Actually generally what happens is that one of your team members runs your really slick algorithm and realizes that it runs 10 times slower than the one that's built into the language in real world situations and rips it out.
I realize there are tradeoffs. But I think filling out the census forms and getting an actual representative for your group is worth more than not filling them out and having no representative in the bad times.
I've been enjoying Lucid a lot. The graphical finishes are really nice, and the social integration really is the first feature that I think makes Linux a nicer GUI to use than either Windows or OSX.
Can't wait for gnome-shell. Been playing with it a bit, and while not ready for prime-time quite yet, Linux is really moving into being a leader rather than a follower for the first time.
I completely agree. And wouldn't it be better if the poor illegal immigrant were paying $1 per month so that they were at least subsidizing that penicillin? I really don't see the value of "illegal immigrants can't buy health plans and contribute to reducing health care costs".
"You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?"
That's actually a bizarre statement. The options are:
1) Illegal immigrants can pay for health care in the open market (potentially taxpayer subsidized). 2) We can pay for illegal immigrants to go to hospitals as indigent care (definitely taxpayer subsidized).
I don't really understand why people would go for #2. If I can choose 100% loss vs. even 95% loss, I'm going to go with the 95%.
I can't wait for them to get it hooked up to my iPod so I can write while I jog. I don't care about silly hats if I can transcribe my thoughts. I realize I'll need to edit the output, but that's a small price to pay.
I have no gripe with them opposing the bill on principal. But they claim it's socialism and that there's no bipartisanship and both of those statements are patently false.
Oh you're correct. I just went and looked them up. The reason they've been ignored is that they're composed of:
1) Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration. I don't know how much these bills were taken into consideration when crafting the legislation, but the points are in both. 2) Junk points that are for scoring points with constituents and that never would be included in a bill that makes it to the floor in a Democratic congress (and that probably wouldn't have made it to the floor in a Republican congress).
Oddly enough, our system doesn't work by suggesting bills to the press. You don't get points for not submitting a bill. If they had submitted a bill and Democrats had ignored it or voted it down I might think you had a point.
I've already addressed these "focused solutions" in depth elsewhere on Slasdot. But basically from what I can figure out from reading conservative op-eds it's made up of:
1) Things that people can already do and that suggesting is kind of silly (HSAs) 2) Things that have already been done at the state level and proven ineffective at controlling costs in a meaningful way (Tort Reform) 3) Things that no one in their right mind would agree to (investing health care savings in the stock market)
You just have some politicians bitching that the plan they didn't submit has been ignored. I'd ignore that kind of behavior too.
No they haven't. The Republican Party has suggested a few bullet points in various op-eds. That's not a plan.
Mostly they've suggest everyone move to HSAs. That's not reform. It's a choice we have today, and the free market has overwhelmingly rejected HSAs for pretty much everyone who's not in the top 20% of household earners in the US.
Quoting op-eds in the Washington Post? Really? Op-eds? Excuse me while I go to the Daily Show site and find some rebuttals.
There's tort reform in the bill. Just because all the conservative op-eds are spinning it as "not real tort reform" doesn't make it so. You're picking nits. When the states all have their own standards you guys bitch that it's too confusing for business. When the federal government sets a standard you guys bitch that it's impeding on the rights of states to do what's best for them. You didn't say this bill doesn't have the tort reform program I like which is a, b, and c. You said there's no tort reform in the bill. Which is patently false.
"You must've missed the part where I said I paid my own bills at the urgent-care clinic" No, I missed the part where you said you had a couple of hundred thousand dollars on hand in case you'd had to go to the hospital rather than the urgent care clinic. You're lucky. Not responsible.
You do realize that saying things like "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist" just proves to the world that you're an ignoramus who is easily lead by talk radio. You're probably against medicaid cuts too...
