Even if your kid gets into drugs and robs a bunch of old ladies, you are still gonna say your kid is a good kid. It's possibly even rude/disrespectful to ask the guy. If you go up to a mother and ask "why is your baby ugly?" isn't that mean?
You're conflating two things.
Yes, it IS rude to ask someone why their baby is ugly, or to say that it is. The baby can't help the way it looks, and a lot of babies really are ugly. Hopefully they'll grow out of it. But it doesn't matter: baby-ugliness is just a cosmetic issue, and doesn't indicate any evil or malice on the part of the baby (or its parents). Calling someone's baby ugly is akin to making fun of retarded people: it's really, really low.
However, if someone's kid grows up to be a sociopathic criminal, then why shouldn't you be able to say that to the parents? Especially if the parents are defending their scumbag kid? Looks, esp. at a young age, aren't something someone has much control over. But actions, esp. at a teenage or adult age, certainly are. Parents should be ashamed if their kids turn out to be criminal pieces of shit, and while we shouldn't be too terribly harsh on the parents (some kids turn out this way despite the best intentions of the parents and with no evidence of bad parenting), we shouldn't deny reality either: these kids are trash, and if the parents defend the kids, they should be called out on it, because that attitude is actually making the problem worse by not providing enough negative feedback to the kid and enabling him.
It's the same with Apple. I don't care if it's "his baby": he *never* ran the company, and he hasn't even been part of the company in decades. It's turned into an evil monstrosity, so for him to defend them it is perfectly valid to criticize him. Would you tell Jeffrey Dahmer's mother that his kid was just "misunderstood" but a "good son"? Hell no. Same here. Apple is a horrible company that abuses the patent system and acts as a monopolist, producing horrible products (esp. iTunes, required to use the iPhone with a PC) and pushing the industry in a terrible direction with disposable devices at absurd prices. Luckily they're not actually a monopoly with phones (or anything else), as Android devices sell far more and are readily available, but their damage to the industry is real and worthy of criticism.
i also would never use a desktop that didn't run a unix or unix like operating system, so there's that. i also do not enjoy the inconvenience and lack of design sense that comes with linux on the desktop so there's that too.
Have you not used the latest version of Windows? "Lack of design sense" and "inconvenience" don't even begin to describe the horror show that is the modern Windows UI.
There's definitely a LOT to gripe about with modern Linux UIs (especially Gnome3 - what a piece of shit), but compared to Windows 8/10 it's not that bad. The unfortunately reality is that desktop computing as a whole has really gone down the tubes in the 2010s.
Smoke? A pack-a-day habit averages around $2k per year.
This is 2017; who the fuck smokes any more, except idiotic Southern Trump supporters? (And maybe some idiotic 20-something hipsters)
Have cable TV? In my neck of the woods, that'll cost you at least as much
Who the fuck still has cable TV, except fat football-watching Trump supporters?
Just because some red-state morons waste money on some totally unrelated things doesn't mean the iPhone is somehow a good deal. It's a waste of money: you can get better phones for a fraction of the price from a vendor that doesn't lock you into their ecosystem and horrible iTunes app. Why waste money if you don't have to?
yeah, good customer service makes a difference in customer loyalty - just ask Chick-Fil-A).
Chick-Fil-A has loyal customers because it's an openly Christian business, so all the evangelical Trump-loving Christian morons love to eat there.
Plus, as good old economics 101 will tell you, if people are still lining up to buy something - it's not overpriced.
Bullshit. It just shows there's a strong cult of customers who will buy your crap no matter what, for the same reasons people join other cults. To anyone outside the cult, it's overpriced.
My current 3-year-old Samsung phone (S4) is definitely my last Samsung phone, ever. No more money for you, Samsung, unless you decide to stop copying Apple and go back to making quality hardware.
They did: they made the Galaxy S5. I had an S4 before, and now I have an S5, and the S5 is better in every way. I recommend upgrading to that.
(Of course, the S5 is now 3+ years old...)
If the S5 becomes too cumbersome to use because of lack of updates or whatever, I'm really not sure what to upgrade to next, because everything on the market seems to suck now.
When David Cutler took his team from Digital to Microsoft (to make Windows NT)
I wonder how things would be different today if someone went back in time and arranged an "accident" for Cutler before he could arrange this transfer. Would MS have become the company it is now? Would they have come up with something like NT, or tried to continue on with the Win95 tech? How far would they have gotten with that?
but the culture here wants to believe there is some huge advantage to switching jobs every 30 months or so.
