@morbiuswilters said:
I've doubled my income every couple of years for the last decadeHow do you manage to do that?
@morbiuswilters said:
I've doubled my income every couple of years for the last decadeHow do you manage to do that?
@PJH said:
@dhromed said:I'm going for A. He already specifically said "creating a sane data store." And I agree. You need to store data in pretty much all programs, not just things in specific domains.Predicted Blakeyresponse: "SQL isn't domain-specific; it's generic" OR "I never said that"I'm going for (b).
Modify the javascript client side?
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:When I was at the USGS, I worked with an API that had "OnFileNameChoosen"We had a developer misspell "Febuary" and not notice it until showing the page to the client. It was kind of embarrassing.My favorite has to be "priviledge". Can't tell you how many times I've seen that in production code and UIs..
@Ronald said:
@Lorne Kates said:I don't think the database server needs to be involved in this at all. From what I gather, the password is generated and used only in the website.Ask classic ASP for the month name or the day number? NO! Make an SQL query to select it by casting getdate() into a varchar and substringing it.
This is called defensive 3-tier programming. It prevents problems caused by a potential discrepancy between the clocks of the web and database servers.
@dhromed said:
I currently believe in responsive design as the be-all end-all for this, even though I've so far devised 0 sites with this methodology.That's what we use here, and it seems to work pretty well.
@aihtdikh said:
"i like purple dildos" - 9I count 10 and 1
"i like spectate swamp" - 0
Does the file need to be in the background? Because Ben L's repro does nothing of the sort.
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:Your statement does not contradict what he said.@morbiuswilters said:Screw caps, who wants to type all that out?If you have to type a path, someone fucked up.
Well, it's Unix.
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:I can change the value inside a pointer and it changes the other thing that points to the same place!Good job. Now show me an example that uses interfaces.
Uh... ok?
void Main()
{
IAnimal x = new Dog();
IAnimal y = new Cat();
Swap(ref x, ref y);
x.Dump();
y.Dump();
}
public interface IAnimal
{
}
public class Cat : IAnimal
{
}
public class Dog : IAnimal
{
}
void Swap(ref IAnimal x, ref IAnimal y)
{
IAnimal temp = x;
x = y;
y = temp;
}
Output:
Cat
UserQuery+Cat
Dog
UserQuery+Dog
Any other homework assignments or are you going to answer the question?
Why would I need a pointer to inherit an interface? I feel like you're trying to get something, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it is. Perhaps it would be best if you show me what can be done with it (such as making an Cow moo but an ICow squawk or something)
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:Where did I say this? Watch this:@Ben L. said:@Sutherlands said:Wow. You're really trying to take the cake for "worst programmer on this board" aren't you? Tell me how C++ or C# manages to modify values passed to a function without allowing/making pointers implement interfaces.If you're saying that a pointer has to implement an interface so that you can change data on the object, that's yet another WTFCould you rephrase that statement? I read it right now as "why can't I modify this value that was passed by value?"
If you copy a value, which is what passing by value does, you're still able to modify it, but it DOESN'T MODIFY THE ORIGINAL (pre-copy) VALUE.
Are you saying that I should make a language where I can change the value of an int passed to a function and suddenly everywhere that used that int now has the new value?
void Main()
{
var x = 1;
var y = 2;
SwapInts(ref x, ref y);
x.Dump();
y.Dump();
}
void SwapInts(ref int x, ref int y)
{
int temp = x;
x = y;
y = temp;
}
Run in LINQPad. Produces
2
1
I did all this without a pointer to an int implementing an interface. Now, I'll ask again: why does a pointer type need to implement an interface?
Note: the question is NOT "how do you change a value passed into a function."
Using pointers to change passed in values is not what the question is about.
I don't care about how you change a value-type inside a function so that it reflects that outside the function.
@Arnavion said:
@blakeyrat said:@joe.edwards said:Obviously you have a non-exported variableinitialized
and set it to 1 in your constr... Er. Function.I was thinking you create a bool, "wasInitialized"
You know how I know paperwing isn't reading my posts? Because I already anticipate everything he says and answer it but he still says it anyway.
@Arnavion said:
The zeroes are the invalid state. And having to strengthen all the methods on Foo to handle the case when Foo is uninitialized (even assuming that such a state is detectable) is pure retardation.