Free market capitalism has nothing to do with your rights. It's an economic system. As such under the new plan you'll still be able to choose from a variety of plans, and in fact will have more choice since insurance companies will be able to sell across state lines. Currently most of America has only 2 health plans to choose from. Under the plan they'll have more. That's a more open market with more choice. I'm in favor of socialism. If it was a socialist plan, I'd call it a socialist plan even if Republicans proposed it. I can't help it that you have to call everything Democrats propose socialism. I've heard morons in your party call the tort-reform plans in the bill socialism too. It doesn't make it so.
"Who the frak are you to make those sorts of decisions for me?"
A responsible person who carries health insurance and foots the bill when people like you end up in the emergency room. So yeah, I have no problem with you paying your bill at the end of the year if you choose not to carry health insurance. I either want socialism, or a system where dickheads like you pay your fair share. I'm fine with either.
Bush killed the economy and started two wars. Obama has to fix it and win them..
You Republicans have got to be the fucking dumbest group of knuckle-draggers to ever walk the earth. It's no wonder that anyone with half a brain calls themselves independent.
1) THERE IS NO SOCIALISM IN THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING RESEMBLING SOCIALISM IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL FOR ALMOST A YEAR. Note, I've used all caps because you guys listen to people like Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, so I figure you need it in shouting form to get through your thick-ass skulls. Liberals want it, but it's not there. There is no socialism. No public option. Nada. Just free market capitalism with a gentle hand from the government. A very, very gentle hand.
2) When you say Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, I'd like to point you at this wikipedia article listing the top 10 economies in the world:
"How biased could you possibly be?" Just as biased as you.
"The fact that, in addition to "sitting pretty with socialized medicine," you'd also face Medicare cuts and a trillion dollar bill for 10 years is one of the reasons Republicans and the public don't want this" Ok: 1) THERE IS NO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IN BILL. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK ASS REPUBLICAN SKULLS! 2) MEDICARE IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. MEDICARE CUTS WOULD BE CUTTING SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. AS A REPUBLICAN YOU SHOULD BE FOR THIS! 3) THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION IN THE BILL.
I am livid. Because Obama is almost as far right as Bush and in some cases farther right. And then I have to listen to Republicans making asinine arguments that make no sense and opposing a bill that is basically THE EXACT SAME PLAN THEY PROPOSED. I'm just tired of Republicans. Period. You're worthless obstructionists who make no sense.
Sure, but remember. That's your fault. You've created a party and media empire that only exists to say everything Democrats do is wrong. The only way to get anything done is not to tell Republicans about it. Ball's in your court. Start acting like adults and you'll be treated like them.
Democrats already treat you far better than you deserve.
Yeah, I know it's fucking insane to try to get some work done. We've been trying to pass this bill since the first day of the Obama administration. I think at the one year mark is a perfectly acceptable point to say you're gathered enough input from obstructionists, and you're done listening to what they have to say.
And don't give me this "breaking procedural rules" bullshit. Your party is the party of breaking procedural rules and rewriting the entire congressional rule book anytime you are in power. Turn-about's fair play.
So you're saying the only way to be bi-partisan is to have no health care reform bill. That's the kind of bi-partisanship I'd expect from a Republican.
Blue-dog Democrats are just Republicans who got sick of the fact that Republicans are the party of doing jack shit and somehow still running up massive deficits. So yes, it is bi-partisanship to work with them.
Republicans have one platform - oppose Barrack Obama. Congratulations, they're doing a great job. When they look at their actual party platform and realize they've labeled everything in it as socialism, they're going to have a problem though.
No that's Bullshit. Democrats have presented a bill that's far to the right of a bill that Republicans would have even proposed, and Republicans are refusing to be a part of it at all. If there was not bi-partisanship than they would have rammed this through Congress and I'd be sitting pretty with socialized medicine right now. The problem is there have been far too many overtures to bi-partisanship.
Republicans don't want bi-partisanship. They want Obama to fail.
Closed door meetings? Stop bringing up bullshit Limbaugh talking points. There are always closed door meetings on capital hill. Are Republicans having public meetings on crafting there competing health care bill? That's a bullshit point.