There is: your salary goes up, and in general is maximized according to what your value on the open market is. Companies won't give decent raises if you stay with them long-term, but by getting a new job you reset your salary to what the current market rate is. The downside to this, of course, is lack of stability for the employee, but it does help keep you from getting stuck in a rut.
Now how this situation benefits employers, I'm not sure. There's nothing stopping them from offering better raises and retaining employees so they don't have to suffer the costs and effects of employee turnover, but they just don't want to do it for some reason. I guess they're hoping that some fraction of employees will be averse to spending effort job-hopping and dealing with the uncertainty that comes with that, and that they'll profit that way, but what really happens is the worst employees are the ones who stick around for the reliable paycheck, and the best employees jump ship for a better offer in 18 months.
If you're talking about the non-Trump voters, you're quite wrong. Personally, I'm laughing about this, because this is going to hurt the Trump voters who wanted protectionism against the immigrants who'd take these unskilled jobs. It's ironic: they stupidly thought Trump would work for their interests and that he was different (despite all evidence to the contrary), and now he's working directly against their interests. I'm curious how the Trump-lovers are going to spin this.
I understand that in theory, but in practice, working in an office is sheer misery for me, and I'd much rather work at home. At home, it's very quiet, and I can always set aside a separate room just for my main job and make that my "office". At normal offices, it's just so ridiculously loud and noisy and chaotic, that it's extremely hard for me to concentrate and actually get anything done. Noise-cancelling headphones don't work well either: they get rid of annoying drones like fan noise or A/C noise pretty well, but then I can hear people's stupid conversations even better, which isn't helpful to me at all. Worse, people will sneak up behind me and startle me when I'm wearing them. Also, having so much activity and movement in my field of view all the time is distracting, and it's extremely uncomfortable having people right behind me constantly too. I don't have any of these factors at home, where I can control my environment.
How other programmers manage to perform in the conditions I listed above, I really have no idea.
No one, but that doesn't keep you from being legally bound by them in case you get into a legal dispute with the vendor. That's the beauty of EULAs: they're great for screwing people over, and even better, no one bothers to read them until it's too late.
Well yes, but the steam engine engineer wouldn't have to know about relativistic physics, electronics, computers, and a bunch of other fields the way a Starfleet engineer probably would.
A modern automotive technician is probably the closest modern parallel to your steam engine engineer, because they have to be able to diagnose problems and understand most of the systems of the car to a decent degree, and a modern car is very complicated with state-of-the-art internal-combustion engines (far more complicated than those old steam engines), computers, many different electronic control modules, plus suspensions, brakes, and more. Some of the work is simplified by electronic diagnostic tools, but that only does so much (usually just telling you some sensor is giving bad readings, which could be a bad sensor or indicative of a larger problem), plus many mechanics, especially independents, have to be able to work on all kinds of different vehicles from different manufacturers.
It's all a lot of confusion over terminology, namely the word "engineer" which obviously evolved from "engine" and has a history with train engineers. But to conflate a train-driving engineer with a modern engineer who designs logic circuits or bridges or car engines is simply false; they're two entirely different occupations and skill-sets.
A 23rd-century starship engineer like Scotty of course is no idiot; they have to have extreme skills and knowledge across a large range of technologies and sciences (esp. warp physics), and the ability to work fast and solve unforeseen problems very quickly. But it's not the same job as design engineering, which is generally much more specialized but slower-paced. It's more of a "technician" job, but the knowledge they'd need is probably greater than that possessed by most modern design engineers, but there are lots of engineers today who'd work well in that role if it were available to them (and they got the education needed).
Fact is, a large number of people prefer living in small towns, and don't appreciate city folk lecturing them on how "their lifestyle is not sustainable".
Well tough shit!! If you can't afford to pay for your own lifestyle, then why the fuck do you think other people should subsidize it for you?
Fact is, a large number of people prefer living in small towns, and don't appreciate city folk lecturing them on how "their lifestyle is not sustainable".
Well tough shit. All the stupid country people I've ever seen rely on gasoline-powered vehicles to sustain their rural lifestyles, and diesel trucks to ship anything they produce (for the small fraction that actually produce anything, most just seem to live on drug-dealing these days, with meth being the drug of choice) to the cities where productive people pay for it. The Amish are the only real exception; at least they practice the self-sufficiency they preach, unlike stupid hypocrites like you.
