When 1024x768 is too much (bringing back the fullscreen thread)
-
@bgodot said:
The easiest, and most effective way to reduce gun deaths in the US would be to leagalize recreational drugs.
I agree 100%. The murder rate would plummet even further, putting us beneath countries like the UK.
Of course the deaths from recreational drug use would probably more than make up for it.. Drunk driving alone kills 10,000 Americans a year and I've never seen somebody have a wreck because they drank a single beer 5 years ago, but I have seen people have acid flashbacks on the Interstate when they hadn't tripped in many years. And having the driver say "I see leprechauns running in the road.. Oh God, they're grabbing onto the bottom of the car... they're trying to come through the floor!! AIEEEE!!!" while doing 90 is nearly a religious experience.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
But by all means, don't let that get in the way of a good ad hominem attack if it gives you an excuse to not have to actually engage in a bit of critical thinking.
I already told you, I saw this stupid paper over a year ago. It's got so many flaws as to be useless. (Reyes even admits that a lot of the methodology is dodgy and the results are questionable.) I mean, I already told you that she couldn't get the regressions to work for murder or property crime, only for violent crime overall, which really shoots a lot of the conclusions people are making straight to hell. Here's the quote from the actual paper that I know you didn't fucking read:
@Jessica Wolpaw Reyes said:
In sum, while there is currently only weak evidence for an effect of
lead on murder, and only in the reduced sample, future work will attempt to probe this relationship
further.
Finally, the analysis provides little support for a relationship between lead exposure and
property crime.Then there's the fact that IQs continued to rise even when TEL exposure was worst. That once again raises serious questions about the Reyes study because if TEL was causing a surge in crime it should have also caused a drop in IQs, but it did not.
Here's some more shit your tiny, damaged brain will not permit you to acknowledge: Japan had tons of cars in a small area spewing TEL, but had no accompanying rise in crime. So either we have to accept there is a genetic component to the whole thing that made Japanese people more able to resist the little TEL devil sitting on their shoulder telling them to hold up a liquor store, or we have to wonder if TEL had any significant impact on crime at all.
Oh, there's more: like the fact that if TEL usage peaked in 1970 and she's assuming a 22 year lag for the effects to show up in crime stats, shouldn't the murder rate continued to climb until the 90s? But the murder rate stabilized in the mid-70s.
Or how about the fact that when crime rates started declining in the 90s, it was among older, not younger people. According to her theory, crime dropped because young people weren't exposed to TEL and therefore didn't become evil. But the reduction in crime came from older people, those who had been exposed to lead in childhood. Did they suddenly get over the lead poisoning which had caused them to commit crimes for 20 years? And what about those young folks who didn't see a drop in crime despite the fact they weren't being marinated in TEL? Hmm..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The thing is, there is not a single thing anybody in this thread has said that I haven't heard a million times before
^This.And it applies equally well to the argument.against gun ownership.
Europeans, largely, do not carry guns & do not see why having a gun would improve their security. Americans, or some of them, do carry guns and see the removal of their guns as troublesome,
This is not a difference of opinion that can be solved by logic - either you allow people to own weapons to defend themselves, or you don't allow anyone to carry a weapon. You either allow anyone to cary arms or no-one. There are cogent arguments for either case. I agree that no-one should be allowed to walk around with a gun, but only because I never meet anyone that has one. If I lived somewhere where people carried guns legally I would revise my opinion.
-
@nosliwmas said:
This is not a difference of opinion that can be solved by logic - either you allow people to own weapons to defend themselves, or you don't allow anyone to carry a weapon. You either allow anyone to cary arms or no-one. There are cogent arguments for either case. I agree that no-one should be allowed to walk around with a gun, but only because I never meet anyone that has one. If I lived somewhere where people carried guns legally I would revise my opinion.
Yeah, and I can at least understand why Europeans might be afraid of guns never having been exposed to them, but it sounds really silly to me. Where I grew up, everybody had guns. I mean, to the point where I didn't even realize there were people who didn't own guns or who thought guns were bad until I was, like, ten years old. If somebody had told me "Oh, we don't have guns in our house" it would have been like them saying "Oh, we don't have electricity or water."
And it's not like anybody I really knew was a gun nut, my family owned a couple of shotguns, a .22 rifle and an old Civil War musket (which probably wouldn't fire without blowing apart and killing you.) We hardly ever shot them. In fact, I remember a few times when my dad needed shotgun shells, we had to scrounge around in junk drawers looking for some. We didn't have any handguns because handguns are useless for anything except maximum portability--they're inaccurate and weak.
