A lot of your rage seems to come out of guilt that can't be dealt with.
Rage? Guilt? no man, I'm happy - guilt is for the folks who can't reason and believe in an Invisible Man in the Sky despite there being no evidence for him other than a crappy self-contradictory and non-sensical book written by Bronze Age desert dwellers. Finally after doing my research I'm free of the bullshit and guilt. My only belief is that you are free to believe as you wish, as deluded and non-sensical as it is, provided you respect others (which you evidently and admirably do). Please check the link I gave the evidence of the Bible as bunk is strong, the evidence for evolution is strong (most Christians have a very poor grasp of the multiplicity of arguments for evolution).
The numbers I see say that the top 3% of taxpayers pay a lot of the taxes because they get a lot of the income. Warren Buffet said that he pays a lower rate than his secretary.
In relative terms the rich pay a lower *relative rate* because they have good accountants. In *absolute terms* the rich pay *massively* more than their employees. I think a flat tax rate with fewer loopholes would increase total revenue, decrease compliance costs (good for everyone except tax accountants - but that's ok, they are a reducible "frictional loss" in the movement of money), and make the system equitable. Then Warren Buffet would pay exactly as much as his secretary in relative terms and far far more in absolute terms. I understand that most of the rich would be relatively ok with this arrangement (Buffet statements show he certainly would be).
I think we can grow the economy by bringing our social safety net, education and training up to German or Scandinavian levels. A billion dollars spent on education will boost the economy more than a billion dollars spent on upscale restaurants, $2,000 shoes, $1 million weddings, boats, and the other luxuries that the rich spend their money on. Adam Smith said we should discourage luxuries.
More money spent on education is a good thing *provided it brings results*. Here's a thought provoking video showing that simply pouring hundreds of millions of dollars (or a billion) will not improve education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRHZEhGWY8
The States seem better at determining and managing their education than the Federal Government is.
I think we can grow the economy by bringing our social safety net, education and training up to German or Scandinavian levels. A billion dollars spent on education will boost the economy more than a billion dollars spent on upscale restaurants, $2,000 shoes, $1 million weddings, boats, and the other luxuries that the rich spend their money on. Adam Smith said we should discourage luxuries.
I'd also like to point out a fundamental difference here. Most education money is raised through compulsary taxes. The spending on resturants, shows, weddings, boats etc may be lavish and wasteful - but they do not come from the public purse nor does the public lose when such things are spent. Sure, the rich could be fleeced to try raise taxes but that has been shown time and again (eg. tried all throughout the 20th Century all over the world) not to work. If there is no incentive to create economic wealth, and for the creators to keep a small slice of that (which may amount to millions), then the wealth (and jobs, and purchases) simply will not be created - and we, and the economy, are all poorer for it. Without the incentive of personal profit (and personal freedoms, rule of law etc) you end up Belorussia today. That is the logical outcome of the "eat the rich" strategy of tax gathering. As taxes are raised revenue increases for a while before economic activity stagnates. You then need to keep raising the taxes (what we are seeing now) but that hurts the economy further. This "Robin Hood" strategy [rob from the rich, give to the poor] has been tried many times and it never works. There is a sweet spot tax rate where you can take from the rich but leave them enough to invest, consume and grow the economy. The sustainable tax rate is not 75% nor even 40%. Witness how your example German and Scandinavian countries still have revenue problems - non-productive (eg. Government) spending also has to be controlled too.
Krugman and others also say that wealthy Americans pay less now in taxes than they've paid since the Gilded Age, and they pay less here than any other industrial country (the Cayman Islands isn't an industrial country). I think they can pay as much as the Europeans do.
The US could certainly adopt European tax rates. Of course this would also re
Thanks for the video. It was a promotion video for a group criticizing political donations made by the wealthy: perhaps in your view these are 'impure' compared to the political donations made by the huge numbers of average joes, I guess? are you trying to assert that non-wealthy political campaign contributors donate for altruistic reasons and the wealthy only donate for selfish reasons?
With regard to campaign contributions the most democratic way to handle it, IMHO, is to place a cap on the amount that may be raised by one party (leveling the playing fields between parties without having to spend a billion each) and to make a register of contributions that records *who* contributed and by *how much*. Legally mandated transparency is the solution to corruption issues. The rich should not be discriminated against because of their wealth, they should be able to donate just as any other citizen can - but let's make it public knowledge who donated what to whom.
US political campaign contributions are a bit off-topic though. Changing how donations work will not trim the deficit, which is not caused by "corporate welfare" but by the unfunded liabilities of excessive *social programmes*. Some social programmes are necessary but a Government cannot promise what its tax revenue (as in, contributions from workers and business) cannot afford.
Now that I've taken the time to watch your video please take the time to watch the video I posted. If you are interested in getting some real insight then besides Bill Whittle you could search for Thomas Sowell on YouTube - he's one of the economic thinkers of our time (no wonder, he studied under Milton Friedman who was a genius - Friedman's slapping down of a young Michael Moore is excellent in exposing just how misguided much of Michael Moore's populist but inaccurate thinking is).
I used to believe as you did. Then I did more research. I find that God has hidden himself. He gives us reason, provides a consistent and ordered universe and then says we must disregard the overwhelming evidence for observable nature. We are instead to believe in a book written by ancient and ignorant men that in many areas is contrary to observed scientific facts and is contrary to itself in *hundreds* of places. Ask yourself, was Jesus crucified before or after Passover. Different Gospels have different dates. The Bible is riddled with flaws and the Qur'an is even worse (despite the laughable claim that it is the perfect and direct word of the Moon God Allah). No perfect being could do this to us, give us reason and make a consistent universe and then feed us contradictory, unscientific nonsense in book and say that if we don't believe the superstitious gibberish stuff and just happen to do stuff like have a mild erotic thought about some hottie walking down the street then we are going to be tortured in agony *forever*. We are commanded to love a diety we are in great fear of. As Hitchens so correctly put it, "This is a celestial North Korea, but at least you can fucking die to get out of North Korea. If you believe this stuff {Christianity/Islam} then when you die that's where the 'fun' really begins".
Religion used to serve a purpose. It was our first pass at morality, legal codes, sanitation, health regulations, interpersonal relationships, science etc. Because it was our first pass, it also turns out to be our worst estimate of reality. What we as a species now know far far outstrips what as known and encoded in the "holy" books (that possess no divine knowledge beyond what a 1st century writer would know [6th century for Islam, although it is basically at the same level of ignorance, and a great deal more barbaric]). Now that we have a better and *scientifically reproducible* understanding of reality we no longer need to be superstitious. We don't need to fear dying, just as we don't fear the time before we were born [since it was oblivion]. It is painful to think we won't see departed loved ones again, but that is just reality. We can't change reality, but we can understand it but dropping superstition and adopting reason instead. Once we do that we are liberated, and can act positively to benefit all creatures - rather than cowering, constrained in fear by some unprovable myths from ancient men now rendered abjectly ignorant by the massive progress made by normal but *enlightened* (as in, rational) men working toward a better understanding over the centuries.
I have no confidence in our political leaders for justice, at all. Or our business leaders. I hve 40 years of experience in that.
We can agree there - there is a failure of leadership. There is a failure of the political elites, no matter what their economic views are. We need better leadership. We also need to take responsibility as voters to not only elect better leadership but also accept that we cannot get benefits for nothing; a large part of the problem are voter interests that makes demands the politicians must cave in to. Not all voter demands are financially sustainable.
With regard to no income tax. We have to work to contribute to the common good - all of us - with few exceptions (eg. those unfortunate enough to be handicapped by birth or accident). For most of us the way we can contribute to the common good is through our labour, hence income tax is the best metric for what we can contribute.
And now, when the poor have been squeezed to the point that they are dying -- my kids' godfather is in cardiac failure as we speak,unable to pay for medical care
Much of the problem in the US is due to the litigious nature of society. Doctors and specialists must pay outrageous insurance covers, which forces costs up. The threat of lawsuit means many unnecessary tests must be done or else there will be malpractice claims - which forces costs up. Then there are bloated bureaucracies and excessive regulation, which force costs up (note: some regulation is ok). Then there is the enormous costs, opportunity costs and time spent for medical professionals to train, which increases costs. There are many factors which go into making US medical care more expensive. These are costs that other modern countries don't bear (although they can have other problems, nowhere is perfect, but they're usually not as broken as the US system). However, there are so many factors in play here that blaming "the rich" does seem a bit, well... "rich". The reality is that "nature is a Bitch and she's out to get us" - there is no perfect solution. Replacing the ambulance chasing lawyers with a Federal "no fault" accident claims system (as happens in my country) would get the lawyers out of the system and would drive costs down significantly. That is a good place to start.
