One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct
Very, very, very few Christians believe that the bible is literally correct. If the Bible says "and the mountains sang with joy", does that mean that they grew wind pipes and sand a song? No. The Bible deals in metaphor, and a huge percentage of Christains believe so.
Scientists have clear evidence of the evolutionary process throughout history via these fossils...where exactly did they come from if the planet is in fact only 6000-odd years old
Scientists have clear evidence, but you should be clear. It is not perfect. Anomolies that are currently unexplained do pop up from time to time.
Of course, this is the same god who told Abraham to sacrifice his only son to Him, and waited until the knife was actually descending to say "Psych!".
Depends on which faith you subscribe to. Many Christians follow a line of teaching that describes the Old Testament like you would a work of fine literature. Instructive. The Old Testament, especially the The Law or pentateuch, are considered to be of value only for historical reasons: they applied only to prepare the Chosen people for the coming of Christ. So the story, for example, of Abraham and creation were preperations for the coming of Christ. This is why, for example, even devout Christians do not keep kosher while devout Jews do: the period of preperation and sacrifice ended when Christ was recognized as the saviour.
This is important. For many Christians, the creation story is unimportant. It is part of the Old Testament, and to be regarded as a piece of historical - aka old - literature. It is useful in establishing tradition, and in learning how our ancestors lived, but otherwise, it is not The Word Of God.
Even for the gospels - the New Testament - we have four recognized versions.
For most Christians, this is not an issue. Evolution is a thoery that seems close enough to fact. Creationists will argue against the merits of Darwinian evolution all day, and will be right. The working theory of evolution is based on Darwinian thinking, but it didn't just stop there. It is highly refined, and able to empiraclly observed.
However, the real issue is, what do we teach? You teach the fact, with respect for dissenting viewpoints, just like any other topic. If you are discussing the birth place of a famous person, and there exists some doubt about the location, most decent textbooks discuss the question. Evolution and counter-evolutionists should work the same way. There are holes in the most complete theory of evolution. They should be addressed. You can point out it is a theory that is not able to entirely proven, like a mathematical equation might be.
You are right to say evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God.
I dont think it would either. But the question is whether it is possible. It is possible. It's not an impossible task. The US military is viewed as an undefeatable force by most Americans. Austere and perfect. My only point was that given a reasonably wide scale uprising the 2nd amendment would give enough of a foothold to at least put pause into the governments actions.
Disrupt paychecks? FYI, paychecks for junior grade servicemembers are for booze, hookers, and playstation games. All you are going to get is a lot of pissed off men with rifles. How about instead you try to disrupt the logistics train; oh wait, that'd take a hell of a lot more effort.
No, no. The cash flow isn't key to military - you are professional. The cash flow is key to civilian side of the military. Contractors, analysts, support staff. The unseen non-fighting staff. No pay for them, they aren't going to be going into a war zone.
I can't speak for the army, but as a former US Marine, I can tell you that there is no quicker way to get yourself annihilated. Killing families is just going to incite anger. Marines fight for Marines, no one else. I imagine soldiers are similar.
Maybe you are right. I imagine a much different response for non-regulars, like say the National Guard and Reserve. Even the regular Army a degree. Same with the non-Marine Navy. How many are going to stay around with (1) no pay, (2) and family members in mortal danger?
However, It'd have to escalate quite a bit before lethal force would be required. Actually, faced with the situation I'd find it rather funny watching the crowd on their asses in super-slime engulfed in CS gas. Where's your gas mask?
It would escalte to a firefight. I dont think many men even in the elite units could hold discipline and not fire back when fired upon. Once the public sees the US military firing on other Americans, rebels or not, things are bad. The morale suffers greatly. The ATF/FBI took a huge morale hit after Waco. Even though they believed themselves to be protectors and justified, having so many dead was a huge, huge, blow to their ethic. The same I think would apply to the military. They are used to being defenders. When they are forced to be active against other Americans, I think you'd see a lot of problems with morale and desertion.
Men and women take the titles of Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine because they are motivated to action. You're not dealing with conscripts or mercenaries.
And honestly, I love them for that. I am no disputing that one bit. That call to action is based on loyality, love of ones nation, and fidelity. In a guerilla conflict against fellow Americans, this will be greatly muddled. It's hard to predict what would happen. My belief is that the ranks would thin considerably. Especially if a non-trivial portion of the public was against them, and especially if the ability to support the loved ones financially was in peril. In a huge national emergency, economic for example, the desire would be very great to return home.
Servicemembers have a drastically different set of social obligations than the average citizen. Don't underestimate the mind-control, those helmets aren't made of tinfoil.
I am well aware of that. I dont underestimate the US Armed forces. The boneyard of the world is littered with the corpses of those would belittle the discipline, courage, and skill of our military.
I do believe, however, the US military could never suppress a large scale uprising. The combination of social unrest, economic damage, and morale problems would undermine the military in record time. What is key to understanding my point of view is the economic factor. Right now, we as a nation, are broke. We are living paycheck to paycheck. We borrow to pay our current expenses. Our biggest line item in the budget is not military, but debt payment. If the GDP of the nation dropped even by 50% - not unrealistic for a widespread rebellion - the government would be bankrupt in a matter of weeks. Foreign money would be gone - no one would finance the governments spending during a time of unrest. A collapsed fiscal system would be almost enough to bring the government down without an armed uprising. How many of the millions of government workers would show up if not for paychecks? At first, they'd nervously joke. The
I agree wholly. A major financial or economic downturn would make the whole scenario much, much more likely.
For example, the secondary mortgage market is dominated by the likes of Fannie Mae. They buy mortgages, and package them in groups according to risk. Other corporations do this, but Fannie Mae has special relaxations by Congress that allows them to far laxer financial standards. People buy the securities put out by Fannie Mae at rates that aren't equal with the real risk behind them. Why? Because they believe Congress would never let Fannie Mae fail. Over half of the mortgages in the country are held in Fannie Mae investments. A collapse of Fannie Mae would affect millions of American families - foreclosures would be, well, in the hundres of thousands. A major, major crisis. The value of these defaults could be, literally, a trillion dollars. There is no way that Congress could bail them out of a major financial jam.
