> Most of them are still trying to justify that odd feeling they have Obama is not an American.
Depends how you define the word. Is Obama an American citizen? About as certain that he is as possible with the lack of available records, call it 99%. Does Mr. Obama meet the requirements for the office he holds? Unless his history is a lie, he self evidently does not. But again, I wouldn't put the odds at 0% because there is a non-zero chance that he is actually the child of Frank Marshal Davis and Stanley Ann Dunham and would thus qualify. Is Mr. Obama an "American" in the sense of sharing the generally accepted belief system of the country? Probably not, he is a progressive/socialist and if he ever came out he couldn't carry California.
> That removes five of the best possible options of highly qualified, popular Republican women: Susan Collins or > Olympia Snow (Maine Senators), Linda Lingle (former Hawaii Governor), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska Senator), or > Jodi Rell (former Connecticut governor).
Dude. If you think it is their abortion stance that disqualifies those losers you really don't pay attention. One of the Maine Sisters is quitting because she has become too left for Maine, the other will also probably quit when she is up for reelect. Murky could't win her primary and is HATED by her party. Lingle and Rell are ok for their deep blue states but would add nothing to a ticket already populated by a White Rino at the top.
Ryan on the other hand has been leading. Picking him sends a message that Romney really intends to make the economy issue #1 and do something other than blather platitudes about it. The problem is that now the economy will not be allowed to be THE issue because it one Obama is certain to lose with. So we will get a pivot to a foreign crisis right after the conventions. So obvious.
And this ticket does have diversity, just not one the left recognizes often. A Mormon and a Jew are prettty non-mainstream in a country that is majority Protestant with non-religious probably closing in on #2. But religion is too close to thought and diversity of thought is the forbidden diversity for the left. To them the word means people of all color, sex, gender identity and sexual perversion (but a perversion of some sort seems to be preferred) coming together to think exactly the same.
Why is anyone suprised that fibromyalgia would have such a high crock factor? That whole 'disease' smells like a scam, another invented syndrome to stick on somebody so they can claim disability. Now I know a dozen people will now feel a need to give a sob story about how they really, really have it and it really, really is a real thing. Yea, just like half of kids are now ADD or autistic or something and need to be drugged into insensibilty. Blow me. Sorry, ain't buying it.
WTF part of insurance do YOU not get. Insurance is about me paying a fixed cost to make a risk go away. So I want to pay for a policy that makes expenses that might occur and bankrupt me covered. Paying more to cover somebody else isn't what I'm wanting out of insurance.
So lets examine the mandatory children on parent's policy through that lens. If I had a child in that age range I would be very interested in an option to my policy to cover them if they didn't have coverage of their own. And yes, it might be cheaper for me if everyone had that in their default policy. But it would be the rare person who would actually choose ALL of the things that have slowly crept into the mandatory minimum so almost everyone is paying more than they would in a free market. A good analogy is alacart cable. Yes if you wanted the current lineup it would probably cost more than the current mandatory bundle, but almost nobody actually wants all of the channels. So most subscribers would be better off just paying more per channel for the channels they want.
> Premiums should go down because more are paying into it and it is being subsidized by the Governement
You assume that government money doesn't come from us. So I read that as Premiums should go down because more are paying into it and it is being subsidized by higher prices by us indirectly through taxes. And that doesn't make much sense.
> They beat Linux back on netbooks. I think they believe they can safely give share to Linux.
Except the netbook story was all about their fear of ceding anything anywhere to Linux. Now they seem to be changing that strategy. I suspect their first one was the better one. If Linux ever gets a foothold anywhere it will likely grow much like the PC (broadly defined) did to the old priesthood of the mainframe and the mini. Look what happened to both traditional UNIX and Windows NT's designs on the server when they both failed to take the threat of the penguin seriously.
And while it is a stretch to call Android a 'Linux' despite sharing the kernel called 'Linux' in common it is clear that driving it out of the mobile space is no longer something that would be easily done. Or consumer electronics in general, once it gets in it tends to stay. Netbooks were the exception and that was because Microsoft took swift and firm action to nip it in the bud. Linux went from shipping on most netbooks to an asterisk in a matter of a couple of months.
Except we in the Linux camp are busy shooting ourselves in the foot again. We had a 'once in a lifetime' opportunity during the Vista fiasco but gained almost no ground because the Linux desktop was virtually unusable during that period because of PulseAudio and other disasters. We get another chance handed to us gift wrapped and we are racing to implement the exact same tablet madness before Win8 ships. Almost like someone at Microsoft is paying people to work in our camp to make sure we don't threaten them or something.
> Name ONE real provision of the ACA that people don't support, other than the mandate.
