The real problem is that "Classical Liberalism" was not conservative when it was first adopted, it was actually quite radical. But after a few hundred years of living with classical liberalism it is now a decidedly "conservative" position to want to stick with it instead of abandoning it for the latest (or even relatively antique) radical ideas. It's actually been so long since old chestnuts like "communism" and "theocracy" were popular that they seem new and exciting to those who've never experienced anything except a liberal society.
It's a huge advangate when all your variables and parameters are declared as (the correct) java objects. But if they're declared in text (XML or properties) files or passed by users or other apps (things that can't be tested at compile time), then protecting the typing system gets to be a large and fragile framework around a relatively simple app, and still doesn't do as good a job as an inferred typing system like most dynamic "scripting" languages have, where only a few sanity checks like casting strings to integers or massaging ints to floats. Perl, of course, has none of these advantages.
That problem comes about because of the compiling and variable typing requirements of Java. If someNumber isn't a double, there'll be hell to pay at runtime, so you have to force your config to account for that, because the compiler doesn't check your XML text files. If you want to change it to accept an integer, then you need to recompile and redeploy. Alternately, if a PHP script accepts an integer for someNumber you have to test and handle the exception.
Remember how Linux threads were just unnamed processes with shared memory? Because it turns out forking processes is really cheap and has alot of benefits over threading, with the one disadvantage being shared memory being also it's greatest strength. That's why prefork Apache is such a win -- if you use Linux. Now that Linux has good threads it's possible, but unnecessary to create a multithreaded server, but Apache, for instance, still isn't great that way.
Actually, it's the agriculture that keeps the world's gonads firmly within our grip. The US grows most of the world's food. The old saw about China imports more rice from California than it grows itself might not be true anymore, but we're still the world's breadbasket, and not likely to lose the title anytime soon. Seasonal fruits are imported from places like Chile and New Zealand just for freshness's sake. Now, environmental restrictions are the reason that things like timber, fishing, and mining have been outsourced to an extent.
Actually, if someone is willing to get the certifications just to "jump through the HR hoops" to get a job, that probably means they're less than excellent. Are there a lot of good people who have certs? Yes, for various reasons. Are there a lot of excellent people who have? I don't think so. I know a guy who has often talked about getting some, but has never got around to it, because he's always got too many job offers.
I don't know many people who go around saying "I don't collect stamps" every day of their life, and when they see anyone write a letter to home to mom or send a bill launch into a tirade about how stupid that person is. Then when they see someone who collects butterflies or bottlecaps, praises them as wiser than a foolish and repressed stamp collector.
The scary thing is, that we know which half it right, and it directly contradicts the other half. But somehow we can't let go of all these kooky theories because Einstein had really funny hair and the proponents of them claim to have read Einstein.
Take special relativity. It was a "thought experiment" -- a way for students who don't know math or haven't experience physics (Newtonian propaganda) to imagine how gravity works. And you know that whole trampoline example? It depends on gravity for its explanation. It's like saying that rain is caused when baby Jesus cries. When asked if El Nino will ever run out of tears, your told no, because he catches the rain.
In the USA, at least, there is no such thing as "use rights", only "copy rights." Installing software (for example off of a disk) constitutes copying, and thus can be restricted. It's a fair argument that if the download is free (and unconditional) or even if the software is made public on the internet, that copying is implicitly unconditional, and bypassing an EULA is perfectly acceptable. And reverse engineering an installer by clicking an "accept" button without willfully entering into the suggested contract displayed above it perfectly acceptable. However, reverse engineering may be forbidden under the DCMA.
To be rational you have to start from the assumption that there is nothing, null, nil, zero. Any other starting position is irrational. Then you use reason, logic and observation to build from there.
Yeah, and if you're really smart, you might in your lifetime get to the point of "I think, therefore I am." But chances are you won't get that far. So you end up taking a whole lot on faith, from long division and gravity, to the greenhouse effect and evolution. But after empirical evidence of "carry the one" and "what goes up" give you confidence, you start to trust by association. You think "person in lab coat said 'F=m*a' was right as you rub the goose-egg on your skull, but you must have hit it harder than you thought because even though you're wearing shoes like Michael Jordan, you can't jump like him, but because someone dresses up in coke-bottle glasses and carries a clipboard, that whatever he says must be true, whether your own experience is either deficient or even contrary.
