Maybe. But VB developers were really inexpensive. If you found a good one, they were crazy productive as well.

* Object introspection - describe the methods and properties of an object
* Dynamic invocation - reflectively invoke methods of an object.
* Method interception - add or reroute methods for all instances or a single instance of an objection, optionally calling the original.

All that has nothing to do with "message passing".

Perhaps you should go back to school.

Both Obj-C and Swift are programming languages.

On the first glance no one knows which language you used to write a program / app in.

How should Apple be able to force you to use one or the other?

Why not give diseases numbers, and refer to emerging infections people who don't know by name using the number? You could have a system where each number prefix tells you more or less the family of diseases you're dealing with.

I know it sounds bizarre, but people seemed to be OK with H1N1 for "Swine Flu", so why not extend that to any kind of infectious (flu, malaria) or environmental (Minamata disease) etc.?

I've noticed this is a new trend on Slashdot. Don't read the whole sentence, just the first few works and they knee-jerk out a response.

So you are saying they are basically the same as guys. Men want the big boobed freak in bed and the lady at home getting dinner ready.

Opting out of society's standards for your gender is feminism. I wish guys would see that and just adopt feminism, because a lot of the work has been done already and we could all move forward a lot faster together instead of blaming each other.

If you change "male" to "female" then that's exactly what feminists were saying back in the 60s. You can fix the problem by adopting feminist ideals. Feminists want the same liberation for men, always have.

This is what they mean by the patriarchy. Not men in charge or dominating, but a society where both men and women feel that they have to be something they are not. Something that existed as an ideal historically, and which needs to be abandoned.

Forget all that, the best advice has always been and still is to be yourself. I mean your real self, not some macho bullshit version or overly nice. Just act normal and things will fall into place, because you both feel at ease.

All these games and schemes are pointless. You might get laid once or twice but forget about real relationships.

You are blaming the wrong group. It's not women who are the problem, or feminism. It's the lack of men's liberation.

Back in the 50s many women tried to live up to an ideal that men wanted, much as you describe women wanting now. Thin, beautiful, a good housewife, doesn't speak too much, dedicates herself to her man and her family while he goes out to work and then the bar with his friends.

Then in the 60s women were liberated. They rejected the old ideal and did what they wanted to do. They had careers, dressed how they pleased, didn't get married so early etc. It worked out well for them, and didn't result in the end of civilisation or marriage and families or anything like that.

Interestingly many of the problems men not have are mirrored by women in the 50s and 60s. They feel exploited by the opposite sex, and develop psychological problems.

Does it need to? What are 8/5 wages? Do you know exactly what her wages would be with and without the phone? If someone offered you $500k / y 8/5 would you complain if you were required to do 24/7 support?

People who demand everything be spelt out as a line item in a contract without looking holistically are sickening. If she knew she had to be on call before she took the job, then the number on the contract is all that matters regardless of how you think that number should be distributed over the year. If anything I would PREFER that the number said 8/5, especially if there's provisions for overtime fees when called out.

What since when do you need absolute agreement for something to be a problem? Also feel free to reject my premise, but ultimately that's just closing your eyes and shouting la la la. The fact is (and facts can be checked simply by searching Windows 8 in slashdot and reading the comments) that everytime you introduce a change in the way people use something without changing the underlying functionality then you end up with change for change's sake arguments, and the resulting hate. If you disagree, fine, live in your bubble.

Actually you addressed the exact opposite of your original post just now, that each system should have an optional different interface. As opposed to the ubiquitous UI that covers all cases I was talking about.

Agree

Disagree. Well partially. The reason computers got to where they did today was appealing to the fact that anyone can use them. Experts certainly had no problem punching in commands on a Linux terminal, but that certainly wouldn't result in computers being in every home in the world. It's an extreme example, but you can't cater for one group or the other, you need to cater for both. From a business point of view screwing the existing customers with what is essentially a monopolistic vendor lock-in in favour of making it easier for new users means larger sales in the long run.

But ultimately my entire point since the beginning is that there's no easy answer.
You can't design a system to do one thing in a world where they do multiple
You can't design a UI for one device in a world where the device changes by virtue of unclipping a keyboard
You can't design a system for one target audience in a world that is increasingly absorbing another non-tech audience.

I was speaking figuratively, but you also suffer from observer bias. You have friends and know people from clubs?

I know colleges who are engineers, administrators, web designers, photographers, people who don't do this as a hobby or for racing, people who never gave it another thought other than the fact you can buy an out of the box ready to fly (shit I don't think anything was ready-to-fly back 20 years ago) for under $400. These people are very different from aviation fanatics, racers, or other people who take their hobbies seriously.

Just like I as a hobby photographer knew lots of people with film SLRs I'm under no delusion that SLRs were anywhere near as prolific as they are now.

Clearly we are living in a post-irony world.

I was reading an essay the other day by a woman who was against Mother's Day. She raised her kids not to observe Mother's Day because she didn't want to be one of those Moms dragging screaming toddlers into restaurants to have dinner with Grandma. My reaction to her was the same as my reaction to you, which is get a grip, for chrissakes.

Let me give you some genuine old-fart perspective. Everyone thinks they're more special than they really are, especially when they're young. This extends to having troubles. Everyone thinks they got a raw break; that their generation got a raw break. Hell, my generation thought so; I went to college in an era after The Pill and when there were no STDs that couldn't be cured with penicillin; the minimal standard of "do-ability" was at a historic low. And still people were miserable. And the funny thing was our parents had to pull themselves out of the Great Depression then go over the Europe to kick Hitler's ass and they thought of themselves as lucky.

Not getting goodies handed you you gratis does not make you special. Life costs you, just like it has costed every generation of humans since Olduvai Gorge.

Fuck off. It means exactly what I and others think it means. What you and the other fascists who run around ridiculing others for is for objecting to the blatant over reach and Police State tactics employed by the FORMERLY FREE United States of America by implying that we should have no expectations of "privacy", nor any "rights" at all for that matter. So while you and I both know that America is nothing short of a Fascist Police State, on Paper it's supposed to be a Free Society and though the Interests of a Corporate Personhood outweighs the rights of a "citizen" -- In this case, the "citizen" is correct and shall be awarded damages for this intrusion into her "privacy" and violation of Labor Code.