Your numbers are just pulled out of thin air (here's a hint for you: a company is not even in the vicinity of 10,000 troops).
Sorry. This was my mistake. I constantly confuse company and division in the make up of the forces. Your typical company is actually between 60 and 250 troops plus equipment, non-fighting enlisted men, and command structure. A division, of which I was referring to in my suggested numbers, has around 10,000 troops. Please, accept my apologies.
Rebels in various industries?
Yes. It's not hard to imagine. As a guerilla force, you seek to recruit cogs of the status quo into your group, and use their influence and power. For example, if you persuaded a few disgruntled employees at a munitions factory to join the rebel side, they could disable a plant with only a few hours havoc, and then melt out into the rebellion. Sabotage.
What history of armed revolt within democratic nations do you have to draw on?
I am not suggesting that the US is going to do this, or go through it, or that it is going to happen. It is possible though. There are 300,000,000 million people in the US, and not that many have to revolt to cause people to lose faith in the govermment. Imagine what would happen if all the government checks ceased to be issued due the rebellion. The millions of federal workers, the army, and the welfare checks stopped being printed and paid on a regular basis. Social security payments stopped. That alone would bring the government to the precipis of failure.
Even stipulating (which I will gladly do) that the U.S. is not as democratic as it used to be, where does any of this lunacy come from other than your own mind?
How many rebels are there in Iraq? There are 150,000 soliders having a handful keeping a lid on 5,000-10,000 insurgents. If.1% of the country supported the insurgency, that'd be 300,000 guerillas. Given enough funding, I think you could recruit that number of people without all that much trouble.
And citing a colonial revolution against a monarchy on the other side of the ocean 200 years ago as a precedent for the ridiculous scenario you paint here... really, it makes me wonder why I am still participating in this thread. I have real work to do.
It's not ridiculous. It's a valid military history. The crown had garrisons in every major city before the revolution. Actual fighting garrisons, of which we have virtually none in the US. We have few trained and equipped troops stationed in the US. About 50,000 British regulars and Hessians fought in the US revolution against no more than 90,000 untrained Continental militamen and regulars. Washinton's biggest army never exceeded 17,000 men. This is important. Why is this relevant? The Patriot forces in the revolution fought essentially the same war that would be fought today, but quicker thanks to our friend technology. Of course it won't apply litterally - the rebels wont be spending the winter at Valley Forge - but a careful analysis shows how to win a guerilla revolution. Discard me if you wish, but I really do know my history and of what I speak.
I'm not going to say anything about the logistics or administration of your 5,000,000 man army (that would be one of the largest armies currently on Earth).
It's not an army per se. That's the point. It's a guerilla war. It doesn't need a top down structure like the US Armed Forces. It's decentralised, it's spread out, it's self-organizing. There would likely be a few top-level leaders, but they aren't equal in control to say, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
. Hell, the US citizenry has given away most of their rights already
That's a blatant exaggeration, and you know it! The fact remains that 99% of Americans have felt not one bit of discomfort since 9/11 with regards to rights or liberties.
If the government moves to suspend the big name liberties - assembly, speech, press, open elections - then that it's. The government will fall, guaranteed.
I am not stumping for revolt or revolution. I am just saying that people who feel the US is immune to it are blinding themselves. A small force of dedicated and well supplied guerillas could turn the country against Washington in no time flat.
#1, the first response would be anger, for sure. However, when you suddenely have everyone trying to get their unit deployed to the home town for protection of the base/housing, you'll see quickly how poorly our military bases are laid out in terms of protecting against a domestic enemey. Since probably 99% of all arms are manufactuered by private contractors, these targets would also have to be protected. Since congressmen allocate these contracts by way of pork, and not military consideration, that would require stationing troops in virtually every state. 1M standing army / 30~ states (assuming you can cover some bordering states - New England doesn't need a company for each state) still means a very fragmented force.
My best guess is that a rich guy with a few hundred million, no particular desire to live, and a slick marketing team could toss the US government in less than 24 months.
As long as America remains a democracy, the power of a large, well-organized political force is enough. If it ceases to be a democracy, you damn well better count on fighting the U.S. Armed Forces, and no ragtag Idaho militia is going to go toe-to-toe with even one company of regular troops.
Yes, of course it can go toe to toe! That's the whole point of guerilla fighting. A company, let's say a full company, of what, 10,000 troops? Against a guerilla army of 1,000,000? Of 500,000? Of even 50,000? Or even 5,000?
You throw around phrases like "well-funded guerrilla army," but that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If you've got the funds for a guerrilla army capable of fighting inside the United States, the lack of 2nd amendment protections would hardly be a hindrance.
Well funded is crucial. Not for arms! But for other supplies. Food. Shelter. Transport. Bribery. The second amendment is more important because it establishes gun ownership as a right. Meaning, members of the militia can blend into the regular populace. In other nations undergoing violent revolt, gun ownership = rebel and/or death. In a US revolution, the availability of guns to all citizens provides something most rebels will kill for: plausible deniability. That is, truly, essential. Rebels have to blend back and forth into the general population at will. An outright ban on arms will make that, largely, impossible.
Any revolution as widespread as you describe wouldn't need weapons to achieve success. 1/3 of the population is more than voted for George Bush.
There may be a time when voting for president isn't pacification enough. I don't endore armed revolt, however, if you objectively analyze the difference between any of the two candidates who may win presidenacy, you will see that on a point by point basis, they are virtually identical. The variances they have are in degrees of gray. One supports this policy, this one supports it only tepidly. This one supports that status quo, this one only a bit more. Fundamentally, they are very similiar. On the big issues, there is a bi-partisan consensus. If, at some point in the future, this consensus runs contrary to what the people really need or want, watch out. Example: fiscal policy. The US fiscal policy is deeply, deeply anti-democratic. Just when things look like it may crash big and hard, a fix is found. In the most recent cycle of boom/bust, the answer was cheap money. Low intrest rates took capital out of hiding and spread it around. In the early days of the country, inflation ran wild, and there were very serious signs of a major revolution against the early American government. Foreclosure of mortgages was the cause. Something like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsing would be (1) more than any bailout could fix and (2) likely to affect about 50% of all home owners. More info: link, link, link.
b) If you honestly think that a guerrilla army of 5 million could form in the United States without drawing the attention of the government, you're an idiot. Assuming, of course, that it didn't form overnight, a la "Red Dawn." and if you assume that, you're worse than an idiot -- you're Patrick Swayze.