Ok, ask a hard question next time.
The provision to keep children on the parent's policy until 26 is very popular until you ask it correctly. "Do you favor increasing ALL insurance premiums X% to cover children until 26?" Suddenly almost everyone without any 18-26 children to cover rethink and answer "NO!"
The disallowing preexisting conditions thing fails the same test, it is very popular until the pricetag is attached, at which point everyone that has insurance is against the sharp premium increase for no benefit TO THEM.
Same for the expansion of Medicaid, sounds great until you attach a pricetag.
If I ask you if you want a pony you might think ponies are cool. But if I ask you if you want to BUY a pony and then feed a pony, get regular medical care for a pony, provide pasture for a pony, etc. you will probably realize that you really don't want a pony all that badly.
> Depending upon the problem to be solved, all programmers will adapt the appropriate style.
Except he notes cases where that isn't done. Facebook is still acting like they are a startup and programming willy nilly with no thought to quality control. That should be ringing alarm bells with anyone making business plans around leveraging Facebook.
And I suspect it happens more often that we realize. How much critical infrastructure is being maintained by these speed/thrill freaks? By how often it seems to be failing of late, probably a lot. Do what ya gotta do to make a game work, but leave the experimental coding practices out of the critical stuff, K? But it isn't working that way, which means he might have a point that a certain mental set of assumptions get set in a coder and they will always write that way unless somebody is constantly forcing them to do otherwise, which will make them an unhappy camper.
No, there are actually basic differences in fundamental beliefs. In the political world of today there isn't even agreement on core beliefs like good and evil. Most who see my.sig misunderstand the idea behind it but it derives from that realization that the two sides have diverged to a point where compromise isn't possible, even in theory. One side must drive the other from the field before the continual war between them simply rips the world apart. Obviously I favor one of the sides and want it to be the one left standing.
Not so obviously they want the same thing but won't say it and except when they think no outsider is listening dare not even state their actual political beliefs. That was the key. Conservatives generally have a fatal conceit. They accept as an article of faith that they understand the other side because by virtue of it dominating the 'commanding heights of the culture' for a century now, we are constantly exposed in leftist/progressive talking points, ideas and philosophy. This is incorrect. We are exposed to their talking points and their arguments intended for public consumption but not to their actual beliefs. This should be evident from polling showing the country to be split 20l-40m-40c, and half of the l number is people who aren't really liberal, they just haven't thought about it much and 'liberals are nice people', they are nice people so therefore they must be liberals. If progressives/liberals/whatever actually stated their actual philosophy in public they coudn't be elected in more than a few dozen ultra blue congressional districts so they have learned to lie very well. With the help of the mass media they have succeeded pretty well.
The conservative team is continually astonished that the progs keep calling us 'evil'. They think it is just hyper partisanship, that the left can 'get away' with that sort of rhetoric without penalty, etc. But that since most of our team sees the other side as wrong, misguided but mostly good and decent people that the other side shares that belief. That we are all basically good, decent patriotic Americans arguing things out like the system is supposed to work. But if you stop and ask, "What if they really DO think we are evil?" and consider the implications that fall from that idea a whole lot of things suddenly make sense.
Well, they DO. And it gets worse. After thinking it through I'm convinced that not only do they believe we are evil, they are correct to think it. Because their moral compass is so fudged up that from their point of view we ARE evil. Remember, Dr. Evil is comedy because villans never actually declare "For EVIL!" They convince themselves that their moral system is correct and therefore any different system is wrong/evil. And the logical end product is that from a conservative p.o.v. progressives are evil.
So we don't even agree on the definition of 'good' and 'evil' so where is there a basis for compromise even possible in theory? They believe in the the State, the collective, group identity and the importance of The Leader as the personification of the State which will plan out and implement a utopia. We believe in the individual, personal liberty, distrust concentrations of power (both Church and State) but put a lot of faith in informal policy enforced through custom, culture and religion. We understand that utopias aren't possible in reality, that you must build imperfect systems to work around the imperfections in man and the world he inhabits. Totally opposite directions. They see children as property of the State, which leads to the welfare state, mandatory government schools, etc. We see the family as the fundamental building block of society, they believe it to be a threat to the State. They believe, in the end, that property is theft. Obviously we don't think so and there really isn't a middle ground. They are willing to accept half measures from us so long as the line of 'progress' is always in their direction but that sort of compromise is suicidal.
Pretty much. But I'd add this as well. 'Liberal' programming is best for startups where you will cash out and go somewhere else before the consequences of all the corners you cut become evident. 'Conservative' programming is best when you expect to be maintaining it for a long time.