It is unspeakably evil, and I can only pray "God, please save us from the pit they have dug for us, their neighbors", and, "Come, Lord Jesus!"
Hmm. I'd rather subscribe to the notion that "God helps those that help themselves". I don't mean this in a self-centered way, but as in, to be active/pro-active rather than passive. I've seen the research and have given up or greatly reduced many foods I enjoy and am working to get my weight down (hard when carrying a lot of muscle). I take strenuous exercise every weekday. I do not smoke (anything, green or otherwise). I drink very very moderately. Apart from Slashdot:) I try to avoid excessive stress and hazardous situations. I avoid excessive sun. Despite living in a country with a decent health system I pay for additional medical insurance out of my income for myself an my family. I can always get unlucky and get terminal brain cancer, but I am actively doing what I can to stave off my inevitable demise. If God exists I hope it would help me, but given there is no evidence for it, I'm devoting significant resources to mitigate the risks. In no way do I blame your kid's godfather for his very unfortunately situation, like I said, the reality is that Nature is a Bitch and she's out to get us. Getting rid of F-35s will not change this, what it will do is change the risk for the US until 2053 (a weak US spells trouble for the whole world; unfortunately the weakness is not in terms of military assets or skill, it is political and high-level military leadership [often who are also essentially politicians] that is the problem).
Well, cutting the F-35 programme so close to the end makes little sense once you realise that they have a service life of 40 years and have to be ready for use for that time. In modern war there is no "just in time" re-armament as could be used in World War II. In modern war it takes a long time to build the effective machines and even longer to train effective crews (about 5 years to become good on modern aircraft). Cutting the F-35 program is *eviscerating* and is following a *political narrative*. It has nothing to do with defense requirements in the next 40 years, or much to do with tackling the structural problems of the US deficit (where unfunded entitlements make a decade of F-35 program [mostly already paid for] look like chump change).
I know, I'm not a US citizen and have seen and recognize political assaults on defense spending - with aircraft being one of the first things cut. In the case of my country, we had lease to buy of F-16s for around $1million/year/aircraft - which was a total steal - but an incoming leftist government got rid of them thinking we wouldn't need them. We would do peacekeeping instead. Well, it turned out that a few years later we went to do UN peacekeeping but as our soldiers landed the aircraft of a bad regime lurked nearby. It would have been a disaster for us had not friendly aircraft from a neighbour come to give us air cover and scare the bandits away. By selling our capabilities we lost a measure of independence in foreign policy. That was a bad thing.
The whole "we ain't gonna need F-35s" aspect is crazy. With a 40 year service life it is like someone in 1901 saying we won't need , yet by 1941 the US had been forced into two massive wars and definitely needed . Can you conclusively say that the US (and allies) will have no need for F-35s until 2053 ? The argument against them is clearly bullshit. Now you may quibble over the numbers of F-35s needed, but it is cheaper to produce them while the production line is open and things like resource and labour costs are lower now that they will be in the future. The US economy can afford the aircraft and it makes long-term strategic sense to get them. What the US cannot afford are the liabilities of huge social programmes it has and inefficiencies in parts of the government (although, as other posters have pointed out, some parts of the government are efficient - despite a recent study showing that government workers and benefits are often higher than the private sector).
The person who makes $5M a year isn't paying back what he earned, by and large. He is paying back what others have earned and he has taken for himself.
This is false. Without entrepreneurs to generate wealth there *are no workers*. The entrepreneurs generate a great deal of wealth for society as a whole and they happen to take a small slice of the generated wealth. Sometimes this adds up to $5M a year, sometimes it is a negative amount (since they carry the risk, unlike the workers). Yes, the mega-corps work differently, where CEOs obtain compensation by essentially robbing shareholders (though stock options and other scams). However, the number of megacorps is small compared to all the other businesses that generate the vast bulk of wealth.
History has shown that without the capitalist incentive of profit you end up with a system of "The workers pretend to work and the bosses pretend to pay them". The last century has shown the utter failure of the model you propose - waging war against capitalists/entrepreneurs (incidentally, most who are not rich to start with) simply brings misery to all, closely followed by loss of liberty and eventually economic collapse. Just like thermodynamics, where there must be an energy difference for work to be done, the economic systems require a capital difference in order for work to get done in a modern economic system (and any utopian who believes in going back to "the old ways" ought to visit Africa to see what their utopia is when put into practice).
But God is more powerful than that, and He can and does intervene. I will wait on him.
Cool, as long as you don't hold your breath while you wait. God is an interesting concept that unfortunately there is *zero* reputable scientific evidence for. The supposed evidence for God is self-contradictory works clearly written by men who had no additional "divine" knowledge more advanced than the period they were writing in eg. surely someone receiving messages from divine agents could point out useful truths such as the bacterial and viral causes of infection (that would have saved *billions* of lives over the millenia) rather than superstitious nonsense about demons (which, if they existed, apparently can be permanently banished by antiseptic alcohol swaps, antibiotics, etc). Here is an interesting visualization of the contradictions within the Bible: http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/
and here's a analysis of the Bible showing contradictions, falsehoods, counter-scientific statements and general nonsense in the Bible, Qur'an and Book of Mormon (all works of ignorant and superstitious men who didn't understand nature, and subsequently used by men to control other men and women): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Once you understand that there is no god and that it is just us human animals, the other animals, and nature all battling each other then many mysteries are solved. Humans had morality before religion because it benefits us and we've evolved for it to gratify us too (an evolutionary survival trait). We don't need religion to be moral and look after each other and the animals under our dominion. We don't need superstitions that go against what we do understand about the universe. It's all ok. We have our one, precious life and have to make the most of it and help others to make the most of theirs too. We are free and no supernatural bogeyman is gonna get us - we don't need the threat of eternal punishment to be good and moral people. So relax, enjoy the time you have, and wish well for others:)
By all means then, increase the tax on the poor, so that we gan repay those bonds of debt to the rich.
No one is suggesting an increase in tax on the poor. In the US, most of the "lower half" of income earners pay no actual or no effective tax. This is 47% according to statistics, AFAIK. I'm not sure how you read "increase a tax on the poor and decrease for the rich" from my statement. What I said was that the problem was in excessive government spending and promised spending. Increasing taxes on the rich not only will not cover the excessive spending, it will cause additional problems as profits decrease, workers are laid off and overall economic activity flows from the productive sector into the non-productive sector.
Or how about this? Forget the income tax, which taxes the laborer to pay for the protection of the property of the owner (itself an injustice). Make it an assets tax, exponential according to assets posessed (and thus protection recieved), and pay back the debt completely over thirty years, on a reverse-balloon plan: biggest payments up front.
Actually, I'm a fan of both a flat income tax and capital gains tax (except on the dwelling where you live). That way *everyone* contributes and *everyone* contributes in equal proportion to the about they generate. No discrimination against the poor not the rich. Such a system would also close many of the loopholes that can be used by the unscrupulous. The tax gathered would go up and *everyone* would have "skin in the game" (at the moment many poor do not contribute financially to society, I personally believe that everyone should contribute to the commonwealth that the tax system represents).
It appears you agree with punishing the rich for the "sin" they committed in working hard and becoming rich. It appears you believe that it is impossible for the poor in the US to become rich, and hence the inequality of the US society must be rectified. Your proposal does seem disproportionate given the observed social mobility of those prepared to learn and work hard. The system isn't perfect but waging class war against the rich won't make the rich disappear, it just changes who controls the wealth - it also won't solve the fiscal problems of the US.
Epic fail. You've got nothing but ignorance, insults and a thin skin.
Ah, coming out swinging just like your first post. No constructive comments, just more reactionary statements that "the existing way is the best way". Actually I don't have a thin skin at all. Your opinion means nothing to me, since it is pretty clear you don't understand the principles of UI design (except as a user) and learning psychology at all - you simply haven't made a cogent argument as to why Blender's UI is so superior that the arguments of the community can be dismissed. Note, with regard to "thin skin" I was just trying to hold up a mirror so you could become at least a little self-aware of how obnoxious you were right out of the gate (as I have said numerous times, other Slashdotters also noticed this jerk-esque behaviour in your posts, especially the unwarranted and incorrect assumption of your first sentences). Sadly, you didn't take the hint and calm down to discuss your objections in detail and rationally (as I said, I was fully prepared to listen). I'm glad I don't have to work or live with you, and I'm sure I'm not alone there.