I am not an idiot. A militia of that size could form, and would be legal! That's why the second amendment is important. This army could form publically, advertise, cache arms/supplies and train. They could hold induction drives, and do just about anything the army can do. That's the great thing about the 2nd amendment. Sure, the FBI/whoever will infilitrate it. But if the unrest is real, a militia will form, and the government will uake with terror. At a time when the middle-east was white hot, yet, Clinton and the DOJ declared that anti-government right-wing militias were the #1 threat to the US. Depending on acco
The US Armed Forces could never - never - suppress a widespread revolution.
In the first american revolution approximately 1/3 of the population was loyalist, 1/3 anti-loyalist, and 1/3 undeclared/uninvolved.
If even half that number - 1/6 - of Americans decided to turn against the government - and only half of them decided to take up arms - and only half of them were of fighting age and constitution you'd still be looking at almost 5,000,000 anti-government rebels. A standing army of 1.2M deployed world-wide would have a damned hard time fighting that war. If public sentiment turned against the government and any type of job action happened in the defense industry, Washington would be out of munitions and technology in a matter of a few short months. On top of that, a good portion of the military structure is civilian. If the rebels managed to wreck finincial havok and suspend payroll how many mid-level paper-pushers do you think would show up to fight fellow Americans out of the goddness of their hearts? How many tacticians, analysts, computer guys, and cooks would be sticking around facing mobs and retaliation?
The 2nd amendment is plenty to keep the government in check. A decently sized well-funded guerilla army could destablize and topple the government in less than 6 months. Someone with a little popular support, a few hundred million bucks, and a little bit of tactical sense could turn this country into enough of warzone to scare off foreign money, terrify the insulated paper-crats into hiding, and paralyze the government. After the economy crashed, and a general run caused panic in the population the federal republic would go under in no time.
A number of things could bring the US Army down in a matter of weeks, if not days:
The first time the rebels went to an army town and took out a couple dozen military family homes the army would crumble faster than you can imagine. Collateral damage is supposed to be for the enemy, not for the soliders families.
The first time the soliders bank accounts went into overdraw because payroll is disrupted and/or checks bounce the ranks would be decimated. Both from financial constraints and from morale issues.
The first time a unit is actually ordered and purposefully told to attack a rioting/rebellious crowd. Nothing kills morale more than taking out the people you are sworn to protect - not by accident, or lack of training, but by explicit command. All the laws and procedures setup now would be chucked out the window in a full style reveloutionary counter-action. Picking sides will halve, or quarter, the ranks.
That's the point you seem to mis-understand about "the Slashdot circle-jerk" (in your words.) The
You need to go through the thread again, and pay attention to user names. I never said that.
The hiring process industry-wide is just sick and non-functional. It's not just riddled with bullshit criteria (e.g., suits), and "please demonstrate your talent and inclination at bulshitting me creatively" kinds of bullshit questions (e.g., "what's your biggest deffect?"), it also most of the time doesn't even try to prove the important part: skill. Most people make it at best a bullshitting contest, where the one who can lie with a straight face gets the job.
That's not true for the positions I fill. There are requirements, and yes, a written test. You have to be able to meet every bulleted job requirement, or you aren't "qualified".
After that cut, I usually have hundreds of qualified programmers. Sometimes even more. And yes, things being virtually equal, the person who is well dressed and respectful gets the job. Apparently that means he/she is full of bullshit, and a bullshitter, and that makes me a PHB.
You are drawing conclusions about unequal candidates and unequal workers, and associating their suit-wearing status as the cause, which is a fundamentally flawed equation.
You are so sure that I am not a good boss, and so sure that I am not hiring good people that you are blinded to the truth. It is not unreasonable to ask talented, accomplished professionals to look and act professional, especially on an interview. Right now I am wearing a pair of cargo pants and a polo. On Monday, when I have a big client demo and tour, me and my whole team will be wearing suits.
So the question is whether you want to pay for rituals (including suits, verbal masturbation meetings, etc) or for getting the job done. If you want rituals, sure, feel free to pay for rituals. But then you've just told me that you're incompetent at doing your real job, and mis-use corporate funds for your little ritual entertainment.
The thing is, I can have both. When we have an open job position, I can get both things. I can a person who respects me, and wears a nice suit to an interview.
That's the great thing. See, I can have a person who does great work, does a quality job, is well-rounded, and respects his/her job.
You assume that asking you to wear a suit means I am a PHB, that I am incompetent, and that I am going to cause you more stress than not. That's fine. Go ahead. Think that. But you will be wrong.
Wrong.
An employer can have it all. Unless you are super qualified, or uniquely qualified, you should wear a suit. Two employees, virtually equal, one wearing a suit, one not, guess which will get hired 99% of the time?
Drop me an e-mail. I will find you that person, but not for free. We can make it a bet. I've taken and won this type of bet before.
Also, you might want to look into minimum wage laws. If you are working even 6 hr days, 5 days a week, 4 weeks month, you are making way, like 30 cents an hour?
We're not talking about showing up for an interview "with taco bell bits left on your shirt". Few will claim that you should be able to wear your old Def Leopard t-shirt, forget to shower for the week before the interview, show up with prominent dribbles of barbecue sauce on your cheek, and expect your appearance to not count against you. To that extent, you're changing the subject.
I am talking about that. I am talking about wearing a suit, versus, wearing a t-shirt and jeans. If I expect a suit, apparently, I am making you a cog, a tool of the man, and disregarding your uniqueness. I've interviewed the guy you are talking about.
The issue here is suits, and your original implication that somehow, wearing a suit to an interview--as opposed to good looking business casual dress, not as opposed to sweatpants, or as opposed to a gorilla suit and pink tutu--somehow means that the person will be more professional, represent your business better, and be easier to get along with.
No. I will hire the suit person over the other guy everytime not for any of the reasons you list, but, other things being virtually equal, because he went above and beyond and wore a suit.