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:@paperwing said:Every variable is initialized to a zero value at declaration. In other words, it's not possible for variables to be filled with garbage (what originally sat in memory on that address).
Therefore, if a Foo isn't initialized with NewFoo (and it's not set to any other value, say, because Foo has no exported fields, yadda yadda), then the only possible value it can take is Foo{} (this is how the zero value looks like for an arbitrary struct). Example:But what if you WANT to send a missile to latitude 0.0, longitude 0.0? How do you tell the difference between that missile's perfectly legit destination and a missile that hasn't been properly constructed?
Obviously you have a non-exported variableinitialized
and set it to 1 in your constr... Er. Function.
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:Wow. You're really trying to take the cake for "worst programmer on this board" aren't you? Tell me how C++ or C# manages to modify values passed to a function without allowing/making pointers implement interfaces.If you're saying that a pointer has to implement an interface so that you can change data on the object, that's yet another WTFCould you rephrase that statement? I read it right now as "why can't I modify this value that was passed by value?"
@Severity One said:
@Sutherlands said:Ah yes, "you can't do this because I don't like it." You must be a liberal. (Although conservatives have been trying to do that with gay-marriage.)Well, you're certainly correct in that giving guns to bad people makes you less safe. Also, taking them away from good people makes you less safe. And anyway, as boomzilla stated above, this has nothing to do with the gun laws. There are many reasons for our homicide rate (which is declining), the number one factor in my mind being the "War on Drugs." If we legalized some drugs and treated them as a health issue instead of a criminal issue, it would do oh-so-much for our country and our prison population.Yeah, like there aren't any drugs in Europe. And as a Dutchman, I can tell you that the half-legalised status of marijuana has led to an increase in crime, because now every man and his cousin is growing the stuff in his attic (which is illegal) and it's controlled by organised crime. Not that I think that marijuana is dangerous; certainly, less dangerous than alcohol. I still think it should be banned completely, but that's a personal opinion and I have the same stance about tobacco.
So let me get this straight, your first point was "drugs being illegal in the USA aren't the problem. We have illegal drugs in the Netherlands [not sure if that's the entirity of the Dutch] and it has caused crime." Right... that makes sense.
I don't do drugs, I never will, and I won't let me kids do them, either. So that being said, let's start with just marijuana. A law keeping people from smoking something harmless, which has health benefits to cancer patients, is currently keeping 45,000 people in state and federal prisons (in the US). This law disproportionately affects minorities and people in the inner-city. It costs us $1B/year to incarcerate those people, not to mention the amount of money we spend on the "drug war." It causes gangs and organized crime, because people still want to get it. It's cheaper and more available now than it was when we criminalized everything. (For harder drugs, those who WANT help can't get it.) So tell me, out of all those effects of the law, which is your favorite?
@Severity One said:
But what is the cause, and what is the effect? Were guns banned because of high incidence rates, or is there a lot of violence because of the bans? Without any second thought, you make a link between the two, and choose cause and effect based on your personal preference.Show me one place that guns were banned because of high-incidence rates. Every time, it's because of a knee-jerk reaction to a mass shooting.
@Severity One said:
There is a connection between private gun ownership and murder rates.
How about instead of gun ownership, we look at states that allow you to concealed carry? States that have "shall issue" laws have 24% lower violent crime, 19% lower murder rate and 39% lower robbery rate than other states. Guns aren't that useful if (like California or Washington DC) you can't carry them or use them. The correlation that you're trying to suggest is usually touted by those against guns as "guns increase gun homicides." Well, yes, THAT is true, but who cares? Once again, you have to look at the total homicides, and total violent crime. I'd rather have 100 homicides by gun than 200 homicides by knives, even though the second instance has a lower "gun homicide" rate.
@Severity One said:
And no country have such a proliferation of guns as the USA does.
Ok? What's your point? Switzerland REQUIRES males between 20-30 to have an actual assault rifle capable of full-auto or selective fire! And 29% of households have a gun compared to 43% in the US. And Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world! Maybe guns aren't the problem, eh?
@Severity One said:
Also, looking through some articles and statistics to be found on the internet, I find absolutely nothing that corroborates the claim that crime rates in the UK and Australia would have consistently had higher crime rates after abolition.
