It teaches you how a computer really works. That way you can become a 'real' programmer instead of an IDE user.
Really? Seriously?
I don't think assembler is the best way to instill the magic and excitement of getting the most complex machine in your house to do what you want it to. And, that's what a fifteen year old newb needs. If you start with assembler, you're assuring that it will be months before he has learned enough to be able to take a program that he's written to a friend or parent, and have that person say, "Cool!". And, it will be even longer before he can use even a fraction of the modern technology that computers now have; things like GUI's, and networking. More often than not, it will only cause frustration.
Back in the day, assembler might have been the right option. But today, I think that's a recipe for killing that spark of creativity and excitement that draws people into programming, and gets them to slog through the nitty-gritty stuff.
So it is seriously your position that they set these fees at the level they do to discourage the behavior that generates these fees for them, and not at the highest level they think they can get away with without triggering government regulation spurred by public outcry?
My position is that they set these fees at the level which maximizes the bank's profitability. The actual money collected through these fees is only one aspect which must be considered.
Do you also believe parking meters' time limits are set by cities to be slightly more than the average period needed by people performing their errands?
No, the meters' time limits, and the amount they charge is (or should be) set in such a way so that they effectively charge what that space is worth.
No, they charge the fee because its profitable, and they have no reason not to. (Banks in the USA make some $40 Billion a year on overdraft fees)
Of course it's profitable. I never implied that it wasn't. But, I would imagine that banks profit far more than the $40 billion they collect in fees.
Regardless, banks could not function if everyone routinely over-drafted their accounts. So, they need a way to disincentivize that behavior; they charge a fee. I imagine they calculate that fee so that it maximizes the company's profitability as a whole, not simply to maximize the amount of fees collected.
Imagine, for a moment, that a bank charged $1,000 per over-draft. If the bank truly had "no reason not to", would they make more money under this fee schedule, or less?
A sense of disproportion between the amount of the fee and the expense that could reasonably be caused by the event that caused the fee.
For instance, I consider it outrageous to charge $39 when a $10 payment is received one day late. Or to charge $4 for each day that an overdrawn account has a negative balance of $1. Fees like those are essentially short-term loans, but at rates that far exceed the sensible or legal price for an outright loan.
The fee isn't just there to cover the cost. It's there to provide an incentive for you not to do whatever action caused the fee.
They don't charge you a fee when you overdraw an account because it costs them that amount of money. They charge you the fee so you have a reason to not overdraw your account. If they charged a lower fee, more people would overdraw their accounts.
You have failed: It's only hate speech if you say "The Queers are ruining the soil, and we should do something about them."
Now IANAL, but I believe in the US, that is still protected speech.
Actually, it has to be a direct incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases; a sort of vague, general "someone should do something about those damned queers" is usually not actionable, even if you find it objectionable.
Speech, of that nature, can only be deemed illegal if it passes the Bandenburg Test. The speech must be, "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
If fact, I think it would be legal to say something like: "We should kill all the gays." But, it would be illegal to say something like: "We should kill him [pointing to gay guy in the crowd], right now." Even then, for the speech to be illegal, it would have to be "likely" that it would incite the lawless actions.
Are you sure you don't mean that all of them apply? Any argument the US can use to justify keeping nukes Iran or NK can use to justify making nukes.
But, what I'm getting at is that justifications and arguments don't matter. If a state decides it's in its interest to develop nuclear weapons, they can. Other states may also try and stop them, if they believe that is in their interests.
The US, or any other state, doesn't care what Iran or NK's justifications are for building nukes. The US only asks whether it is in its best interest to allow them to. If not, we try and stop them, while minimizing the damage to our other interests.
Morality doesn't enter the picture. Justifications don't matter.
During the 6 years that this has been banned how much research into life saving treatments has been delayed?
That's a good question; one that may have a terrible answer.
An equally good, but probably unanswerable, question is, "How much good did Bush do--in the long run--for embryonic stem cell research by making the decision he did?" Like it or not, six years ago, a sizable percentage of the US population had strong reservations about embryonic stem cell research. Would pushing the law so far ahead of public opinion have done any good, in the long term?