What does "liberal" have to do with this story? Couldn't simply a news anchor say the same thing? Or does referring to CPAN and Google in a sentence make you a liberal?
Decomposition rearranges chemical pathways and creates new "information" as well, in much the same way that an atrophying living body will. Cell division is still occurring. New cells are being created. Old cells are sloughing off. New pathways are created in the brain.
But you're doing a fantastic job defending a completely asinine arbitrary position. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next.
I've found that too. I'm a java programmer professionally, but use PHP for my hobbyist stuff (which includes buyplaytix.com which is a pretty large app). And I find I have to find a balance between write-once and so cumbersome that I won't actually write new code. My favorite piece of code is one class that I feel perfectly straddles the line between ORM and writing ad-hoc SQL. And that's something I think PHP does really well. Finding that balance between over-the-top architecture and the completely unintelligible scribbles.
I'd say that the reason PHP is so grate for rapid development is that it has a fantastic class library. I find that I need a good framework in any language for certain size projects. I'll admit that I use my own in my projects because when I started working in PHP there weren't good MVC or ORM libraries.
But if I'm doing a five page site I'll just embed the html. But I think what you're describing is what makes a good developer. Are you smart enough to know when you should be using a framework and when you should be writing straight php files with markup embedded (and how to write the later so you can eventually move to the former if necessary)?
I could become a survivalist tomorrow and never depend on another human being again. That is a ridiculous comparison only made possible through the non-specificity of the English language.
A dead person is nearly identical to a living person from an information theory point of view also. Except they're dead. With none of the rights of a living person. Sure there are ethical concerns about what happens to a dead body. But the body is dead and is no longer a "person". Some bodies that are physically dead can be resuscitated through various means. At that point they are a "person" again. It's like the reverse of birth. Going from a non-person status to a person status. Like birth, in reverse.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually generally what happens is that one of your team members runs your really slick algorithm and realizes that it runs 10 times slower than the one that's built into the language in real world situations and rips it out.
I realize there are tradeoffs. But I think filling out the census forms and getting an actual representative for your group is worth more than not filling them out and having no representative in the bad times.
I've been enjoying Lucid a lot. The graphical finishes are really nice, and the social integration really is the first feature that I think makes Linux a nicer GUI to use than either Windows or OSX.
Can't wait for gnome-shell. Been playing with it a bit, and while not ready for prime-time quite yet, Linux is really moving into being a leader rather than a follower for the first time.
I completely agree. And wouldn't it be better if the poor illegal immigrant were paying $1 per month so that they were at least subsidizing that penicillin? I really don't see the value of "illegal immigrants can't buy health plans and contribute to reducing health care costs".
"You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?"
That's actually a bizarre statement. The options are:
1) Illegal immigrants can pay for health care in the open market (potentially taxpayer subsidized).
2) We can pay for illegal immigrants to go to hospitals as indigent care (definitely taxpayer subsidized).
I don't really understand why people would go for #2. If I can choose 100% loss vs. even 95% loss, I'm going to go with the 95%.
I can't wait for them to get it hooked up to my iPod so I can write while I jog. I don't care about silly hats if I can transcribe my thoughts. I realize I'll need to edit the output, but that's a small price to pay.
I have no gripe with them opposing the bill on principal. But they claim it's socialism and that there's no bipartisanship and both of those statements are patently false.
Because that's not how Congress works. Not now, not ever in the past.
Oh you're correct. I just went and looked them up. The reason they've been ignored is that they're composed of:
1) Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration. I don't know how much these bills were taken into consideration when crafting the legislation, but the points are in both.
2) Junk points that are for scoring points with constituents and that never would be included in a bill that makes it to the floor in a Democratic congress (and that probably wouldn't have made it to the floor in a Republican congress).
Oddly enough, our system doesn't work by suggesting bills to the press. You don't get points for not submitting a bill. If they had submitted a bill and Democrats had ignored it or voted it down I might think you had a point.