I'm not even sure what this is trying to say, unless you're trying to argue my point.
@Severity One said:
Im fact, one of the first articles you find is that crime has been going down in the UK over the past decade, and that it's safer that most of western Europe.
First off, crime has been going down everywhere. Crime has been dropping for 20 years in the US. The reason it was high to begin with was *gasp* drugs! For your claim that the UK is safer than Europe, you're going to have to give me a reference. The only things I can find say that the rate of crime is falling FASTER than that of the rest of Europe. That's like saying a fat person is losing weight faster than a skinny person, so the fat person must be skinnier.
@Severity One said:
Finally, we have all these scenarios painted out, whereby one has to defend himself and his family against all these assaillants bent on killing and/or raping them. The fact of the matter is that in the vast majroity of rapes and murders, the victim is close to the perpetrator. What's your gun going to do against your own family member?
Shoot them? Sounds simple to me.
@Severity One said:
You're right. Let me know how when that drug war works out.
But no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade those who have already made up their minds. No amount of figures or statistics will do either.
@paperwing said:
no, he meant to ask "why do pointers implement interfaces?" If you're saying that a pointer has to implement an interface so that you can change data on the object, that's yet another WTFYour link has no relevance to why pointers are allowed to implement interfaces. The code in that link dereferences the pointer the first chance it gets.
Pointers are allowed to implement interfaces because of the same reason you might want to pass a pointer to a function. A common reason is that you might want to modify the receiver. If you only pass a value to the method, then the caller won't see the modifications you did inside the method, just like with functions. Another reason: you have a big struct with lots of fields, and you don't want to have it copied all the time you call a method. And anyways, what else can do you want to do with a pointer than to dereference it?
A code example, to demonstrate why pointer receivers are necessary when you need to modify the receiver:
If what you meant to ask was "why do pointer receivers and value receivers have different method sets?" Then look at this, especially Rob's last reply:
@Arnavion said:
That's what I read. I haven't done it myself.Oh, right. I was talking about Resharper too.
But do you mean that Resharper can be run in a pre-checkin hook? I didn't know that.
@Arnavion said:
@Sutherlands said:And by Reflector I mean Resharper. And you can enforce that by creating a TFS hook.Also, Reflector. It's better than any of the Cops.
The cops are just that - cops. They make sure no one can break the rules (pre-checkin hook). Reflector is like that fairy on your shoulder that stops you from getting in trouble with the cops in the first place. But some people don't believe in fairies, which is why you still need the cops.
@joe.edwards said:
@Sutherlands said:It's really nasty. There are (as shown) other ways of doing it. Also, Reflector. It's better than any of the Cops.So... we're saying that the only thing that determines whether something is externally visible is whether it is lowercase or uppercase? Sheesh.
It's really just codifying naming convention into law. It's kind of nasty but I actually find the idea of forced consistency appealing.
In C# I use _prefixedCamel for private instance members, regularCamel for locals and parameters, PascalCase for anything public or protected. If I could make the build break if one of our team members violated this convention, I would turn that option on.
Interesting side-story: A group that provides DLLs for our web team recently went through and made it mandatory for a check-in to not have any warnings. Because of this, a dev went through and "fixed" all the capitalization errors... breaking the DLL for us, since, you know, none of the variable names matched. He didn't think to question why they were forcing this, but just made the changes...
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:In this thread or in some magical fairy thread that I haven't read? Because in this thread I don't even see a definitive yes before this post.We've been over this about eighty thousand times. Yes.So... we're saying that the only thing that determines whether something is externally visible is whether it is lowercase or uppercase? Sheesh.
So... we're saying that the only thing that determines whether something is externally visible is whether it is lowercase or uppercase? Sheesh.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:There's like, no encapsulation because, there's like, no class hierarchy, man... we're all equals here.Except they are methods, they're just lexically outside of the data definition. exampleOkay, what do you think that example actually shows? How is access to members controlled here? I just see a function that gets the value of a public member. How is encapsulation being performed here?
Am I missing something other than your typical spam message?
@paperwing said:
Stuff about exceptionsIn this case, errors are much more verbose than exceptions, and has no advantages over exceptions. Exceptions are cleaner and easier to code against. You can still catch errors and deal with them the same way, and you don't have to bubble them up in a critical path. They're also harder to forget. Exceptions are easy to use in concurrent code, and (at least in C#) it's easy to know what state is valid (as long as you don't do something like modify the parameters in the method).
