Imagine, if you will, a mix of tabs and spaces that place two lines the same distance from the left-margin, yet, to Python, are at different indentation levels.

Visually identical means exactly that -- no visible distinction between the two programs. Take two screen-shots, they'll be identical down to the pixel.

Not 'similar'. Not 'really really close'. Identical.

It's not something you can defend. Which is funny, considering that it's not even the worst problem caused by Python's absurd use of whitespace.

Some cultures were tolerant of homosexuality itself (even if they mocked it a bit), but none equated homosexual unions with marriage.

They were tolerant to the point of recognizing the unions; sanctioning and accepting them within society with the same deference as hetero unions.

What "equivalent of gay marriage"?

The roman equivalent of marriage; since marriage in 200 AD doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as marriage means today.

"With this man[1] Elagabalus[2] went through a nuptial ceremony and consummated a marriage [...]"

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/T...

[1] - Zoticus, a male consort of Elagabulus
[2] - Elagabulus, Roman Emperor, AD 218 to 222

And he was hardly the first or only, but at least this one is rather clearly and unambiguously documented as a "marriage", and not some other male-male relationship.

but it was always "hetero".

It really wasn't though.

Exactly. And the primary (if not the only) purpose of it â" always and everywhere â" was to rear children.

That would only be necessary in monogamous marriages within a Christian framework. It was plenty common for plural marriages to include marriages to both men and women.

And where did those children come from? Adoption? Surrogate mothers?

Additional female wives, concubines, consorts...

I fail to see, how a union of one male and one female must imply the former's ownership of the latter.

Those marriages you speak of for the purpose of "rearing children" were much more than that.

Those "Marriages" were contracts of chattel, duties, and obligations. (And the women was the chattel). The entire purpose of those "for the purpose of child rearing" marriages was not simply to bring a man and women together to produce children, but to establish the payment to the women's family for chattel rights to the woman and the joint offspring, define the amount of the payment, and to define terms for reparations to the 'buyer' if an offspring wasn't forthcoming. (including the return of the 'merchandise' and 'refund', perhaps even damages for time etc. To suggest that those elements are of "marriage" are any more or any less intrinsic to the transaction than the hetero nature of those contracts is simply nuts.

Because reading is difficult for you:

The claim was that == was intransitive. My claim was that, like every other language, transitivity only breaks down when you start to mix types.

Feel silly yet? You should.

And you felt the need to repeat it? Even though his reply was completely idiotic? Why?

Not sure what you mean. In case there is some confusion, in a lot of unofficial Oracle communication, "NT" means all Microsoft operating systems based on Windows NT. Some other old school software companies also use the word "NT" for this meaning even today.

So "NT" includes Microsoft server 2012 R2.

Silly AC - The corporation IS the Government. And unless you crawled out from under Atlas' rock. Corporations will not tolerate the free market.

Because that's not how it works. And if those companies are successful by using technology that Microsoft invented or has acquired patents for, I'm not sure why you think the legal system shouldn't apply to them. If they can't succeed without Microsoft's patents, it implies they have some value, even if Microsoft hasn't been able to leverage that value. If they don't want to pay, they can invent a way around Microsoft's patents.

Whether you think Microsoft's position is meritless or not, Samsung entered into a contract with them. They didn't ask a court for a legal opinion, they just stopped paying. You can't make unilateral decisions like that. They know they're stuck and the courts will reinstate the payments, but their long-standing MO is to do something illegal and then keep other companies tied up in litigation until the point is moot or the other side has run out of money. I'm not even just talking about Appleâ"they've done this as long as they've been around.

Microsoft's success or failure in the market isn't relevant, and neither is your position on whether they're deserving of the patents that they hold. They own the patents, they're not latent trolls (in the sense that they're making devices in the space where they hold these patents), and the legal system works like this right now. Maybe at some other time and place Samsung would be in the clear both legally and morally, but they're sure not right now.

Well, duh! No fucking shit captain obvious. Neither I nor the OP you originally replied to said otherwise. Strawman #1 for you.

Who said anything about abolishing. The OP didn't say anything about abolishing tools (go back to what he/she said). He/she complained about people not knowing what the tools do, and that he had to clean the mess they leave because of it. And I echoed the sentiment.

I challenge you to quote me WHERE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ABOLISHING A TOOL. Go find that sentence of mine and quote it. Don't reply before doing that first.