I've already addressed these "focused solutions" in depth elsewhere on Slasdot. But basically from what I can figure out from reading conservative op-eds it's made up of:
1) Things that people can already do and that suggesting is kind of silly (HSAs)
2) Things that have already been done at the state level and proven ineffective at controlling costs in a meaningful way (Tort Reform)
3) Things that no one in their right mind would agree to (investing health care savings in the stock market)
You just have some politicians bitching that the plan they didn't submit has been ignored. I'd ignore that kind of behavior too.
No they haven't. The Republican Party has suggested a few bullet points in various op-eds. That's not a plan.
Mostly they've suggest everyone move to HSAs. That's not reform. It's a choice we have today, and the free market has overwhelmingly rejected HSAs for pretty much everyone who's not in the top 20% of household earners in the US.
Quoting op-eds in the Washington Post? Really? Op-eds? Excuse me while I go to the Daily Show site and find some rebuttals.
There's tort reform in the bill. Just because all the conservative op-eds are spinning it as "not real tort reform" doesn't make it so. You're picking nits. When the states all have their own standards you guys bitch that it's too confusing for business. When the federal government sets a standard you guys bitch that it's impeding on the rights of states to do what's best for them. You didn't say this bill doesn't have the tort reform program I like which is a, b, and c. You said there's no tort reform in the bill. Which is patently false.
"You must've missed the part where I said I paid my own bills at the urgent-care clinic"
No, I missed the part where you said you had a couple of hundred thousand dollars on hand in case you'd had to go to the hospital rather than the urgent care clinic. You're lucky. Not responsible.
You do realize that saying things like "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist" just proves to the world that you're an ignoramus who is easily lead by talk radio. You're probably against medicaid cuts too...
"free market capitalism"
Free market capitalism has nothing to do with your rights. It's an economic system. As such under the new plan you'll still be able to choose from a variety of plans, and in fact will have more choice since insurance companies will be able to sell across state lines. Currently most of America has only 2 health plans to choose from. Under the plan they'll have more. That's a more open market with more choice. I'm in favor of socialism. If it was a socialist plan, I'd call it a socialist plan even if Republicans proposed it. I can't help it that you have to call everything Democrats propose socialism. I've heard morons in your party call the tort-reform plans in the bill socialism too. It doesn't make it so.
"Who the frak are you to make those sorts of decisions for me?"
A responsible person who carries health insurance and foots the bill when people like you end up in the emergency room. So yeah, I have no problem with you paying your bill at the end of the year if you choose not to carry health insurance. I either want socialism, or a system where dickheads like you pay your fair share. I'm fine with either.
Bush killed the economy and started two wars. Obama has to fix it and win them..
You Republicans have got to be the fucking dumbest group of knuckle-draggers to ever walk the earth. It's no wonder that anyone with half a brain calls themselves independent.
1) THERE IS NO SOCIALISM IN THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING RESEMBLING SOCIALISM IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL FOR ALMOST A YEAR. Note, I've used all caps because you guys listen to people like Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, so I figure you need it in shouting form to get through your thick-ass skulls. Liberals want it, but it's not there. There is no socialism. No public option. Nada. Just free market capitalism with a gentle hand from the government. A very, very gentle hand.
2) When you say Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, I'd like to point you at this wikipedia article listing the top 10 economies in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Of those, 8 are varying degrees of socialist and 1 is communist. Exactly how is that failing?
"That should be good news to any fiscal conservative"
Yeah, but all the fiscal conservatives are Democrats.
"How biased could you possibly be?"
Just as biased as you.
"The fact that, in addition to "sitting pretty with socialized medicine," you'd also face Medicare cuts and a trillion dollar bill for 10 years is one of the reasons Republicans and the public don't want this"
Ok:
1) THERE IS NO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IN BILL. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING THICK ASS REPUBLICAN SKULLS!
2) MEDICARE IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. MEDICARE CUTS WOULD BE CUTTING SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. AS A REPUBLICAN YOU SHOULD BE FOR THIS!
3) THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION IN THE BILL.
