THIS.
Because prosecution, the hammer of the law, is so politically motivated. If you're on a shit list of powerful people, you get the book thrown at you. And it's a really fucking heavy book. But if you're a horrible guy screwing over millions of powerless people? Naw. The pansy gloves come out. Or they find a sacrificial goat. Or they settle. That's right, they settle away FELONIES. Remember BP? And they had popular opinion against them.
And with the legal system how it is, only the rich can afford to defend themselves. If the rule of law only applies to the powerless, is there really a rule of law?
Remember that line from Back to the Future, part 2? When they automated the court system and abolished all lawyers? Yeah. That'd be nice. In the meantime we need to make the legal system more impartial and less... driven by power and politics.
It's a perfectly relevant argument when the person with the broken arm wants to CHOP IT OFF. As if that would fix it. Now, sure, sometimes people are just pointing out that our central banking system could be better, and that they don't trust the Fed, but quite often you get the Ron Paulites who want to abolish: the Fed, the IRS, the education department, and... jesus christ, they pretty much want to get rid of the federal government. Anyway, "shit's bad". Yeah ok, you've got some good points there, what do we do about it? "TEAR IT ALL DOWN" ah, no thank you.
That's not exactly the sentiment of khallow, but it's prevalent enough here that it's a cultural "thing" and the sane people have developed a response to it.
Wow, what's it like to live in constant fear? That paranoid distrusting nature that I find in so many of the older political types. It's probably born of cynasim or something, but people like you are just socially pesimistic. Like they've given up on people in general. I'd be more understanding if you had been truely hungry at some point, but everyone I've met with this attitude has been financially well off. I imagine the cut-throat mentality helps balance the budget. On the flip-side, everyone I've known who has been through hard times has had a healthy respect for the caring nature of their fellows. Usually because they had to lean on someone else in some fashion. Maybe all the ones who tried to stand on their own simply died, but in any case, I haven't met them.
But no, seriously, what's it like to constantly distrust everyone else?
Did you know that your highschool social studies teacher was lieing to you?
"Republic" just means they don't have a "king". It doesn't mean the people are represented. It's just a coinsodence of language that the two words seem similar. You know how we usually get in a huff about a topic and everyone galvanizes along two sides and it's a big sort of debate thing? Yeah, back in the day, one of those issues was whether or not we should have a king or we should have a republic.
But anyway, no, your argument isn't coming from the right angle. You can't say the masses will always want more taxes. That's crazy. Who wants to pay more taxes? No, they want other people to pay more taxes. Especially when there's inequality and unfair advantage. So you should argue that, in a democracy, collective Peter will vote to tax/enslave/repress selective Paul. Of course, historically, democracies have been pretty good when it comes to the civil rights of minorities.... Eventually... I don't see how that's neccesarily part of a democratic system, but there's probably some sociological factors at play.
I am responsible only for the actions and decisions I make. Not my neighbor's, not the government's, but mine and mine alone.
And that's what separates a individualistic libertarian and the people who understand they live in and depend upon a socity. Bitch as much as you want, but you live in a democracy. Ultimately, YOU, in some small percentage, are the person in charge of all the laws and all the government. Don't like the shitty laws? Hate taxes and what it buys you? Do your civic duty, get political, and rally your neighbors to change it. Because we're all responsible for this. Together.
Actually, I'd claim that roads are predominantly construction projects completed by private enterprises which the city, state and federal governments fund through taxation.
Power. The federal court has power of us. Peers over the internet do not. "Cyber bullying" is amongst equals while the power imbalance between an ethical and upstanding digital rights activist and federal prosecutors is laughable. To curtail cyber bullying we would need to impose draconian rules enforced over the Internet, while to curtail federal bullying we simply need to slap a political official on the wrist. And we can do that second one, in theory, because we live in a democracy. But to get the right people to start slapping, even halfheartedly, the masses have to get in a huff and thrash a little.
Also, did you think that Slashdot is one homogenous group? We're not even a loose coalition. We're individuals that occasionally function as a hive-mind.
