Errm, no, not really. If you're talking about decent sound cards then there are entire music studios on a sound card, things like the Terratec EWS XXL with an onboard Microwave synthesizer, the Event series and so on. They're no more at the end of the road for people looking for performance than graphics card are.
This kind of technology worries me. I mean, it's bad enough that places like England have been turned into virtual police states through the installation of vast numbers of CCTV cameras throughout urban areas, but what if these cameras could not only track where you go and what you do, but everything you even look at?!
Sure, this technology is far too primitive to deal with that kind of surveillance at the moment, but once the initial proof of concept is there, then advances come quickly, and in a few years time a camera may be able to track your eye movements from a hundred yards away.
This really sounds like a horrible application to me, but you can just bed that law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies around the world would love to be able to install these devices in as many places as possible. And can you imagine what advertisers and market research people would pay for this data? Your every action could be profiled and filed for use in targetted marketing schemes based on what you look at in stores.
I'm not saying it'll happen, but it's still a damn scary idea.
This is a fallacy. Most people's "diets" for losing weight involves eating less than the required number of calories. Your suggestion would seem to follow this line (losing significant weight in a few weeks). Yeah your body will adjust, this behaviour will often turn on the body's "starvation" metabolic response. As soon as regular consumption is restored, the body starts storing even more fat against future starvation. Such yo-yo dieting is often at least as unhealthy as being overweight in the first place.
Yes, which is why I also recommended exercise as well. This is the reason why diet pills and the like don't work unless they're taken continually, and any real diet needs to affect a gradual, long-term shift in eating patterns.
I'm sorry if you got the impression I was advocating short-term yo-yo dieting, I wasn't, I was merely saying that improvements can start relatively early if you keep a decent diet plan up.
I'll get to the rest in a sec, but this comment is just too ignorant to leave...
You have it so much better than African refugees, and yet you complain that some people have it even better than you do perhaps? Maybe you cannot afford toilet steaks? I suspect that is so. Even if it's not, maybe you're a vegitarian or, god forbid, a vegan.
In case it had escaped your attention but anyone in the Western world with a job can pretty much afford to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat if they so desire. I certainly can, although I don't, because it's just piggish.
Anyway, back to the rest of your post...
It's one thing if I take a single bite, then throw the rest to the dog, even though that is acceptable, after all, I'm sure a lot of American dogs eat better than these starving Afric refugees you speak of.
So you're proud that you live in a country where it's acceptable for dogs to eat better than some people do? Oh wait, yup, that's America.
But, is it really wrong for me to desire a toilet bowl filled with cooked meat and potatoes? I don't think it is. That's like saying to the A frican refugees that they can no longer have something that they happen to have because there are some even less fortunate people over on the corner.
No it's not, your example is once again overconsumption, using more than you can eat. It'd be the same however if your starving African refugee got an entire toilet-seat steak to themselves and then threw away what they couldn't eat rather than share it with their fellow men.
So whqt else can we do but consume?
Consume less.
I'd be skeptical of any man that doesn't want to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat.
Being greedy isn't actually a sign of manhood you know. You don't have to be a whale to prove your masculinity.
But, sir, my real question is why you have such a problem with the American Dream being to 'consume as much as possible'.
Because American culture interprets this as "waste as much as possible" as well. It is possible to consume without such huge levels of waste.
I mean, nothing precludes those African Refugees from coming over here and starting a business, you know, nothing fancy, maybe an astrology shop.
Right. And current American immigration policies are obviously geared to this aren't they?
Living for your own hapiness isn't good enough, you have to piss and moan about how other people are unhappy too.
I'm happy, and it'd be nice if everyone was happy as well. But you seem to have a real problem with empathising with those less well off than yourself - why?
Unlike an addiction to a drug or one of those trivial ailments, trying to cut down on taking in food has a withdrawal symptom (hunger) that NEVER GOES AWAY. Don't eat, and I'll be hungry from now until I go to bed, and then again when I wake up in the morning.
Hi. As I'm pretty sure I said in my original post this is a matter of willpower, of making yourself get past these feelings. It's generally referred to in society as a diet. After some time your body will adjust to the reduced intake of calories and you'll have lost weight and stop feeling hungry. Of course if you can't maintain your diet for the necessary period of time (a few weeks at least) then yeah, you'll always feel hungry if you try it.
We're out of shape due to a lack of activity, which itself is mostly due to information technology professions exercising only one's fingers. Give me a job that gives me a good workout and I'd be in pretty good shape.
There are plenty of options to lose weight, not just work. Try going to the gym or going swimming, hell, even walking for half an hour a day can burn off those excess calories. There is no excuse for not exercising unless you're incarcerated. Hell, even then you can exercise, so no, there is no excuse other than a lack of willpower.
Perhaps mainly, but environmental factors do contribute.
Being Gay is genetic, so the argument transfers.
That's debateable still. Although it does appear that there may be some genetic factors, it's certainly not conclusive, and there is far more evidence to support environmental factors being the cause at present.
To me, fast food is the ultimate convenience. I don't have time in my two-job day to prepare four-star vegetarian cuisine for myself, so I'll settle for a Big Xtra from Mickey-D's cuz it's got lettuce. Granted, I could walk the extra block for the salad bar at the deli (which I also do occasionally) but hey, that Burger tastes damn good.
And that's it in a nutshell, convenience over responsibility. Why make the effort to do the right thing when the easy option is so much more, well, easy?
I do feel terribly sorry for the plight of those in this world who do live in poverty conditions, the area of Manderville Jamaica's average employment rate is somewhere near 48%. But hey, if I start giving away what little *I* make, then what am I supposed to pay the rent with? Goodwill? nope.
