Yes, they do, for your implication was that your usage was "Standard British" usage (which everyone should know), and I should go look it up.
You very very misunderstand.How incredibly communist of you! Pol Pot would be proud.
Cute. Leftist == Communist == Pol Pot. Beautiful. Ad hominem, unjustified, unargued. But beautiful. Perhaps I should reach for Capitalist == Fascist == Augusto Pinochet. Thats bollocks too, but you started it.
The government should exist to enforce the laws, and the only actions which should be illegal are those which deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property
Your taxes are currently paying to drop bombs on the Taliban. I believe this act of self-defense is also a role of government. Do you? Would a pacifist have the freedom to not pay to support it.
No, says psychology. Humans don't do things if there isn't personal gain involved. It's a psychological fact.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
You do not think wealth is earned. You think it is distributed. You are wrong. You also fail to realize that countries will always have starving citizens, no matter what the private sector or governments do.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
How much property are citizens allowed to accumulate?
As much as they like. But they should be prepared to pay some of it in taxes in order to care for those who are not wealthy.
And your words, "less fortunate" imply that the poor are in their poor state through no fault of their own. You and I both know that this is false.
Some of them are, some of them aren't. Thats why I singled out those that were (Duh).
Your words lend credence to the stereotype that the British are elitist
No they don't, you simply don't understand the usage. If differing usage offends you, feel free to replace it with the synonymous "blue collar".
I earn a lot of money, then I maintain the right to provide for my child in the best way that I see fit.
And as long as your child is OK, you're absolved of responsibility for any other member of humanity, right? Thats a nice elision you use, implicitly equating freedom of choice with the right to keep all your money. You're also fond that other elision -- playing on the double meaning of the word "earned" (as in "what you got paid" and "what you deserved")
How much of the high wage-earner's money should the government have the right to seize? What percentage is the right number?
Provide me with GDP, a histogram of earning distribution, costings for health care, and your best estimates of their trends, and I'll put a number on it. How simple do you believe economics to be?
Define "rich." Define "poor."
Theres no need. Progressive taxation is a sliding scale.
altruism is a myth.
Says who? Ayn Rand? I am an altruist. Do I then not exist.
Whats does
I encourage social equality mean
That I believe that the role of government is to redistribute wealth so that the richest countries in the world don't have any starving citizens.
You obviously don't believe in [liberty and property]
I believe in both of them. However, I don't hold the accumulation of property to be particularly meritricious, and I don't believe personal liberty absolves people from a moral responsibility to care for those less fortunate, and that one of the roles of government is to enforce this.
Arguing with leftists is much like arguing with religious fundamentalists
Arguing with "libertarians" is hilarious, because they take the high moral line over ad hominem attacks, and then come out with stuff like that.
I made a point that credit was earned,
If I have good credit because my parents are rich (which isn't true, incidentally), why do you consider that I have earned it. Thats an accident of birth.
Did you consider that the wealthy earned their money
Some of them did. Some of them didn't. Lee Iaccoca(sp?) did, Ricky Martin, less so.
and the poor earned less money?
Well in the sense of how much they were paid, obviously. Did they work less hard? Some of them. Some rich people are lazy too (George W. Bush, prior to the presidency, had hardly done a hard days work in his life) And some people aren't lazy. I earn more than my sister-in-law, but she works much harder and for longer hours than I do.
Very easily. A young person's credit, like the bulk of their money is inherited. Live in a house with parents who are bad risks, and that black mark'll be on your record until you can prove otherwise.
Every 18-year-old I've ever known has always been inundated with credit applications
Let me guess, this is in a comfortable, white-collar kind of neighbourhood, right?
My terminology is the standard British usage. Go look it up in the OED.
Did you consider that the wealthy earned their money and the poor earned less money?
Bull. Most wealthy students inherited their money.
The problem remains: who is going to pay for it?
Taxpayers. This is where we came in. Neither of us are right, you berk. Its an ideological disagreement. I think the rich should subsidise the poor, you think they should fend for themselves. Fair enough. You (possibly) call yourself a libertarian. I call you greedy and self-interested. I say I believe in encouraging social equality, you call me a bleeding heart liberal (or a leftist, a word which, incidentally, is almost unheard of outside America).
You say "The rich should be allowed to keep their money." I disagree. It happens. Now stop pretending you have a hot line to the truth.