Remember, most of the things the article declared to be 'liberal' coding practices do tend to get something deployed faster. They just tend to create an unmaitainable mess eventually if there isn't any conservative force brought in to impose order. Probably explains much of the life cycle of a silicon valley company, frenzy of the startup, IPO, founders forced out and replaced with 'adults' who succeed perhaps half the time in stabilizing the mess and collapse about half the time. And as long as the VC system rewards time to market above all else the cycle must be thus.
Yea, it is what happens when you write about things you know nothing about, ya sound like a twit. And this guy rings that bell several times. Starting with his definition of 'conservative' being one that only someone who has only read about them, and only read descriptions written by liberals at that, and never met one, spoke with one or written any of their core works would give. The tired shopworn 'conservatives are stunted, twisted things warped by irrational fear' that gets trotted out every time a prog needs to justify their decision to not even dignify the arguments from the other side with a thought.
Which probably makes sense seeing as the guy lives in the valley and works for Google now and previously at Amazon. Probably never has actually met a conservative or ever been forced to leave the liberal cocoon.
> You (as in the personal you, jmorris42) still don't have jack shit in the way of arguments.
Oh really. So riddle me this. Take Roe v Wade as data point 1. There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. How ever much we might like that idea, the only way for it to be there is to add an amendment because right now it just ain't there. And even if it were, stretching that notion to something all but unrelated is the very definition of judicial activism. Yet that decision is considered to be on the level of a religious sacrement to the left, no disent is to be permitted. You might say the science is settled on it.
Now compare and contrast to Citizens United and Heller where the court did nothing more than say, "yup the 1st and 2nd Amendments still say exactly when they said and were understood to have meant when written.' And all right thinking progressives shat themselves and have been caterwalling ever since that the very foundations of the Republic have been destroyed and that they simply MUST overturn those horrible decisions.
Not really. That packed theater was basically shooting fish in a barrel. Media reports say he got off about seventy rounds before the thing jammed and a few more with a pistol. Total casualties were seventy hits and only thirteen dead. As an example of the lethality of firearms it isn't 'impressive.' Not exactly good but it could have been a lot worse. Of course most weapons are patterned after military designs which aren't intended to kill so it isn't really suprising to anyone paying attention. Wounded drain much more of the opponent's resources in war.
Not exactly. What I am asserting is that because the popular culture makes guns seem far more deadly than they actually are it saved lives. If they guy had been a little smarter he could have killed half the people in the hall and injured almost everyone. And since it was a sold out premiere that number could have been truly horrible. Not that seventy casualties is something good, but that it could have been a lot worse.
> That's why no one should deny me my constitutional right to buy a tank and build a nuke.
Private militia companies did field cannon during the time period when the 2nd Amendment was written so yes, you should be able to own a tank. But you see, I'm willing to compromise a little. I'd be willing to accept some 'reasonable common sense restrictions' on the 2nd Amendment. So how about no limits on personal arms other than no violent felons or people with limits due to mental defect, but we require crew served weapons to be held by a militia company with strong safeguards to control their access to people who have the training to safely operate them and can pass a background check.
As for the nuke, we have signed and ratified treaties controlling them so that is a red herring.
Nah, the full faith and credit clause only counts when progressives want it to. Gay marriage in one state forcing the other forty nine? Sure. Drivers license? Why not. But a concealed carry permit? Oh no, each pair of states has to engage in a complicated reciprocal licensing deal. Medical, law or other professional licensing? What? Are you crazy? The license to sell pillows or mattresses and put the little 'do not remove under penalty of law' tags on? You must be nuts, gotta comply with that one in each of the thirteen states that have those laws. All of them as different as they can make them to better protect their local manufacturers... well these days importers.
> I bet everybody who was there was sufficiently impressed.
I dunno. That was almost a worst case scenario and it managed to score 13 and wound a lot more. If the idiot had used a more reliable weapon (ditch the hundred round drum) he could have got a few more. But remember he also built bombs which were supposed to create a distraction and only failed because of pure luck.
Imagine instead if the guy had been a little more rational (just not rational enough to realize how stupid the whole going postal thing is) and realized the bombs were far more lethal than the gun. Now imagine him coming in through that emergency exit with a dozen bombs. Toss some incendaries and smoke into the exits to cause the exit stampede to bottle up then lob fragmentations into the dense crowd. Use a pair (with sensible clips to avoid jams) of pistols to nail anyone coming toward him (easy targets) while continuing to toss various nasty stuff. Lead pipe cinch he would have upped his score with that plan. And this guy had some education, remember that. A chemical attack would have been within his ability. WWI tech poision gas should not have posed a problem for someone with his knowledge.
He went with the guns because he bought into the popular mythology.