I don't think that's fair. TFA is talking about encryption, a mathematical process. The laws of math are fundamental; you can't get around them. What was portrayed in Star Trek wasn't fundamental math, it was some kind of problem, usually something broken that needed repairing, and they had limited time because the Klingons were chasing them or somesuch. The captain didn't give them 2 hours just because, he was informing them how much time they realistically had based on the environment (i.e. angry aliens bearing down on them). So the idea was to get the engineers (who are really technicians and troubleshooters in the show; the real engineers are back at Mars designing the next-generation starships) to cut corners to come up with something workable even if it's very risky, or to come up with some new approach that takes less time (again, risky). It's not that different from regular engineering work: if the boss wants me to design something, I can estimate how much time it'll take, but my estimate is a worst-case estimate because I don't want to be rushed, I don't want to stay at work late, I want time to use the bathroom and take breaks, I want time to have unnecessary conversations with coworkers, etc. I could do something in a fraction of the time, but it'll be hurried and half-assed and I might not even get that working in time. But I don't have angry Romulans about to drop their cloaking device and shoot at me either; in that circumstance, I'd take a faster route.
I do not, however, ever vote for an abortionist candidate.
So because of this, you vote for candidates who actively harm society and people in that society because of their regressive policies (e.g. tax cuts for the rich, dismantling social safety nets, etc.). Good job. You're part of the problem.
Yeah, exactly. They can either figure out how to deal with the changes, or move (or starve if they're too stubborn to leave). Your example of Leavenworth (terrible name BTW) is good: I looked it up, and it obviously has some things going for it. It's a little over 2 hours from the major metropolis of Seattle, it's bordering a large national forest, the scenery is pretty (again, national forest), and it seems to be built in a Bavarian village style (which according to Wikipedia was part of the makeover in the 60s to revitalize it), which of course is a good tourist draw in the US. And it's on a major highway too, which is important for access and drive-bys.
Now contrast this to some little town in the Deep South, where the buildings are all ugly and the best restaurant is Wendy's and there's no pretty scenery around at all. Or worse, a town that's nowhere near a highway and there's a single greasy-spoon restaurant.
To this Linux outsider, it seems that systemd was implemented more because someone decided to do it, rather than being done because it was the appropriate solution to a problem.
No, it's both. There was a valid problem: sysvinit was decrepit and unsuitable for modern systems, as seen by the fact that every other Unix system out there has abandoned it and has something that resembles systemd in some way (Solaris has SMF, MacOSX has something else).
But because there's no overall system-level architect, some guy just decided to make his own solution, which very likely is suboptimal because he's not a system-level architect and there seems to have been little to no other input on the solution. People complain about "design by committee", but this is what happens when you don't have some amount of design-by-committee: you get one person's pet project which might have some great ideas but then has too many rough edges or even severe design flaws because that one person's judgment isn't tempered by other peoples' experiences and criticisms (esp. if that one person is actually hostile to outside criticism...). Even the Linux kernel has a good amount of design-by-committee if you look at its history: different subsystems have different maintainers, and there's been a very active mail discussion list ever since the start where people discussed major changes before just merging them in willy-nilly.
You make a great point about having a system-level architect. Red Hat has been trying to fulfill that role for a long time now, but has done a very questionable job really. Just the fact that they've been pushing GNOME so hard shows their judgment isn't very good; Gnome has horrible architecture (esp. its terrible and unstable and undocumented Gtk+ library) and just isn't very functional. It's another great example of a small team with some wacky vision pushing it on everyone else without any external input/criticism or pushback. Red Hat projects seem to be like this a lot.
I doubt Republicans consider engineering, math, biology, English and such as bad.
That's incorrect; it depends which Republicans you're talking to. If you mean the old-style Barry Goldwater fiscal conservatives, you're correct. If you mean religious conservatives, like the ones who voted for Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee, you're wrong: they see biology classes as evil because they teach evolution. With the Trump supporters, it's probably a mixed bag. But there is a very, very large fraction of Republican voters who don't believe in evolution, so science classes are a sore point for them. Even worse, it looks like some Republicans are turning to flat Earth-ism.
