a geographical area instead of $20 mil or $60 mil.
If you have any factual evidence to back up your opinion that it does not cost millions to build and maintain a commercial carrier grade cell tower, please post it. Prove me wrong and I will gladly change my stance.
-Rick
You sucking figures out of Cingular's ass doesn't make it true
As opposed to your arm chair estimates with no understanding of TCO, the technology, the business, or the construction? I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've seen enough of the industry to have an idea, and Cingular's press release doesn't seem out of line with what I would expect to see.
Odds are some of those towers were more than 3 mil, and some were well under. If they spent 10 mil on a single tower, the average for the other 29 towers would drop to 2 mil, which really isn't that big of a jump.
Depending on the land leases they can get (I've heard of everything from $250,000 up front with a $50k annual down to 12k annual with 5k up front in Wisconsin) the costs can vary wildly. Toss in another 1/4 mil to get a large monopole tower up. Another 100k for the antenas and electrical. Another 60k for a site structure. And another 100k to get a OC* burried from the tower to a provider.
Now that the tower is up you need a drive crew to map out signal strength and interaction between different towers. Then you need the engineers to come up with alignment changes and hand off patterns while the tower crew tweeks the tower and the drive guys keep circling.
Then you figure each tower is going to need some number of hours of skilled labor inspection every year and will have a set amount of maintenance they will have to pay for. Not to mention the continuing expense of the OC* line.
If the tower has an expect life of 20 years, 2 mil is by no means a stretch and 3 mil is totally possible. And if they are trying to build larger towers or get into more densly populated areas, they are going to be paying more for every single part of the project.
-Rick
To fix this artificial constraints that artificially inflate the cost of the cheaper methods of electricity production have to be considered.
So you're saying we should stop subsidizing the coal, nuclear, and bio-fuel agriculture industries?
-Rick
Same is true in Wisconsin. In the late 90's early 2000's US Cellular covered Wisconsin in CDMA towers and networks.
At first Sprint and Verizon were only covering major metros and interstates. But in order to be competitive in the area they needed more coverage. And US Cellular, while having an awesome network, didn't have the cash on hand to advertise and push demand. So Verizon buys (or leases, I have no idea on the details) service on US Cellular's network. Verizon went from insignificant coverage to almost total coverage of the state and US Cellular gets a nice chunk of change to pay for the network and their own growth.
-Rick
Later on, AT&T and/or TMob got service in the area. This carrier, if it latched onto your phone, would not let it go, especially if you came into town from the North or West. You had to get downtown and power cycle your phone usually, and maybe do that three times.
That is actually pretty standard. Once your call roams to another network, the other network's hand off mappings are only configured for their own towers. So the only way to get off of a "roaming" network is to end your call, disable the roaming feature on your phone (or return to an area where your carrier has the best signal).
It's been a few years since I've been in the industry, but I would be surprised if the major players haven't been optimizing their phones and networks to try to get off network calls handed off back to the carrier's network.
-Rick
Your inability to calculate TCO doesn't actually make it cheaper:
From a Cingular Press release.
Cingular Wireless has spent almost $90 million building more than 30 new cell sites throughout Indiana in 2005. This includes key sites in the following Indianapolis areas...
-Rick
It costs millions to build and maintain a tower.
When you go into roaming, you are using your provider's competitor's network. The competition wants to make money to pay for their tower, and you are not their customer, so they are going to bill your provider an arm an a leg for access, and your provider will pass those costs on to you.
Even more so, the more the competition charges for roaming calls, the more upset you will be with your provider, and if you need to go into roaming often enough, you will be more likely to leave your provider and join up with the very competitor that had been billing 50 cents a minute for the same call you are now making for 10 cents a minute.
Although, with all the new peering and leasing agreements going on, we'll likely see less and less of roaming fees from any provider that owns some amount of their own towers.