It made me question whether I really wanted to spend a lot of time getting better at something that attracted defective people to it.
Welcome to Slashdot! But no, seriously, from all the geeks, fuck you. Please kindly go die in a fire. You weren't smart enough to be competitive at chess and you gave up. That's not that bad. Holding a grudge against the sour grapes and insulting grand masters is that bad. Stop it. And stop blaming computers for your own failings.
When the only things we're known for are movies, code, and delivering pizza, you defend the cash cow. But yeah, the system is pretty messed up and the legal system doesn't have a clue how to deal with anything digital.
But that's no reason to simply ignore the behavior of the prosecutor. "Just following orders" is not an excuse. Regardless, he wasn't following orders, it was his decision to go after this case. The district attorneys have a lot of leeway about what they do, a lot of which ends up being political.
A political cut-throat job like this probably attracts all the bad eggs. The fact that the system encourages this behavior doesn't absolve the individual, just as the fact that an individual commits the act doesn't absolve the system from encouraging it.
So fire his ass, burn down his office, and salt the land afterwards. And then build something that works. Without the need to drive our best and brightest to suicide.
That guy who comes by and lingers around my cube making idle chit-chat because he's bored out of this gourd and/or simply doesn't want to work. So he drags me down into that narfarious pit of unproductivity by making smalltalk about.... FOOTBALL... of all things.
Don't get me wrong. He's a nice guy. Friendly. Smart. But he's gregarious, while I want nothing more than to retreat to my cube and get back to work. The guy just can't take a hint that the conversation is over and it's time to leave. Show any amount of interest and he reves up into another 5 minute one-sided discussion. Ugh.
Oh, well in that case you're a bad and evil person and I detest everything about you. Your outlook on life, and probably your actions are detremental to society. You want to keep the masses ignorant and stupid simply because it would be easier to write some programs for them and makes you more "powerful" than they. And at the same time you despise the average user because they don't have the same capabilites as you do. The is a positive feedback loop, a vicious cycle. I imagine if you were the sole IT sysadmin somewhere there would be a horrible rift between IT and the users with a very antagonistic and posionous relationship. Posionous in that they would hate all IT workers (ie, me) via association with their association with you.
No mention yet of programming games? Most of them are all self-contained, so you just have to run the program, type some things in, and hit run. C++ Robots on the other hand is simply a C API, so you get to use all the tools that real programmers use. (And all the joy that comes with that). These give a task to perform, maybe not a super-useful task, but it's at least a goal. Usually it's open-ended though, so there really isn't a sense of accomplishment. Most of them need better documentation. And most of them are old, so getting them running is a bit of a task.
I recall someone saying "why do checks this way? use REGEX!" I was like "uhm... what do you think regex routines are doing???"
Yeah, but he knows how to use regex, and he doesn't know what sort of crazy home-brew implementation you cooked up. When it comes time for him to fix your code, or extend it, he's going to have to dive into it's guts rather than tweak some regex. A lot of effort has been put into debugging the libraries that everyone uses. How long did you test and debug your implementation?
If he was arguing for speed or size issues, sure, you have a perfectly valid point. But compatibility, useability, and hell, even conformity are more important than how fast your code runs. Usually.
Also, it wasn't quite clear what you're getting at with the first two bullet points. Are you REALLY suggesting that educating the users is a bad thing?
What? Do you think programming or writing are some sort of high art that the plebs can't comprehend? Doesn't my letter serve a simple purpose? Doesn't it convey a thought? Doesn't the for loop perform a function?
No, most people will never be professional programmers, or write "moderately complex" software. Because they don't have to.
but how many of those can _really_ write a letter if they have to?
No true scotsman fallacy. Get off your high horse.
I expect less than half of those who have learned to write are actually able to do so.
That's because you have an EXTREMELY jaded and cynical outlook on humanity. Go talk to some people.
Either the author is bitter about women not giving him a chance because they can easily go out and find someone better, or he's a businessman crying that he can't make money by matchmaking.