@paperwing said:
For a less silly example, what if I'm processing a big file line-by-line, and one line has weird data in it that I don't care about, because all the other lines are still valid? I can't stop for one measely line that has a misplaced semicolon in it. So I ignore the error. As long as the processing function recognises the invalid data and doesn't corrupt the program state, it's cool. And what if I do report the error? Well, what if all the lines are weird? Then I end up spamming the log or the console. That's bad too. I remember using an mp3 player that did exactly that, spamming the console when it hit a damaged MP3 header.
You should be doing validation on your lines as you process them, not blindly processing and then throwing an exception when it fails. Or if a line being formatted correctly is an exceptional case, then you can catch that exception, possibly store it somewhere, and continue. Errors has no benefits over this.
@paperwing said:
But if you're writing a program that is gonna be presented to a user with little to no programming ability (and especially with no incentive to debug your code), then why show them a stacktrace at all?As has already been pointed out, you have this idea that if you throw an exception, it will eventually be shown to the user. This couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe quit using crappy programs in a crappy OS? ;)
@paperwing said:
You can implement an interface however you like. You can decide whether to use a pointer receiver or a value receiverWhat's the purpose of having a pointer to a type inherit an interface? What is the "thing" that is actually implementing it? You might be able to convince me that this is a good idea, but I certainly can't see why it ever would be.
@paperwing said:
If the language didn't have shadowing, we would end up thinking about local variable names a lot more in order to use descriptive ones.Shadowing is one of the worst language features you can possibly have. You don't have method overloading, but you have variable shadowing?? You would have to think about different names?? How long are your methods that you need so many similar variables?
@paperwing said:
Shadowing is convenient, if sometimes a bit confusing.So to you, it lets you program faster with more bugs?
@paperwing said:
True, no classes. No type hierarchy either, i.e. no inheritance. That's by design, and with good reasons (see this, if you are curious: <font color="#698d73">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sln-gJaURzk</font> ). You can still have methods, though, and interfaces, and embedding (which is subtly but significantly different from inheritance).
You're going to have to do better to convince me that no classes and no type hierarchy is a good thing without saying "watch this hour long video."
@paperwing said:
You are confusing some terms.Well, no, he's not. From Wikipedia: "In different programming languages a subroutine may be called a procedure, a function, a routine, a method, or a subprogram." The difference can be summarized as a static function/method or an instance function/method.
@paperwing said:
You can have your "member functions" on structs too, yes. And you can even define normal functions, of which the first parameter can be a struct, that is true too.Ok, so you can still define your functions related to the class inside the class? That's good, although the syntax for declaring an instance method is pretty verbose.
@paperwing said:
True, go doesn't have constructors, because constructors are just an unnecessary special case of functions.Er, no, they're not. They define what happens when you create a new instance of an object. If anybody can call "new foo()" and you don't get to define what happens when they do that, then (as he said) you have no way to guarantee a consistent state of the object.
@paperwing said:
Your claim about inconsistent state is false.No it's true, see above.
@paperwing said:
Name your function differently. For example, in the os package there'sOh, so you can be extremely creative when naming functions (where you can actual need a lot of similarly/identically named things) but not with variables?
@paperwing said:
It simplifies the language and speeds up the method lookup when using interfaces, I think.First off, if you don't know that it speeds up the method lookup, then don't say that it does. Second, has anyone had a performance problem with languages doing method lookups? Then it's not a problem that needs fixing. Third, it doesn't simply the language at all. If I want to print something, I'll type "Print" and look at the different lists of arguments that it can take, easy as pie. In your method, I have to know ahead of time the different name that matches the arguments I want to give it. Not easy.
@paperwing said:
the uncapitalized print and println functions (without any package qualifier either) are there for bootstrapping purposes.I wanted to see in the docs for printf and println if it said "don't use these". It doesn't.
@paperwing said:
The go lang developers were careful not to define any methods on built-in types, by design. That is because it keeps the type system clean and simple.How in the world could you possibly think that??
@paperwing said:
str += string(ch1) + string(ch2)I understand why, but there are some things that are good to have done implicitly. Char->string conversion is one of them."Go doesn't implicitly anything."