I respect all the people I come into contact with. But that doesn't mean mollycoddling them. You can be replaced. That's a fact. Unless you are extremely uniquely qualified, you can be replaced. And probably, not that hard. You have to respect that as an employee. I am not asking for daily signs of sacrifice or self-flagellation here, I am asking you and all others to recognize that you are part of a larger organization that will not stop if you pitch a hissy fit.
In any enterprise, unless you are running the show, you are a cog. That's a fact, simple or not.
My post generated negative responses because geeks are constantly thinking that age old business practices don't apply to them. They believe wrongly that they are a unique butterfly, and that if they left the joint, everything would fall apart. It's not true, and it's delusional. No matter how good you are, you can be replaced by someone better.
And that's why you should wear a suit to an interview, and why, if your colleagues wear suits, so should you. It's a no brainer.
If you don't have this attitude (along with some team-oriented ones) I don't want to work with you. If you don't respect yourself and the work product of your staff over the superficials, why should I?
Uhh, actually, I value performance and quality, cohesion and teamwork. We had 300 qualified applicants for our last opening, and this isn't in a huge area. There were at least 25 people who were qualified, capable, fit in well with the team, and who would have done a great job. So fine. I am saying, as I will repeat, when other factors are equal - which in many cases they are virtually equal - I'll take the well-dressed, well groomed, attractively packaged person over the slob everytime. Everytime.
The fact is I am not talking about some mythical cog. For every person hired, including yourself, there is a more qualified, more capable, better candidate willing to work for less. That's a fact. If you are doubting me, contact me privately and we can make a wager. I can find you that person in 6 weeks on a small budget. Subjectively and quantatively, for every person on your team, I can find a better fit, a better worker, a more capable employee, a more honest person, and that person will gladly take the position for 10% less than you are currently paying.
Everyone may contribute a UNIQUE part of the puzzle, but that does not make a person unique.
Sorry, I manage a team of programmers. Nothing glamourous, but still, it's a great job, and I am good boss, and my boss is a good boss, and his boss is a good boss.
If me not getting a job depends on suits and clothing
I said no such thing. I said if someone who was your equal or better came applied for the same job as you, and you came in with taco bell bits left on your shirt, and the other guy came in with a three-piece suit on, I'd pick the other guy, every time.
then I don't want to work for somebody as shallow-minded as yourself
That's fine, but I *300* qualified applicants for my last opening. All with degrees, all with experience, all qualified. I could have easily hired any one of 20 people for the position. So obviously I am not that far outside of the mainstream.
Odds are that the people working for you are very unhappy and that you are clueless about your turnover problem.
We have no turnover problem. Growth.
But in business, especially the marketing peons and others who think appearance is everything, clothes make the man.
No, no, no.
Funny how they think that clothing, rather then actions, make a person.
No, no, no.
Look. Whatever job you do, there are a certain number of people who do the same thing as you, but better. Faster, cheaper, closer to the right place, whatever. There are also a huge number of people who do the job as well, or virtually as well, as you do. Similiar cost, similiar distance, turn around times, etc. It doesn't matter the industry.
Basically, you are NOT a unique snowflake. You are NOT a beautiful flower. No matter how much you think business will stop if you leave, chances are it won't. It may be difficult for a bit, but things will get better, and smooth out. There are few people who "essential" to any reasonably sized enterprise. Unless you have a "business principle" insurance policy on taken out by your boss, or you are the *owner* or high-boss of an enterprise, you are not probably essential.
So what makes people pick you, instead of the dozens of almost-you knock-offs, that realistically, can do the same exact quality of job?
Things are *never* truly equal between candidates for a position, but they are virtually equal. There is almost always more than one candidate who can do the job, at the specified cost, in quality manner. That's just how it is.
So back on to suits. When I'm hiring a person, I usually have 3-5 people who could all be the hired person. At that point, it is up to me to pick a person. And on the list of things I look for is apperance. Will I feel ashamed to have this person represent my group? Will I feel akward having this person give a public speech? Will I feel weird standing next to this person at a trade conference? What about the other employees? Are they going to hostile to this person? What about me? Does this person jibe well with me? Or the person rebellious for the fun of it - argumentative for no reason?
The way the person looks is a factor. There are dozens of people like you. You are interchangeable. You probably aren't especially well qualified for the job over anyone else.
ALl bets are off if you are truly exceptionally qualified, but that is rare.
You laugh at marketing, but what you forget is that there millions of people who can do their job. And they know it. And that means they all want to look clean, presentable, and professional.
Suits come back when jobs are harder to find. It's an advantage.
You are straight on. One of the major problems with large pipeline chips is that they fill the various cache slots with what is predicted to be needed. If you have a huge cache pipeline, and the CPU thinks its going to need certain commands in that pipeline, and it in fact doesn't, all those prefetched bits are wasted, and the CPU is suddenly memory bound for a huge number of cycles. On systems with tons of CPUs, this is a very large problem. If you have 32 CPUs, and 15 of them incorrectly predict which branch will be taken in a single cycle, suddenly all those CPUs are going to be choked.
Actually, this is a good idea. Think of it like this.
Anyone can buy a copyright on their original work. First year is $1. Each additional year is double the previous year. So, for 4 years of protection, you pay $1 + $2 + $4 + $8 = $15. Great. Easy, you can copyright a lot of works, no problem.
If you want to protect something for a long time, say, 10 years, it's not impossible, just a bit more expensive. It has to be *worth* it to you. For 10 years you have to pay a total of $1,023. Not bad. If its a substanial work, its worth it. If it's nothing, don't worry. Everyone benefits.
At 21 years, it'll cost over $1M a year. At 31 years, $1B a year. At 33 years, $4B a year.
The more you think of it, the more you see:
1. It protects copyright holders. With the extra fees some reasonable and fair enforcement could be paid for.
2. It protects the public interest. Forever copyrights are possible, just not exactly cheap.
3. It solves the issue of "forgotten" works - works that are not maintained but cannot be copied thanks to copyright that is inflexible.
Slashdot Mirror
One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct
Very, very, very few Christians believe that the bible is literally correct. If the Bible says "and the mountains sang with joy", does that mean that they grew wind pipes and sand a song? No. The Bible deals in metaphor, and a huge percentage of Christains believe so.