> Wouldn't the somewhat recent SCOTUS ruling for citizens to own guns in DC, kind of put this to rest as to gun ownership in the city?
Not exactly. When the SCOTUS makes a ruling progressives like, especially if it legislates a whole new legal superstructure from the bench they could never dream of enacting through the legislative procress, then the SUPREME COURT has spoken. The ruling may as well be delivered on engraved stone tablets brought forth by Moses himself (ok, scratch the heeb.. don't like those anymore, brought forth by the Lightworker himself) and are unquestionable. To even ask questions is to bring your patriotism into question instead.
On the other hand, when it is a ruling they don't like, not so much. DC has pretty much ignored the Heller decision. Last I heard there is still no licensed dealer in the city and it is still illegal to import one from elsewhere. So good luck exercising your newly reinstated 2nd Amendment RTKBA and it won't change until we get a different Senate and POTUS.
> CDs where mainly used to store a primitive^Wsuperior type of mp3 called '16bit uncompressed PCM'
Fixed that for ya. Still haven't paid for an mp3 file and have no intention to. If they start selling FLAC I'm in, otherwise I'll stick to CD. With a CD I can make whatever format and/or bitrate I want without suffering a transcoding loss. No format currently sold online through downloads can say that. And if tech improves I can reencode without needing to repurchase everything. So no, I won't be buying the While Album again. Ever.
And it won't have newbies either. That is what is so maddening. Who is going to suddenly start using Linux + GNOME3? Will any of us current users recomend it? Doubtful. Are they going to get preloaded onto tablets or something? Ha! The resource requirements for GNOME are far greater than Android so it would be a top of the line product, so who is going to put GNOME3 on a flagship product? Who? Nobody, that is who.
I admin a public lab that is currently running Centos. It defaults to GNOME2 and it looks familiar enough that random people can walk in and begin using it. There is no way I'd put GNOME3 on these machines. The support nightmare would never end.
I keep hearing the occasional GNOME Shell fan in these hate/rant threads chime in with "I hated it for a few weeks but now I love it." Can you imagine me telling people that? Can you? Really? Perhaps you GNOMEs should rethink discoverability and learning curves with an eye to actually making it easy for a new user. You guys go on and on about being focused on new users and ignore the reality that most 'new users' aren't totally new to computers anymore and expecting them to unlearn what they already do know is a loser.
> Hopefully a bit more focused attention will lead to quicker fixes.
Exactly. Nothing focuses attention like becoming the default desktop environment. Fedora probably won't abandon the GNOMEs anytime soon but can anyone see GNOME3 being the default for RHEL7? Ubuntu has went their own zany way with Unity but if the alternate (XFCE, KDE, Mint, etc) spins/forks aren't already accounting for more installs than the base Ubuntu it is only a matter of time because a broken desktop isn't going to fly. And no matter how many users leave neither the Unity or Gnome Shell devs will admit they are leading in a direction few care to follow.
The difference is we get a choice, we don't have to accept what they create. Pity the poor fools on Windows, they are about to get Metro whether they want it or not and they aren't going to have many options. Heard the latest? The prereleases have been hacked to default to a normal desktop but the RTM has 'fixed' those hacks so they won't work. They aren't going to allow em to escape. Of course corporate types will be able to stay on Win7 for years; end users won't be able to buy a new PC without 8 after the new year.
And when OS X gets the iOS makeover they won't have any choice either; but of course they will all suddenly decide it is insanely great and exactly what they wanted all along.
Yea, and a couple years ago the iPhone was around the same share of the smartphone web traffic. It ain't anymore and will never be again. Xmas is coming and millions more people will be buying tablets and Apple might even sell over half of them this time. Next year it would be safe money they sell less than half, as low as a third would be possible. And so on.
Thought experiment, one iPad to share or a couple of Nexus 7s? Yea, when the price gap gets that large it changes the calculus doesn't it.
> Apple seems to know that marketshare doesn't matter so long as you're still raking in money
And so long as they get beat back into their historical 10% niche of customers willing to pay a super premium for a brand experience I'll be happy for em.
Because that will mean the other 90% of us can happily ignore their overpriced stuff.
But ya know what? Apple fanbois are about the only fans I know of who make how much money their object of lust is hoovering out of their wallet a selling point when preaching to the heathen. Guys, THAT. DOESN'T. WORK. Just sayin'.
Think you have it. The big clue is that almost every iPhone cover has an opening for the logo. Almost no cover for an Android phone does that. That says that displaying the logo is considered to be very important. To be seen with it might not be as important has actually having it, but it certainly seems to be A factor in the buying decision process.
Slashdot Mirror
> Most of them are still trying to justify that odd feeling they have Obama is not an American.
