You added nothing to this conversation except for to make yourself look like a complete and total douchebag by arguing a detail that makes no difference to the situation. War does not always mean the act of congress as defined in the Constitution. See the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on terror.
You go too far though. Its a spectrum. Somewhere between "We're all the same, man" and "get in the oven, Jew" is a way to retain the humanity lost at both ends of the spectrum.
Yeah, lets not judge people based on personality, intelligence, looks, or anything else that is genetic. In fact, lets not judge people at all. Job interviews will from now on consist of one question: Do you want the job? And their may only be one answer (since we can't judge the works of people, that is the same as judging the people, and jobs are created by the works of people): Yes. Oh what a great world we live in. This is the problem with the whole equal rights for women and minorities thing. It works if the minorities are minoritorious enough, but the logical conclusion is to treat everybody equally since personality and skills are fundamentally the same as race and gender: bits of DNA arranged at random in some chick's womb.
Yes, based on your one particular school. Tell me, what of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and pretty much any successful actor? Did Steve Jobs, John Carmack or The Beatles work hard enough for you? Any successful person you know of outside of political spheres probably worked a lot of loooong nights for a looooong time. It sounds to me like you are resentful of the rich kids who stole your date to the school dance with the cars they didn't pay for.
But you don't understand! We need to all race to the bottom. Failures should be the same as successes because we haven't done enough to halt our evolution in its tracks in the name of being fair. In an effort to be truly humane, we must strip away everything it means to be human. That way we can all be empty, miserable shells instead of just the genetic failures.
Did typing that make you feel oh so important? It must really get your goat that nobody has offered you an e-beej in the over 2 hours since you posted that. Don't they know you know something? You're just the worst.
All i heard was "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M SMART! If you think differently than me you have no freedom. All freedoms come from doing what I agree with!" So you'll forgive me if I call you a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot.
Well to be honest, I would rather go for the guy making enough money to have nice shit, he's clearly moving more product. It could be things other than just seizing stuff for money.
I found that at least where I am (Cincinnati area) things were real shitty for a while but suddenly recruiters are on me constantly with positions. I can't tell if that means the economy is picking back up or if I finally got enough years of experience that they no longer care about never finishing my CS degree. I guess time will tell. Enjoy your editing, I always wished I was able to do the creative visual/audio type stuff. Even my web design skills are awful, even though I know about as much HTML and CSS as you could want to know.
36% raise this year (not really I switched companies, but the old place offered me::busts out calculator:: 19%), but I was in a position where I didn't really need to work as much as I did because I got way more done way faster than everybody else and ended up being able to leave a little bit early every day without any complaints from management. Good lord that first post had some typos. So I guess you do have ability beyond what the position calls for. I didn't mean to challenge or offend you, man.
This, exactly. Getting to know people at work lets me secrete all my knowledge and enthusiam juices on somebody who will actually absorb it instead of pretending to understand. Socializing at work lets you have victories you can enjoy and frustrations you can express, unless you happen to have a bunch of friends who used to work ont he same kind of software you do and you spend a good portion of your conversations describing the idiots you have to work with. Lunches are a great place for bitching about idiots in other departments or in management when you're frustrated, or bragging about your sweet skills when you've just done something cool.
I'm betting you dont' really need to work the whole time you are work to get the job done (due to ability beyond what the position calls for) , or don't get very many raises/promotions for your attitude.
They're not trying to be your friend, they just enjoy being around people. Introverts find it hard to understand and it took me a long time to figure it out. When an extrovert talks to you in a nice, upbeat way and wants to know what the deal is with your life, they aren't trying to be "friends" like I would consider a friend, they're just entertaining themselves and hopefully you for a brief stretch of time. I'm not friends with you guys, but here we all are. Extroverts are like that in person. It's a lot easier to date extroverts now that I realize how they are different than me.