*sigh* You can contribute as much or as little as you feel you can afford you know. Why not set up a standing order to pay a few dollars each month when you get paid? It costs you next to nothing and yet to someone with nothing, it can make all the difference.
I hate this argument...it really pisses me off. It's almost like saying "Exercise some willpower and STOP BEING GAY" or similar.
No it's not, you're making a strawman argument. You can't make up some spurious argument linking two different things, prove one wrong and then claim the original one is then wrong by comparison.
For me, I built it up while I was swimming competitively in high school and college. When I finally left the sport (thanks to tendonitis in both shoulders so bad I couldn't swim anymore) I was left with a huge appetite and no way of managing the caloric intake on a daily basis. So I gained wait. It's not like I was eating a ton, but my calories weren't being used.
Well there you go. You weren't being greedy, I wasn't talking about you then. It's the huge numbers of Americans who eat without any reason to or way to burn those calories off.
Should I feel bad for eating better than African refugees? Hell no. Why should I? I work very hard to pay my rent and have my big steak on Saturday.
You shouldn't feel guilty, but some compassion for those less well off than you wouldn't go amiss.
You may have a point, but you're pointing the greed finger at the wrong Americans. The American corporations which market food may have more to do with it than the American consumers.
Yes, our national "food" industry does indeed have a large role in promoting unhealthy eating habits, but the trend of overconsumption has been in place for a lot longer than the rise of the fast food culture. Whereas most nations have moved away from the gratuitous consumption of vast meals America has indeed moved even futher towards gluttony.
The difference is that Americans have more disposable income and the corporations compete ruthlessly for that income.
Sure, but that doesn't make that much of a difference. It doesn't take a vast amount of disposable income to eat enough to become obese, and fast food corporations like Macdonalds compete worldwide for the attention of customers. So why is it that America is the nation with such a huge problem and such a large amount of consumption?
As I stated elsewhere, Americans believe it is part of their birthright to consume and consume without regard to consequences. It's this attitude that needs to change.
And I suppose you eat the amount of food as starving African refugees eat, and then give the other 11/12 of your food to other starving Africans?
No, you're right I do eat better than these people true, but at the same time I also give to charity every month. I recognise that there are people out there who have no resources and next to no opportunity, and it is, I feel, my duty to at least do something for them.
Sure there's no real need, but why not? People would rather eat good food and not be hungry all the time. I don't see any problem here. As long as people recognize that it will probably shorten their life in the long run...
Why not? Because most of the world's hunger problems are caused by things like this - inefficient use of resources and vast overconsumption by the First World, especially America. For a nation with 5% of the world's population, the fact that we produce 25% of its waste should say something about our living habits.
As a whole, America is a dirty place.
It's human nature to be selfish and greedy. The only difference is that Americans can afford it.
Unless you're a sociobiology fanatic who believes that their genes control every action they make (allowing them to do anything they want), then you have to believe that people can rise above human nature. Just because we may be inclined to be selfish (a debatable proposition anyway) it doesn't mean we have to.
Quite frankly, your attitude is exceedingly defeatist and gives us a clue as to why people in America today put up with so much crap.
It's called capitalism.
No, it's called laissez-faire which is only a variety of capitalism. There are plenty of more sane economic models in which sustainable growth can occur rather than boom and bust models where long-term means five years.
It's easier to swallow a pill than to have willpower.:-)
Whilst this is a great advance for both people with weight problems and in general for extending lifespans it doesn't really solve the underlying social problems that make us as Americans quite so unhealthy. After all, all this pill does is simulate something we can do quite well on our own with a bit of willpower - eat less.
Why do most Americans feel that unless they eat enough to feed a dozen starving African refugees they've somehow been cheated of what is their right? There's no real need for a steak the size of a toilet seat, and yet restaurants make this their proud boast. Quite frankly its disgusting that people are this selfish and greedy, but then again, it's the American Dream to consume as much as possible.
Maybe if we as a nation were less greedy we wouldn't need this pill. Simply having the willpower to live a healthy lifestyle would do wonders for the average lifespan in the US.
I don't think anyone would argue that the often irrational language advocacy that we see here and in other technical forums is a bad thing, because it obscures the fact that different tools are good for different tasks. Rationally, that's obvious, but the programming community isn't really very rational when it comes to discussions like this...
It seems as though any time a group of people discuss something they can't help but to get defensive about their beliefs. Maybe it's indicative of the maturity level of a lot of coders, especially the more vocal ones that have the time to post a lot. After all, if you're old enough to act like a grown up then you've probably got a job and less time to waste on places like/. Which is why it seems as though most/. posters have the emotional maturity of 15 year olds I suppose.
Unfortunately this all means that what could potentially be a very useful discussion for people interested in picking up new techniques and ideas devolves into a firefight between people who have backed themselves into a corner and have no intention of getting out.
Why do programming languages generate such heated and zealous "discussions"? Maybe it's again because the people invovled are seeking some kind of group identity which they're lacking in real life. In lieu of having a social group of friends, they idenitfy themselves as "Perl hackers" or "Java programmers" or whatever. Then when their "group" is perceived as being under threat, they fight back to protect what they see as an instiution that legitamises them, even if it isn't really real.
I don't see at all how either Qt, Motif, and GTK+ look any less professional than Windows MFC and the MacOS GUI. Could you please state your reasoning for your beliefs?
The lack of consistancy is my main gripe about these toolkits. Whilst they've certainly come along in leaps and bounds over the last few years, there still remain several areas where components behave in a way that doesn't match the rest of the system.
GTK+ is themeable to the point that you can more or less make it look like anything you want. AFAIK it provides all the relevant widgets that Win MFC does. Win MFC is customizable to what degree? Well, you can change the colours of a few things, if you want.