One example isn't proof of anything. By that dumb logic, I could point to LIberty University as "proof" that colleges are all ultra-conservative hellholes, but obviously they're not. One example is only good for disproving something, like this assertion I just made here is obviously disproved by Evergreen State.
You fucking moron, you wouldn't have modern civilization, modern medicine, etc. which enables your rural lifestyle if it weren't for the cars and medical technology produced by cities.
Yep, that's how it goes. But you really have to wonder: why expend a lot of effort trying to get people to stick around? Helping prepare the kids with a good education to go somewhere else makes more sense to me. It's like any decent parent: you expend resources to prepare your offspring for the future, but you don't expect them to live at home the rest of their lives, you expect them to go out in the world and make a good life for themselves. North Dakota just isn't a place many people want to live; the weather is very extreme. (Also, that virtual work thing isn't going too well these days.) Of course, they've gotten lucky lately with a mini oil boom, but lots of other places haven't been that lucky. For industries other than tourism, agriculture, mining, etc., it just doesn't make much sense to stay in rural areas, instead of going to larger towns/cities where infrastructure already exists and you get strength in numbers: more services, more competition, more infrastructure, more options if someone loses their job, etc.
Wow, you're a moron. There's no government aid offices in those places because it makes no sense to pay for a building and staff in a place where there's such low population density. People in those places have to drive to their nearest city to go to such offices, and they do. There's no shortage of rural people on the dole in America. And Section 8 would be stupid to locate in a rural area because there's no jobs there, you fucking moron. Section 8 is for people who have low-paying jobs (and usually kids). There's not enough jobs in rural areas to make a large housing project viable.
Holy shit you rural people are a bunch of fucking morons. You don't even understand basic economics or logistics.
Childish and hateful? I just call out stupidity when I see it. I'm not expecting anyone to starve to death; you misread me. I just oppose going to any effort to help people stay in a place that's economically unviable just because they don't want to leave. I'm all in favor of programs to help relocate them to someplace else where they can support themselves better. Doing that is a whole lot cheaper than supporting them for the rest of their lives there, or maintaining infrastructure for a tiny number of people who aren't generating any taxable income.
So if the people must move, then they (and their government) have failed.
Ok, I guess I can accept this, but only to a point: it still seems to imply that there's something the government could have done better. Many times, there just isn't. A small town of less than 1000 people isn't going to have a very large government (a board of aldermen perhaps), and very limited power to actually effect any change like bringing in a new industry. If whatever made the town viable in the past dries up due to environmental changes, changes in national society, etc., there's likely nothing a handful of people in some podunk town could do better to weather this change and keep their town alive. And towns don't have fixed populations; as conditions worsen, their inhabitants can and do move out to greener pastures, so the local population can collapse, leaving even fewer people to draw a government from. This isn't the "government's fault" per se, it's just the way it is. No one screwed up (probably), they're just victims of circumstance.
Why? Why should the government do that? You're making a claim with no support whatsoever. What responsiblity does the government have to retain economic prosperity in a place with very little population, where there's no local industry that's able to support the local economy? Why should the far greater population of taxpayers in more-productive places fund this? Because some people will feel bad if they have to move? Too fucking bad.
No, the government has NOT failed if people must move. That is an insane idea. The area is not economically viable, plain and simple, and it's not the government's job to counter physical reality. These places are dying for good reasons: they don't have (or no longer have) resources worth extracting (relative to their location from where the resources would be used), are not a location highly useful or strategically located for some productive use (like arable farmland, or a good site for a power plant), or just don't have anything to attract tourists or wealthy retired folks to the area. This isn't a failure of government, this is just the nature of reality and economic systems. People moved to these areas for some reason in the past, perhaps mining, and that reason is no longer sufficient to keep the economy afloat (the mine was tapped out; this is a common story in Old West mining towns now turned into ghost towns). Back in the Old West days, when this happened, everyone left, because no one in their right mind wants to live in the middle of the Arizona desert unless there's some kind of decent-size city or town nearby, but somehow now people like you think everyone else has some kind of duty to subsidize the few remaining wackos who simply refuse to leave even though there's nothing left there. Infrastructure costs money, so even maintaining roads for these people costs the taxpayer a lot, for no good reason.
Just because a place made some sense to live in at some point in the past doesn't mean there's a good reason to decades later.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if your kid gets into drugs and robs a bunch of old ladies, you are still gonna say your kid is a good kid. It's possibly even rude/disrespectful to ask the guy. If you go up to a mother and ask "why is your baby ugly?" isn't that mean?