Many students here take out loans to finance their education, and then pay back the loan when they graduate and get a job.
If their credit is good. Like it or not, many people from working class backgrounds have trouble getting sufficient loans to cover both tuition and subsistence, which means they either have to work a job as well as studying, or give up. Either way, they're seriously disadvantaged w.r.t. the independently wealthy. Call me a socialist if you must, but I think I high quality education should be available to everyone with the smarts to use it.
(NB: Most of my experience re: student finance is limited to the UK.)
No such thing as a "free education", or free healthcare for that matter. It's all paid for through taxation.
Correct. Many of us do not believe this to be a bad thing, since a reasonable, progressive taxation system results in the rich subsidising the poor. Whilst this isn't the American way, we Europeans kind of dig its naive
Which simply means that those who don't study have no option but to subsidize those who do.
Not necessarily. What it should mean (modulo tax cuts for the rich, and the myth of trickle-down economics) is that this generation of students are subsidised by the previous generation of students, since they're now earning more than their "non-graduate" contemporaries. In fact, the UK govt. has just proposed a "graduate tax" for exactly this purpose.
(Oh, and Cato Institute reports attacking government spending are not exactly impartial sources)
Printer friendly one page version...
on
Tridge Speaks Out
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Hmm, you'd think a "printer friendly" version would remove JPGs of Unix-nerds. No one wants to print those out. Actually, I'd be happy if that were the only thing it did.
Jesux's webpage hasn't been updated for two years, so it looks like development may have stopped. I wouldn't rule out the whole distribution suddenly rising from the dead though...
Merely packaging good ideas in the same manner as bad ideas further blurs the distinction.
Are you really suggesting that the poor packaging of good ideas is a good thing because it helps people differentiate? "Hey! this is really boring, so it must be educational..." Are you quite mad?
Educational materials will always look shoddy compared to advertising.
Ah, the unjustified assertion - Slashdot staple no. 17.
There are times when CLI tools are superiour And there are times when GUI's are superiour. If you don't know when each is best used, and how, you are not up to your full potential as a programmer.
How true. I'd like to add the following though. Many people, often with respect to KDE v. Gnome v. plain-old-window-managers or Windows v. Unix talk about how usability is enhanced by common look and feel. Well, for me, an unashamed luddite, Makefiles provide that look and feel. Yes, they work for code, but a good template Makefile for LaTeX gives handy commands for (say) making and previewing in GV, printing, printing reduced to 4x4, converting to a PDF file or HTML and many other useful things.
The same goes for automating validation of SGML or so on. The only trouble is, if I'm ever caught without my Makefiles, I've found I'm completely useless:(
Fortran is more difficult to read because the subroutine arguments are passed as pointers not by value.
Thats true, but Fortran is mainly used in scientific computing, where arguments are often arrays, and frequently arrays of such size that passing them by anything other than reference is insane, not to mention undesirable.
Well defined function names and documentation will tell a reader which functions modify which arguments, anyway.
Both parties seem to acknowledge that, at the times of the contract:
MonsterHut were in the target commercial email business.
The legality of it aside, junk mail (paper and electronic) is a pain in the ass to the recipient and almost never desired and PaeTec took MonsterHuts money knowing they had basically immoral[0] purposes.
If you sup with the Devil, use a long spoon -- Proverb
[0] Anyone really not believe that wasting my time in order to try and sell me stuff I don't want isn't immoral?
The obvious counter-example is the Irish cryptographer Sarah Flannery.
Reality check: Flannery's algorithm was nowhere never as quick or as revolutionary is it was hyped to be (although the media, rather than Sarah is to blame for that) and was later found to not work at all.
She's undeniably smart and talented, but not the prodigy she was made out to be.
its going to be an article aimed at technically au fait readers when the authors' emails are given as {davek,rubin}@research.att.com with no further comment on what this means...
Only if you can't tell the difference between hard hitting and controversial. Newsnight is hard hitting, but it isn't controversial. Brasseye is controversial without being hard hitting.
widely regarded as the sharpest and most consistently hilarious comedian this country has produced in years
Nice appeal to authority (without actually naming the authority). Yay, you got me there. The Day Today was splendid, Brasseye is deeply tedious sensationalism.
I suggest you look up satire in a dictionary as you clearly have no idea what it is.
Satire:1 literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Who's follies are he ridiculing. Collins and Blackwood. That might fit a dictionary definition, but it certainly isn't hard hitting.