Sure it provides all the same widgets, I never said it didn't. As for theming, under Windows try Windowblinds. It allows you to change the look and feel of the GUI.
And have you ever tried programming a Windows application without using a GUI builder?
Yup, using direct API calls and resource files. But I can't see why I'd want to when I could use Delphi/C++ Builder instead...
Let me tell you... MFC programming is some of the ugliest programming that I have ever seen. Weird types such as LPSTR, having to call macros like BEGIN_MESSAGE_MAP, etc... make it very ugly and very unintuitive (not to mention hard on the wrists of programmers - why did MS make all their keywords capitalized?).
Very true, MFC sucks which is why I don't use it ever. There's no need to use it though, use the VCL toolkit instead which is much better, and makes programming Windows apps a piece of piss. There's nothing forcing you to use MFC, it's not integral to Windows after all.
There's the Cygwin project which has a complete set of GNU tools for Windows, but IMHO their version of Bash sucks in a major way - it sets up an odd directory structure which makes navigating around a disk a pain for one.
The best one I've used is the MKS Toolkit which also provides a complete set of UNIX tools for Windows. Unfortunately, it's just not free...
VA Linux made the correct decision here in complying with Apple's very reasonable request to remove these themes from their website. As well as avoiding potential legal trouble, the fact is that it would have been unethical for them to allow people to download these themes.
Why? Well companies like Apple spent a lot of time and money doing UI research and making their products look and feel as nice and consistant as possible. To then have someone spend half an hour knocking up a copy for another operating system simply means that their intellectual property has been appropriated and that their time and effort in making their product has been wasted.
The "big two" GUIs for Linux really need to move away from being copyware and start to develop their own "look and feel". At the moment they're playing catchup with Apple and Microsoft, and it's no wonder that people want themes that echo these GUIs on their Linux boxes. Like them or loathe them, nobody can deny that OSX and Windows have slick, professional desktops that show a consistancy and elegance still lacking in KDE or Gnome.
Perhaps as these projects mature more emphasis will be placed on the look and feel rather than functionality. Until then it's not suprising that people are jealous of more mature desktops and want to have them on their machines.
Try Ctrl-Shift-Escape to obtain the Task Manager. It's worked in every version of Windows I've used. I've found that Windows has a keyboard shortcut for pretty much everything in its GUI, and unlike under Linux GUIs, using a mouse isn't 100% essential.
Yet again we see another story about how thanks to England's wonderful system of telecommunications providers services that are going to be essential for the 21st century are being put back another five years.
In order to compete in the increasingly global markets companies and people are going to require fast, always-on internet connections such as ADSL, and for a country that purports to be aiming to become a centre of e-commerce, England's Government seems to be attempting to acheive the opposite with its love of monopoly providers and lock-in policies.
And sure, you can claim that BT isn't a public monopoly, but it might as well be and it still acts to ensure that only it can offer services desparately needed by consumers whilst its rivals flounder in a sea of changing tariffs and delays. And for as long as the British government continues to support a toothless watchdog rather than legislate sensible free market policies England will continue to fall behind in the 21st century.
Only in a free market economy can essential services be provided at a decent cost to everybody. As long as England continues to have a telecommunications monopoly with what might as well be State backing, this sort of thing will continue to harm it's interests.
Re:Introverted isn't *bad*, but it isn't healthy
on
Gifts For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
I've no doubt that for the majority of the population, you're right; but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Even for the people to whom it does applay, it isn't the case all the time. Equally, for those of us with distinct misanthropic tendencies, we still enjoy the occasional conversation.
But you're not making the distinction between people who don't need social contact and people who don't get social contact. I'd opinion that the former is a very rare occurance and indicative of serious mental disorders, whereas the second is what a person who is "introverted" suffers from. Hence their occasional foray into the world of conversation and relationships. They want this contact but are just too shy to know how to get it. They still need such contact and suffer from its lack. Online relationships just don't offer what real world relationships do, no matter how intense they seem.
Instead, I'll just say that it's rarely wise to illustrate a point by telling of how one character trait - introvertion, for example - can lead to nastiness (serial killing, in this case).
*sigh* That's not what I said. What I said was that serial killers had a lack of ability to emphasise and relate to other people. Whereas the introvert wants to but cannot the serial killer cannot and doesn't even want to; they just don't have that need. But in either case, a lack of social contact is a bad thing.
It's certainly what we were, and it's pretty much certainly still in our genes. But it's no longer necessary for our survival, and as such is expendable. We can do without it.
In the strictest sense it never has been; there have always been hermits and holy men who survived perfectly well on their own. But at least they had a calling and chose to exclude themselves from society.
And besides, in order to perpetuate our genetic makeup we need to find a mate. This is, and always has been, a very socially demanding task and somebody that excludes themselves from social activities is always going to be at a distinct disadvantage in this particular endeavour. So in this sense, social interaction is just as necessary as it ever was.
But we're straying from the point, here, which was Christmas/Saturnalia/Whatever. Let me ask you this: you advocate being nice to one and all at Christmas, and tolance for those we'd normally ignore. Which of these actions can we dispense with for the rest of the year?
When did I say you could dispense of them for the rest of the year? All I said was that most people don't make the effort the rest of the time, which is a sad state of affairs, and that people should make that effort at Christmas even if, or especially if, the rest of the time they indulge their selfish whims at the expense of others.
Re:Christmas isn't about presents
on
Gifts For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
I don't see how turning off the computer would make my loved ones happier. Almost every time I see them the first thing they say is "Can you sort out this computer problem for me?"
That's hardly very healthy is it? Sure, it's nice to be able to help people out, but when that seems to be all they're asking you for then I'd step back and take a look at the status of your relationships...
