You are full of stuff.
You are full of stuff.
you don't know what the fuck OO is in the first place
Nobody agrees on the definition or formal characteristics.
And nobody agrees on who gets to decide the definition. There is no standards body who defines what OO is. YOU are not it.
Every tool has a proper place and use, and making relative value judgements between them is something fuckwits do when they only know how to use one thing.
I've mentioned multiple times I do choose to use it to some degree. I've found practical utility for it under certain circumstances. So what is this "one thing"?
how you've rooted out this terrible OO hoax perpetrated on the industry
Well, okay, "hoax" is possibly a little harsh, but I do believe that OO-domain-modeling was thrust on the industry by hucksters wanting to sell books and consulting services; and millions, if not billions were spent chasing this false dream.
The primary focus of these hucksters was in domain modeling. Therefore, other than a small blurb, I didn't used to make much of a distinction between "OO" and "OO domain modelling".
A bigger distinction is made now in the industry because practical experience and failures taught many that domain modeling is NOT where OO shines. I know you disagree that domain modeling was the main stated selling point of OO, but we'll just have to let that disagreement stand (unless somebody can present reliable surveys of beliefs).
Why does it matter to you anyhow? It's water under the bridge. I'm not understanding your complaint. It appears you want to make this all about me instead of OO. That's why you appear to be a troll. Non-trolls talk about the subject at hand. Say something about OO and than back your claim with evidence: that's not asking too much.
You seem to agree there that scientifically comparing the utility of software engineering paradigms/techniques is either a gray art or requires resources not yet committed by anybody. Good, that part is mostly settled then.
Roughly 50 Clintonian conspiracies, and so far no smoking gun.
Quiz: Occum's Razor would select:
A) Clintons are master criminals
B) GOP and conserv. media are full of it
Note that "A" also contradicts being sloppy with emails.
Interesting, you just grew in stature several points in my eyes. And you make a very good point.
I was thinking more of how *Stalin* treated religious people.
There is a good reason for religious ruling over all- it really is the best model. Freedom and Liberty, as far as I'm concerned, lead only to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump- the freest country in human history, electing two "above the law" elite liberal genocidal maniacs to try to run the place.
Clinton's crimes are far worse than these e-mails
Evidence, please. A bimbo saying so on Fox News is not evidence. (Pleasant to watch perhaps, but that's another issue.)
I made up science? Just call me Francis Bacon Jr.
Oddly, that's not how the conversation has historically gone.
You've only got half of it right.
Capitalist: Jesus is a dirty leftist socialist SJW commie! His father was a hard working carpenter, but Jesus squandered it to become a jobless hippie! He just provides bread and circuses... sorry, "miracles" to the crowd!
Communist: Religion is the opiate of the Masses. Belief in Jesus keeps the bourgeois in power, and the proletariat from revolting. Therefore we must burn all the churches and make religion illegal.
Both of these so-called "economic systems", really materialist religions in their own right, see Christianity as a competitor, offering a more complete and all encompassing view of life. Including Economic Life.
Distributism is an economic system that is merely a part of Christianity, but it is dangerous to the con artists of Capitalism and Communism because it would *remove their roles* from the economic system.
We knew I was insane and incapable of not responding. I have now removed you from my friends list, so I should not see future posts.
Part of it is that like most Americans today, thanks to the suffragettes, he believes the individual, not the family, to be the basic economic unit.
I was just hearing something about that last night on Al Kresta as to why many Catholics, including Archbishops and Cardinals, back in the 1848-1920 era, opposed the 19th Amendment, but largely supported the 18th Amendment. Both of these at the time were considered feminism- women were the main people protesting for both to be passed. It is a sign that women in the 1800s and early 1900s had a lot more political power than we give them credit for even without the vote that the 18th is about Prohibition and the 19th about voting.
The reason for that power is that the basic assumption previous to the 19th Amendment was *one household, one vote* not *one man, one vote*. Husbands and fathers had a duty of protection over their wives and daughters, and drunkards were seen as shirking that duty. Likewise, it was seen as women actually losing political power over their husbands, was the reason to *oppose* them getting the vote.
It's easy to see why individualism, in that era, after 80 years of nagging, became the ascendent philosophy. It remains to be seen if it will continue to work for much longer.
Why do you want to work without accumulating ownership? I suppose Stockhome Syndrome could account for it, but without ownership, retirement will never be a possibility.
The people still on DSL are not Joe Sixpack. They prefer a slower line in exchange for the one thing that faster broadband can't give you- a static IP and the right to run a server.
Give them an option that enables them to run their own server, and you'll capture that market.
The main difference is in the role private property plays, and where it lies on the spectrum.
Ideal Communism the State owns Everything. The People own nothing. Everything is held in common.
Real communism, the Party members own everything and everybody else is slaves
Socialism the state owns about 75% and uses that to manipulate the market, and the State is a minority shareholder in every business.
Fascism the State is a majority shareholder in every business.
Crony Capitalism, the Cronies own everything, there is an allowed middle class, but 50% of the population are debt slaves who will NEVER have positive net worth.
Ideal Capitalism- anybody can change classes with enough hard work, but the poor still exist, and there are still people who have no ownership in their own lives, let alone anything else.
Distributism- Private Ownership is 100%. Everybody owns enough to get by on their own. While there is some common ownership of luxuries like utilities, it's owned as a small cooperative at the lowest possible number of households to make it work. Higher levels of government own nothing, and only exist to serve to mediate between smaller governments. Taxes are minimal and are decided locally. The law of the family is the highest law in the land, and the larger the form of government, the less law it is able to pass.
So on the spectrum of private property ownership, Distributism is actually the polar opposite of communism.
If you are smart enough to know that you're not smart enough to be an Engineer, then you're in Business.