@serguey123 said:
@Sutherlands said:Ah yes, it must not be like that anywhere else. In the UK, once again, there are 2-5 times as many home invasions because they basically don't allow you to defend yourself.I'd venture that most people that have driven for awhile have done it at least once.Man, people in your country suck @Sutherlands said:And besides, 1 in 5 homes each year will experience a break-in or home invasion.Wait, why are you living in post apocaliptic Detroit then?
@serguey123 said:
Don't you have traffic signs or police or something? I guess that GPS devices would also show if the street is one way or not so I don't see why they shouldn't get a ticket even if they are from out of state. There is no point in having a law and no enforcing it.So much fail... why do you think that police are there for every traffic infraction? Why do you think they would ignore this?@serguey123 said:
@nonpartisan said:People drive the wrong way down streets every day. I'd venture that most people that have driven for awhile have done it at least once. And it's something that is easy to avoid. A meteorite, on the other hand, doesn't happen hardly ever, and can't really be avoided so looking up would do nothing.I'd venture it's a pretty safe bet you're more likely to get hit by a wrong-way driver on any individual day than to be hit by a meteorite.So, ass-pull? Look, I never said that one was more unlikely than the other, they are both small risk occurrences that you shouldn't worry about. As long as you are aware of how small is the risk I'm fine with that. Whatever brings fullfillment to your pretty much danger free live.
And besides, 1 in 5 homes each year will experience a break-in or home invasion. That's a pretty high chance if you ask me.
@TDWTF123 said:
I'm impressed. You've managed to make your statement even stupider by correcting it.
Oh please tell me how.
@TDWTF123 said:
Not only is the UK not the 'violent crime capital of Europe',Please tell me how it's not.@TDWTF123 said:
but, as should be obvious to anyone but a complete idiot or absolutely closed-minded fanatic, violent crime is the set of which gun crime is a member.Yup... well aware... not sure who this is directed to or what your point is here.
@nosliwmas said:
Ammo is easy to make.@Sutherlands said:
Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.When they can print the ammunition I'll start worrying.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Sutherlands said:Have you not heard of The Liberator?Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.Any gun created with a 3-D printer is going to melt after two shots. That's assuming it doesn't blow up and kill you first. That said, maybe one day we'll be able to print all the guns we want.
Still, it's not hard to just manufacture a lower receiver for an AR-15 out of sheet metal (since that's the only part actually regulated under firearms laws) and buy the rest of the components online since they're not regulated.
@nosliwmas said:
stuffThere's a lot of truth to what you say, but it's easy to say that guns should be outlawed when you're a male, particularly a big one. When you're a small guy, or especially a small woman, that's when you get to be the victim of all the crime that's going on (that's not gang- or drug-related).
Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.
Well let's just start from the stupid things you've said...
@serguey123 said:
So guns can stop crimes in the past? Who knew?No, they can't. But they can stop a crime from having ever been committed without it being in progress. Which you knew, so I'm not sure why you said this.
@serguey123 said:
A criminal can of course think: "Boomzilla might have a gun so I should not mess with him". Other alternatives are: "Boomzilla might have a gun so I should put a bullet in him first".They can, of course, think both ways, but the latter requires the criminal to know who has the gun. If I know that half the home-owners in a particular neighborhood have a gun in the house, I'm not going to risk it. But if I know that none of the home-owners do, then I'll go there to commit whatever crime. It's a fact that criminals are deterred by guns.
@http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html said:
Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982, 34% reported having been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."[60] From the criminals' standpoint, this experience was not rare.
@serguey123 said:
Crimes occur and will keep occuring wether you have a gun or not, wether everybody has a gun or not.So since it will happen, we shouldn't care about how much it happens? Stupid statement.
@serguey123 said:
Saying that widepread usage of guns will prevent crime by itself is as stupid as saying that widepread usage of guns will produce crime by itself.No, it's not. Just the fact of the possibility of someone having a gun prevents crime.
@serguey123 said:
Of course if you have a legal gun, I'm ok with that, the chances of a legal gun in hand of the owner harming an innocent other than themselves is pretty low. The chances of that weapon stopping crime [b]in progress[/b] is pretty low as well.FTFY
@morbiuswilters said:
@Sutherlands said:Blah, blah, violent crime capital of EUROPE.Look at the UK. It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK.The UK: capital of the UK.