Introverted isn't *bad*, but it isn't healthy
on
Gifts For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Again, I come to the point: just because you (and, indeed, millions of others) think that being outgoing and extroverted are good things doesn't make it so. More specifically, it doesn't make introverted 'bad'.
No, being introverted isn't a bad thing, but at the same time it isn't really a healthy state to be in psychologically speaking. Humans are social animals and we thrive on interacting with other people - this has been the case since before we had language, and modern culture certainly hasn't changed this.
Just look at the internet - despite it's potential for creating sad, lonely people the main use it is put to is communicating between people, through email, newsgroups, IRC, ICQ or weblogs. People want to communicate.
It is people that have difficulties in relating to other people that generally end up with emotional problems. Serial killers in particular don't possess this emotional connection with other people, making them maniupulative and unable to empathise with their victims. Sure, introverted geeks aren't this bad, but it's still not healthy, and people shouldn't be encouraged to hide themselves away as a "valid life choice".
Can you elucidate on this? I've no idea what you mean.
See above, the human need for companionship and love is part of what we are. Whether or not we admit to it, we all crave that feeling, and people that deny it are punishing themselves and those that love them, to the overall benefit of nobody.
It takes little effort to make the attempt just once a year, and it can make people very happy.
Geeks need to make the effort
on
Gifts For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Have you considered the number of geeks who are maladjusted socially? The sort of people who, when thrust into the middle of a bunch of relatives they don't like and whom they only meet once a year, are going to be less than socially acceptable?
Nonsense, surely they can make the effort for at least one day every year? It's not like it's that difficult to socialise, especially with people who are closer to you than anyone else. Sure, there may be some relative strangers there, but there will also be the people you grew up with.
Oh, and Christmas may be a time when you don't think of yourself for you, but for may others it's a time for thinking only of themselves. For others still, it's a time of peace when they can have the office to themeselves. For many more, it's a time to get pissed.
And what, we should encourage people to be this selfish and/or introverted?
Why am I going through all this? Because Christmas may have its origins in religous festivals, but these days it's no more about Jesus than it is about Saturnalia.
Hence the lack of religious references in my post. Just because you don't believe in Jesus doesn't mean that you have to deny everything Christmas should stand for - family, giving and happiness. People who deny the validity of Christmas just because of their lack of religious beliefs are missing out on an important part of humanity.
It pisses me off to see people talk about Christmas as a time of good cheer and of being nice to your neighbours, as if it's perfectly acceptable to be an asshole for the rest of the year.
Of course it isn't acceptable to be an asshole for the rest of the year, but at Christmas everyone has the chance to get together and celebrate the things that make us human. To avoid this is to admit that something is seriously lacking in your life.
Christmas isn't about presents
on
Gifts For Geeks
·
· Score: 2
It's nice to see that even/. is wholeheartedly promoting the idea of Christmas as a time for getting expensive presents and shiny new toys rather than a time for reflection and family, when you come together to celebrate something other than the usual materialistic way of life that we revel in in America.
Just look at the list. It reads like a "gimme" list of things that you want from people, a list of toys that you want. It totally misses the point of Christmas, which is to make other people happy, not to gratify your lust for electrical goods.
Rather than spending days searching the net for things you want, why not spend that time thinking of how you can make other people happy? Christmas should be a time when you don't think of yourself, but instead go all out to bring happiness to other people.
Come on people, can't we stop thinking of ourselves at least once every year? Make the effort to turn off the computer and do something that will make your loved ones happy.
Violence in places like the Balkans and Rwanda is not racial. The Serbs and friends are the same race: they have the same skin tone, speak the same language and wear the same clothes. Tutsi's and Hutu's are less similar, but still show fewer differences than, say, the Polish and English.
Your understanding of the origins of these conflicts is somewhat lacking. Historically the majority of violent acts have been perpetrated by one racial group against another very similar one, with the current spate of violence in the Congo (a continuation of the Rwanda ethnic violence in many ways) being just one example of similar racial groups embroiled in bitter conflict.
In a similar vein, black on black violence in America has reached endemic levels, with such cases outstripping other kinds of violence. For some reason it seems as though people are more disposed to hate those that appear superficially similar but aren't actually the same than they do those that are markedly different.
Partly because, IMHO, there's no need for it in most Western countries at the moment due to the increasing availability of high-speed standard services such as DSL and cable. Wireless may work, but it's not as useful as these services, and there aren't really that many people who really need these kind of services all the time.
What I think is the *real* benefit of wireless though is for places like Africa, where racist violence and corruption have meant that there is a distinct lack of the available infrastructure to support high-speed net connections. In places like this, wireless connections would be a huge boon for encouraging education and the development of stable, capitalist economies which can enter the global marketplace.
Unfortunately, as this article shows, such a venture would only be profitable in the long-term, and as such no company will bother with it. Thinking of the long-term over the short-term is not part of capitalism:(
What is it with the current trend to romanticising criminals and their lifestyles, no matter what they do? Sure, this man isn't exactly a serial rapist, but there are other books out there which both allow criminals to attempt to justify and/or glorify what they did as well as profit from them. This is a pretty sad indication of today's culture.
And surely this sort of thing is just cruel to the victims of these criminals? If your loved one was murdered by some psycho and then you saw his book everywhere talking about how he did it you'd be both disgusted and upset? Why should people who have been victims of crime have to deal with this additional indignity?
Sorry, but criminals should not be lauded for their deeds. It's only a small step from there to a state in which crime becomes accepted as a fundamental part of life, not something which we should be attempting to get rid of.
I didn't claim that Python's whitespace-based indentation was rediculous at all. What I said was that people who won't use Python simply because of they don't like the idea of whitespace indentation are being rediculous, and missing out on using a great language.
