Proving my existence is the same as proving your own, so welcome to my status of 'unprovable'. Lovely here, isn't it.
I'm not antitheist, and I'm not anti-fairy story. I like the tooth fairy, particular the importance to her of giving the right change.
I also notice that children are taught that Santa Claus is a myth at around the age of 4-8. Why only Santa and not other mythological beings? At least be fucking consistent.
Except, of course, that you aren't the GP. You're not "joelpt", and you didn't make the assertion that anybody who has religious belief is partaking in an irrational fairytale, and is harming those around them by having those beliefs.
Hey, irrational fairytales are not inherently harmful to innocent bystanders. Of course, brainwashing young children by indoctrinating them through use of those irrational fairytales is unconscionable, but making it illegal is problematic and unenforceable.
You do incidentally have a slight confusion about the nature of proof. I do not have to prove that you are irrational; you have to prove you are rational. Prove that a god exists.
There is nothing to defend about atheism. An absence of belief does not need defending.
2, that you recognize that you've made a conscious choice to believe something you can't prove.
You're a bona fide fuckwit. Atheists can't make a conscious choice to believe (whether they can prove it or not) because by definition they don't believe. Which part of "do not believe" are you trying to convince us is a conscious choice that should be acknowledged?
Yes, I am insulting you. No, I don't care what you do or don't believe in, it's your choice. So stop telling atheists that they have to defend a conscious chocie that they pretty clearly haven't made.
Can I just confirm that absolutely none of us wanted the woman that used to stare surprised out of her open bedroom window at the top-deck of double-decker full of gesticulating schoolboys as she sat up naked at 8am every morning arrested.
Hmm. Buy the car manufacturer's carkey lookalike USB stick? That'd get them out of the house, but around 8 seconds later they'd be back in and very unhappy.
Still, those 8 seconds are enough to grab a phone and a big stick - not a bad idea at all:)
Actually, could make that 20s by using the real key to unlock the car from inside the house, so they can get in but don't know why it wont start. Then lock it again once they're inside for car alarm goodness. While phoning the police and grabbing a big stick.
The belief means that people don't know where the safe boundaries for self-defence are. Can I hit an intruder over the head with a cricket bat? Can I stab him? Can I shoot him with the high-powered projectile weaponry I have in the house?
The answer is a complex 'yes' depending on circumstances. If I'm in genuine fear of my life then lethal force is permitted, but the moment he's down and incapable any further action that causes him harm is assault.
Can I make that snap call in the heat of a violent intrusion? I don't know. Frankly it wont matter - I'll defend myself at the moment in time and defend myself in court if I have to.
Where it's nastiest is the level of threat and escalation. If someone's breaking into my house and I wave a machete at them, they're probably going to run away. However, because I'm waving a machete at someone that's unarmed, am I now going to get arrested possession of a deadly weapon? If the idiot continues to break into my house and calls my bluff, do I use the machete and get arrested for attempted murder, or put it down knowing full well that he'll pick it up and use it on me?
That's where the ambiguity hurts most and gives me the most concern. Frankly it's unlikely ever to be a personal issue, but yeah, in Manchester there have been three occurrences on the street I live on of people breaking into a house and physically threatening the occupant to get their car keys to steal their car. If that happens to me, someone ends up in hospital (and it may be me) and I'll have an anxious wait to see if the police think I've broken the law.
That's fascinating. My vic20 only cost £70 in '82 or '83.
That's including the full kit, a bunch of software, a stencil for creating flow diagrams, programming manuals, a keyboard overlay (to use it as a musical keyboard) and instructions for playing various songs.
Hmm, no. The Vic-20 was very substandard compared to the Spectrum.
ZX81 Vic20 Spectrum C64
You had the Electron, the BBC B (which was blinking expensive) and the Amstrad around at the same time, but everyone went Speccy or C64 for the games:)
Guess you missed the 365HP/350lb ft, 25MPG Taurus SHO [...] Ford became pretty serious about US fuel economy a couple years ago
Sorry, but even at US gallon sizes, 25 is shit. Very fucking shit.
You may argue that it's a performance car, that it's comparable or better than other cars in its class, and I don't know and don't care whether that's the case. People don't buy a Ferrari because it's fuel efficient.
If you want to suggest Ford cares about fuel economy, try quoting a vehicle that actually shows it.
I've never written production Python code (as opposed to the 8 or so languages I have done). Any parallels between my style and Python are purely due to Guido's genius.;)
By assigning output to the static string "We" it is correctly initialised. System in java is a static object that initialised by the VM prior to program execution.
You do realise a standard IT architect job interview will be failed if the interviewee doesn't get up and show competence at drawing diagrams at least once in the interview, without being prompted to do so?
It doesn't matter how good you are at thinking of something if you can't translate it to a communicative form - drawings for architects, code for programmers. Reduce the time spent on the mechanics of the job and stop interrupting the creative flow.
That to me is the key issue. It's taking the physical interaction bottleneck out of the creative process.
