Conservatives feel inclined to get involved in the human rights of others' children.
There, FTFY
But once they're born, who cares if they get adequate health care or even learn to read, right? Tell you what, when you make the commitment to provide for every poverty-stricken child from cradle to grave, THEN you can get on your high horse about what a woman can do with her uterus.
I don't think it's quite fair to paint either liberals or conservatives like that (I'm a conservative myself, btw). Most people I know, liberals and conservatives alike, place an extremely high value on both the fetus and child, especially their own. I'd go so far as to argue this is the natural human instinct - to protect and nurture one's progeny. Like any generalization, of course you'll find varying degrees and plenty of outright exceptions and contradictions.
Warning: generalizations ahead
Conservatives feel inclined to get involved in the reproductive rights of others. Most are against abortion under any circumstance, and a good deal of Catholics are against birth control. The natural conseqence of them getting their way is that the people most likely to abort pregnancies (women at or near poverty) are forced to have children they can't afford. Now, this might be alright, if and only if those children are cared for adequately. Unfortunately, the same people who want to force these women to have these children also claim that these children are leaches on society and that we shouldn't pay for their education, food, shelter, or anything else that will increase the chances of them becoming productive members of society.
The typical response is "well why don't they just give them up for adoption?". Well, imagine how cruel it would be to force a woman to carry a fetus for 9 months, only to give it away after birth. Of course, it's hard to understand how cruel that truly is unless you're already a parent.
We could educate kids about safe sex and provide birth control as a basic service.. But given the current political climate, that will never happen. Conservatives are in power (don't kid yourself, Democrats are mostly conservatives too -- they're just not frothing at the mouth), and given the high value of fetuses, they want as many of them as possible. If they grow up poor and uneducated, all the better, as that makes the rich even richer in comparison.
Please explain the US attitude towards sex and all things sexually and the overbearing "think of the children" policies.
It gets more complicated here.. In the US, there are two general views on the issue:
1.) Low value on sex, low value on fetus, high value on children (generally liberals)
2.) High value on sex, high value on fetus, low value on children (generally conservatives)
Funny you should mention Oregon.. I moved from Portland to Oklahoma City a little over a year ago due in large part to the supposed lower cost of living. My income tax went down, but my cost of living went way up. In Portland my commute was cheaper due to public transit, my electricity and natural gas fuel costs were lower (yes, natural gas costs less in Oregon than in Oklahoma, the state that produces a significant portion of the country's gas), food was less expensive, and my quality of life was generally better. That's on top of the fact that everything was 10% cheaper because Oregon didn't have sales tax. That was the dumbest move I ever made, and I'd take it back in a heartbeat.
Sales tax is a regressive tax -- it hurts the poor the most, and is barely a burden on anyone beyond middle class. In addition, sales tax hurts local businesses, who have to compete not only on direct prices with the likes of Amazon, but then have to charge you an extra 5-10% as well. Instead, states should make up for lost sales tax with increased income tax. You'll get more consistent tax revenue, a healthier business community, and the added bonus of being able to know exactly how much you have to pay for stuff at the store before checkout without using a calculator.
And only in everywhere do people spout this sort of comment, intending it to apply to everyone who makes more money than they do. After all, if the guy down the street makes $100k and you make $75k, then that fucker is rich as hell and you want him to bleed like a schoolgirl on prom night.
I don't think too many people get their panties in a wad over that kind of difference. What irks me is that someone who makes $1,000 a year is still going to have a great standard of living if he paid a 50% tax rate. But I don't even expect him to *ACTUALLY* pay that much.. Instead, when the tax rates are that high, he'll invest a large portion of that, ultimately creating jobs for maybe 1 or 2 people at, say $50k/year. It's true that these people are "job creators", but there's a caveat: they only create jobs when they're forced to invest, rather than sit on a pile of cash.
Actually, the urge to be a dick is indicative of a structural problem that affects some software shops. Managers sometimes forget that software should be designed before it is written. And in the design to release process there should be design reviews. Any software problem that makes you want to be a dick should have been fixed in one of the design reviews, before a rookie programmer decides that he's going to write a new associative container in C++ based upon a bubble sort rather than using a standard container.
I should point out that not being a dick is actually a learned skill. It took me years to get it, and I'm still working on it. Second, we've all made the mistake at some point of trying to use our own data structure libraries that we were so proud of in school, and we've all used sub-optimal algorithms at some point. Give the kid a break, calmly explain why he was wrong (on both counts), and get on with your life sans ulcer.