Scientists have clear evidence of the evolutionary process throughout history via these fossils...where exactly did they come from if the planet is in fact only 6000-odd years old
Scientists have clear evidence, but you should be clear. It is not perfect. Anomolies that are currently unexplained do pop up from time to time.
Of course, this is the same god who told Abraham to sacrifice his only son to Him, and waited until the knife was actually descending to say "Psych!".
Depends on which faith you subscribe to. Many Christians follow a line of teaching that describes the Old Testament like you would a work of fine literature. Instructive. The Old Testament, especially the The Law or pentateuch, are considered to be of value only for historical reasons: they applied only to prepare the Chosen people for the coming of Christ. So the story, for example, of Abraham and creation were preperations for the coming of Christ. This is why, for example, even devout Christians do not keep kosher while devout Jews do: the period of preperation and sacrifice ended when Christ was recognized as the saviour.
This is important. For many Christians, the creation story is unimportant. It is part of the Old Testament, and to be regarded as a piece of historical - aka old - literature. It is useful in establishing tradition, and in learning how our ancestors lived, but otherwise, it is not The Word Of God.
Even for the gospels - the New Testament - we have four recognized versions.
For most Christians, this is not an issue. Evolution is a thoery that seems close enough to fact. Creationists will argue against the merits of Darwinian evolution all day, and will be right. The working theory of evolution is based on Darwinian thinking, but it didn't just stop there. It is highly refined, and able to empiraclly observed.
However, the real issue is, what do we teach? You teach the fact, with respect for dissenting viewpoints, just like any other topic. If you are discussing the birth place of a famous person, and there exists some doubt about the location, most decent textbooks discuss the question. Evolution and counter-evolutionists should work the same way. There are holes in the most complete theory of evolution. They should be addressed. You can point out it is a theory that is not able to entirely proven, like a mathematical equation might be.
You are right to say evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God.
I dont think it would either. But the question is whether it is possible. It is possible. It's not an impossible task. The US military is viewed as an undefeatable force by most Americans. Austere and perfect. My only point was that given a reasonably wide scale uprising the 2nd amendment would give enough of a foothold to at least put pause into the governments actions.
Disrupt paychecks? FYI, paychecks for junior grade servicemembers are for booze, hookers, and playstation games. All you are going to get is a lot of pissed off men with rifles. How about instead you try to disrupt the logistics train; oh wait, that'd take a hell of a lot more effort.
No, no. The cash flow isn't key to military - you are professional. The cash flow is key to civilian side of the military. Contractors, analysts, support staff. The unseen non-fighting staff. No pay for them, they aren't going to be going into a war zone.
I can't speak for the army, but as a former US Marine, I can tell you that there is no quicker way to get yourself annihilated. Killing families is just going to incite anger. Marines fight for Marines, no one else. I imagine soldiers are similar.
Maybe you are right. I imagine a much different response for non-regulars, like say the National Guard and Reserve. Even the regular Army a degree. Same with the non-Marine Navy. How many are going to stay around with (1) no pay, (2) and family members in mortal danger?
However, It'd have to escalate quite a bit before lethal force would be required. Actually, faced with the situation I'd find it rather funny watching the crowd on their asses in super-slime engulfed in CS gas. Where's your gas mask?
It would escalte to a firefight. I dont think many men even in the elite units could hold discipline and not fire back when fired upon. Once the public sees the US military firing on other Americans, rebels or not, things are bad. The morale suffers greatly. The ATF/FBI took a huge morale hit after Waco. Even though they believed themselves to be protectors and justified, having so many dead was a huge, huge, blow to their ethic. The same I think would apply to the military. They are used to being defenders. When they are forced to be active against other Americans, I think you'd see a lot of problems with morale and desertion.
Men and women take the titles of Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine because they are motivated to action. You're not dealing with conscripts or mercenaries.
And honestly, I love them for that. I am no disputing that one bit. That call to action is based on loyality, love of ones nation, and fidelity. In a guerilla conflict against fellow Americans, this will be greatly muddled. It's hard to predict what would happen. My belief is that the ranks would thin considerably. Especially if a non-trivial portion of the public was against them, and especially if the ability to support the loved ones financially was in peril. In a huge national emergency, economic for example, the desire would be very great to return home.
Servicemembers have a drastically different set of social obligations than the average citizen. Don't underestimate the mind-control, those helmets aren't made of tinfoil.
I am well aware of that. I dont underestimate the US Armed forces. The boneyard of the world is littered with the corpses of those would belittle the discipline, courage, and skill of our military.
I do believe, however, the US military could never suppress a large scale uprising. The combination of social unrest, economic damage, and morale problems would undermine the military in record time. What is key to understanding my point of view is the economic factor. Right now, we as a nation, are broke. We are living paycheck to paycheck. We borrow to pay our current expenses. Our biggest line item in the budget is not military, but debt payment. If the GDP of the nation dropped even by 50% - not unrealistic for a widespread rebellion - the government would be bankrupt in a matter of weeks. Foreign money would be gone - no one would finance the governments spending during a time of unrest. A collapsed fiscal system would be almost enough to bring the government down without an armed uprising. How many of the millions of government workers would show up if not for paychecks? At first, they'd nervously joke. The
I agree wholly. A major financial or economic downturn would make the whole scenario much, much more likely.
For example, the secondary mortgage market is dominated by the likes of Fannie Mae. They buy mortgages, and package them in groups according to risk. Other corporations do this, but Fannie Mae has special relaxations by Congress that allows them to far laxer financial standards. People buy the securities put out by Fannie Mae at rates that aren't equal with the real risk behind them. Why? Because they believe Congress would never let Fannie Mae fail. Over half of the mortgages in the country are held in Fannie Mae investments. A collapse of Fannie Mae would affect millions of American families - foreclosures would be, well, in the hundres of thousands. A major, major crisis. The value of these defaults could be, literally, a trillion dollars. There is no way that Congress could bail them out of a major financial jam.
Sorry, I meant division. I often confuse the two terms. My apologies!
Your numbers are just pulled out of thin air (here's a hint for you: a company is not even in the vicinity of 10,000 troops).