Of course, we didn't treat them like toys. My dad would've given my ass a beating if he'd caught me playing with a gun. But we did use them and never thought much of it. And it was exciting to shoot guns, in the same way it was exciting to drive a truck or light a bonfire. At the same time, we knew they were dangerous and we treated them with respect. But there were many things more dangerous around, like tractors, the road, venomous snakes, rusty axes, barn lofts with questionable structural integrity...
Oh, and I've only ever known of one person who was murdered (as in, somebody I had some sort of social connection to) and that was a friend's grandmother who I never even met. And she wasn't shot, she had her skull caved in with a clawhammer by a young woman who broke into her house to rob her. That's a case where it would have been nice if the old lady had had a gun; I don't know if it would have helped (or even if she was unarmed) but it wouldn't hurt.
So the point is, I find all this hand-wringing over guns to be kind of silly. Like a person raised by wolves first encountering a busy highway, sure it's kind of frightening and there is real danger there, but it's also remarkably safe and fear is seen as laughable by people who have spent their entire lives around it.
Listening to Europeans talk about guns reminds me of old women talking about computers. ("Are you sure clicking the Start button isn't going to break anything? We better call a computer repairman just to be sure..") Both are terrified by their respective objects, but they don't know why, just that the news made them sound like these dangerous, volatile things that could jump out and attack if you let your guard down.
-
Anyone who thinks firearms are the problem should take a long, hard, lustful look at Switzerland.
There, not only are people able to easily obtain guns (even machine guns, which are difficult to legally acquire in the States), but they are given one, as well as training, when they reach the age of majority there (and are then conscripted.)
So, it's a country where, in real terms, a machine gun can be acquired as easily as a car, and they have a lower murder rate than the UK (about half), where firearms are essentially banned for civilians.
It's cultural, it's education, it's a host of factors, but guns do not equal murders.
A person can say anything they want, but the fact is that a gun is a not going to commit a crime on its own, someone has to pull the trigger.
-
Hey guys cars are bad because they can HURT PEOPLE.
This thread will now grow by an additional 37 pages.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Anyone who thinks firearms are the problem should take a long, hard, lustful look at Switzerland.
There, not only are people able to easily obtain guns (even machine guns, which are difficult to legally acquire in the States), but they are given one, as well as training, when they reach the age of majority there (and are then conscripted.)
So, it's a country where, in real terms, a machine gun can be acquired as easily as a car, and they have a lower murder rate than the UK (about half), where firearms are essentially banned for civilians.
It's cultural, it's education, it's a host of factors, but guns do not equal murders.
A person can say anything they want, but the fact is that a gun is a not going to commit a crime on its own, someone has to pull the trigger.
Yeah, I meant to mention Switzerland and Finland. But, yeah, if you got rid of guns Americans would stop murdering people. That's because the biggest obstacle to murder isn't personal morality, or a natural aversion to violence, or even the threat of punishment, but simply how much work you have to do to murder someone. I mean, I'd murder thousands of people if I could pick them off from a balcony with a rifle, but I'm not getting off my ass to bother running them over, hitting them with a lead pipe, decapitating them with a machete or poisoning them..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I mean, I'd murder thousands of people if I could pick them off from a balcony with a rifle, but I'm not getting off my ass to bother running them over, hitting them with a lead pipe, decapitating them with a machete or poisoning them..
Holding a lead pipe for prolonged periods of time increases your risk of cancer.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, I meant to mention Switzerland and Finland. But, yeah, if you got rid of guns Americans would stop murdering people. That's because the biggest obstacle to murder isn't personal morality, or a natural aversion to violence, or even the threat of punishment, but simply how much work you have to do to murder someone. I mean, I'd murder thousands of people if I could pick them off from a balcony with a rifle, but I'm not getting off my ass to bother running them over, hitting them with a lead pipe, decapitating them with a machete or poisoning them.
Morbiuswilters with the Lead Pipe in Side Bar WTF.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I mean, I'd murder thousands of people if I could pick them off from a balcony with a rifle, but I'm not getting off my ass to bother running them over, hitting them with a lead pipe, decapitating them with a machete or poisoning them..
Holding a lead pipe for prolonged periods of time increases your risk of cancer.
No, it makes you into a murderer, just like leaded gasoline.