I like Python, it's one of my favourite languages...
Slashdot Mirror
Errm, no, not really. If you're talking about decent sound cards then there are entire music studios on a sound card, things like the Terratec EWS XXL with an onboard Microwave synthesizer, the Event series and so on. They're no more at the end of the road for people looking for performance than graphics card are.
This kind of technology worries me. I mean, it's bad enough that places like England have been turned into virtual police states through the installation of vast numbers of CCTV cameras throughout urban areas, but what if these cameras could not only track where you go and what you do, but everything you even look at?!
Sure, this technology is far too primitive to deal with that kind of surveillance at the moment, but once the initial proof of concept is there, then advances come quickly, and in a few years time a camera may be able to track your eye movements from a hundred yards away.
This really sounds like a horrible application to me, but you can just bed that law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies around the world would love to be able to install these devices in as many places as possible. And can you imagine what advertisers and market research people would pay for this data? Your every action could be profiled and filed for use in targetted marketing schemes based on what you look at in stores.
I'm not saying it'll happen, but it's still a damn scary idea.
This is a fallacy. Most people's "diets" for losing weight involves eating less than the required number of calories. Your suggestion would seem to follow this line (losing significant weight in a few weeks). Yeah your body will adjust, this behaviour will often turn on the body's "starvation" metabolic response. As soon as regular consumption is restored, the body starts storing even more fat against future starvation. Such yo-yo dieting is often at least as unhealthy as being overweight in the first place.
Yes, which is why I also recommended exercise as well. This is the reason why diet pills and the like don't work unless they're taken continually, and any real diet needs to affect a gradual, long-term shift in eating patterns.
I'm sorry if you got the impression I was advocating short-term yo-yo dieting, I wasn't, I was merely saying that improvements can start relatively early if you keep a decent diet plan up.
I'll get to the rest in a sec, but this comment is just too ignorant to leave...
You have it so much better than African refugees, and yet you complain that some people have it even better than you do perhaps? Maybe you cannot afford toilet steaks? I suspect that is so. Even if it's not, maybe you're a vegitarian or, god forbid, a vegan.
In case it had escaped your attention but anyone in the Western world with a job can pretty much afford to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat if they so desire. I certainly can, although I don't, because it's just piggish.
Anyway, back to the rest of your post...
It's one thing if I take a single bite, then throw the rest to the dog, even though that is acceptable, after all, I'm sure a lot of American dogs eat better than these starving Afric refugees you speak of.
So you're proud that you live in a country where it's acceptable for dogs to eat better than some people do? Oh wait, yup, that's America.
But, is it really wrong for me to desire a toilet bowl filled with cooked meat and potatoes? I don't think it is. That's like saying to the A frican refugees that they can no longer have something that they happen to have because there are some even less fortunate people over on the corner.
No it's not, your example is once again overconsumption, using more than you can eat. It'd be the same however if your starving African refugee got an entire toilet-seat steak to themselves and then threw away what they couldn't eat rather than share it with their fellow men.
So whqt else can we do but consume?
Consume less.
I'd be skeptical of any man that doesn't want to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat.
Being greedy isn't actually a sign of manhood you know. You don't have to be a whale to prove your masculinity.
But, sir, my real question is why you have such a problem with the American Dream being to 'consume as much as possible'.
Because American culture interprets this as "waste as much as possible" as well. It is possible to consume without such huge levels of waste.
I mean, nothing precludes those African Refugees from coming over here and starting a business, you know, nothing fancy, maybe an astrology shop.
Right. And current American immigration policies are obviously geared to this aren't they?
Living for your own hapiness isn't good enough, you have to piss and moan about how other people are unhappy too.
I'm happy, and it'd be nice if everyone was happy as well. But you seem to have a real problem with empathising with those less well off than yourself - why?
Unlike an addiction to a drug or one of those trivial ailments, trying to cut down on taking in food has a withdrawal symptom (hunger) that NEVER GOES AWAY. Don't eat, and I'll be hungry from now until I go to bed, and then again when I wake up in the morning.
Hi. As I'm pretty sure I said in my original post this is a matter of willpower, of making yourself get past these feelings. It's generally referred to in society as a diet. After some time your body will adjust to the reduced intake of calories and you'll have lost weight and stop feeling hungry. Of course if you can't maintain your diet for the necessary period of time (a few weeks at least) then yeah, you'll always feel hungry if you try it.
We're out of shape due to a lack of activity, which itself is mostly due to information technology professions exercising only one's fingers. Give me a job that gives me a good workout and I'd be in pretty good shape.
There are plenty of options to lose weight, not just work. Try going to the gym or going swimming, hell, even walking for half an hour a day can burn off those excess calories. There is no excuse for not exercising unless you're incarcerated. Hell, even then you can exercise, so no, there is no excuse other than a lack of willpower.
Appetite/metabolism is genetic, no question.
Perhaps mainly, but environmental factors do contribute.
Being Gay is genetic, so the argument transfers.
That's debateable still. Although it does appear that there may be some genetic factors, it's certainly not conclusive, and there is far more evidence to support environmental factors being the cause at present.
To me, fast food is the ultimate convenience. I don't have time in my two-job day to prepare four-star vegetarian cuisine for myself, so I'll settle for a Big Xtra from Mickey-D's cuz it's got lettuce. Granted, I could walk the extra block for the salad bar at the deli (which I also do occasionally) but hey, that Burger tastes damn good.
And that's it in a nutshell, convenience over responsibility. Why make the effort to do the right thing when the easy option is so much more, well, easy?