.1% of the country supported the insurgency, that'd be 300,000 guerillas. Given enough funding, I think you could recruit that number of people without all that much trouble.
Sorry. This was my mistake. I constantly confuse company and division in the make up of the forces. Your typical company is actually between 60 and 250 troops plus equipment, non-fighting enlisted men, and command structure. A division, of which I was referring to in my suggested numbers, has around 10,000 troops. Please, accept my apologies.
Rebels in various industries?
Yes. It's not hard to imagine. As a guerilla force, you seek to recruit cogs of the status quo into your group, and use their influence and power. For example, if you persuaded a few disgruntled employees at a munitions factory to join the rebel side, they could disable a plant with only a few hours havoc, and then melt out into the rebellion. Sabotage.
What history of armed revolt within democratic nations do you have to draw on?
I am not suggesting that the US is going to do this, or go through it, or that it is going to happen. It is possible though. There are 300,000,000 million people in the US, and not that many have to revolt to cause people to lose faith in the govermment. Imagine what would happen if all the government checks ceased to be issued due the rebellion. The millions of federal workers, the army, and the welfare checks stopped being printed and paid on a regular basis. Social security payments stopped. That alone would bring the government to the precipis of failure.
Even stipulating (which I will gladly do) that the U.S. is not as democratic as it used to be, where does any of this lunacy come from other than your own mind?
How many rebels are there in Iraq? There are 150,000 soliders having a handful keeping a lid on 5,000-10,000 insurgents. If
And citing a colonial revolution against a monarchy on the other side of the ocean 200 years ago as a precedent for the ridiculous scenario you paint here... really, it makes me wonder why I am still participating in this thread. I have real work to do.
It's not ridiculous. It's a valid military history. The crown had garrisons in every major city before the revolution. Actual fighting garrisons, of which we have virtually none in the US. We have few trained and equipped troops stationed in the US. About 50,000 British regulars and Hessians fought in the US revolution against no more than 90,000 untrained Continental militamen and regulars. Washinton's biggest army never exceeded 17,000 men. This is important. Why is this relevant? The Patriot forces in the revolution fought essentially the same war that would be fought today, but quicker thanks to our friend technology. Of course it won't apply litterally - the rebels wont be spending the winter at Valley Forge - but a careful analysis shows how to win a guerilla revolution. Discard me if you wish, but I really do know my history and of what I speak.
I'm not going to say anything about the logistics or administration of your 5,000,000 man army (that would be one of the largest armies currently on Earth).
It's not an army per se. That's the point. It's a guerilla war. It doesn't need a top down structure like the US Armed Forces. It's decentralised, it's spread out, it's self-organizing. There would likely be a few top-level leaders, but they aren't equal in control to say, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
About
. Hell, the US citizenry has given away most of their rights already
That's a blatant exaggeration, and you know it! The fact remains that 99% of Americans have felt not one bit of discomfort since 9/11 with regards to rights or liberties.
If the government moves to suspend the big name liberties - assembly, speech, press, open elections - then that it's. The government will fall, guaranteed.
I am not stumping for revolt or revolution. I am just saying that people who feel the US is immune to it are blinding themselves. A small force of dedicated and well supplied guerillas could turn the country against Washington in no time flat.
#1, the first response would be anger, for sure. However, when you suddenely have everyone trying to get their unit deployed to the home town for protection of the base/housing, you'll see quickly how poorly our military bases are laid out in terms of protecting against a domestic enemey. Since probably 99% of all arms are manufactuered by private contractors, these targets would also have to be protected. Since congressmen allocate these contracts by way of pork, and not military consideration, that would require stationing troops in virtually every state. 1M standing army / 30~ states (assuming you can cover some bordering states - New England doesn't need a company for each state) still means a very fragmented force.
My best guess is that a rich guy with a few hundred million, no particular desire to live, and a slick marketing team could toss the US government in less than 24 months.
As long as America remains a democracy, the power of a large, well-organized political force is enough. If it ceases to be a democracy, you damn well better count on fighting the U.S. Armed Forces, and no ragtag Idaho militia is going to go toe-to-toe with even one company of regular troops.
Yes, of course it can go toe to toe! That's the whole point of guerilla fighting. A company, let's say a full company, of what, 10,000 troops? Against a guerilla army of 1,000,000? Of 500,000? Of even 50,000? Or even 5,000?
You throw around phrases like "well-funded guerrilla army," but that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If you've got the funds for a guerrilla army capable of fighting inside the United States, the lack of 2nd amendment protections would hardly be a hindrance.
Well funded is crucial. Not for arms! But for other supplies. Food. Shelter. Transport. Bribery. The second amendment is more important because it establishes gun ownership as a right. Meaning, members of the militia can blend into the regular populace. In other nations undergoing violent revolt, gun ownership = rebel and/or death. In a US revolution, the availability of guns to all citizens provides something most rebels will kill for: plausible deniability. That is, truly, essential. Rebels have to blend back and forth into the general population at will. An outright ban on arms will make that, largely, impossible.
Any revolution as widespread as you describe wouldn't need weapons to achieve success. 1/3 of the population is more than voted for George Bush.
There may be a time when voting for president isn't pacification enough. I don't endore armed revolt, however, if you objectively analyze the difference between any of the two candidates who may win presidenacy, you will see that on a point by point basis, they are virtually identical. The variances they have are in degrees of gray. One supports this policy, this one supports it only tepidly. This one supports that status quo, this one only a bit more. Fundamentally, they are very similiar. On the big issues, there is a bi-partisan consensus. If, at some point in the future, this consensus runs contrary to what the people really need or want, watch out. Example: fiscal policy. The US fiscal policy is deeply, deeply anti-democratic. Just when things look like it may crash big and hard, a fix is found. In the most recent cycle of boom/bust, the answer was cheap money. Low intrest rates took capital out of hiding and spread it around. In the early days of the country, inflation ran wild, and there were very serious signs of a major revolution against the early American government. Foreclosure of mortgages was the cause. Something like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsing would be (1) more than any bailout could fix and (2) likely to affect about 50% of all home owners. More info: link, link, link.
b) If you honestly think that a guerrilla army of 5 million could form in the United States without drawing the attention of the government, you're an idiot. Assuming, of course, that it didn't form overnight, a la "Red Dawn." and if you assume that, you're worse than an idiot -- you're Patrick Swayze.