For example, look at Roe v Wade. It can be argued that public opinion had been slowly moving to the pro-choice end of the spectrum before the case had been decided, and that abortion would have been legalized legislatively in the US. However, by forcing the issue, and legalizing abortion judicially, before the population was "ready" for such a change, we are left with the political climate we have today. Here we are, 36 years after Roe v Wade, and abortion is still a huge issue and the primary consideration for Supreme Court nominees.
The last six years, as stem cell research has slowed as a result of Bush's decision, has given society a chance to "catch up" to the current medical state of the art. Hopefully, that means that 36 years from today, embryonic stem cell research won't be the polarizing political issue that abortion is right now.
I'm not arguing that Bush's decision was necessarily the correct one. But, medical research is a long, expensive process. Thirty six years from now, how many people would devote the considerable time and resources toward research on embryonic stem cells, if their work could be halted by the next Supreme Court appointment?
It may be the case (though we'll never know) that Bush's decision saved more lives than it cost, purely by allowing society to catch up to medicine, and hopefully preventing the emergence of yet another polarizing political litmus test.
Not die off faster, but die off natural, and with perhaps a little dignity.
You know, I was wondering what that smell was; watching someone with late-stage Alzheimer's sitting in a shit filled diaper and staring vacantly into space. It was "dignity".
Taking coporations out of the political equation would mean that the rich find themselves greatly outnumbered by the other 90+ percent of the population and thus, their particular political views would be nearly irrelevant.
The rich are already greatly outnumbered.
What we have right now is quite the opposite, which is why so many people can be against the RIAA and the RIAA can be composed of such a small fraction of the overall society and still wield so much clout (i.e. if they want a new law, they will probably have it)
Are so many people against the RIAA? I would imagine that a large percentage of Americans have never heard of it.
Now, maybe if there was some way for us non-rich people to band together to get the word out... You know, pool our money together, buy some ads on TV, conduct research to bolster our claims, and help shape the political discussion on the issue... Kind of--well not "kind of"--like a corporation of some kind. A non-profit, perhaps?
In fact I'd be willing to consider the idea of eliminating all lobbying and all campaign contributions of every sort, outlawing them as either corruption or bribery (respectively).
So, I shouldn't be allowed to let my representatives know how I feel about an issue?
Then give political candidates an extremely generous (lest there be excuses) grant of public money and let them use that as the sole legal means by which they run their campaigns.
If I'm pro-choice, my tax dollars will help get pro-lifers elected, or vise versa? No thanks.
What if I want to start a new political party? The government can't fund every party; and without private contributions, how will anyone even know we exist?
Right now that's a big part of why they don't represent us.
I think the scarier, and more accurate observation is that they represent us disturbingly well. If campaign contributions are enough to buy votes, what does that say about our national character? Until that changes, regardless of what campaign finance laws we pass, it'll just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
And there are no individually wealthy people at the top of the RIAA, right?
I'm not saying that there isn't. But, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. If you get rid of the ability for common people to band together to promote their agenda, the only agendas we'll hear of will be from the individually wealthy.
Ok, you've convinced me. A nuclear arsenal is absolutely necessary for the defense of the United States.
Well, good.:)
Now, which of these arguments don't apply to Iran or North Korea? Surely as sovereign nations they have a right to their own self defense?
None of them apply. There are no such things as "rights" in international relations, only interests and power. If Iran or North Korea believes it is in their interest to develop a nuclear arsenal, they can. But, if a more powerful state believes it is in their interest to stop them, they will.
Just as in every other international conflict in history, things will sort themselves out based on who has the power, and who has not. It won't matter who is "right" or who is "wrong"; but who wins, and who loses.
I believe that conventional weapons could make first-strike sufficiently terrible that no one would embark on such a course.
For a potential one-off attacker, like North Korea, you are absolutely correct. But, for a more formidable threat, like the Russians, or (eventually) the Chinese, a nuclear deterrent is necessary.
A nuclear response to a first-strike can be launched before the first incoming nuke hits. Once launched, they are more-or-less unstoppable, and require no further intervention. A first-strike could kill every living thing in North America, and our response could still be assured. That's an effective deterrent: the enemy cannot win.