-Rick
Here's a test for you:
On Slashdot Post:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
At any tech user group meeting stand up and say:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
And then come back and say that "anonymity doesn't affect anyone"
-Rick
Straw man.
By harm I mean provable physical or monetary damages.
Part of successfully arguing a libel/defamation case is proving damage. If the shop owner did not suffer any loss of business, he would be hard pressed to successfully prove defamation, and even if he did prove defamation, with out damages in civil court, there would be nothing for him to recoup.
-Rick
Instead the definition of a reasonable person is now "idiot"
Unfortunately, the definition of a reasonable person has always been an "idiot". We just have more lawyers now exploiting that fact.
-Rick
That matters entirely on jurisdiction. Also depending on the context an opinion that is an expression of fact may still be liable if the person making the comment is believed by the listeners to have sufficient knowledge as to be able to make a factual statement.
Also, from all accounts at this point in time, his store is spotlessly clean, and he is getting tons of free publicity. Maybe not such a dumb move after all.
-Rick
I believe the appropriate response would have been to politely agree with the netadmin and perform the process he describes.
Then post on Craiglist for someone to assist in an email distribution test.
Let someone else run your spam ;)
-Rick
First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed.
So you would rather allow the government to hear a case and possible find against you with out ever informing you of the charges or allowing you to defend yourself, then using that trial as cause to determine your identity and hold you accountable?
-Rick
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
This is where it gets sticky.
The store owner is claiming that they defamed him. The store owner (just like every other American) has legal protection from slander and libel. The only way to (legally) know for sure is to take the speakers to trial. It could be that they are not guilty of anything, or it could be that they are guilty of liable. But the only way to know for sure is to allow the shop owner to sue them.
But who can he sue? John Doe? Even if John Doe is convicted of liable in abstinencia (err what ever it is called when you are tried with out being present) who would they punish for it? Libel I believe is just a tort, a civil crime. So no one is going to be arrested, and it is unlikely that an over worked DA is going to do a whole lot for you.
Was it Jefferson who said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"?
Same basic deal, your right to free speech ends when your words impead other peoples rights.
Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" != You can make false statements that harm another person.
Or if you'd like to switch it up a bit, I can exercise my 1st amendment rights as many people around here seem to think of them to inform your family, coworkers, significant other, x-girl friends, and neighbors that you are actually an un-register sex offender that has aids.
I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right? /sarcasm
-Rick
No idea, but if it means I don't need the doc to stick a finger up my bumm, I'm all for it!
-Rick
The whole thing makes me sceptical. Especially the author's personal notes he injects, like this gem:
Wang noted that millions of these fiber pairs, each about one centimeter long, would be have to be woven into about 9 square feet of fabric (which would make for a shirt the size of really big poncho)to power an iPod.
9 square feet is a really big poncho? That's a 3x3' square. Most adult sized rain ponchos are well over 3'. Here's one that comes in at 45x53" (over 16.5 square feet) and only covers to waist to elbo. 9 square feet is probably a lot closer to XL T-shirt size than it is poncho size.
If the guy has issues comprehending something as simple as the size of 9 square feet, how can we trust him with the more complex underlying technology?
-Rick
Without knowing how it works, you have no way to gauge whether it is the correct tool to use or not.
You seem like an intelligent fellow. I would venture a guess that you comprehend the basics of an internal combustion engine. You understand that an air fuel mixture is compressed and ignighted and the resulting expantion is used to force a piston down, turning a crank shaft and producing torque.
Now, if we assume that you know that, and follow your logic, you should not be able decide if a car is an appropriate means of transportations.
Why? Because I doubt that you are intimately familiar with the underlying technology of your car. The electronic control systems, the fuel delivery system, the air delivery system, the exhaust, etc...
Do you honestly know the composition of all of the catalitic converters on your car and the temperatures they require to opperate correctly and the exact chemical reactions they produce to reduce your car's emissions? Do you know the composition of your engine block, it's rate of expansion, it's ability to transfer heat? Do you know the displacement of your heads, the valve presure, the oil gally routes? etc...
