Have you edited Wikipedia lately? It's a fucking nightmare of committee-watched articles and instantaneous reversions.

Maybe women just want to put nice things on pinterest instead of arguing about pedantic bullshit all day.

crowdsourcing and internet slething just worked out so well for IDing the Boston Bombers, right?

Not so much just "fun" but necessary imho. And if you think TDD isn't fun, you should try refactoring or supporting code that has zero percent test coverage.

I saw this while tutoring in college as well. Students would come to me with code and manually test changes that they made to it. It was a menial and numbing task, and one that they would do only occasionally because of that fact. They were frustrated by how their changes often broke the other parts of their code. If only there was a way to automatically check if the rest of their code was ok... GASP! Sounds like a job for unit testing...

Insofar as fun, I don't know about the rest of you, but it does make me very excited to see all my tests pass. That means I'm getting somewhere!

I think that everybody thinks they do what's right for all. We just can't agree on exactly what that entails.

The GOOD solder is still lead-based. 60-40 tin-lead with multi-rosin core. Lead free solder means higher temperatures for soldering which means more burned traces and components...

Workbench does not have to mean "you do everything here." For example, I have multiple workbenches in my house, my computer workbench is very different from my soldering workbench, and I keep my static electricity experiments faaaar away from all of my electronics. Also, it's not the lead that's the problem from soldering, it's the rosin fumes.

Or just the proper applications of unit and regression tests.

Your sig is ridiculously appropriate.

Invest in both.

The earth isn't round. It's an irregular, rough oblate spheroid.

Am I the only one who caught that dereference?

..how many swear words are in the comments.

Why is this wrong? I don't indentify with many people across the globe and often our values conflict. How do we resolve these issues with less violence? Good fences make good neighbors.

There's these things called "oceans", "mountains", "rivers" and "lakes" that do a pretty good job of isolating certain parts of the world from each other.

Would you be alright with prostitution, drug use, pedophilia and human slavery being practiced in your neighborhood? Because those are legal in countries around the world. Imagine you're got a perfect world in your town that you built through hard work - it's not corrupt, violent or poor - but what happens when some nogoodnicks show up and trash the joint? Wouldn't you want to preserve the slice of heaven you've worked so hard for? Fight them on the streets? There goes the neighborhood... but what if you could stop them from being there in the first place?

How do you make them accountable for their actions? I have a hard enough time trying to get responses from my state representatives, why do you think a global government would care about me any more? I don't think at a global level, a government COULD really ask people what they wanted.

Sure, we can start doing away with borders when you give me your house keys, car keys, and any other access control you have. Oh wait you won't do that? Well you're part of the problem, not the solution.

If we do remove corruption and money from the earth, why would we need a government, let alone a world government?

Well thank you for your advice! I ordered Crockford's book and I'm going to approach javascript with a fresh new perspective for a lot of the new code I have to write at least.

I think Java got a lot less hellish when I started using a proper IDE with code completion and a non-insane build system (maven). For all of Eclipse's instability, it makes writing java tolerable, even fun sometimes. Maven, though it can be hard to understand what all the XML in the pom is really doing, is such a relief compared to make or Ant.

I invite you to consider what would happen if we make them legal. The government would tax them to an absurd level, a black market would still exist (look at tax-free cigarettes and their role in criminal revenue), consumption would be more widespread on account of the disintegration of social mores against usage, and we'd be tying a government's income into drug consumption, giving them a perverse incentive to continue the use of said drugs. The government would go from "enemy of the cartels" to "yet another cartel," a title I feel they already have from heavy lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry.

I'm all for a repeal of the nastier drug laws and an eventual stop to the "War on" mentality, but there has to be a better strategy here than the "legalize it mon" that I hear college students repeat ad nauseum.