The secret to code reviewing is very simple: Don't be a Dick (tm). When you use Don't be a Dick (tm) when reviewing code, the reviewee will be more inclined to respect your opinion, to see his code objectively, and to incorporate your advice in the future! Of course, and entire team using Don't be a Dick (tm) will be even more effective! Get Don't be a Dick (tm) now, and start not being a dick today!
I love how everyone immediately assumes it's a hardware issue, when I clearly specified that the problems only started when I upgraded to 11.04. Again, it worked fine on all previous version of Ubuntu (down to 10.04), but took a shit when I upgraded to 11.04. But rather than acknowledge the problem, all the linux fanboys just put their fingers in their ears and shout "hardware problem" at the top of their lungs.
Alright.. It's an Asus EeePC 1001H with the dual SSDs (4GB fast SSD, 16GB slooooooow SSD). Worked great on 10.10. Now it hangs every 5 minutes, and drops connection to the wifi router every 5 seconds. Completely unusable. Now I have to go look for a new netbook distro, since they've turned Ubuntu into a steaming pile of shit.
Ever since I upgraded my netbook to Ubuntu 11.04, it crashes randomly and often. I'm talking more that Windows 95 with no patches. Hell, more than Windows 3.0. While solving power management would be nice, it's a moot point if the computer is always off because I can never use it.
Normal people aren't clever enough to program, just like normal people aren't clever enough to use Linux (hence it's low market share). If kids aren't interested in programming, its because they aren't clever enough and don't have the spark - in which case we can just let them join the rest of the hurd and do mundane 9-5 job for the masses, its all they can imagine doing anyway.
I'm a Computer Scientist (official name of my position) in an engineering shop, and there are a bunch of *very* smart Engineers who can't code (otherwise why would they need me?). Coding is a skill, not an attribute.
Do you honestly believe that only 5% of the U.S. population has health care?
Do you have health care?
Let's disect what you originally said (emphasis mine):
This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.
This is very different from "having health care". I do, as a matter of fact, have health care. I also deliberately took a job that paid about half of what I could be making so that I could have affordable, continuous health coverage for my family. If we had a socialized health care system like the rest of the developed world, I could rake in the money as a freelance developer/consultant. But because I cannot afford the health care options for this, I must instead work as an employee.
Here's a little known fact: public health care is the *friend* of small business, and the *enemy* of big business. If we could all go out on our own and make a living without worrying about health care, the big corps would have one less thing to hold over our heads.
Eh, my CS program actually included a lot of discrete math, graph theory, algorithm complexity, and even a little number theory. There was a lot of crap in there too, but it was no job training degree.. In fact, the complaint I heard most often is that all this theory wasn't going to do us any good in the "real" world.
The lack of trust in Microsoft's motives is completely and utterly justified..NET is great, however the owner of the patents on it is not well known for being nice to its partners nevermind competitors.
Back in 2003 I would have agreed with you. Hell, even in 2007 I might have my doubts. But right now, MS is a fallen empire that sees itself in post-colonial terms. Microsoft doesn't care if you use mono; they're just thrilled you're programming in C#.
For me, as a non-programmer, the rally against.net is a call for simple cross-platform functionality. We are spending a lot of money on ERP/accounting software for my company, and due to the.net backend and client, we are forced to add windows servers and to forego mobile access. It does have a web client... that just works in IE.
The situation is typical in dealing with software that went down the.net path. It reduces flexibility and limits beneficial use.
Your situation is exactly one in which you would want mono though.. Your app could be converted to mono, and run on a Linux server. Mobile apps could be written in anything, as long as they communicate with your servers (probably through web services). As for your IE-only web site -- that's just bad programming on the part of your web developers.
Seriously, isn't it a little juvenile to rally against a software platform just because it's based on something created by a company you don't like? And isn't it hypocritical to bolster Java when it's supported by Oracle, which has a reputation for destroying everything it touches?
Slashdot Mirror
There, FTFY
But once they're born, who cares if they get adequate health care or even learn to read, right? Tell you what, when you make the commitment to provide for every poverty-stricken child from cradle to grave, THEN you can get on your high horse about what a woman can do with her uterus.
