When Democrats win, they get a misty tear in their eye as they are overcome with pride that the will of the people has prevailed, democracy has been saved, and their party now has a clear mandate.
Morons, all of them.
Private space companies do offer much cheaper launches due to their ability to realize cost efficiencies that we'd be fools to expect from government agencies, and we'll see how their safety and reliability track records compare in the long run.
This is the sort of thing that makes me REALLY nervous about the prospect of private manned space flight.
Because government spacecraft don't occasionally explode?
Because climatologists have never thought of looking at climate history
My post didn't claim otherwise.
It's as if you have no fucking idea what climatologists base their theories on, and yet have decided they are wrong.
Not once in my post did I claim that climatologists base their theories on anything other than historical data, or that those observations are wrong. I do assert that many predictive projections have not come to fruition, and that AGW critics use these instances to their rhetorical advantage. I also claim that the inaccuracy of projections has nothing to do with the motives or competence of the scientists involved, and everything to do with the fact that predictions about the future are inherently hit or miss.
The ignorance and arrogance in your poster is awe-inspiring
Your atrocious grammar is awe-inspiring.
Most criticism of the AGW consensus points to predictive graphs and narratives that turned out to be wrong in some way, making it easy to call into question the credibility of climate scientists in general. Indeed, climate science seems to have problems in this area- because predicting the future is REALLY HARD, and in fact next to impossible. Scrambling to explain why predictions turned out to be wrong after the fact does nothing but harm to the general public acceptance of climate science consensus.
Instead, they should stick to unimpeachable analysis of historical observations and measurements, which is a far stronger platform on which to present the AGW science to the general public. Statements about the future can usefully be kept general and unspecific.
We currently have a Supreme Court justice who invoked Oliver Wendell Holmes in her confirmation hearings and recently lamented that the majority decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District would lead to "heightened constitutional scrutiny" in other cases. Yes, the horror of constitutional scrutiny.
Not to mention President Obama who told a bunch of Ohio State graduates to pay no attention to people who warn about government tyranny- "You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted." You got that? As long as we have democracy, then no problem. Trust us.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to "trust" that the State and/or political majorities will not violate my rights. Indeed, the NSA is bluntly demonstrating that they cannot be trusted. History has also plainly demonstrated that unrestrained State power leads to corruption at best and human atrocity at worst.
We need to understand the extreme importance of written, respected, and enforced limits on State power. Democracy alone is not enough to save us. Unfortunately those limits become inconvenient for those who seek to wield power in pursuit of their own preconceived social outcomes or personal benefit.
- A method should do one thing, and be named for exactly what it does or returns.
- If the method is unable to successfully perform the one thing it's supposed to do, it must throw an exception.
- Returning null is not an acceptable course for error situations within a method. Null values indicate non-existence of the return data the caller is seeking, not an error.
- It is the caller's responsibility to determine whether it can safely continue if a method cannot complete its task successfully. If not, it must throw the exception upward, as it then cannot complete its own task successfully. This includes the entire program itself.
- For methods that return a Collection, a null value should generally never be returned. The caller is seeking a Collection of something, so it's either empty or it's not.
Nothing profound here, but putting these together and articulating them has helped our staff to write better, more reliable code.