Blatantly incidentally insulting someone with your first statements, carrying on with curses, and then complaining they have a "think skin" shows a pretty munted view of how discussion works on a public forum. It's like a rapist complaining that a women asked for it because she chose a certain style of dress. I did not ask you to insult me, I defended myself from some random jerkoff on the internet who made assertions without any shreds of proof, better suggestions, or sensible counter-comment. So please get a grip dude. Some people would call you a troll. I wouldn't go that far, but your offensive posture and bad temper could well put you lurking under the bridge with some kind of mental malaise for sure.
Ah, you can't have used a modern IDE with lots of plugins (just like 3D tools have lots of plugins) on a huge project (several hundred thousand lines, with lots of different types of code that require different sets of plugins and tools). Remember, while I try not to use Blender often, I do use it for tasks that I can't be bothered writing OpenGL or format manipulation algorithm for - while I use several modern IDEs and a bunch of plugins every single day (depending on whether I'm doing work for a client or my own work). It appears you haven't done any recent large-scale software development or you wouldn't use "epic fail" to disguise the ignorance or your assertion, rather than constructing an argument such as a point-by-point rebuttal.
But let's agree to disagree so we don't waste any more time.
Ah, you'll still need your carriers. Given the rate at which the UK constructing Sharia courts and importing people who believe in (over UK law) then you'll need the carriers for sure to wage jihad against unbelievers who haven't yet converted (although France may beat you to it given current demographic trends). I jest - or do I ?:)
The "narrative" actually comes from the political Left (eg. Obama Administration) that says that social spending can continue at the current rate provided they eviscerate defence (which can be shrunk for sure, but not gutted) and conduct class warfare on the rich (which is the narrative you appear to subscribe to). The "narrative" of libertarians/conservatives is that social spending is out of control (looking at the numbers, it is), government is too big and intrusive (looking at the numbers, it is), and that the solution is to promote growth for the whole economy (although they sometimes downplay the importance of worker protection against exploitation - which is essential). If the economy grows the workers get paid, the unemployed get jobs, the politicians get taxes, and the capitalists get profits (to create jobs and invest in equipment) - which get taxed again and the circulation continues.
Cut all the "Waste" you want. It'll never come close or be a drop in the bucket against what the ultra wealthy are taking from you on a daily basis. I tell ya man, dog eat dog capitalism for the poor, socialism for the wealthy...
Hmm, more narrative. Looking at the *statistics* the top 3% of earners in the US pay the bulk of the tax revenue. They contribute massively in absolute terms. They also pay more in relative terms as well (they already have a higher tax rate), especially compared to the lower 47% that effectively pay no tax. For the most part the wealthy did not steal their fortunes, they earned it through hard work, study and creating things that people wanted (also creating jobs and supporting industries in the process). As long as the rich pay their fair share then I'm ok with it. Waging a "class warfare narrative" on them, as you appear to do, doesn't follow the statistics and is not a sustainable way to grow the economy. Here is a video for you consider (and hopefully get some perspective too): should spending be cut or can the US solve its long-term problem by bleeding the rich for every penny? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
The person who earns $5 million a year is already paying *massively* more in absolute terms than they will ever get back from government and *massively* more than any other citizen. Many of them earned their money by producing things that other people wanted, they didn't steal their money or ask for handouts, they made or did something useful. Apart from individuals that avoid tax altogether (which I vehemently disagree with) most of these people pay far more tax than us. Isn't a flat tax rate more egalitarian. Don't you believe in the principle that everyone should contribute according to their means at the same proportional rate, as this is most fair? You will agree, unless one harbours some kind of "class-bias" against the successful (the majority of who worked honestly to reap their reward).
If you think there's something wrong with taxing people who make 5 million a year at 75% then I hope you die in the most horrible and agonizing way.
Hyperbole. Don't wish evil on others for any reason - it makes you evil. The "something wrong" with increasing the tax rate to 75% is because economics and history both show that increasing the tax rate to that degree both *decrease* total tax rate and slow growth of the economy. A growing and vibrant economy is the real solution to the fiscal problems of the US. Rather than continuing to spend, and make spending promises on so-called "entitlements", at an unsustainable rate the solution is for the US citizens to stop accepting vote bribes from their politicians, stop the class warfare ("bleed the rich"), realise many citizens are actually completely spoiled like petulant children (with respect to the citizens of the rest of the world) and accept two things: they need to shrink the expenses of their government (which has become bloated and very expensive to run), and to accept that that their own programmes and entitlements need to be cut - starting from the largest programmes first (which is not the F-35s, in fact).
all we have to do is make sure that companies are held to the promises they make when the bid for a contract.
That is entirely possible provided another condition is also met: the defence branches must also not keep increasing their specifications while assuming the unit cost remains a fixed price. Do that and your suggestion will work well. The customer needs to be controlled at least as much as the suppliers !
Unrelated to the debate: good on you! thanks for your contributions to keeping the Free World safe. Note: I'm not even from the US, I just realise that the US taxpayer pays, and you do work, to help defend all of us that love individual liberty around the World. While a lot of the Free World are coddled muppets who have no idea just how rough it is in much of the World, I do, so appreciate what goes in to our illusion of relative safety. Cheers!
The major entitlement spending is for Medicare and Social Security. People are entitled to Medicare and Social Security because they paid for them all their lives.
What people get out of these "entitlements" is far, far more than what they put in. It is a giant Ponzi scheme. The money for this Ponzi scheme coming from borrowing that not only your children will have to pay but also your grandchildren. It's also even worse than a Ponzi scheme because a Ponzi scheme is voluntary whereas Medicare and Social Security have the implied threat of violence or loss of liberty by the full weight of the State to force you into paying for the "Ponzi" scheme.
Now don't get me wrong, social programs are necessary. It is even possible for social programs to deliver more to participants than they put in - provided the tax/contribution base is growing (eg. demographic or economic growth). However, what has happened is that the so called "entitlements" (really bribes made by politicians to get your vote) have continued to rise at a far greater rate than the contributors can cover. Borrowing has been used to cover the gap but that can't continue indefinitely. The Libertarian politicians are rubbing their hands with glee because they have been right all along; the Democrats have been living in a dream world where they can promise "entitlements" but the economy simply can't sustain it indefinitely. The proposed Democratic solution is to tax "fat cats" to extract more money, but that simply won't work because it is based on a misconception of who is currently paying for the system. In the US the top 3% of taxpayers pay the vast bulk of the tax revenue. Squeezing them harder won't get much more money and won't grow the economy either. The Republican solution is to try grow the economy. That's a better idea (despite the general Republican craziness on social liberties). The Libertarians have a much much more realistic view of the economy (they tend to be more fact based rather than ideologically based, unlike the Dems or Republicans).
So, if you are thinking in terms of "entitlements" then you may not understand that these voter bribes are what is bringing the US economy down. The "unfunded liabilities" of promised entitlements completely dwarfs things like defence spending. In fact, US defence spending has swollen massively in absolute terms (as peaceniks like to point out) but in relative terms it has diminished significantly because the entire US economy had grown at a much faster rate than defence spending until the 2008 crash. Most of the defence spending doesn't go on equipment (like the F-35, which is advanced and complex so has various teething troubles that its opponents like to point out). Most defence spending goes on salaries and veteran entitlements. Cut those and you will have several hundred thousand more unemployed - you'll still be paying those people (in welfare) but they won't be doing anything useful for your (disaster relief, peacekeeping, peacemaking, hunting terrorists, construction for the community etc).
As JFK famously said, "A rising tide lifts all boats". The way to solve the problem is not to squeeze the rich (this reduces the tax haul and strangles the economy) but it is instead to promote policies that grow the parts of the economy that generate revenue (growing the government to reduce unemployment, as has been done by recent Administrations, won't work). While some cutting of "corporate welfare" in defence might work it is not the solution to the problems of the US. The only solution is to borrow less by cutting the colossal entitlements (and hence the unfunded liabilities). Without the people choosing this option the US will never get out of the more.