A conventional response is much less sure. Any large-scale conventional response requires two things a nuclear response does not: time, and infrastructure. We may be able to field an effective fighting force in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but not indefinitely. With a sizable portion of our industrial, transportation, and communication infrastructure destroyed by a first-strike, there is the potential that the enemy could outlast us. They could win.
The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations).
You do realize that the only way the lower- and middle-classes get a say in our political process is because of these "evil" corporations, right? Without the ability to pool their limited funds toward a common goal, no one would be able to lobby the government, save the rich. Organizations like the AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc. are not diabolical "special interests". They're common people who have gotten together to make their voices heard.
Without those corporations, only the people with individual wealth would be in that position.
The fact still remains that it is reasonably easy for a modern military force to outdo Nagasaki with conventional weapons.
Sure it is. But, a Nagasaki-sized response is not a real deterrent to a nuclear first-strike. The goal is to make the consequences of a first-strike so terrible that no one would embark upon such a course. It's much easier, cheaper, terrifying, and reliable to field a nuclear deterrent than a conventional one.
Sadly, wars of necessity are the exception, not the rule.
"Necessity" is an awfully fluid concept. Are you sure it was necessary for the US to prosecute WWII as it did?
I'm only concerned with self defense, not aggression. Since every war since WWII has been one of aggression, they are not relevant.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that WWII was a war of self-defense for the US; that innocent ol' USA was just mindin' their own business, when out of the blue they were attacked. Yup, there we were, keeping to ourselves, not equipping Germany's enemy or antagonizing the Japanese. Nope, pure self-defense.
You're trying to draw a clear line between wars of aggression and wars of self-defense. There is no such line. Even WWII, arguably the most "just" international war in our history, does not fit clearly into either of your categories. Sorry.
A massive conventional response is just as damaging as a nuclear response, so the deterrent should be the same.
But it isn't. A conventional response requires a sustained military effort on the part of the responder. Sustained military actions require a functioning national infrastructure; farms, factories, men, communications, transportation, and natural resources (like energy). All of that can be severely impacted by a nuclear first strike, crippling our conventional military, and any response it may offer.
A nuclear deterrent, on the other hand, only requires a few moments, not months or years of sustained military actions. It can happen with the push of a button, no infrastructure to maintain against a hostile enemy for a prolonged period of time. And, it can be activated fully before the first-strike even hits our shores.
A deterrent is only as useful as it is sure. A conventional response leaves the enemy a chance that a successful first strike could cripple our military. A nuclear deterrent has no such weakness.
None of Vietnam, Iraq, nor Afghanistan are good examples.
Well, that's true, if by "good examples" you mean only the ones that don't refute your point. WWII is the exception, not the rule.
In none of those cases are we trying to flatten the opposition.
So, you do agree then, that our conventional military force is incapable of carrying out the war aims of any war we've fought in the last 60 years (save the first Persian Gulf)?
We did more damage in Dresden with conventional weaponry than we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
WWII is the exception. Unless you can produce more examples, you're basing your theory upon one outlier case.
If we wanted to commit ourselves to total war, which is what we'd do if attacked by nukes, we would have no trouble doing the same again.
I'd much rather not be attacked by nukes in the first place, which is what our nuclear deterrent is for.
Slashdot Mirror
With nuclear weapons, no stepping back of any way (that I know), and after the first strike, the war is over, or forever.
Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? So long as everyone knows that the missiles can't be recalled, that fact becomes part of the deterrence.
Makes everyone very, very careful.
It teaches you how a computer really works. That way you can become a 'real' programmer instead of an IDE user.
Really? Seriously?
I don't think assembler is the best way to instill the magic and excitement of getting the most complex machine in your house to do what you want it to. And, that's what a fifteen year old newb needs. If you start with assembler, you're assuring that it will be months before he has learned enough to be able to take a program that he's written to a friend or parent, and have that person say, "Cool!". And, it will be even longer before he can use even a fraction of the modern technology that computers now have; things like GUI's, and networking. More often than not, it will only cause frustration.