@serguey123 said:
So can you give me data that would back that countries with low crimes and no guns will be better off with guns?Yes. Look at the UK. It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK. It has worse crime than Europe, America, Australia, Canada, and South Africa.@serguey123 said:
Not alwaysClever response.@serguey123 said:
And guns are the only disuader? Or even the best?No, and yes. Was there a point, or are you just asking random questions at this time?
Ok, well, I'm going to try and address the real points that people actually made. I'm actually interested in having a discussion.
@Severity One said:
I'm not saying to compare South Central to Kensington, or Ukraine to New Hampshire, but you can't explain that pretty huge difference by demographics alone. The lax gun laws and the inevitable proliferation of guns to those who are not honest, upstanding citizens, make your life less safe.
Well, you're certainly correct in that giving guns to bad people makes you less safe. Also, taking them away from good people makes you less safe. And anyway, as boomzilla stated above, this has nothing to do with the gun laws. There are many reasons for our homicide rate (which is declining), the number one factor in my mind being the "War on Drugs." If we legalized some drugs and treated them as a health issue instead of a criminal issue, it would do oh-so-much for our country and our prison population.
For statisitics and guns, you can't just say "this country has lax gun laws and much more murders than this other country." You have to look at the effect the laws have had. You also can't just look at "gun crime"... you have to look at all the crime. If we got rid of all guns and completely eliminated gun murders, but our number of total murders doubled, it wasn't worth it. So looking at the UK and Austrailia, 2 countries that basically completely banned guns... their crime rate went up. So they were each a safer country when they had guns. Even within the US, you look at all the places that have high murder and crime rates, and they're generally places that have banned guns.
@serguey123 said:
@Sutherlands said:Actually, guns are great at defending. Many times, simply them being around is enough to dissuade an attack. The threat they might POSSIBLY be there dissuades attacks.Then you don't need a gun, you just need something to disuade an attack
Er... well, in that PARTICULAR instance you would need something to dissuade an attack... maybe. But the reason a gun dissuades an attack is because it has the power to follow through on the threat, which is what is the dissuader.
@serguey123 said:
The problem is that guns are very shitty at defending, they are very good at killing though.Actually, guns are great at defending. Many times, simply them being around is enough to dissuade an attack. The threat they might POSSIBLY be there dissuades attacks. Mace and tasers, now those are crappy at defending.
@eViLegion said:
@OldCrow said:I'll try in my nicest tone to explain that seeds from plants can be dormant for awhile.And yes, I do take Genesis as fact.... etc.OK I'll bite, even though I take the view that people with religion are either:
(1) Trolling the entire world, hard, for their entire lives, and thus should really be ignored
OR
(2) Mentally ill, and thus should really be ignored
Now answer this: What about all the fucking plants? Nowhere does the bible mention how Noah saved the fucking plants... you know, the ones that need both oxygen and carbon dioxide in large amounts, without which they will starve and die in less than 40 days. The plants that drown if given too much water, because they automatically just suck that shit up, regardless of how much of it there is, thereby killing themselves.
My advice to you dude, is that if you don't want to flood the sidebar with "another argument on evolution", you should understand that we're (for the most part) logical, scientifically minded people around here. Logical, scientifically minded people who are gonna rip you a massive new one if you dare to spew you're stupid religious shit EVEN IN REPLY to someone else.
So basically, fuck you and your stupid beliefs.
And because I don't feel I've expressed this strongly enough, I'm simply going to repeat myself:
Fuck you and your stupid beliefs.
If you take the Bible as it is supposed to be (in this particular case, Genesis), a story about the formation of the Earth, it's very accurate, taken from the POV of an observer on the surface of the world.
So quit being a douchebag. I'll repeat myself. Quit being a douchebag.
@Severity One said:
Did you fix the budget yet?Because nobody in Europe is having a budget crisis?
I honestly can't remember the last time I accessed something by an index.
@morbiuswilters said:
I actually think there is a market for a well-designed language that fills a specific need--something high-level, object-oriented, garbage-collected but also compiled, with an eye towards performance and parallelism.Like C#?
@MiffTheFox said:
I am seriously a Gabumon IRL. Shockingly, we don't get very good internet in the Digital World.I'm just waiting for Lucille 2 to let me go out on the porch.