I don't think it's quite fair to paint either liberals or conservatives like that (I'm a conservative myself, btw). Most people I know, liberals and conservatives alike, place an extremely high value on both the fetus and child, especially their own. I'd go so far as to argue this is the natural human instinct - to protect and nurture one's progeny. Like any generalization, of course you'll find varying degrees and plenty of outright exceptions and contradictions.
Warning: generalizations ahead
Conservatives feel inclined to get involved in the reproductive rights of others. Most are against abortion under any circumstance, and a good deal of Catholics are against birth control. The natural conseqence of them getting their way is that the people most likely to abort pregnancies (women at or near poverty) are forced to have children they can't afford. Now, this might be alright, if and only if those children are cared for adequately. Unfortunately, the same people who want to force these women to have these children also claim that these children are leaches on society and that we shouldn't pay for their education, food, shelter, or anything else that will increase the chances of them becoming productive members of society.
The typical response is "well why don't they just give them up for adoption?". Well, imagine how cruel it would be to force a woman to carry a fetus for 9 months, only to give it away after birth. Of course, it's hard to understand how cruel that truly is unless you're already a parent.
We could educate kids about safe sex and provide birth control as a basic service.. But given the current political climate, that will never happen. Conservatives are in power (don't kid yourself, Democrats are mostly conservatives too -- they're just not frothing at the mouth), and given the high value of fetuses, they want as many of them as possible. If they grow up poor and uneducated, all the better, as that makes the rich even richer in comparison.
Please explain the US attitude towards sex and all things sexually and the overbearing "think of the children" policies.
It gets more complicated here.. In the US, there are two general views on the issue:
1.) Low value on sex, low value on fetus, high value on children (generally liberals)
2.) High value on sex, high value on fetus, low value on children (generally conservatives)
Got a specific opportunity? I'm an excellent coder and I'm eager to move myself and my family to a more progressive country.
Funny you should mention Oregon.. I moved from Portland to Oklahoma City a little over a year ago due in large part to the supposed lower cost of living. My income tax went down, but my cost of living went way up. In Portland my commute was cheaper due to public transit, my electricity and natural gas fuel costs were lower (yes, natural gas costs less in Oregon than in Oklahoma, the state that produces a significant portion of the country's gas), food was less expensive, and my quality of life was generally better. That's on top of the fact that everything was 10% cheaper because Oregon didn't have sales tax. That was the dumbest move I ever made, and I'd take it back in a heartbeat.
Are you buying 5 TVs?
Sales tax is a regressive tax -- it hurts the poor the most, and is barely a burden on anyone beyond middle class. In addition, sales tax hurts local businesses, who have to compete not only on direct prices with the likes of Amazon, but then have to charge you an extra 5-10% as well. Instead, states should make up for lost sales tax with increased income tax. You'll get more consistent tax revenue, a healthier business community, and the added bonus of being able to know exactly how much you have to pay for stuff at the store before checkout without using a calculator.
And only in everywhere do people spout this sort of comment, intending it to apply to everyone who makes more money than they do. After all, if the guy down the street makes $100k and you make $75k, then that fucker is rich as hell and you want him to bleed like a schoolgirl on prom night.
I don't think too many people get their panties in a wad over that kind of difference. What irks me is that someone who makes $1,000 a year is still going to have a great standard of living if he paid a 50% tax rate. But I don't even expect him to *ACTUALLY* pay that much.. Instead, when the tax rates are that high, he'll invest a large portion of that, ultimately creating jobs for maybe 1 or 2 people at, say $50k/year. It's true that these people are "job creators", but there's a caveat: they only create jobs when they're forced to invest, rather than sit on a pile of cash.
Actually, the urge to be a dick is indicative of a structural problem that affects some software shops. Managers sometimes forget that software should be designed before it is written. And in the design to release process there should be design reviews. Any software problem that makes you want to be a dick should have been fixed in one of the design reviews, before a rookie programmer decides that he's going to write a new associative container in C++ based upon a bubble sort rather than using a standard container.
I should point out that not being a dick is actually a learned skill. It took me years to get it, and I'm still working on it. Second, we've all made the mistake at some point of trying to use our own data structure libraries that we were so proud of in school, and we've all used sub-optimal algorithms at some point. Give the kid a break, calmly explain why he was wrong (on both counts), and get on with your life sans ulcer.