So the F-35 programme should be left alone. While the US may not need them now the lifespan of these machines is at least 40 years (eg. judging by the service life of the F-16 it replaces). You do not know what may be around the corner for the US - but it is not hard to guess: China may exerci
I worked for quite a while as an engineer using CAD and FEA but have also written some software, which is why I can laugh at your misguided suggestion in another post that a 3D modelling package should have an interface like an IDE.
The workflow for 3D is indeed different than an IDE. My point was that a modern IDE actually has a more complex set of tasks than 3D modelling, yet IDEs are far more discoverable and consistent. I did not say that Blender should fit the IDE document model - although it is a less bad fit than you think (Blender actually has such a model, except that the panes are reversed in most views with the document view to left and the "project" view [the scene] to the right; Blender and an IDE are much closer in design than you think, if you care to look). Blender has the right elements there, they just need to be re-organized into the way people work (the Information Mapping I've mentioned is based on psychological research of how people learn).
I'm simply pointing out that it's not the "best example of how not to design a UI" (did you really expect such juvenile bullshit to remain unquestioned?)
Ok, we have your opinion. Then we have my opinion, in which I'm joined by very many others (as a quick Google search will attest to). We'll have to leave it as a difference of opinion then.
and you haven't come up with a concrete suggestion to improve it that hasn't already been tried and failed before in other applications before.
Actually, almost all large modern applications largely follow the design principles I mentioned. This is what makes Blender stand out. Now, one could be of the opinion that working in 3D is somehow "special" so the usual user interface rules don't apply. This is wrong, IMHO. Again, I say this as a practicing modern software developer who has actually built a small 3D modelling application (increasing the number of features does not change the design aspects I'm talking about).
Also why are you pretending to lack the social skills to understand when you are being quite obviously intentionally insulting?
Well, I'm countering your arrogant statements with an equal level of vitriol. Wake up to the fact that you started it. You initiated the tone by throwing a completely ignorant insult about and haven't stopped since then. Now you take umbrage that someone has now reflected your conceit and arrogance with equal measure. Well, perhaps you ought not to lead your discussions with fact-free insults when you know nothing about the person you are addressing. Other commentators have also rightly pointed out that your leading post started in an unnecessarily hostile manner. So take a look in the mirror - if you want civil discussions on the Internet then *you* should not lead your counter-comment by being a jerk. I'm fully prepared to stop trading barbs if you are prepared to calm down.
Finally, if you want to dismiss my suggestions then it is fine. If you have done a Google search about user's experience with the UI it is clear they have very many gripes. While you can dismiss some of these gripes as "kids" (as if being a n00b was some kind of crime) who don't want to make an effort, many of these comments are from people who have used Blender a lot, are productive, but can still think of ways where Blender could be more consistent or ease use (eg. allow better use of muscle memory). I'm sure you have a few improvements you can think of, yes?
Here's an exercise for you. Please tell point to the Blender documentation that shows how to edit the normals of a mesh? What about how to adjust the normals of a mesh so they point outward (without using the accelerator key combo CTRL N when in the correct mode). These are exceedingly common operations, yet Blender does a poor job of showing users what functionality is available (in contrast, IDEs show everything you can do, even if new users don't understand what it all means). Which means it has a poor UI, and this UI should not be used as an example for building other software (I certainly avoided its model when building my own 3D tool).
Have you even used the thing you are bitching about for long enough to work out the GUI?
Yes.
completely losing it over my "kid" response to your childish
You will note that I'm not alone in calling out your unwarranted and inacurate insult.
With your second comment you are showing that you either didn't read the bit you quoted or didn't understand it, so lay off with your "imagination" insults.
My intend was not to insult. Yes I did read your comment. I think it is you that can't grok the concept myself and others are trying to get across. Yes, I acknowledge you are an expert user in the product. No need to be so defensive about what a *majority* of newcomers (who may well be experts in other products and computer graphics, despite being new to Blender) think about Blender. Your utterly defensive nature is puzzling. May I inquire as to why you are so resistant to suggestions that the Blender user interface could use some re-organization?
and "best practice" which is the fucking annoying mode changing UI which has an even steeper learning curve (all of which the blender developers would have thought of way back when NaN was doing it over a decade ago)
I think you have misread my post and that is why you have lost your temper. I suggested that the current three modes of UI that Blender *already supports* be re-organized to be more consistent and discoverable. My new suggestion is that customized views be remembered, hardly a revolutionary suggestion and one that works well with other tools (including more complex ones, such as the Eclipse IDE). I'm guessing you don't do software development for a living, yes? almost no product gets it right the first time, and I don't think NaN's work is any exception, and product can and should be reorganized as experience with real users is gained. This is one of the reasons why product UIs get changed, and myself and others are calling for just such a thing. It really isn't any reason to become enraged about and start cursing in a public forum about.
So am I right to believe that you consider the Blender UI the height of perfection and in your humble opinion nothing should be changed or restructured to support new users? is that a correct reading of your statements? incidentally, you don't happen to be the UI developer for Blender do you - that would explain why you are taking suggestions so personally (although wouldn't explain why you don't appear to understand the realities of software development and product lifecycle). I have an open mind and am very prepared to listen, if you are prepared to rationally lay out your particular objections to the changes I've proposed (eg. re-organize the *existing* interfaces to suit new people as much as veteran users [who use keybindings anyway, so the re-org doesn't really affect them]).
and would consider your three different interface idea crap
Blender already has the three interfaces, they are just applied inconsistently rather than consistently. I'm surprised you cannot see this.
It wasn't part of the standard AutoCAD interface either and probably still isn't - they are views you apply when you need them just like in blender etc
I get it, your imagination doesn't extend past what has been done already. That's ok, it's not uncommon. However it does show that the (innovative) *design* part of software would not be your strong point - hence you argue against those that do know something about design. "Who moved my cheese?" might be an excellent book for you to read.
Lol. Actually I'm a practicing software developer and technical writer trained in the Information Mapping methodology. I'm not a Blender expert, more of a casual user, but am working on an cross-platform OpenGL+Java jet combat flight simulator in my spare time. So I have the skillz but unfortunately not the time. If I wasn't already committed to getting my sim out the door I'd be helping you for sure. I'm a big believer that good documentation can do a great deal to help users cope with even Blender's poor UI (and I strive to create great documentation myself). Sorry I can't help directly - I'm just too damn excited about my sim to set it aside. I do think your project is a fantastic idea, and I wish you the best of luck with it - it is sorely needed.
Well, in both software UI design and technical writing the first things to do is perform an analysis to answer things like:
* Who are we building this for? are they all expert or do we want to support non-expert users too?
* What are the tasks we want to accomplish?
* What tasks are related?
* What is the minimal set of information and actions we need to accomplish the task?
* In what order must tasks be completed?
* How can we simplify things? how can we get the human to do less and the machine to do more?
* How to we achieve consistency between actions?
* How do we achieve consistency with what the user already knows ? (eg. window management like open/close/minimize/resize/dock)
The list is not exhaustive, and doesn't cover the technical parts of construction, but it is a starting point.
After doing such an exercise with Blender you could conclude something like the following:
* Power users will ignore the UI and use keybindings a great deal. Ensure everything has sensible keybindings. Ensure modifiers (SHIFT, ALT etc) have consistency when applied to different actions (eg. SHIFT might always toggle something off).
* Power users want customizability. Ensure that they can customize their workspace to some degree (the software cannot be a straightjacket). Power users will want to use the software in ways the original designers didn't think of, so the designers should not be too strict with flows.
* Intermediate users will use icons and toolbars.
* New users will use menus, tooltips and documentation. Ensure these are available. Don't modify menus or dialogs to hide items - it can be confusing as to why the menu item was seen in the past but not any more.