That's strawman #2 for you. I don't know if you don't know how to read or you are being deliberately obtuse. Keep building strawmen, whatever floats your boat.

You do not know that because you do not know who the *other* people are, what their capabilities are and what work ethics they possess. If people don't care to know how the stuff they do for a living works, it is hard to help.

Furthermore, the OP is not there to do a service to his peers, but to the company, his employer, the entity that writes him a check. I have been in the same situation, having to fix crap from peers who don't seem to know or care to know.

The following speaks in general terms without describing any of my present or past employers.

And part of me would like to put my teaching hat and do something (anything) that will help some of these people raise their skills for their own benefit (and my sanity.)

But guess what? There are only 24 hours a day, and there is always shit that needs to be done and shipped by deadlines that are external in nature (business changes or whatever), and I have this strange desire to go home every once in a while because I don't find the idea of growing roots at my cubicle appealing (shocking I know.)

So, shit needs to get fixed, I have limited time and the people who never show an interest to raise themselves to a level of competency are not going to fix shit when it needs to be fixed. So I fix shit to the benefit of my employer, or I teach (to people who don't seem to have the desire or ability to learn.)

Now, in general terms, these people are my employer's problem. I can try to assist in any way I can, but I need to first deal with the things I'm directly responsible while avoiding shit to hit the catastrophic fan.

So, I fix shit. And to retain my sanity, I stop caring if people show an inclination to learn or not. I will help anyone with a) the inclination, and b) the capacity to learn. But those people are typically proactive and are not, in general, the constant source of the type of predicaments discussed in this thread.

The Onion had an article on the Ebola vaccine and said that it was only 50 deaths of white-people away. . .

He/she doesn't have to say anything like that. Said person is giving you a counter-argument to your claim that every IDE does such and such. I can also give you another example IDE that is not MS and which does not necessarily put things in text files: Oracle's JDeveloper.

And even if an IDE puts things in text files, that does not necessarily makes them readable or tractable.

And here is the thing that you are missing when you first replied to jfdavis668. Your reply made references to IDEs whereas jfdavis668's reply made references to tools.

Not all tools are IDEs. The OP is referring to tools that generate heaps of stuff (auto-gen code, property files, xml descriptors and what not) and that there are developers who do not know how all of that is supposed to work. You see that a lot in Java and MS land.

The OP is referring to coders that simply add code snippets to make things run (typically only under the 'happy-case' scenario) - they don't know what exactly grabs their code, where it gets executed, how it access the database, how the views interact with them, how in technical terms users trigger their system (end-to-end) into action.

This is not a problem of IDEs generating a bunch of text files. It is a problem of developers not understanding the software stacks they use on a daily basis.

That is what the OP is complaining about, which is very reasonable. And then you went the IDE-generates-text-files strawman as if that were the issue under discussion. </whooosh>

I've worked with VS users, and I'll I can think to say is the following: define productive.

Don't get me wrong, I've worked with some true geniuses in the C#/C++/C/Win32API land, but those are few and far between. Productivity is not generating/reusing lots of stuff that does magic for you, and only the right magic so long as your needs stay down that nice and tidy narrow path. Well, we can define productivity to be *that*, but then, I can chose to re-define the symbol '3' to mean 'papaya'.

And btw, this is not just a VS pple case. The same crap happens in Java-land.

Modern IDEs help good developers tackle large bodies of code using a bunch of disparate technology stacks. And they make mediocre developers spawn heaps of horror onto this world. Productivity had little to nothing to do with IDE (as it is primarily a function of the developer's skills and the business culture surrounding the activity of development.)

And your credentials are what, exactly?

Separate company or not, controlling interest is with Microsoft USA. This isn't the US demanding Iresoft, an independent Irish company with no US presence, turn over data. It is the US demanding something of a US company's subsidiary.

They seem to have missed some really important benchmarks.

Clearly on the graphics side, the APU kills the i5.

The interesting thing was HSA which allows low latency CPU/GPGPU workloads, which allows the (relatively slow) GPU to work on a MUCH wider range of problems than any comparable product. Early indications, such as the LibreOffice spreadsheet program had the A10 killing even the top end i7s.

For other less extreme examples, the A10 was comfortably outpacing the i5 by a factor of 2 or more.