Jesus wasn't against money, but the defiling of the temple, the abuse of the money lenders charging exhorbitant fees to poor temple visitors. If the money lenders were fair and not predatory, and remained respectful while offering a necessary service, would Jesus have been so angered?
There are more references to violence in the Old Testamant than in the Koran. I think Mohammed would not be proud of the extremists when they act contrary to what he actually said. The most common theme in the Koran is mercy. The caliphates allowed Christians and Jews to live in their lands, albeit with extra taxes. Remember that Christians during ante-bellum South defended the most brutal form of slavery using the Bible, probably the biggest religious schism in America came from protestant churches dividing over the issue of slavery.
What about Christian fundamentalists who do kill? Terrorists or just misguided? There's an equivalence when the mainstream of both religions is against terrorism, except that with Christians there is acknowledgement that the violent acts are just some fringe wackso, but with Muslims there's so much propaganda out there that eveyr Muslim is a potential terrorist.
No one can really predict traffic well, anywhere. Traffic reports are almost useless (they never tell you about slowdowns on a freeway if there's always a slowdown at that location, but will warn you ominously about an accident on a road where the traffic is still running smoothly). The Google Maps and such aren't much better. They don't give you the key information about whether or not I need to take a much longer route or not. And it doesn't know your preferences, most out of town people would seemingly prefer I-95/90 to dealing with Boston surface streets, but the GPS assumes you're a hardened veteran of local roads.
I go down freeway CA-101, every day, off peak hours. There is really no other route that doesn't add an extra half hour to an hour. There are times when the route shows as black (ie, worst possible color) when it is faster to just put up with one long traffic jams, and there are times when the route is black when it is better to take the slow detour. There are times when the color is red or orange when it can suddenly come to a complete stop and now it's too late to detour. They don't show what the traffic will be like 20 to 30 minutes in the future when I am at that location and it's too late to try something different. So I never use them, what's the point of being told "you're screwed!" every time you look at it?
But I figure out routes before hand. Google maps is nearly useless at giving directions since it insists on using current traffic conditions. It also doesn't know my likes and dislikes, I don't want to take a shorter route if it means a really narrow road or negotiating the mess of an urban core, I don't want high overpasses or bridges, I don't want to get anywhere near the "maze" in Oakland, etc. I don't want the optimal route necessarily.
I need to orient myself first anyway, relying on the GPS without knowing anything about the route is short sighted. So, go up freeway 1, turn to freeway 2, get off at exit 3, follow John Doe road until I hit the cross street I want. It's easy, the way to get lost is if traffic is very heavy and you don't get over in time (I am not aggressive in traffic, and GPS tends to assume I can merge a lane in only a few seconds). GPS helps if I miss where I am going sometimes, but it sometimes makes things more aggravating if all I need to do is turn myself around. I may be slower but more comfortable since I know where I am, and I recognize the road signs and landmarks.
GPS should be a backup only. I almost never use one. Only once, in an unfamiliar place, and first thing I did before travelling was to familiarize myself with the route and roads. So all the GPS did was complain that I wasn't using the right road that it computed. But it would have been handy had I taken a wrong turn.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 2
What rights will she take? Trump has already stated he'll institute torture ("beyond waterboarding"), which his fans don't care about because they'll be suspected terrorists and thus not allowed to have rights. He wants to ban people from entering the US solely based upon their religion which infringes on rights, but his fans will say that rights don't apply to people outside of the US.
Bigger problem with Trump is that he has no real plans. He is obviously winging it and making shit up as he goes. If he gets in the white house he'll get bored of this game quickly and all the work it involves and delegate to interns. His tax plan severely cuts taxes with no way to make up the shortfall which will destroy the economy. All the talk about "on day one I will do this..." is proof he doesn't how how things work. The only reason he's running as a Republican is because that's where the angry voters are, but I don't think he has any real thought out political views of his own. Repealing Obamacare will be a massive disaster leaving millions without any way to pay for health care; you can't roll back the clock on this one quickly you would have to undo it in stages or you'll strip the gears.