Your line of argument, where people benefit from society so society is entitled to that persons benefits, seems to me to be double dipping. Property taxes are an extremely just and reasonable tax. I believe we can both agree on the fact that the original "rights" to a piece of land and its resources is basically a gift from society, in return society gets property taxes from the person they gave the rights to. However, when I take the benefits of living in society (such as electricity to power my computer) I pay for that. I did something to help somebody else in society (developed software that people sell to other people so they can do their jobs so society can benefit from their work), took the payment for that, and exchanged it for something from a member of society.
Now lets just say I get super rich writing software. Presumably the people I sold to got their money from providing value to somebody else in society who got their money from either welfare or providing value to somebody else in society. For me to get rich I have to be providing more value than I am using as evaluated on a trade by trade basis. That is to say it was worth it for another person to give me their software for $2000 I got by selling my software, but I sold my software for $4000 because somebody else valued my software more than I valued the $2000 software. Suddenly "society" (as expressed through government I assume?) decides that I got rich off the backs of society without giving enough back. How can that be? I'm creating value, things people want, taking that value and increasing my ability to make value until I am super rich.
"Society" capriciously decides they need to take more of my money because the individual deals I made with the people that make up society weren't right. Society wants to override the decisions of individuals under the guise of "we didn't get ours and you benefit from us." Well guess what, that sword cuts both ways. If the rich benefit from society, society benefits from the rich through the same network that the rich benefit from society. The only thing up for debate is how much value was assigned to each trade and this is why I brought up the mouthbreathers that surround you every day: Would you rather be in charge of valuing the things you trade for, or would you rather a majority of other people evaluate that? I would rather be able to evaluate that myself as if I judge wrong I'm the one who lost too much, nobody else except a hypothetical person who could have also gotten that money if I decided to not spend so much or not to purchase that particular thing.
Just as an example lets assume that I have two friends, and we live in the same apartment. We split up the identical bedrooms amongst ourselves, but I decide I'm going to pay Friend A $20 in rent every month so I can use his closet space. Friend A then uses that $20 to buy some nice stuff, and suddenly Friend B complains that I should have to pay more in rent because I have more space than he does, and Friend A should have to pay more because he has more money. Money that he got from exchanging part of this apartment that he wouldn't have been able to afford without Friend B's help. That is how I view the opinion that the rich got rich from society so all of their things truly belong to society. Friend B in reality does not have any claim to extra money from either party as they had a deal worked out amongst themselves.
The role of taxes, especially a progressive tax structure, should in no way be about rights to a benefit, it should be about funding the government. Now, of course a progressive tax structure is nice since we can get more funds for the government without destroying people with little to no value. In other words I think a flat tax only works in times of prosperity, and a progressive tax would work a little better in leaner times (but should be eased temporarily in disasterous times in an effort to stimulate jobs, and your definition of lean probably won't match mine). On the other hand a system where we have a consumpt
You arbitrarily say that she can have sex with whoever she likes, but you say that right comes from society deciding rape is bad? That's a shitty view of the world. I say rape is bad even if society condones it. I also think that deciding a trade of one resource (money) for another (a good or service) is a right, and post-facto analysis of a deal you had nothing to do with to get yourself something more is bad even if society condones it. You can defend taxes and high taxes but you can not defend looking at somebody's reward, deciding it is too much, and taking the rest. That line of thinking is dangerously stupid and selfish and smacks of jealousy.
Hordes of stupid people of a specific school of thought (such as creationists, racists, birthers, and fascists) do not become right when they have enough numbers. Your fundamental argument of society knows best is complete bullshit and you know it. All progress is based on reversing failures of society at large by a minority of brilliant people. You're advocating pillaging the brilliant for the benefit of society because society knows best. Fah, look around you. I bet more than 50% of the people you see are the same people you wouldn't want to be making decisions for you.
