Comment Re:I wish him luck... (Score 2) 156
Where are these cheap bastards you speak of? Cheap bastards would be paradise, next to the *predatory* bastards in Congress who pose as cheap bastards while steering money to political allies' companies.
Where are these cheap bastards you speak of? Cheap bastards would be paradise, next to the *predatory* bastards in Congress who pose as cheap bastards while steering money to political allies' companies.
In the name of freedom.
replacing rockets with prayer
This is almost a good idea, but you've got it backwards. If you convince christians that sending their prayers to heaven on rocket casings will make them more interesting to jesus then you'll have all the funding you can use.
We are very close. Our society overproduces enough now (and throws out about half!)
Close? Yeah, all we have to do is invent AI, right?
This is subjective. But it certainly goes beyond "remembering whether to capitalize the first character of your methods and variables", at least if we're talking about idiomatic C# vs Java.
That's true, sometimes I forget and accidentally type 'foreach' instead of 'for.'
Seriously though, the differences between Java and C# are miniscule compared to the differences in other languages. I spent the evening reading A Method of Programming. No one will ever look at that and confuse it with either language.
There is one good reason for avoiding checked exceptions though. Interfaces. In Java it is required that either 1. all exceptions that might ever be thrown by implementations of an interface be declared at the interface decleration or 2. all exceptions be bundled in RuntimeExceptions to short circuit the checked exception mechanism anyway (with the potential side effect of ruining stack traces).
Just throw Exception, unless you have some specific behavior change that can happen if a different exception is thrown, in which case you can throw Exception AND the SocketException (to use your example). Problem solved. RuntimeExceptions won't be bundled with that.
As far as catching exceptions go, imo unless you are going to do something specific to deal with an exception, then catching it is bad coding practice.
That depends on the error handling strategy of your program. It is especially important if you need to release resources. Either way, it's good to let the callers know what to expect.
If you don't like it, pay for service and you won't get ads.
It's not complicated, many of us have been doing it for years. Apps for your Domain solved the advertising issue.
When they are built at zero marginal cost, they will be free, just like internet content.
They won't be. The cost might be "too cheap to meter" just like internet content, but that depends on a radical drop in the cost of the basic resources too.
To move forward, you'll need to fund a blinded RCT of a measles vaccine.
And as I already noted, absence of rigor is not proof something is wrong. Your p=0.05 standard is rather weak too. Even from a frequentist (holding to certain "large data" statistical assumptions) viewpoint, that's still a large 1 in 20 chance of being wrong. Empiricism can't deal in absolute certainty. Sure, you might be right.
But I find it interesting that what you use as evidence is also evidence of the great drop in prevalence of measles. After all, measles doesn't suddenly stop becoming highly infectious just because people don't try to be deliberately infected as children. We should be seeing most adults infected by measles, if they don't have some sort of immunity (it's been a while since the measles vaccine was introduced). Similarly, doctors don't suddenly start misdiagnosing measles just because there is a vaccine out there. These changes indicate a sudden large drop in the infectiousness of measles which can be readily explained by the widespread use of the measles vaccine (which according to Wikipedia was first available in 1963 and became part of the MMR vaccine package in 1971). Where's the vast number of infections of people under the age of 40 in the developed world?
History has shown that the freer the market is, the faster it gets overtaken by monopolies.
Then you should be able to provide examples. Be warned, I will show how your reasoning is flawed as you do so.
Once the monopolies are established, they use their economic means to ensure that the market is anything *but* free.
Established? How? Already we have a non-free market mechanism in the works via your "locking" mechanism.
Bear in mind that I also am not concerned by temporary monopolies. They create pricing signals that lure in new competition.
The problem with your unregulated utopia is that psychopaths exist who would quickly corrupt it and turn it to their own benefit. Human nature will ruin any attempt at a pure "free" market. We've already seen the effects of businesses being able to do whatever they want in the pursuit of profit. The Cuyahoga river caught on fire 13 times.
That's only a problem if you don't anticipate it. How are those psychopaths going to stay employed? How are those psychopaths going to get people to work for them?
br.
As to regulation, I don't rule it out. Sure, we need some environmental regulation.
If you're turning a 1/2" bolt using a Hulk-like plastic ratchet with a 1" drive, you will have a lot more mechanical advantage to work with.
As an added bonus, big oversized tools are easier to work with while wearing gloves...
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