But not everyone who stood on the shoulders of giants was Newton, and not everyone with frizzy hair was Einstein. While anecdotal evidence suggests that winters were always colder and hills much higher before you were born, erosion and global warming are not givens. When I was a kid, it seemed people were much smarter than this, but I don't claim de-evolution is incontrovertible and irreversible. Nor do I claim supreme knowledge, for if I did, then not only would I have proven God exists, but I would have identified him.
So you want to cross a road. You haven't looked both ways yet but your default position is to behave as if there are no cars coming from either direction. You claim your default position is disbelief. Go ahead and cross without looking. I bet you're chicken.
That's not a real game. Not any more than slot machines or farming on Utimevercraft. It's just random rooms and random treasures and random creatures and random outcomes.
And not every American settler was out to rob Indians of their lands, livelihoods, language, culture, or their lives.
The "mythos" is supported by the fact that even though a tenfold population increase in plains Indians in the half century after the American Revolution still left more than 100 square miles per person for them to live in. DeSoto travelled across from the Great Lakes to the Gulf and didn't encounter any significant population until Texas.
the "perhaps millions" of Indians in America in the past 2 centuries is far fewer than there currently are inside U.S. borders. Many populous tribes in the east assimilated with Anglo American culture and others were forced west after being on the losing side of the French & Indian wars. There was a population boom in the 1800s of plains Indians because of the introduction of Horses and firearms, but that region was almost totally unpopulated beforehand.
Yes, millions of Aztecs were killed by the Spanish invasion, but it only succeeded with the help of millions of other Indians who were more than willing to help the Spaniards overthrow that brutal regime. A larger amount were wiped out unintentionally by disease, including many of Cortez's allies. But most of the population assimilated with the Spanish culture afterward and are known today as "Mexicans." The reason Mexicans are browner than Americans is principally because there were a lot more Indians in Mexico than America and secondarily because there have been a lot more Europeans migrating to America.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is that "Classical Liberalism" was not conservative when it was first adopted, it was actually quite radical. But after a few hundred years of living with classical liberalism it is now a decidedly "conservative" position to want to stick with it instead of abandoning it for the latest (or even relatively antique) radical ideas. It's actually been so long since old chestnuts like "communism" and "theocracy" were popular that they seem new and exciting to those who've never experienced anything except a liberal society.
If you can't afford around $15/month for a VPS where you can install python, you don't have any serious development to do.
Just don't try to cut and paste it!
It's a huge advangate when all your variables and parameters are declared as (the correct) java objects. But if they're declared in text (XML or properties) files or passed by users or other apps (things that can't be tested at compile time), then protecting the typing system gets to be a large and fragile framework around a relatively simple app, and still doesn't do as good a job as an inferred typing system like most dynamic "scripting" languages have, where only a few sanity checks like casting strings to integers or massaging ints to floats. Perl, of course, has none of these advantages.
That problem comes about because of the compiling and variable typing requirements of Java. If someNumber isn't a double, there'll be hell to pay at runtime, so you have to force your config to account for that, because the compiler doesn't check your XML text files. If you want to change it to accept an integer, then you need to recompile and redeploy. Alternately, if a PHP script accepts an integer for someNumber you have to test and handle the exception.
Remember how Linux threads were just unnamed processes with shared memory? Because it turns out forking processes is really cheap and has alot of benefits over threading, with the one disadvantage being shared memory being also it's greatest strength. That's why prefork Apache is such a win -- if you use Linux. Now that Linux has good threads it's possible, but unnecessary to create a multithreaded server, but Apache, for instance, still isn't great that way.
YOUR SIG: Okay, so the sheep gets to choose what's for dinner and the wolves die. That doesn't sound like a good political system.
Actually, it's the agriculture that keeps the world's gonads firmly within our grip. The US grows most of the world's food. The old saw about China imports more rice from California than it grows itself might not be true anymore, but we're still the world's breadbasket, and not likely to lose the title anytime soon. Seasonal fruits are imported from places like Chile and New Zealand just for freshness's sake. Now, environmental restrictions are the reason that things like timber, fishing, and mining have been outsourced to an extent.
Actually, if someone is willing to get the certifications just to "jump through the HR hoops" to get a job, that probably means they're less than excellent. Are there a lot of good people who have certs? Yes, for various reasons. Are there a lot of excellent people who have? I don't think so. I know a guy who has often talked about getting some, but has never got around to it, because he's always got too many job offers.