You're conflating two things.
Yes, it IS rude to ask someone why their baby is ugly, or to say that it is. The baby can't help the way it looks, and a lot of babies really are ugly. Hopefully they'll grow out of it. But it doesn't matter: baby-ugliness is just a cosmetic issue, and doesn't indicate any evil or malice on the part of the baby (or its parents). Calling someone's baby ugly is akin to making fun of retarded people: it's really, really low.
However, if someone's kid grows up to be a sociopathic criminal, then why shouldn't you be able to say that to the parents? Especially if the parents are defending their scumbag kid? Looks, esp. at a young age, aren't something someone has much control over. But actions, esp. at a teenage or adult age, certainly are. Parents should be ashamed if their kids turn out to be criminal pieces of shit, and while we shouldn't be too terribly harsh on the parents (some kids turn out this way despite the best intentions of the parents and with no evidence of bad parenting), we shouldn't deny reality either: these kids are trash, and if the parents defend the kids, they should be called out on it, because that attitude is actually making the problem worse by not providing enough negative feedback to the kid and enabling him.
It's the same with Apple. I don't care if it's "his baby": he *never* ran the company, and he hasn't even been part of the company in decades. It's turned into an evil monstrosity, so for him to defend them it is perfectly valid to criticize him. Would you tell Jeffrey Dahmer's mother that his kid was just "misunderstood" but a "good son"? Hell no. Same here. Apple is a horrible company that abuses the patent system and acts as a monopolist, producing horrible products (esp. iTunes, required to use the iPhone with a PC) and pushing the industry in a terrible direction with disposable devices at absurd prices. Luckily they're not actually a monopoly with phones (or anything else), as Android devices sell far more and are readily available, but their damage to the industry is real and worthy of criticism.
i also would never use a desktop that didn't run a unix or unix like operating system, so there's that. i also do not enjoy the inconvenience and lack of design sense that comes with linux on the desktop so there's that too.
Have you not used the latest version of Windows? "Lack of design sense" and "inconvenience" don't even begin to describe the horror show that is the modern Windows UI.
There's definitely a LOT to gripe about with modern Linux UIs (especially Gnome3 - what a piece of shit), but compared to Windows 8/10 it's not that bad. The unfortunately reality is that desktop computing as a whole has really gone down the tubes in the 2010s.
Smoke? A pack-a-day habit averages around $2k per year.
This is 2017; who the fuck smokes any more, except idiotic Southern Trump supporters? (And maybe some idiotic 20-something hipsters)
Have cable TV? In my neck of the woods, that'll cost you at least as much
Who the fuck still has cable TV, except fat football-watching Trump supporters?
Just because some red-state morons waste money on some totally unrelated things doesn't mean the iPhone is somehow a good deal. It's a waste of money: you can get better phones for a fraction of the price from a vendor that doesn't lock you into their ecosystem and horrible iTunes app. Why waste money if you don't have to?
yeah, good customer service makes a difference in customer loyalty - just ask Chick-Fil-A).
Chick-Fil-A has loyal customers because it's an openly Christian business, so all the evangelical Trump-loving Christian morons love to eat there.
Plus, as good old economics 101 will tell you, if people are still lining up to buy something - it's not overpriced.
Bullshit. It just shows there's a strong cult of customers who will buy your crap no matter what, for the same reasons people join other cults. To anyone outside the cult, it's overpriced.
Depending on your variation you can have no updates from the time you bought the device to just under 2 years of updates.
Wrong. My Galaxy S5 is over 3 years old now and is still receiving updates.
My current 3-year-old Samsung phone (S4) is definitely my last Samsung phone, ever. No more money for you, Samsung, unless you decide to stop copying Apple and go back to making quality hardware.
They did: they made the Galaxy S5. I had an S4 before, and now I have an S5, and the S5 is better in every way. I recommend upgrading to that.
(Of course, the S5 is now 3+ years old...)
If the S5 becomes too cumbersome to use because of lack of updates or whatever, I'm really not sure what to upgrade to next, because everything on the market seems to suck now.