@dhromed said:
http://www.randomwebsite.com/@Ben L. said:@Sutherlands said:
Ben is a teapot.whu, where did you get that site?
@morbiuswilters said:As I tried pointing out, and as blakey has said before, you can't just post a link expecting people to know what you're trying to claim. Perhaps you should actually say something about them. You know, give context?I didn't read your link, but I know [the contents] is bullshit spread by morons@morbiuswilters said:This is how stupid you sound to non-stupid people. Is that what you want?
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:Oh did I forget to supply context for my links? Silly me.Ben is a teapot
@joe.edwards said:
(This is an obvious strawman but) what if (eg) a new wireless communication protocol caused brain cancer or sterility, but took 20+ years of exposure before it built up to that point?Then the only people who will be having kids are under 20 and we will be taken over by Honey Boo Boos!
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:In related news, Russia is almighty and Ben is a teapot.@morbiuswilters said:
@Sutherlands said:But... but... genetic engineering is EVIL! (Or so my wife says)Slap her.
I'm curious, however, to what you're talking about in terms of GMOs from 20k years ago. Are we just talking selective breeding? I've not heard of any sort of gene splicing more than 100 years ago.
It's just that sometimes, evil tastes good.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Sutherlands said:I'm not sure if it wasn't obvious or if you're just choosing to ignore it but I don't think those things. I'm well aware of how GMOs allow us to produce more food, and was already aware of the guy who was a super-humanitarian.But... but... genetic engineering is EVIL! (Or so my wife says)Slap her.
Seriously, almost everything you've ever eaten was genetically-engineered. Humans have been fucking with genetics since pre-history; most strains and species we eat didn't exist 20,000 years ago.
The difference is that genetic engineering used to be slow, error-prone and the people doing it had no idea what they were doing. Now people at least have some concept of what's going on and they can do more targeted manipulation of genes, which is significantly safer. The fear is nothing more than a modern-day witch hunt. People are ignorant of how agriculture and genes work, and are too full of themselves to bother learning, so instead they stand in the way of products that would save many people from illness and starvation.
Not to mention shit like crops that have improved disease- and pest-resistance, allowing for better yields and far less pesticide use. And unlike genetic engineering, pesticides actually are kind of a problem for the ecosystem, but do the anti-GMO people know this, or even care? Absolutely not.
Seriously, it's like somebody saying "I don't know about this modern surgery stuff, can't you just give me a couple belts of whiskey, slice me open with a hacksaw and rummage around in there with your unwashed hands? Oh, and don't forget to sew a few leeches into my belly--they're much safer than those nasty, modern, engineered antibiotics."
I'm curious, however, to what you're talking about in terms of GMOs from 20k years ago. Are we just talking selective breeding? I've not heard of any sort of gene splicing more than 100 years ago.
Also:
If they're engineered so that bugs won't eat them, why would you think it's safe for us to eat them?!
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:Super Flexibility - no need to ask can I use four hours of my Personal Time Off to go renew my license? Just do what you need do, and make sure you get what you need to get doneIn theory my job works that way.
In reality, my boss is kind of a dick about it, and he's the one who recommends me for raises.
No offense to Alex, but I've learned to take claims like that with a very very very big grain of salt. I've heard from enough Googlers to know, for example, that "20% time" is a myth for the vast majority of their employees. I've heard from Valve employees that their "no bosses" policy is complete bullcrap. Just because something in the job listing doesn't mean it actually exists in the culture of that workplace.
This is what I thought of.
Also, Ben: Bigger is not always better.
@morbiuswilters said:
But, no, it's not a lack of land or drought or whatever that is causing people to starve. Those things can make things rather hard, but plenty of countries have managed to survive while dealing with them. A lot of that is thanks to the advances made by American agriculture. I'm guessing you've probably never heard of Norman Borlaug, but you should have. The next time you hear somebody say something like "Steve Jobs was a hero", slap the dicks out of their mouth and point them to that article. In the mid-20th century, many poorer countries were facing imminent starvation due to overpopulation and the collapse of organized agriculture in post-colonial countries. This guy comes along and finds ways to triple agricultural output, saving an estimated one billion (yes, with a "b") people from starvation.But... but... genetic engineering is EVIL! (Or so my wife says)