And to my point, does knowing any of that make you a better driver?
As for the GC issue. So long as a developer understands scope, and the basics of how memory works (this is the heap, this is the stack) then they are perfectly capable of making such a decision. Just as knowing the simple basics of how a car works allows a person to make decisions about their means of transportation, even if they can't tell a wankle from a otto.
-Rick
I would venture a guess that many of the people who have contributed code to the /. code base do not know how garbage collection works.
I would venture a guess that the majority of people who actively develop small business (and even large business) software solutions using managed code libraries don't know the intricacies of how garbage collection works.
So long as they understand scope, and that the GC will clear memory when it decides it needs to, they are perfectly capable of writing great applications. Understanding they underlying windows pump messages and assembly level memory interactions is a waste of time.
Is it good to know? Sure. But it will not make them a better application developer. And anyone who is cowboy enough to try to rewrite a memory management system while on contract has no business being on contract in the first place. The tools already exist, use them. If you want to design new tools, and you want to get into the intricacies of the GC, get a job with Microsoft, Sun, IBM or even the smaller 3rd party tool designer companies where you will be working on creating the next generation of tools. There are significantly more jobs for people who use the tools than those who design them.
You want to talk about stupid reads, see how your CIO would feel about reading your time sheets with 200 hours dedicated to creating a new memory management system for an ERP application.
If you don't know how garbage collection and compilers work, then IMO, you are not a Programmer. You're only a code-monkey at best, somebody who can bang rocks together and can make things happen, but is incapable of anything higher-level than that. One of those useless management types, at best.
Going with your definitions, I've seen a "Programmer" cost a company half a million dollars in a single day. And I've seen "Code monkeys" develop top notch applications that saved companies millions of dollars every year.
Personally, the debate doesn't matter to me. You may take offense that a "code monkey" who doesn't deal with assemblers or GC gets paid more than you, and the code monkeys may be offended by your pretentiousness, but in the end, it still takes both types of mind sets to push the future of software development.
-Rick
Those technicalities are what you're trying to teach. Or you should be, anyway.
Ahh, but your initial assertion was that it is easier to EXPLAIN cout << "output" << endl;. Not that it was better teaching material.
I would concur with you on that side. If your goal is to teach computer science bridging from machine code to high level languages, then C is a better route. If your goal is to write code that can be quickly and easily explained and immediately obvious to later reviewers, the Java/C# (or even C++) option is a better route.
Your way does not produce programmers. It produces script-kiddies.
No need for a pissing match. Not everyone who uses managed code is a "script-kiddie". And not everyone who codes in C is a Computer Scientist.
You'll never bill time to a contract for developing your own compiler. (**except in a very limited number of situations). And only a handful of developers in the world will ever work on embedded software where memory management tools are not available.
Is it good to understand how garbage collection works? Sure. Is it great to have the knowledge of how compilers work? absolutely! Will either make you a better developer in the vast majority of software development positions in the world? nope.
But there are still great things that can be done with that knowledge, and there will always be a small demand for people who have studied hard on the subjects and are willing to push the envelop and work with the lower level technology. So I think it is excellent that it is taught in Universities.
But for the vast majority of computer programmers in the world, such lessons will have no significant impact on their professional careers. Which is why I think it is excellent that it is NOT taught in Tech Schools. (depends on the school actually, most programs that I've seen still cover a semester or two of C++ pointers, memory management, and compiler directives, but nothing compared to the in depth focus most University programs do)
-Rick
Different positions have different requirements.
The most recent test I've seen had a variety of prac app questions on it. Including one that had a SQL question to hand write a 4 table join query a long with a few twists.
We were just looking to hire a junior body in as well. They all took that same test. Some people couldn't get past the first question. Some people couldn't get past a simple loop. Some people couldn't get past the easy SQL statement. And some couldn't get past the "hard" SQL question.