Back in the day, assembler might have been the right option. But today, I think that's a recipe for killing that spark of creativity and excitement that draws people into programming, and gets them to slog through the nitty-gritty stuff.
since many banks charge the same fee no matter if you go $1 or $100 into overdraft.
NO
You haven't accounted for the number of overdrafts, only the dollar value per overdraft. Any such accounting is woefully incomplete.
Sure they could, overdrafts tend to be tiny compared to the amount many have in savings.
Sure, overdrafts tend to be tiny when these kinds of overdraft fees are involved. Do you really think they would be so tiny if there were no fee?
So it is seriously your position that they set these fees at the level they do to discourage the behavior that generates these fees for them, and not at the highest level they think they can get away with without triggering government regulation spurred by public outcry?
My position is that they set these fees at the level which maximizes the bank's profitability. The actual money collected through these fees is only one aspect which must be considered.
Do you also believe parking meters' time limits are set by cities to be slightly more than the average period needed by people performing their errands?
No, the meters' time limits, and the amount they charge is (or should be) set in such a way so that they effectively charge what that space is worth.
No, they charge the fee because its profitable, and they have no reason not to.
(Banks in the USA make some $40 Billion a year on overdraft fees)
Of course it's profitable. I never implied that it wasn't. But, I would imagine that banks profit far more than the $40 billion they collect in fees.
Regardless, banks could not function if everyone routinely over-drafted their accounts. So, they need a way to disincentivize that behavior; they charge a fee. I imagine they calculate that fee so that it maximizes the company's profitability as a whole, not simply to maximize the amount of fees collected.
Imagine, for a moment, that a bank charged $1,000 per over-draft. If the bank truly had "no reason not to", would they make more money under this fee schedule, or less?
A sense of disproportion between the amount of the fee and the expense that could reasonably be caused by the event that caused the fee.
For instance, I consider it outrageous to charge $39 when a $10 payment is received one day late. Or to charge $4 for each day that an overdrawn account has a negative balance of $1. Fees like those are essentially short-term loans, but at rates that far exceed the sensible or legal price for an outright loan.
The fee isn't just there to cover the cost. It's there to provide an incentive for you not to do whatever action caused the fee.
They don't charge you a fee when you overdraw an account because it costs them that amount of money. They charge you the fee so you have a reason to not overdraw your account. If they charged a lower fee, more people would overdraw their accounts.
You have failed: It's only hate speech if you say "The Queers are ruining the soil, and we should do something about them."
Now IANAL, but I believe in the US, that is still protected speech.
Actually, it has to be a direct incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases; a sort of vague, general "someone should do something about those damned queers" is usually not actionable, even if you find it objectionable.
Speech, of that nature, can only be deemed illegal if it passes the Bandenburg Test. The speech must be, "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
If fact, I think it would be legal to say something like: "We should kill all the gays." But, it would be illegal to say something like: "We should kill him [pointing to gay guy in the crowd], right now." Even then, for the speech to be illegal, it would have to be "likely" that it would incite the lawless actions.
Are you sure you don't mean that all of them apply? Any argument the US can use to justify keeping nukes Iran or NK can use to justify making nukes.
But, what I'm getting at is that justifications and arguments don't matter. If a state decides it's in its interest to develop nuclear weapons, they can. Other states may also try and stop them, if they believe that is in their interests.
The US, or any other state, doesn't care what Iran or NK's justifications are for building nukes. The US only asks whether it is in its best interest to allow them to. If not, we try and stop them, while minimizing the damage to our other interests.
Morality doesn't enter the picture. Justifications don't matter.
During the 6 years that this has been banned how much research into life saving treatments has been delayed?
That's a good question; one that may have a terrible answer.
An equally good, but probably unanswerable, question is, "How much good did Bush do--in the long run--for embryonic stem cell research by making the decision he did?" Like it or not, six years ago, a sizable percentage of the US population had strong reservations about embryonic stem cell research. Would pushing the law so far ahead of public opinion have done any good, in the long term?