Hey, maybe that's why guns automatically turn sane, innocent people into cold-blooded killers: being around all that lead must be the equivalent of inhaling the exhaust from, like, a billion TEL-burning cars!!11
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I mean, I'd murder thousands of people if I could pick them off from a balcony with a rifle, but I'm not getting off my ass to bother running them over, hitting them with a lead pipe, decapitating them with a machete or poisoning them..
Holding a lead pipe for prolonged periods of time increases your risk of cancer.
No, it makes you into a murderer, just like leaded gasoline.
Hey, maybe that's why guns automatically turn sane, innocent people into cold-blooded killers: being around all that lead must be the equivalent of inhaling the exhaust from, like, a billion TEL-burning cars!!11
Funny, I figured your weapon of choice would be a purple dildo gun, based on what I've read of these forums.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@bgodot said:
The easiest, and most effective way to reduce gun deaths in the US would be to require recreational drugs.
I personally think that on their 16th birthday, everyone should be supplied with a mandatory heroic dose of LSD, like a triple Hofmann or something. Anyone who keeps it together gets to be in charge, and everyone else has to shut up. You have the right to refuse it, but that counts as having to shut up.
-
Look, nobody is saying guns should be outlawed. It's just that maybe buying deadly firearms should have the same requirements as, I dunno, buying cold medicine.
-
@Ben L. said:
Look, nobody is saying guns should be outlawed. It's just that maybe buying deadly firearms should have the same requirements as, I dunno, buying cold medicine.
Or those huge kitchen knives.
-
@Ben L. said:
Look, nobody is saying guns should be outlawed. It's just that maybe buying deadly firearms should have the same requirements as, I dunno, buying cold medicine.
Hmm...what about the state of New York? The original law even banned the police from carrying certain kinds of guns.
TRWTF is that you need ID to buy cold medicine. But of course, there are all sorts of restrictions to buying guns.
You should have let the markov thing do this post. It would have been more accurate.
-
@Ben L. said:
Hey guys cars are bad because they can HURT PEOPLE.
They are indeed. But our civilization would definitely not sustain itself without cars, so they are necessary. Besides, the amount of car accidents is reduced every year, with any luck we'll get self-driving cars in a few decades and the whole thing will be solved.
Nothing is perfectly good or perfectly bad.
-
@spamcourt said:
Besides, the amount of car accidents is reduced every year, with any luck we'll get self-driving cars in a few decades and the whole thing will be solved.
Unless the car name is Christine
-
Every time someone says “oh em gee, it’s obvious that restricting guns will reduce gun deaths” I hear Carroll O’Connor as Archie Bunker say “Would it make you feel better, little girl, if dey was pushed out of windas?”
-
@Ben L. said:
Look, nobody is saying guns should be outlawed. It's just that maybe buying deadly firearms should have the same requirements as, I dunno, buying cold medicine.
I know this is flamebait, but obviously you are aware that there are all sorts of laws in-place that regulate gun sales. If you're referring to requiring background checks on private sales: 1) that's going to be extremely burdensome to implement; and 2) it's not going to prevent gun crime.
It's been said a million times already, but criminals aren't going to go through background checks. It's like passing a law that says if you murder someone you must immediately turn yourself in. The people who would obey such a law aren't going to murder anyone, and the people who murder aren't going to obey the law. It's pointless. In fact, it's worse than pointless because you're harassing people who are trying to be good and obey the law.
It would be like passing a law saying that everyone has to install government spyware on their computers to combat piracy. Pirates will find a way around it and the rest of us are just going to be majorly inconvenienced.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It would be like passing a law saying that everyone has to install government spyware on their computers to combat piracy. Pirates will find a way around it and the rest of us are just going to be majorly inconvenienced.
But this is already-- oh I see what you did there.
-
@boomzilla said:
TRWTF is that you need ID to buy cold medicine.
No shit. "Land of the free" my ass.
I'm prone to congestion and pressure in my sinuses and ears. And that phenylephrine shit they use now does fuck-all. Pseudoephedrine does the trick, but it's such a fucking joke trying to get it.
The worst part is: it's not like they even set the limit on what you can buy to anything reasonable. I travel a lot and so a few times I've found myself landing somewhere only to have a killer head cold. Head to the pharmacy and when I try to get some sudafed they're like "Nope, sorry, you bought some a few weeks ago." WTF? The limit is so low I can only buy it every few weeks? And when I'm like "Yeah, but that was 3000 miles away and I don't have any here, you can't sell me a small box?" they act like I'm asking them to shove heroin up their ass and run across the Mexican border.