I am not an idiot. A militia of that size could form, and would be legal! That's why the second amendment is important. This army could form publically, advertise, cache arms/supplies and train. They could hold induction drives, and do just about anything the army can do. That's the great thing about the 2nd amendment. Sure, the FBI/whoever will infilitrate it. But if the unrest is real, a militia will form, and the government will uake with terror. At a time when the middle-east was white hot, yet, Clinton and the DOJ declared that anti-government right-wing militias were the #1 threat to the US. Depending on acco
The US Armed Forces could never - never - suppress a widespread revolution.
In the first american revolution approximately 1/3 of the population was loyalist, 1/3 anti-loyalist, and 1/3 undeclared/uninvolved.
If even half that number - 1/6 - of Americans decided to turn against the government - and only half of them decided to take up arms - and only half of them were of fighting age and constitution you'd still be looking at almost 5,000,000 anti-government rebels. A standing army of 1.2M deployed world-wide would have a damned hard time fighting that war. If public sentiment turned against the government and any type of job action happened in the defense industry, Washington would be out of munitions and technology in a matter of a few short months. On top of that, a good portion of the military structure is civilian. If the rebels managed to wreck finincial havok and suspend payroll how many mid-level paper-pushers do you think would show up to fight fellow Americans out of the goddness of their hearts? How many tacticians, analysts, computer guys, and cooks would be sticking around facing mobs and retaliation?
The 2nd amendment is plenty to keep the government in check. A decently sized well-funded guerilla army could destablize and topple the government in less than 6 months. Someone with a little popular support, a few hundred million bucks, and a little bit of tactical sense could turn this country into enough of warzone to scare off foreign money, terrify the insulated paper-crats into hiding, and paralyze the government. After the economy crashed, and a general run caused panic in the population the federal republic would go under in no time.
The first time the rebels went to an army town and took out a couple dozen military family homes the army would crumble faster than you can imagine. Collateral damage is supposed to be for the enemy, not for the soliders families.
The first time the soliders bank accounts went into overdraw because payroll is disrupted and/or checks bounce the ranks would be decimated. Both from financial constraints and from morale issues.
The first time a unit is actually ordered and purposefully told to attack a rioting/rebellious crowd. Nothing kills morale more than taking out the people you are sworn to protect - not by accident, or lack of training, but by explicit command. All the laws and procedures setup now would be chucked out the window in a full style reveloutionary counter-action. Picking sides will halve, or quarter, the ranks.
Just curious: what do you run on these? Are they assembly only, or are you using something off the shelf?
Too large for the RAM? I have about 50 embedded devices running WinCE that clock in under 300kb.
That's the point you seem to mis-understand about "the Slashdot circle-jerk" (in your words.) The
You need to go through the thread again, and pay attention to user names. I never said that.
The hiring process industry-wide is just sick and non-functional. It's not just riddled with bullshit criteria (e.g., suits), and "please demonstrate your talent and inclination at bulshitting me creatively" kinds of bullshit questions (e.g., "what's your biggest deffect?"), it also most of the time doesn't even try to prove the important part: skill. Most people make it at best a bullshitting contest, where the one who can lie with a straight face gets the job.
That's not true for the positions I fill. There are requirements, and yes, a written test. You have to be able to meet every bulleted job requirement, or you aren't "qualified".
After that cut, I usually have hundreds of qualified programmers. Sometimes even more. And yes, things being virtually equal, the person who is well dressed and respectful gets the job. Apparently that means he/she is full of bullshit, and a bullshitter, and that makes me a PHB.
You are drawing conclusions about unequal candidates and unequal workers, and associating their suit-wearing status as the cause, which is a fundamentally flawed equation.
You are so sure that I am not a good boss, and so sure that I am not hiring good people that you are blinded to the truth. It is not unreasonable to ask talented, accomplished professionals to look and act professional, especially on an interview. Right now I am wearing a pair of cargo pants and a polo. On Monday, when I have a big client demo and tour, me and my whole team will be wearing suits.
So the question is whether you want to pay for rituals (including suits, verbal masturbation meetings, etc) or for getting the job done. If you want rituals, sure, feel free to pay for rituals. But then you've just told me that you're incompetent at doing your real job, and mis-use corporate funds for your little ritual entertainment.
The thing is, I can have both. When we have an open job position, I can get both things. I can a person who respects me, and wears a nice suit to an interview.
That's the great thing. See, I can have a person who does great work, does a quality job, is well-rounded, and respects his/her job.
You assume that asking you to wear a suit means I am a PHB, that I am incompetent, and that I am going to cause you more stress than not. That's fine. Go ahead. Think that. But you will be wrong.
Wrong.
An employer can have it all. Unless you are super qualified, or uniquely qualified, you should wear a suit. Two employees, virtually equal, one wearing a suit, one not, guess which will get hired 99% of the time?
Drop me an e-mail. I will find you that person, but not for free. We can make it a bet. I've taken and won this type of bet before.
Also, you might want to look into minimum wage laws. If you are working even 6 hr days, 5 days a week, 4 weeks month, you are making way, like 30 cents an hour?
We're not talking about showing up for an interview "with taco bell bits left on your shirt". Few will claim that you should be able to wear your old Def Leopard t-shirt, forget to shower for the week before the interview, show up with prominent dribbles of barbecue sauce on your cheek, and expect your appearance to not count against you. To that extent, you're changing the subject.
I am talking about that. I am talking about wearing a suit, versus, wearing a t-shirt and jeans. If I expect a suit, apparently, I am making you a cog, a tool of the man, and disregarding your uniqueness. I've interviewed the guy you are talking about.
The issue here is suits, and your original implication that somehow, wearing a suit to an interview--as opposed to good looking business casual dress, not as opposed to sweatpants, or as opposed to a gorilla suit and pink tutu--somehow means that the person will be more professional, represent your business better, and be easier to get along with.
No. I will hire the suit person over the other guy everytime not for any of the reasons you list, but, other things being virtually equal, because he went above and beyond and wore a suit.