I don't know many people who go around saying "I don't collect stamps" every day of their life, and when they see anyone write a letter to home to mom or send a bill launch into a tirade about how stupid that person is. Then when they see someone who collects butterflies or bottlecaps, praises them as wiser than a foolish and repressed stamp collector.
The scary thing is, that we know which half it right, and it directly contradicts the other half. But somehow we can't let go of all these kooky theories because Einstein had really funny hair and the proponents of them claim to have read Einstein. Take special relativity. It was a "thought experiment" -- a way for students who don't know math or haven't experience physics (Newtonian propaganda) to imagine how gravity works. And you know that whole trampoline example? It depends on gravity for its explanation. It's like saying that rain is caused when baby Jesus cries. When asked if El Nino will ever run out of tears, your told no, because he catches the rain.
That's only in movies. We're talking about reality here.
Do unicorns fly in the world you live in?
In the USA, at least, there is no such thing as "use rights", only "copy rights." Installing software (for example off of a disk) constitutes copying, and thus can be restricted. It's a fair argument that if the download is free (and unconditional) or even if the software is made public on the internet, that copying is implicitly unconditional, and bypassing an EULA is perfectly acceptable. And reverse engineering an installer by clicking an "accept" button without willfully entering into the suggested contract displayed above it perfectly acceptable. However, reverse engineering may be forbidden under the DCMA.
What's the alternative? Some other part of your body being smart?
Nobody claims that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
To be rational you have to start from the assumption that there is nothing, null, nil, zero. Any other starting position is irrational. Then you use reason, logic and observation to build from there. Yeah, and if you're really smart, you might in your lifetime get to the point of "I think, therefore I am." But chances are you won't get that far. So you end up taking a whole lot on faith, from long division and gravity, to the greenhouse effect and evolution. But after empirical evidence of "carry the one" and "what goes up" give you confidence, you start to trust by association. You think "person in lab coat said 'F=m*a' was right as you rub the goose-egg on your skull, but you must have hit it harder than you thought because even though you're wearing shoes like Michael Jordan, you can't jump like him, but because someone dresses up in coke-bottle glasses and carries a clipboard, that whatever he says must be true, whether your own experience is either deficient or even contrary. But not everyone who stood on the shoulders of giants was Newton, and not everyone with frizzy hair was Einstein. While anecdotal evidence suggests that winters were always colder and hills much higher before you were born, erosion and global warming are not givens. When I was a kid, it seemed people were much smarter than this, but I don't claim de-evolution is incontrovertible and irreversible. Nor do I claim supreme knowledge, for if I did, then not only would I have proven God exists, but I would have identified him.
So you want to cross a road. You haven't looked both ways yet but your default position is to behave as if there are no cars coming from either direction. You claim your default position is disbelief. Go ahead and cross without looking. I bet you're chicken.
We have proof that evolution couldn't have taken place, but we have no proof that God couldn't exist.
That's not a real game. Not any more than slot machines or farming on Utimevercraft. It's just random rooms and random treasures and random creatures and random outcomes.
I think that's the point. g++ is a truly awful compiler, at least for embedded work.
And not every American settler was out to rob Indians of their lands, livelihoods, language, culture, or their lives. The "mythos" is supported by the fact that even though a tenfold population increase in plains Indians in the half century after the American Revolution still left more than 100 square miles per person for them to live in. DeSoto travelled across from the Great Lakes to the Gulf and didn't encounter any significant population until Texas.
the "perhaps millions" of Indians in America in the past 2 centuries is far fewer than there currently are inside U.S. borders. Many populous tribes in the east assimilated with Anglo American culture and others were forced west after being on the losing side of the French & Indian wars. There was a population boom in the 1800s of plains Indians because of the introduction of Horses and firearms, but that region was almost totally unpopulated beforehand. Yes, millions of Aztecs were killed by the Spanish invasion, but it only succeeded with the help of millions of other Indians who were more than willing to help the Spaniards overthrow that brutal regime. A larger amount were wiped out unintentionally by disease, including many of Cortez's allies. But most of the population assimilated with the Spanish culture afterward and are known today as "Mexicans." The reason Mexicans are browner than Americans is principally because there were a lot more Indians in Mexico than America and secondarily because there have been a lot more Europeans migrating to America.
So you're saying Negros are stupider than Orientals, genetically?
two dozen guys dragging a 10 ton stone to the UFO landing platform doesn't exactly equate to "industrialization."