Comment Re: I like... (Score 1) 643
The more relevant point is that we now have the awareness and technology proven to curb the problem. It would be irresponsible NOT to use it everywhere.
The more relevant point is that we now have the awareness and technology proven to curb the problem. It would be irresponsible NOT to use it everywhere.
That could be solved with a different heat exchange design. For example, one that transfers from metal to a gas loop then to water.
You haven't been reading the news if you don't realize that cops have been beating innocents, lying in court, claiming peaceful protesters are violent, and other such violations of rights that won't be so easy to get away with if the cop has to wear a camera.
These responsibilities have been with local authorities all along. What has changed? Technology? Funding?
A combination of rampant failure to uphold that responsibility and technology becoming available to address the situation.
The 4th, 1st, and 6th amendments. All of which have been regularly violated when nobody was looking.
I could as easily pick apart your arguments. I find it hard to imagine never using code that is shared with other projects for example. Why re-invent the wheel? Are you declaring code re-use dead? What about the system libraries? Do you hack those without notice too?
And what happened to unit testing where you should easily enough shake out cases where people called a function they shouldn't have?
I have argued that the programmer who just takes the IDE's word for it will eventually end up in deep trouble.
You seem to be arguing that duck typing is bad because shoddy practices rule.
Rule it destroyed evidence and therefor presumed to favor the other party.
For once though, the Feds would be acting within the Constitution by requiring this.
While plausible, your scenario plays out pretty much the same way now without the camera.
It's easily solved if the law requiring the cameras also requires that 'missing' video for any reason is to be treated as destroyed evidence in court. That is that it shall be assumed that the video was favorable to the other party's position.
So if the plaintiff in the civil suit says he was beaten unprovoked and the video is missing, then as far as the court is concerned, it would have shown an unprovoked beating.
At this point, I wonder how your "everything in comments" system architecture works, since you seem to have issues reading. I mean, nothing I wrote says "call functions randomly".
No, you just called whatever the IDE autopopulated with, apparently without bothering to check what it was. Or at least that's what you said may happen.
You also talked about calling functions based on oral lore that has changed over time. That sounds pretty cargo-cultish to me especially since you apparently believe that might be a fair reason to have never looked at the doc string.
By making it happen through gas taxes, it prevents really key roads from charging rapacious rent seeking tolls. It also prevenmts the building of two roads where one will do.
As an added benefit, your position cannot be tracked through gas taxes.
Then there's the right-of-way situation. Roads need to have right of way cleared and it isn't going to happen without eminent domain. Surely that's not the sort of power that any private corporation should ever wield.
It got autopopulated in my IDE, and *sounds like* the function I intend to use. Possibly even one I've used before and am mis-remembering the name of. The "Here be Dragons" got added later, when the signature of the function didn't change (or it did, but duck-typing, so no-errors, let's go!) I was told about the function verbally, so I never read the docs. I then told someone else. At some point, the oral tradition drops the "Here be Dragons". In a less formal code review (maybe someone in charge of many programmers, who cannot do a full read of all of their code) there is no way to easily have them find it all using grep.
If any of that happens, you absolutely positively deserve everything you get. DO NOT call a function if you don't know what it is!
My actual assertion, BTW is that duck typing has advantages to go with the disavantages.
I have worked on a number of large projects with multiple coders. I presume you use the old cut'n'past code 'sharing' method with a significant appearance of the cargo cult antipattern?
Your solution is really fragile. It requires never changing classes once they are created (at least the public members thereof) because you never know if they are used. Which, in some languages, or with some programmers, is all the members.
You need to RTFC as well. Surely you don't recommend unilaterally changing code used in other projects!
Since the idea is that this universe is a simulation, who says it is a simulation of reality? Maybe we are some kids crazy fantasy world in which the container has to be larger then its contents! FREAKY!
The trick to thinking outside the box, is to stop thinking the box is real.
IF this is a simulated world, there is no reason to assume the rules in the simulation are the same as the ones of the world in which the simulation is running.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