Clinton on the other hand is pretty mainstream center-left, very similar to Obama. She is not an extremist, same as Obama. Obama never took any rights away, and Clinton will be similar. She's going to have much the same views as Bill had, maybe with some realization of past mistakes (like the crime bill turning out badly). Overall she'll be pretty bland I suspect. She won't get anything done in her term because of intransigence in congress. No disasters, but no improvements either, a four year holding period.
Democrats won in 1992 because Bill Clinton veered to the center (maybe with some help from Perot). Republicans could win easily in 2016 if they moved to the center instead of catering to the crazy wing.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
If it was Trump versus Anyone, I'd have to vote for Anyone. As bad as Hillary could be, Trump would be far worse. One could manage the four years until the next election with Hillary or Bernie. But not with Trump, and probably not with Cruz.
I was thinking about this, as a member of no political party, that you could have a third party easily forming in this race that could gain voters from the middle. We've got a bell curve of voters, but the parties are focusing on the extremes. At least during the primaries, they'll all pretend to be centrists again in the general election. But what if Kasich+Bush decided to run as a third party and grab the center? Better if it was Republican+Democrat so that they wouldn't be accused of "stealing" or "spoiling" the election like Nader or Perot were accused of doing.
I've voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past. I think that party loyalty is a vice.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 3, Informative
government wealth redistribution
This alone makes you socialist/communist.
There are specific definitions of those words, even if you choose to ignore them.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
You're confusing people. People like to think about Us and Them. People happen to like Us but they hate Them. Trying to show some commonality between Us and Them will only confuse We The People.
America is in part screwed up because it tries to separate politics into only two camps. This affects a lot of people who don't really pay too much about what they really believe so they just follow what their preferred party tells them to believe. They like guns so they automatically feel compelled to also be anti-abortion even though there's nothing linking tose two concepts other than being on the same party's platform.
Neither Sanders nor Paul follow their party, they are only affiliated with those parties because it's nearly impossible to win elections without being one or the other. So once people stop blindly following the political parties they start finding out that they have lots of beliefs in common.
And Paul isn't really libertarian, and Sanders isn't really socialist, but trying to have some nuance there also confuses the people.
Not all useful changes are treated the same. Bug fixes get higher priority, doing what the boss thinks is important gets more priority, infrastructure changes which overall are an improvement but which causes a need for others to fix code or learn something new tend to get lower priority. Smaller means easier to quickly understand and thus more likely to be accepted quickly. Logically some of these things getting lower priority are actually very important but get overlooked as they're not directly related to the immediate bottom line and quarlerly profits (in the corporate world anyway, though some of this exists in a slightly different form in open source).
And that's sort of what they implied. Pull requests from women tended to be larger or less likely to serve an immediate need. This is not to say that those are better or worse on merit, just treated differently.
To stereotype perhaps, the women tend work on things that need to get done in the long run and avoid quick and dirty fixes, men tend to work on things to impress the boss and worry about cleaning it up later? I have seen some small trend this way in my experience, as the worst code bases to maintain that I've worked on tended to be developed in all male groups, and easier to understand and maintain code came from mixed developers. And in my experience at least, I've see more women caring about long term architectural issues and few who were engaged in the quick and dirty check in.
If you just quit, the boss keeps doing his reprehensible behavior on someone else. Maybe the difference is between people who only care about their own welfare and those who care about others.
I don't think Hillary gave any support or tacit approval. I think Bill was sleeping in the dog house for several years. I know some people assume that because she didn't divorce him that she must have approved but that's just bizarre and assuming that everyone will act the same way if rational. A married couple that have invested much of their life together will sometimes divorce after such an incident but sometimes they will genuinely reconcile, there is never one and only one way to resolve the problem.