I do feel terribly sorry for the plight of those in this world who do live in poverty conditions, the area of Manderville Jamaica's average employment rate is somewhere near 48%. But hey, if I start giving away what little *I* make, then what am I supposed to pay the rent with? Goodwill? nope.
*sigh* You can contribute as much or as little as you feel you can afford you know. Why not set up a standing order to pay a few dollars each month when you get paid? It costs you next to nothing and yet to someone with nothing, it can make all the difference.
I hate this argument...it really pisses me off. It's almost like saying "Exercise some willpower and STOP BEING GAY" or similar.
No it's not, you're making a strawman argument. You can't make up some spurious argument linking two different things, prove one wrong and then claim the original one is then wrong by comparison.
For me, I built it up while I was swimming competitively in high school and college. When I finally left the sport (thanks to tendonitis in both shoulders so bad I couldn't swim anymore) I was left with a huge appetite and no way of managing the caloric intake on a daily basis. So I gained wait. It's not like I was eating a ton, but my calories weren't being used.
Well there you go. You weren't being greedy, I wasn't talking about you then. It's the huge numbers of Americans who eat without any reason to or way to burn those calories off.
Should I feel bad for eating better than African refugees? Hell no. Why should I? I work very hard to pay my rent and have my big steak on Saturday.
You shouldn't feel guilty, but some compassion for those less well off than you wouldn't go amiss.
You may have a point, but you're pointing the greed finger at the wrong Americans. The American corporations which market food may have more to do with it than the American consumers.
Yes, our national "food" industry does indeed have a large role in promoting unhealthy eating habits, but the trend of overconsumption has been in place for a lot longer than the rise of the fast food culture. Whereas most nations have moved away from the gratuitous consumption of vast meals America has indeed moved even futher towards gluttony.
The difference is that Americans have more disposable income and the corporations compete ruthlessly for that income.
Sure, but that doesn't make that much of a difference. It doesn't take a vast amount of disposable income to eat enough to become obese, and fast food corporations like Macdonalds compete worldwide for the attention of customers. So why is it that America is the nation with such a huge problem and such a large amount of consumption?
As I stated elsewhere, Americans believe it is part of their birthright to consume and consume without regard to consequences. It's this attitude that needs to change.
And I suppose you eat the amount of food as starving African refugees eat, and then give the other 11/12 of your food to other starving Africans?
No, you're right I do eat better than these people true, but at the same time I also give to charity every month. I recognise that there are people out there who have no resources and next to no opportunity, and it is, I feel, my duty to at least do something for them.
Sure there's no real need, but why not? People would rather eat good food and not be hungry all the time. I don't see any problem here. As long as people recognize that it will probably shorten their life in the long run ...
Why not? Because most of the world's hunger problems are caused by things like this - inefficient use of resources and vast overconsumption by the First World, especially America. For a nation with 5% of the world's population, the fact that we produce 25% of its waste should say something about our living habits.
As a whole, America is a dirty place.
It's human nature to be selfish and greedy. The only difference is that Americans can afford it.
Unless you're a sociobiology fanatic who believes that their genes control every action they make (allowing them to do anything they want), then you have to believe that people can rise above human nature. Just because we may be inclined to be selfish (a debatable proposition anyway) it doesn't mean we have to.
Quite frankly, your attitude is exceedingly defeatist and gives us a clue as to why people in America today put up with so much crap.
It's called capitalism.
No, it's called laissez-faire which is only a variety of capitalism. There are plenty of more sane economic models in which sustainable growth can occur rather than boom and bust models where long-term means five years.
It's easier to swallow a pill than to have willpower. :-)
Sadly true.
Whilst this is a great advance for both people with weight problems and in general for extending lifespans it doesn't really solve the underlying social problems that make us as Americans quite so unhealthy. After all, all this pill does is simulate something we can do quite well on our own with a bit of willpower - eat less.
Why do most Americans feel that unless they eat enough to feed a dozen starving African refugees they've somehow been cheated of what is their right? There's no real need for a steak the size of a toilet seat, and yet restaurants make this their proud boast. Quite frankly its disgusting that people are this selfish and greedy, but then again, it's the American Dream to consume as much as possible.
Maybe if we as a nation were less greedy we wouldn't need this pill. Simply having the willpower to live a healthy lifestyle would do wonders for the average lifespan in the US.
I don't think anyone would argue that the often irrational language advocacy that we see here and in other technical forums is a bad thing, because it obscures the fact that different tools are good for different tasks. Rationally, that's obvious, but the programming community isn't really very rational when it comes to discussions like this...
It seems as though any time a group of people discuss something they can't help but to get defensive about their beliefs. Maybe it's indicative of the maturity level of a lot of coders, especially the more vocal ones that have the time to post a lot. After all, if you're old enough to act like a grown up then you've probably got a job and less time to waste on places like /. Which is why it seems as though most /. posters have the emotional maturity of 15 year olds I suppose.
Unfortunately this all means that what could potentially be a very useful discussion for people interested in picking up new techniques and ideas devolves into a firefight between people who have backed themselves into a corner and have no intention of getting out.
Why do programming languages generate such heated and zealous "discussions"? Maybe it's again because the people invovled are seeking some kind of group identity which they're lacking in real life. In lieu of having a social group of friends, they idenitfy themselves as "Perl hackers" or "Java programmers" or whatever. Then when their "group" is perceived as being under threat, they fight back to protect what they see as an instiution that legitamises them, even if it isn't really real.
I don't see at all how either Qt, Motif, and GTK+ look any less professional than Windows MFC and the MacOS GUI. Could you please state your reasoning for your beliefs?
The lack of consistancy is my main gripe about these toolkits. Whilst they've certainly come along in leaps and bounds over the last few years, there still remain several areas where components behave in a way that doesn't match the rest of the system.