In the case of Blender the UI should be arranged around the functional areas and the tasks within the functional areas. Some of the major ones are:
Project level: create new scene, import/export scene
Model level: create new model, import/export model. Model global attributes and metadata
Parts and part groups: parts are groups of related faces that are the basic level of animation, definitions of parts into part groups, definition of faces into parts
Modelling: creation of parts, association of parts with model, duplication of parts, creation of faces, creation and manipulation of of vertexes, display and fine editing of vertex coordinates, face winding, normal adjustment, orthogonal three-view and backgound template image control (great for making models from 3-view drawings or photos); then there is a whole set of advanced set operations for solid modelling (but noobs don't need these to get started)
Skinning: textures (color, specular, transparency, normal maps) and texture coordinates, materials, effects (bump/parallax mapping)
Animation: animation of parts, animation display controls, skeletal articulation
Rendering: view/zoom controls, lighting and shading, background, special effects (eg. lightning flash) etc, video and still creation
etc
Now each of these modes are not exclusive, but mostly when you are working on adjusting vertexes you don't want to see the animation controls - but the default view in blender brings them up. Rather than object and edit modes as in blender it would be better (IMHO) to reorder the *default* views into the functional areas. When I'm fiddling with vertexes I don't want to see the animation controls or material editor as they are irrelevant. When the model is nearly complete and I do want to cross-controls I should then be able to select a dialog from any functional area and dock it to my dialog palette. Even better would be to save this new view in a list of customized views (that gives power users some customizability in the way they want to work). Blender should also drop its windowing system and instead use a standard widget toolkit to give consistency in windowing paradigm and window decorations with
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, did you ever check out the link I sent about contradictions between different parts of the Bible? Here's a nice list for you to consider:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
A lot of your rage seems to come out of guilt that can't be dealt with.
Rage? Guilt? no man, I'm happy - guilt is for the folks who can't reason and believe in an Invisible Man in the Sky despite there being no evidence for him other than a crappy self-contradictory and non-sensical book written by Bronze Age desert dwellers. Finally after doing my research I'm free of the bullshit and guilt. My only belief is that you are free to believe as you wish, as deluded and non-sensical as it is, provided you respect others (which you evidently and admirably do). Please check the link I gave the evidence of the Bible as bunk is strong, the evidence for evolution is strong (most Christians have a very poor grasp of the multiplicity of arguments for evolution).
The numbers I see say that the top 3% of taxpayers pay a lot of the taxes because they get a lot of the income. Warren Buffet said that he pays a lower rate than his secretary.
In relative terms the rich pay a lower *relative rate* because they have good accountants. In *absolute terms* the rich pay *massively* more than their employees. I think a flat tax rate with fewer loopholes would increase total revenue, decrease compliance costs (good for everyone except tax accountants - but that's ok, they are a reducible "frictional loss" in the movement of money), and make the system equitable. Then Warren Buffet would pay exactly as much as his secretary in relative terms and far far more in absolute terms. I understand that most of the rich would be relatively ok with this arrangement (Buffet statements show he certainly would be).
I think we can grow the economy by bringing our social safety net, education and training up to German or Scandinavian levels. A billion dollars spent on education will boost the economy more than a billion dollars spent on upscale restaurants, $2,000 shoes, $1 million weddings, boats, and the other luxuries that the rich spend their money on. Adam Smith said we should discourage luxuries.
More money spent on education is a good thing *provided it brings results*. Here's a thought provoking video showing that simply pouring hundreds of millions of dollars (or a billion) will not improve education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRHZEhGWY8
The States seem better at determining and managing their education than the Federal Government is.
I think we can grow the economy by bringing our social safety net, education and training up to German or Scandinavian levels. A billion dollars spent on education will boost the economy more than a billion dollars spent on upscale restaurants, $2,000 shoes, $1 million weddings, boats, and the other luxuries that the rich spend their money on. Adam Smith said we should discourage luxuries.
I'd also like to point out a fundamental difference here. Most education money is raised through compulsary taxes. The spending on resturants, shows, weddings, boats etc may be lavish and wasteful - but they do not come from the public purse nor does the public lose when such things are spent. Sure, the rich could be fleeced to try raise taxes but that has been shown time and again (eg. tried all throughout the 20th Century all over the world) not to work. If there is no incentive to create economic wealth, and for the creators to keep a small slice of that (which may amount to millions), then the wealth (and jobs, and purchases) simply will not be created - and we, and the economy, are all poorer for it. Without the incentive of personal profit (and personal freedoms, rule of law etc) you end up Belorussia today. That is the logical outcome of the "eat the rich" strategy of tax gathering. As taxes are raised revenue increases for a while before economic activity stagnates. You then need to keep raising the taxes (what we are seeing now) but that hurts the economy further. This "Robin Hood" strategy [rob from the rich, give to the poor] has been tried many times and it never works. There is a sweet spot tax rate where you can take from the rich but leave them enough to invest, consume and grow the economy. The sustainable tax rate is not 75% nor even 40%. Witness how your example German and Scandinavian countries still have revenue problems - non-productive (eg. Government) spending also has to be controlled too.
Krugman and others also say that wealthy Americans pay less now in taxes than they've paid since the Gilded Age, and they pay less here than any other industrial country (the Cayman Islands isn't an industrial country). I think they can pay as much as the Europeans do.
The US could certainly adopt European tax rates. Of course this would also re
Thanks for the video. It was a promotion video for a group criticizing political donations made by the wealthy: perhaps in your view these are 'impure' compared to the political donations made by the huge numbers of average joes, I guess? are you trying to assert that non-wealthy political campaign contributors donate for altruistic reasons and the wealthy only donate for selfish reasons?
With regard to campaign contributions the most democratic way to handle it, IMHO, is to place a cap on the amount that may be raised by one party (leveling the playing fields between parties without having to spend a billion each) and to make a register of contributions that records *who* contributed and by *how much*. Legally mandated transparency is the solution to corruption issues. The rich should not be discriminated against because of their wealth, they should be able to donate just as any other citizen can - but let's make it public knowledge who donated what to whom.
US political campaign contributions are a bit off-topic though. Changing how donations work will not trim the deficit, which is not caused by "corporate welfare" but by the unfunded liabilities of excessive *social programmes*. Some social programmes are necessary but a Government cannot promise what its tax revenue (as in, contributions from workers and business) cannot afford.
Now that I've taken the time to watch your video please take the time to watch the video I posted. If you are interested in getting some real insight then besides Bill Whittle you could search for Thomas Sowell on YouTube - he's one of the economic thinkers of our time (no wonder, he studied under Milton Friedman who was a genius - Friedman's slapping down of a young Michael Moore is excellent in exposing just how misguided much of Michael Moore's populist but inaccurate thinking is).
I used to believe as you did. Then I did more research. I find that God has hidden himself. He gives us reason, provides a consistent and ordered universe and then says we must disregard the overwhelming evidence for observable nature. We are instead to believe in a book written by ancient and ignorant men that in many areas is contrary to observed scientific facts and is contrary to itself in *hundreds* of places. Ask yourself, was Jesus crucified before or after Passover. Different Gospels have different dates. The Bible is riddled with flaws and the Qur'an is even worse (despite the laughable claim that it is the perfect and direct word of the Moon God Allah). No perfect being could do this to us, give us reason and make a consistent universe and then feed us contradictory, unscientific nonsense in book and say that if we don't believe the superstitious gibberish stuff and just happen to do stuff like have a mild erotic thought about some hottie walking down the street then we are going to be tortured in agony *forever*. We are commanded to love a diety we are in great fear of. As Hitchens so correctly put it, "This is a celestial North Korea, but at least you can fucking die to get out of North Korea. If you believe this stuff {Christianity/Islam} then when you die that's where the 'fun' really begins".
Religion used to serve a purpose. It was our first pass at morality, legal codes, sanitation, health regulations, interpersonal relationships, science etc. Because it was our first pass, it also turns out to be our worst estimate of reality. What we as a species now know far far outstrips what as known and encoded in the "holy" books (that possess no divine knowledge beyond what a 1st century writer would know [6th century for Islam, although it is basically at the same level of ignorance, and a great deal more barbaric]). Now that we have a better and *scientifically reproducible* understanding of reality we no longer need to be superstitious. We don't need to fear dying, just as we don't fear the time before we were born [since it was oblivion]. It is painful to think we won't see departed loved ones again, but that is just reality. We can't change reality, but we can understand it but dropping superstition and adopting reason instead. Once we do that we are liberated, and can act positively to benefit all creatures - rather than cowering, constrained in fear by some unprovable myths from ancient men now rendered abjectly ignorant by the massive progress made by normal but *enlightened* (as in, rational) men working toward a better understanding over the centuries.
Thanks for commenting.
I have no confidence in our political leaders for justice, at all. Or our business leaders. I hve 40 years of experience in that.
We can agree there - there is a failure of leadership. There is a failure of the political elites, no matter what their economic views are. We need better leadership. We also need to take responsibility as voters to not only elect better leadership but also accept that we cannot get benefits for nothing; a large part of the problem are voter interests that makes demands the politicians must cave in to. Not all voter demands are financially sustainable.