When David Cutler took his team from Digital to Microsoft (to make Windows NT)
I wonder how things would be different today if someone went back in time and arranged an "accident" for Cutler before he could arrange this transfer. Would MS have become the company it is now? Would they have come up with something like NT, or tried to continue on with the Win95 tech? How far would they have gotten with that?
but the culture here wants to believe there is some huge advantage to switching jobs every 30 months or so.
There is: your salary goes up, and in general is maximized according to what your value on the open market is. Companies won't give decent raises if you stay with them long-term, but by getting a new job you reset your salary to what the current market rate is. The downside to this, of course, is lack of stability for the employee, but it does help keep you from getting stuck in a rut.
Now how this situation benefits employers, I'm not sure. There's nothing stopping them from offering better raises and retaining employees so they don't have to suffer the costs and effects of employee turnover, but they just don't want to do it for some reason. I guess they're hoping that some fraction of employees will be averse to spending effort job-hopping and dealing with the uncertainty that comes with that, and that they'll profit that way, but what really happens is the worst employees are the ones who stick around for the reliable paycheck, and the best employees jump ship for a better offer in 18 months.
If you're talking about the non-Trump voters, you're quite wrong. Personally, I'm laughing about this, because this is going to hurt the Trump voters who wanted protectionism against the immigrants who'd take these unskilled jobs. It's ironic: they stupidly thought Trump would work for their interests and that he was different (despite all evidence to the contrary), and now he's working directly against their interests. I'm curious how the Trump-lovers are going to spin this.
I understand that in theory, but in practice, working in an office is sheer misery for me, and I'd much rather work at home. At home, it's very quiet, and I can always set aside a separate room just for my main job and make that my "office". At normal offices, it's just so ridiculously loud and noisy and chaotic, that it's extremely hard for me to concentrate and actually get anything done. Noise-cancelling headphones don't work well either: they get rid of annoying drones like fan noise or A/C noise pretty well, but then I can hear people's stupid conversations even better, which isn't helpful to me at all. Worse, people will sneak up behind me and startle me when I'm wearing them. Also, having so much activity and movement in my field of view all the time is distracting, and it's extremely uncomfortable having people right behind me constantly too. I don't have any of these factors at home, where I can control my environment.
How other programmers manage to perform in the conditions I listed above, I really have no idea.
No one, but that doesn't keep you from being legally bound by them in case you get into a legal dispute with the vendor. That's the beauty of EULAs: they're great for screwing people over, and even better, no one bothers to read them until it's too late.
Well yes, but the steam engine engineer wouldn't have to know about relativistic physics, electronics, computers, and a bunch of other fields the way a Starfleet engineer probably would.
A modern automotive technician is probably the closest modern parallel to your steam engine engineer, because they have to be able to diagnose problems and understand most of the systems of the car to a decent degree, and a modern car is very complicated with state-of-the-art internal-combustion engines (far more complicated than those old steam engines), computers, many different electronic control modules, plus suspensions, brakes, and more. Some of the work is simplified by electronic diagnostic tools, but that only does so much (usually just telling you some sensor is giving bad readings, which could be a bad sensor or indicative of a larger problem), plus many mechanics, especially independents, have to be able to work on all kinds of different vehicles from different manufacturers.
It's all a lot of confusion over terminology, namely the word "engineer" which obviously evolved from "engine" and has a history with train engineers. But to conflate a train-driving engineer with a modern engineer who designs logic circuits or bridges or car engines is simply false; they're two entirely different occupations and skill-sets.
A 23rd-century starship engineer like Scotty of course is no idiot; they have to have extreme skills and knowledge across a large range of technologies and sciences (esp. warp physics), and the ability to work fast and solve unforeseen problems very quickly. But it's not the same job as design engineering, which is generally much more specialized but slower-paced. It's more of a "technician" job, but the knowledge they'd need is probably greater than that possessed by most modern design engineers, but there are lots of engineers today who'd work well in that role if it were available to them (and they got the education needed).
Fact is, a large number of people prefer living in small towns, and don't appreciate city folk lecturing them on how "their lifestyle is not sustainable".
Well tough shit!! If you can't afford to pay for your own lifestyle, then why the fuck do you think other people should subsidize it for you?
Fact is, a large number of people prefer living in small towns, and don't appreciate city folk lecturing them on how "their lifestyle is not sustainable".
