This courtesy was drilled into me over and over again by my mentor. Asking a great question is shows respect for the speaker, who not only took time out of his day to show up, but put a lot of time into putting his presentation together and showed the nerve to stand in front of a crowd to air his ideas.
It's also an opportunity for you to challenge the speaker if there was something you disagreed with. Phrased correctly, a question can make both the speaker and the audience re-think something that was stated earlier.
One thing I see missed sometimes is proper form when asking questions. Standing up, stating your name and where you're from, and thanking the speaker for coming and for taking your question add just a few seconds to your question, but they can go a long way to making the speaker feel welcome. From the tech conference videos I've seen, I think this is something we can improve on in the hacker culture. We know what it's like to offer up our work without appreciation to people who don't understand what we do -- but I want to work on being more appreciative of my fellow developers.
"One thing I see missed sometimes is proper form when asking questions. Standing up, stating your name and where you're from ..."
Is it okay to say where you work - the name of the company? Or is it better to leave it out? Can it be considered rude and something like trying to get some free marketing for the company? I am asking because I am not sure, and I heard both opinions so far...
Second paragraph:
Although BigPipe is a fundamental redesign of the existing web serving process, it does not require changing existing web browsers or servers; it is implemented entirely in PHP and JavaScript.
So it may be a good candidate for a library.
I guessed they were doing something similar a few months ago when Facebook first started showing up block by block. Interesting to see it all laid out.
See, I understand if you meant "how to spend it all on my desires for luxuries."
But if you truly meant "how to spend it all," I disagree with you. Every day, I think of a new company that would make the world a slightly better place. Every day, I wish I had 50 billion dollars so I could call my manager up, tell him "you have 3 million, find someone who can solve this problem," and have it done.
Hey, just building a worldwide cellphone network with enough bandwidth to not suck and decent international rates could take up more money than I could ever possibly earn.
That's like saying Amy's software project is better because it has fewer files than Bob's. Bob may just be better at keeping code in separate, logical units than Amy, who just crams everything into several large bills... I mean, files.
Anybody want to run a diff on the California and Texas legislation?
Refactoring is very similar to picking up house or cleaning out my closet to me. I love the feeling of throwing things away, of knowing everything fits properly. That's great for a Saturday morning. With refactoring, though, you're combining that feeling with the idea that you're "working on your business," and that is a crippling combination. You don't even realize you're procrastinating.
This article is fantastic. I just realized two days ago that programming isn't the challenge to me that it once was. Oh, sure, there are plenty of things I don't know how to do, and I'll spend the rest of my life improving at my craft. But I have a confidence that I can figure out how to do anything I need to do.
I don't have that confidence when it comes to running a business. And that's how I know it's time to make running a business my full-time focus, and only program when I must to reach my business goals. Not because running a business is easy, but because it's hard.
Our society has agreed that after 60 years or so, you have earned the right to put your feet up, move to Florida, and retire. I admire that she has an easy out and yet chooses to continue serving the city she loves, and with excellence to boot. Well done, ma'am, I would like to shake your hand.
It doesn't matter whether I do something warranting eviction. The owner of the private property I am on has final say over who is on his property. He can invite me onto his property for the sole purpose of evicting me to make me mad at him, if he likes. He does not need a reason to change his mind, because he can do what he likes with his property. Ownership of property is a major basis of common law, traced back to the dawn of civilization. Our entire society depends upon it.
You are wrong. It matters if you do something warranting eviction.
The supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka that racial segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment. This means you cannot evict people even from your privately owned businesses because of their race due to the commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
So if the people with the bumper stickers were black and asked to leave because they were black, it would be a slam dunk case against them.
Now we may see if this reaches the supreme court and whether they protect people from being discriminated for their political views.
Race is the one exception the Supreme Court has made among an infinite list of possible exceptions. Their decision, I believe, has very little to do with the principles of common law and a great deal to do with our own history as a country.