In high school I took an engineering course for 3 hours a day my junior and senior year. For my senior project I was using a BASIC Stamp to make a remote controlled cooler. Nothing is as cool as writing a program that interfaces directly with hardware to read a universal remote's signal, convert that in to a direction (rotate left, rotate right or forward), and be able to record and traverse up to four paths backward and forward in 16kB. When you only have a very limited amount of memory you start thinking about things like how many steps the path can have, what that means for the maximum duration of each step, if we make variable lengths for specific data elements does that get us more or less effective information, and in which cases? If I store the data in one way that is a little bit bigger, but it saves me 64 bytes of memory from program complexity is it worth it? Those are the problems I like thinking about instead of the best way to write code for a balance of reuse, stability, maintainability and portability.
Um... wtf.... they use 386s and 486s in spaceships because as you increase the clock speed and you decrease power consumption the more likely it is that your bits will get cancer from space. We should X-Ray a bunch of computers running pong from 1970 - 2011 and see which ones perform the best. X-Ray might not be enough, we could do CT scans or something though... I'd like to see that.
I greatly enjoy working with very small clock rates and amounts of memory. You don't have a bunch of layers of abstraction that require you to use more memory and more clock cycles to account for the fact that this software may be running on any hardware. It gets right down to the core of the problem where you are solving a logical puzzle instead of trying to figure out what the commands of a certain library do on abstract hardware.
For some reason I really like your typoed version of that sentence. It sounds like the kind of romantic comedy I would like to see complete with terror, bomb shelters and communists.
Not to mention most software ends up running on all kinds of different hardware, a lot of which did not even exist at the time of writing the software and therefore could not be tested on.
The reward isn't given by society at large, its given by individuals within society, then others in society come swooping in that had nothing to do with the reward and have no way to know why such an amount was given, and take some as their own. You can live in your fantasy world where the work of others and deals between two people are subject to review by others based on how much one party gave another, but the rest of us will continue to be decent people, unenvious of those who have more because we realize money isn't everything. Oh, by the way we all got together and decided your wife was too hot for you, so we gang banged her.
Slashdot Mirror
You added nothing to this conversation except for to make yourself look like a complete and total douchebag by arguing a detail that makes no difference to the situation. War does not always mean the act of congress as defined in the Constitution. See the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on terror.
As I recall, every Compaq machine I've ever seen was built like a god damned fortress. Talk about a pain in the ass to swap parts out of.
You go too far though. Its a spectrum. Somewhere between "We're all the same, man" and "get in the oven, Jew" is a way to retain the humanity lost at both ends of the spectrum.
Yeah, lets not judge people based on personality, intelligence, looks, or anything else that is genetic. In fact, lets not judge people at all. Job interviews will from now on consist of one question: Do you want the job? And their may only be one answer (since we can't judge the works of people, that is the same as judging the people, and jobs are created by the works of people): Yes. Oh what a great world we live in. This is the problem with the whole equal rights for women and minorities thing. It works if the minorities are minoritorious enough, but the logical conclusion is to treat everybody equally since personality and skills are fundamentally the same as race and gender: bits of DNA arranged at random in some chick's womb.
Yes, based on your one particular school. Tell me, what of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and pretty much any successful actor? Did Steve Jobs, John Carmack or The Beatles work hard enough for you? Any successful person you know of outside of political spheres probably worked a lot of loooong nights for a looooong time. It sounds to me like you are resentful of the rich kids who stole your date to the school dance with the cars they didn't pay for.
But you don't understand! We need to all race to the bottom. Failures should be the same as successes because we haven't done enough to halt our evolution in its tracks in the name of being fair. In an effort to be truly humane, we must strip away everything it means to be human. That way we can all be empty, miserable shells instead of just the genetic failures.
Not saying how I know but I know it's not money
Did typing that make you feel oh so important? It must really get your goat that nobody has offered you an e-beej in the over 2 hours since you posted that. Don't they know you know something? You're just the worst.
All i heard was "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M SMART! If you think differently than me you have no freedom. All freedoms come from doing what I agree with!" So you'll forgive me if I call you a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot.
You can tell this one is a real woman, look how much she talks but how little she says.