Well tough shit. All the stupid country people I've ever seen rely on gasoline-powered vehicles to sustain their rural lifestyles, and diesel trucks to ship anything they produce (for the small fraction that actually produce anything, most just seem to live on drug-dealing these days, with meth being the drug of choice) to the cities where productive people pay for it. The Amish are the only real exception; at least they practice the self-sufficiency they preach, unlike stupid hypocrites like you.
Even Star Trek had this: "10 hours, you have 2".
I don't think that's fair. TFA is talking about encryption, a mathematical process. The laws of math are fundamental; you can't get around them. What was portrayed in Star Trek wasn't fundamental math, it was some kind of problem, usually something broken that needed repairing, and they had limited time because the Klingons were chasing them or somesuch. The captain didn't give them 2 hours just because, he was informing them how much time they realistically had based on the environment (i.e. angry aliens bearing down on them). So the idea was to get the engineers (who are really technicians and troubleshooters in the show; the real engineers are back at Mars designing the next-generation starships) to cut corners to come up with something workable even if it's very risky, or to come up with some new approach that takes less time (again, risky). It's not that different from regular engineering work: if the boss wants me to design something, I can estimate how much time it'll take, but my estimate is a worst-case estimate because I don't want to be rushed, I don't want to stay at work late, I want time to use the bathroom and take breaks, I want time to have unnecessary conversations with coworkers, etc. I could do something in a fraction of the time, but it'll be hurried and half-assed and I might not even get that working in time. But I don't have angry Romulans about to drop their cloaking device and shoot at me either; in that circumstance, I'd take a faster route.
I do not, however, ever vote for an abortionist candidate.
So because of this, you vote for candidates who actively harm society and people in that society because of their regressive policies (e.g. tax cuts for the rich, dismantling social safety nets, etc.). Good job. You're part of the problem.
Yeah, exactly. They can either figure out how to deal with the changes, or move (or starve if they're too stubborn to leave). Your example of Leavenworth (terrible name BTW) is good: I looked it up, and it obviously has some things going for it. It's a little over 2 hours from the major metropolis of Seattle, it's bordering a large national forest, the scenery is pretty (again, national forest), and it seems to be built in a Bavarian village style (which according to Wikipedia was part of the makeover in the 60s to revitalize it), which of course is a good tourist draw in the US. And it's on a major highway too, which is important for access and drive-bys.
Now contrast this to some little town in the Deep South, where the buildings are all ugly and the best restaurant is Wendy's and there's no pretty scenery around at all. Or worse, a town that's nowhere near a highway and there's a single greasy-spoon restaurant.
To this Linux outsider, it seems that systemd was implemented more because someone decided to do it, rather than being done because it was the appropriate solution to a problem.
No, it's both. There was a valid problem: sysvinit was decrepit and unsuitable for modern systems, as seen by the fact that every other Unix system out there has abandoned it and has something that resembles systemd in some way (Solaris has SMF, MacOSX has something else).
But because there's no overall system-level architect, some guy just decided to make his own solution, which very likely is suboptimal because he's not a system-level architect and there seems to have been little to no other input on the solution. People complain about "design by committee", but this is what happens when you don't have some amount of design-by-committee: you get one person's pet project which might have some great ideas but then has too many rough edges or even severe design flaws because that one person's judgment isn't tempered by other peoples' experiences and criticisms (esp. if that one person is actually hostile to outside criticism...). Even the Linux kernel has a good amount of design-by-committee if you look at its history: different subsystems have different maintainers, and there's been a very active mail discussion list ever since the start where people discussed major changes before just merging them in willy-nilly.
You make a great point about having a system-level architect. Red Hat has been trying to fulfill that role for a long time now, but has done a very questionable job really. Just the fact that they've been pushing GNOME so hard shows their judgment isn't very good; Gnome has horrible architecture (esp. its terrible and unstable and undocumented Gtk+ library) and just isn't very functional. It's another great example of a small team with some wacky vision pushing it on everyone else without any external input/criticism or pushback. Red Hat projects seem to be like this a lot.
I doubt Republicans consider engineering, math, biology, English and such as bad.
That's incorrect; it depends which Republicans you're talking to. If you mean the old-style Barry Goldwater fiscal conservatives, you're correct. If you mean religious conservatives, like the ones who voted for Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee, you're wrong: they see biology classes as evil because they teach evolution. With the Trump supporters, it's probably a mixed bag. But there is a very, very large fraction of Republican voters who don't believe in evolution, so science classes are a sore point for them. Even worse, it looks like some Republicans are turning to flat Earth-ism.