Depends how you define the word. Is Obama an American citizen? About as certain that he is as possible with the lack of available records, call it 99%. Does Mr. Obama meet the requirements for the office he holds? Unless his history is a lie, he self evidently does not. But again, I wouldn't put the odds at 0% because there is a non-zero chance that he is actually the child of Frank Marshal Davis and Stanley Ann Dunham and would thus qualify. Is Mr. Obama an "American" in the sense of sharing the generally accepted belief system of the country? Probably not, he is a progressive/socialist and if he ever came out he couldn't carry California.
> That removes five of the best possible options of highly qualified, popular Republican women: Susan Collins or
> Olympia Snow (Maine Senators), Linda Lingle (former Hawaii Governor), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska Senator), or
> Jodi Rell (former Connecticut governor).
Dude. If you think it is their abortion stance that disqualifies those losers you really don't pay attention. One of the Maine Sisters is quitting because she has become too left for Maine, the other will also probably quit when she is up for reelect. Murky could't win her primary and is HATED by her party. Lingle and Rell are ok for their deep blue states but would add nothing to a ticket already populated by a White Rino at the top.
Ryan on the other hand has been leading. Picking him sends a message that Romney really intends to make the economy issue #1 and do something other than blather platitudes about it. The problem is that now the economy will not be allowed to be THE issue because it one Obama is certain to lose with. So we will get a pivot to a foreign crisis right after the conventions. So obvious.
And this ticket does have diversity, just not one the left recognizes often. A Mormon and a Jew are prettty non-mainstream in a country that is majority Protestant with non-religious probably closing in on #2. But religion is too close to thought and diversity of thought is the forbidden diversity for the left. To them the word means people of all color, sex, gender identity and sexual perversion (but a perversion of some sort seems to be preferred) coming together to think exactly the same.
Why is anyone suprised that fibromyalgia would have such a high crock factor? That whole 'disease' smells like a scam, another invented syndrome to stick on somebody so they can claim disability. Now I know a dozen people will now feel a need to give a sob story about how they really, really have it and it really, really is a real thing. Yea, just like half of kids are now ADD or autistic or something and need to be drugged into insensibilty. Blow me. Sorry, ain't buying it.
WTF part of insurance do YOU not get. Insurance is about me paying a fixed cost to make a risk go away. So I want to pay for a policy that makes expenses that might occur and bankrupt me covered. Paying more to cover somebody else isn't what I'm wanting out of insurance.
So lets examine the mandatory children on parent's policy through that lens. If I had a child in that age range I would be very interested in an option to my policy to cover them if they didn't have coverage of their own. And yes, it might be cheaper for me if everyone had that in their default policy. But it would be the rare person who would actually choose ALL of the things that have slowly crept into the mandatory minimum so almost everyone is paying more than they would in a free market. A good analogy is alacart cable. Yes if you wanted the current lineup it would probably cost more than the current mandatory bundle, but almost nobody actually wants all of the channels. So most subscribers would be better off just paying more per channel for the channels they want.
> Premiums should go down because more are paying into it and it is being subsidized by the Governement
You assume that government money doesn't come from us. So I read that as Premiums should go down because more are paying into it and it is being subsidized by higher prices by us indirectly through taxes. And that doesn't make much sense.
> They beat Linux back on netbooks. I think they believe they can safely give share to Linux.
Except the netbook story was all about their fear of ceding anything anywhere to Linux. Now they seem to be changing that strategy. I suspect their first one was the better one. If Linux ever gets a foothold anywhere it will likely grow much like the PC (broadly defined) did to the old priesthood of the mainframe and the mini. Look what happened to both traditional UNIX and Windows NT's designs on the server when they both failed to take the threat of the penguin seriously.
And while it is a stretch to call Android a 'Linux' despite sharing the kernel called 'Linux' in common it is clear that driving it out of the mobile space is no longer something that would be easily done. Or consumer electronics in general, once it gets in it tends to stay. Netbooks were the exception and that was because Microsoft took swift and firm action to nip it in the bud. Linux went from shipping on most netbooks to an asterisk in a matter of a couple of months.
Except we in the Linux camp are busy shooting ourselves in the foot again. We had a 'once in a lifetime' opportunity during the Vista fiasco but gained almost no ground because the Linux desktop was virtually unusable during that period because of PulseAudio and other disasters. We get another chance handed to us gift wrapped and we are racing to implement the exact same tablet madness before Win8 ships. Almost like someone at Microsoft is paying people to work in our camp to make sure we don't threaten them or something.
> Name ONE real provision of the ACA that people don't support, other than the mandate.
Ok, ask a hard question next time.