The problem with thinking that people have superficial views and don't really know what they want is that you start treating them not as customers, but as products to mold into what you want. You start to try to control them rather than providing a service to them. Bad mojo.
and government hoarding of surpluses during booms. Good in theory, completely worthless in practice because, shock, governments don't ever do it.
Well we did it in the 90's. Remember Clinton?
According to the theory, right now the economy should be borderline overheating the juice has been turned up so high
I believe it's ludicrously hot compared to the cold dead corpse that would have resulted had we "let the market decide" in 2008. The problem is that the burner doesn't go up any more. You want the pot to simmer, but not boil. But if someone just dumped an iceblock in the pot, and all you have is a candle, it ain't going to boil over.
The inflation caused by printing money balances out the deflation caused by all that wealth we thought we had simply disappearing. Completely agree that the low rates will stop when inflation goes over a point. And when that point hits is when people stop hoarding their oh-shit funds, borrow money, invest, yadayada economy happens and wealth is created. They turn down the burner when it starts to boil over.
Obama hasn't invaded any nations....so far.
If Bush hadn't finally become unpopular in '06, or if we had elected McCain, we might have invaded Iran. Sure, it seems like ludicrously bad idea, but then again, so was invading Iraq.
uuuuhhhhh, a tablet can't fit in a backpack? How about a smartphone you can fit in your pocket. The issue is not the form factor of the computer, they're (more or less) powerful enough and plenty small enough. The issue is not the connectivity, bluetooth and wifi can connect it to peripherals and the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
THIS. Because prosecution, the hammer of the law, is so politically motivated. If you're on a shit list of powerful people, you get the book thrown at you. And it's a really fucking heavy book. But if you're a horrible guy screwing over millions of powerless people? Naw. The pansy gloves come out. Or they find a sacrificial goat. Or they settle. That's right, they settle away FELONIES. Remember BP? And they had popular opinion against them.
And with the legal system how it is, only the rich can afford to defend themselves. If the rule of law only applies to the powerless, is there really a rule of law?
Remember that line from Back to the Future, part 2? When they automated the court system and abolished all lawyers? Yeah. That'd be nice. In the meantime we need to make the legal system more impartial and less... driven by power and politics.
Hey man, crooks get really pissed when you steal their stolen goods. It's like an insult to their profession.
It's a perfectly relevant argument when the person with the broken arm wants to CHOP IT OFF. As if that would fix it. Now, sure, sometimes people are just pointing out that our central banking system could be better, and that they don't trust the Fed, but quite often you get the Ron Paulites who want to abolish: the Fed, the IRS, the education department, and... jesus christ, they pretty much want to get rid of the federal government.
Anyway, "shit's bad". Yeah ok, you've got some good points there, what do we do about it? "TEAR IT ALL DOWN" ah, no thank you.
That's not exactly the sentiment of khallow, but it's prevalent enough here that it's a cultural "thing" and the sane people have developed a response to it.
Wow, what's it like to live in constant fear? That paranoid distrusting nature that I find in so many of the older political types. It's probably born of cynasim or something, but people like you are just socially pesimistic. Like they've given up on people in general. I'd be more understanding if you had been truely hungry at some point, but everyone I've met with this attitude has been financially well off. I imagine the cut-throat mentality helps balance the budget. On the flip-side, everyone I've known who has been through hard times has had a healthy respect for the caring nature of their fellows. Usually because they had to lean on someone else in some fashion. Maybe all the ones who tried to stand on their own simply died, but in any case, I haven't met them.
But no, seriously, what's it like to constantly distrust everyone else?
"Republic" just means they don't have a "king". It doesn't mean the people are represented. It's just a coinsodence of language that the two words seem similar.
You know how we usually get in a huff about a topic and everyone galvanizes along two sides and it's a big sort of debate thing? Yeah, back in the day, one of those issues was whether or not we should have a king or we should have a republic.