With regard to no income tax. We have to work to contribute to the common good - all of us - with few exceptions (eg. those unfortunate enough to be handicapped by birth or accident). For most of us the way we can contribute to the common good is through our labour, hence income tax is the best metric for what we can contribute.
And now, when the poor have been squeezed to the point that they are dying -- my kids' godfather is in cardiac failure as we speak,unable to pay for medical care
Much of the problem in the US is due to the litigious nature of society. Doctors and specialists must pay outrageous insurance covers, which forces costs up. The threat of lawsuit means many unnecessary tests must be done or else there will be malpractice claims - which forces costs up. Then there are bloated bureaucracies and excessive regulation, which force costs up (note: some regulation is ok). Then there is the enormous costs, opportunity costs and time spent for medical professionals to train, which increases costs. There are many factors which go into making US medical care more expensive. These are costs that other modern countries don't bear (although they can have other problems, nowhere is perfect, but they're usually not as broken as the US system). However, there are so many factors in play here that blaming "the rich" does seem a bit, well ... "rich". The reality is that "nature is a Bitch and she's out to get us" - there is no perfect solution. Replacing the ambulance chasing lawyers with a Federal "no fault" accident claims system (as happens in my country) would get the lawyers out of the system and would drive costs down significantly. That is a good place to start.
It is unspeakably evil, and I can only pray "God, please save us from the pit they have dug for us, their neighbors", and, "Come, Lord Jesus!"
Hmm. I'd rather subscribe to the notion that "God helps those that help themselves". I don't mean this in a self-centered way, but as in, to be active/pro-active rather than passive. I've seen the research and have given up or greatly reduced many foods I enjoy and am working to get my weight down (hard when carrying a lot of muscle). I take strenuous exercise every weekday. I do not smoke (anything, green or otherwise). I drink very very moderately. Apart from Slashdot :) I try to avoid excessive stress and hazardous situations. I avoid excessive sun. Despite living in a country with a decent health system I pay for additional medical insurance out of my income for myself an my family. I can always get unlucky and get terminal brain cancer, but I am actively doing what I can to stave off my inevitable demise. If God exists I hope it would help me, but given there is no evidence for it, I'm devoting significant resources to mitigate the risks. In no way do I blame your kid's godfather for his very unfortunately situation, like I said, the reality is that Nature is a Bitch and she's out to get us. Getting rid of F-35s will not change this, what it will do is change the risk for the US until 2053 (a weak US spells trouble for the whole world; unfortunately the weakness is not in terms of military assets or skill, it is political and high-level military leadership [often who are also essentially politicians] that is the problem).
Well, cutting the F-35 programme so close to the end makes little sense once you realise that they have a service life of 40 years and have to be ready for use for that time. In modern war there is no "just in time" re-armament as could be used in World War II. In modern war it takes a long time to build the effective machines and even longer to train effective crews (about 5 years to become good on modern aircraft). Cutting the F-35 program is *eviscerating* and is following a *political narrative*. It has nothing to do with defense requirements in the next 40 years, or much to do with tackling the structural problems of the US deficit (where unfunded entitlements make a decade of F-35 program [mostly already paid for] look like chump change).
I know, I'm not a US citizen and have seen and recognize political assaults on defense spending - with aircraft being one of the first things cut. In the case of my country, we had lease to buy of F-16s for around $1million/year/aircraft - which was a total steal - but an incoming leftist government got rid of them thinking we wouldn't need them. We would do peacekeeping instead. Well, it turned out that a few years later we went to do UN peacekeeping but as our soldiers landed the aircraft of a bad regime lurked nearby. It would have been a disaster for us had not friendly aircraft from a neighbour come to give us air cover and scare the bandits away. By selling our capabilities we lost a measure of independence in foreign policy. That was a bad thing.
The whole "we ain't gonna need F-35s" aspect is crazy. With a 40 year service life it is like someone in 1901 saying we won't need , yet by 1941 the US had been forced into two massive wars and definitely needed . Can you conclusively say that the US (and allies) will have no need for F-35s until 2053 ? The argument against them is clearly bullshit. Now you may quibble over the numbers of F-35s needed, but it is cheaper to produce them while the production line is open and things like resource and labour costs are lower now that they will be in the future. The US economy can afford the aircraft and it makes long-term strategic sense to get them. What the US cannot afford are the liabilities of huge social programmes it has and inefficiencies in parts of the government (although, as other posters have pointed out, some parts of the government are efficient - despite a recent study showing that government workers and benefits are often higher than the private sector).
The person who makes $5M a year isn't paying back what he earned, by and large. He is paying back what others have earned and he has taken for himself.
This is false. Without entrepreneurs to generate wealth there *are no workers*. The entrepreneurs generate a great deal of wealth for society as a whole and they happen to take a small slice of the generated wealth. Sometimes this adds up to $5M a year, sometimes it is a negative amount (since they carry the risk, unlike the workers). Yes, the mega-corps work differently, where CEOs obtain compensation by essentially robbing shareholders (though stock options and other scams). However, the number of megacorps is small compared to all the other businesses that generate the vast bulk of wealth.
History has shown that without the capitalist incentive of profit you end up with a system of "The workers pretend to work and the bosses pretend to pay them". The last century has shown the utter failure of the model you propose - waging war against capitalists/entrepreneurs (incidentally, most who are not rich to start with) simply brings misery to all, closely followed by loss of liberty and eventually economic collapse. Just like thermodynamics, where there must be an energy difference for work to be done, the economic systems require a capital difference in order for work to get done in a modern economic system (and any utopian who believes in going back to "the old ways" ought to visit Africa to see what their utopia is when put into practice).
But God is more powerful than that, and He can and does intervene. I will wait on him.
Cool, as long as you don't hold your breath while you wait. God is an interesting concept that unfortunately there is *zero* reputable scientific evidence for. The supposed evidence for God is self-contradictory works clearly written by men who had no additional "divine" knowledge more advanced than the period they were writing in eg. surely someone receiving messages from divine agents could point out useful truths such as the bacterial and viral causes of infection (that would have saved *billions* of lives over the millenia) rather than superstitious nonsense about demons (which, if they existed, apparently can be permanently banished by antiseptic alcohol swaps, antibiotics, etc). Here is an interesting visualization of the contradictions within the Bible: :)
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/
and here's a analysis of the Bible showing contradictions, falsehoods, counter-scientific statements and general nonsense in the Bible, Qur'an and Book of Mormon (all works of ignorant and superstitious men who didn't understand nature, and subsequently used by men to control other men and women):
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Once you understand that there is no god and that it is just us human animals, the other animals, and nature all battling each other then many mysteries are solved. Humans had morality before religion because it benefits us and we've evolved for it to gratify us too (an evolutionary survival trait). We don't need religion to be moral and look after each other and the animals under our dominion. We don't need superstitions that go against what we do understand about the universe. It's all ok. We have our one, precious life and have to make the most of it and help others to make the most of theirs too. We are free and no supernatural bogeyman is gonna get us - we don't need the threat of eternal punishment to be good and moral people. So relax, enjoy the time you have, and wish well for others
By all means then, increase the tax on the poor, so that we gan repay those bonds of debt to the rich.
No one is suggesting an increase in tax on the poor. In the US, most of the "lower half" of income earners pay no actual or no effective tax. This is 47% according to statistics, AFAIK. I'm not sure how you read "increase a tax on the poor and decrease for the rich" from my statement. What I said was that the problem was in excessive government spending and promised spending. Increasing taxes on the rich not only will not cover the excessive spending, it will cause additional problems as profits decrease, workers are laid off and overall economic activity flows from the productive sector into the non-productive sector.
Or how about this? Forget the income tax, which taxes the laborer to pay for the protection of the property of the owner (itself an injustice). Make it an assets tax, exponential according to assets posessed (and thus protection recieved), and pay back the debt completely over thirty years, on a reverse-balloon plan: biggest payments up front.
Actually, I'm a fan of both a flat income tax and capital gains tax (except on the dwelling where you live). That way *everyone* contributes and *everyone* contributes in equal proportion to the about they generate. No discrimination against the poor not the rich. Such a system would also close many of the loopholes that can be used by the unscrupulous. The tax gathered would go up and *everyone* would have "skin in the game" (at the moment many poor do not contribute financially to society, I personally believe that everyone should contribute to the commonwealth that the tax system represents).