The provision to keep children on the parent's policy until 26 is very popular until you ask it correctly. "Do you favor increasing ALL insurance premiums X% to cover children until 26?" Suddenly almost everyone without any 18-26 children to cover rethink and answer "NO!"
The disallowing preexisting conditions thing fails the same test, it is very popular until the pricetag is attached, at which point everyone that has insurance is against the sharp premium increase for no benefit TO THEM.
Same for the expansion of Medicaid, sounds great until you attach a pricetag.
If I ask you if you want a pony you might think ponies are cool. But if I ask you if you want to BUY a pony and then feed a pony, get regular medical care for a pony, provide pasture for a pony, etc. you will probably realize that you really don't want a pony all that badly.
> Depending upon the problem to be solved, all programmers will adapt the appropriate style.
Except he notes cases where that isn't done. Facebook is still acting like they are a startup and programming willy nilly with no thought to quality control. That should be ringing alarm bells with anyone making business plans around leveraging Facebook.
And I suspect it happens more often that we realize. How much critical infrastructure is being maintained by these speed/thrill freaks? By how often it seems to be failing of late, probably a lot. Do what ya gotta do to make a game work, but leave the experimental coding practices out of the critical stuff, K? But it isn't working that way, which means he might have a point that a certain mental set of assumptions get set in a coder and they will always write that way unless somebody is constantly forcing them to do otherwise, which will make them an unhappy camper.
No, there are actually basic differences in fundamental beliefs. In the political world of today there isn't even agreement on core beliefs like good and evil. Most who see my .sig misunderstand the idea behind it but it derives from that realization that the two sides have diverged to a point where compromise isn't possible, even in theory. One side must drive the other from the field before the continual war between them simply rips the world apart. Obviously I favor one of the sides and want it to be the one left standing.
Not so obviously they want the same thing but won't say it and except when they think no outsider is listening dare not even state their actual political beliefs. That was the key. Conservatives generally have a fatal conceit. They accept as an article of faith that they understand the other side because by virtue of it dominating the 'commanding heights of the culture' for a century now, we are constantly exposed in leftist/progressive talking points, ideas and philosophy. This is incorrect. We are exposed to their talking points and their arguments intended for public consumption but not to their actual beliefs. This should be evident from polling showing the country to be split 20l-40m-40c, and half of the l number is people who aren't really liberal, they just haven't thought about it much and 'liberals are nice people', they are nice people so therefore they must be liberals. If progressives/liberals/whatever actually stated their actual philosophy in public they coudn't be elected in more than a few dozen ultra blue congressional districts so they have learned to lie very well. With the help of the mass media they have succeeded pretty well.
The conservative team is continually astonished that the progs keep calling us 'evil'. They think it is just hyper partisanship, that the left can 'get away' with that sort of rhetoric without penalty, etc. But that since most of our team sees the other side as wrong, misguided but mostly good and decent people that the other side shares that belief. That we are all basically good, decent patriotic Americans arguing things out like the system is supposed to work. But if you stop and ask, "What if they really DO think we are evil?" and consider the implications that fall from that idea a whole lot of things suddenly make sense.
Well, they DO. And it gets worse. After thinking it through I'm convinced that not only do they believe we are evil, they are correct to think it. Because their moral compass is so fudged up that from their point of view we ARE evil. Remember, Dr. Evil is comedy because villans never actually declare "For EVIL!" They convince themselves that their moral system is correct and therefore any different system is wrong/evil. And the logical end product is that from a conservative p.o.v. progressives are evil.
So we don't even agree on the definition of 'good' and 'evil' so where is there a basis for compromise even possible in theory? They believe in the the State, the collective, group identity and the importance of The Leader as the personification of the State which will plan out and implement a utopia. We believe in the individual, personal liberty, distrust concentrations of power (both Church and State) but put a lot of faith in informal policy enforced through custom, culture and religion. We understand that utopias aren't possible in reality, that you must build imperfect systems to work around the imperfections in man and the world he inhabits. Totally opposite directions. They see children as property of the State, which leads to the welfare state, mandatory government schools, etc. We see the family as the fundamental building block of society, they believe it to be a threat to the State. They believe, in the end, that property is theft. Obviously we don't think so and there really isn't a middle ground. They are willing to accept half measures from us so long as the line of 'progress' is always in their direction but that sort of compromise is suicidal.
Pretty much. But I'd add this as well. 'Liberal' programming is best for startups where you will cash out and go somewhere else before the consequences of all the corners you cut become evident. 'Conservative' programming is best when you expect to be maintaining it for a long time.