GTK+ is themeable to the point that you can more or less make it look like anything you want. AFAIK it provides all the relevant widgets that Win MFC does. Win MFC is customizable to what degree? Well, you can change the colours of a few things, if you want.
Sure it provides all the same widgets, I never said it didn't. As for theming, under Windows try Windowblinds. It allows you to change the look and feel of the GUI.
And have you ever tried programming a Windows application without using a GUI builder?
Yup, using direct API calls and resource files. But I can't see why I'd want to when I could use Delphi/C++ Builder instead...
Let me tell you... MFC programming is some of the ugliest programming that I have ever seen. Weird types such as LPSTR, having to call macros like BEGIN_MESSAGE_MAP, etc... make it very ugly and very unintuitive (not to mention hard on the wrists of programmers - why did MS make all their keywords capitalized?).
Very true, MFC sucks which is why I don't use it ever. There's no need to use it though, use the VCL toolkit instead which is much better, and makes programming Windows apps a piece of piss. There's nothing forcing you to use MFC, it's not integral to Windows after all.
There's the Cygwin project which has a complete set of GNU tools for Windows, but IMHO their version of Bash sucks in a major way - it sets up an odd directory structure which makes navigating around a disk a pain for one.
The best one I've used is the MKS Toolkit which also provides a complete set of UNIX tools for Windows. Unfortunately, it's just not free...
VA Linux made the correct decision here in complying with Apple's very reasonable request to remove these themes from their website. As well as avoiding potential legal trouble, the fact is that it would have been unethical for them to allow people to download these themes.
Why? Well companies like Apple spent a lot of time and money doing UI research and making their products look and feel as nice and consistant as possible. To then have someone spend half an hour knocking up a copy for another operating system simply means that their intellectual property has been appropriated and that their time and effort in making their product has been wasted.
The "big two" GUIs for Linux really need to move away from being copyware and start to develop their own "look and feel". At the moment they're playing catchup with Apple and Microsoft, and it's no wonder that people want themes that echo these GUIs on their Linux boxes. Like them or loathe them, nobody can deny that OSX and Windows have slick, professional desktops that show a consistancy and elegance still lacking in KDE or Gnome.
Perhaps as these projects mature more emphasis will be placed on the look and feel rather than functionality. Until then it's not suprising that people are jealous of more mature desktops and want to have them on their machines.
Try Ctrl-Shift-Escape to obtain the Task Manager. It's worked in every version of Windows I've used. I've found that Windows has a keyboard shortcut for pretty much everything in its GUI, and unlike under Linux GUIs, using a mouse isn't 100% essential.
Yet again we see another story about how thanks to England's wonderful system of telecommunications providers services that are going to be essential for the 21st century are being put back another five years.
In order to compete in the increasingly global markets companies and people are going to require fast, always-on internet connections such as ADSL, and for a country that purports to be aiming to become a centre of e-commerce, England's Government seems to be attempting to acheive the opposite with its love of monopoly providers and lock-in policies.
And sure, you can claim that BT isn't a public monopoly, but it might as well be and it still acts to ensure that only it can offer services desparately needed by consumers whilst its rivals flounder in a sea of changing tariffs and delays. And for as long as the British government continues to support a toothless watchdog rather than legislate sensible free market policies England will continue to fall behind in the 21st century.
Only in a free market economy can essential services be provided at a decent cost to everybody. As long as England continues to have a telecommunications monopoly with what might as well be State backing, this sort of thing will continue to harm it's interests.
I've no doubt that for the majority of the population, you're right; but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Even for the people to whom it does applay, it isn't the case all the time. Equally, for those of us with distinct misanthropic tendencies, we still enjoy the occasional conversation.
But you're not making the distinction between people who don't need social contact and people who don't get social contact. I'd opinion that the former is a very rare occurance and indicative of serious mental disorders, whereas the second is what a person who is "introverted" suffers from. Hence their occasional foray into the world of conversation and relationships. They want this contact but are just too shy to know how to get it. They still need such contact and suffer from its lack. Online relationships just don't offer what real world relationships do, no matter how intense they seem.
Instead, I'll just say that it's rarely wise to illustrate a point by telling of how one character trait - introvertion, for example - can lead to nastiness (serial killing, in this case).
*sigh* That's not what I said. What I said was that serial killers had a lack of ability to emphasise and relate to other people. Whereas the introvert wants to but cannot the serial killer cannot and doesn't even want to; they just don't have that need. But in either case, a lack of social contact is a bad thing.
It's certainly what we were, and it's pretty much certainly still in our genes. But it's no longer necessary for our survival, and as such is expendable. We can do without it.
In the strictest sense it never has been; there have always been hermits and holy men who survived perfectly well on their own. But at least they had a calling and chose to exclude themselves from society.
And besides, in order to perpetuate our genetic makeup we need to find a mate. This is, and always has been, a very socially demanding task and somebody that excludes themselves from social activities is always going to be at a distinct disadvantage in this particular endeavour. So in this sense, social interaction is just as necessary as it ever was.
But we're straying from the point, here, which was Christmas/Saturnalia/Whatever. Let me ask you this: you advocate being nice to one and all at Christmas, and tolance for those we'd normally ignore. Which of these actions can we dispense with for the rest of the year?
When did I say you could dispense of them for the rest of the year? All I said was that most people don't make the effort the rest of the time, which is a sad state of affairs, and that people should make that effort at Christmas even if, or especially if, the rest of the time they indulge their selfish whims at the expense of others.
I don't see how turning off the computer would make my loved ones happier. Almost every time I see them the first thing they say is "Can you sort out this computer problem for me?"