I am livid. Because Obama is almost as far right as Bush and in some cases farther right. And then I have to listen to Republicans making asinine arguments that make no sense and opposing a bill that is basically THE EXACT SAME PLAN THEY PROPOSED. I'm just tired of Republicans. Period. You're worthless obstructionists who make no sense.
Sure, but remember. That's your fault. You've created a party and media empire that only exists to say everything Democrats do is wrong. The only way to get anything done is not to tell Republicans about it. Ball's in your court. Start acting like adults and you'll be treated like them.
Democrats already treat you far better than you deserve.
Yeah, I know it's fucking insane to try to get some work done. We've been trying to pass this bill since the first day of the Obama administration. I think at the one year mark is a perfectly acceptable point to say you're gathered enough input from obstructionists, and you're done listening to what they have to say.
And don't give me this "breaking procedural rules" bullshit. Your party is the party of breaking procedural rules and rewriting the entire congressional rule book anytime you are in power. Turn-about's fair play.
So you're saying the only way to be bi-partisan is to have no health care reform bill. That's the kind of bi-partisanship I'd expect from a Republican.
Blue-dog Democrats are just Republicans who got sick of the fact that Republicans are the party of doing jack shit and somehow still running up massive deficits. So yes, it is bi-partisanship to work with them.
Republicans have one platform - oppose Barrack Obama. Congratulations, they're doing a great job. When they look at their actual party platform and realize they've labeled everything in it as socialism, they're going to have a problem though.
No that's Bullshit. Democrats have presented a bill that's far to the right of a bill that Republicans would have even proposed, and Republicans are refusing to be a part of it at all. If there was not bi-partisanship than they would have rammed this through Congress and I'd be sitting pretty with socialized medicine right now. The problem is there have been far too many overtures to bi-partisanship.
Republicans don't want bi-partisanship. They want Obama to fail.
Closed door meetings? Stop bringing up bullshit Limbaugh talking points. There are always closed door meetings on capital hill. Are Republicans having public meetings on crafting there competing health care bill? That's a bullshit point.
What does "liberal" have to do with this story? Couldn't simply a news anchor say the same thing? Or does referring to CPAN and Google in a sentence make you a liberal?
Decomposition rearranges chemical pathways and creates new "information" as well, in much the same way that an atrophying living body will. Cell division is still occurring. New cells are being created. Old cells are sloughing off. New pathways are created in the brain.
But you're doing a fantastic job defending a completely asinine arbitrary position. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next.
So by your standard a person is not a person until they have developed a brain. And thus personhood does not being at the moment of conception.
I've found that too. I'm a java programmer professionally, but use PHP for my hobbyist stuff (which includes buyplaytix.com which is a pretty large app). And I find I have to find a balance between write-once and so cumbersome that I won't actually write new code. My favorite piece of code is one class that I feel perfectly straddles the line between ORM and writing ad-hoc SQL. And that's something I think PHP does really well. Finding that balance between over-the-top architecture and the completely unintelligible scribbles.
I'd say that the reason PHP is so grate for rapid development is that it has a fantastic class library. I find that I need a good framework in any language for certain size projects. I'll admit that I use my own in my projects because when I started working in PHP there weren't good MVC or ORM libraries.
But if I'm doing a five page site I'll just embed the html. But I think what you're describing is what makes a good developer. Are you smart enough to know when you should be using a framework and when you should be writing straight php files with markup embedded (and how to write the later so you can eventually move to the former if necessary)?
I could become a survivalist tomorrow and never depend on another human being again. That is a ridiculous comparison only made possible through the non-specificity of the English language.
A dead person is nearly identical to a living person from an information theory point of view also. Except they're dead. With none of the rights of a living person. Sure there are ethical concerns about what happens to a dead body. But the body is dead and is no longer a "person". Some bodies that are physically dead can be resuscitated through various means. At that point they are a "person" again. It's like the reverse of birth. Going from a non-person status to a person status. Like birth, in reverse.