Remember, most of the things the article declared to be 'liberal' coding practices do tend to get something deployed faster. They just tend to create an unmaitainable mess eventually if there isn't any conservative force brought in to impose order. Probably explains much of the life cycle of a silicon valley company, frenzy of the startup, IPO, founders forced out and replaced with 'adults' who succeed perhaps half the time in stabilizing the mess and collapse about half the time. And as long as the VC system rewards time to market above all else the cycle must be thus.
> spoke with one or written^Wread any of their core works
Grr. Not enough caffine in my bloodstream. Fixed now. :)
Yea, it is what happens when you write about things you know nothing about, ya sound like a twit. And this guy rings that bell several times. Starting with his definition of 'conservative' being one that only someone who has only read about them, and only read descriptions written by liberals at that, and never met one, spoke with one or written any of their core works would give. The tired shopworn 'conservatives are stunted, twisted things warped by irrational fear' that gets trotted out every time a prog needs to justify their decision to not even dignify the arguments from the other side with a thought.
Which probably makes sense seeing as the guy lives in the valley and works for Google now and previously at Amazon. Probably never has actually met a conservative or ever been forced to leave the liberal cocoon.
> You (as in the personal you, jmorris42) still don't have jack shit in the way of arguments.
Oh really. So riddle me this. Take Roe v Wade as data point 1. There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. How ever much we might like that idea, the only way for it to be there is to add an amendment because right now it just ain't there. And even if it were, stretching that notion to something all but unrelated is the very definition of judicial activism. Yet that decision is considered to be on the level of a religious sacrement to the left, no disent is to be permitted. You might say the science is settled on it.
Now compare and contrast to Citizens United and Heller where the court did nothing more than say, "yup the 1st and 2nd Amendments still say exactly when they said and were understood to have meant when written.' And all right thinking progressives shat themselves and have been caterwalling ever since that the very foundations of the Republic have been destroyed and that they simply MUST overturn those horrible decisions.
Explain.
Not really. That packed theater was basically shooting fish in a barrel. Media reports say he got off about seventy rounds before the thing jammed and a few more with a pistol. Total casualties were seventy hits and only thirteen dead. As an example of the lethality of firearms it isn't 'impressive.' Not exactly good but it could have been a lot worse. Of course most weapons are patterned after military designs which aren't intended to kill so it isn't really suprising to anyone paying attention. Wounded drain much more of the opponent's resources in war.
Not exactly. What I am asserting is that because the popular culture makes guns seem far more deadly than they actually are it saved lives. If they guy had been a little smarter he could have killed half the people in the hall and injured almost everyone. And since it was a sold out premiere that number could have been truly horrible. Not that seventy casualties is something good, but that it could have been a lot worse.
> That's why no one should deny me my constitutional right to buy a tank and build a nuke.
Private militia companies did field cannon during the time period when the 2nd Amendment was written so yes, you should be able to own a tank. But you see, I'm willing to compromise a little. I'd be willing to accept some 'reasonable common sense restrictions' on the 2nd Amendment. So how about no limits on personal arms other than no violent felons or people with limits due to mental defect, but we require crew served weapons to be held by a militia company with strong safeguards to control their access to people who have the training to safely operate them and can pass a background check.
As for the nuke, we have signed and ratified treaties controlling them so that is a red herring.
Nah, the full faith and credit clause only counts when progressives want it to. Gay marriage in one state forcing the other forty nine? Sure. Drivers license? Why not. But a concealed carry permit? Oh no, each pair of states has to engage in a complicated reciprocal licensing deal. Medical, law or other professional licensing? What? Are you crazy? The license to sell pillows or mattresses and put the little 'do not remove under penalty of law' tags on? You must be nuts, gotta comply with that one in each of the thirteen states that have those laws. All of them as different as they can make them to better protect their local manufacturers... well these days importers.
> I bet everybody who was there was sufficiently impressed.
I dunno. That was almost a worst case scenario and it managed to score 13 and wound a lot more. If the idiot had used a more reliable weapon (ditch the hundred round drum) he could have got a few more. But remember he also built bombs which were supposed to create a distraction and only failed because of pure luck.
Imagine instead if the guy had been a little more rational (just not rational enough to realize how stupid the whole going postal thing is) and realized the bombs were far more lethal than the gun. Now imagine him coming in through that emergency exit with a dozen bombs. Toss some incendaries and smoke into the exits to cause the exit stampede to bottle up then lob fragmentations into the dense crowd. Use a pair (with sensible clips to avoid jams) of pistols to nail anyone coming toward him (easy targets) while continuing to toss various nasty stuff. Lead pipe cinch he would have upped his score with that plan. And this guy had some education, remember that. A chemical attack would have been within his ability. WWI tech poision gas should not have posed a problem for someone with his knowledge.