It appears you agree with punishing the rich for the "sin" they committed in working hard and becoming rich. It appears you believe that it is impossible for the poor in the US to become rich, and hence the inequality of the US society must be rectified. Your proposal does seem disproportionate given the observed social mobility of those prepared to learn and work hard. The system isn't perfect but waging class war against the rich won't make the rich disappear, it just changes who controls the wealth - it also won't solve the fiscal problems of the US.
Epic fail. You've got nothing but ignorance, insults and a thin skin.
Ah, coming out swinging just like your first post. No constructive comments, just more reactionary statements that "the existing way is the best way". Actually I don't have a thin skin at all. Your opinion means nothing to me, since it is pretty clear you don't understand the principles of UI design (except as a user) and learning psychology at all - you simply haven't made a cogent argument as to why Blender's UI is so superior that the arguments of the community can be dismissed. Note, with regard to "thin skin" I was just trying to hold up a mirror so you could become at least a little self-aware of how obnoxious you were right out of the gate (as I have said numerous times, other Slashdotters also noticed this jerk-esque behaviour in your posts, especially the unwarranted and incorrect assumption of your first sentences). Sadly, you didn't take the hint and calm down to discuss your objections in detail and rationally (as I said, I was fully prepared to listen). I'm glad I don't have to work or live with you, and I'm sure I'm not alone there.
Blatantly incidentally insulting someone with your first statements, carrying on with curses, and then complaining they have a "think skin" shows a pretty munted view of how discussion works on a public forum. It's like a rapist complaining that a women asked for it because she chose a certain style of dress. I did not ask you to insult me, I defended myself from some random jerkoff on the internet who made assertions without any shreds of proof, better suggestions, or sensible counter-comment. So please get a grip dude. Some people would call you a troll. I wouldn't go that far, but your offensive posture and bad temper could well put you lurking under the bridge with some kind of mental malaise for sure.
Ah, you can't have used a modern IDE with lots of plugins (just like 3D tools have lots of plugins) on a huge project (several hundred thousand lines, with lots of different types of code that require different sets of plugins and tools). Remember, while I try not to use Blender often, I do use it for tasks that I can't be bothered writing OpenGL or format manipulation algorithm for - while I use several modern IDEs and a bunch of plugins every single day (depending on whether I'm doing work for a client or my own work). It appears you haven't done any recent large-scale software development or you wouldn't use "epic fail" to disguise the ignorance or your assertion, rather than constructing an argument such as a point-by-point rebuttal.
But let's agree to disagree so we don't waste any more time.
Ah, you'll still need your carriers. Given the rate at which the UK constructing Sharia courts and importing people who believe in (over UK law) then you'll need the carriers for sure to wage jihad against unbelievers who haven't yet converted (although France may beat you to it given current demographic trends). I jest - or do I ? :)
True, this video sums the numbers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
The "narrative" actually comes from the political Left (eg. Obama Administration) that says that social spending can continue at the current rate provided they eviscerate defence (which can be shrunk for sure, but not gutted) and conduct class warfare on the rich (which is the narrative you appear to subscribe to). The "narrative" of libertarians/conservatives is that social spending is out of control (looking at the numbers, it is), government is too big and intrusive (looking at the numbers, it is), and that the solution is to promote growth for the whole economy (although they sometimes downplay the importance of worker protection against exploitation - which is essential). If the economy grows the workers get paid, the unemployed get jobs, the politicians get taxes, and the capitalists get profits (to create jobs and invest in equipment) - which get taxed again and the circulation continues.
Cut all the "Waste" you want. It'll never come close or be a drop in the bucket against what the ultra wealthy are taking from you on a daily basis. I tell ya man, dog eat dog capitalism for the poor, socialism for the wealthy...
Hmm, more narrative. Looking at the *statistics* the top 3% of earners in the US pay the bulk of the tax revenue. They contribute massively in absolute terms. They also pay more in relative terms as well (they already have a higher tax rate), especially compared to the lower 47% that effectively pay no tax. For the most part the wealthy did not steal their fortunes, they earned it through hard work, study and creating things that people wanted (also creating jobs and supporting industries in the process). As long as the rich pay their fair share then I'm ok with it. Waging a "class warfare narrative" on them, as you appear to do, doesn't follow the statistics and is not a sustainable way to grow the economy. Here is a video for you consider (and hopefully get some perspective too): should spending be cut or can the US solve its long-term problem by bleeding the rich for every penny? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
The person who earns $5 million a year is already paying *massively* more in absolute terms than they will ever get back from government and *massively* more than any other citizen. Many of them earned their money by producing things that other people wanted, they didn't steal their money or ask for handouts, they made or did something useful. Apart from individuals that avoid tax altogether (which I vehemently disagree with) most of these people pay far more tax than us. Isn't a flat tax rate more egalitarian. Don't you believe in the principle that everyone should contribute according to their means at the same proportional rate, as this is most fair? You will agree, unless one harbours some kind of "class-bias" against the successful (the majority of who worked honestly to reap their reward).
If you think there's something wrong with taxing people who make 5 million a year at 75% then I hope you die in the most horrible and agonizing way.
Hyperbole. Don't wish evil on others for any reason - it makes you evil. The "something wrong" with increasing the tax rate to 75% is because economics and history both show that increasing the tax rate to that degree both *decrease* total tax rate and slow growth of the economy. A growing and vibrant economy is the real solution to the fiscal problems of the US. Rather than continuing to spend, and make spending promises on so-called "entitlements", at an unsustainable rate the solution is for the US citizens to stop accepting vote bribes from their politicians, stop the class warfare ("bleed the rich"), realise many citizens are actually completely spoiled like petulant children (with respect to the citizens of the rest of the world) and accept two things: they need to shrink the expenses of their government (which has become bloated and very expensive to run), and to accept that that their own programmes and entitlements need to be cut - starting from the largest programmes first (which is not the F-35s, in fact).
Please see this video that goes over the numbers for you with regard to increasing taxes on the affluent/rich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
all we have to do is make sure that companies are held to the promises they make when the bid for a contract.
That is entirely possible provided another condition is also met: the defence branches must also not keep increasing their specifications while assuming the unit cost remains a fixed price. Do that and your suggestion will work well. The customer needs to be controlled at least as much as the suppliers !
Unrelated to the debate: good on you! thanks for your contributions to keeping the Free World safe. Note: I'm not even from the US, I just realise that the US taxpayer pays, and you do work, to help defend all of us that love individual liberty around the World. While a lot of the Free World are coddled muppets who have no idea just how rough it is in much of the World, I do, so appreciate what goes in to our illusion of relative safety. Cheers!
The major entitlement spending is for Medicare and Social Security. People are entitled to Medicare and Social Security because they paid for them all their lives.
What people get out of these "entitlements" is far, far more than what they put in. It is a giant Ponzi scheme. The money for this Ponzi scheme coming from borrowing that not only your children will have to pay but also your grandchildren. It's also even worse than a Ponzi scheme because a Ponzi scheme is voluntary whereas Medicare and Social Security have the implied threat of violence or loss of liberty by the full weight of the State to force you into paying for the "Ponzi" scheme.
Now don't get me wrong, social programs are necessary. It is even possible for social programs to deliver more to participants than they put in - provided the tax/contribution base is growing (eg. demographic or economic growth). However, what has happened is that the so called "entitlements" (really bribes made by politicians to get your vote) have continued to rise at a far greater rate than the contributors can cover. Borrowing has been used to cover the gap but that can't continue indefinitely. The Libertarian politicians are rubbing their hands with glee because they have been right all along; the Democrats have been living in a dream world where they can promise "entitlements" but the economy simply can't sustain it indefinitely. The proposed Democratic solution is to tax "fat cats" to extract more money, but that simply won't work because it is based on a misconception of who is currently paying for the system. In the US the top 3% of taxpayers pay the vast bulk of the tax revenue. Squeezing them harder won't get much more money and won't grow the economy either. The Republican solution is to try grow the economy. That's a better idea (despite the general Republican craziness on social liberties). The Libertarians have a much much more realistic view of the economy (they tend to be more fact based rather than ideologically based, unlike the Dems or Republicans).
So, if you are thinking in terms of "entitlements" then you may not understand that these voter bribes are what is bringing the US economy down. The "unfunded liabilities" of promised entitlements completely dwarfs things like defence spending. In fact, US defence spending has swollen massively in absolute terms (as peaceniks like to point out) but in relative terms it has diminished significantly because the entire US economy had grown at a much faster rate than defence spending until the 2008 crash. Most of the defence spending doesn't go on equipment (like the F-35, which is advanced and complex so has various teething troubles that its opponents like to point out). Most defence spending goes on salaries and veteran entitlements. Cut those and you will have several hundred thousand more unemployed - you'll still be paying those people (in welfare) but they won't be doing anything useful for your (disaster relief, peacekeeping, peacemaking, hunting terrorists, construction for the community etc).