But anyway, no, your argument isn't coming from the right angle. You can't say the masses will always want more taxes. That's crazy. Who wants to pay more taxes? No, they want other people to pay more taxes. Especially when there's inequality and unfair advantage. So you should argue that, in a democracy, collective Peter will vote to tax/enslave/repress selective Paul. Of course, historically, democracies have been pretty good when it comes to the civil rights of minorities.... Eventually... I don't see how that's neccesarily part of a democratic system, but there's probably some sociological factors at play.
I am responsible only for the actions and decisions I make. Not my neighbor's, not the government's, but mine and mine alone.
And that's what separates a individualistic libertarian and the people who understand they live in and depend upon a socity. Bitch as much as you want, but you live in a democracy. Ultimately, YOU, in some small percentage, are the person in charge of all the laws and all the government. Don't like the shitty laws? Hate taxes and what it buys you? Do your civic duty, get political, and rally your neighbors to change it. Because we're all responsible for this. Together.
Actually, I'd claim that roads are predominantly construction projects completed by private enterprises which the city, state and federal governments fund through taxation.
Power. The federal court has power of us. Peers over the internet do not. "Cyber bullying" is amongst equals while the power imbalance between an ethical and upstanding digital rights activist and federal prosecutors is laughable. To curtail cyber bullying we would need to impose draconian rules enforced over the Internet, while to curtail federal bullying we simply need to slap a political official on the wrist. And we can do that second one, in theory, because we live in a democracy. But to get the right people to start slapping, even halfheartedly, the masses have to get in a huff and thrash a little.
Also, did you think that Slashdot is one homogenous group? We're not even a loose coalition. We're individuals that occasionally function as a hive-mind.
It made me question whether I really wanted to spend a lot of time getting better at something that attracted defective people to it.
Welcome to Slashdot! But no, seriously, from all the geeks, fuck you. Please kindly go die in a fire. You weren't smart enough to be competitive at chess and you gave up. That's not that bad. Holding a grudge against the sour grapes and insulting grand masters is that bad. Stop it. And stop blaming computers for your own failings.
When the only things we're known for are movies, code, and delivering pizza, you defend the cash cow. But yeah, the system is pretty messed up and the legal system doesn't have a clue how to deal with anything digital.
But that's no reason to simply ignore the behavior of the prosecutor. "Just following orders" is not an excuse. Regardless, he wasn't following orders, it was his decision to go after this case. The district attorneys have a lot of leeway about what they do, a lot of which ends up being political.
Can't we hate both?
A political cut-throat job like this probably attracts all the bad eggs. The fact that the system encourages this behavior doesn't absolve the individual, just as the fact that an individual commits the act doesn't absolve the system from encouraging it.
So fire his ass, burn down his office, and salt the land afterwards. And then build something that works. Without the need to drive our best and brightest to suicide.
Why does everyone else seem to think they've got to the bottom of it in five minutes?
Because we can recognize a pattern.
Seconded. To hell with phones. We're living in the future, get with the times.
That guy who comes by and lingers around my cube making idle chit-chat because he's bored out of this gourd and/or simply doesn't want to work. So he drags me down into that narfarious pit of unproductivity by making smalltalk about.... FOOTBALL... of all things.
Don't get me wrong. He's a nice guy. Friendly. Smart. But he's gregarious, while I want nothing more than to retreat to my cube and get back to work. The guy just can't take a hint that the conversation is over and it's time to leave. Show any amount of interest and he reves up into another 5 minute one-sided discussion. Ugh.
Oh, well in that case you're a bad and evil person and I detest everything about you. Your outlook on life, and probably your actions are detremental to society. You want to keep the masses ignorant and stupid simply because it would be easier to write some programs for them and makes you more "powerful" than they. And at the same time you despise the average user because they don't have the same capabilites as you do. The is a positive feedback loop, a vicious cycle. I imagine if you were the sole IT sysadmin somewhere there would be a horrible rift between IT and the users with a very antagonistic and posionous relationship. Posionous in that they would hate all IT workers (ie, me) via association with their association with you.
So, please fuck off into a fire, and die.