It's a fucking drug that works and so of course the fucking government had to make it not work somehow. Like those new gas cans. Jesus Christ, have you seen these pieces of shit? It's like not one single person on the committee who designed it had ever used a gas can. You end up spilling half a gallon on the ground just trying to work the goddamn spout/safety valve thing. You get the feeling that during user testing people were like "Fuck this, I'd rather just not use gas than use these fucking things" and those bureaucrats in charge just smiled to themselves and thought "Mission accomplished."
I've taken to just mutilating the goddamn can to remove all of the "safety features" just so I can have a usable gas can that doesn't pour gas all over the ground. Seriously, it's like a bad joke about government stupidity, but we're living the nightmare. Think about: how long for the world is a country that can't even produce a functional gas can anymore?
I mean, you hear about government jackassery and what-not, but when you're standing there trying to fill your lawnmower with this piece of shit that requires three hands to operate and you end up dumping half of your gas down the side of the thing, you start to wonder just how bad it is in other industries where you don't have insight. How long until they declare that, for safety, X-ray machines shouldn't be powerful enough to penetrate skin or clothing? Seriously, how the fuck are we not all dead yet?
-
@drurowin said:
Funny, I figured your weapon of choice would be a purple dildo gun, based on what I've read of these forums.
The scene: drurowin dressed in white vest and boxer shorts, standing to attention next to a bed in a marine hut. Gunnery Sgt morbiuswilters approaches...
(morbiuswilters slaps his rifle)
morbiuswilters: THIS IS MY RIFLE!
(morbiuswilters slaps drurowin across the face with something purple-coloured)
morbiuswilters: THIS IS MY GUN!
(morbiuswilters slaps his rifle)
morbiuswilters: THIS IS FOR SHOOTING!
(morbiuswilters slaps drurowin upside the other cheek with the same purple implement)
morbiuswilters: THIS IS FUN!!
-
@spamcourt said:
But our civilization would definitely not sustain itself without cars, so they are necessary.
I would disagree there. We certainly could survive without cars, you're just too in love with traffic accidents to let that happen. Why do you love blood on the highway!?
@spamcourt said:
Besides, the amount of car accidents is reduced every year...
So are the number of gun deaths.
@spamcourt said:
...with any luck we'll get self-driving cars in a few decades and the whole thing will be solved.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Self-driving cars????? Why don't you just move to NYC, get a live-in boyfriend and take the subway when you need to go to blowjob classes? Why do people want to ruin everything good and holy?
-
@Sir Twist said:
Every time someone says “oh em gee, it’s obvious that restricting guns will reduce gun deaths” I hear Carroll O’Connor as Archie Bunker say “Would it make you feel better, little girl, if dey was pushed out of windas?”
No no no, guns make people murder. If we got rid of guns the murder rate would plummet. People will be too busy holding hands and singing about brotherly love to kill each other!
shudder Ugh, even if that was true, it wouldn't be worth it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Sir Twist said:
Every time someone says “oh em gee, it’s obvious that restricting guns will reduce gun deaths” I hear Carroll O’Connor as Archie Bunker say “Would it make you feel better, little girl, if dey was pushed out of windas?”
No no no, guns make people murder. If we got rid of guns the murder rate would plummet. People will be too busy holding hands and singing about brotherly love to kill each other!
shudder Ugh, even if that was true, it wouldn't be worth it.
There are very few people who want to outlaw guns.
What's being done (and is supported by 90% of the US population) is to put in place a system to make it HARDER to purchase guns ILLEGALLY. Since (I assume) you aren't one of those people that goes around attempting/committing murder, you won't be affected.
Once we finish restricting firearms to people who are remotely sane, we can start on knives, ropes, and openable windows.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Self-driving cars????? Why don't you just move to NYC, get a live-in boyfriend and take the subway when you need to go to blowjob classes? Why do people want to ruin everything good and holy?
Self-shooting guns and a sexy female robot.
-
@drurowin said:
Self-shooting guns...
Yes.
@drurowin said:
...a sexy female robot.
Eh, I don't get the "sexy ladybot" thing. Fast cars, loud guns and CSS3 layouts are "sexy", but that's more an analogy than a literal description. I mean, I don't actually want to rub my penis on box shadows and rounded corners.