The point is not to present the celebrities and politicians in a bad light for the sake of it, but to show how easy it is to manufacture the truth
That may well be the point and its certainly the point of good satire, but Morris isn't even close. If he had induced the politicians to say the dumbass things they've said about his show as part of his programme, it might have been good satirical fare.
All Morris shows is that minor celebs will do anything for exposure. Stop the fucking presses.
I could care less about this furore, and believe that no subjects should be above mention, comedic or otherwise but sadly one fact remains largely unspoken.
Morris is a hack. He claims to be a biting satirist, but he will always sublimate any
such intent when presented with the opportunity to present a dim, B (or C) list celebrity in a bad light. Making Phil Collins (Phil Collins for fucks sake) look a bit stupid, is not satire, it's not enlightening, and it certainly isn't very difficult.
We're giving too much attention to a TV show with the intelligence of a prank phone call.
If I needed a reason to totally ignore this article, there it is. WTF does an "industry thought leader" do, besides stroke his on ego?
Besides, what is peoples obsessions with writing dull essays and "papers" about the topic du jour. Write some bloody code, instead of feeding the techie webs insatiable appetite for content, usually (as in this case) the same six or seven ideas endlessly rehashed.
Why is it that some people think every copyright except the GPL is unreasonable
Because Slashdot is composed of a great many different people who hold different and sometimes contradictory opinions. Also, very few of them can even spell "hypocrisy".
Slashdot Mirror
Cute. Leftist == Communist == Pol Pot. Beautiful. Ad hominem, unjustified, unargued. But beautiful. Perhaps I should reach for Capitalist == Fascist == Augusto Pinochet. Thats bollocks too, but you started it.
Your taxes are currently paying to drop bombs on the Taliban. I believe this act of self-defense is also a role of government. Do you? Would a pacifist have the freedom to not pay to support it.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
As much as they like. But they should be prepared to pay some of it in taxes in order to care for those who are not wealthy.
Some of them are, some of them aren't. Thats why I singled out those that were (Duh).
No they don't, you simply don't understand the usage. If differing usage offends you, feel free to replace it with the synonymous "blue collar". And as long as your child is OK, you're absolved of responsibility for any other member of humanity, right? Thats a nice elision you use, implicitly equating freedom of choice with the right to keep all your money. You're also fond that other elision -- playing on the double meaning of the word "earned" (as in "what you got paid" and "what you deserved")
Provide me with GDP, a histogram of earning distribution, costings for health care, and your best estimates of their trends, and I'll put a number on it. How simple do you believe economics to be?
Theres no need. Progressive taxation is a sliding scale.
Says who? Ayn Rand? I am an altruist. Do I then not exist.
That I believe that the role of government is to redistribute wealth so that the richest countries in the world don't have any starving citizens.
I believe in both of them. However, I don't hold the accumulation of property to be particularly meritricious, and I don't believe personal liberty absolves people from a moral responsibility to care for those less fortunate, and that one of the roles of government is to enforce this.
Arguing with "libertarians" is hilarious, because they take the high moral line over ad hominem attacks, and then come out with stuff like that.
If I have good credit because my parents are rich (which isn't true, incidentally), why do you consider that I have earned it. Thats an accident of birth.
Some of them did. Some of them didn't. Lee Iaccoca(sp?) did, Ricky Martin, less so.
Well in the sense of how much they were paid, obviously. Did they work less hard? Some of them. Some rich people are lazy too (George W. Bush, prior to the presidency, had hardly done a hard days work in his life) And some people aren't lazy. I earn more than my sister-in-law, but she works much harder and for longer hours than I do.
Very easily. A young person's credit, like the bulk of their money is inherited. Live in a house with parents who are bad risks, and that black mark'll be on your record until you can prove otherwise.
Let me guess, this is in a comfortable, white-collar kind of neighbourhood, right?
My terminology is the standard British usage. Go look it up in the OED.
Bull. Most wealthy students inherited their money.
Taxpayers. This is where we came in. Neither of us are right, you berk. Its an ideological disagreement. I think the rich should subsidise the poor, you think they should fend for themselves. Fair enough. You (possibly) call yourself a libertarian. I call you greedy and self-interested. I say I believe in encouraging social equality, you call me a bleeding heart liberal (or a leftist, a word which, incidentally, is almost unheard of outside America).