As JFK famously said, "A rising tide lifts all boats". The way to solve the problem is not to squeeze the rich (this reduces the tax haul and strangles the economy) but it is instead to promote policies that grow the parts of the economy that generate revenue (growing the government to reduce unemployment, as has been done by recent Administrations, won't work). While some cutting of "corporate welfare" in defence might work it is not the solution to the problems of the US. The only solution is to borrow less by cutting the colossal entitlements (and hence the unfunded liabilities). Without the people choosing this option the US will never get out of the more.
So the F-35 programme should be left alone. While the US may not need them now the lifespan of these machines is at least 40 years (eg. judging by the service life of the F-16 it replaces). You do not know what may be around the corner for the US - but it is not hard to guess: China may exerci
I worked for quite a while as an engineer using CAD and FEA but have also written some software, which is why I can laugh at your misguided suggestion in another post that a 3D modelling package should have an interface like an IDE.
The workflow for 3D is indeed different than an IDE. My point was that a modern IDE actually has a more complex set of tasks than 3D modelling, yet IDEs are far more discoverable and consistent. I did not say that Blender should fit the IDE document model - although it is a less bad fit than you think (Blender actually has such a model, except that the panes are reversed in most views with the document view to left and the "project" view [the scene] to the right; Blender and an IDE are much closer in design than you think, if you care to look). Blender has the right elements there, they just need to be re-organized into the way people work (the Information Mapping I've mentioned is based on psychological research of how people learn).
I'm simply pointing out that it's not the "best example of how not to design a UI" (did you really expect such juvenile bullshit to remain unquestioned?)
Ok, we have your opinion. Then we have my opinion, in which I'm joined by very many others (as a quick Google search will attest to). We'll have to leave it as a difference of opinion then.
and you haven't come up with a concrete suggestion to improve it that hasn't already been tried and failed before in other applications before.
Actually, almost all large modern applications largely follow the design principles I mentioned. This is what makes Blender stand out. Now, one could be of the opinion that working in 3D is somehow "special" so the usual user interface rules don't apply. This is wrong, IMHO. Again, I say this as a practicing modern software developer who has actually built a small 3D modelling application (increasing the number of features does not change the design aspects I'm talking about).
Also why are you pretending to lack the social skills to understand when you are being quite obviously intentionally insulting?
Well, I'm countering your arrogant statements with an equal level of vitriol. Wake up to the fact that you started it. You initiated the tone by throwing a completely ignorant insult about and haven't stopped since then. Now you take umbrage that someone has now reflected your conceit and arrogance with equal measure. Well, perhaps you ought not to lead your discussions with fact-free insults when you know nothing about the person you are addressing. Other commentators have also rightly pointed out that your leading post started in an unnecessarily hostile manner. So take a look in the mirror - if you want civil discussions on the Internet then *you* should not lead your counter-comment by being a jerk. I'm fully prepared to stop trading barbs if you are prepared to calm down.
Finally, if you want to dismiss my suggestions then it is fine. If you have done a Google search about user's experience with the UI it is clear they have very many gripes. While you can dismiss some of these gripes as "kids" (as if being a n00b was some kind of crime) who don't want to make an effort, many of these comments are from people who have used Blender a lot, are productive, but can still think of ways where Blender could be more consistent or ease use (eg. allow better use of muscle memory). I'm sure you have a few improvements you can think of, yes?
Here's an exercise for you. Please tell point to the Blender documentation that shows how to edit the normals of a mesh? What about how to adjust the normals of a mesh so they point outward (without using the accelerator key combo CTRL N when in the correct mode). These are exceedingly common operations, yet Blender does a poor job of showing users what functionality is available (in contrast, IDEs show everything you can do, even if new users don't understand what it all means). Which means it has a poor UI, and this UI should not be used as an example for building other software (I certainly avoided its model when building my own 3D tool).
Have you even used the thing you are bitching about for long enough to work out the GUI?
Yes.
completely losing it over my "kid" response to your childish
You will note that I'm not alone in calling out your unwarranted and inacurate insult.
With your second comment you are showing that you either didn't read the bit you quoted or didn't understand it, so lay off with your "imagination" insults.
My intend was not to insult. Yes I did read your comment. I think it is you that can't grok the concept myself and others are trying to get across. Yes, I acknowledge you are an expert user in the product. No need to be so defensive about what a *majority* of newcomers (who may well be experts in other products and computer graphics, despite being new to Blender) think about Blender. Your utterly defensive nature is puzzling. May I inquire as to why you are so resistant to suggestions that the Blender user interface could use some re-organization?
and "best practice" which is the fucking annoying mode changing UI which has an even steeper learning curve (all of which the blender developers would have thought of way back when NaN was doing it over a decade ago)
I think you have misread my post and that is why you have lost your temper. I suggested that the current three modes of UI that Blender *already supports* be re-organized to be more consistent and discoverable. My new suggestion is that customized views be remembered, hardly a revolutionary suggestion and one that works well with other tools (including more complex ones, such as the Eclipse IDE). I'm guessing you don't do software development for a living, yes? almost no product gets it right the first time, and I don't think NaN's work is any exception, and product can and should be reorganized as experience with real users is gained. This is one of the reasons why product UIs get changed, and myself and others are calling for just such a thing. It really isn't any reason to become enraged about and start cursing in a public forum about.
So am I right to believe that you consider the Blender UI the height of perfection and in your humble opinion nothing should be changed or restructured to support new users? is that a correct reading of your statements? incidentally, you don't happen to be the UI developer for Blender do you - that would explain why you are taking suggestions so personally (although wouldn't explain why you don't appear to understand the realities of software development and product lifecycle). I have an open mind and am very prepared to listen, if you are prepared to rationally lay out your particular objections to the changes I've proposed (eg. re-organize the *existing* interfaces to suit new people as much as veteran users [who use keybindings anyway, so the re-org doesn't really affect them]).
and would consider your three different interface idea crap
Blender already has the three interfaces, they are just applied inconsistently rather than consistently. I'm surprised you cannot see this.
It wasn't part of the standard AutoCAD interface either and probably still isn't - they are views you apply when you need them just like in blender etc
I get it, your imagination doesn't extend past what has been done already. That's ok, it's not uncommon. However it does show that the (innovative) *design* part of software would not be your strong point - hence you argue against those that do know something about design. "Who moved my cheese?" might be an excellent book for you to read.
Lol. Actually I'm a practicing software developer and technical writer trained in the Information Mapping methodology. I'm not a Blender expert, more of a casual user, but am working on an cross-platform OpenGL+Java jet combat flight simulator in my spare time. So I have the skillz but unfortunately not the time. If I wasn't already committed to getting my sim out the door I'd be helping you for sure. I'm a big believer that good documentation can do a great deal to help users cope with even Blender's poor UI (and I strive to create great documentation myself). Sorry I can't help directly - I'm just too damn excited about my sim to set it aside. I do think your project is a fantastic idea, and I wish you the best of luck with it - it is sorely needed.
Well, in both software UI design and technical writing the first things to do is perform an analysis to answer things like:
The list is not exhaustive, and doesn't cover the technical parts of construction, but it is a starting point.
After doing such an exercise with Blender you could conclude something like the following:
In the case of Blender the UI should be arranged around the functional areas and the tasks within the functional areas. Some of the major ones are:
Now each of these modes are not exclusive, but mostly when you are working on adjusting vertexes you don't want to see the animation controls - but the default view in blender brings them up. Rather than object and edit modes as in blender it would be better (IMHO) to reorder the *default* views into the functional areas. When I'm fiddling with vertexes I don't want to see the animation controls or material editor as they are irrelevant. When the model is nearly complete and I do want to cross-controls I should then be able to select a dialog from any functional area and dock it to my dialog palette. Even better would be to save this new view in a list of customized views (that gives power users some customizability in the way they want to work). Blender should also drop its windowing system and instead use a standard widget toolkit to give consistency in windowing paradigm and window decorations with
No worries, we can move on now. I'll post my reply to another of your posts.
Fantastic! Good luck with the project - it'll make a huge difference.