A robot could be "sexy", but it would be a bulky "man-bot" that had, like, a few rocket launchers and maybe a GAU-8. And I wouldn't want to have sex with it, either. I certainly am not aroused at the thought of a pile of servos and latex "flesh" moulded into boobs or a squish mitten by sweatshop labour.
That's like those guys who marry Real Dolls. Look, I'm a pretty tolerant when it comes to other people's private lives (if I don't have to see it, hear it or smell it I won't advocate your violent lynching, even if I want to..) but when a guy is driving one into a vaguely-feminine lump manufactured from petrochemicals, it's time for society to step up and "fix" the situation.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I mean, I don't actually want to rub my penis on box shadows and rounded corners.
..o...oh
@morbiuswilters said:
a GAU-8
We are of one mind.
@morbiuswilters said:
I certainly am not aroused at the thought of a pile of servos and latex "flesh" moulded into boobs
I recall a rather bad B-movie with that exact ingredient, and a love scene*. I thought at the time that immersing the mechanics in a kind of flesh-like resin was a very good way of making androids.
*) since the robot was basically perfectly human on the outside, it was just a hot female actor. Not really robolove, I suppose.
@morbiuswilters said:
a vaguely-feminine lump
Your girlfriend?
-
@dhromed said:
I thought at the time that immersing the mechanics in a kind of flesh-like resin was a very good way of making androids.
I never got the whole android thing. The only reason to make your robots look nearly-human is because you want to stick 'em. And having sex with robots is lame. It's basically just very elaborate, expensive masturbation.
Plus, giving them human-like appearances only makes it easier for the homicidal ones whose programming has malfunctioned to slip through society undetected.
And, Lord, let's hope FOSS never makes an android. That'll give PHP a way to kill people that isn't through stress-induced aneurysm or desperate suicide..
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
a vaguely-feminine lump
Your girlfriend?
Hey, watch your mouth. The surgeon did a damn good job sculpting an artificial vagina from parts of her mutilated penis and a section of her colon. It feels nearly like the real thing.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
...a sexy female robot.
Eh, I don't get the "sexy ladybot" thing. Fast cars, loud guns and CSS3 layouts are "sexy", but that's more an analogy than a literal description. I mean, I don't actually want to rub my penis on box shadows and rounded corners.
[img]http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images/e/e0/Hookerbot.png[/img]
-
@morbiuswilters said:
but when a guy is driving one into a vaguely-feminine lump manufactured from petrochemicals, it's time for society to step up and "fix" the situation.
Natural selection will fix it for you if you just wait a generation.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@morbiuswilters said:
but when a guy is driving one into a vaguely-feminine lump manufactured from petrochemicals, it's time for society to step up and "fix" the situation.
Natural selection will fix it for you if you just wait a generation.
That's what you'd think, but then look at the gays: more of 'em than ever. It seems men will screw about anything that isn't female (other men, robots, dildos..) unless there's constant social pressure not to.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That's what you'd think, but then look at the gays: more of 'em than ever. It seems men will screw about anything that isn't female (other men, robots, dildos..) unless there's constant social pressure not to.
So what is it with the dildo jokes here? I've been reading this site since Friday, and... seriously? All I read about are references to dildos, including someone photoshopping a picture of Hubert Farnsworth to make it look like the vaccuum tube he's holding is a giant purple dildo. I'm just glad that the web filter at work only checks for "ass-dildo", and not "dildo" or "dildo cannon".
-
@drurowin said:
"dildo cannon"
Thank you for your contributions. You input is highly valued.
Not to be confused with Dildo Canon-- which is the one true backstory officially blessed by the creators. Because you wouldn't want to introduce a plothole large enough to drive a purple one through. The fans hate it when you ass-rape their childhood like that.
Also not to be confused with the Canon Dildo, the company's unsuccessful dabbling into endoscopy. It might have marketed better if they hadn't released it under the PowerShot line.
-
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
That's what you'd think, but then look at the gays: more of 'em than ever. It seems men will screw about anything that isn't female (other men, robots, dildos..) unless there's constant social pressure not to.
So what is it with the dildo jokes here? I've been reading this site since Friday, and... seriously? All I read about are references to dildos, including someone photoshopping a picture of Hubert Farnsworth to make it look like the vaccuum tube he's holding is a giant purple dildo. I'm just glad that the web filter at work only checks for "ass-dildo", and not "dildo" or "dildo cannon".