It's also a theory behind pair programming. One person deals with the physical typing, getting the syntax right, laying things out and spelling, the other person thinks about solving the problem.
People don't multitask well. Good typists spend more of their time programming and less of their time typing programs in.
Productivity went up when time started getting spent writing automated tests instead of going through the assembly code in a debugger.
Using a debugger on a complex distributed system is rarely quicker than adding traces to the code, narrowing in on the problem then exposing it through new tests, which also tell you when you've fixed it.
All of it, as otherwise they're supporting a system where trumped up charges and stacked decks are acceptable.
I'm genuinely confused that you think failing to deny rape and receiving punishment would be an acceptable outcome for a man that up until now has claimed his innocence.
That's fascinating. "I don't want to deny it" would be interpreted in the UK as a tacit admission of guilt, as any reasonable person should seek to defend themselves.
That the justice system makes it easier to say, "Sod it, give me the fine" is a flaw in the justice system:(
increasingly in non-Islamic countries Sharia law is being given precedence over local laws for violations between Muslims. This is happening in the US, Australia, Germany and the UK.
Some Muslims in the UK are seeking to have cases judged by Sharia law instead of involving the UK authorities. That doesn't negate the precedence of UK law, and doesn't mean that punishments prescribed by Sharia law have any legality.
E.g. if a contract failure is deemed to be covered by Sharia and both parties agree to have it assessed in a Sharia court (or whatever they use) and abide by its terms, then there is no case for UK law and they can get on with it.
If a man bullies his daughter into agreeing to stand before a Sharia court regarding her unmarried sex with her boyfriend, and the court sentences her to stoning, trust me, that's illegal in several different ways and she'll be completely protected by the UK authorities (if she can make it to them).
Anybody in the UK is protected by UK law, irrespective of religion. That some bigoted ignorant fucks decide to ignore it in favour of their own archaic abusive sexist stupid law doesn't make what they're doing legal.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12075094
Joyfully I don't live in your fucked up nation.
Proving my existence is the same as proving your own, so welcome to my status of 'unprovable'. Lovely here, isn't it.
I'm not antitheist, and I'm not anti-fairy story. I like the tooth fairy, particular the importance to her of giving the right change.
I also notice that children are taught that Santa Claus is a myth at around the age of 4-8. Why only Santa and not other mythological beings? At least be fucking consistent.
Except, of course, that you aren't the GP. You're not "joelpt", and you didn't make the assertion that anybody who has religious belief is partaking in an irrational fairytale, and is harming those around them by having those beliefs.
Hey, irrational fairytales are not inherently harmful to innocent bystanders. Of course, brainwashing young children by indoctrinating them through use of those irrational fairytales is unconscionable, but making it illegal is problematic and unenforceable.
You do incidentally have a slight confusion about the nature of proof. I do not have to prove that you are irrational; you have to prove you are rational. Prove that a god exists.
Is that really so much to ask?
I didn't profess to having any answer, although I may nonetheless be a fuckwit.
I care in sofar as I hate religious people telling lies about me. They seem fond of doing this.
I liked the naked and petrified. Still haven't worked out the hot grits though.
Atheism is equally indefensible
Four words in and you're already talking shit.
There is nothing to defend about atheism. An absence of belief does not need defending.
2, that you recognize that you've made a conscious choice to believe something you can't prove.
You're a bona fide fuckwit. Atheists can't make a conscious choice to believe (whether they can prove it or not) because by definition they don't believe. Which part of "do not believe" are you trying to convince us is a conscious choice that should be acknowledged?
Yes, I am insulting you. No, I don't care what you do or don't believe in, it's your choice. So stop telling atheists that they have to defend a conscious chocie that they pretty clearly haven't made.
Can I just confirm that absolutely none of us wanted the woman that used to stare surprised out of her open bedroom window at the top-deck of double-decker full of gesticulating schoolboys as she sat up naked at 8am every morning arrested.
Oh, and install a phone-home virus on it so that if they plug it into a PC I can tell the police how to find them.
Hmm. Buy the car manufacturer's carkey lookalike USB stick? That'd get them out of the house, but around 8 seconds later they'd be back in and very unhappy.
Still, those 8 seconds are enough to grab a phone and a big stick - not a bad idea at all :)
Actually, could make that 20s by using the real key to unlock the car from inside the house, so they can get in but don't know why it wont start. Then lock it again once they're inside for car alarm goodness. While phoning the police and grabbing a big stick.
It's a winner - time to buy a USB key :)
The belief means that people don't know where the safe boundaries for self-defence are. Can I hit an intruder over the head with a cricket bat? Can I stab him? Can I shoot him with the high-powered projectile weaponry I have in the house?
The answer is a complex 'yes' depending on circumstances. If I'm in genuine fear of my life then lethal force is permitted, but the moment he's down and incapable any further action that causes him harm is assault.
Can I make that snap call in the heat of a violent intrusion? I don't know. Frankly it wont matter - I'll defend myself at the moment in time and defend myself in court if I have to.
Where it's nastiest is the level of threat and escalation. If someone's breaking into my house and I wave a machete at them, they're probably going to run away. However, because I'm waving a machete at someone that's unarmed, am I now going to get arrested possession of a deadly weapon? If the idiot continues to break into my house and calls my bluff, do I use the machete and get arrested for attempted murder, or put it down knowing full well that he'll pick it up and use it on me?
That's where the ambiguity hurts most and gives me the most concern. Frankly it's unlikely ever to be a personal issue, but yeah, in Manchester there have been three occurrences on the street I live on of people breaking into a house and physically threatening the occupant to get their car keys to steal their car. If that happens to me, someone ends up in hospital (and it may be me) and I'll have an anxious wait to see if the police think I've broken the law.
That's fascinating. My vic20 only cost £70 in '82 or '83.
That's including the full kit, a bunch of software, a stencil for creating flow diagrams, programming manuals, a keyboard overlay (to use it as a musical keyboard) and instructions for playing various songs.
Hmm, no. The Vic-20 was very substandard compared to the Spectrum.
ZX81 Vic20 Spectrum C64
You had the Electron, the BBC B (which was blinking expensive) and the Amstrad around at the same time, but everyone went Speccy or C64 for the games :)
Guess you missed the 365HP/350lb ft, 25MPG Taurus SHO [...] Ford became pretty serious about US fuel economy a couple years ago
Sorry, but even at US gallon sizes, 25 is shit. Very fucking shit.
You may argue that it's a performance car, that it's comparable or better than other cars in its class, and I don't know and don't care whether that's the case. People don't buy a Ferrari because it's fuel efficient.
If you want to suggest Ford cares about fuel economy, try quoting a vehicle that actually shows it.
I've never written production Python code (as opposed to the 8 or so languages I have done). Any parallels between my style and Python are purely due to Guido's genius. ;)
getEvent (oliverTheRed)
tells me fuck all I'm afraid. It's not self documenting.
Hey, you chose oliverTheRed as a variable name. I can't help that it's a shit one.
By assigning output to the static string "We" it is correctly initialised. System in java is a static object that initialised by the VM prior to program execution.
So I can't see your NullPointerException.
You do realise a standard IT architect job interview will be failed if the interviewee doesn't get up and show competence at drawing diagrams at least once in the interview, without being prompted to do so?
It doesn't matter how good you are at thinking of something if you can't translate it to a communicative form - drawings for architects, code for programmers. Reduce the time spent on the mechanics of the job and stop interrupting the creative flow.
That to me is the key issue. It's taking the physical interaction bottleneck out of the creative process.
It's also a theory behind pair programming. One person deals with the physical typing, getting the syntax right, laying things out and spelling, the other person thinks about solving the problem.
People don't multitask well. Good typists spend more of their time programming and less of their time typing programs in.
These days, yes.
Productivity went up when time started getting spent writing automated tests instead of going through the assembly code in a debugger.
Using a debugger on a complex distributed system is rarely quicker than adding traces to the code, narrowing in on the problem then exposing it through new tests, which also tell you when you've fixed it.
Thing is, any decent programmer would take
Company.Management.Calander.GetEvent(OliverTheRed.System.Date.Time.Now.Format("YYYYDDMM HH:MM:SS")
and fix the typo and turn it into a method:
getEvent (oliverTheRed)
Suddenly the code is clean, easily readable and still easier to maintain than using a, b, etc.
I think a lot of java hatred comes from people that don't know how to program.
I'm aware of that comment from that film, but if the crucial clamp down has already occurred the disincentive has already disappeared.
The shiv in the skull that follows just seconds later.
All of it, as otherwise they're supporting a system where trumped up charges and stacked decks are acceptable.
I'm genuinely confused that you think failing to deny rape and receiving punishment would be an acceptable outcome for a man that up until now has claimed his innocence.
That's fascinating. "I don't want to deny it" would be interpreted in the UK as a tacit admission of guilt, as any reasonable person should seek to defend themselves.
That the justice system makes it easier to say, "Sod it, give me the fine" is a flaw in the justice system :(
increasingly in non-Islamic countries Sharia law is being given precedence over local laws for violations between Muslims. This is happening in the US, Australia, Germany and the UK.
Some Muslims in the UK are seeking to have cases judged by Sharia law instead of involving the UK authorities. That doesn't negate the precedence of UK law, and doesn't mean that punishments prescribed by Sharia law have any legality.
E.g. if a contract failure is deemed to be covered by Sharia and both parties agree to have it assessed in a Sharia court (or whatever they use) and abide by its terms, then there is no case for UK law and they can get on with it.
If a man bullies his daughter into agreeing to stand before a Sharia court regarding her unmarried sex with her boyfriend, and the court sentences her to stoning, trust me, that's illegal in several different ways and she'll be completely protected by the UK authorities (if she can make it to them).
Anybody in the UK is protected by UK law, irrespective of religion. That some bigoted ignorant fucks decide to ignore it in favour of their own archaic abusive sexist stupid law doesn't make what they're doing legal.