Regardless of their reasoning, racial issues are a bit off point. You said it does matter if you do something warranting eviction, but that's not entirely true. The rule stands, just with a clause added: The owner of a piece of property may evict anyone for any reason or no reason at all, unless his actions are proven to be racially motivated.
Again, this rule has existed since man has formed social structures. It's a rather important issue, and the Founding Fathers took it very seriously, which is why the third amendment prohibits the quartering of troops on private property. I understand the Supreme Court has upheld one exception, but that does not destroy the rule. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court considered a man's opinions -- political or religious beliefs -- as worthy of as much protection as facts about himself that he cannot change, such as the color of his skin.
I am merely enlightening you to the fact that "private property" is not a catch-all excuse to discriminate and revoke "invitations" to people, which you seem to believe.
What's next? Maybe you'd like to include homosexuals and Muslims next because you can change your religion and sexual practices?
It's quite a dangerous precedent you are setting, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the 3rd amendment. The 3rd amendment deals with government troops and the right for troops to trespass on private property during war.
Private property does not automatically make an event private.
In this case, this was a US government funded event (taxpayer money), with tickets handed out to the __public__. The only thing private about this was that the area was rented from a private owner.
If you think this is private, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you support restaurants, supermarkets, and businesses being able to discriminate based on whether someone wasn't Christian or white.
No, I would not label this event private. Yet you would apparently label no event as private, with your continued references to supermarkets, resteraunts, and the like. You can't frame the debate as bring about publicly-funded events and then use examples of privately-run ones for your arguments.
Anyway, in most areas, I actually am ok with "discrimination." What is morally reprehensible about running an event designed to disciple someone in their religion, then asking people of another religion to stay away? I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah. Nor would I be terribly thrilled if I was on a men's campout and we were forced to bring women along. Like it or not, we aren't all the same, and sometimes we need to hang out with people like us in a certain area. As long as you aren't terrorizing a certain group of people out of hatred, private property laws should allow you to decide who comes on your property.
If the government pays for an event, that's another matter entirely, but please choose which debate we are having and use relevant examples so I can be clear going forward.
It's the same concept.You cannot use the excuse of "private property" to allow arbitrary discrimination when you are selectively serving the public.
This opens the flood gates for supermarkets, restaurants, and businesses that serve the public to discriminate based on race, religion etc. This is not a world you want to live in.
How would you feel if all the banks in your area refused to lend or deposit for you because your political views? How would you feel if you could not find a place to live or rent because the "private" housing and apartment communities decide that they don't like your race?
> I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah.
Why do you keep arguing about this when the people in the article weren't even picketing at the event? They were merely attending it. Please try to stay on topic.
It is the dominant category in the US and has been often been used as a reason for discrimination in the past especially among supporters for segregation.
By using a concrete example, I hope I can help him or others realize absurdity of his views.
As for why not: well, because it implies that you believe people who are Christian are racist and white. Perhaps also because the disjunct suggests that you believe race and religious choice to be equivalent with regards to discrimination - one is a choice the other is not.
Plus the story is about removing those with dissenting views from a social invitation only event in a private location.
Suppose the president practised homosexual sex and the bumper sticker was a "God hate fags" one. Do you maintain your view?
> Plus the story is about removing those with dissenting views from a social invitation only event in a private location.
Just because the event was hosted in a private location does not make it a private event. Just because a supermarket or restaurant is privately owned doesn't make it a private service. Saying that it does allows people to selectively discriminate based on race.
Yes I would maintain my view if they were merely attending the speech and not being a nuisance: which is the case in this article.
It's also an opportunity for you to challenge the speaker if there was something you disagreed with. Phrased correctly, a question can make both the speaker and the audience re-think something that was stated earlier.
One thing I see missed sometimes is proper form when asking questions. Standing up, stating your name and where you're from, and thanking the speaker for coming and for taking your question add just a few seconds to your question, but they can go a long way to making the speaker feel welcome. From the tech conference videos I've seen, I think this is something we can improve on in the hacker culture. We know what it's like to offer up our work without appreciation to people who don't understand what we do -- but I want to work on being more appreciative of my fellow developers.