Hillary in no way acted like those wives who stand meekly two steps behind their politician husband while admitting the affair in front of reporters. That's a strange crowd in itself, pay attention to those women's faces. Some appear to be just sticking it out with as passive a face as they can manage, others feel resigned to it, others have glares they just can't hide. But for some reason they're always up their with the bastard instead of staying home or watching the apology from a bar. It is sort of a strong Christian right sentiment too, that divorce is deeply frowned upon and the wife must always be subservient. Or it could just be that some want the bastard to get reelected before they ask for alimony.
The power dynamic is inescapable though. If you're stuck with that professor, or have to put up with the boss if you want to get a paycheck, then that's totally different than the power between rich and poor and the like. If a billionare started rubbing himself against women in a poor neighborhood he'd be punched and arrested. But if it's your boss and you're struggling to make ends meet, or your professor who is deeply involved in your research thesis, it's much harder to retaliate or get away. The downside is that no one will believe you without evidence, you can lose your job or career or even marriage, you'll be laughed at and told to grow a thicker skin, you may start getting nasty tweets from the anti-women crowd for daring to make a fuss, and so forth. This is nasty stuff and not to be taken lightly or brushed off as "men will be boys" or just another power dynamic.
Being continually hit on at work or by your boss/professor is not acceptable. If it happens once and discontinues then there's not a problem. But when it continues and is causing even your friends to wonder what the hell is wrong with you then it's time to clean stuff up.
It is often difficult to speak up. Everyone around may acknowledge that some professor is a troglodyte but may not feel able to say anything about it, because it's a senior professor or the like, and it can hurt your career even if it's not your own professor. If it's your professor and you speak up then you know you have to start your graduate work from scratch with a new professor, even finding a new field if it's impossible to avoid the lech in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know the emoticons are the same sex? Do they drop their trousers and lift their skirts?
And twisting the minds of 40 year old men as well.
Jesus wasn't against money, but the defiling of the temple, the abuse of the money lenders charging exhorbitant fees to poor temple visitors. If the money lenders were fair and not predatory, and remained respectful while offering a necessary service, would Jesus have been so angered?
There are more references to violence in the Old Testamant than in the Koran. I think Mohammed would not be proud of the extremists when they act contrary to what he actually said. The most common theme in the Koran is mercy. The caliphates allowed Christians and Jews to live in their lands, albeit with extra taxes. Remember that Christians during ante-bellum South defended the most brutal form of slavery using the Bible, probably the biggest religious schism in America came from protestant churches dividing over the issue of slavery.
The KKK says that they are a Christian organization.
What about Christian fundamentalists who do kill? Terrorists or just misguided? There's an equivalence when the mainstream of both religions is against terrorism, except that with Christians there is acknowledgement that the violent acts are just some fringe wackso, but with Muslims there's so much propaganda out there that eveyr Muslim is a potential terrorist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's a big market for whitening products in Indonesia though.
I've heard no one be quiet when someone says executing gays is ok. There's a huge outcry over that for anyone interested in social justice.
No one can really predict traffic well, anywhere. Traffic reports are almost useless (they never tell you about slowdowns on a freeway if there's always a slowdown at that location, but will warn you ominously about an accident on a road where the traffic is still running smoothly). The Google Maps and such aren't much better. They don't give you the key information about whether or not I need to take a much longer route or not. And it doesn't know your preferences, most out of town people would seemingly prefer I-95/90 to dealing with Boston surface streets, but the GPS assumes you're a hardened veteran of local roads.
I go down freeway CA-101, every day, off peak hours. There is really no other route that doesn't add an extra half hour to an hour. There are times when the route shows as black (ie, worst possible color) when it is faster to just put up with one long traffic jams, and there are times when the route is black when it is better to take the slow detour. There are times when the color is red or orange when it can suddenly come to a complete stop and now it's too late to detour. They don't show what the traffic will be like 20 to 30 minutes in the future when I am at that location and it's too late to try something different. So I never use them, what's the point of being told "you're screwed!" every time you look at it?
But I figure out routes before hand. Google maps is nearly useless at giving directions since it insists on using current traffic conditions. It also doesn't know my likes and dislikes, I don't want to take a shorter route if it means a really narrow road or negotiating the mess of an urban core, I don't want high overpasses or bridges, I don't want to get anywhere near the "maze" in Oakland, etc. I don't want the optimal route necessarily.
I need to orient myself first anyway, relying on the GPS without knowing anything about the route is short sighted. So, go up freeway 1, turn to freeway 2, get off at exit 3, follow John Doe road until I hit the cross street I want. It's easy, the way to get lost is if traffic is very heavy and you don't get over in time (I am not aggressive in traffic, and GPS tends to assume I can merge a lane in only a few seconds). GPS helps if I miss where I am going sometimes, but it sometimes makes things more aggravating if all I need to do is turn myself around. I may be slower but more comfortable since I know where I am, and I recognize the road signs and landmarks.
GPS should be a backup only. I almost never use one. Only once, in an unfamiliar place, and first thing I did before travelling was to familiarize myself with the route and roads. So all the GPS did was complain that I wasn't using the right road that it computed. But it would have been handy had I taken a wrong turn.
What rights will she take? Trump has already stated he'll institute torture ("beyond waterboarding"), which his fans don't care about because they'll be suspected terrorists and thus not allowed to have rights. He wants to ban people from entering the US solely based upon their religion which infringes on rights, but his fans will say that rights don't apply to people outside of the US.
Bigger problem with Trump is that he has no real plans. He is obviously winging it and making shit up as he goes. If he gets in the white house he'll get bored of this game quickly and all the work it involves and delegate to interns. His tax plan severely cuts taxes with no way to make up the shortfall which will destroy the economy. All the talk about "on day one I will do this..." is proof he doesn't how how things work. The only reason he's running as a Republican is because that's where the angry voters are, but I don't think he has any real thought out political views of his own. Repealing Obamacare will be a massive disaster leaving millions without any way to pay for health care; you can't roll back the clock on this one quickly you would have to undo it in stages or you'll strip the gears.
Clinton on the other hand is pretty mainstream center-left, very similar to Obama. She is not an extremist, same as Obama. Obama never took any rights away, and Clinton will be similar. She's going to have much the same views as Bill had, maybe with some realization of past mistakes (like the crime bill turning out badly). Overall she'll be pretty bland I suspect. She won't get anything done in her term because of intransigence in congress. No disasters, but no improvements either, a four year holding period.
Democrats won in 1992 because Bill Clinton veered to the center (maybe with some help from Perot). Republicans could win easily in 2016 if they moved to the center instead of catering to the crazy wing.
If it was Trump versus Anyone, I'd have to vote for Anyone. As bad as Hillary could be, Trump would be far worse. One could manage the four years until the next election with Hillary or Bernie. But not with Trump, and probably not with Cruz.
I was thinking about this, as a member of no political party, that you could have a third party easily forming in this race that could gain voters from the middle. We've got a bell curve of voters, but the parties are focusing on the extremes. At least during the primaries, they'll all pretend to be centrists again in the general election. But what if Kasich+Bush decided to run as a third party and grab the center? Better if it was Republican+Democrat so that they wouldn't be accused of "stealing" or "spoiling" the election like Nader or Perot were accused of doing.
I've voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past. I think that party loyalty is a vice.
government wealth redistribution
This alone makes you socialist/communist.
There are specific definitions of those words, even if you choose to ignore them.
You're confusing people. People like to think about Us and Them. People happen to like Us but they hate Them. Trying to show some commonality between Us and Them will only confuse We The People.
America is in part screwed up because it tries to separate politics into only two camps. This affects a lot of people who don't really pay too much about what they really believe so they just follow what their preferred party tells them to believe. They like guns so they automatically feel compelled to also be anti-abortion even though there's nothing linking tose two concepts other than being on the same party's platform.
Neither Sanders nor Paul follow their party, they are only affiliated with those parties because it's nearly impossible to win elections without being one or the other. So once people stop blindly following the political parties they start finding out that they have lots of beliefs in common.
And Paul isn't really libertarian, and Sanders isn't really socialist, but trying to have some nuance there also confuses the people.
Only if they also accepted the agreement.
http://comicvine.gamespot.com/...
How does Zika fit into this? It doesn't affect behavior. It also doesn't spread very effectively compared to something like the flu.
Not all useful changes are treated the same. Bug fixes get higher priority, doing what the boss thinks is important gets more priority, infrastructure changes which overall are an improvement but which causes a need for others to fix code or learn something new tend to get lower priority. Smaller means easier to quickly understand and thus more likely to be accepted quickly. Logically some of these things getting lower priority are actually very important but get overlooked as they're not directly related to the immediate bottom line and quarlerly profits (in the corporate world anyway, though some of this exists in a slightly different form in open source).
And that's sort of what they implied. Pull requests from women tended to be larger or less likely to serve an immediate need. This is not to say that those are better or worse on merit, just treated differently.
To stereotype perhaps, the women tend work on things that need to get done in the long run and avoid quick and dirty fixes, men tend to work on things to impress the boss and worry about cleaning it up later? I have seen some small trend this way in my experience, as the worst code bases to maintain that I've worked on tended to be developed in all male groups, and easier to understand and maintain code came from mixed developers. And in my experience at least, I've see more women caring about long term architectural issues and few who were engaged in the quick and dirty check in.
If you just quit, the boss keeps doing his reprehensible behavior on someone else. Maybe the difference is between people who only care about their own welfare and those who care about others.
So, they're saying I can get smarter by logging off of slashdot and going outside?
I don't think Hillary gave any support or tacit approval. I think Bill was sleeping in the dog house for several years. I know some people assume that because she didn't divorce him that she must have approved but that's just bizarre and assuming that everyone will act the same way if rational. A married couple that have invested much of their life together will sometimes divorce after such an incident but sometimes they will genuinely reconcile, there is never one and only one way to resolve the problem.
Hillary in no way acted like those wives who stand meekly two steps behind their politician husband while admitting the affair in front of reporters. That's a strange crowd in itself, pay attention to those women's faces. Some appear to be just sticking it out with as passive a face as they can manage, others feel resigned to it, others have glares they just can't hide. But for some reason they're always up their with the bastard instead of staying home or watching the apology from a bar. It is sort of a strong Christian right sentiment too, that divorce is deeply frowned upon and the wife must always be subservient. Or it could just be that some want the bastard to get reelected before they ask for alimony.
The power dynamic is inescapable though. If you're stuck with that professor, or have to put up with the boss if you want to get a paycheck, then that's totally different than the power between rich and poor and the like. If a billionare started rubbing himself against women in a poor neighborhood he'd be punched and arrested. But if it's your boss and you're struggling to make ends meet, or your professor who is deeply involved in your research thesis, it's much harder to retaliate or get away. The downside is that no one will believe you without evidence, you can lose your job or career or even marriage, you'll be laughed at and told to grow a thicker skin, you may start getting nasty tweets from the anti-women crowd for daring to make a fuss, and so forth. This is nasty stuff and not to be taken lightly or brushed off as "men will be boys" or just another power dynamic.
Being continually hit on at work or by your boss/professor is not acceptable. If it happens once and discontinues then there's not a problem. But when it continues and is causing even your friends to wonder what the hell is wrong with you then it's time to clean stuff up.
It is often difficult to speak up. Everyone around may acknowledge that some professor is a troglodyte but may not feel able to say anything about it, because it's a senior professor or the like, and it can hurt your career even if it's not your own professor. If it's your professor and you speak up then you know you have to start your graduate work from scratch with a new professor, even finding a new field if it's impossible to avoid the lech in the future.
Same here. I thought "LEGO is doing what???" It's like clickbait!