For example, look at Roe v Wade. It can be argued that public opinion had been slowly moving to the pro-choice end of the spectrum before the case had been decided, and that abortion would have been legalized legislatively in the US. However, by forcing the issue, and legalizing abortion judicially, before the population was "ready" for such a change, we are left with the political climate we have today. Here we are, 36 years after Roe v Wade, and abortion is still a huge issue and the primary consideration for Supreme Court nominees.
The last six years, as stem cell research has slowed as a result of Bush's decision, has given society a chance to "catch up" to the current medical state of the art. Hopefully, that means that 36 years from today, embryonic stem cell research won't be the polarizing political issue that abortion is right now.
I'm not arguing that Bush's decision was necessarily the correct one. But, medical research is a long, expensive process. Thirty six years from now, how many people would devote the considerable time and resources toward research on embryonic stem cells, if their work could be halted by the next Supreme Court appointment?
It may be the case (though we'll never know) that Bush's decision saved more lives than it cost, purely by allowing society to catch up to medicine, and hopefully preventing the emergence of yet another polarizing political litmus test.
Not die off faster, but die off natural, and with perhaps a little dignity.
You know, I was wondering what that smell was; watching someone with late-stage Alzheimer's sitting in a shit filled diaper and staring vacantly into space. It was "dignity".
Taking coporations out of the political equation would mean that the rich find themselves greatly outnumbered by the other 90+ percent of the population and thus, their particular political views would be nearly irrelevant.
The rich are already greatly outnumbered.
What we have right now is quite the opposite, which is why so many people can be against the RIAA and the RIAA can be composed of such a small fraction of the overall society and still wield so much clout (i.e. if they want a new law, they will probably have it)
Are so many people against the RIAA? I would imagine that a large percentage of Americans have never heard of it.
Now, maybe if there was some way for us non-rich people to band together to get the word out... You know, pool our money together, buy some ads on TV, conduct research to bolster our claims, and help shape the political discussion on the issue... Kind of--well not "kind of"--like a corporation of some kind. A non-profit, perhaps?
In fact I'd be willing to consider the idea of eliminating all lobbying and all campaign contributions of every sort, outlawing them as either corruption or bribery (respectively).
So, I shouldn't be allowed to let my representatives know how I feel about an issue?
Then give political candidates an extremely generous (lest there be excuses) grant of public money and let them use that as the sole legal means by which they run their campaigns.
If I'm pro-choice, my tax dollars will help get pro-lifers elected, or vise versa? No thanks.
What if I want to start a new political party? The government can't fund every party; and without private contributions, how will anyone even know we exist?
Right now that's a big part of why they don't represent us.
I think the scarier, and more accurate observation is that they represent us disturbingly well. If campaign contributions are enough to buy votes, what does that say about our national character? Until that changes, regardless of what campaign finance laws we pass, it'll just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
And there are no individually wealthy people at the top of the RIAA, right?
I'm not saying that there isn't. But, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. If you get rid of the ability for common people to band together to promote their agenda, the only agendas we'll hear of will be from the individually wealthy.
Those aren't corporations.
Non-profit corporations, are still corporations.
Ok, you've convinced me. A nuclear arsenal is absolutely necessary for the defense of the United States.
Well, good. :)
Now, which of these arguments don't apply to Iran or North Korea? Surely as sovereign nations they have a right to their own self defense?
None of them apply. There are no such things as "rights" in international relations, only interests and power. If Iran or North Korea believes it is in their interest to develop a nuclear arsenal, they can. But, if a more powerful state believes it is in their interest to stop them, they will.
Just as in every other international conflict in history, things will sort themselves out based on who has the power, and who has not. It won't matter who is "right" or who is "wrong"; but who wins, and who loses.
Remember, it is called the department of DEFENSE not Attack.
Defense should mean defending your countries borders, not attacking others.
That's why we have a nuclear deterrent, not a first-strike force.
I believe that conventional weapons could make first-strike sufficiently terrible that no one would embark on such a course.
For a potential one-off attacker, like North Korea, you are absolutely correct. But, for a more formidable threat, like the Russians, or (eventually) the Chinese, a nuclear deterrent is necessary.
A nuclear response to a first-strike can be launched before the first incoming nuke hits. Once launched, they are more-or-less unstoppable, and require no further intervention. A first-strike could kill every living thing in North America, and our response could still be assured. That's an effective deterrent: the enemy cannot win.