You say "The rich should be allowed to keep their money." I disagree. It happens. Now stop pretending you have a hot line to the truth.
No the Brown Paper Bag release was 2.2.0. IIRC correctly, you could cause an OOPS by examining pretty much any coredump file.
If their credit is good. Like it or not, many people from working class backgrounds have trouble getting sufficient loans to cover both tuition and subsistence, which means they either have to work a job as well as studying, or give up. Either way, they're seriously disadvantaged w.r.t. the independently wealthy. Call me a socialist if you must, but I think I high quality education should be available to everyone with the smarts to use it.
(NB: Most of my experience re: student finance is limited to the UK.)
Which is the way you think it should be.
Correct. Many of us do not believe this to be a bad thing, since a reasonable, progressive taxation system results in the rich subsidising the poor. Whilst this isn't the American way, we Europeans kind of dig its naive
Not necessarily. What it should mean (modulo tax cuts for the rich, and the myth of trickle-down economics) is that this generation of students are subsidised by the previous generation of students, since they're now earning more than their "non-graduate" contemporaries. In fact, the UK govt. has just proposed a "graduate tax" for exactly this purpose.
(Oh, and Cato Institute reports attacking government spending are not exactly impartial sources)
Is here.
Hmm, you'd think a "printer friendly" version would remove JPGs of Unix-nerds. No one wants to print those out. Actually, I'd be happy if that were the only thing it did.
Jesux's webpage hasn't been updated for two years, so it looks like development may have stopped. I wouldn't rule out the whole distribution suddenly rising from the dead though...
February 25 2001, actually. Now who is the "Babe Ruth" I keep hearing about?
Wow, perfect fodder for slashdot then
Are you really suggesting that the poor packaging of good ideas is a good thing because it helps people differentiate? "Hey! this is really boring, so it must be educational..." Are you quite mad?
Ah, the unjustified assertion - Slashdot staple no. 17.
How true. I'd like to add the following though. Many people, often with respect to KDE v. Gnome v. plain-old-window-managers or Windows v. Unix talk about how usability is enhanced by common look and feel. Well, for me, an unashamed luddite, Makefiles provide that look and feel. Yes, they work for code, but a good template Makefile for LaTeX gives handy commands for (say) making and previewing in GV, printing, printing reduced to 4x4, converting to a PDF file or HTML and many other useful things.
The same goes for automating validation of SGML or so on. The only trouble is, if I'm ever caught without my Makefiles, I've found I'm completely useless
Thats true, but Fortran is mainly used in scientific computing, where arguments are often arrays, and frequently arrays of such size that passing them by anything other than reference is insane, not to mention undesirable.
Well defined function names and documentation will tell a reader which functions modify which arguments, anyway.
The legality of it aside, junk mail (paper and electronic) is a pain in the ass to the recipient and almost never desired and PaeTec took MonsterHuts money knowing they had basically immoral[0] purposes.
If you sup with the Devil, use a long spoon -- Proverb
[0] Anyone really not believe that wasting my time in order to try and sell me stuff I don't want isn't immoral?
Early start, strong core team and large user base for testing, blind luck. Not necessarily in that order.
She's undeniably smart and talented, but not the prodigy she was made out to be.
its going to be an article aimed at technically au fait readers when the authors' emails are given as {davek,rubin}@research.att.com with no further comment on what this means...
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Who's follies are he ridiculing. Collins and Blackwood. That might fit a dictionary definition, but it certainly isn't hard hitting.
That may well be the point and its certainly the point of good satire, but Morris isn't even close. If he had induced the politicians to say the dumbass things they've said about his show as part of his programme, it might have been good satirical fare.All Morris shows is that minor celebs will do anything for exposure. Stop the fucking presses.
Gaz, British
Morris is a hack. He claims to be a biting satirist, but he will always sublimate any such intent when presented with the opportunity to present a dim, B (or C) list celebrity in a bad light. Making Phil Collins (Phil Collins for fucks sake) look a bit stupid, is not satire, it's not enlightening, and it certainly isn't very difficult.
We're giving too much attention to a TV show with the intelligence of a prank phone call.
Besides, what is peoples obsessions with writing dull essays and "papers" about the topic du jour. Write some bloody code, instead of feeding the techie webs insatiable appetite for content, usually (as in this case) the same six or seven ideas endlessly rehashed.