He went with the guns because he bought into the popular mythology.
> Wouldn't the somewhat recent SCOTUS ruling for citizens to own guns in DC, kind of put this to rest as to gun ownership in the city?
Not exactly. When the SCOTUS makes a ruling progressives like, especially if it legislates a whole new legal superstructure from the bench they could never dream of enacting through the legislative procress, then the SUPREME COURT has spoken. The ruling may as well be delivered on engraved stone tablets brought forth by Moses himself (ok, scratch the heeb.. don't like those anymore, brought forth by the Lightworker himself) and are unquestionable. To even ask questions is to bring your patriotism into question instead.
On the other hand, when it is a ruling they don't like, not so much. DC has pretty much ignored the Heller decision. Last I heard there is still no licensed dealer in the city and it is still illegal to import one from elsewhere. So good luck exercising your newly reinstated 2nd Amendment RTKBA and it won't change until we get a different Senate and POTUS.
> CDs where mainly used to store a primitive^Wsuperior type of mp3 called '16bit uncompressed PCM'
Fixed that for ya. Still haven't paid for an mp3 file and have no intention to. If they start selling FLAC I'm in, otherwise I'll stick to CD. With a CD I can make whatever format and/or bitrate I want without suffering a transcoding loss. No format currently sold online through downloads can say that. And if tech improves I can reencode without needing to repurchase everything. So no, I won't be buying the While Album again. Ever.
And it won't have newbies either. That is what is so maddening. Who is going to suddenly start using Linux + GNOME3? Will any of us current users recomend it? Doubtful. Are they going to get preloaded onto tablets or something? Ha! The resource requirements for GNOME are far greater than Android so it would be a top of the line product, so who is going to put GNOME3 on a flagship product? Who? Nobody, that is who.
I admin a public lab that is currently running Centos. It defaults to GNOME2 and it looks familiar enough that random people can walk in and begin using it. There is no way I'd put GNOME3 on these machines. The support nightmare would never end.
I keep hearing the occasional GNOME Shell fan in these hate/rant threads chime in with "I hated it for a few weeks but now I love it." Can you imagine me telling people that? Can you? Really? Perhaps you GNOMEs should rethink discoverability and learning curves with an eye to actually making it easy for a new user. You guys go on and on about being focused on new users and ignore the reality that most 'new users' aren't totally new to computers anymore and expecting them to unlearn what they already do know is a loser.
> Hopefully a bit more focused attention will lead to quicker fixes.
Exactly. Nothing focuses attention like becoming the default desktop environment. Fedora probably won't abandon the GNOMEs anytime soon but can anyone see GNOME3 being the default for RHEL7? Ubuntu has went their own zany way with Unity but if the alternate (XFCE, KDE, Mint, etc) spins/forks aren't already accounting for more installs than the base Ubuntu it is only a matter of time because a broken desktop isn't going to fly. And no matter how many users leave neither the Unity or Gnome Shell devs will admit they are leading in a direction few care to follow.
The difference is we get a choice, we don't have to accept what they create. Pity the poor fools on Windows, they are about to get Metro whether they want it or not and they aren't going to have many options. Heard the latest? The prereleases have been hacked to default to a normal desktop but the RTM has 'fixed' those hacks so they won't work. They aren't going to allow em to escape. Of course corporate types will be able to stay on Win7 for years; end users won't be able to buy a new PC without 8 after the new year.
And when OS X gets the iOS makeover they won't have any choice either; but of course they will all suddenly decide it is insanely great and exactly what they wanted all along.
Yea, and a couple years ago the iPhone was around the same share of the smartphone web traffic. It ain't anymore and will never be again. Xmas is coming and millions more people will be buying tablets and Apple might even sell over half of them this time. Next year it would be safe money they sell less than half, as low as a third would be possible. And so on.
Thought experiment, one iPad to share or a couple of Nexus 7s? Yea, when the price gap gets that large it changes the calculus doesn't it.
> Apple seems to know that marketshare doesn't matter so long as you're still raking in money
And so long as they get beat back into their historical 10% niche of customers willing to pay a super premium for a brand experience I'll be happy for em.
Because that will mean the other 90% of us can happily ignore their overpriced stuff.
But ya know what? Apple fanbois are about the only fans I know of who make how much money their object of lust is hoovering out of their wallet a selling point when preaching to the heathen. Guys, THAT. DOESN'T. WORK. Just sayin'.
Think you have it. The big clue is that almost every iPhone cover has an opening for the logo. Almost no cover for an Android phone does that. That says that displaying the logo is considered to be very important. To be seen with it might not be as important has actually having it, but it certainly seems to be A factor in the buying decision process.