I honestly don't remember the purple dildo thing comes from. I'm guess dhromed had something to do with it. I may have been absent for it's inception, though.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I honestly don't remember the purple dildo thing comes from. I'm guess dhromed had something to do with it.
I believe it comes from a surprise MUD game I played with Xyro (r.i.p.)
-
@drurowin said:
including someone photoshopping a picture of Hubert Farnsworth to make it look like the vaccuum tube he's holding is a giant purple dildo.
The real question is why aren't you singing my praise?
-
-
Hmmm, I have actually never seen a gun, not even the police carry firearms in my country. However if the presence or absence of guns makes or breaks your society then you have bigger problems.
-
@serguey123 said:
Hmmm, I have actually never seen a gun, not even the police carry firearms in my country.
Mayberry?
@serguey123 said:
However if the presence or absence of guns makes or breaks your society then you have bigger problems.
I disagree, but we're past this argument now: this week is 0-based indexing vs. 1-based.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
1-based.
For some reason I transposed the - when I read this and saw -1 based. Fuck it, why not? If all positive indices are out of range then maybe you'll stop and think about what you're doing for two seconds (or your program will crash immediately so you catch the bug).
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@serguey123 said:
Hmmm, I have actually never seen a gun, not even the police carry firearms in my country.
Mayberry?
Barney Fife carried a gun, and IIRC, in one episode Andy actually gave him (a single) bullet for it.
-
XSLT (or technically, XPath/XQuery) uses 1-based indexing and I always fuck up because 98% of the rest of the coding I do is 0-based. Conversely, I almost never screw up 0-indexing because I've been using it everywhere else since the dawn of time.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Mayberry?
No idea@morbiuswilters said:I disagree
In what way?
@morbiuswilters said:this week is 0-based indexing vs. 1-based.
Hmmm, for a lay person 1-based index are more natural so modern languages should abstract it that way, the only reason I can come up with to explain why this is still the norm is: "that is how we alway did it" which is a shit argument for pretty much anything.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Barney Fife carried a gun, and IIRC, in one episode Andy actually gave him (a single) bullet for it.
You are correct on both accounts. IIRC, he accidentally discharged that single bullet, too. I also seem to remember an episode or two where Andy had to get out the long guns to try to capture, I dunno, moonshiners or something.
-
@joe.edwards said:
XSLT (or technically, XPath/XQuery) uses 1-based indexing and I always fuck up because 98% of the rest of the coding I do is 0-based. Conversely, I almost never screw up 0-indexing because I've been using it everywhere else since the dawn of time.
Battered Wife Syndrome.
No, seriously, why not start at -1? Or -0?
-
@joe.edwards said:
XSLT (or technically, XPath/XQuery) uses 1-based indexing and I always fuck up because 98% of the rest of the coding I do is 0-based. Conversely, I almost never screw up 0-indexing because I've been using it everywhere else since the dawn of time.
In other words, your reason is, "we've always done it that way".
Which as has been pointed out on this forum a million times (mostly recently by our friendly North Korean defector) is a shit non-reason.
-
@blakeyrat said:
In other words, your reason is, "we've always done it that way".
Maybe; more accurately, "consistency." I end up writing in over a dozen different languages in the course of my day-to-day activities and the fewer core concepts that change between them, the more of my sanity I get to retain.
(Why am I arguing this? I don't even actually care.)
Anyhow, "we've always done it this way" is only a valid argument if the proposal is to stop doing it that way. Enough of these languages have solidified into fixtures that are not going anywhere any time soon, so the proposal is instead to introduce a new dichotomy between 0-based and 1-based languages, so consistency seems a valid concern.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I end up writing in over a dozen different languages in the course of my day-to-day activities and the fewer core concepts that change between them, the more of my sanity I get to retain.
But there are so many other differences between languages to remember. I mean, if you can't remember how to do indexes, how do you work with different OO models or memory management or scope or anything like that?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
I end up writing in over a dozen different languages in the course of my day-to-day activities and the fewer core concepts that change between them, the more of my sanity I get to retain.
But there are so many other differences between languages to remember. I mean, if you can't remember how to do indexes, how do you work with different OO models or memory management or scope or anything like that?
Actually those are easier to switch modalities because they're inherently dissimilar. The array indexing one is a tripping stone because it looks just the same but isn't.
![http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images/e/e0/Hookerbot.png[/img]](http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images/e/e0/Hookerbot.png%5B/img%5D){kind=link}