One example isn't proof of anything. By that dumb logic, I could point to LIberty University as "proof" that colleges are all ultra-conservative hellholes, but obviously they're not. One example is only good for disproving something, like this assertion I just made here is obviously disproved by Evergreen State.
You fucking moron, you wouldn't have modern civilization, modern medicine, etc. which enables your rural lifestyle if it weren't for the cars and medical technology produced by cities.
Yep, that's how it goes. But you really have to wonder: why expend a lot of effort trying to get people to stick around? Helping prepare the kids with a good education to go somewhere else makes more sense to me. It's like any decent parent: you expend resources to prepare your offspring for the future, but you don't expect them to live at home the rest of their lives, you expect them to go out in the world and make a good life for themselves. North Dakota just isn't a place many people want to live; the weather is very extreme. (Also, that virtual work thing isn't going too well these days.) Of course, they've gotten lucky lately with a mini oil boom, but lots of other places haven't been that lucky. For industries other than tourism, agriculture, mining, etc., it just doesn't make much sense to stay in rural areas, instead of going to larger towns/cities where infrastructure already exists and you get strength in numbers: more services, more competition, more infrastructure, more options if someone loses their job, etc.
Wow, you're a moron. There's no government aid offices in those places because it makes no sense to pay for a building and staff in a place where there's such low population density. People in those places have to drive to their nearest city to go to such offices, and they do. There's no shortage of rural people on the dole in America. And Section 8 would be stupid to locate in a rural area because there's no jobs there, you fucking moron. Section 8 is for people who have low-paying jobs (and usually kids). There's not enough jobs in rural areas to make a large housing project viable.
Holy shit you rural people are a bunch of fucking morons. You don't even understand basic economics or logistics.
Childish and hateful? I just call out stupidity when I see it. I'm not expecting anyone to starve to death; you misread me. I just oppose going to any effort to help people stay in a place that's economically unviable just because they don't want to leave. I'm all in favor of programs to help relocate them to someplace else where they can support themselves better. Doing that is a whole lot cheaper than supporting them for the rest of their lives there, or maintaining infrastructure for a tiny number of people who aren't generating any taxable income.
So if the people must move, then they (and their government) have failed.
Ok, I guess I can accept this, but only to a point: it still seems to imply that there's something the government could have done better. Many times, there just isn't. A small town of less than 1000 people isn't going to have a very large government (a board of aldermen perhaps), and very limited power to actually effect any change like bringing in a new industry. If whatever made the town viable in the past dries up due to environmental changes, changes in national society, etc., there's likely nothing a handful of people in some podunk town could do better to weather this change and keep their town alive. And towns don't have fixed populations; as conditions worsen, their inhabitants can and do move out to greener pastures, so the local population can collapse, leaving even fewer people to draw a government from. This isn't the "government's fault" per se, it's just the way it is. No one screwed up (probably), they're just victims of circumstance.
Why? Why should the government do that? You're making a claim with no support whatsoever. What responsiblity does the government have to retain economic prosperity in a place with very little population, where there's no local industry that's able to support the local economy? Why should the far greater population of taxpayers in more-productive places fund this? Because some people will feel bad if they have to move? Too fucking bad.
No, the government has NOT failed if people must move. That is an insane idea. The area is not economically viable, plain and simple, and it's not the government's job to counter physical reality. These places are dying for good reasons: they don't have (or no longer have) resources worth extracting (relative to their location from where the resources would be used), are not a location highly useful or strategically located for some productive use (like arable farmland, or a good site for a power plant), or just don't have anything to attract tourists or wealthy retired folks to the area. This isn't a failure of government, this is just the nature of reality and economic systems. People moved to these areas for some reason in the past, perhaps mining, and that reason is no longer sufficient to keep the economy afloat (the mine was tapped out; this is a common story in Old West mining towns now turned into ghost towns). Back in the Old West days, when this happened, everyone left, because no one in their right mind wants to live in the middle of the Arizona desert unless there's some kind of decent-size city or town nearby, but somehow now people like you think everyone else has some kind of duty to subsidize the few remaining wackos who simply refuse to leave even though there's nothing left there. Infrastructure costs money, so even maintaining roads for these people costs the taxpayer a lot, for no good reason.
Just because a place made some sense to live in at some point in the past doesn't mean there's a good reason to decades later.