No mention yet of programming games? Most of them are all self-contained, so you just have to run the program, type some things in, and hit run. C++ Robots on the other hand is simply a C API, so you get to use all the tools that real programmers use. (And all the joy that comes with that). These give a task to perform, maybe not a super-useful task, but it's at least a goal. Usually it's open-ended though, so there really isn't a sense of accomplishment. Most of them need better documentation. And most of them are old, so getting them running is a bit of a task.
A nice list.
AT-Robots What introduced me to programming.
(Good to know Logo/turtle was mentioned prior)
I recall someone saying "why do checks this way? use REGEX!" I was like "uhm... what do you think regex routines are doing???"
Yeah, but he knows how to use regex, and he doesn't know what sort of crazy home-brew implementation you cooked up. When it comes time for him to fix your code, or extend it, he's going to have to dive into it's guts rather than tweak some regex. A lot of effort has been put into debugging the libraries that everyone uses. How long did you test and debug your implementation?
If he was arguing for speed or size issues, sure, you have a perfectly valid point. But compatibility, useability, and hell, even conformity are more important than how fast your code runs. Usually.
Also, it wasn't quite clear what you're getting at with the first two bullet points. Are you REALLY suggesting that educating the users is a bad thing?
All I want is people who can write an actual letter that is sufficiently intelligible to serve a simple purpose.
Dear mom,
We're out of milk.
for(x=0; x!=100; x++)
if(cell(x,1) == 5)
cell(x,2).value = "good";
What? Do you think programming or writing are some sort of high art that the plebs can't comprehend? Doesn't my letter serve a simple purpose? Doesn't it convey a thought? Doesn't the for loop perform a function?
No, most people will never be professional programmers, or write "moderately complex" software. Because they don't have to.
but how many of those can _really_ write a letter if they have to?
No true scotsman fallacy. Get off your high horse.
I expect less than half of those who have learned to write are actually able to do so.
That's because you have an EXTREMELY jaded and cynical outlook on humanity. Go talk to some people.
Either the author is bitter about women not giving him a chance because they can easily go out and find someone better, or he's a businessman crying that he can't make money by matchmaking.
The problem with thinking that people have superficial views and don't really know what they want is that you start treating them not as customers, but as products to mold into what you want. You start to try to control them rather than providing a service to them. Bad mojo.
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire
and government hoarding of surpluses during booms. Good in theory, completely worthless in practice because, shock, governments don't ever do it.
Well we did it in the 90's. Remember Clinton?
According to the theory, right now the economy should be borderline overheating the juice has been turned up so high
I believe it's ludicrously hot compared to the cold dead corpse that would have resulted had we "let the market decide" in 2008. The problem is that the burner doesn't go up any more. You want the pot to simmer, but not boil. But if someone just dumped an iceblock in the pot, and all you have is a candle, it ain't going to boil over.
The inflation caused by printing money balances out the deflation caused by all that wealth we thought we had simply disappearing. Completely agree that the low rates will stop when inflation goes over a point. And when that point hits is when people stop hoarding their oh-shit funds, borrow money, invest, yadayada economy happens and wealth is created. They turn down the burner when it starts to boil over.
These bankers? Deserve to live?
Yes. In prison.
I dislike Hatta for his unreasonable outbursts and appeal to emotion.
But for fucks sake will someone put these motherfuckers against a wall!?
Obama hasn't invaded any nations. ...so far.
If Bush hadn't finally become unpopular in '06, or if we had elected McCain, we might have invaded Iran. Sure, it seems like ludicrously bad idea, but then again, so was invading Iraq.
Maybe the anonymous coward's spindly little arms can't lift a laptop after years of subsisting on nothing but mountain dew and cheezypoofs?
uuuuhhhhh, a tablet can't fit in a backpack? How about a smartphone you can fit in your pocket. The issue is not the form factor of the computer, they're (more or less) powerful enough and plenty small enough. The issue is not the connectivity, bluetooth and wifi can connect it to peripherals and the internet.
It's the goggles. They do nothing.