Well to be honest, I would rather go for the guy making enough money to have nice shit, he's clearly moving more product. It could be things other than just seizing stuff for money.
I found that at least where I am (Cincinnati area) things were real shitty for a while but suddenly recruiters are on me constantly with positions. I can't tell if that means the economy is picking back up or if I finally got enough years of experience that they no longer care about never finishing my CS degree. I guess time will tell. Enjoy your editing, I always wished I was able to do the creative visual/audio type stuff. Even my web design skills are awful, even though I know about as much HTML and CSS as you could want to know.
The UK.
36% raise this year (not really I switched companies, but the old place offered me ::busts out calculator:: 19%), but I was in a position where I didn't really need to work as much as I did because I got way more done way faster than everybody else and ended up being able to leave a little bit early every day without any complaints from management. Good lord that first post had some typos. So I guess you do have ability beyond what the position calls for. I didn't mean to challenge or offend you, man.
This, exactly. Getting to know people at work lets me secrete all my knowledge and enthusiam juices on somebody who will actually absorb it instead of pretending to understand. Socializing at work lets you have victories you can enjoy and frustrations you can express, unless you happen to have a bunch of friends who used to work ont he same kind of software you do and you spend a good portion of your conversations describing the idiots you have to work with. Lunches are a great place for bitching about idiots in other departments or in management when you're frustrated, or bragging about your sweet skills when you've just done something cool.
I'm betting you dont' really need to work the whole time you are work to get the job done (due to ability beyond what the position calls for) , or don't get very many raises/promotions for your attitude.
They're not trying to be your friend, they just enjoy being around people. Introverts find it hard to understand and it took me a long time to figure it out. When an extrovert talks to you in a nice, upbeat way and wants to know what the deal is with your life, they aren't trying to be "friends" like I would consider a friend, they're just entertaining themselves and hopefully you for a brief stretch of time. I'm not friends with you guys, but here we all are. Extroverts are like that in person. It's a lot easier to date extroverts now that I realize how they are different than me.
Your line of argument, where people benefit from society so society is entitled to that persons benefits, seems to me to be double dipping. Property taxes are an extremely just and reasonable tax. I believe we can both agree on the fact that the original "rights" to a piece of land and its resources is basically a gift from society, in return society gets property taxes from the person they gave the rights to. However, when I take the benefits of living in society (such as electricity to power my computer) I pay for that. I did something to help somebody else in society (developed software that people sell to other people so they can do their jobs so society can benefit from their work), took the payment for that, and exchanged it for something from a member of society.
Now lets just say I get super rich writing software. Presumably the people I sold to got their money from providing value to somebody else in society who got their money from either welfare or providing value to somebody else in society. For me to get rich I have to be providing more value than I am using as evaluated on a trade by trade basis. That is to say it was worth it for another person to give me their software for $2000 I got by selling my software, but I sold my software for $4000 because somebody else valued my software more than I valued the $2000 software. Suddenly "society" (as expressed through government I assume?) decides that I got rich off the backs of society without giving enough back. How can that be? I'm creating value, things people want, taking that value and increasing my ability to make value until I am super rich.
"Society" capriciously decides they need to take more of my money because the individual deals I made with the people that make up society weren't right. Society wants to override the decisions of individuals under the guise of "we didn't get ours and you benefit from us." Well guess what, that sword cuts both ways. If the rich benefit from society, society benefits from the rich through the same network that the rich benefit from society. The only thing up for debate is how much value was assigned to each trade and this is why I brought up the mouthbreathers that surround you every day: Would you rather be in charge of valuing the things you trade for, or would you rather a majority of other people evaluate that? I would rather be able to evaluate that myself as if I judge wrong I'm the one who lost too much, nobody else except a hypothetical person who could have also gotten that money if I decided to not spend so much or not to purchase that particular thing.
