Only COMMUNISM will allow these inventions to serve humanity. Under private ownership they will cause more poverty and exploitation.

Again, what does this have to do with net neutrality?

The business world certainly does. You have to be very rich and very powerful to get away with punching a colleague and JC just found out that he's not as powerful as he thought he was. He's like the rest of us - punch colleague, get fired.

More than that believe you follow the wrong religion. Number of believers have nothing to do with anything.

You always sack over violence. If JC is smart he'd pay off that producer big-time not press charges; a couple million quid at least. All indications on JC are otherwise, however; he'll lose a lot more in future income with a GBH conviction than a couple million quid.

I used to think that too but I changed my mind. There's no point in doing that in the current marriage climate; not enough couples are together so paternity leave ends up useless to the unattached father and thus he may not take it anyway, making him even more valuable than women and attached men.

Unintended consequence: if only 2% of men are unattached fathers[1], they would be selected for the most by employers. This preference would lead to more men forfeiting paternity leave, and this situation would continue in a vicious cycle until *all* men forfeit their paternity leave. The end result would be an even greater resistance to hiring young women.[2] Another unintended consequence is that this situation makes being an unattached father even more desirable than it is now. There are precious few benefits to a man in marriage right now, so adding more points to the "don't get married" side is going to make the current decline in birth rates accelerate to off-a-cliff levels.

[1]The figure is a lot higher than this, IIRC.
[2]Older women have probably already had all the kids they want to and thus have a lower risk of taking maternity leave.

Correct me if I am wrong, but do they not get to deduct the cost of running the business from taxable income? So, they receive $100k a year in revenue from business operations, and it costs $20k a year for their car (used for business), then they only pay tax on the $80k.

I dunno about you, but my car, that I use exclusively in getting a salary, is not tax deductible. Hence, I do not feel that it is wrong to say that sole proprietorships get tax breaks that I do not get, even though I have to expend costs in bringing in revenue.

While I do broadly agree with you, I have to emphasise that when you are a business, and get all the tax breaks for your costs in running that business, then you should also deal with all the crap (no exclusivity in who buys your product/service) that comes with those advantages.

As to your muslim example, if he operates a business selling hardware he will experience legal trouble if he refuses to deal with people who want to buy hardware for use in a non-halaal butchery.

The other side of the coin, however, is work-to-order. Should a muslim/xtian/jew photographer experience legal troubles in advertising "I choose what work I will take on"?

These days it might just be for most use-cases. For example the "research" above show this - the time consumed in 1 million inefficient string concatenations is what... less than 5 minutes? If you only perform a few hundred string concats at a time the program's user won't even notice the delay. If, like most use cases, you only concat a few strings at a time (say, a few tens) the user *certainly* won't notice. Not that I agree with such inefficiencies[1], but I *do* see the "why optimise" PoV.

There are only two rules for optimisation:
1. Don't optimise.
2. (For experts only) Don't optimise yet!

[1]One of my tasks in my first year of employment was to take a TCP stack and port to a different micro. My second task was given when the code was going through tests - I had to speed it up by a factor of two. I understand optimisation, and the important thing that I understand is that I do not have to do it much anymore!

Yeah, but at least then they'd have to actually *write the inefficient code out*, thereby learning why it is inefficient. With Java and Python the novice does not know about the inefficiency because it is hidden behind a "+" operator. This is why OP said to teach in C - you have to implement the concatenation yourself and in the process you learn how not to do it.

Thanks, that was what I was trying to say; same difference.

May as well build an anti gravity device and get done with it ;-)

I don't know shit about super cluster but I am sure I could get along quickly applying basic principles.