I respect all the people I come into contact with. But that doesn't mean mollycoddling them. You can be replaced. That's a fact. Unless you are extremely uniquely qualified, you can be replaced. And probably, not that hard. You have to respect that as an employee. I am not asking for daily signs of sacrifice or self-flagellation here, I am asking you and all others to recognize that you are part of a larger organization that will not stop if you pitch a hissy fit.
In any enterprise, unless you are running the show, you are a cog. That's a fact, simple or not.
My post generated negative responses because geeks are constantly thinking that age old business practices don't apply to them. They believe wrongly that they are a unique butterfly, and that if they left the joint, everything would fall apart. It's not true, and it's delusional. No matter how good you are, you can be replaced by someone better.
And that's why you should wear a suit to an interview, and why, if your colleagues wear suits, so should you. It's a no brainer.
If you don't have this attitude (along with some team-oriented ones) I don't want to work with you. If you don't respect yourself and the work product of your staff over the superficials, why should I?
Uhh, actually, I value performance and quality, cohesion and teamwork. We had 300 qualified applicants for our last opening, and this isn't in a huge area. There were at least 25 people who were qualified, capable, fit in well with the team, and who would have done a great job. So fine. I am saying, as I will repeat, when other factors are equal - which in many cases they are virtually equal - I'll take the well-dressed, well groomed, attractively packaged person over the slob everytime. Everytime.
The fact is I am not talking about some mythical cog. For every person hired, including yourself, there is a more qualified, more capable, better candidate willing to work for less. That's a fact. If you are doubting me, contact me privately and we can make a wager. I can find you that person in 6 weeks on a small budget. Subjectively and quantatively, for every person on your team, I can find a better fit, a better worker, a more capable employee, a more honest person, and that person will gladly take the position for 10% less than you are currently paying.
Everyone may contribute a UNIQUE part of the puzzle, but that does not make a person unique.
Sorry, I manage a team of programmers. Nothing glamourous, but still, it's a great job, and I am good boss, and my boss is a good boss, and his boss is a good boss.
If me not getting a job depends on suits and clothing
I said no such thing. I said if someone who was your equal or better came applied for the same job as you, and you came in with taco bell bits left on your shirt, and the other guy came in with a three-piece suit on, I'd pick the other guy, every time.
then I don't want to work for somebody as shallow-minded as yourself
That's fine, but I *300* qualified applicants for my last opening. All with degrees, all with experience, all qualified. I could have easily hired any one of 20 people for the position. So obviously I am not that far outside of the mainstream.
Odds are that the people working for you are very unhappy and that you are clueless about your turnover problem.
We have no turnover problem. Growth.
But in business, especially the marketing peons and others who think appearance is everything, clothes make the man.
No, no, no.
Funny how they think that clothing, rather then actions, make a person.
No, no, no.
Look. Whatever job you do, there are a certain number of people who do the same thing as you, but better. Faster, cheaper, closer to the right place, whatever. There are also a huge number of people who do the job as well, or virtually as well, as you do. Similiar cost, similiar distance, turn around times, etc. It doesn't matter the industry.
Basically, you are NOT a unique snowflake. You are NOT a beautiful flower. No matter how much you think business will stop if you leave, chances are it won't. It may be difficult for a bit, but things will get better, and smooth out. There are few people who "essential" to any reasonably sized enterprise. Unless you have a "business principle" insurance policy on taken out by your boss, or you are the *owner* or high-boss of an enterprise, you are not probably essential.
So what makes people pick you, instead of the dozens of almost-you knock-offs, that realistically, can do the same exact quality of job?
Things are *never* truly equal between candidates for a position, but they are virtually equal. There is almost always more than one candidate who can do the job, at the specified cost, in quality manner. That's just how it is.
So back on to suits. When I'm hiring a person, I usually have 3-5 people who could all be the hired person. At that point, it is up to me to pick a person. And on the list of things I look for is apperance. Will I feel ashamed to have this person represent my group? Will I feel akward having this person give a public speech? Will I feel weird standing next to this person at a trade conference? What about the other employees? Are they going to hostile to this person? What about me? Does this person jibe well with me? Or the person rebellious for the fun of it - argumentative for no reason?
The way the person looks is a factor. There are dozens of people like you. You are interchangeable. You probably aren't especially well qualified for the job over anyone else.
ALl bets are off if you are truly exceptionally qualified, but that is rare.
You laugh at marketing, but what you forget is that there millions of people who can do their job. And they know it. And that means they all want to look clean, presentable, and professional.
Suits come back when jobs are harder to find. It's an advantage.
laser!
Win* actually does not need it, but HP - since they've become such a crappy system - tries to trick you into thinking you need it.
If you dig a bit Windows will install just the driver.
Seriously, if anyone is still using Hp printers of the ink variety, stop.
You are straight on. One of the major problems with large pipeline chips is that they fill the various cache slots with what is predicted to be needed. If you have a huge cache pipeline, and the CPU thinks its going to need certain commands in that pipeline, and it in fact doesn't, all those prefetched bits are wasted, and the CPU is suddenly memory bound for a huge number of cycles. On systems with tons of CPUs, this is a very large problem. If you have 32 CPUs, and 15 of them incorrectly predict which branch will be taken in a single cycle, suddenly all those CPUs are going to be choked.
Actually, this is a good idea. Think of it like this.
Anyone can buy a copyright on their original work. First year is $1. Each additional year is double the previous year. So, for 4 years of protection, you pay $1 + $2 + $4 + $8 = $15. Great. Easy, you can copyright a lot of works, no problem.
If you want to protect something for a long time, say, 10 years, it's not impossible, just a bit more expensive. It has to be *worth* it to you. For 10 years you have to pay a total of $1,023. Not bad. If its a substanial work, its worth it. If it's nothing, don't worry. Everyone benefits.
At 21 years, it'll cost over $1M a year. At 31 years, $1B a year. At 33 years, $4B a year.
The more you think of it, the more you see:
1. It protects copyright holders. With the extra fees some reasonable and fair enforcement could be paid for.
2. It protects the public interest. Forever copyrights are possible, just not exactly cheap.
3. It solves the issue of "forgotten" works - works that are not maintained but cannot be copied thanks to copyright that is inflexible.