Just as an example lets assume that I have two friends, and we live in the same apartment. We split up the identical bedrooms amongst ourselves, but I decide I'm going to pay Friend A $20 in rent every month so I can use his closet space. Friend A then uses that $20 to buy some nice stuff, and suddenly Friend B complains that I should have to pay more in rent because I have more space than he does, and Friend A should have to pay more because he has more money. Money that he got from exchanging part of this apartment that he wouldn't have been able to afford without Friend B's help. That is how I view the opinion that the rich got rich from society so all of their things truly belong to society. Friend B in reality does not have any claim to extra money from either party as they had a deal worked out amongst themselves.
The role of taxes, especially a progressive tax structure, should in no way be about rights to a benefit, it should be about funding the government. Now, of course a progressive tax structure is nice since we can get more funds for the government without destroying people with little to no value. In other words I think a flat tax only works in times of prosperity, and a progressive tax would work a little better in leaner times (but should be eased temporarily in disasterous times in an effort to stimulate jobs, and your definition of lean probably won't match mine). On the other hand a system where we have a consumpt
You arbitrarily say that she can have sex with whoever she likes, but you say that right comes from society deciding rape is bad? That's a shitty view of the world. I say rape is bad even if society condones it. I also think that deciding a trade of one resource (money) for another (a good or service) is a right, and post-facto analysis of a deal you had nothing to do with to get yourself something more is bad even if society condones it. You can defend taxes and high taxes but you can not defend looking at somebody's reward, deciding it is too much, and taking the rest. That line of thinking is dangerously stupid and selfish and smacks of jealousy.
Hordes of stupid people of a specific school of thought (such as creationists, racists, birthers, and fascists) do not become right when they have enough numbers. Your fundamental argument of society knows best is complete bullshit and you know it. All progress is based on reversing failures of society at large by a minority of brilliant people. You're advocating pillaging the brilliant for the benefit of society because society knows best. Fah, look around you. I bet more than 50% of the people you see are the same people you wouldn't want to be making decisions for you.
In high school I took an engineering course for 3 hours a day my junior and senior year. For my senior project I was using a BASIC Stamp to make a remote controlled cooler. Nothing is as cool as writing a program that interfaces directly with hardware to read a universal remote's signal, convert that in to a direction (rotate left, rotate right or forward), and be able to record and traverse up to four paths backward and forward in 16kB. When you only have a very limited amount of memory you start thinking about things like how many steps the path can have, what that means for the maximum duration of each step, if we make variable lengths for specific data elements does that get us more or less effective information, and in which cases? If I store the data in one way that is a little bit bigger, but it saves me 64 bytes of memory from program complexity is it worth it? Those are the problems I like thinking about instead of the best way to write code for a balance of reuse, stability, maintainability and portability.
Um... wtf.... they use 386s and 486s in spaceships because as you increase the clock speed and you decrease power consumption the more likely it is that your bits will get cancer from space. We should X-Ray a bunch of computers running pong from 1970 - 2011 and see which ones perform the best. X-Ray might not be enough, we could do CT scans or something though... I'd like to see that.
I greatly enjoy working with very small clock rates and amounts of memory. You don't have a bunch of layers of abstraction that require you to use more memory and more clock cycles to account for the fact that this software may be running on any hardware. It gets right down to the core of the problem where you are solving a logical puzzle instead of trying to figure out what the commands of a certain library do on abstract hardware.
For some reason I really like your typoed version of that sentence. It sounds like the kind of romantic comedy I would like to see complete with terror, bomb shelters and communists.
But now we've got radiation in interstellar space! Don't you see we're fucked?!
Not to mention most software ends up running on all kinds of different hardware, a lot of which did not even exist at the time of writing the software and therefore could not be tested on.
The reward isn't given by society at large, its given by individuals within society, then others in society come swooping in that had nothing to do with the reward and have no way to know why such an amount was given, and take some as their own. You can live in your fantasy world where the work of others and deals between two people are subject to review by others based on how much one party gave another, but the rest of us will continue to be decent people, unenvious of those who have more because we realize money isn't everything. Oh, by the way we all got together and decided your wife was too hot for you, so we gang banged her.