But we weren't looking for a SQL pro who could nail recursion and reflection, we were looking for an entry level person. So if they could get the easy questions (a=b, loops, etc...) they would have the technical requirements to fulfill the role.
That said, the A=B question is the bottom of the line. If you can't pass that, you need to get more training and experience on your own dime. Answering the A=B question with out a 3rd variable screams 'cowboy'. I've worked with some extremely talented cowboy coders over the years, and I would gladly have traded any of them in for a lesser coder who can follow standards.
-Rick
What "magic" are you referring to?
Sorry, slashdot ate my <<.
In this case, cout is a special object with its output side hooked to the console.
Magic. How is it attached? What type of model does it use to interact? And most importantly, who cares?
The System.out.println is much more magical, as there is absolutely no explanation for how the println prints to the console.
Again, magic. System.out is a stream object that by default prints to the console.
In either case the cout function and the System.out namespace are functionally identical for our intended use at this point.
And a "stream" is relatively easy to understand, as it's an object that can take input and produces output using stream operators.
Which requires the explaination of stream opperators, functions, and inputs. .Println requires the explaination of functions and inputs.
IMO it is much easier to explain how System.out.PrintLn works because there is less technicalities exposed. The user needs to understand that there is a stream called out in the System namespace, and that they can use the PrintLn function to output a parameter to that stream. And that by default that stream is directed to the console.
For cout the user needs to understand that there is a very special stream called cout, that they need to use stream operators (that have no english representation) to output to that stream and that they need to know reserved words that can be used to indicate a line end.
As far as ease of explaination goes, the higher level language wins out, pretty much every time. It's a high level language, that's what it is designed to do.
What is a waste is calling anything taught at a tech school "Computer Science". Most of them call it something else, like "Programming" or "Computer Engineering" or even "Software Engineering". Not many call it CS any more.
Ehh, CS might not be the best term for it, but that's what it was called at the Tech schools I checked out and attended. I've seen gems of students come from both Universities and Tech Schools, I'm not about to say either is better than the other. They develope different skill sets for different purposes. That doesn't make University students smarter or Tech students better coders, it just means they are different. And the best thing to do as an individual is to attempt to learn as much as you can from both institutions.
-Rick
Why would you even ask that if you weren't looking for a "clever" answer? Or are the caliber of people you're looking for so stupid that many of them might not know how to swap the values of two variables?
The caliber of people I'm looking for know how to swap the value of two variables.
The caliber of people applying do not necessarily know how to swap the value of two variables.
It is not a trick question. It is a screening question, one of many, used to quickly weed out people who do not have the technical knowledge or logic processing ability to handle the requirements of the job.
Also, if you ever see a screening question that has a compilation error, it is also likely not a trick question. It is probably a type-o or mistake by the test writer. Indicate the mistake in the margine, then give the answer that you believe fulfills the intent of the question.
-Rick
System.out.println("output");
System is a namespace
out is a print stream object
println is a function the outputs a line to the console
"output" is a parameter
done.
cout "output" endl;
cout is a predefined ostream that outputs to the console
if the write operator
"output" is a value
endl is a keyword the represents and end of line character
done.
Now, this is just personal tastes, but "out.PrintLn()" makes a whole lot more sense than "cout " which requires you to accept the 'magic' of the operator.
The memory side of things you have a point. But how many people are writing code that they have to manage their own memory? Almost everything at this point is either managed code with garbage collection built in, or there are toolsets you can use to manage memory for you. Are you ever going to send a consultant out and let them bill a customer for the time it takes to write memory management code when they could just use and off the shelf option? (**with very few exceptions)
If you are going to a university aiming for a computer Science degree, then yeah, starting off with lower level languages is a must. If you are going to a tech school for a Computer science degree, then starting off with lower level languages is a waste.
-Rick