Um.. yeah, did your mom set your brain to boolean when you were born or something?

I'm curious: Could you list off a few discussion sites you pay a subscription fee to? I'd just like to know where I should go after you get your way.

Meanwhile, plenty of cities survive 8+ earthquakes with minimal loss of life while others hit by the same magnitude have death tolls measured in the tens of thousands. Real sound logic there, buddy.

I'm guessing because California has been in the news a lot lately for serious financial issues. The knee-jerk reaction is criticize LA for even more wasteful spending, and why not.. it's fun. La la land is silly, right? Normally yes, but the problem is that they're unaware that this was motivated by *two* significant earthquakes this year, signaling the end of a decade-long low cycle. They're actually doing a good thing, here.

A few notes:

Python's newer abstract base classes allow you to make types that specify the presence of abstract methods and properties and you can use isinstance(thing, base_class) to achieve something similar (and thereby making handling types more familiar to foreigners)

With respect to Java and call stacks; Java has no easy way to dispatch to a function by name. You either need to make a class hierarchy so that you can use virtual call dispatch; or you need an if-tree (which is ugly but underappreciated). I've seen a few Java brains melt when I give them something like:

        cast_spell[spell_type](spell_data, casting_context)

Of course, I could just make a base class for spells and grow a giant, sparse API; but the benefit of playing the default-implementation / function overriding game is suboptimal. At the end of the day, the class hierarchy is just a data structure to determine how different "types" of functions get dispatched. As it happens, it spreads things out in a way that makes them hard to visualize. It often forces me to shadow unrelated sections of other APIs that grow on the same base-class.

In short, it's a crappy data structure for the purpose and it makes a pain out of gathering the knowledge to know how that dispatch happens. Sure, the code is "type-correct", but that doesn't say very much about being logically correct. As it happens, type errors are easy errors--but figuring out how the class hierarchy isn't serving your logical needs is *not* an easy error.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not fundamentally opposed to a good type system. First-class functions in Haskell or the like could handle this with type-safety. However, our industry just isn't ready for all of the pipes, beards, and sweaters. So, given the choice between Python and Java, I pick the one that give me methods for dynamic dispatch that don't abuse an already incredibly limited inheritance mechanism. I'll take the language that allows extensible, generic function application instead of getting it as a side-effect of their implementation of an already stunted type-system.

It's a single fool with a gun, not a group.

But J-Law is not an anonymous nobody that only a very small number of people want to see naked.

She is not most users, she's a special case. Her risk is not the same, she's much more visible, much more desired.

It's not just a sample of random numbers, there's value attached to these images, and the value of most user's images is much lower than the value of those who are professionally attractive. Something of greater value is obviously at a greater risk of unauthorized access than something of average value.

To be fair, I know what "kill -1" is for and I've never used it on purpose. Of course, that's because "kill -1" comes from the school of "fixing" the symptoms of the problem without understanding what's actually causing it.

Doesn't work for anything that changes a kernel data-structure. Only code-path changes. As a sysadmin, do you spend the time to know the difference?

But are they constructing additional pylons?

Especially since, how would you discriminate between discrimination and outright greed?

That's exactly the problem. Doubt. A team like that needs good morale. Doubt your boss, drop the ball. Err pardon the expression.

I don't think our opinions are that far apart. I don't think we should ever have heard that conversation. The problem was that was a circumstance that couldn't have been unheard.

Anyway, I think we're starting to go in circles here. But I did want to say thanks for the discussion and that I hope you have a good weekend coming up.

I'd find it troubling if my boss hated me for reasons he should not be and may be under-paying me and a select group of my coworkers as a result of it.

Every year that goes by this just gets fuzzier and fuzzier. Soon your private chat is going to be picked up by somebody at the next table wearing Google Glass. Then the line will shift. And so on.

"what is your position on the forced sale of the clippers?"

Recording and leaking that audio was wrong. Since it was made public, through no fault of the NBA, it had to be dealt with. It wasn't a "what the US believes" sort of thing, it was an "oop, this got complicated fast, and our players may quit" sort of thing.

I do not believe the forced sale of the clippers is correct. I believe transmission of these photos is fine. this is what they deserve for their blind faith.

These two statements contradict each other. Sterling knows phone conversations can be recorded. He also knew he had an agreement with the NBA to behave. His blind faith lost him the Clippers. Now if you disagree with that statement we're actually a little closer to seeing eye to eye. We probably have differing ideas about where the line of liability should be drawn. Perhaps "phone chats are private but data on the cloud isn't", or something like that. The problem I have with that line of thought is the line between 'phone chat' and 'on the internet' is getting blurrier every year. Worse, we are not all masters of every domain we cross. You may know how to be safe on the internet, that doesn't mean you're super smart and are also super safe at getting your car repaired or at knowing when to use interest-free credit cards.

In either case you've got somebody who did something wrong. It sounds like tough-love right up until you're bitten by it.

I'm not talking about the bank with the bad security, I'm talking about the people actively sharing my love letters they know they don't have permission to send and how that weakens their position on certain topics.