 |
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: the assignment operator should be :=.
Even before I learned C, but had a PASCAL class, I hated that.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never minded it in Pascal, just was glad I wasn't doing BASIC anymore.
It only matters in C and its offspring.
It seems that C's grandparent, BCPL, also used := for assignment, but Ken Thompson reverted to = for B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is some really cool stuff I am looking forward to, some cool stuff that I am afraid of, and then there are user defined string literals.
First and second view, that's serious suckage. It's both powerful and insanely limited at the same time. The only nice thing about it: it might be a minor step towards compile-time C++ - at least for simple stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. I've just participated in conversations on both topics, and the dialog is even polite, respectful and civil.
Is Rod Serling hiding in my closet somewhere? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: Is Rod Serling hiding in my closet somewhere?
Why are you asking us? You should remember where you hid the body ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that I don't even remember the 70s, that's highly unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: Given that I don't even remember the 70s, that's highly unlikely.
Emmm ... there are a few cold cases we'd like to ask you about ... We'll need a blood and hair sam ... oh sorry ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch, that's pulling him up by the short hairs... oh wait... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: that's pulling him up by the short hairs.
I don't even WANT to know where he's going to pull those from ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He lived through the 70's and he's a musician - he's lucky if he can remember his name at the end of the day
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Politics and Religion", the combination is forbidden by the secularity laws in civilized countries, yet there are "religiously tainted political parties". Does that make sense to you? Not to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I think it makes sense to write programs in an operating system rather than a web browser, so clearly I'm not a realistic point of reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it truly possible to expect someone who's deeply religious to keep that perspective out of their political practice? After I typed that... if I was elected to any office I'd try my hardest to do that very thing so yes I do believe it's possible. You are right to question that the way you have.![Rose | [Rose]](/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: Wow. I've just participated in conversations on both topics, and the dialog is even polite, respectful and civil.
Now you can raise the bar and ask a VB programming question in the Lounge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the recent and massive shift from Bush (whom I loved) to Obama (whom I just really don't understand) has forced us all to set aside to some degree politics and political affiliations and to realize that if we don't start fixing some of our core rights, and protecting them fiercely for *EVERYONE* who lives here then our country will rip apart and die. I think all of us need to realize that right now our country teeters precariously upon the edge of a cliff and only people can fix the problems. We are asking way to much of our elected officials and I'm only just now realizing it. Why did Bush seem to fail and why when it's over will many think Obama did too? It's because we expect them to do all of the fixing while we watch from the side and call "fair play" or "foul ball" from the quagmire of indecision that has become the life of the individual American life.
I hope more American's are beginning to see what I'm starting to see.
i. If I don't fight tooth and nail to make sure your constitutional rights are protected you will not fight tooth and nail to protect mine. If I fight for yours it's selfless if I fight for mine it's selfish. Nobody wins and it's never enough when we pursue our own interests.
ii. I think homosexuals would better understand how to protect the rights of peaceful Christians than even Christians do and I think they should organize and try to do that very thing. I think that Christians should set aside their own interest and tackle the problems that homosexual people face and fight incredibly hard to solve those problems and help them. In doing so both sides would learn the truth about each other. That truth is really they are not nearly as different as they thought.
America would grow and prosper if democrats fought for the republican interests as hard as possible so they could be rewarded by seeing republicans fight tooth and nail for the rights of democrats. Each of them trying to one-up the other in fighting for their opposites rights. That I'm learning is what being American really is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow - Now that makese sense !
Are you sure you not running for office?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. All the arguments I've seen like that tend to go: You're ideas differ from mine.... Wharrgarbl[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is indeed surprising.
If you really want the conversation to get interesting just add alcohol!
Mike
"It doesn't matter how big a ranch ya' own, or how many cows ya' brand, the size of your funeral is still gonna depend on the weather." -Harry Truman.
Semper Fi
http://www.hq4thmarinescomm.com[ ^]
My Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, the general belief is that America was founded on the principle that there should be no state supported religion. However, the truth of the matter is that a careful read of the founding documents and a quick glance at the way the country is run show that we do indeed have an official, state sponsored religion:
Tolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah but I don't like Tolerance. Tolerance kind of has become twisted. Tolerance means that you can force your way into my religious view and force me to change it (maybe not but that's how it feels). I want everyone to have the right to assemble non-violently and practice their belief whatever it is. If you don't like what I practice then you can start a group with people who like what you practice. Tolerance has become a means of forcing people to change their beliefs in such a way that yours can supersede theirs. I crave more than tolerance. I crave a society that respects all views and the right to assemble and practice your view.
For example. I deeply struggle with the fact that things like insurance are only given exclusively to husband/wife teams who parent kids. Homosexuality in my opinion is not good for people and I'm okay that I feel that way. But suddenly it's hard for me to say, "Because I'm a husband/wife team. I deserve rights that homosexual teams are denied." even though that makes sense in my mind the core of who I am, the foundations of the country I would die to protect doesn't like that. That's saying that my way is better and I'm fine thinking that my way is better because for me it is. My way is no longer better if in order to get the same rights I have then you have to change "your way". I don't have an answer for that inner struggle. Because for me if you took 10,000 homosexual couples and gave them all of Jamaica to live on in 200 years nobody would be left alive. Yet if you took 10 heterosexual couples and gave them Hawaii in 200 years a large society would be under way. That makes sense to me but I still struggle that somehow I deserve something being denied to other people who don't think the same way I do. I'm really not going to like it if/when the tables turn and the tables will turn.
I feel like "RESPECT" says, "Well... I have benefits and insurance. Now you want them? I cannot see a reason to deny them to you so here you go."
It's been a strange experience for sure. But tolerance has become a warped tool. Respect is still universally understood but it's much harder to practice. I believe tolerance replaced respect because tolerance means something much less tangible and is legally more agile than respect.
Tolerance may rip this country apart but I believe that respect could make it as strong as steel. Am I wrong? Am I really saying what the pure definition of tolerance was meant to be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the insurance thing. Personally i think the standard in the country needs to be established with monogamy in mind instead of the concept of a male\female pairing.
Any two people willing to legally commit to one another should be allowed to, and thus should be allow the rights and benefits afforded to such.
But, perhaps in mandating monogamy I am also offending. I don't know... but I think monogamy can be argued for better than heterosexuality as a basis for civil pairs. If two people of the same sex can form a corporation (a legal entity) then why not a 'marriage'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undeniably true. It really is a valid point.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin