> If only the Democratic candidates had resumes better than:
I will now attempt to decypher these qualifications as pertaining to Dem candidates. Please note that i'm not pro-Bush or pro-Respublican - i'm simply convinced that the right wing at the moment is the lesser of two evils. Ideologically based down-moderation not necessary but (this being/.) expected.
> * Demonstrated leadership capabilities
Translation: can whip up a bunch of angry bitter followers into a frenzy. Kissed ass proficiently enough to rise in Pentagon. I'd say Kerry is an exception here - he actually had to lead people whn it mattered.
> * Against special interests
Translation: Against people who pay money to the opposite party. Somehow, trial lawyers, Hollywood, labor unions and anyone else paying the whores...err... politicians on the left wing side don't get counted as "special interests". For the trigger-happy moderators, I consider right wing ones whores too. I just like their services better:)
> * For the middle class
Translation: wants to steal my money (I *am* in the lower end of middle class, with mid-5-digit salary per family member income, and pay well over a third of it in taxes), and with that stolen money pay for welfare so lazy bums can enjoy TV and fast food without having to worktheir ass off. I wonder when we as a country went to "my TV is only 25" and "my kid can only afford $50 b-ball sneakers" as poverty definitions. </RANT>
> > Arabs in Israel have orders of magnitude more rights than corresponding Jews in Arab countries.
> Percentage of adult Jews born in Egypt who can vote: 100% > Percentage of adult (non-Jewish) Arabs born in Israel who can vote: 19%
OK, first of all, that 19% figure is not true. Have any facts to back it up? AFAIK, there are NO special restrictions on voting that apply to Israeli Arabs vs Israeli Jews.
Now, how about real figures: ==== [ for baseline numbers: Arab population of Israel is 20% ] ====
Number of Arab parties in Knesset (Israel's parlament): 3 out of 12 (25%). This doesn't include a couple of ultra-liberal parties that aren't Arab but often take pro-Arab views.
Number of Jewish political parties in any Arab country legistlative body: 0.
Oh, and for historical reference, the first Arab to be elected to Knesset was in the Second Kneset, in 1951. 3 years and 1 election after the formation of the State of Israel.
====
Number of Arab political parties that ran for Knesset recently (includes the numbers above plus all the parties that got less than 1.5% of the vote and thus didn't gain any seats in the Knesset): 5 out of 27 (~20%), not including several ultra-left parties taht take pro-Arab positions.
Number of Jewish political parties in any Arab country: 0.
====
Number of Arab Knesset members who openly and vocally claimed taht they want the destruction of the State of Israel: at least 2. If you doubt, google for some speaches/statements from MK Ahmed Tibi or especially MK Azmi Bishara.
Number of parlament members of ANY other country with similar views about their country: none I'm aware of. In a lot of countries, such would be considered state treason.
> Agent: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any organization whose stated goal is the violent overthrow of the United States government?"
Well, i can't attest to the reason of such a question in security clearance procedures outside of paper-pushing reasons (I got several invites from NSA during college years, but wasn't a citizen back then so didn't apply), but the people who responded to this post declaring that the same question from INS when entering the country is BS obviously don't have a clue.
The real reason the question is asked of anyone trying to get into the USA, or apply for status, is that when a person who is not supposed to be here answers (obviously untruthfully) that "No, i was never a member of the SS", and later is caught, INS has a very simple and straightforward official reason to through the motherfucker out of the country. Not for being a butcher or some such moral thing, but for lying on the interview/form.
You forgot 10% of foreigners who ain't in any party but overwhelmingly anti-RNC, and 10% of commie plinco bastards (having actually lived in fUSSR, I earned the right to use the expression:)
Hell, I'm pretty sure "the guy who urged the USA to develop nukes" would be voted as top weasel on/. - that is until someone bothered to point out that he was the geeks' hero, Einstein. Then again, him being a jew-boy who supported Israel, he probably would have been voted as a weasel anyway.
> > and three big name 'liberals' (Moore, Arafat, and Chirac) drawing the 'conservative' votes
> If you think Arafat is a liberal, you need to lay off the OxyContin.
Note the quote marks, mister. He's not a liberal, he's a 'liberal'-supported guy. I.e. most Democrats would prefer an active terrorist, the guy who invented airplane highjacking, etc... to be their leader. Figures.
I, for one, hit low earth orbit just about every time I witness the latest criminally inept shenanigans coming out of the White House.
Well, since the producer of such criminally inept shenanigans has been out of the White House since his second term ran out in 2000, the Chinese craft thankfully is in no danger of colliding with you.
> That's a pretty inaccurate view given that China hasn't really been an interventionist country for the last few hundread years.
Eh? Tell that to all those Soviet soldiers who died fighting off chinese small-scale invasion on Amur couple of decades ago.
I must say Russia has a LOT more to fear from China than USA if Chinese were pragmatic. However, if their culture takes over (i.e. eastern concept of "honor" and such taking over practicality), USA should be more worried about being attacked.
The Chinese have achieved a human launch in space with a well paced programme that has taken it's time and not rushed things, which is why this has gone so smoothly.
No argument about taking their time leading to smooth performance. Duh! However, you SHOULD know that they are the only nation of the 3 currenyly posessing human-piloted spacecraft who COULD afford to take their time; USSR and USA both were in a race against each other. China is not in a race, and in no immediate danger.
It has done this with a budget that is less than 1/7th of NASA's.
I have to call bullshit here. Some of the multiple reasons for smaller budget are:
Different cost of living. I'm sure salaries paid to China's engineers are lots smaller than NASA ones.
Different economy. Last I checked, NASA could not enjoy the cheap labor costs provided by prisoners in labor camps the way PLA can. Or designate as many people/resources as it needed for the task at hand as was needed at the moment.
Diferent political system. When Premiere says "JUMP", entire country asks "How High?". Unlike our current "I will oppose the current president to the death, especially if it's a death of another 3000 peons" congress, whose members place a LOT higher value on their ideology and/or their electability as opposed to the good of their country or countrymen.
Different scope of the program. Besides the money black hole (aka Shuttle), NASA also runs a whole slew of uther things, that Chinese do not.
Chinese didn't have to invent the thing from scartch. Rocket program are based on Soviet technology. Ship is based on Soyuz. 'nuff said.
And before you start yet another round of 30 year old technology trolling, may I point out to you that the computing
power in the Chinese rocketry is at least 20 years newer than that in the Space Shuttle.
Question is, does that computing power lead to better performance/less bugs etc...
After they've flown 100 lunches, you can compare notes and decide whose program performed better.
I will retain judgements till then.
That was precisely my point. RIGHT NOW, some person could take over USA and start altering all the laws.
Uhm... NO. To change the US Constitution, you need
to go through a complicated process that no one person could affect to a great degree. Even more so since the society is 50-50 divided between left and right wing.
The most influence anyone can have on US legal system are judges, and on the top level you have 9 of them. And the most they can do (admittedly, sometimes with major results:) is to say what laws are and are not constitutional. A LOT larger bodies of power (legislative branch) write those laws.
The difference between US consititution (or any other that works) and USSR one (which, unlike you, I have read - in russian - and witnessed at "work" first hand) is the minor concept known as "checks and balances". That is precisely what makes US constitution the *law* of the land and made USSR one the longest anecdote.
In addition, it must be noted that the legal system is a tool of the elite to begin with.
Quite wrong.
First of all, elites started with no need for a legal system. Ooog the warlord only needs the biggest muscles and biggest club to rule, NOT legal system.
On the other hand, it was only legal systems that gave the NON-elites any sort of meaningful rights (see history of England and USA for examples).
That is not to say, of course, that the elites don't try to use the legal system as a tool for stying on top. But it's just another tool, among the others they used throughout history: brute force, religion, economics, etc... Like any tool it can be used for and against elite.
Capitalism will ALWAYS have classes since it is an elitist system. There must always be someone at the bottom to do the "dirty work". Otherwise, how would the wealthy elites live?
Oh, cut the bullcrap. Classes are NOT a property of capitalism. They are a property of any organized social system (I wouldn't even say "human collective" as the same holds true for ants/bees/etc..).
Whay do you think, "dirty work" was done by the elites in fUSSR? Or that Kim Chen Ir suffers from hunger like most of his slaves^H^H^H^H^H subjects?
Again, ANY system is an elitist system. The only difference between USR and USA is that in USSR, i had zero chance of being even close to the elite, no matter what i did. In USA, i have a pretty good fighting chance, and well on my road there, simply because i have brains and work very hard.
Dumb plinco armchair commies. Really would be nice if all of them could get one-way ticket to my hometown circa 1980, where you had to wait 2 hours in line to buy toilet paper (limit: 2 rolls per person), of course unless you were the elite.
-DVK
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan
Probably because they are SMART and know economics?
And because some of us (Americans that is),- unlike you - actually EXPERIENCED the "benefits" of living in a socialist country?
Ever wondered why most fUSSR immigrants of younger generation are overwhelmingly anti-Democrat? Please note that I didn't say "pro-Republican". I would vote for whichever party/candidate can most likely beat Democrat, NOT for a particular ideology. Too bad in almost all cases it ends up being a Republican:( I dislike Bush but consider him a lesser evil compared to having another Democrat in WH. I din't vote FOR Bush in 2000 - I voted AGAINST Gore.
Err... or may be because it was officially considered - on the USSR side of the Iron Curtain, by the way - that "socialism is a necesary and required stepping stone to achieving inevitable communism". That is what was taught in Soviet political science/history/economics/etc... classes.
As to why *I* - as a US citizen - prefer to avoid socialist programs - there are 3 reasons:
1) I know they don't work because I watched them not work for half my life while living in the "workers paradise"... err... fUSSR.
2) I know they don't work because I studied both economics and history and psychology. They MAY work short-term or in small communities. They do NOT work on large scale and over long periods of time.
3) And because I believe in fairness. You (the hypothetical recipient of benefits of a socialist program) do NOT have the right to the money that I have earned. It only seems "unfair" that some people have while others have not until you remember to consider that speople have put a LOT of effort into getting where they are in life, and some didn't.
I studied hard in college (double major) while working 4 part-time jobs, and then worked like hell to build my career, all this at HUGE sacrifice to my personal life and health. Why is it that a slacker who drank and fucked women and most importantly got enough sleep while I slaved away - is now entitled to get health insurance funded with the money that was STOLEN from me (err... taxed). He had 100% same fair chance as me to get a job that provides health benefits, just like I did. I don't think that punishing me for working hard by taking my money on someone else's behalf is fair.
I wonder whether your dislike is for PACs (or as you wrote, "organizations" with a pretentiously-honorable-sounding yet ambiguous name), or - judging from your list of examples - exclusively right-leaning organizations of any name?
There's plenty of left-wing ones that fall under the same umbrella you listed, so does your failure to mention even one of them signify your hypocricity, or simply political blindness - "as long as an organization supports *MY* political views its name can never be 'pretentiously-honorable-sounding' and it can't spew bullshit"?
By the way, i'm not saying that the ones you listed aren't named with a certain BS factor - just that there's plenty of the same on the opposite end of ideological spectrum.
I also wonder if your "Insighful" moderation would be so high if you sounded less politically motivated, as well as how negative my own moderation would be for daring to commit a thoughtcrime of not being a liberal on/.
-DVK -- "All your base 2 are belong to 0111000110110"
> > Actually AMERICA is known as the 'root-for-the-underdog' country.
> You must be joking.
Actually, he is quite right. Of course, it didn't quite start in America. I'd say the original model of rooting for the underdog comes from the little schmuck called David who beat the hell out of Goliath. Well, not the only original one - I'd lump Odysseus and Cyclops into the same archetypical conflict - and guess who most ancient Greeks rooter for? Or, for the Geekety-Stephenson fans here, look at generic Trickster/geek archetype.
What you seem to be confused by is the schitzo fact that at the same time, Americans love a ***WINNER***. If the underdog wins, the two trends conincide. If not, they clash. For modern archetypical example of the former in the American culture, look up Luke Skywalker or Daniel-san aka "Karate Kid". This is what America loves best - the underdog who, through his innate qualities, overcomes and wins.
-DVK -- "Opportunity is missed by most people
because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."
- Thomas Edison
> but there are numerous cultures around the place that tend to "support the underdog" and do so proudly.
Especially if the underdog is dedicating his/its life to trying to blow up as many innocent civilans as possible. Then again, I fail to describe as "culture" any society which is capable of justifying terrorists. Oh, and for those wishing to wave an old "ones man terorist is another man's freedom fighter" cliche at me, the definition of terrorist that I'm using is "someone who *deliberately* aims to do harm to noncombatants". Freedom fighters is a description of goals. Terrorism is a description of tactics. A terrorist is a terrorist, whatever his goal is. The distinction is very simple: if, to achieve an objective X, you have a choice of doing something harming a noncombatant person P, or not harming them, and you CHOOSE to harm them, you're a terrorist. Any conflict harms innocents. The difference between terrorists and non-terrorists is, that non-terrorists would prefer - and try - to inflict as little harm as possible on the noncombatants, and consider it a Bad Thing if they do.
Let the political modding-down begin:)
-DVK -- "You know you've got problems when people on Slashdot start making fun of your sex life..."
- from Slashdot.org post
> As opposed to what? That money being spent on Bombs and Missiles?
No, money spent on doing this completely useless defense research into creating a distributed communications network capable of withstanding attacks. You know, the one that grew into the medium which you use to spew your crappy political views.
Or may be, money spent on developing these completely useless programmable computing devices. Nobody needs them, except for warmongering artillery guys with their guns and evil MenInBlack from NoSuchAgency who want to ruin your life. Oh, in case you weren't aware, the general purpose programmable computing devices (y'know, COMPUTERS) were developed, in large part, under pressure to calculate ballistic trajectories and to break codes. Things that these days are universally reviled by slashbots like yourselves as "evil Echelon" and "evil Bombs and Missiles".
I guess your handle adequately describes the state of your knowledge about the world.
-DVK
-- "American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan!"
- "Armageddon"
Only on slashdot... do you find someone getting blueballs from bookstore wait.
Re:I kid because I love
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
Heh... a feeling very familiar to Tom Clancy fans among us (are there any on/.?)
I once had to buy and carry for couple of hours 8 TC hardcovers at a book signing (for 8 people from TC newsgroup)... quite a workout;)
-DVK
-- "Mood is a thing for cattle and loveplay, not for fighting"
- Gurney Hallek, Frank Herbert's "Dune"
Re:It's a ridiculously contrived plot device,
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
Well, THAT kind of conincidence might be unlikely, but what would you say of two people, born on the same day, of the same year, in the space of a couple of minutes, in the SAME HOSPITAL, with infants being in the same room - later living in totally different cities till they turned 20 - who then met and fell in love and got married? You say impossible? Then so is my existance, for the above is my parents' story.
-DVK
-- "Don't give me the odds" - Han Solo, of course;)
(1) what are the general opinions of programmers on technical writers;
That depends on a technical writer. If I ever met a qualified one, i'd buy him/her a beer. Or a cake. Or even flowers for a woman if that wouldn't violate company's sexual harrassment policy and she wasn't likely to get offended. I hate writing, and having someone do a good job for me would be a godsend.
On the other hand, the uber-dumb hack that the management stuck me with about 2 years ago, who wasted my countless man-hours and in the end came up with an absolutely incorrect and useless thick tome, was about as needed for my job and my application as a wooly mammoth in a small china shop.
(2) is there someone out there who has first-hand experience in technical writing who can tell me about the work and their experiences;
Well, i'm not a technical writer by job description, but had to write my own documentation (both user and progarmmer oriented). It's a very painful job unless you enjoy writing (which I don't, like many if not most programmers:) You need to be able to think both on technical level, to understand the stuff you're writing about, AND the users' point of view, which often is very different. You need to be able to express yourself clearly. And of course it helps if you like to write.:)
(3) what software is used mainly in the process
The hack I worked with used Word. I have used Framemaker on Sun when writing procedural documentation for Ops team I was with, and <my_favorite_text_editor> to write HTML docs for my application.
(4) what seems to be the average pay?
Beats me, i only wrote as part of my other jobs. Sorry.
Because some of us know just a little bit more than you about history and human nature.
> You seem to be more afraid of each other, then other things!
Well DUH, a lot more humans get hurt by othe humans than by all other things combined, at least until some big asteroid wipes all of us idiots out (we would stop being idiots when we start colonizing outside this miserable little ball of dirt).
> Is the veil of civilization so thin in the USA that simple darkness will create the downfall of mankind?
It is not US-specific.
1) Read more on world history, even 20th century. Russian history is full of brigands and looters, t use a portion of the world i'm most familiar outside of USA.
2) From the TV reports, it seems that "cvilized" liberal Canada is where rioting and looting is going on today. So much for your US bashing. Wonder if Ottawa has strong "gun prohibition" laws:)
3) Also, it's not US-specific as much as urban-specific fear here in NYC. We have a distinct subculture (if anything with the root "culture" can be applied to such people) who find that crime and violence is a Normal Way Of Life, to be looked at with envy and rapped about as somthing cool. As was very evident in several riots last decade (NY, and especially LA, some other examples).
Moreover, it's not about civilization. It only takes one cop who's busy saving the life of an 80-year-old lady who's having trouble because of extreme heat with no AC, combined with one criminal who is intent on using the darkness to loot, to create danger to anyone and their home. Nothing to do with presence or abscence of civilization - there were, are and allways be criminals, level of civilization be damned. The only difference is that 100 years ago that criminal had to be afraid of breaking into my house 'cause i coulda shot him myself. In 2003, he ain't - we are "controlling" guns, so only criminals can have them.
Now that I revealed my right wing gun nut ideas, let the slash-left-modding-down begin;)
Right, and blacks are overrepresented in prisons because they played the race card, right? Or, maybe they got played the race card? You aren't racist. You are ill-informed.
Please define "overrepresented"? If X is percent of blacks in prison, are you comparing it to: * Percent of blacks in population? * Percent of blacks among people who commit crime? * Some other number?
Well, the real reason is that the literal translation of "black hole" means something obscene in Russian. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in Russian slang can tell us what...
That's a negative:
* "Black hole" in Russian is a literal translation of the English term. (Chyornaya dira, for the curious).
* It is absolutely not an obscene expression. Matter of fact, until the parent post, i didn't begin to realize it had obscene connotations. (which it does to some extent, to a perverted mind like mine - but so does almost any expression you can come up with for that matter:)
* I have never heard the term "collapsor", at least in popular science/college level physics. Perhaps it may have been an older term, or used in professional physics literature on level well above textbooks I read. Donno.
No, not really a joke in most cases (although could be in some).
High School: as someone already posted in a reply, the school has legal responsibility for students during school time.
College: if a college recieves ANY public money, that money usually depends on attendance. So it's in their absolute financial interest to ensure 100% atendance to get as much public money as they can.
Of course, in a purely private college, it is more of joke, but applied intelligently, has its uses (while I had no problem getting an A in my Physics class while attending 3 days a semester (first day, midterm, final), Joe R. Student may get himself in trouble if he doesn't study hard. So if you corellate bad grades with bad attendance, it's a useful tool.
As for when it can be a joke: I skipped about 1/2 of my Phys 255 (electronics labs). Got a D- despite actually handing in lab reports for most labs, because of "attendance is 60% of the grade" policy. The idiot professor never realized that she gave D- to someone who: - Soldered his own radios in elementary school - Knew the mathematics behind Special and some General relativity in Junior High - Was in top 10 in the practical (laboratory) round of Russian National Phyisics competition in 9th grade. (and #1 in regional in a region of 2 Million people).
Slashdot Mirror
> If only the Democratic candidates had resumes better than:
/.) expected.
:)
I will now attempt to decypher these qualifications as pertaining to Dem candidates. Please note that i'm not pro-Bush or pro-Respublican - i'm simply convinced that the right wing at the moment is the lesser of two evils. Ideologically based down-moderation not necessary but (this being
> * Demonstrated leadership capabilities
Translation: can whip up a bunch of angry bitter followers into a frenzy. Kissed ass proficiently enough to rise in Pentagon. I'd say Kerry is an exception here - he actually had to lead people whn it mattered.
> * Against special interests
Translation: Against people who pay money to the opposite party. Somehow, trial lawyers, Hollywood, labor unions and anyone else paying the whores...err... politicians on the left wing side don't get counted as "special interests".
For the trigger-happy moderators, I consider right wing ones whores too. I just like their services better
> * For the middle class
Translation: wants to steal my money (I *am* in the lower end of middle class, with mid-5-digit salary per family member income, and pay well over a third of it in taxes), and with that stolen money pay for welfare so lazy bums can enjoy TV and fast food without having to worktheir ass off. I wonder when we as a country went to "my TV is only 25" and "my kid can only afford $50 b-ball sneakers" as poverty definitions.
</RANT>
-DVK
> > Arabs in Israel have orders of magnitude more rights than corresponding Jews in Arab countries.
> Percentage of adult Jews born in Egypt who can vote: 100%
> Percentage of adult (non-Jewish) Arabs born in Israel who can vote: 19%
OK, first of all, that 19% figure is not true. Have any facts to back it up? AFAIK, there are NO special restrictions on voting that apply to Israeli Arabs vs Israeli Jews.
Now, how about real figures:
====
[ for baseline numbers: Arab population of Israel is 20% ]
====
Number of Arab parties in Knesset (Israel's parlament):
3 out of 12 (25%).
This doesn't include a couple of ultra-liberal parties that aren't Arab but often take pro-Arab views.
Number of Jewish political parties in any Arab country legistlative body: 0.
Oh, and for historical reference, the first Arab to be elected to Knesset was in the Second Kneset, in 1951. 3 years and 1 election after the formation of the State of Israel.
====
Number of Arab political parties that ran for Knesset recently (includes the numbers above plus all the parties that got less than 1.5% of the vote and thus didn't gain any seats in the Knesset):
5 out of 27 (~20%), not including several ultra-left parties taht take pro-Arab positions.
Number of Jewish political parties in any Arab country: 0.
====
Number of Arab Knesset members who openly and vocally claimed taht they want the destruction of the State of Israel: at least 2. If you doubt, google for some speaches/statements from MK Ahmed Tibi or especially MK Azmi Bishara.
Number of parlament members of ANY other country with similar views about their country: none I'm aware of. In a lot of countries, such would be considered state treason.
====
OK, you can now put on your tinfoil hat.
> This story says the tip came from a family member
Man, I always knew that inlaws are evil, but this...
> Agent: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any organization whose stated goal is the violent overthrow of the United States government?"
Well, i can't attest to the reason of such a question in security clearance procedures outside of paper-pushing reasons (I got several invites from NSA during college years, but wasn't a citizen back then so didn't apply), but the people who responded to this post declaring that the same question from INS when entering the country is BS obviously don't have a clue.
The real reason the question is asked of anyone trying to get into the USA, or apply for status, is that when a person who is not supposed to be here answers (obviously untruthfully) that "No, i was never a member of the SS", and later is caught, INS has a very simple and straightforward official reason to through the motherfucker out of the country. Not for being a butcher or some such moral thing, but for lying on the interview/form.
-DVK
You forgot 10% of foreigners who ain't in any party but overwhelmingly anti-RNC, and 10% of commie plinco bastards (having actually lived in fUSSR, I earned the right to use the expression :)
/. - that is until someone bothered to point out that he was the geeks' hero, Einstein. Then again, him being a jew-boy who supported Israel, he probably would have been voted as a weasel anyway.
Hell, I'm pretty sure "the guy who urged the USA to develop nukes" would be voted as top weasel on
-DVK
> > and three big name 'liberals' (Moore, Arafat, and Chirac) drawing the 'conservative' votes
> If you think Arafat is a liberal, you need to lay off the OxyContin.
Note the quote marks, mister. He's not a liberal, he's a 'liberal'-supported guy. I.e. most Democrats would prefer an active terrorist, the guy who invented airplane highjacking, etc... to be their leader. Figures.
-DVK
Well, since the producer of such criminally inept shenanigans has been out of the White House since his second term ran out in 2000, the Chinese craft thankfully is in no danger of colliding with you.
-DVK
> That's a pretty inaccurate view given that China hasn't really been an interventionist country for the last few hundread years.
Eh? Tell that to all those Soviet soldiers who died fighting off chinese small-scale invasion on Amur couple of decades ago.
I must say Russia has a LOT more to fear from China than USA if Chinese were pragmatic. However, if their culture takes over (i.e. eastern concept of "honor" and such taking over practicality), USA should be more worried about being attacked.
-DVK
No argument about taking their time leading to smooth performance. Duh! However, you SHOULD know that they are the only nation of the 3 currenyly posessing human-piloted spacecraft who COULD afford to take their time; USSR and USA both were in a race against each other. China is not in a race, and in no immediate danger.
It has done this with a budget that is less than 1/7th of NASA's.
I have to call bullshit here. Some of the multiple reasons for smaller budget are:
And before you start yet another round of 30 year old technology trolling, may I point out to you that the computing power in the Chinese rocketry is at least 20 years newer than that in the Space Shuttle.
Question is, does that computing power lead to better performance/less bugs etc... After they've flown 100 lunches, you can compare notes and decide whose program performed better. I will retain judgements till then.
-DVK
Uhm... NO. To change the US Constitution, you need to go through a complicated process that no one person could affect to a great degree. Even more so since the society is 50-50 divided between left and right wing. The most influence anyone can have on US legal system are judges, and on the top level you have 9 of them. And the most they can do (admittedly, sometimes with major results :) is to say what laws are and are not constitutional. A LOT larger bodies of power (legislative branch) write those laws.
The difference between US consititution (or any other that works) and USSR one (which, unlike you, I have read - in russian - and witnessed at "work" first hand) is the minor concept known as "checks and balances". That is precisely what makes US constitution the *law* of the land and made USSR one the longest anecdote.
In addition, it must be noted that the legal system is a tool of the elite to begin with.
Quite wrong. First of all, elites started with no need for a legal system. Ooog the warlord only needs the biggest muscles and biggest club to rule, NOT legal system.
On the other hand, it was only legal systems that gave the NON-elites any sort of meaningful rights (see history of England and USA for examples).
That is not to say, of course, that the elites don't try to use the legal system as a tool for stying on top. But it's just another tool, among the others they used throughout history: brute force, religion, economics, etc... Like any tool it can be used for and against elite.
Capitalism will ALWAYS have classes since it is an elitist system. There must always be someone at the bottom to do the "dirty work". Otherwise, how would the wealthy elites live?
Oh, cut the bullcrap. Classes are NOT a property of capitalism. They are a property of any organized social system (I wouldn't even say "human collective" as the same holds true for ants/bees/etc..).
Whay do you think, "dirty work" was done by the elites in fUSSR? Or that Kim Chen Ir suffers from hunger like most of his slaves^H^H^H^H^H subjects?
Again, ANY system is an elitist system. The only difference between USR and USA is that in USSR, i had zero chance of being even close to the elite, no matter what i did. In USA, i have a pretty good fighting chance, and well on my road there, simply because i have brains and work very hard.
Dumb plinco armchair commies. Really would be nice if all of them could get one-way ticket to my hometown circa 1980, where you had to wait 2 hours in line to buy toilet paper (limit: 2 rolls per person), of course unless you were the elite.
-DVK
-- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan
Probably because they are SMART and know economics?
:(
And because some of us (Americans that is),- unlike you - actually EXPERIENCED the "benefits" of living in a socialist country?
Ever wondered why most fUSSR immigrants of younger generation are overwhelmingly anti-Democrat?
Please note that I didn't say "pro-Republican".
I would vote for whichever party/candidate can most likely beat Democrat, NOT for a particular ideology. Too bad in almost all cases it ends up being a Republican
I dislike Bush but consider him a lesser evil compared to having another Democrat in WH. I din't vote FOR Bush in 2000 - I voted AGAINST Gore.
-DVK
Err... or may be because it was officially considered - on the USSR side of the Iron Curtain, by the way - that "socialism is a necesary and required stepping stone to achieving inevitable communism". That is what was taught in Soviet political science/history/economics/etc... classes.
As to why *I* - as a US citizen - prefer to avoid socialist programs - there are 3 reasons:
1) I know they don't work because I watched them not work for half my life while living in the "workers paradise"... err... fUSSR.
2) I know they don't work because I studied both economics and history and psychology. They MAY work short-term or in small communities. They do NOT work on large scale and over long periods of time.
3) And because I believe in fairness.
You (the hypothetical recipient of benefits of a socialist program) do NOT have the right to the money that I have earned. It only seems "unfair" that some people have while others have not until you remember to consider that speople have put a LOT of effort into getting where they are in life, and some didn't.
I studied hard in college (double major) while working 4 part-time jobs, and then worked like hell to build my career, all this at HUGE sacrifice to my personal life and health.
Why is it that a slacker who drank and fucked women and most importantly got enough sleep while I slaved away - is now entitled to get health insurance funded with the money that was STOLEN from me (err... taxed). He had 100% same fair chance as me to get a job that provides health benefits, just like I did. I don't think that punishing me for working hard by taking my money on someone else's behalf is fair.
-DVK
I wonder whether your dislike is for PACs (or as you wrote, "organizations" with a pretentiously-honorable-sounding yet ambiguous name), or - judging from your list of examples - exclusively right-leaning organizations of any name?
/.
There's plenty of left-wing ones that fall under the same umbrella you listed, so does your failure to mention even one of them signify your hypocricity, or simply political blindness - "as long as an organization supports *MY* political views its name can never be 'pretentiously-honorable-sounding' and it can't spew bullshit"?
By the way, i'm not saying that the ones you listed aren't named with a certain BS factor - just that there's plenty of the same on the opposite end of ideological spectrum.
I also wonder if your "Insighful" moderation would be so high if you sounded less politically motivated, as well as how negative my own moderation would be for daring to commit a thoughtcrime of not being a liberal on
-DVK
--
"All your base 2 are belong to 0111000110110"
> > Actually AMERICA is known as the 'root-for-the-underdog' country.
> You must be joking.
Actually, he is quite right.
Of course, it didn't quite start in America. I'd say the original model of rooting for the underdog comes from the little schmuck called David who beat the hell out of Goliath. Well, not the only original one - I'd lump Odysseus and Cyclops into the same archetypical conflict - and guess who most ancient Greeks rooter for? Or, for the Geekety-Stephenson fans here, look at generic Trickster/geek archetype.
What you seem to be confused by is the schitzo fact that at the same time, Americans love a ***WINNER***. If the underdog wins, the two trends conincide. If not, they clash.
For modern archetypical example of the former in the American culture, look up Luke Skywalker or Daniel-san aka "Karate Kid". This is what America loves best - the underdog who, through his innate qualities, overcomes and wins.
-DVK
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people
because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."
- Thomas Edison
> but there are numerous cultures around the place that tend to "support the underdog" and do so proudly.
:)
Especially if the underdog is dedicating his/its life to trying to blow up as many innocent civilans as possible. Then again, I fail to describe as "culture" any society which is capable of justifying terrorists.
Oh, and for those wishing to wave an old "ones man terorist is another man's freedom fighter" cliche at me, the definition of terrorist that I'm using is "someone who *deliberately* aims to do harm to noncombatants".
Freedom fighters is a description of goals. Terrorism is a description of tactics.
A terrorist is a terrorist, whatever his goal is.
The distinction is very simple: if, to achieve an objective X, you have a choice of doing something harming a noncombatant person P, or not harming them, and you CHOOSE to harm them, you're a terrorist. Any conflict harms innocents. The difference between terrorists and non-terrorists is, that non-terrorists would prefer - and try - to inflict as little harm as possible on the noncombatants, and consider it a Bad Thing if they do.
Let the political modding-down begin
-DVK
--
"You know you've got problems when people on Slashdot start making fun of your sex life..."
- from Slashdot.org post
> As opposed to what? That money being spent on Bombs and Missiles?
No, money spent on doing this completely useless defense research into creating a distributed communications network capable of withstanding attacks. You know, the one that grew into the medium which you use to spew your crappy political views.
Or may be, money spent on developing these completely useless programmable computing devices. Nobody needs them, except for warmongering artillery guys with their guns and evil MenInBlack from NoSuchAgency who want to ruin your life. Oh, in case you weren't aware, the general purpose programmable computing devices (y'know, COMPUTERS) were developed, in large part, under pressure to calculate ballistic trajectories and to break codes. Things that these days are universally reviled by slashbots like yourselves as "evil Echelon" and "evil Bombs and Missiles".
I guess your handle adequately describes the state of your knowledge about the world.
-DVK
--
"American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan!"
- "Armageddon"
Only on slashdot...
do you find someone getting blueballs from bookstore wait.
Heh... a feeling very familiar to Tom Clancy fans among us (are there any on /.?)
;)
I once had to buy and carry for couple of hours 8 TC hardcovers at a book signing (for 8 people from TC newsgroup)... quite a workout
-DVK
--
"Mood is a thing for cattle and loveplay, not for fighting"
- Gurney Hallek, Frank Herbert's "Dune"
Well, THAT kind of conincidence might be unlikely, but what would you say of two people, born on the same day, of the same year, in the space of a couple of minutes, in the SAME HOSPITAL, with infants being in the same room - later living in totally different cities till they turned 20 - who then met and fell in love and got married?
;)
You say impossible? Then so is my existance, for the above is my parents' story.
-DVK
--
"Don't give me the odds" - Han Solo, of course
(1) what are the general opinions of programmers on technical writers;
:) :)
That depends on a technical writer. If I ever met a qualified one, i'd buy him/her a beer. Or a cake. Or even flowers for a woman if that wouldn't violate company's sexual harrassment policy and she wasn't likely to get offended. I hate writing, and having someone do a good job for me would be a godsend.
On the other hand, the uber-dumb hack that the management stuck me with about 2 years ago, who wasted my countless man-hours and in the end came up with an absolutely incorrect and useless thick tome, was about as needed for my job and my application as a wooly mammoth in a small china shop.
(2) is there someone out there who has first-hand experience in technical writing who can tell me about the work and their experiences;
Well, i'm not a technical writer by job description, but had to write my own documentation (both user and progarmmer oriented). It's a very painful job unless you enjoy writing (which I don't, like many if not most programmers
You need to be able to think both on technical level, to understand the stuff you're writing about, AND the users' point of view, which often is very different. You need to be able to express yourself clearly. And of course it helps if you like to write.
(3) what software is used mainly in the process
The hack I worked with used Word. I have used Framemaker on Sun when writing procedural documentation for Ops team I was with, and <my_favorite_text_editor> to write HTML docs for my application.
(4) what seems to be the average pay?
Beats me, i only wrote as part of my other jobs. Sorry.
-DVK
> Why are you so worried?
:)
;)
Because some of us know just a little bit more than you about history and human nature.
> You seem to be more afraid of each other, then other things!
Well DUH, a lot more humans get hurt by othe humans than by all other things combined, at least until some big asteroid wipes all of us idiots out (we would stop being idiots when we start colonizing outside this miserable little ball of dirt).
> Is the veil of civilization so thin in the USA that simple darkness will create the downfall of mankind?
It is not US-specific.
1) Read more on world history, even 20th century. Russian history is full of brigands and looters, t use a portion of the world i'm most familiar outside of USA.
2) From the TV reports, it seems that "cvilized" liberal Canada is where rioting and looting is going on today. So much for your US bashing. Wonder if Ottawa has strong "gun prohibition" laws
3) Also, it's not US-specific as much as urban-specific fear here in NYC. We have a distinct subculture (if anything with the root "culture" can be applied to such people) who find that crime and violence is a Normal Way Of Life, to be looked at with envy and rapped about as somthing cool. As was very evident in several riots last decade (NY, and especially LA, some other examples).
Moreover, it's not about civilization.
It only takes one cop who's busy saving the life of an 80-year-old lady who's having trouble because of extreme heat with no AC, combined with one criminal who is intent on using the darkness to loot, to create danger to anyone and their home. Nothing to do with presence or abscence of civilization - there were, are and allways be criminals, level of civilization be damned. The only difference is that 100 years ago that criminal had to be afraid of breaking into my house 'cause i coulda shot him myself. In 2003, he ain't - we are "controlling" guns, so only criminals can have them.
Now that I revealed my right wing gun nut ideas, let the slash-left-modding-down begin
-DVK
Right, and blacks are overrepresented in prisons because they played the race card, right? Or, maybe they got played the race card? You aren't racist. You are ill-informed.
Please define "overrepresented"?
If X is percent of blacks in prison, are you comparing it to:
* Percent of blacks in population?
* Percent of blacks among people who commit crime?
* Some other number?
Since he was convicted in a civil suit, it means there WAS evidence. Just not enough to outweigh poetry.
That's a negative:
* "Black hole" in Russian is a literal translation of the English term. (Chyornaya dira, for the curious).
* It is absolutely not an obscene expression. Matter of fact, until the parent post, i didn't begin to realize it had obscene connotations. (which it does to some extent, to a perverted mind like mine - but so does almost any expression you can come up with for that matter
* I have never heard the term "collapsor", at least in popular science/college level physics. Perhaps it may have been an older term, or used in professional physics literature on level well above textbooks I read. Donno.
-DVK
No, not really a joke in most cases (although could be in some).
High School: as someone already posted in a reply, the school has legal responsibility for students during school time.
College: if a college recieves ANY public money, that money usually depends on attendance. So it's in their absolute financial interest to ensure 100% atendance to get as much public money as they can.
Of course, in a purely private college, it is more of joke, but applied intelligently, has its uses (while I had no problem getting an A in my Physics class while attending 3 days a semester (first day, midterm, final), Joe R. Student may get himself in trouble if he doesn't study hard.
So if you corellate bad grades with bad attendance, it's a useful tool.
As for when it can be a joke:
I skipped about 1/2 of my Phys 255 (electronics labs). Got a D- despite actually handing in lab reports for most labs, because of "attendance is 60% of the grade" policy. The idiot professor never realized that she gave D- to someone who:
- Soldered his own radios in elementary school
- Knew the mathematics behind Special and some General relativity in Junior High
- Was in top 10 in the practical (laboratory) round of Russian National Phyisics competition in 9th grade. (and #1 in regional in a region of 2 Million people).
-DVK