That's hardly very healthy is it? Sure, it's nice to be able to help people out, but when that seems to be all they're asking you for then I'd step back and take a look at the status of your relationships...
Again, I come to the point: just because you (and, indeed, millions of others) think that being outgoing and extroverted are good things doesn't make it so. More specifically, it doesn't make introverted 'bad'.
No, being introverted isn't a bad thing, but at the same time it isn't really a healthy state to be in psychologically speaking. Humans are social animals and we thrive on interacting with other people - this has been the case since before we had language, and modern culture certainly hasn't changed this.
Just look at the internet - despite it's potential for creating sad, lonely people the main use it is put to is communicating between people, through email, newsgroups, IRC, ICQ or weblogs. People want to communicate.
It is people that have difficulties in relating to other people that generally end up with emotional problems. Serial killers in particular don't possess this emotional connection with other people, making them maniupulative and unable to empathise with their victims. Sure, introverted geeks aren't this bad, but it's still not healthy, and people shouldn't be encouraged to hide themselves away as a "valid life choice".
Can you elucidate on this? I've no idea what you mean.
See above, the human need for companionship and love is part of what we are. Whether or not we admit to it, we all crave that feeling, and people that deny it are punishing themselves and those that love them, to the overall benefit of nobody.
It takes little effort to make the attempt just once a year, and it can make people very happy.
Have you considered the number of geeks who are maladjusted socially? The sort of people who, when thrust into the middle of a bunch of relatives they don't like and whom they only meet once a year, are going to be less than socially acceptable?
Nonsense, surely they can make the effort for at least one day every year? It's not like it's that difficult to socialise, especially with people who are closer to you than anyone else. Sure, there may be some relative strangers there, but there will also be the people you grew up with.
Oh, and Christmas may be a time when you don't think of yourself for you, but for may others it's a time for thinking only of themselves. For others still, it's a time of peace when they can have the office to themeselves. For many more, it's a time to get pissed.
And what, we should encourage people to be this selfish and/or introverted?
Why am I going through all this? Because Christmas may have its origins in religous festivals, but these days it's no more about Jesus than it is about Saturnalia.
Hence the lack of religious references in my post. Just because you don't believe in Jesus doesn't mean that you have to deny everything Christmas should stand for - family, giving and happiness. People who deny the validity of Christmas just because of their lack of religious beliefs are missing out on an important part of humanity.
It pisses me off to see people talk about Christmas as a time of good cheer and of being nice to your neighbours, as if it's perfectly acceptable to be an asshole for the rest of the year.
Of course it isn't acceptable to be an asshole for the rest of the year, but at Christmas everyone has the chance to get together and celebrate the things that make us human. To avoid this is to admit that something is seriously lacking in your life.
It's nice to see that even /. is wholeheartedly promoting the idea of Christmas as a time for getting expensive presents and shiny new toys rather than a time for reflection and family, when you come together to celebrate something other than the usual materialistic way of life that we revel in in America.
Just look at the list. It reads like a "gimme" list of things that you want from people, a list of toys that you want. It totally misses the point of Christmas, which is to make other people happy, not to gratify your lust for electrical goods.
Rather than spending days searching the net for things you want, why not spend that time thinking of how you can make other people happy? Christmas should be a time when you don't think of yourself, but instead go all out to bring happiness to other people.
Come on people, can't we stop thinking of ourselves at least once every year? Make the effort to turn off the computer and do something that will make your loved ones happy.
Violence in places like the Balkans and Rwanda is not racial. The Serbs and friends are the same race: they have the same skin tone, speak the same language and wear the same clothes. Tutsi's and Hutu's are less similar, but still show fewer differences than, say, the Polish and English.
Your understanding of the origins of these conflicts is somewhat lacking. Historically the majority of violent acts have been perpetrated by one racial group against another very similar one, with the current spate of violence in the Congo (a continuation of the Rwanda ethnic violence in many ways) being just one example of similar racial groups embroiled in bitter conflict.
In a similar vein, black on black violence in America has reached endemic levels, with such cases outstripping other kinds of violence. For some reason it seems as though people are more disposed to hate those that appear superficially similar but aren't actually the same than they do those that are markedly different.
Partly because, IMHO, there's no need for it in most Western countries at the moment due to the increasing availability of high-speed standard services such as DSL and cable. Wireless may work, but it's not as useful as these services, and there aren't really that many people who really need these kind of services all the time.
What I think is the *real* benefit of wireless though is for places like Africa, where racist violence and corruption have meant that there is a distinct lack of the available infrastructure to support high-speed net connections. In places like this, wireless connections would be a huge boon for encouraging education and the development of stable, capitalist economies which can enter the global marketplace.
Unfortunately, as this article shows, such a venture would only be profitable in the long-term, and as such no company will bother with it. Thinking of the long-term over the short-term is not part of capitalism :(
What is it with the current trend to romanticising criminals and their lifestyles, no matter what they do? Sure, this man isn't exactly a serial rapist, but there are other books out there which both allow criminals to attempt to justify and/or glorify what they did as well as profit from them. This is a pretty sad indication of today's culture.
And surely this sort of thing is just cruel to the victims of these criminals? If your loved one was murdered by some psycho and then you saw his book everywhere talking about how he did it you'd be both disgusted and upset? Why should people who have been victims of crime have to deal with this additional indignity?
Sorry, but criminals should not be lauded for their deeds. It's only a small step from there to a state in which crime becomes accepted as a fundamental part of life, not something which we should be attempting to get rid of.
I didn't claim that Python's whitespace-based indentation was rediculous at all. What I said was that people who won't use Python simply because of they don't like the idea of whitespace indentation are being rediculous, and missing out on using a great language.
I like Python, it's one of my favourite languages...