The secret to code reviewing is very simple: Don't be a Dick (tm). When you use Don't be a Dick (tm) when reviewing code, the reviewee will be more inclined to respect your opinion, to see his code objectively, and to incorporate your advice in the future! Of course, and entire team using Don't be a Dick (tm) will be even more effective! Get Don't be a Dick (tm) now, and start not being a dick today!
I love how everyone immediately assumes it's a hardware issue, when I clearly specified that the problems only started when I upgraded to 11.04. Again, it worked fine on all previous version of Ubuntu (down to 10.04), but took a shit when I upgraded to 11.04. But rather than acknowledge the problem, all the linux fanboys just put their fingers in their ears and shout "hardware problem" at the top of their lungs.
So my hardware magically broke at exactly the moment I upgraded to 11.04? Methinks not.
Alright.. It's an Asus EeePC 1001H with the dual SSDs (4GB fast SSD, 16GB slooooooow SSD). Worked great on 10.10. Now it hangs every 5 minutes, and drops connection to the wifi router every 5 seconds. Completely unusable. Now I have to go look for a new netbook distro, since they've turned Ubuntu into a steaming pile of shit.
Ever since I upgraded my netbook to Ubuntu 11.04, it crashes randomly and often. I'm talking more that Windows 95 with no patches. Hell, more than Windows 3.0. While solving power management would be nice, it's a moot point if the computer is always off because I can never use it.
Normal people aren't clever enough to program, just like normal people aren't clever enough to use Linux (hence it's low market share). If kids aren't interested in programming, its because they aren't clever enough and don't have the spark - in which case we can just let them join the rest of the hurd and do mundane 9-5 job for the masses, its all they can imagine doing anyway.
I'm a Computer Scientist (official name of my position) in an engineering shop, and there are a bunch of *very* smart Engineers who can't code (otherwise why would they need me?). Coding is a skill, not an attribute.
Can you seriously think of any movie where you'd want to experience every smell?
Do you honestly believe that only 5% of the U.S. population has health care? Do you have health care?
Let's disect what you originally said (emphasis mine):
This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.
This is very different from "having health care". I do, as a matter of fact, have health care. I also deliberately took a job that paid about half of what I could be making so that I could have affordable, continuous health coverage for my family. If we had a socialized health care system like the rest of the developed world, I could rake in the money as a freelance developer/consultant. But because I cannot afford the health care options for this, I must instead work as an employee.
Here's a little known fact: public health care is the *friend* of small business, and the *enemy* of big business. If we could all go out on our own and make a living without worrying about health care, the big corps would have one less thing to hold over our heads.
This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.
Just because you don't know anyone below the 95th percentile in earnings doesn't mean they don't exist.
You're right. As a thank you gift, let me *cough* *cough* offer you these blankets.
Eh, my CS program actually included a lot of discrete math, graph theory, algorithm complexity, and even a little number theory. There was a lot of crap in there too, but it was no job training degree.. In fact, the complaint I heard most often is that all this theory wasn't going to do us any good in the "real" world.
The lack of trust in Microsoft's motives is completely and utterly justified. .NET is great, however the owner of the patents on it is not well known for being nice to its partners nevermind competitors.
Back in 2003 I would have agreed with you. Hell, even in 2007 I might have my doubts. But right now, MS is a fallen empire that sees itself in post-colonial terms. Microsoft doesn't care if you use mono; they're just thrilled you're programming in C#.
For me, as a non-programmer, the rally against .net is a call for simple cross-platform functionality. We are spending a lot of money on ERP/accounting software for my company, and due to the .net backend and client, we are forced to add windows servers and to forego mobile access. It does have a web client... that just works in IE.
The situation is typical in dealing with software that went down the .net path. It reduces flexibility and limits beneficial use.
Your situation is exactly one in which you would want mono though.. Your app could be converted to mono, and run on a Linux server. Mobile apps could be written in anything, as long as they communicate with your servers (probably through web services). As for your IE-only web site -- that's just bad programming on the part of your web developers.
Seriously, isn't it a little juvenile to rally against a software platform just because it's based on something created by a company you don't like? And isn't it hypocritical to bolster Java when it's supported by Oracle, which has a reputation for destroying everything it touches?
"100MB/s per month" How many MB/s does that equate to per second?
Well that depends on time 't'. It will accelerate by 100 MB/s each month. So by this time next year you should be getting over 1 GB/s.
And I misread the question.. so yeah, the answer is 100 / 1 / 2592000 ~= 3.858 * 10^-5