A conventional response is much less sure. Any large-scale conventional response requires two things a nuclear response does not: time, and infrastructure. We may be able to field an effective fighting force in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but not indefinitely. With a sizable portion of our industrial, transportation, and communication infrastructure destroyed by a first-strike, there is the potential that the enemy could outlast us. They could win.
The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations).
You do realize that the only way the lower- and middle-classes get a say in our political process is because of these "evil" corporations, right? Without the ability to pool their limited funds toward a common goal, no one would be able to lobby the government, save the rich. Organizations like the AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc. are not diabolical "special interests". They're common people who have gotten together to make their voices heard.
Without those corporations, only the people with individual wealth would be in that position.
The fact still remains that it is reasonably easy for a modern military force to outdo Nagasaki with conventional weapons.
Sure it is. But, a Nagasaki-sized response is not a real deterrent to a nuclear first-strike. The goal is to make the consequences of a first-strike so terrible that no one would embark upon such a course. It's much easier, cheaper, terrifying, and reliable to field a nuclear deterrent than a conventional one.
Sadly, wars of necessity are the exception, not the rule.
"Necessity" is an awfully fluid concept. Are you sure it was necessary for the US to prosecute WWII as it did?
I'm only concerned with self defense, not aggression. Since every war since WWII has been one of aggression, they are not relevant.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that WWII was a war of self-defense for the US; that innocent ol' USA was just mindin' their own business, when out of the blue they were attacked. Yup, there we were, keeping to ourselves, not equipping Germany's enemy or antagonizing the Japanese. Nope, pure self-defense.
You're trying to draw a clear line between wars of aggression and wars of self-defense. There is no such line. Even WWII, arguably the most "just" international war in our history, does not fit clearly into either of your categories. Sorry.
A massive conventional response is just as damaging as a nuclear response, so the deterrent should be the same.
But it isn't. A conventional response requires a sustained military effort on the part of the responder. Sustained military actions require a functioning national infrastructure; farms, factories, men, communications, transportation, and natural resources (like energy). All of that can be severely impacted by a nuclear first strike, crippling our conventional military, and any response it may offer.
A nuclear deterrent, on the other hand, only requires a few moments, not months or years of sustained military actions. It can happen with the push of a button, no infrastructure to maintain against a hostile enemy for a prolonged period of time. And, it can be activated fully before the first-strike even hits our shores.
A deterrent is only as useful as it is sure. A conventional response leaves the enemy a chance that a successful first strike could cripple our military. A nuclear deterrent has no such weakness.
None of Vietnam, Iraq, nor Afghanistan are good examples.
Well, that's true, if by "good examples" you mean only the ones that don't refute your point. WWII is the exception, not the rule.
In none of those cases are we trying to flatten the opposition.
So, you do agree then, that our conventional military force is incapable of carrying out the war aims of any war we've fought in the last 60 years (save the first Persian Gulf)?
We did more damage in Dresden with conventional weaponry than we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
WWII is the exception. Unless you can produce more examples, you're basing your theory upon one outlier case.
If we wanted to commit ourselves to total war, which is what we'd do if attacked by nukes, we would have no trouble doing the same again.
I'd much rather not be attacked by nukes in the first place, which is what our nuclear deterrent is for.
Our conventional weaponry is more than enough to take care of either North Korea or Iran if we decided to do so.
Obviously. Look at how we "took care" of Vietnam, or are currently taking care of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Possessing nukes serves only as provocation.
Absolutely. We should be completely reliant upon our omnipotent and invincible conventional military strength.
He was the only X-files writer who could do straight comedy, drama, and satire with equal aplomb.
And, to me, that's what the X-Files was about.
Incomprehensible alien conspiracies? I could care less.
But smart, witty, well-written episodes, set in a world where the story is not sacrificed for "believability"? That's when the show was at its best.
Would you have been able to estimate the fine before this trial?
Yes... Why couldn't you?
The damages were statutory, and weren't even the maximum, as I understand it.
Well, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
Best X-Files episode ever.